I do sincerely wonder what they originally thought the details were — was Sitler’s past such a well-hidden secret?

Hey, first, first, first. That’s a first for me. Woohoo!!!!

Geez a lou.

What has come out since they put up their Love Warmly to Doug Wilson post that was not known before? Is it the site that posted the actual court documents? How long before the other Wilson apologists walk back their support? I don’t expect any of them to actually own what they wrote because they never do.

BTW, had a quick look at the Clan Bayly’s post. There’s a chappie in the comments who refers, generically, to “fire-breathing-dragons” who have “hurled ecstatic assaults* at Elders”.

Insofar as the commenter named no-one, you can’t yet claim this epithet personally (unless I’m missing an existing award by someone else). But it certainly looks like an ecstatic assault, doesn’t it?

I’m not sure what an ecstatic assault is, nor how you would hurl it. Moreover, there is no biblical basis for saying that dragons breathe fire. Biblically, the only things to emerge from a dragon’s mouth are rivers and frog-like spirits.

* Correct spelling added

As an addendum to my 12:53 pm comment currently in Mod, there is one character in scribsher whose breath is destructive in battle. This from 2 Thessalonians:

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

We’ve seen it before. Once-time supporters of Mark Driscoll began to distance themselves quickly from the man and his ministry when he got too far afield. When Driscoll finally fell, his friends dropped him like a hot potato. There is a certain point, that even other wackos declare this is too wacko.

Max wrote:

There is a certain point, that even other wackos declare this is too wacko.

There are limits to any mutual admiration society, namely when the other guy’s stuff is starting to make you stink. Let’s not forget that Paul Tripp and Matt Chandler were defending Driscoll right up until the moment they were not defending Driscoll.

Gram3 wrote:

What has come out since they put up their Love Warmly to Doug Wilson post that was not known before? Is it the site that posted the actual court documents? How long before the other Wilson apologists walk back their support? I don’t expect any of them to actually own what they wrote because they never do.

I was astonished at this development, actually, but from having met Tim Bayly a few times, I might have known better. He has, in the past, been able to admit he was wrong in something, and I admired him (and tended to trust his teaching, even after I’d begun to pull away from the likes of Doug Wilson) for it.

Mara wrote:

I hope DW is having a very bad day.
Not because I wish him ill.
I simply wish him change.

I think the moon would sooner turn purple than Wilson change. The problem is that many look to him for wisdom and insight. He’s hurting people and it needs to be called out.

Corbin wrote:

When you’re a Patriarch and Tim Bayly apologizes for backing you, I think you should take that as a sign of something.

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do by Neil Sedaka
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQD3At3E7TA

“They say that breaking up is hard to do
Now I know, I know that it’s true
Don’t say that this is the end
Instead of breaking up I wish that we were making up
again”

I am hoping for the best from Bayly and Co. but this strikes me as a CYA move. It will be interesting to see this “other posting” when it comes out and what info it contains that was not available when he write his first post. And I fully expect the Bayly sycophants to do an about face with their leader just because he said so. Not because they actually did their own investigating and came to a different conclusion.

I might be feeling a little cynical today…. 🙂

I don’t frequent the Bayly blog, so I don’t get the dynamics of the site.

Why do you all think both the “Pastorally Wise” letter and this apology and retraction are co-authored by “Tim and Mary Lee Bayly”.? Or co-signed by them? Or is there a difference?

Where is David Bayly in all this?

@ Julie Anne:

Every time to time I’ll let you win Julie Anne Smith! 😉

Heather wrote:

I don’t frequent the Bayly blog, so I don’t get the dynamics of the site.
Why do you all think both the “Pastorally Wise” letter and this apology and retraction are co-authored by “Tim and Mary Lee Bayly”.? Or co-signed by them? Or is there a difference?
Where is David Bayly in all this?

Tim Bayly speaks highly of Mary Lee as his “help meet”.

Hmmm… I thought I felt a cold draft coming up from under my feet….

I don’t know if anyone has already posted DW’s latest blog post today, so here it is:

http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/dont-think-so-scooter.html#disqus_thread

Heather wrote:

Why do you all think both the “Pastorally Wise” letter and this apology and retraction are co-authored by “Tim and Mary Lee Bayly”.? Or co-signed by them?

I don’t frequent it either– it’s quite odd…
Also, in the retracted article he–er, uh- they describe the open letter as “the wisdom of the letter of Christ Church’s officers.”
They also refer to the letter as issued by Wilson and the Kirk session, Wilson and fellow Kirk officers, or Wilson and fellow Kirk elders and pastors. Whereas the letter is clearly authored by Wilson alone “on behalf of” Kirk elders. Somehow the Baylys (not including David) were stressing that Wilson’s not a Lone Ranger. And being “officers”, just like the KJV says, is really important. Don’t accuse officers of stuff or you’ll be in deep meadow muffins.

I wonder if the Bayly blog retraction is making DW sweat a bit. Hence the frantic and increasingly hysterical blog posts asserting his victimhood and rightness?

May wrote:

I wonder if the Bayly blog retraction is making DW sweat a bit. Hence the frantic and increasingly hysterical blog posts asserting his victimhood and rightness?

Is he, really? I haven’t been back to his blog in a couple days, I think. It was too painful to read (not because of how right he is, but because of how wrong… not wronged… wrong). And the comments of his sycophants are painful, as well, in their blind faith in their Guru.

@ Gram3:
I just realized my previous comment will earn me the accusation of denying the power of the Gospel for Doug Wilson and his fellow travelers. I do not deny the power of the Gospel just as I do not deny the power of deception.

Andrew wrote:

Cj is back in the fold I see…

Guess the Gospel Glitterati are doubling down. It brings me such joy to think about young pastors being taught to bring great joy to their churches by emulating the way Mahaney brought such joy to his churches and SGM. Joy to the world, C.J. has come. I wish they would just give him a cut of the gross and keep him off the stage.

@ refugee:
You can pack a lot more hidden meaning into a term that is not well-understood. If they used a term like “suitable counterpart” it would be much more difficult to cram hierarchy into it because it just doesn’t evoke gopher/assistant.

Gram3 wrote:

@ refugee:
You can pack a lot more hidden meaning into a term that is not well-understood. If they used a term like “suitable counterpart” it would be much more difficult to cram hierarchy into it because it just doesn’t evoke gopher/assistant.

Too true! And “Created to be his gopher/assistant” just doesn’t have the same panache as a book title.

refugee wrote:

Nick Bulbeck wrote:
OK, a little off-topic here, but I wish we could somehow expunge the nonsensical term “help meet” (or its variations, “help-meet” and “helpmeet”) from the language. The daft thing is that it was never a word, even in the long-defunct language of the KJV.
I know. That’s why I use it. Perverse of me. Sort of a private joke amongst former “help meets” at times. Pronounce the term with all the irony it deserves, as you remember solemn charges in sermons to husbands and wives, and how the bible requires this and that and the other thing, while remembering privately that “help meet” was never a word, and that Hebrew word for “help” is used oftener in the OT (to my understanding) to describe God than woman.

And p.s. I haven’t heard yet that the author of “Created to be his Help Meet” has repudiated the term. I have seen that the book is still for sale under the original title. You can even trade yours in to Amazon for a gift card worth $6.09 so some other poor schmuck will be able to purchase it at a used discount and benefit from the wisdom contained therein.

Sorry to be so savage today. Am cutting down on caffeine and that makes me grumpy.

refugee wrote:

Oh, yes, and when they *really* get backed into a corner, they can always play the “God allowed this to happen; it was for His glory” card

“IN’SHAL’LAH…”

Gram3 wrote:

This belief system is who they have become…

Like “The Tragedian” in The Great Divorce?

Gram3 wrote:

@ refugee:
You can pack a lot more hidden meaning into a term that is not well-understood. If they used a term like “suitable counterpart” it would be much more difficult to cram hierarchy into it because it just doesn’t evoke gopher/assistant.

Or a term like, God Forbid, “partner”

This has already been mentioned, but here is the full paragraph. From Wilson’s post today:

“Now when a couple “with challenges” come together in marriage, they need the blessing of the church all the more. They need additional support, guidance and so on. That is something I gave to them, and would be happy to give to them again. Would I do that wedding again? Yes, I would. Would I bless them again? Yes, I would — and had I known how vile people were going to be to them, I would have given them an extra blessing. There are a lot of people out there who don’t care how many people they have to injure or trample if only it gives them a chance to score points on me.”

Often wrong, but never in doubt. And always play the victim.

@ refugee:
p.s. I am no fan of Tim Bayly but feel I have to give credit where it is due.

refugee wrote:

He often refers to Mary Lee in his talks.

And Bill talks about Hillary. I would not necessarily conclude that there is any particular close and trusted relationship based on that. I would not necessarily conclude that there is *not* a close relationship. I would conclude that it is irrelevant and that the best inference *in this particular instance* is that he needs Mary Lee to bolster his case. Of course, it may also be true that he values her input *and* that he needs her to bolster his case with a Female Witness!

Heather wrote:

Why do you all think both the “Pastorally Wise” letter and this apology and retraction are co-authored by “Tim and Mary Lee Bayly”.? Or co-signed by them? Or is there a difference?

I’m quite sure it was “co-signed,” not “co-authored.”

Just for my clarification…

This perhaps has been discussed and I have missed it…but I am not clear….Did Stitler do SOMETHING to the infant, or, was “normal” contact with the infant “arousing” for Stitler, which would neccessitate strciter safe guards.

I know it is splitting hairs, but it really is a significantly different issue. Either one means he shouldn’t be around ANY children. But, there is an important distinction between actively molesting someone and having no control over your “internal” though processes concerning someone. And, if it is the latter, thank goodness it was found out before those “private” thoughts escalated(as I am sure they would eventually with the nature of his problems).

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Victorious wrote:

I don’t know if anyone has already posted DW’s latest blog post today, so here it is:
http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/dont-think-so-scooter.html#disqus_thread

“Let me be Nebuchadnezzar…..” ?????
Dan. 4:33 “And the same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar; and he was driven from the men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws.”

Tim Bayly has posted a new article now.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

When there are no more Infidels, start on the Heretics.
When there are no more Heretics, start on the Apostates.
What do predators eat after they’ve killed off all the prey?

I have been to Christian discernment sites before, say owned by guys named Bob and Frank, and they maintain lists of heretics and false teachers in Christianity.

Darn if everyone’s name in Christianity is not on that list except for Bob and Frank.

They might even have Frank’s grandma on their list o’ heretics because granny doesn’t agree with Frank and Bob on eschatology or some other topic most people would agree is a non-essential of the faith.

So, then I’d visit a similar site by Joe and Walter, rinse and repeat. Everyone is on their site’s list for being wolves except for Joe and Walter. It’s amazing how that works. They are in a church of two.

What’s even more amusing is if site 1 gets wind of site 2, then you will see site 1 (Bob and Frank) put site 2 guys (Joe and Walter) on their list.

I’ve followed all the links and am so disturbed by all of this. It needs to be dragged into the light. A serial sexual predator has found his perfect home. Under the wing of a narcissistic quasi cult leader. In a community that will only reluctantly cooperate with law enforcement. And other “Christian Leaders” fall over themselves to defend it. This is beyond pathological patriarchy, this is psychotic patriarchy.

Steve wrote:

Early bird special: http://t4g.org
Can’t we just say “We Are Christians” and drop all this jargon?
(Bookstore opens early.)

Wow, what a collection of scurrilous types!

C.J. Mahaney, still silent after all these years about child abuse!
Southern Baptists will take note of the presence of David Platt, of the IMB, which overspent its budget by millions.
I see a couple of black guys to give it an interracial flair (otherwise it’s overwhelmingly white). Oh, and don’t look for women; the sin of Eve still hasn’t been forgiven so we can’t possibly talk to the XY chromosomes out there.
And of course, no Louisville shindig would be complete without the pompous musings of King Albert Mohler.

Now here’s an idea…if we got Doug Wilson and Al Mohler in the same room together, would the universe explode from the matter and antimatter being in nearly the same space?

The tl;dr is “What a waste of time, money and space. These guys would do better to go build houses with Habitat for Humanity for those three days.”

What do you know? Joe Carter, Director of Communications for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is speaking at a Christ Church conference.

http://christchurchlakeland.com/witnessconference/#tab-1-1-joe-carter

@ Dave A A:
Never a word about “officers of the church” who discourage those who have followed them or the shepherds who beat the sheep rather than leading in righteousness. It is interesting that he says that *both* men and women should point out failures in leadership. Then why did he roast Valerie Hobbs and Rachel Miller for pointing out what Wilson really teaches about marriage and gender? Which is it I wonder.

I’m thrilled that Bayly *now* says that elders should not marry a pedophile to a young woman who is acting foolishly along with her parents. That is evident on its face. So why all the defense of Wilson? Why not just say plainly that he should have refused to marry them?

Steve wrote:

Early bird special: http://t4g.org

Can’t we just say “We Are Christians” and drop all this jargon?

(Bookstore opens early.)

Notable breakout sessions on tap:
“Sovereign Grace Churches” (And how is this worthwhile??)
“Don’t be a 9Marxist!” (Featuring Jonathan Leeman – someone has been reading the blogs)
“…Are Some Doctrines More Fundamental than Others?” (aka Why only Complementarian Churches are Real Churches)
-Sovereign

My goodness! Has someone asked Douglas Wilson to divulge what has gone on in counseling sessions? I don’t recall anyone doing that – so what is he blathering on about in his article? Maybe someone can explain this.

Bridget wrote:

Has someone asked Douglas Wilson to divulge what has gone on in counseling sessions?

I haven’t read any requests for that, though I don’t read all the twitter exchanges. However, I just saw this post on CREC Memes that suggests Wilson may be selective in what confidential information he decides to disclose.

https://crecmemes.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/confidentiality/

Andrew wrote:

Steve wrote:
Early bird special: http://t4g.org
Can’t we just say “We Are Christians” and drop all this jargon?
(Bookstore opens early.)
Cj is back in the fold I see…

I think we all expected that to happen eventually – with all of his big-name enablers he always comes back just like Freddie Krueger. I see that CBMW has their piggyback pre-conference again, this time on “The Beauty of Complementarity”. The whitewash oughta be thrown around by the bucket full at that one.

Corbin wrote:

He’s hurting people and it needs to be called out.

I agree completely. I hate seeing bad things happen to anybody. However, what Doug Wilson does is having influence far afield and it hurts people. I hope that some of these revelations may decrease his influence. Having lived a little while, I have my doubts. Especially since his little booklet on slavery in the South did not make him a pariah.

dee wrote:

If Doug could just say “I was wrong and I am sorry” and then ask Boz T to come into his church and teach them how to do it, this would go away. Can he do it?

Well that explains the curious remark that Doug Wilson wrote yesterday about Boz’s grandfather, the Rev. Billy Graham: “We are not really upset when the tabloids claim that Billy Graham was found in a love nest with Hitler’s granddaughter, and we do not lose sleep over the troubling erosion of ‘journalistic standards’.”
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/clean-rain.html

Daisy wrote:

I have been to Christian discernment sites before, say owned by guys named Bob and Frank, and they maintain lists of heretics and false teachers in Christianity.
Darn if everyone’s name in Christianity is not on that list except for Bob and Frank.
They might even have Frank’s grandma on their list o’ heretics because granny doesn’t agree with Frank and Bob on eschatology or some other topic most people would agree is a non-essential of the faith.
So, then I’d visit a similar site by Joe and Walter, rinse and repeat. Everyone is on their site’s list for being wolves except for Joe and Walter. It’s amazing how that works. They are in a church of two.
What’s even more amusing is if site 1 gets wind of site 2, then you will see site 1 (Bob and Frank) put site 2 guys (Joe and Walter) on their list.

“Understand one thing; these guys do NOT hang out together. The Universe cannot have two Centers.”
— Kooks Magazine regarding Conspiracy Cranks

@ Joe:
Co-signed, Mark Driscoll.

Hehe.

Bridget wrote:

My goodness! Has someone asked Douglas Wilson to divulge what has gone on in counseling sessions? I don’t recall anyone doing that – so what is he blathering on about in his article? Maybe someone can explain this.

I think he is planting the thought that he did or said something in those counseling sessions that would make a difference *if only we knew* but he cannot say what that was because confidentiality. It appears to be an oblique defense and appeal to what we don’t know. Lacking full knowledge of what was said/done during counseling makes us ineligible to comment on what he did, namely marry a pedophile.

nancyjane wrote:

Actually I thought Bayly’s letter was pretty darn good!! …
The important thing is that he has taken a very strong stand about the treatment of pedophiles.

I thought PARTS of the letter were good, which is a good thing.
But notice how differently he addresses Katy’s father and Doug….
Katy’s Dad must have been off his rocker to approve her marrying a pedophile.
Doug must have been (all sorts of hemming and hawing–tough to be an officer–nobody perfect) to approve her marrying a pedophile.
Then there’s the truly bizarre qualification that victims of his imaginary pedophile be “unrelated to him by blood or marriage”.
Then there’s a pot-shot at, I presume, Brent Detwiler for dissing his former boss. The Ceej…

An interesting development. I wonder if, feeling the heat, DW is going to start adding more strange insults that make no sense and sound infantile. It is funny to see a wordsmith like him not be able to craft a put-down. What might it be next? Poopy Head comes to mind but I would hope he knows that is over used quite a bit in the 5 and under crowd.

Dave A A wrote:

@ Gram3:
Maybe some pew-potatoes threatened to cease being giving-units.

No, that cannot be it. He is an Officer of Christ’s Church, not to be confused with the Officers of Christ Church.

Regarding this dispute over pewpeons and pewpotatoes, I think we are confusing our sets. In authoritarian churches, all non-Officers in Christ’s Church are pewpeons because they are not high and lifted up Officers in Christ’s Church. OTOH, not all pewpeons are necessarily pewpotatoes, since a few of us were/are unwilling to sit there and just be passive recipients of the favors dispensed by the Officers in Christ’s Church. A few pewpeons are willing to make our voices heard and are not willing to just swallow every Big Idea the Officers in Christ’s Church put out there.

Bridget wrote:

Can Doug Wilson stop going off the rail?

Rail? That’s what he does, not what he stays on.

Dang I love this place.

@ GovPappy:

@ Gram3:

He comes across as someone who considers this all a big game. Based on his writing, I would never trust this man. I don’t need to meet him and/or know him to evaluate him.

It seems that we have been lied to–our fathers and husbands are far from invincible, not always godly, and may not even have our best interests at heart. And obeying them unquestionably does not always bring blessings. I am not the only one to discover this the hard way–just ask Katie or Anna Duggar. I can’t find Bill Gothard’s “covering” in the Bible.

@ Bunsen Honeydew:

Link didn’t come through.

http://www.zazzle.com/im_not_childish_youre_just_a_big_doody_head_tshirt-235579011930456318

Irene wrote:

It seems that we have been lied to–our fathers and husbands are far from invincible, not always godly, and may not even have our best interests at heart….I can’t find Bill Gothard’s “covering” in the Bible.

Some of us have been trying to keep a list of good books and articles refuting the comp/patriarchy doctrine. If you go to the top of the page here at The Wartburg Watch, go to the Interesting tab, then Books, etc. — you’ll find some resources there.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

CPS will investigate

YES! YES! YES!

Bill M wrote:

Dave A A wrote:
Tim Bayly has posted a new article now.
I read the latest from Bayly but I’m missing the narrative how he got from point “A” several days ago to point “B” today. What caused the shift? How could he be so wrong yesterday that I should give any trust in what he says today. He provides no humility in recognizing his earlier error let alone analyzing why he made it.
This may sit well with his admirers, and changing his proclamations is marginally helpful, but Bayly is not covering himself with glory on this.

Too true. I was looking for him to provide a little background for how he got from point A to point B, if only for his readers’ edification. It would have been a lovely lesson in humility, and how to admit when you’ve acted in haste (is there a bible verse about speaking or acting in haste?), and how honesty may be difficult, but it is the best course to choose to do the right thing, and to surrender pride lest it lead to a fall.

nancyjane wrote:

Actually I thought Bayly’s letter was pretty darn good!! So what if he didn’t praise the ruckus rowsers of the internet!! WE know that if there hadn’t been such an bunch of hollerin’ he may well not have further investigated the situation. I thought he said some incredibly STRONG things that needed to be said. Okay, so he hasn’t repented of patriarchy and his disdain of uppity women–YET!! But give the guy (and his wife) some credit instead of just sniffing resentfully. The important thing is that he has taken a very strong stand about the treatment of pedophiles. So we screamers do the necessary but dirty janitorial work around here–somebody has to do it and the Lord knows where our hearts are!

My note just now wasn’t critical, but more wistful. I really would like to know what made him change his mind, even as I respect him for being able to do it.

Bridget wrote:

What does Billy Graham have to do with any of this? Can Doug Wilson stop going off the rail? Just curious.

Boz Tchvidjian, who took Wilson to the woodshed on Monday, is the grandson of Billy Graham. He also runs GRACE, a ministry which works on child abuse situations in churches. Wilson's shots have been poor in rhetoric, and poorer in class.

Gram3 wrote:

*if only we knew* but he cannot say what that was because confidentiality.

This sounds like Ross Perot in 1992 whenever anybody tried to pin him down on what he would do as President.

Daisy wrote:

Westboro Church is against Kim Davis, the clerk.

Good Lord! I was hoping Westboro Baptist Church would fade into the sunset after its leader Fred Phelps died. But I guess he left behind enough haters-of-everything members to still stir up trouble. Westboro is neither “Baptist” or “Church”, as evidenced by their antics. Another fringe Calvinist group that is just plain peculiar. They believe POTUS-Obama is the Antichrist … hmmmm.

refugee wrote:

I was looking for him [Bayley] to provide a little background for how he got from point A to point B, if only for his readers’ edification. It would have been a lovely lesson in humility, and how to admit when you’ve acted in haste (is there a bible verse about speaking or acting in haste?), and how honesty may be difficult, but it is the best course to choose to do the right thing, and to surrender pride lest it lead to a fall.

It would be nice to hear that other pastor Jared Moore do the right thing too after his odd tweets in support of marrying a pedophile to Katie.

Here’s a link to a story of a pastor who *got it right* and turned in his own father (also a pastor) for sexually abusing children at church. Father is now serving a long prison sentence.
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/east/2015/03/22/Christian-minister-Jimmy-Hinton-teaches-churches-to-guard-against-pedophiles-like-his-father-John-Wayne-Hinton/stories/201503220056

refugee wrote:

p.s. I am no fan of Tim Bayly but feel I have to give credit where it is due.

I have no particular opinion on Mr Bayly as I don’t know enough about him. But I couldn’t agree more on the “credit where it’s due” Thing.

Regulars at TWW will know very well that I personally am divisive, pitifully ignorant of even the most basic aspects of the Christian life, selfish and totally lacking in love. At least, that’s what a cell group leader in one christian organisation in Glasgow thought. It rapidly reached a point where he was so convinced of those things that he chose to interpret everything I did or said through that lens. Nick just said X. What’s the most stupid, ungodly, infantile thing he could possibly have meant by that? Hmm… that would be Y. In that case, Nick just said Y. He’s really stupid, ungodly and infantile just like I thought. There was no way to progress that kind of relationship.

dee wrote:

If Doug could just say “I was wrong and I am sorry” and then ask Boz T to come into his church and teach them how to do it, this would go away. Can he do it?

From Douglas Wilson’s blog yesterday:

Having done so, they then linked their names up with outrageous accusations, which they really ought not to have done. I am thinking here of Anthony Bradley, Ryan Sather, and Boz Tchividjian. The only thing I will do here is issue a public invitation to talk offline, or in person. I would be happy to do it.

Perhaps Boz should be encouraged to take up the offer. The ‘biting and devouring’ Wilson complains about is actually a distraction from the real issue. One to one conversation has got to be better than ‘trial by internet’, and maybe needed change might come as a result of it.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Regulars at TWW will know very well that I personally am divisive, pitifully ignorant of even the most basic aspects of the Christian life, selfish and totally lacking in love. At least, that’s what a cell group leader in one christian organisation in Glasgow thought.

Nick,
Between your sports updates and giving us God’s Yorkshire Pudding recipe (enshrined at the top of the page here under Interesting tab and Cooking) we have no clue why the Glasgow chap doesn’t hold you in the high regard that we do!

@ Nick Bulbeck:
What he said about protecting kids is great. The rest is standard Bayly protecting the bad actors if they are Officers in Christ’s Church. It’s an old drill for many of us as we have watched his trajectory. Our trust has been broken, and that’s the lens. I wish he had led with protecting the kids and not with protecting his buddy.

David Bayly has posted an article on the topic, as well. IMO, it’s better written and he stays more on topic, but he assumes things about the victims and Wilson’s critics which are untrue.
For example:
“Third, striking by its absence in the current hullabaloo is the voice of any victim. We can’t assume happiness from silence. But neither can we assume unhappiness. The lack of victims’ voices in the current debate makes the accusations of Pastor Wilson’s critics seem disingenuous–less concerned with this case than with other defects they perceive in Pastor Wilson and Christ Church.”
We can’t assume unhappiness? Because Sitler’s victims (most of whom must still be minor children today) haven’t commented on blogs? But his brother doesn’t believe all the SGM victims who came forward as adults. Has he heard the voice of Natalie Rose? Does she sound happy with how the Kirk treated her?

@ Dave A A:
I retract that “better written and more on topic line”. He doesn’t do all the officer/schmofficer stuff and go off on a Detwiler (who’s not criticized Wilson) tangent. But his arguments don’t hold logical water–including an abortion tangent.

Dave A A wrote:

But his arguments don’t hold logical water–including an abortion tangent.

What I think what he misses is that a woman who has had an abortion is not likely to go around aborting other women’s babies, even *if* we grant his notion that a repentant mother might abort future children. AFAIK, no one has said that Sitler cannot come to church. What I’ve heard is that he should have a chaperon whose primary focus is protecting the children. I’ve heard that the congregation should be notified promptly. I’ve heard that Wilson should not have arranged the marriage of a serial pedophile and then officiated at it. I’ve heard that Wilson should have kept his nose out of the judicial process. So, there are lots of straw men being sacrificed, and none of these objections rise to the level of fire-breathing. Is that the latest meme going around in pastor circles about women who speak up?

Corbin wrote:

I think the moon would sooner turn purple than Wilson change.

Bingo.

Jack wrote:

This is beyond pathological patriarchy, this is psychotic patriarchy.

Indeed.

Mara wrote:

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
CPS will investigate
YES! YES! YES!

Thank goodness. Its about time for them to step up to the plate.

As far as Boz T having a conversation with Wilson, I don’t see that happening. In his latest post, DW makes more than one snarky remark about Boz being clairvoyant, as well as using this brouhaha to gin up support for G.R.A.C.E.

Irene wrote:

It seems that we have been lied to–our fathers and husbands are far from invincible, not always godly, and may not even have our best interests at heart. And obeying them unquestionably does not always bring blessings. I am not the only one to discover this the hard way–just ask Katie or Anna Duggar. I can’t find Bill Gothard’s “covering” in the Bible.

Oh, Irene! Yes – it is a lie.
Jesus himself said:

“Do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” – Matthew 23:9-12

Calling God the Father is subversive, like calling God the King in the OT. It means no kings or fathers on earth are really over us. God said that in His kingdom, all submit to one another and none should lord it over another. The first shall be last and the last first.

If you grew up as a daughter in that culture, I recommend the site “Quivering daughters”. http://www.quiveringdaughters.com/ If you want something on where Gothard goes wrong, see the “Recovering Grace” site.
If you want a general explanation of how people read the Bible in a way that give women their full, rightful place as co-equals with men, who were also given the task to rule the earth, could I suggest God’s Word for women: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/articles_by_topic.htm (My blog – accessible from linking on my name – also covers mostly the truth about women’s role in the Kingdom and their place before God.)

Of course, if you do not want to read, that is also fine.

This may be slightly off topic, but I noticed something in Tim Bayly’s most recent post that struck me as interesting. After his outstanding paragraph detailing why no pedophile should ever be allowed around children ever again (including biological ones), regarding the marriage of such a one, he said this:

“How on earth can anyone in their right mind ever again grant him access to little ones, and what is the giving of a daughter’s hand in marriage but the commendation of her to the man to join him in fruitful love and propagate a godly seed.”

And there was this:

“They should have told this man whom the state refused to execute or imprison that he must never have children, and thus must never marry. He must make himself a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of God.”

More than a few times, Tim Bayly has seemed to flirt with Roman Catholic theology in certain areas. It would seem that he sees no biblical warrant for a Christian couple to ever decide to marry without having children. Because I am not against birth control including sterilization, I can see such a marriage potentially working in the event of the voluntary forgoing of parenthood as one of the restrictions on their life together. I still think the prospective bride would be taking on a significant amount of risk, but I’d be more likely to take his repentance seriously.

Kathi wrote:

And, I’m glad to see that CPS is finally involved. Why they were not involved from the beginning once this child was born is beyond my comprehension.

Influence from the Kirk(TM)?

Velour wrote:

dee wrote:
If Doug could just say “I was wrong and I am sorry” and then ask Boz T to come into his church and teach them how to do it, this would go away. Can he do it?
Well that explains the curious remark that Doug Wilson wrote yesterday about Boz’s grandfather, the Rev. Billy Graham: “We are not really upset when the tabloids claim that Billy Graham was found in a love nest with Hitler’s granddaughter, and we do not lose sleep over the troubling erosion of ‘journalistic standards’.”
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/clean-rain.html

Did any tabloid ever claim such a thing, I wonder? I’m not curious enough to research that, actually.

I thought, perhaps, this might be a continuation of his snarking on Boz’ expressing his opinion. He was very ad hominem in one post I forced myself to read all the way through, saying that Boz weighed in, in order to stir up some business and $$$ for himself.

Gram3 wrote:

Bridget wrote:
Can Doug Wilson stop going off the rail?
Rail? That’s what he does, not what he stays on.

Actually, I’m sure there are people in Moscow who’d like to ride him out of town on a rail. Perhaps creatively employ some tar and feathers, as well.

Ken wrote:

Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Regulars at TWW will know very well that I personally am divisive, pitifully ignorant of even the most basic aspects of the Christian life, selfish and totally lacking in love
And there was me thinking you seemed a decent sort of bloke, not lacking in a sense of humour (as is the habit of some), often making interesting and thoughtful posts on sundry topics, and someone whose path to date overlaps with mine in some ‘apostolic’ ways. Got a fair amount in commmon.
Just goes to show what a poor judge of character I must be …

Sheep in wolf’s clothing, perhaps.

@ NJ:
I honestly think if a pedophile is really repentant and becomes a Christian. He should not marry, and like you said become a Eunuch. The pedophile should totally stay away from all places where children are. Get a job that doesn’t involve meeting with the public.

A few years ago I was watching a Christian talk show and this Catholic Priest said he prayed and prayed that God would deliver him from his homosexuality. But he didn’t. He was wrong, he had to make the change inside him first, then stay away from places where gay men meet. Actively pursue women in friendship. Repentance is great, but you have to turn away from the behavior that is wrong. Take yourself out of the situations where you are tempted. Repentance is not just praying, it’s action and action and action and prayer to the nth degree.

Gram3 wrote:

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

What do you know? Joe Carter, Director of Communications for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is speaking at a Christ Church conference.
http://christchurchlakeland.com/witnessconference/#tab-1-1-joe-carter

One of these things should not be like the others.

More like “One Hand Washes the Other”…

doubtful wrote:

When all the vagueness is removed…all the sudden these glowing letters of support seem to vanish.
So much for accountability and due diligence with this crowd.
They can complain about the blogs all day long, but in the end, they exist because they do the hard work that others refuse to do.

I, too, was wondering if the only reason the Bayly Blog retracted their support of Wilson and the Kirk’s handling of the Sitler case is due to all the publicity the case is getting on blogs. Thanks for your hard work, Dee, Deb, Julie Anne, Eagle, and anyone else covering this issue. Right now I’m thinking: You can run, Doug Wilson, but you can’t hide. It’s time to fess up to your complicity in this mess. Lots of folks are watching. What are you going to do?

Dee, Doug has been peculiarly silent today. Do you suppose he’s getting counsel or pondering our offer to meet with him?

refugee wrote:

May wrote:
I wonder if the Bayly blog retraction is making DW sweat a bit. Hence the frantic and increasingly hysterical blog posts asserting his victimhood and rightness?
Is he, really? I haven’t been back to his blog in a couple days, I think. It was too painful to read (not because of how right he is, but because of how wrong… not wronged… wrong). And the comments of his sycophants are painful, as well, in their blind faith in their Guru.

I know what you mean, Refugee. I’ve been commenting over there. It’s sad to see the ecstatic support of DW while ignoring the victim. I’ve been reminding them of the victim, but the DW supporters don’t want to be concerned with that. It’s all about defending DW because he is being persecuted.

GovPappy wrote:

there was like 30 people in the church and everyone knew exactly who he was talking about.

My former cult did the same. I remember one Sunday meeting in particular where the founding elder rebuked a woman from the pulpit. He never mentioned her name. Apparently she was too busy serving in various church functions to keep her house clean. She was rebuked for not serving her husband and family by cleaning her house. He went on for a good 20-30 minutes, which is the length of an SBC sermon. (Our Sunday meetings lasted 3 to 4 hours on average. Sometimes longer.)

@ andrew:
Great advice! Think Doug will respect your authority? If the commenter is real, and I think he is, and is telling the Bayly Bros (the comment is addressed to David) to shut up and stop thinking about it, and if Doug is aware of this, then it indicates a pretty major falling out.
Meanwhile, several commenters on Doug’s blog keep trying to shut critics up– but Doug keeps posting new articles.

Dave A A wrote:

Well— that settles it for me! No more thinking!

You might be in a cult if . . .
1. You are told to stop thinking.

This might not be a Poe. CREC Memes says Mike Lawyer is Wilson’s “counselor buddy.”

https://crecmemes.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/confidentiality/

refugee wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Then why did he roast Valerie Hobbs and Rachel Miller for pointing out what Wilson really teaches about marriage and gender?
It seems obvious to me. They are not Titus 2 women, acting through their church officer husband intermediaries.

Me thinks that if Hobbs and Miller had pointed out the errors of certain men that the Bayly Brothers disagree with, then their uppity attitude would not be a problem. Come after Patriarchy and you’re out of line!

Weird, I don’t know how my most recent post ended up like that.

Here is the heartbreaking story of Natalie Rose, the young girl that was sexually abused by Jamin Wight. The incompetent handling of this sexual abuser at Christ Church is inexcusable.
https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/the-jamin-c-wight-story-the-other-child-molester-in-doug-wilsons-closet/

@ BeenThereDoneThat:

After reading that letter, it sure seems like Doug Wilson has a screwed up idea of how to handle a sex offenders on his church. I’m surprised he hasn’t been sued.

That story Darlene posted of the girl who was abused for 3 years is sickening. I have largely viewed the Sitler case as a misguided, stupid act by a pastor who illogically felt that marriage could cure a pedophile. But, the details of how this other case was handled by DW just seem to scream wickedness.

refugee wrote:

I have no doubt he’d be intelligent, wise, and hopefully cunning enough to hold his own in such a meeting, and be able to resist Wilson’s personal charm and manipulation. Well, maybe I have a small doubt. These people, Ken, are much more dangerous than you give them credit for. I know, from bitter, personal experience.

Your experience may be worse than mine, but I do know about manipulative Christians (giving them the benefit of the doubt), and the damage that can be done by them, e.g. shepherding and discipleship errors. My experience in my old Baptist church made me a life-time enemy of narrowmindedness. Strong convictions on doctrine are fine, group-think and being unnecessarily exclusive, not.

I’m afraid I think Douglas Wilson is winning the argument over his handling of this so far. It badly needs someone with wisdom and relevant experience of these matters to talk to him, and give a more objective assessment of what actually happened. No-one but those directly involved actually knows what went on. Some of it is rightly confidential, but a third party with no axe to grind could be made party to this to help bring light into the rumour mill. A refusal of Wilson to agree to actually do this would be srong testimony that he did in fact handle things badly and can’t bring himself to admit it.

His current piece contains a lot that one of my former pastors would have strongly agreed with, and I would have to concur with him. Not thinking that we stay hopelessly encumbered with our past, that real change isn’t possible. Of being an eternal sinner or an eternal victim as though these have to be life sentences, even of thinking some sins are so grievous they cannot be forgiven. This is a kind of ‘limited atonement’, but what right to we, as forgiven sinners ourselve, have to try to limit what level of sin God may forgive.

I’m happy to pray that Wilson will meet with third parties (including the proprieters here), to try to bring some good out of this terrible evil.

Years ago I was so frustrated that the likes of Driscoll, Phillips, Gothard, and Wilson were held up by the church leaders as paragons of virtue and theological integrity. I could see how young pups could be suckered into all the pomp and delusion. But leaders in the church should have known better and had some sort of discernment.

Now I’m frustrated at the emotional, spiritual, and/or sexual carnage surrounding the fall of each of these men. It should have never gone as far as it did, in each case.

But in any event, I am glad that these things have finally been brought to light.

May the church learn from this.
May more of the false leaders be exposed for what they are.
And may their be an abundance of spiritual ambulance and emergency room workers to clean up and heal the human wreckage.

Bridget wrote:

After reading that letter, it sure seems like Doug Wilson has a screwed up idea of how to handle a sex offenders on his church. I’m surprised he hasn’t been sued.

On first reading I just focused on the ‘document everything you do’ remark, which appeared to be unintentionally wise on a number of fronts – not least how this situation has subsequently turned out.

Then you get to *why* he was being asked to document things, and that paragraph all about showing mercy – and it’s hard not to read a veiled threat into the whole thing.

Velour wrote:

Dave A A wrote:
But notice how differently he addresses Katy’s father and Doug…. Katy’s Dad must have been off his rocker to approve her marrying a pedophile.
I was troubled by that tone toward Katie’s dad and calling him foolish, according to Tim Bayly. Katie was introduced to the pedophile by a church elder in Moscow, Idaho.. Katie’s dad was in Nevada. The elders and Wilson knew about Sitler’s abuse of other children. I doubt Katie’s dad knew that.

So now we have “2 witnesses” to this little-discussed abusive aspect of Patriarchy– Katie’s dad and Natalie’s dad. Fathers who aren’t “officers” or “elders” or whatever are made the fall guys when something goes wrong. They supposededly failed to “protect” their daughters properly. It’s not all about “men” keeping women underfoot, as is sometimes simplistically said. Beta males must be kept underfoot by Alphas. Read Gary’s comment On Stollar’s blog to get the broken heart of a father who still feels a load of guilt. And the Patriarchs keep pilin’ it on. I have my own story along this line, but it’s so innocuous by comparison, and yet I still feel so guilty about my role, that I can’t share it now.

Mara wrote:

Dave A A wrote:
striking by its absence in the current hullabaloo is the voice of any victim.
He doesn’t understand what it actually means to be a victim.
One of the first things taken in the making of victims is their voice.
That is why others have to speak for them.

Now tha Natalie has spoken again, we get a better idea how this works. The Kirkelders wanted her to meet with them so they could learn why she stopped attending– but at the same time were supporting the perp. Any wonder she didn’t feel comfortable talking with them?

What I find strange is that the attitude of a “man of god” never seems to be on trial in these things. He has to commit some awful sin witnessed by everyone for it to stick. And then, often, after some time out, he’s let back into his position. In the meantime, he can be a completely dismissive, condescending, haughty, disingenuous (If not lying) jackass, but he’s untouchable because… Man of god. Two or three witnesses!! How many witnesses does it take to discern if a “man of god” is a jackass or not?

On the other hand, “touching the Lord’s anointed” because the red flags are up and alarms are going off about their attitudes and behaviors (on top of allegations of crimes, abuse of authority, etc) is slander and “discernment porn” as it was labeled on Twitter moments ago.

What does it take to wake people up??

I have a screenshot of a smart guy with his head so far up his he can almost see the light out of his mouth. It’s infuriating.

Sorry. I had to get that out.

Then there was this:

“Or you might forbid it because you think that the “identity” of pedophilia is something that simply cannot be surmounted. This collides with the gospel as outlined above, and it is also inconsistent with what we say about things like homosexual temptations. A homosexual who cannot desire a member of the opposite sex should not get married. But that is not true of all homosexuals. Some can and do marry, and those who can, and who have the opportunity, should. Do we want to say that pedophilia lies closer to the bone than does homosexuality? Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t.”

Wilson and the elders apparently were convinced Steve Sitler was in the category of those who are not only repentant, but capable of a normal sexual relationship with with a spouse.

GovPappy wrote:

Two or three witnesses!! How many witnesses does it take to discern if a “man of god” is a jackass or not?

You can’t assemble witness because it would be gossip and would be divisive.

@ GovPappy:
I find Twitter annoying and hard to follow, but I looked that guy up. I see he also manages to play the “you need the gospel” and “what church are you apart (sic) of” cards. I also learned to whom Wilson was replying in his mysterious “I don’t think so” post. Doug seems to have increased this twitterer’s followers nearly 100% already, from16 to 30! If Doug thought no one should care about tweets with few followers, why did he write a whole post in response?

Bill M wrote:

These patriarchs set themselves up as superior but blame their moral failures on their women.

Usually, yes, but sometimes this would cause them PR problems. In such cases, such as these two, they blame the women’s (or girls’) fathers.

NJ wrote:

He manifestly does not have the gift of celibacy

There’s no such thing. I’m a virgin over the age of 40. I have a sex drive.

It’s sheer self discipline and a one-time adherence of obedience to God and the Bible that kept me from from having sex. God did not give me a desire to be celibate nor remove my sex drive.

This teaching – that singleness or celibacy are “gifted” to some and not others, that it’s a calling God sends some people – needs to be eradicated from Christianity.

This teaching makes it sound like sexual self control is possibly only to a tiny minority of “Super Christians,” when, in reality, it’s possible for anyone to abstain as long as I have.

@ Dave A A:
I think the “what church are you a part of” thing is a sneaky way to set up straw men and ad hominems. You can’t win, unless you just happen to go to a church approved by the questioner. If you don’t align yourself with a church (ie, under their authority), they have to actually get to know the person they’re dealing with–see where they’re coming from, why they believe things–not apply labels, deal with abstract theological issues, etc. It’s a game of cat and mouse.

And Wilson spilled the beans there, just like Chandler did with his narcissistic zero comment. You have to be a “somebody”–under authority, or somebody in authority–for you to have any respect from them.

Which is why I love being anon as @GovPappy. Either you tip your hand by ignoring questions/criticism, by directly asking who I’m affiliated with (by what authority do you say these things!?), or by engaging simply as one human being to another.

It appears DW may have commented on Katie Botkin’s post concerning the letter written to Gary, father of Natalie, victim of Wight.

http://kbotkin.com/2015/09/10/the-letter-on-christ-church-stationary/#comment-8167

Hester wrote:

it should be clear even from the Bible that this just isn’t how God works most of the time.

I agree with you.

I just wanted to chime in to say it’s been my experience that most Christians, on Christian television programming and in testimonies during services, almost always present these sorts of stories.

I hardly ever hear testimonies from Christians who prayed for years from deliverance from “thus and so” who were denied.

You will seldom hear about the Christians who asked for financial help, relationship restoration, or physical or mental healing, and it never came (at least you won’t hear this on Christian TV and in church services).

I usually only hear a story from people who say something like this: ‘I had cancer. After praying for a healing, I was totally healed from cancer two seconds later.’

Or substitute “cancer” with being broke, a marriage on the rocks, a kid who was in a coma in the hospital, being unemployed and having a hard time find a job – whatever it is.

I keep waiting for Christians to get honest and start broadcasting testimonies from those of us who prayed for help for years, but God said “No.”

Was Gary, Natalie’s father the one who said that dealing with Wilson and his church was like dealing with cops who came and arrested you when your house was robbed because you only had one lock on your door rather than six?
Or am I thinking of something else?

@ Mara:

why did we say Gary failed to protect his daughter

From what I’ve read about the case (which admittedly is not as much as the Sitler case), I’m not sure what Natalie’s father could have possibly done that outweighs years of statutory rape by Wight, unless Wilson is sitting on proof of gross negligence – actual negligence, not patriarchy “negligence” (like letting her wear a tank top) – and/or knowledge of the abuse and a failure to stop it. I’ll be interested to see how KB responds.

Daisy wrote:

This teaching – that singleness or celibacy are “gifted” to some and not others, that it’s a calling God sends some people – needs to be eradicated from Christianity.

This teaching makes it sound like sexual self control is possibly only to a tiny minority of “Super Christians,” when, in reality, it’s possible for anyone to abstain as long as I have.

My church requires its clergy to be single and celibate. During the Middle Ages, clergy were the “Super Christians”. Celibacy was considered a special Call To Holiness and became (in general belief, not officially) the sign They Were Holier Than Those In The Pews.

Then during the Protestant Reformation, most of the Reformers who split married as a direct one-eighty opposite to the Catholics and single or married clergy became a tribal identifier of Whose Side You Were On. As Entropy set in, Salvation by Marriage Alone became a Protestant Sacrament. (Clergy — in the form of Pastors and Missionaries — remained Super Christians, Holier Than The Pewsitters.)

GovPappy wrote:

Man of god. Two or three witnesses!! How many witnesses does it take to discern if a “man of god” is a jackass or not?

A ManaGAWD Can Do No Wrong.
And once you accept this and agree with the ManaGAWD in everything (and TITHE TITHE TITHE), We Won’t Have A Problem, Will We?

@ Daisy:
Hmmm, I prayed that perhaps I might be healed from my blood cancer…then I got a breast cancer. I still pray for good health, courage and grace. I know I am not alone in this battle with my body, just as their are millions who struggle with limited finances, death of loved ones, mental health issues, etc amidst a world that is warring, starving , despairing. The real christan story and testimony is God does abandon us… and, good people, kind people help us in our needy state, not in our “miracles.”

@ Daisy:

I just wanted to chime in to say it’s been my experience that most Christians, on Christian television programming and in testimonies during services, almost always present these sorts of stories.

Yeah. And if you question them or wonder how common they are, you’re accused of “denying God’s power” etc. etc. (Not to mention many or most of the televangelists’ stories end up being fake.)

@ Daisy:
It’s not too much to ask for a little balance and honesty is it?

Miracles do occur. They’re miracles for a reason though. It’s not science, or a formula, or a “God would have given you a miracle if ______” thing.

Joseph Bayly has just posted a new blog that is quite good–he makes a pretty strong rebuttal and takes a stand against Wilson’s blog. He seems to have a different take on “the Gospel” than Wilson as to where pedophiles’ liberty in Christ should extend. Worth reading!!

@ Christiane:
The Bayly Brother who, with his wife, wrote the first article (now retracted) supporting Wilson, followed by one much more critical.

First!?!?

Dave A A wrote:

@ nancyjane: That’s definitely the best one they’ve put out on the subject.

It would be nice if Kamilla, from that blog, would apologize for what she said in defense of the pedophile and Wilson. Mirele was over there blogging and tweeting and did a FANTASTIC job at setting them straight!

I’m just enjoying this day at the computer, reading articles, Facebook, the usual…and I happened upon an old Bayly Brothers blog post that amused me. Although I must say it isn’t amusing in a delightful sense. Read the poem and the comment section. That poem, written by Mrs. Joseph Tate Bayly, reveals the true nature of Patriarchy – one that clearly shows the wife in a place of idolizing her husband. A place that only Christ should have.
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2008/08/i-think-you-want-wife?cid=127453610#comment-127453610

@ Darlene:
@ Nancy2:

There was a discussion about this poem over here that I was part of back in the day:

https://whitewashedfeminist.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/a-real-gem-from-the-bayly-blog/

You might like the comments there a whole lot better.

Mara wrote:

@ Darlene:
@ Nancy2:
There was a discussion about this poem over here that I was part of back in the day:
https://whitewashedfeminist.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/a-real-gem-from-the-bayly-blog/
You might like the comments there a whole lot better.

Mara, thanks! It just so happens I found this site while browsing around.

Cvd wrote:

It goes to show that you don’t know scripture and you don’t know the man.

Oh, I know scripture. And Jesus says that you shall know men by their fruit.

I appreciate them not supporting DW’s support and protection of pedophiles. Such a turn has given me a little more respect for them than I had before. However, there are other areas where they get scripture so very wrong. And the fruit of their error stinketh.

Cvd wrote:

Tim addresses his “unrelated to him by blood…” comment, in the comments section of his most recent blog.

I did read that, and it helped to clarify where he’s coming from.

You’re right in that men and women have dominion over the earth. I have authority over my garden and the animals around me, just as my husband does. Men and women rule the earth; that is what God was establishing in Genesis 1, but Genesis 2 is where God then establishes the relationship BETWEEN man and woman. There are many others verses about Gods command for wives submitting to their husbands and stating that wives are the weaker vessel. Scripture is eternally true. We hate hearing that women are the weaker vessel, it goes against everything in this culture, but this is how God created us. We want to twist scripture and make it fit our comfort level. We’re not the progressive ones, our society is turning away from God more and more. We ARE equal (Genesis 1), but our roles are entirely different (Genesis 2). We think we understand equality more than our Heavenly Father. We don’t. He created equality, not us. The roles He gave us are equal in His eyes. We’re the sinners, which is why we must humble ourselves before God. If we understood everything He did and chose to do, then we wouldn’t need God would we?

It has been such a relief for me to finally follow my role God commands of me. I don’t have to bear the burden of leading and providing because that is my husbands job that God has established (I get that there is a time and place for a woman to work). And it’s a joy to go along side him and help him in his work. Saying men and women have equal roles, is like saying Jesus is equal with the church. It’s clear that Jesus has higher authority over the church (His bride), yet we as His church love Him and obey Him. We are HELPING His kingdom come, while He also loves us and guides us. Now does God bully us, or abuse His power and make us feel worthless? No. This is one reason why the picture and relationship of Jesus Christ and His bride was created, so that we can see how our own marriages should look. There are too many verses in the New Testament to list about wives submitting to their husbands but here is one:

Ephesians 5:22-33New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Marriage Like Christ and the Church

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [a]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she [b]respects her husband.

That is a lot of responsibility for the husband right? They don’t have it easy, but because we are sinners, women want to be men and men want to be women. We want to completely rebel against Gods creation order: Adam THEN Eve.

@ Leila:

Darlene wrote:

That poem, written by Mrs. Joseph Tate Bayly, reveals the true nature of Patriarchy – one that clearly shows the wife in a place of idolizing her husband. A place that only Christ should have.

Always remember, and never forget,
Christian gender complementarianism and Patriarchy equals Codependency.

One common feature of codependency is that the codependent will make a person into their end-all, be-all, and that person ends up becoming a little Deity to the codependent. Something which God frowns on, as he wants you to rely primarily on Him, not another person (which does not mean God cannot or does not work through other people).

But you have Christian gender comps (and patriarchalists) encouraging women to be codependent, to set their husband up as the center of their universe, hand over all or most of their decision making processes to a spouse, etc, something which the Bible actually condemns.

The Bible teaches all people are responsible for themselves, and under Christ, people do not need an intermediate (a husband, a priest, or any man) to act as their divine go-between.

Complementarians and Christian patriarchalists just sprout off false teaching after false teaching after false teaching, all the while thinking they are stamping out cultural problems (the chief one in their thinking being secular feminism).

Reminds me of some Bible verse where, is it Jesus?, who predicted there was a time when religious types would snuff you (Christians) out, but claiming they had God’s approval for it, that they were doing God a favor but were horribly wrong about that.

@ Cvd:

I can’t call sexism nice just because the people perpetuating it are usually nice guys in person, or because their sexism comes from what they consider “good intentions.”

Benevolent 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

@ Bridget:

I agree. Women being asked to be treated with respect and to be given equal opportunities is not tantamount to women trying to be men.

About creation order:
The Complementarian Concept of “The Created Order”
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/the-created-order/

Cvd wrote:

You’re right in that men and women have dominion over the earth….We hate hearing that women are the weaker vessel, it goes against everything in this culture, but this is how God created us. We want to twist scripture and make it fit our comfort level.

Yes, in the OT, humans were called to have dominion over the earth. Through the Jesus-lens, that means we are to be stewards, to take care of the earth so that it maintains health/balance, and to leave it to the next generation better than it is now.

Mutuality is much harder work than the OT ideas of authority. It doesn’t really “fit our comfort level” as you say disparagingly, although the results are more satisfying for everyone. As I see it, you feel relief and joy in letting your husband make the money, and lead your relationship, because you have given up part of the job. Or perhaps your peace is from deciding together that this is how you two want to function in your relationship right now. That would be excellent.

Mutuality can be any number of things. It might be as you and spouse are doing, or it might be that both take on half of housework and keep careers going. The basic principle is that because both sets of brains/hearts have peer ability, decisions are best made together.

Cvd wrote:

Saying men and women have equal roles, is like saying Jesus is equal with the church. It’s clear that Jesus has higher authority over the church (His bride), yet we as His church love Him and obey Him….This is one reason why the picture and relationship of Jesus Christ and His bride was created, so that we can see how our own marriages should look.

The loveliest thing about mutuality is that both people are able to be fully how God created them. They bring their God-invented gifts/strengths to the marriage and use them on behalf of each other.

The fact that talents/strengths often don’t run along gender lines shows that God makes far less of gender than we do. I don’t want to disrespect God by ignoring the gifts He gave me because I am a wife, or by refusing to use them because they are outside socially approved conventions for women.

Analogies are limited comparisons. Over-extending them can get us into dangerous territory. The analogy “Jesus is to the church as husbands are to wives”, doesn’t mean that husbands have as much authority over wives as Jesus has over the church. The analogy openly limits itself to love—that Jesus loved the church so much that he died for it, and similarly the husband should love his wife so much that he’d be willing to die for her. That is rather different.

I wish you well, Cvd, and all happiness in your marriage.

I don’t know why it didn’t separate Daisies comment. Sorry.

I’m sorry I came off as alienating women who aren’t married or cannot have children. Where God has you is good, because God is good..always. If you’re single, then He’s probably using you in awesome ways at your job. If you’re infertile, that is what God has given you and Ge makes very good use of your situation. I just talked and prayed with a woman tonight who’s having trouble conceiving due to infertility and we both praised God because He’s using her and opening her heart to love those who are motherless and fatherless. You are absolutely no less of a woman if you are single or can’t have children. But in scripture, infertility is always seen as bad and it is a result of the fall. Fruitfulness should be the desire of every Christian.

I also never said we were worthless…was Jesus worthless to God even though He fully submitted himself to Gods authority while here on earth? Not by any means. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal, yet have different roles.

“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11:3‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Why are you so angry at making meals and bearing children, someone has to do it right? Can a male bear a child? God clearly designed women to be mothers. Whether that be a mother to a co-worker, your neighbor or a child God has given you. Yes, God created women to be motherly.

Cvd wrote:

I meant in roles,

Hhm. Roles. There’s that word again. Too bad it is neither a biblical term nor represents a biblical concept.
That word was coined to push a doctrine that makes cookie-cutter, plastic Christians, easy to control by power hungry men.

This gender doctrine concerning roles has been built by using a few verses taken out of context while ignoring a whole lot of other verses especially verses in red. A lot of scripture twisting and adding to is done in order to prop up your non-biblical ideology.

Then this false doctrine is enforced with threats that if these roles aren’t followed, it will be the end of civilization as we know it.
Jesus preached against the traditions of men. Yet men come in and push their role doctrine on people saying they are the words of Jesus. Not so.

People here are more interested in the real gospel than the false gender, creation order gospel that DW embraces. The creation order gospel is no gospel at all because it is bad news for everyone, especially women and children.

@ Cvd:

I have a response to you that might not show up until morning.

Cvd wrote:

due to the Fall women will want to take the mans duty,

It doesn’t say that. It says that a woman’a desire will be for her husband and he will use that desire to rule over her.
A woman’s desire should be for God. But because of the fall she had to overcome her desire for her husband.
I see this desire in women for men over and over again. I’ve seen women lose their children because they crave fellowship with men so bad.

The interpretation that you give is a recent and aberrant one. And not supportable with any real evidence.

Leila wrote:

Cvd wrote:

Cvd, you are reading a whole bunch into scripture … and you conveniently forget Eph v 5:21, where Christians are told to submit to one another. As for the rest of it – there are excellent resources out there that do a far better job than I can explaining why hierarchy in marriage is unbiblical.

But I do have one question for you. Can you show me the verse in the Bible where God tells the husband that he has authority over his wife? Or the verse that says he is “the spiritual leader”?

Ephesians 5:21
Is simply a lead in to the 20 verses. Paul isn’t telling spouses to be mutually submissive, he’s telling Christians to submit to those who have authority over them.

Have you read the next three verses?

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5:22-24‬ ‭NIV‬‬

1 corinthians 11 in reference to your authority question. Being “head over,” means being the leader/having authority. Leaders are our authority (government, parents, elders, husbands etc..).

Cvd wrote:

Why are you so angry at making meals and bearing children, someone has to do it right? Can a male bear a child? God clearly designed women to be mothers. Whether that be a mother to a co-worker, your neighbor or a child God has given you. Yes, God created women to be motherly.

Sorry I again don’t have the time or patience to go through this entire reply of yours and will only make a comment or two on this part.

I don’t understand this part of your post.

Men can have warm and fuzzy maternal feelings for people too; it’s not limited to women only because women have uteri.

I have never been fond of children and never really cared if I had one or not.

I can be a sweet, loving person, but maternal I am not. Nor am I interested in playing a motherly role to non-family or even family.

As to this comment of yours:
“Why are you so angry at making meals and bearing children, someone has to do it right?”

I’m not angry about making meals and the idea of women bearing children.

What does make me angry are folks like you who apparently feel that doing women fulfilling such 1950s American cultural expectations are a woman’s only purpose or calling in life.

I don’t have an interest in being a stay at home wife and mom who cooks. And that’s okay. Everyone is different and has different interests, personalities, and pursuits.

Ever since mother died, my father has had to do his own cooking and cleaning for himself. I occasionally help him out, but he’s responsible for his own cooking and cleaning.

That’s another thing, too.
Husbands sometimes get dementia or brain damage, which means all the marital duties fall to the wife.

Gender complementarianism is not only unbiblical, but it does not fit all people, all situations, all life stages. Not all men and women fit into the neat little tidy boxes that gender complementarians try to cram them into.

I was a tom boy as a kid, not a girly girl: I hated playing with dolls and preferred watching Bat Man on TV and playing with Bat Man toys.

Just because women have biological equipment that make many of them capable of carrying a child does not mean God “designed them to be parents.”

You might want to read this:
“Who is my mother and who are my brothers?”
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/who-my-mother-and-who-are-my-brothers

Cvd wrote:

(part 1) God tells us in Genesis 3:16 that due to the Fall women will want to take the mans duty, yet He will rule over us. Society right now is a good picture of this truth.

(part 2) Feminism is on the rise; which is women wanting to take power and belittle men.

Re: Part 1.
That’s not what Genesis is saying. God was not saying in Genesis that the woman would want any so-called authority from the man.

What is was conveying is that the women would desire to be controlled by the man – women would rather rely on a man for protection, financial support, and stability rather than go to God Himself.

In turn, a lot of men exploit women over this tendency of theirs to over-rely on men and unprincipled, selfish men use and abuse women who go to them seeking protection, funding, etc,, which is what God was warning women of.

And churches keep promoting this very thing (under gender complementarian and patriarachal teachings), that women should be codependent creatures who should get married and rely wholly on, and answer to, a husband for everything, rather than use their God-given brains to make their own choices and to rely on God.

Regarding (Part 2.) of your comment.

I’m not even a feminist and disagree with secular feminists on most every thing, but your explanation of what feminism is is not a correct or honest explanation.

Feminism (even the secular variety) is not about women wanting to step on, or to control men, but only asking to be given equal opportunities in the first place, instead of being held back only due to being female.

Mara wrote:

It doesn’t say that. It says that a woman’a desire will be for her husband and he will use that desire to rule over her.
A woman’s desire should be for God. But because of the fall she had to overcome her desire for her husband.
I see this desire in women for men over and over again. I’ve seen women lose their children because they crave fellowship with men so bad.

Yes, this. Absolutely spot on.

Also, it’s easier and lazier to go through life as a gender comp married woman, because your husband is not only pressured to hold a job and to pay for everything, but he has to make all or most decisions for the both of you.

Therefore, you, as a married woman, coast through life with little stress and responsibility.

Unless you are in a gender comp marriage to an abusive man, of course.

But assuming a gender comp woman is married to a NON-abusive guy, she gets to coast through life, being child-like even as an adult, while the husband gets stuck shouldering all the grown-up duties and responsibilities. That is why some Christian women find gender comp appealing.

Cvd wrote:

The desire spoken of is bad but it isn’t referring to a woman’s desire for fellowship with a man. It’s referring to her desire to rule him because the clause that “he will rule her,” is the opposite of that desire. The man’s rule, however, is good, it’s established in Genesis two, before the fall.

Oh, Cvd, you’ve been swallowing interpretations that perpetuate the very curse that Genesis says was put on women.

There is a simple exercise to see whether Mara’s, Daisy’s, Leila’s interpretation, or yours, is more accurate. Simply look at human history. Across cultures, for thousands of years, men have subvalued women, abused/raped them, disallowed them outside of their homes, married them off for dowries, treated them as baby machines for heirs, etc. Women allowed this to happen because we so much wanted love from men, and were dependent on them during child-bearing years.

I mean, really, women were “allowed” to vote only 100 years ago! What’s the big deal about women pushing for peer value for the last 30-40 years? Men have been running the show for several thousand years already. Even if these guys’ worst nightmare came true and women began to run the show, so what? Give them a few thousand years, and it’ll be fair&square. We could then see which does better. (I suspect it’d be marginally better, and the best would happen when both work together.)

The real question here is why do men feel so terribly threatened by women’s desire for peer value? So threatened that they try to hoist their nastiness onto God via scriptures?

Cvd wrote:

The desire spoken of is bad but it isn’t referring to a woman’s desire for fellowship with a man. It’s referring to her desire to rule him because the clause that “he will rule her,” is the opposite of that desire. The man’s rule, however, is good, it’s established in Genesis two, before the fall.

Wow. Quite a twisted version there.

The husband ruling over the wife was part of the curse in Genesis 3:16.

Nancy2 wrote:

Darlene wrote:
That poem, written by Mrs. Joseph Tate Bayly, reveals the true nature of Patriarchy – one that clearly shows the wife in a place of idolizing her husband. A place that only Christ should have.
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2008/08/i-think-you-want-wife?cid=127453610#comment-127453610
That poem and the comments supporting it say, in essence, women are completely worthless.

I couldn’t read very far down in the comments; I was getting more and more nauseous. It is a horrible twisting of scripture. Tim Bayly in the comments quoted For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 16:25) — but I think he’s misquoting and misapplying that scripture. We’re supposed to lose our life for *Christ’s* sake, a woman’s identity is supposed to be in Christ, not in a husband.

What a horrible piece of misapplication.

@ Bridget:
16 To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

Cvd wrote:

It’s a spiral of doom scenario though. A man can’t do everything a woman can do, and vice versus because of the way God made us.

Nobody outside of very fringe left wing secular feminists believes that men and women are 100% identical in every regard.

Not even Christian egalitarians believe men and women are 100% identical.

But, in many cases, women can do the same things men do, if given the opportunity.

It is not God that puts limits on women, it is Christians the complementarians who do this. The Holy Spirit does not distribute gifts and talents based on gender.

You might want to read this:
Social Science Studies Cannot Define Gender Differences
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/social-science-studies-cannot-define-gender-differences

Cvd wrote:

That is a lot of responsibility for the husband right? They don’t have it easy, but because we are sinners, women want to be men and men want to be women. We want to completely rebel against Gods creation order: Adam THEN Eve.

I’m sure Tim Bayly taught you all that.

What if he has it wrong?

Donkeys and dolphins were created before Man… does that mean that we are rebelling against God’s creation order by not looking up to them and serving them and calling them Master?

(actually, I think Jesus is the only one we are supposed to call Master, come to think of it.)

I am sorry for you. I sat under this teaching as well, for twenty years, and saw its bitter fruit play out in more families than just my own. I think “one anothering” is a much more biblical approach.

God gave you gifts. He didn’t intend for you to bury your talents (the ones that don’t fit the stay-at-home wife paradigm); he even told a parable about that sort of thing. He didn’t intend for you to subordinate yourself to another human being. He is your Lord and Savior, He is the one you should be living for. Not a mere man, to whom you were given to be a partner.

Cvd wrote:

I’m addressing the sector of feminism that wants to belittle men and their duty; that women can do all.

it is poor debate to criticize the most extreme few among an opponent group, and then to equate that extreme few to the whole group.

It would be like me criticizing your men-lead-women group for Mormon polygamy and then saying you too also believe in polygamy.

For those that don’t know, we have been keeping a list of interesting articles, books, and links on the comp doctrine debate at the top of the page here, under the Interesting tab and then go to the Movies, Books, etc. tab.

Cvd wrote:

women want to rule right?

This is actually a misinterpretation of the Genesis 3 consequence. The Hebrew does not say that the woman’s desire would be to rule over her husband. It says her desire would be for her husband.

I wonder, now, if “desire for her husband” means the relationship complementarianism teaches: where the woman looks to her husband for her identity, instead of looking to the Lord.

Cvd wrote:

But in scripture, infertility is always seen as bad and it is a result of the fall. Fruitfulness should be the desire of every Christian.

I might be wrong, but I think that it’s considered a curse in the Old Testament. However, in the New Testament, it says, “In Christ there is neither male nor female…”

Fruitfulness in the New Testament is not bearing physical children, but the Great Commission.

I could not believe it when I heard Tim Bayly teach that (I am paraphrasing here, but if you think I get it wrong, I’ll go and look up how I wrote it word-for-word in my notes) the church has brown more from people having children, than evangelism.

Really?

Jesus didn’t say to go out into the world and have as many children as possible. He said to go out into the world and preach the gospel, even to the ends of the earth.

refugee wrote:

church has brown more

I am not typing well tonight. I meant to say “the church has grown more”

This was the comment that didn’t separate:

The important thing to note is that God didn’t create Adam from an animal. Eve was taken from Adam. God then clearly tells us that we have rule over the animals (the things of the earth). And then He establishes the duty of man and woman.

Jesus IS my Lord and Savior. My ultimate Master, my ultimate Authority. I am living for Him. Jesus commands me to follow Him; that His word is life. Therefore I will follow His word. If my husband thinks we should do something sinful, I AM to say “NO,”because Jesus has authority in my life over my husband. I will follow Jesus first. I am to help my husband see that, that decision would be against God, our Heavenly Father. Never have I stated that I worship my husband or any of what you just claimed. I’ve only used scripture to back me up. Many of you have used articles (yes they can be helpful, but they aren’t ultimately true). The scripture that I’ve stated is clear. God tells us that God the father is head over Christ, just as man is to be head over his wife. What does that mean to you? Do you think Jesus being under God the Fathers authority suppressed Him?

To: refugee

Knowing Tim, He was probably paralleling that having children is apart of the great commission because children are born sinners, so we need to evangelize to them. God could’ve already saved them in the womb, but it is our duty to tell little ones about Jesus, raising them to love God. You’re right, we are to go and tell others the Good News, but it doesn’t mean we have to go to Africa to do it. I’m guessing that’s what he meant, but I did not hear that sermon.

Cvd wrote:

Leila wrote:
Cvd wrote:
Cvd, you are reading a whole bunch into scripture … and you conveniently forget Eph v 5:21, where Christians are told to submit to one another. As for the rest of it – there are excellent resources out there that do a far better job than I can explaining why hierarchy in marriage is unbiblical.
But I do have one question for you. Can you show me the verse in the Bible where God tells the husband that he has authority over his wife? Or the verse that says he is “the spiritual leader”?

Ephesians 5:21
Is simply a lead in to the 20 verses. Paul isn’t telling spouses to be mutually submissive, he’s telling Christians to submit to those who have authority over them.
Have you read the next three verses?
“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5:22-24‬ ‭NIV‬‬
1 corinthians 11 in reference to your authority question. Being “head over,” means being the leader/having authority. Leaders are our authority (government, parents, elders, husbands etc..).

Cvd, this does not answer the question. Where does God tell HUSBANDS to take authority OVER their WIVES? (Capitals for emphasis, not shouting.) Regardless of interpretation (authority vs mutual submission), Ephesians 5:22 is speaking to wives. Not husbands. Do you understand the difference? Nowhere does God command husbands to assume authority over wives.

Here’s another way to look at it: we’ve established that in Genesis both man and woman are given dominion over the earth, and there is no command for man to take dominion over woman, but rather they are to co-rule. If Ephesians 5 really is a command for husbandly authority, what did godly people do for the thousands of years in between Genesis and Ephesians? How did they know that husbands had authority? It’s not established in Genesis. Did they have to bumble around and wait for Paul to write Ephesians and clear that matter up?

refugee wrote:

This is a good point. I had forgotten. We joined a complementarian church in the first place, because I wanted to be a stay at home mom…

A stay-at-home mom (or dad) can be a wonderful gift to the family. I’m fairly certain that more marriages would do it if jobs paid well enough to support a family, as they did in the 50s-60s.

I’m sorry that you found the more liberal church so hard on you about that. That was foolishness.

In talking about the law of God, He is very clear on what His laws are.
We have the Ten Commandments as a point of reference in the Old Testament.
Then Jesus came and improved on them, took them a step up with His Two Greatest Commandments and the Golden Rule.
Nowhere in all of this does Creation Order come into play.
Nowhere does God speak of Creation Order.
It is not one of His laws.
It is a description that a few men latched onto and turned into a prescription for life.

Cvd wrote:

Turning away from scripture is not the answer.

(Post Script to my post above).

I did not turn away from Scripture.

Studying the Scriptures more closely is what caused me to reject the views you are advocating on this blog.
I was raised to believe as you do about men and women but realized as I got older that these views are false.

There are other conservative Christians who use the Bible to point out the errors in your views about gender, such as…

Christians For Biblical Equality</b
http://www.cbeinternational.org/

There are Christians who are just as committed to the Bible as you are, but who have reached different conclusions about this issue.

@ Cvd:

Cvd, your views confirm they are parroting what you’ve heard from complementarian teachers.

Just out of curiosity, how have they taught the authority wives have over their husbands according to 1 Cor. 7:4?

Please read Eph. 5 with your own critical thinking. The passage does NOT refer to Christ’s authority over the church. It speaks to His laying down His very life for the church. That’s the example husbands are to emulate for their wives…by laying down their very lives in self sacrifice.

refugee wrote:

We joined a complementarian church in the first place, because I wanted to be a stay at home mom, and the “christians” in the more liberal church we were attending were not at all supportive of a mom staying home and taking care of her own children. They thought children should be raised by “professionals” trained for the job, and women should be “fulfilled” in the workplace. They didn’t seem to think a woman could be fulfilled at home.

Yeah, I don’t agree with that type of view on gender roles, either. That is the flip side to Christian gender comp.

I’ve noticed on occasions on this blog, if or when I speak out against the Christian gender complementarian position, which usually insists that a woman’s only purpose or godly role in life is to marry and have children, some women (who are married mothers) misunderstand me and chide me in the comments.

I just don’t like having to add a disclaimer to every post I make about it. I really don’t have a problem at all with women who choose of their own accord to be ‘Susie Homemaker.’

My problem is when Christian culture berates, pressures, and shames women who choose to not go that route, or who cannot go that route, because they are infertile, they just don’t want children, or, like me, they have been unable to find Mr. Right.

I have been on secular feminist blogs before where a handful of them to hold similar views, where they say they feel motherhood is a waste of time, college education is wasted on women who want to be SAHMs, women should skip parenting and go get careers, etc.

In those discussions, I’ve stood up for women who are mothers (or who want to be mothers), and I’ve gotten ripped to shreds by the feminists who disagree on that.

Also, secular feminists who maintain that it’s a waste for a woman to get a college degree if she is going to be a SAHM is the same exact line I’ve seen used by some Christian gender comps and patriarchalists.
I find it strange that secular feminists would be repeating the same sexist clap trap that their opponents use as a rationale to keep women from getting higher education.

Anyway, but I do believe women should be just as free to be SAHMs, if it is their free choice.

That’s why I sometimes get frustrated – or amused – when some of the women here mistake my views and think I’m opposed to women wanting to be SAHMs.

I do not have time to respond to each individual comment, I’m sorry. Just as some of you have asked me to read certain articles, I ask you read this one: it addresses almost every argument.

https://answersingenesis.org/family/marriage/genesis-wifely-submission-and-modern-wives/

It’s not long at all, but it explains exactly what I’m trying to convey to you guys, and it includes lots of scripture that support. I hope and pray that you see most of your defenses have no scripture to back them. Some have tried to use a couple verses, but they’re false arguments. I’ve only used scripture, and y’all have tried to refute it the whole time, pegging me that there’s only a few verses about the topic. Is homosexuality right because there’s only 7 verses about it? No. Yet, how many verses are there that say, “husbands and wives are to be co-dependent?” If we truly believe that scripture is eternally true as it is, then we should always have scripture back any stance we have.

Many have said they are sorry for me. Look, my gifts aren’t being trampled, I’m not inferior to my husband, nor does he boss me around like a dog. We both mutually respect each others different duties. We love what God has ordained, and we watch after one another. I have my own relationship with Jesus; on the day of judgement I carry MY sin to God, and profess my faith in the One who’s cleansed me. Submissiveness does not mean I cower in a corner, nor am I weak. I am submissive because God has commanded me to be (also, someone mentioned that there’s no place where God is speaking directly to husbands; when God tells wives to be submissive to their husbands, and He tells husbands to love their wives and live in an understanding way, this means the man is the leader. If he doesn’t have to submit to us, and we do, that means he has leadership over us). Some verses don’t have to be complicated: God says to submit, so we are to submit. It’s simple. When God says do not murder, we are not to murder. He makes His commands clear.

I was trying to think of analogy that might be helpful last night, and this is what God put on my heart:

Look at all the different areas of life. Almost all have an appointed leader. On a team: there’s a captain. If you’re a teacher: there’s a department chair. There are shift leaders for jobs, and section leaders for musicians. There’s almost always a leader. Am I inferior to the captain on my team? No, instead they’ve been given the role to guide the team. They’re not perfect, the other players are supposed to help him be a captain, and if we (the players) think he’s doing something against the coaches demand, then we are to follow the coach. Women are the players, men are the captains, Jesus is our coach. Think about a huddle; the coach (Jesus) gathers us all together to tell us what we are to do, then when we disperse the captain is supposed to guide us to follow those orders, but if he doesn’t, we already know what the coach said, and we are to follow him over the captain.

I have no more to say. Please, please read that article. In the end, we can all agree that The Lord Jesus Christ is our savior and redeemer, no one comes to the father except through Him. Have a great day.

In Christ,
Corrie

One last note that I forgot to address. Many have said they’ve left the type of church I’m apart of to join a church with the teachings you now believe. A lot have said you left because of the brokenness you saw it created in relationships. My experience has been the exact opposite. I came from a mega church, and saw much much brokenness with these teachings you hold to. Which is why I left. I needed answers. Why did God create men AND women, instead of just man, if we’re all supposed to be the same? It was so fuzzy in the church I came from. They used almost no scripture to back, but based their convictions a lot on feeling. Just something to think about.

In Christ,
Corrie

@Cvd,

I went from a mega church, that seemed so hip and anonymous, to a much smaller church that *seemed* more Biblically solid. Like Gram3 has posted here many times, that people frequently look for the opposite of their former church when choosing a new church and miss serious problems in the new church. I did.

My smaller church had many problems that I had not seen when choosing a new church home: elder-ruled (no congregational vote/no respect for the priesthood of all believers), Membership Covenants (used by the pastors/elders to foist themselves into members’ lives for the smallest of issues and to punish any dissent; as well as take the place of the Holy Spirit), authoritarianism, and comp doctrine. Many older Christians that I know said that it *never* used to be this way and these are fairly new teachings.

As Gram3 has pointed out in many posts the comp doctrine involves much Scripture twisting, that the words in the interlinear don’t say what the comp believers tout. (My conservative Christian friends in Europe, elders in their churches for decades, have said that something is seriously wrong with American Christianity and that it has more in common with radical Islam than with our freedom in Christ.)

I also have a problem with it: The nation’s proponents of this (Gothard, Phillips and others have been felled by sex scandals for their predation on young females). They have made their secondary issue, and personal political/social/cultural, beliefs into The Gospel, which it isn’t. Why are we taking marching orders from sexual predators about how to lead a good, Christian life? I don’t look to criminal types for guidance in how to lead my life.

Cvd wrote:

I hope and pray that you see most of your defenses have no scripture to back them. Some have tried to use a couple verses, but they’re false arguments.

This is not true Corrie. It is your interpretation of the scripture that I don’t agree with. It is also a very poor study habit to take bits of scripture from all over the Bible to make an argument fit your preference. I could do that and make an argument that we are all in sin because we use the internet. The internet isn’t in the bible after all.

I have no problem with you choosing to submit to your husband in your marriage relationship. But I don’t believe you or your church have “the only, the best, or the holiest” way for husbands and wives to function in marriage. To think you do would be a great disservice to the body of Christ. (Not accusing you of this btw.)

Cvd wrote:

Adam and Eve had different duties. God is clear about that, even before the fall

Where in Genesis before they “fell” is this explicit? And how do you explain the plural in Genesis 1?

@Cvd,

I respect your and your husband’s wishes concerning your marriage and how you would like to run it, including your choice to have a comp marriage. That said, it isn’t the *only* way to have a good marriage, the ideas promulgated are fairly new, aren’t taught in other denominations. Even many conservative Christians say that all of this comp doctrine/teaching is fairly new and *it wasn’t this way before*.

Sadly a conservative American socio/political/cultural belief is being put on par with The Gospel by many conservative churches, driving Christians out of the church, harming marriages and families, and being totally unattractive to unbelievers and our witness to them. Why should they trade their freedom for bondage in the comp System?

The Gospel is supposed to be Good News no matter the country, culture, or period.

(Note: Gram3 has covered this topic extensively. Please look up her earlier posts explaining The Scriptures and various meanings.)

@ Mara:

I went there and read a small bit. It is the usual arguments and I can’t tolerate much from Answers in Genesis.

Bridget and Mara,

Here is one post about comp doctrine that I put under the Interesting tab [top of page here], Books, Movies, etc. tab

Recommended article by Baptist pastor Wade Burleson, The Wartburg Watch’s EPastor on Sundays, on the whole comp doctrine/patriarchy and the Eternal Subordination of the Son:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/06/eternal-subordination-and-sbc-divorce.html

“Here’s the catch. Southern Baptist leaders have made the tragic error of believing that a husband should rule and a wife should be submissive because the Bible demands it. Truth be known, the Bible calls any desire to control and dominate–be it the husband or the wife– “the curse.” The divorce rate increases when Southern Baptists call “the norm” what the Bible calls “the curse.” When the first man (Adam) sought to rule over the first woman (Eve), Adam was manifesting a curse, not meeting a commandment (Genesis 3:16).

Jesus came to reverse the curse. Redemption causes curse-filled people to become grace-filled people. Those who seek to rule over others by exerting authority, when they come to see what Jesus says about life, will turn loose of trying to control other people and will only seek to love and serve, NEVER exerting any alleged authority. Again, Jesus said that “the Gentiles lord over others” and “exert authority,” but “it shall not be this way among you” (Matthew 20:24-26).

Southern Baptist Convention leaders have wrongly pushed for men to lord their authority over their wives, and called on wives to submit to the authority of their husbands because of a belief in and promotion of “the eternal subordination of the Son.” I’ve written about this doctrinal problem among Southern Baptists for years, but I recently came across a brilliant article by Dr. Keith Johnson (Ph.D. Duke), the director of theological development for Campus Crusade for Christ. Johnson’s article is called Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective.”

Dr. Keith Johnson’s article:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/36.1/Themelios36.1.pdf#page=9

Cvd wrote:

That is a lot of responsibility for the husband right? They don’t have it easy, but because we are sinners, women want to be men and men want to be women. We want to completely rebel against Gods creation order: Adam THEN Eve.

There is nothing in the Bible which gives any indication that God attaches any significance whatsoever to the “Order of Creation.” If he did, then I assume that he would not have broken his own rules of Order which he established so many times. There is nothing in Genesis 2 which either negates or modifies the *explicit* equality and *joint* dominion of the Man and the Woman. There is simply nothing about gendered Roles in Genesis 2 or anywhere else in the actual text of the Bible. RBMW is eisegesis wrapped in a circular argument.

If you are able to state the basic argument of the CBMW crew without using any logical fallacies and without employing any eisegesis, I would be very interested to see that. I’ve not had any luck with that request so far.

Cvd wrote:

Why did God create men AND women, instead of just man, if we’re all supposed to be the same? It was so fuzzy in the church I came from. They used almost no scripture to back, but based their convictions a lot on feeling.

If we are conservative Christians (and I would assume that you are) then we certainly should not be guided by mere feelings. Our convictions must be grounded in the texts which we who are conservative evangelicals believe are inspired and authoritatative. Further, we believe that each person who is in Christ is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and is a priest of the New Covenant. It is not rational to join with one group because it is the opposite of another group that is wrong. They might well both be wrong, and it appears that is the case with your experience, IMO. If you truly desire to be led by the Holy Spirit, then you will not place either your husband or your “church officer” in a place above God the Holy Spirit. To deny the freedom and responsibility which Christ died to secure for you by surrendering it to another human being is a serious matter. Each of us, whether male or female, is called to grow up into Christ who is our Head.

Mara wrote:

Sometimes people who push patriarchy and compism decide that women who strongly resist are ‘angry’. Some women are angry. Some are just being assertive.

Christian Complementarians and Patriarchalists put women in a bind, in a no-win situation on this stuff.

If you are a woman, if you try to critique their patriarchy or comp views, they automatically play the, “You are trying to usurp male authority” shtick (or some other talking point, such as, “You have been influenced by secular feminism”).

That tactic is used to shut down and dismiss female objections and input of these gender doctrines.

What it is also doing is penalizing women who have healthy boundaries, women who no longer buy into the mandate that God desires women to be codependent, shrinking flowers.

Part of having healthy boundaries is being assertive and speaking one’s mind, and disagreeing openly with someone else, if one disagrees.

In complementarianism (or patriarchy), however, a woman exercising biblical, healthy, perfectly fine and normal boundaries, which may entail expressing objections of a position, is deemed a usurper of authority, or of having been duped by secular feminism (or the woman is supposedly “easily deceived” or is “bitter”) by those holding the complementarian views being criticized.

This way, the ones who adhere to complementarianism or patriarchy don’t have to seriously contend with the voices of the people who are being limited by these teachings.

It makes it so easy for them. Discount people’s arguments before they can even make a point. It’s rather convenient for them to operate in such a fashion.