“He always apologized, and sometimes he would even cry because of the bruises he'd made on her arms or legs or her back. He would say that he hated what he'd done, but in the next breath tell her she'd deserved it. That if she'd been more careful, it wouldn't have happened. That if she'd been paying attention or hadn't been so stupid, he wouldn't have lost his temper.” ― Nicholas Sparks, Safe Haven link
Update on Dee's situation: Lou is coming home from Rehab. This is very good. Although Lou and my mom will still need lots of help, having them close by will help me gain about 3 hours in my day. So hopefully my participation will increase in the coming week. Thank you all for being so understanding.
***
Although we want to continue to give you some updates on Gospel for Asia(GFA), we felt it is an important to the mission of this blog to promptly report on a developing situation that deals with domestic violence and a well known religious figure. The circumstances surrounding this situation have been debated and we wanted to add our thoughts on the matter.
Three stories
Here three stories as told to me by the victims, friends and/or family.
1. One man, a church leader in a Reformed Baptist church, was abusive to his wife on numerous occasions. When he realized she was going to go to the church and ask for help, he set up a situation in the home, complete with hidden video recorder, to *prove* that she was an angry woman. He showed this to the leaders before she came for help. He told the leaders he needed help in dealing with her. They refused to believe her side of the story. She was to be disciplined. She left the church. He divorced her with the approval of the leaders. He immediately began dating again.
2. A health professional (and church member), with knowledge of a number of domestic violence episodes in a well known church which has a pastor on the board of TGC, asked to place a few signs in the women's bathroom with the contact number of a well respected domestic violence hotline. Said pastor absolutely refused to do so.
3. An assistant pastor's wife, mother to their several little children, was being physically abused. Her parents convinced her to leave the home with the children. They then called the lead pastor and asked him to deal with his abusive assistant pastor. He refused to do so unless she and the children returned to the home. Thankfully the wife refused to do so and she divorced him. The church was never told the story. Oh yeah, this lead pastor is hugely supportive of TGC and CBMW and well known to them.
Owen Strachan and the Council of Biblical™ Manhood and Womanhood says the church deals really well with domestic violence.
Special thanks to Julie Ann Smith for copying these into a post.
I think Owen Strachan does not understand the reality in many churches and I am talking about his kind of churches. The first call we ever got on this blog was from a pregnant woman in Georgia who was being beat up by her husband. Her pastor, of another Reformed Baptist church, told her she had to return to him. We talked her out of that and told her where to seek help.
Oh, and TGC/CBMW isn't the only group that has issues. Paige Patterson is notorious for bragging about sending a woman home to her abusive husband and getting two black eyes! Hallelujah! Don't believe me? From our post
Patterson's message sounds like the same old, same old; and we have little hope that anything will ever change. Remember, this is the Christian leader who told a wife who was being physically abused by her husband the following: (audio link)
“I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.” And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.” And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy."
"And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came. And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front. And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.” And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?” And he’s a great husband today. And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis. And remember, when nobody else can help, God can.
And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him. Obviously, if he's doing that kind of thing he's got some very deep spiritual problems in his life, and you have to pray that God brings into intersection of his life those people and those events that need to come into his life to arrest him and bring him to his knees."
And, of course, there is TGC's much admired Doug Wilson who recently wrote in Moving Out of Range
Often intractable marriage problems are also opaque. She reports his abusive behavior to the elders or pastor and the husband denies it. It is now a did too/did not situation. When that happens, it is not possible to excommunicate the husband on the testimony of his wife, any more than it would be lawful to go the other way and excommunicate the wife on the strength of his word. You cannot do this because sometimes men lie and other times women do. Scripture teaches that two or three witnesses are necessary in order to excommunicate anyone.
Oh yeah, and she can't divorce because he might repent. And even if he doesn't and she divorces his sorry butt, she can never remarry because it's against the Bible. Besides, it is only a he said/she said situation. Does he care about what really happens out there in churchville? Oh yeah, he's the guy who thought it was a good idea to marry a pedophile off to a young woman. Stupid me.
Some important statistics
From the American Bar Association:
Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims
Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.
Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.
50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.
From The National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women :
The percentage of women who lie about violence is quite low.
To date, the MAD study is the only research conducted in the U.S. to evaluate the percentage of false reports made to law enforcement.The remaining evidence is therefore based on research conducted out- side the U.S., but it all converges within the same range of 2-8%.
So, what am I leading up to?
Who is Pastor Saeed Abedini?
Here is a quick history from Wikipedia.
Saeed Abedini (Persian: سعيد عابديني, born 7 May 1980) is an Iranian American Christian pastor imprisoned in Iran. He has been detained in Iran since the summer of 2012 and initially incarcerated in Evin Prison in September 2012. On January 27, 2013, he was sentenced to eight years in prison, reportedly on charges of undermining national security through private religious gatherings in Christian homes in Iran in the early 2000s. In November 2013, the Iranian government transferred Abedini to Rajai Shahr prison, just outside of Karaj, Iran.
Free Saeed
There has been a concerted effort to free Pastor Saeed amongst both Christians and justice groups.
From Tasered and Abused, American Pastor Saeed Threatened with New Charges
After a short family visitation today at Rajaei Shahr prison in Iran, Naghmeh Abedini, the wife of American Pastor Saeed Abedini, heard disturbing news about possible new charges being brought against Pastor Saeed. Over the years, the Iranian government continually promised that Pastor Saeed’s eight-year-prison sentence could be arbitrarily extended, and yesterday they took their first steps to fulfill that promise.
Yesterday in Iran, Iranian intelligence officers summoned Pastor Saeed for an intense round of interrogation. Pastor Saeed reported to his family that the interrogators were abusive both verbally and physically. During the course of interrogation, the officers repeatedly used a taser gun on Pastor Saeed. This new assault is concerning as Pastor Saeed is still being denied needed medical care for injuries sustained as a result of beatings in the past.
The interrogators threatened that Pastor Saeed will face new criminal charges. They claimed Pastor Saeed has connections with anti-government groups and has made statements and taken actions against the government of Iran. Pastor Saeed denied all of these allegations, and once again asserted that he is apolitical and that he has never threatened the security of, made any statements against, or taken any action against the Government of Iran.
Petitions have been sent to President Obama (who has met with the family), members of Congress and the United Nations in an attempt to secure his release. On each Wednesday, a number of people send out reminder tweets to Pray for Pastor Saeed. I have happily retweeted them.
Nagemeh Abedini: Pastor Saeed's wife.
Nobody has been more of an effective mouthpiece for the Free Saeed movement than his lovely wife Naghmeh Abedini who is the mother of his two children. Here is a report she gave about a visit she had with Pastor Saeed in prison.
The visit was bittersweet. The loss of his dear Grandma in the last few weeks and not being able to say his last goodbyes at her funeral, the sense of loss of missing out on seeing his kids go to their first days of school, and especially missing out on Rebekka’s 9th birthday, has taken its toll on Saeed.
It was too painful for him to see pictures of how much his baby girl had grown up since he last saw her, from the 5-year-old little girl to the 9-year-old young lady she has become. A different kind of maturity covered his baby girl’s face. A maturity that spoke of painful, tear-stained nights. The picture his family took to show Saeed told him of a girl who was trying to be strong and brave for her daddy. Many tears were shed and stories shared. So many stories that Saeed struggled to remember his babies and our family, memories that the prison walls were slowly stealing from him. So many new memories were trying to form about what the kids liked to do now and how they had changed over the years. Saeed tried hard to hold on to something to take back to the prison once the visit was over; something Rebekka said; or something Jacob did.
Saeed was told of the prayer vigils that are happening on September 26th, which marks his third anniversary in prison. Told that he was not forgotten. His face lit up and he was encouraged to hear that so many are praying for him. He was encouraged to know that a date that brought so much pain had become a day when Christians united together to pray for him and the persecuted church.
A stunning admission: Naghmeh Abedini recently claimed that Pastor Saeed was an abuser as well as user of pornography and that she was stepping away from the public temporarily.
Last week, Christianity Today reported that Naghmeh was stepping away from her advocacy for her imprisoned husband.
For the past three years Naghmeh Abedini has publicly battled her husband’s captors, advocating for his release from an Iranian jail.
Behind the scenes, she also struggled with his inner demons.
Last week, the emotional distress of doing both finally proved too much, she said.
In two emails to supporters, Abedini revealed details of her troubled marriage to Saeed Abedini, an American citizen and pastor imprisoned in Iran since September 2012.
Those troubles include “physical, emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse (through Saeed’s addiction to pornography),” she wrote. The abuse started early in their marriage and has worsened during Saeed’s imprisonment, she said. The two are able to speak by phone and Skype.
Touring the country to advocate for Saeed’s release while coping with marital conflict proved too much, she wrote. She told supporters she’s withdrawing from public life for a time of prayer and rest.
However, she asks everyone to still pray for his release.
Pastor Saeed supporters reacted with disbelief.
Many of Pastor Saeed's followers expressed both concern and doubt, even stating that this report was not true and questioning her motives. Julie Ann Smith asked an awesome question on Twitter. I did not take a screen shot but it went something like this.
"Why would you automatically believe a pastor in prison over his wife?"
Good question indeed and one that had me pondering for quite awhile.
Why did she wait until now to report this? The answer will most likely demonstrate why Strachanand CBMW is wrong about how the church responds to domestic violence.
In a post published today, Timothy Morgan at Religion News Services attempted to answer this question.
Why do evangelical women wait so long before reporting abuse?
Research shows that domestic abuse survivors in general are less likely to receive extensive public support through their local church. According to a 2014 poll from LifeWay Research, about two-thirds of Protestant pastors address domestic abuse from the pulpit once a year or less. Additional research from LifeWay found that only 25 percent of surveyed pastors consider abuse or sexual violence an issue within their congregation.
Once again, CBMW and Owen Strachan stick their heads in the sand, refusing to see what so many see. This is one reason why complementarianism will not capture the hearts of women because they do not see the plight of abused women (and let's not forget children) in the church.
The church's response to abuse is to make the woman feel ashamed for mentioning it.
“Many churches appropriately stress the importance of marriage and family, but some churches wrongly teach that a wife’s primary role in life is to protect their husband’s or family’s reputation,” said Holcomb, the Episcopal priest. “Because of this emphasis, those experiencing abuse in their relationship may feel ashamed because they believe they failed in their relationship,” Holcomb said.
Women in the church experience isolation and shame surrounding this abuse, despite what CBMW claims about their advocacy for women.
“Many who suffer domestic abuse feel lots of shame, are blamed by others, and do not tell anyone,” said Justin Holcomb, a Florida Episcopal priest and seminary professor who co-authored with his wife Lindsey “Is It My Fault? Hope and Healing for Those Suffering Domestic Violence.”
“Christian women, in particular, stay far longer in abusive situations and in more severe abuse than their non-Christian counterparts,” he added.
Sadly, according to Fox News, Naghmeh reported that this abuse has gone on even during the Skype conversations she has had with Saeed while he has been in prison.
She also spoke about "physical, emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse (through Saeed's addiction to pornography)," which, she disclosed, started in the early days of their marriage and increased during her husband's imprisonment in 2012 as they spoke on phone and Skype.
My take:
I believe Naghmeh. It is extremely difficult to admit to a marriage filled with abuse, particularly when the Christian world which is watching you and expecting you to be a "good wife." I believe that she reached the end of her emotional rope and could no longer keep up the charade. She is a courageous women in many, many ways.
I also believe that the evangelical church, and, in particular, complementarian churches (both Reformed and not) have stuck their heads in the sand for far too long. It is time to wake up and support the abused and stop pretending that the church has led in this area. When CBMW and Owen Strachan make unprovable statements, it is time to call them on it. I am waiting for Strachan and friends to release a statement that they support Naghmeh. I bet they side step this one, big time, like they have in the past.
#IBelieveNagemeh
*****
Here is Fix You By Coldplay sung by an elderly gentleman from Young@Heart. This group is becoming well known and I think you will see why. This elderly man died two years after this was recorded. Try to watch it without tears.
Adam Borsay wrote:
We all see the person of Jesus through our own experience and filters. Getting to know who he is is a lifelong pursuit. Husbands are to seek to love like Jesus which, I think, is a little different than to be like Jesus. This is also a lifelong pursuit and not something that can be accomplished.
Further, just because Paul mentions love in terms of the husband and respect in terms of the wife, why do we draw the conclusion that these are the sum and total for each? Maybe he mentioned what he was seeing as the most difficult for each. Or maybe it was spoken in terms of a need he perceived in that particular group. If we take the overall teaching of the NT, it’s clear that we are all to seek to love one another in a Christlike way and we are all to treat one another with respect.
Adam Borsay wrote:
This is no different than basing truth on tradition. While there might be truth in tradition it is certainly not the foundation for truth. Jesus spoke about the traditions of men. And sadly church history is chocked full of evil, blood, oppression, authoritarianism, ruling over people, etc, etc. Why would we appeal to that when we can appeal to the example of Jesus Christ.
numo wrote:
You may be right. I think a lot of worthwhile thoughts have been expressed in response, though, and I’ve been challenged and encouraged reading them.
Lydia wrote:
I am very grateful you do that, Lydia. When I had to go to court, someone came with me (accompanied and sat with me). I was so stripped that I doubt I could’ve done it alone.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
My experience when discussing this stuff with a lot of comps (not, so far, with JS specifically, but with others), is that they take any disagreement with their interpretation on what the Bible says as being disagreement with the Bible itself, or with God.
These sorts of gender comps seem to feel only a liberal feminist Democrat who hates men could possibly disagree with gender complementarianism.
Even though you reassure them 546 times over and six ways from Sunday that you’re someone who adheres to conservative biblical hermeneutics, you’re a registered Republican, and you’re someone who doesn’t care for like, 98% or ore of secular feminist views.
How many of you believe that the teaching of God-given callings of servant leadership and submission in marriage is a heresy and those who believe it risk their souls and the souls of others?
How many of you believe this teaching is in error but is a secondary issue of interpretation which may be held by sincere Christians (even if you believe they are wrong)?
How many of you believe this teaching is a secondary issue but because of the abuse that allegedly arises from believing these teachings it must be strongly opposed in the church?
If you believe an option different than these three, feel free to share as well.
Lydia wrote:
I feel like I can speak to this, somewhat. I grew up in a home with 2 very career-oriented parents. Our home was chaotic and no one was really there for us kids. I am older, our family was ahead of its time, but many young people today have grown up in a similar circumstance. The idea of a nurturing mother who is making the house a home, who is there for the needs of her children, is very attractive. It was for me. I think the problem that these younger people may not see until later is in someone defining for them that these roles are “the” right way to do marriage and deviation from them is less spiritual. As Christians, we have to continually guard against falling under law. It was for freedom that Christ set us free. We must not place our personal convictions into the canon of scripture.
Adam Borsay wrote:
@ Adam Borsay:
No concrete example of any couple in the NT exemplifying this headship/submit construct. What is it and how does it function? Only couple I can think of as an example of a married couple was, Priscilla and Aquila….they appear to be co heirs, co equals in ministry and probably, marriage.
Patrice wrote:
The abuse victims I have known need both time and skillful and wise support to understand what has happened to them and how to deal with it emotionally and legally.
dee wrote:
You are quite wrong in the assertion that I oppose you at every turn. Most of your articles I agree with and I applaud the exposure of abuse in the church. My opposition almost always arises from those times when you take a story not about a group of people and make it about a group of people through unfair association (and that group of people is of course the group associated with the YRR, with special emphasis on Piper, CBMW/Strachan, Dever and Mahoney). This is what I call Watching for Warts. It is not the good reporting you do on abuse scandals and the like, it is the attempt to connect dots where no connection can be proven and sometimes where no connection exists. That, and that alone, is Watching for Warts and that is what I almost always come on here to oppose. Inevitably comments escalate over my perceived defense of comp and the debate begins. But the guilt by association is what gets my foot in the door of the combox. I do not oppose you at every turn. Like Adam earlier, I admire what you do and most of the time I admire the way you do it.
@ Patrice:
When I can I prepare them talking points to stay on focus. So often the goal is to make her look like an emotional idiot.
Too many abused spouses won’t call the police until it has reached life or death proportions. And even then they feel guilty! They need to when any violence rears its head.
They need a documented trail. And yes, you are committed to the process when you call the police. Follow through. That is where we come in. We can lend moral support in the process.
Violence against others is not normal. But our society seems to think it is for some reason. I have often wondered if Piper would put up with being slapped around “for a season”.
The harder abuse to deal with is the emotional black OP manipulation abuse that does not have violence but cruelty.
Has anyone watched Home Fires on PBS? Some women in the show try to help a very emotionally abused woman cope. The woman is in denial about the abuse. It is interesting what women in that day and time are shown to do in order to help their friend who is in denial. That was back when women could not divorce except on grounds of adultery.
@ js:
I think it misses the larger more beautiful and consistent truths in scripture that are most important like wisdom and rescue, ignores the Holy Spirit while sadly inserting human mediators of a kind into the mix and stunts spiritual growth as it sends people in the opposite direction of Jesus Christ, unwittingly.
Ken wrote:
As I have suggested to you before, try researching some secular common Greek using Kephale and you will get a better idea of how it was used in that day and time.
You also miss the “head/body” metaphor in all its understanding.
@ js:
The doctrine of ESS used to support their idiotic equal but not equal is indeed a heresy, IMO. The issue is not only not secondary, but it is utterly irrelevant to the Gospel. If either position *is* a Gospel issue, it is the mutualist one because the essence of the Gospel is that Christ came to set us free from the curse of sin and made us all brothers and sisters in one body. I believe that Female Subordinationism is an error which must be strongly opposed in the church because it enables abusive males to hide with plausible cover and, though it does not actively promote abuse, it is abusive *in itself* because it denies married women and women in the church their full agency as human beings made in the complete (not derivative) image of God. But many of us have already said all of these things.
Where is it that male leadership is ordained? You have not specified that text but only asserted the truth of it.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I am, also, Adam. But I feel that you must compare Paul’s instruction to husbands and wives in this particular text to all of the instruction in the NT. When you see that we are all to submit to one another in the fear of Christ, what does it mean to say wives are to submit to their own husbands? When we see that we are all to love one another because love does no wrong to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law, what does it mean when a husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church? Why are these points singled out in this one passage for husbands and wives that are taught elsewhere more fully to apply to all believers? How is it meaningful to tell each only a particular point out of all of the teachings of Christ? You have to put Paul’s words here into perspective of all that has been written.
To give an example of how I see it, suppose that I have a young son and daughter that I am leading in Christ’s teachings (love one another, etc). Suppose that one day my daughter teases my son and treats him rudely and that he responds in an angry, unloving way. I might admonish my daughter to respect her brother and remind my son to love his sister as Jesus loves us. Now, should my son and daughter define their relationship by those statements alone from then on? Should my daughter see her relationship with her brother to be mainly one of respecting him and should my son see his relationship with his sister to be mainly one of loving her?
No, my words to each are true, but they were given as a reminder in the context of the whole of what I am teaching them and in response to a particular situation. They are true words but they must be placed within the context of the whole teaching.
js wrote:
I would take this statement and reword it to fit my thinking.
I believe that this thinking has contributed to the abuse of women in the church.` I believe a fair number of pastors do not recognize it as a problem and therefore make light of the issue. I believe that need to stress abuse issues just as much or even more than their homosexuality tirades.
I believe that it is legitimate to believe what you want so long as it does not lead to the abuse of others. However, when something does lead to the abuse of others then one must look into why what is being conveyed leads to abusive behavior.
That is precisely what I am also doing with church discipline.
Ken wrote:
You have indeed missed scholarly evidence which demonstrates that “authority” is not the best meaning of “head” in Ephesians. It most often means the head on top of one’s neck. Context determines meaning, and there is no clobber verse where the reading of “source” or “one who goes before” is not at least as plausible as “authority.” I argue that the totality of the evidence of the Bible is that there is no hierarchy within the body of Christ. You also must demonstrate that Paul’s words are not descriptive (the man is head of the woman) rather than prescriptive (the man must be the authority over the woman.)
@ siteseer:
Such a helpful illustration. Thank you for making the issue so clear.
@ js:
I believe that indeed it is a secondary issue. Generally, I have a live and let live feeling towards those who believe this as long as they don’t feel the need to shove their beliefs down other people’s throats.
However, it is no longer a secondary issue when the pushers of this doctrine say that doing it their way is tied up so tightly with the gospel that those who don’t do it their way probably aren’t even saved and sure as heck don’t respect Scripture.
When the pushers of the gender gospel come at others with scriptures taken out of context, claiming the Bible clearly lays out their doctrine, then I push back. Because their version of the gospel, their ‘gender gospel’ is not supported by scripture more than an egalitarian take on the scripture. For all their ranting and raving and threatening and pleading, the Scriptural support just isn’t there.
Using the clobber verses piled upon one another while ignoring all the rest of the Bible (including the words of Jesus Himself) makes for a house of cards doctrine that is destructive to marriages, families, and even the most basic levels of faith in believers.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
JS is trying to say there is nothing wrong with gender comp teachings, it’s only with the people who imperfectly carry out said teaching, a view which is common among comps and is addressed in pages such as-
No True Complementarian Fallacy
http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html
And in the Nate Sparks blog page entitled “Not All Comps”
numo wrote:
She has voluntarily been a guest on a lot of Christian television programming, such as The 700 Club, to make pleas on behalf of her husband. Which I’m not blaming her for, but I don’t think her exploitation by Christian media is completely one-sided. I think she was trying to benefit from them as well.
I don’t blame her if she wants out from it, though.
Daisy wrote:
The logical conclusion to this is Gothard’s disgraceful “umbrella” theology and we all know how that worked out…
siteseer wrote:
Another funny thing just crossed my mind about this.
For everyone who makes appeals to lead how Jesus led (when discussing this in the context of marriage), Jesus was a never-married, celibate adult. 🙂
@ okrapod:
As I said above, this is some of the very sort of reasoning that makes sexual assault or DV victims very hesitant to come forward.
Even after 10 – 20 years and 20 or more women came forward to say actor Billy Cosby assaulted them, there was intense denial and skepticism of these claims.
As to Christians in particular:
The BG (Billy Graham) rule marginalizes single adult women and tells married men to stay away from single women, something Jesus did not do.
Jesus even associated with women of what was considered questionable moral backgrounds in his day (including prostitutes), in spite of all the Pharisee tut-tutting about that.
Jesus is to be a man’s example there, not Billy Graham.
Daisy wrote:
So true. Way too much is made of “marriage.” Paul used it as a simple metaphor and many have turned it (marriage) into a god.
@ Adam Borsay:
One of the things I think you may be overlooking in your understanding of Paul’s commentary on marriage is that he was addressing people in a different culture from our own, with their own peculiar cultural understandings of women, marriage, and gender roles.
What Paul wrote was not necessarily applicable to every single married person in the USA or other nations in the year 2015.
When Paul wrote affected what he wrote.
This is yet another way of approaching some of those same biblical texts-
Proposed Model for Egalitarians: An Honest Tension
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/10/27/a-proposed-model-for-egalitarians/
@ Adam Borsay:
Also, I gave you a link to this on page 1 of this thread late afternoon or whenever, I don’t know if you saw it:
Clergy Responses to Domestic Violence
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/clergy-responses-domestic-violence?page=show
Gram3 wrote:
Yes and certainly true for me. It takes a number of people to help put a shredded self back together (or together for the first time, if also abuse from childhood). Much too draining for one helper.
Also true, the tremendous gratitude a survivor continues to feel towards their helpers long afterwards, when getting on with their lives.
Daisy wrote:
At least that is what tradition tell us. But if we totally reject all tradition, then we really don’t know.
@ Chrstina:
Those are good points. I’ve noticed that before, too. Complementarianism harms men too, in other ways than it does women (but also in some of the same ways).
When God said in Genesis the woman would turn to the husband, he said that meaning it as a warning, it would be a BAD thing.
God was saying after the fall, the tendency of a lot of women would be to look to MEN (a husband) to get their needs met, rather than rely on GOD, and that many men would exploit this tendency to control and abuse women.
God does not want women looking only to a husband primarily to get their identity or meaning, or to their needs met for several reasons, one of which is that it produces something the biblical text calls a “fear of man,” and it makes the husband into a deity or messiah figure (it becomes Idolatry).
I’ve had platonic female friends look to me in such a fashion – they are emotionally troubled and wanted me to rescue them. I would imagine this is how some of these women approach their husbands, and they are encouraged to do this in comp theology.
The husbands in such marriages must find it exhausting and stressful to try to be the Savior, Jesus-figure to a perpetually hurting or emotionally needy wife.
(But then you have the abusive men who are great with it, because such women tend to be easier to control and exploit.)
@ Daisy:
True, but sovial presdure is likely a motivating factor as well.
And she’s not responsible for the social media stuff that has been posted and re-posted by others. It all reminds me of “Kony 2012.”
Daisy wrote:
i know right?
I think it furthers our point that husbands who are ‘Christlike’ don’t wield ever-lovin’ authority, but rather offer sacrificial love.
We have to try harder not to stretch metaphors until they break.
Teshuqah is used 3 times in the OT. Eve would teshuqah her husband. Sin was teshuqah Cain. And the husband in Song of Solomon teshuqah his wife.
Those uses of the word do not seem identical to me. One source said that the original word source meant longing. Sounds reasonable.
dee wrote:
If the scenario were reversed, and you were a doctor on call in the middle of the night, would comps teach that your husband should wake up for you and prepare you coffee, and what not?
The continual, relenting emphasis by gender complementarians on wifely submission bothers me.
Complementarians do not harp on, “Men, love your wife as Christ loves the church” near as often.
they only times comps bring up the “men love your wife” verse is only in defense of “well, yes, women are to submit, but hey, it’s all good, because the man must love her like Christ loves the church.”
That verse about ‘husband, love your wife’ holds no real value in and of itself for most comps I have seen, other than acting as an apologetic for their position, a counter argument or rebuttal device to those who reject complementarianism.
Nor do gender comps hammer men with, “Men, how can you meet the needs of your wife?” near as often as they fixate on telling women, “Women you must submit.”
And, many comps further take the “women submit” stuff to mean, “you must meet the man’s needs, yours don’t matter. Your husband gets to rule over you, like a boss with an employee.”
Yes, I have heard of comp preachers who do remind men in the audience to be loving to their wives, but the sheer mountain volume of emphasis is not nearly as hard, insistent, or often, as concerning the male preachers who go on and on in their sermons, blogs, and books, screaming at women to submit, submit, submit.
If you have to brow beat, shame, or guilt trip an entire gender into submitting to the other gender, it’s not really submission, is it?
Biblical submission is to be a voluntary act, done out of love, but complementarians regularly present submission in such a way they make it sound mandatory and compulsory for wives / women.
When Christians (and it’s usually men, seems to me) demand wives submit, then the submission they are discussing really ceases to be submission and becomes forced servitude.
Gram3 wrote:
You rail against clobber verses then demand prooftexting.
Nancy2 wrote:
I hate to be a broken record, but here again, where do such teachings leave never-married / single, widowed, or divorced women?
Women do not need a man to interpret the Bible for them just on basis of being born the female gender.
To suggest at this stage, as some comps might, that I, a never married women, would then need to skip on over to a local church-
And find myself a ‘Daddy Figure’ from among a male preacher, male church elder, etc, in order to help me spiritually grow is very condescending, but it’s also a concept that is not in the Bible (why couldn’t I, a single woman, turn to a woman Christian friend for this purpose?, see Titus 2:3-5 type passages).
If single women don’t need a man to spiritually lead them (and they really do not – Christian single women have the Holy Spirit residing in them as well), it does not follow that a married woman needs one for these purposes.
js wrote:
In the past, I saw it as a secondary issue and respected those who held it. As the fruit of it is becoming more obvious, I am seeing it as an issue that has caused tremendous harm and must be addressed.
How much hypocrisy has it produced? How much abuse and sexual sin has it nurtured in its bosom? How much pride has it tempted men to fall into? How many believers have been sidetracked into following it as an end in itself, as opposed to following Jesus? How many children have abandoned Christianity altogether because of the misery of growing up with it? How many women who grew up under it have been left unprepared for life and in desperate and dependent circumstances? How has the teaching progressed to further and further extremes? Extremes which mainly endanger women and children, btw.
Once the “roles” for men and women were defined as different, the natural progression has kept rolling along, defining in further detail. It’s no longer enough to respect your husband, his word must be law and you must cover up for his errors and failures, you must bear one child after another until you either die or your body gives out, and if you are truly spiritual and want to do it “right” you will birth your babies at home and risk your own and your baby’s lives, and so on…
I see it as having turned off the main road onto a bypath at the beginning of defining different roles and that bypath leading further and further away from the main path, into a world of its own. The fact that some stop along the way and don’t progress to the extremes doesn’t invalidate the fact that it is a bypath.
js wrote:
I think she, like myself and others, are asking you to defend your interpretations of said “clobber verses” and to explain and defend the logical out-workings of your interpretations in the real lives of women.
It’s easy to keep this stuff in the abstract in a discussion on a blog when you yourself are not being negatively impacted by these interpretations in your daily life, as women are.
@ okrapod:
Here is the history of the translation for Genesis 3:
http://godswordtowomen.org/teshuqa_chart.pdf
chart covers Gen 4 and Song of Songs.
Here is one lesson from Bushnell on the matter worth reading but there are more:
http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2017.htm
Daisy wrote:
But that happens. I’ve seen several comp couples in which the wife’s entire identity is dependant upon the husband. I know a lady who is now in her upper 90s. Her husband was a preacher who died more than 30 years ago, but this woman still bases her entire identity on her deceased husband. She still introduces herself as pastor-so-and-so’s wife.
I’ve seen young wives break down in tears over decisions their husbands make because they are so afraid of the impact those decisions will have on their children. Yet, the wives won’t say anything to their husbands because they feel they will be overstepping their boundaries.
dee wrote:
But surely you do not want to eliminate church discipline altogether, you just want it to be done with less abuse and with a view toward reconciliation rather than punishment.
Why can I not say the same thing about comp without the No True Scotsman argument being thrown up (by others, not you)? I can believe the comp position while acknowledging the need for reform among people who hold the position. I don’t want to throw the comp position away because some people abuse it any more than I want to do away with church discipline because some people abuse it.
And there’s another common thread church discipline and comp share . . . we give a lot more time to discussing them than the Bible does. I am guilty there. The give and take and responding to comments makes me seem to put much more priority on comp than I do in everyday life. I don’t see it as a gospel issue. I don’t condemn those who believe differently than I. Let each one be convinced by their own study of Scripture and dependence on the Holy Spirit. I personally would not lose sleep if CBMW and CBE ceased to exist tomorrow morning. That would not bother me in the least. They should have the right to exist but I don’t think either organization is necessary to rescue the church from some slippery slope.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I bet. Having to constantly make choices and decisions for yourself can be tiring and overwhelming at times.
Sometimes a cage seems more comfortable than being a free range bird.
Daisy wrote:
Flag Ken said wifely submission is a commandment.
js wrote:
There is a big difference between using clobber verses and legitimately using proof texting. If you don’t know the difference, perhaps our conversation should start there instead of some of these other places you want to run off to.
Daisy wrote:
The primary texts are Ephesians 5, Colossians 3 and 1 Peter 3. The detailed exegesis of those texts have been long established on both sides. There are arguments about the word “head” in Ephesians for example which are scholarly, exegetical arguments which can support both views.
How can I possibly defend the outworkings of the position in the lives of real women, when I don’t know the details of any given situation. I believe too many here are quick to lay the blame at comp teachings when any number of other factors may be to blame. Further, by focusing your ire mainly at comp teachers to begin with, other avenues of abuse are somewhat minimized, so that even if other factors were discovered there would likely be little attention paid to them because the narrative here is so established that deviation from that narrative is very unlikely. A few months ago I did a quick web search entitled “pastor arrested.” In five minutes I found all kinds of crimes committed by pastors of all different stripes. Sexual crimes, abuse, DUI, the whole thing. I don’t believe the problem of abuse begins and ends at Owen Strachan’s door.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I don’t think that’s a completely fair way to put it.
It just may be that some of the things Paul wrote are not entirely applicable to our culture today.
Paul also wrote instructions to slaves on how to be wonderful, obedient slaves to their masters. Most Americans today would say forced slavery is immoral.
Do you think people should be held as slaves in 2015 because Paul told slaves in a letter to a church 2,000 years ago to obey their masters (he also told slaves in another letter to seek their freedom if possible).
Just because Paul gave instructions to folks in one culture 2,000 years ago to be good slaves does not necessarily mean
1. God likes slavery, 2. God designed slavery or that 3. slavery is morally acceptable today, or in any era
– maybe only means that Paul was navigating moral concerns in his culture as it was at the time.
Even if your view is that the biblical texts were being pro-patriarchal, it may be that God did not want or intend for things to stay that way, that treating women in that time frame was not something to be carried over into the year 2015.
This page explains that idea further:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/10/27/a-proposed-model-for-egalitarians/
Nancy2 wrote:
“Fear” is the operative word here, really, in every example you’ve cited.
Mara wrote:
I don’t use clobber verses. I am not here to shut down anyone’s views. The criticism of proof-texting has been used many times by commenters here, yet it is what is demanded in this case. I will not give in to it because it simply sets off an endless stream of supposedly clarifying questions from one side to the other which goes on in an endless debate.
@ okrapod:
My last comment is in moderation but I think you will also find these additional links interesting at the very least:
http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2016.htm
http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2018.htm
js wrote:
No. She requests consistent hermeneutics.
js wrote:
She doesn’t do that either. Those are your harsh words.
Mara wrote:
You have criticized some comps for making comp a gospel issue and questioning the salvation of others and their respect for Scripture. Then you go on to do that very thing to comps when you say, “Using the clobber verses piled upon one another while ignoring all the rest of the Bible (including the words of Jesus Himself) makes for a house of cards doctrine that is destructive to marriages, families, and even the most basic levels of faith in believers.” Can you explain to me how you did not just question the scriptural acumen and salvation of those who hold the comp position? If you did, you are just as guilty of making it a gospel issue as anyone at CBMW.
Bridget wrote:
The endless “show me the text” meme becomes railing by its repetition, in my opinion.
js wrote:
CBMW exists for that very reason – to rescue the church/the Gospel from the slippery slope of Egalitarianism.
@ js:
You are beginning to sound like John Knox, with his fulminating against a monstrous regiment of women (his words, not mine).
js wrote:
1 Peter is written in light of this context:
11 Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. 12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
He is writing to those living with and around Pagans and how they should conduct themselves within that environment. If slavery change change to equality then……..?
Same with Colossians which also directs slaves to obey. But in another place Paul says this:
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
Believers are to be the kingdom. Sadly, more believers did not work to free slaves but preached it as “scriptural”. But there were some who were abolitionists and understood that owning another human was sinful and oppressive.
Paul nor Peter were about demanding cultural changes. Think of Pauls begging of Philemon. Oni could have been put to death as a runaway as was the law. But Paul said to treat him like a brother in Christ.
js wrote:
I think you misread what she said. She questioned no ones salvation. She was saying how those accusations have been levied at men and women who don’t don’t hold ti the comp position.
@ Mara:
So, I guess after this fruitful discussion, I can sum up my impressions as this:
Some view Paul’s statements as particular advice to particular people under particular circumstances. Some view them as a formula for marriage.
I believe that once one accepts the formula view, one has reduced relationship to formula and has stepped off the beaten path. I believe this view progresses to dehumanizing individuals.
Gram3 wrote:
I’ve been re-reading some of the comments here. Not all because there are just TOO many! 😉 Anyway. Gram3 this is an excellent observation that you have made regarding CBMW comp. doctrine. The woman, regardless of her gifts, skills, and talents, is always subject to the final decision of her husband. If she has a better understanding of how finances work, but her husband disagrees with views as to how the household finances should be run, then he gets to make the decisions. The same goes for any other area of life that the couple share, from raising the children, to choice of which church to attend, to how the house should be decorated and furnished, and on and on it goes. Yes, I realize that comps and pats will say that the husband – *if* – he is reflecting Christ will consider her opinions – but that scenario often does not work itself out. As in – ME MAN, you woman = I have the final say as MAN. It makes absolutely no common sense.
And that is why I heard an absurd teaching from Elizabeth Elliot once that went like this: She said that if a wife knows that her husband is foolish with money and he is going to make a very unwise investment in buying an automobile that will not last and will put the household into financial jeopardy – the wife should pray about the situation but not speak to her husband or warn him since that is not her place as a wife. Then if after praying about the situation should her husband still choose to make the unwise investment, pray that God humbles him through his foolish decision. Meanwhile, the family goes into debt, their credit suffers, and who else knows what repercussions ensue because the wife chose to be silent and not use the wisdom God gave her to prevent such a financial debacle. So God gives the wife wisdom only for her to suppress it because husband is called to make all the final decisions about everything. And to think women seriously followed Elizabeth Eliot’s advice due to the influence she has had within large swaths of Evangelicalism!
Lydia wrote:
I agree with much of what you say here but we disagree about a clear link between the social dynamics of slavery and marriage. Since I don’t see the God-given callings to husband and wife establishing a situation of inferiority I do not see comp marriage as equal to slavery. The NT words to husbands about gentleness and sacrificial love are counter-cultural but they are not intended to be a doing away with all God-given callings in marriage.
Adam Borsay wrote:
The idea of “plain reading” bothers me, because what we are reading is a translation. And as my translator friends tell me, all translation involves interpretation. And we are reading with western lenses, a western mindset that is very different.
Technically, since we don’t have any original manuscripts, we are reading a translation of a reconstruction of inspired scriptures. Unless we go the route of the KJV Only crowd, and claim that the translation was also inspired.
We have friends who have moved overseas to translate the Bible into native languages. She is more proficient in Hebrew, and he knows a lot of Greek. (The baby is working on English.). They have had to wrestle with many of these issues, and the insights they have into the Scriptures are amazing, far deeper than one could get from the plain reading. Can someone find God by the plain reading of the Bible? Absolutely. But there is so much to learn from scholars who understand the original languages.
I will bow out here. I appreciate the thoughts many of you have shared. I have read some of the articles linked. I will try to get to read some of the others which have been posted. While I believe bias works very strongly on this issue in all directions, I will try to seek the truth in Scripture and believe what I see there. I respect the Deebs and consider those of you who claim to be Christians my sisters and brothers in the Lord.
Gram3 wrote:
Good questions, Gram! Logically speaking, because the husband ALWAYS has the final say in EVERYTHING – although he takes her opinions into account – it is HE that determines the definition of flourishing. It is HE that determines the definition of dysfunction. The bare bones facts are that comp/pat teachings take away the voice of a wife and silence her. “Oh no, that isn’t true!”, the comp/pat wife will say. “My husband allows me to give my opinion and he considers it. Sometimes he even agrees with my views and takes that into consideration when making decisions.” But the fact is, this is exactly how a relationship works between parents and children. If the wife thinks she has a voice in the decision making, she is sadly deceived. Because the husband, due to his God-given authority in the comp-pat marriage has the right to decide if the wife has a voice. She must trust him always and in everything, even if her wisdom, knowledge, and common sense tell her otherwise. And this is why Complementarianism and Patriarchy don’t honor women – because they are silenced by the husband at his choosing.
js wrote:
That is interesting, since you can’t see her facial expressions or hear her tone of voice. I would think those would be needed to determine of one is “railing” or not.
“International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
RAIL; RAILING; RAILER,
ral, ral’-ing, ral’-er: To “rail” on (in modern usage “against”) anyone is to use insolent or reproachful language toward one. It occurs in the Old Testament as the translation of charaph (2 Chronicles 32:17, “letters to rail on Yahweh”), and of `it (1 Samuel 25:14, of Nabal, “he railed at them,” the English Revised Version “flew upon them,” margin “railed on”). In the New Testament “to rail” is the translation of blasphemeo (Mark 15:29 Luke 23:39; “railing,” 1 Timothy 6:4 2 Peter 2:11 Jude 1:9). The word loidoria, rendered railing” in 1 Peter 3:9 the King James Version, is in the Revised Version (British and American) “reviling,” and loidoros, “railor,” in 1 Corinthians 5:11 is in the Revised Version (British and American) “reviler.”
Strong language to use toward Gram.
Nancy2 wrote:
Someone else can correct me if I am wrong on this.
But didn’t at least one of Paul’s letters go to a church that was based in a city where there was a pagan cult based on the idea that women were superior to men, and so that husbands should unilaterally submit to their wives?
I think those pagans based that view in part on the idea that woman was created first, then man was created next, or from the first woman?
That’s why Paul went into a spiel about no, Adam was created first, then Eve, but either there, or in another letter, he goes on to say it’s a circle anyway, so it’s all moot-
The first woman came from man, but all men after that come from women, and the Messiah was born of a woman, so, Paul seems to conclude from all this that neither gender has a right to trump to the other, “My gender came first, so I get to rule over you!”
siteseer wrote:
Sort of, but not really. Some say there are no hard and fast rules for what this marriage looks like – that would entail being legalistic.
So why not let each husband and wife come to a conclusion as to what submission, leadership, headship (a word? much less a concept) looks like iin their marriage. Why say complementariansim is the Biblical way?
js wrote:
Many Christians are “sola scriptura” or at the very least believe one should respect the written word, so it’s not unreasonable for them to want to see, where, in the Bible, your position is laid out.
If you cannot prove your position from the biblical text, you are basically asking others here to just take your word for things, that God “designed” for wives to “be led” by a husband.
That’s your opinion, and I guess you are welcome to it, but because it has no basis in Scripture, it is not a binding doctrine on other Christians. It’s your personal preference is all.
Darlene wrote:
Mind you, the wife could be much more biblical in these areas than her husband and she is still to submit to his determination.
Adam Borsay wrote:
So, you are okay with any and all forms of slavery, even today, then?
Because Paul includes instructions to letters to churches 2,000 years ago telling slaves to be obedient to their masters.
White Americans in the USA, up until the late 19th century, felt it okay to hold black people as slaves against their will.
You have ISIS holding slave auctions, where girls /women are sold for sexual purposes.
Dozens of ISIS sex slaves have killed themselves to escape
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3269246/Dozens-ISIS-sex-slaves-killed-escape-rape-torture-reveals-smuggler-s-devoted-life-rescuing-girls-sold-like-animals.html
Bridget wrote:
Women believers are also called to emulate Jesus. I’m with you on that 🙂 I don’t think only husbands are called to imitate Christ.
Complementarians often expect Christian women who are married to Christian men to still “submit” to a Christian husband who is abusive, even though the husband is acting more like Haman, the Devil, or Judas Iscariot, and not like Jesus.
js wrote:
Where and what are these God- given callings in marriage.
@ Darlene:
Ah Yes, Eliz Elliott. The woman who did not take her second husbands last name and taught men all the time. I have also heard the one about two heads being a freak so the wife turns the neck. (teaching her to be a manipulator?)
But if head means authority then a wife DOES have two “heads” if she is a believer. Christ as her head and her husband as her head. Something is not adding up.
@ Bridget:
If only there were more wise older couples at churches who would make that point. So many churches are comp driven that it becomes hard to find one that does not focus on this in the couples classes and men/women ministries. Perhaps that CBMW database is a start to warn folks where not to go! :o)
Daisy wrote:
P.s. Something just dawned on me.
This is another ‘bait and switch’ of gender complementarianism.
Gender comps sell and market gender comp to women as, “You will LOVE submitting to your Christian husband, because he will be like Jesus to you!!”
Okay, but what of occasions where the husband acts abusive and not like Jesus? The gender comp preachers will quite often still tell women in these situations to submit to the guy anyway and tell them divorce is forbidden.
If I’m an abused wife, I was promised, by the comps, a husband like Jesus, who will cherish and love me, but then, if I get an abusive husband, the comps tell me, “Too bad, you’re stuck with him / the marriage.”
That is really over-selling comp marriage, and it’s high misleading to women. It’s false advertising.
js wrote:
I simply do not understand why you cling to “God-given callings” for marriage. Marriage is an ongoing intimate relationship between 2 people. Why would there need to be a leader when there are only 2 people? It makes no sense to me.
Your insistence feels like fear of losing control, js. But that is what love is about. It takes the risk to become vulnerable to another. And if it is a good love well-reciprocated, it offers back strength and stability, in spades.
GSD wrote:
Bingo.
Also, the idea of “plain reading” means women are saved by bearing children!
Gram3 wrote:
A certain Doug Wilson said that slavery in the United States wasn’t all that bad because the slaves were well taken care of by their masters and there was an amicable (not sure that was the exact word he used but something like it) relationship between master and slave. Interestingly enough, many comp/pat wives speak about having to suppress their opinions and be quiet and submissive in order to respect their husbands. Such a marriage relationship becomes play-acting where the wife is not true to herself or her husband. This unnatural suppressing of her mind, thinking, opinions, voice, etc., causes her to become someone that is artificial and fake.
My husband appreciates me – the REAL me. He appreciates my gifts, talents and skills as I do his. Our marriage is a partnership in which we recognize the abilities of each other and both equally contribute to the up-building and encouragement of each other’s faith. Such was not always the case. There was a time when our marriage operated very much like a patriarchal one. He would tell me to “shut up” and I would. It got to where I didn’t even know that was disrespectful and unkind toward me because of how we were both taught about the “wife’s place” in marriage. Then one day our then 5 year old daughter said to her Daddy, “Daddy, you shouldn’t tell Mommy to shut up. That isn’t right and it is unkind.” Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings! From that point on I wouldn’t passively accept being told to “shut up.” And that began our trek out of Patriarchy. All of our friends and family saw the change in us and commented about how much healthier our marriage became as we left that false view behind. I cannot even begin to tell you how liberating it was for both me and my husband. He actually is married to a woman he is actually equal to now and doesn’t have to put on fronts and suppress her true self in Christ. Not some sort of equal in worth but not actually, i.e. separate but equal fallacy. What I was before was half child and half woman. It was only after being released from Patriarchy that I saw it for what it was – a very flawed system that suppresses women.
*And by the way, at that time, Complementarianism wasn’t even a word and we never had even heard of Patriarchy. Nonetheless, we operated under the same system.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
By the way, according to at least one gender comp guy who sometimes visits this blog, it’s “liberal” (and hence wrong) for any one to consider the milieu or time frame in which the biblical text was written, to interpret or understand the text.
Even though conservative Christian authors, apologists, and theologians use this approach all the time.
You’re supposed to ignore the original author’s purpose and intent in writing whatever they wrote in the Bible, according to this one gender comp who visits here, even though that view is a facet of post-modernism, and was widely criticized and rejected by conservative Christian apologists a lot about 10 to 15 years ago.
@ Gram3:
Gram3…there is a difference between regular pornography and child pornography. One is illegal the other is an industry that pays taxes to the state in the process. Not that it makes it good…but adult porn is vastly different than child porn.
@ js:
You keep saying “God given callings” as if we are discussing the Law. Are you substituting “calling” for role? It comes off that way. It would be like me saying God given mutuality every. single. comment.
You are framing it as if there are roles God demands in marriage. I don’t think God has to demand women be the ones who bear children. That is how it works.
Beside that, what on earth are you suggesting? I have been doing this for a long time and one question I always ask comps is to give me every day examples of the God ordained “roles” outside of the biological. They shy away from this. Because once comp doctrine enters the practical realm, it falls like a house of cards because it becomes silly. In this day and time they cannot even claim that God ordained me to be the only breadwinner. It sounds ridiculous to say God demands men lead family prayer. Or that the wife must agree with the husbands interpretation of scripture. Comp doctrine does not take a husbands possible incapacitation into consideration. I have seen that myself with couples in comp churches. He pretty much ends up feeling like a worthless piece of junk because he knows he is not “leading”. Whatever that is.
It needs to stay in the platitude realm of vague to be accepted. Because when it gets down on a practical level, most marriages operate egal and play comp at church. That really bothered Russ Moore a while back. He felt comps were wimps and we needed more Patriarchy.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
If Jesus is off the menu for Christian wives, then in Christian marriages, women get to emulate any one of the follower, per their personal preference, I guess:
(a.) Darth Vader (b.) Oscar the Grouch (c.) Peter the Apostle (d.) Smurfette (e.) Xena, Warrior Princess
Gram3 wrote:
Bingo, bingo, bingo! By the very definition of submission according to comp/pat doctrine, if the wife sees the definition of flourishing – or anything else for that matter – differently than her husband – she MUST defer to her husband’s view and opinion. Even if he is wrong! And this submission to a falsehood, or a wrong view, or a foolish decision, is supposed to be God-honoring in these circles!
Lydia wrote:
Too, ‘because of the angels’…
The Bible is a compendium of books written by ~40 authors, spanning ~1600 years, the most recent of which was written a little less than 2000 years ago. I don’t see how one can accurately derive the truths in it by on-the-face plain reading.
But that doesn’t, at all, mean that truths can’t be found. A great number of principles can be garnered through wise reading. Moreover, it has amazing poetry and wild stories. The prophets are irreducible in their warnings against human arrogance and greed. And its central jewel is the story of Christ, the most magnificent true tale evah. And the initial workings out of the implications of Jesus’ work are simply fascinating.
All that can be taken by respecting it for what it is: a bunch of texts set inside various ancient cultures, talking about God and His people.
We needn’t be afraid that we will lose God because we stop treating he Bible as magical. God is where the miracles lie. God is the Purpose, the Beginning-and-End, the All-in-All, the I-Am-Who-I-Am.
So, my perspective differs from Gram3 rather a lot, but I’d be honored to go to Gram3’s house and wash her feet. That’s because, in the end, it’s not inerrancy that drives me away from positions such as Adam’s and js’. It is the need for authority over others that I find repellent, and in all of Gram3’s comments, I’ve seen no sign of that in her.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, there are those in the comp/pat camp who will – to be consistent – assign certain gender roles for both husband and wife. Lori Alexander (Always Learning blog) is one of those who do this. Just go over to her blog and you will see the absurdity of some of her views. Wives are called to home-school. Wives are called to cook all the meals. Wives are called to clean house and have sex with their husbands whenever he wants it. (It’s assumed women just plain don’t like sex or find it unpleasant most of the time – lol!) Wives are not called to express their opinions to their husbands about his wrong behavior. Husbands are called to be bread winners always and in all circumstances. Husbands are to lead their wives in all areas of their life including prayer, bible reading, how the children are taught and raised, what the standard of clean should be in the house, how the wife should dress, and the list goes on and on. Playing house is what I call it. Just like kids used to do when they were little. Dress up and play acting. Christian stepford wives and husbands!
Daisy wrote:
Prostitutions was common in Corinth. Ephesus was the center of worship for Diana and was the legendary city of Amazonian women. But, by the time Paul came along, Ephesus was under Roman rule, and it was a weird mixture of beliefs and practices.
Bridget wrote:
Doug Phillips who was big into patriarchal and comp marriages was also into this Titanic male chivalry stuff, and it didn’t prevent him from harassing his 15 year old girl nanny, Lourdes.
Christian giant [Doug Phillips] sued for ‘using nanny as sex object’
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/pastor-accused-of-using-nanny-as-sex-object-2/
You can find references to Phillips’ love of Titantic lore on other sites, and his quaint notions of men sacrificing themselves to save women. I’m not sure if the WND page documents that, but it is on other sites.
Male chivalry seems mostly dead and gone anymore anyway. Do a search for the phenomenon of “manspreading,” especially in regards to New York City subways or buses.
@ Daisy:
Oh also, no. I just saw a big, long article a couple of weeks ago about how terribly Victorian era culture, especially men, treated women who got pregnant out of wedlock.
Let me see if I can find that page again. Men back in the “good old days” did not treat women well at all. I think this is the page:
When unmarried mothers were blamed for everything
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/art/what-to-see/jeanette-winterson-unmarried-mothers-children-foundling-museum/
Snippet:
—–
The Fallen Woman, an exhibition at the Foundling Museum curated by social historian Linda Nead, is a story in images and objects of how Victorian England inflated the Christian stereotype of Woman as weak and without moral judgment, and then filled this dangerous bubble with gendered notions of purity, fear of female sexuality, and political propaganda against women’s independence from men.
A woman who had a baby out of wedlock was a social outcast. Her child was a bastard. To make this clear, the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act introduced Bastardy Clauses that made it harder and more humiliating for single mothers to obtain benefits
Darlene wrote:
Does 501c3 exempt these husbands from having to pay property taxes on their wives and daughters?
js wrote:
Actually, I have repeatedly asked for evidence. If that evidence is in one verse, then at least produce that verse. If it is in more than one verse or if you can make a cumulative case, then make your case. So far, you have made assertions which we are supposed to accept just because you said it, I suppose. Where is any indication whatsoever of hierarchy in the first two chapters of Genesis? If we don’t know about hierarchy until Ephesians, a whole lot of folks were in a whole heap o’ trouble before the middle of the first century. How was the Gospel “pictured” or modeled between Jesus’ resurrection and Ephesians?
Assertion is not an argument.
Friend wrote:
js wrote:
JS: You say that both husband and wife “have a real and legitimate voice in the relationship.” – and this is where I think you are misled, more than likely because you as a husband are unable or unwilling to see the position that the wife is placed in under the doctrine of Complementarianism/Patriarchy. The ONLY reason a wife has a voice is because the husband ALLOWS her to have a voice. That voice can be silenced by the husband whenever he so chooses to silence it. Therefore, she has no agency of her own. Whatever freedom she has to speak is contingent upon whether or not her husband gives her that freedom. There is no equal in worth in this scenario. It is, as many have said, the same as it was for the blacks in this country under the “separate but equal clause.”
@ GSD:
I agree with everything you said in that post.
numo wrote:
Though Knox changed his tune FAST when Elizabeth I came to the throne and Knox became her subject.
Nancy2 wrote:
Property taxes are usually on Real Property (i.e. Land Ownership), not Personal Property.
Daisy wrote:
One “veddy veddy” Godly Jerk with a Kirk in Moscow ID says so.
js wrote:
FWIW, the most recent case of spousal abuse I have learned of personally has nothing whatsoever to do with religion of any kind. Abuse is a sin issue, not a theological issue. HOWEVER, a sound theological system would not provide a place for any type of abuse to hide. And, as I have said so many times, the hierarchical dogma is abusive in itself, regardless of how people live it out. This is something to which you are inexplicably blind. Perhaps because you are a pastor and a male. The hierarchical system works well for you, so why shouldn’t you pass by on the other side of the road?
Nancy2 wrote:
Adam Borsay was also arguing strogly in favor of the ‘Plain Reading’ of Scripture in another post or two on here.
I’m a virgin woman, never married past 40 years of age. I’ll be hitting menopause one of these days, so what to make of this, how do I apply this to myself or women like me:
1 Timothy 2:15:
15 But women will be saved through childbearing –if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
———
Adam B, according to you, though I accepted Christ as Savior as a kid, I am still doomed in the after life, because I’ve never given birth. I cannot be saved through childbearing, because I’ve never bore a child.
Nancy2 wrote:
On the husband’s end, that sounds like a recipe for “perpetual kid in a toy store”.
When Joaquin Phoenix was portraying Caesar Commodus in Gladiator, he said his handle on the character was “spoiled rock star who has never heard the word ‘No’ in his life.” And in Game of Thrones the actor who did King Joffrey said pretty much the same thing.
js wrote:
What is demanded is simply any indication where God ordained a hierarchy. If it is so awfully urgent, then one would expect to find it somewhere before wearing mixed-fiber garments and certainly way before Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Peter.
Lydia wrote:
They also seem to brush aside completely how Jesus blew off the cultural gender role expectations to treat women as intellectual equals.
He taught women, let them debate him, etc. Jesus did not tell them to go away, go talk to a male covering to help them understand his teachings, etc.
This makes Paul look completely at odds with Jesus’ treatment and attitude of women, if one chooses to interpret Paul as teaching male hierarchy (which complementarians do).
js wrote:
In other words, you have no evidence and no argument other than JS says so, we should believe it, and that settles it.
Daisy wrote:
And BG adopted that rule because he had become a Public Figure and had probably made some enemies who would try to discredit him.
That applies to a Public Figure, not so much to you and me. I think BG would not put that binding on anyone else (Franklin speaking for BG notwithstanding).
js wrote:
If that is what you believe constitutes railing, I suggest you spend some time in the real world. Were the Bereans railing when they examined the Scriptures? Or were the Thessalonians more noble because they just accepted whatever anyone says. Thus says JS is not sufficient to put half of humanity in bondage.
siteseer wrote:
In the words of the Prophet Steve Taylor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKlZ7U67Uio
GSD wrote:
I don’t know about you guys, but The Gospel According to Hal Lindsay cured me of “plain reading” or “plain meaning”. Especially when compared and contrasted with a Seventh-Day Adventist eschatological book with its completely-different “plain reading” of the exact same verses.
Patrice wrote:
I agree with your whole post, and especially the part that I’ve quoted here in mine.
Daisy wrote:
“If you question what I say to you
YOU REBEL AGAINST THE FATHER, TOO!”
— Steve Taylor, “I Manipulate”
Bridget wrote:
I am a woman who uses direct language and seeks to use the text honestly with consistent hermeneutics. I try to use sound logic. When someone wants to restrict my freedom and wants to do that by claiming God said so, then I demand evidence that God indeed has said that. Since I am a woman, that is railing. If I were male, that would be considered being reasonable and responsible. Perhaps even intelligent. Good thing JS is not a trial attorney.
Mae wrote:
The other couple would be Annanias and Saphira. And in that particular case, Saphira submitted to her husband and things didn’t turn out well for her – she suffered the same demise as her husband.
Daisy wrote:
Isn’t there something about “Woe to you who call evil Good”?
Gram3 wrote:
This is what kills me about folks who insist every one must abide by the gender complemetnarian understanding of marriage or gender roles:
They only want to apply this sort of understanding to this very narrow set of views, while conveniently
disregarding other topics that are of no large concern to them.
They don’t usually have an agenda to promote in propping up things like men greeting other men with a “holy kiss,” or with women not wearing gold jewelry to church, so hey, let’s just ignore those directives in Paul’s letters!
As such, they are really making their personal hobby horse (of gender roles or marriage) dictate how and when the biblical text is taught and interpreted, rather than letting the text “speak plainly for itself.”
Then some of them (not Adam B. specifically, but other gender comps I’ve seen) then go on to accuse those who disagree with gender comp views as being the ones who are not taking the text seriously, of having been influenced by secular feminism, etc.
They accuse the dissenters of the very things they are doing.
Patrice wrote:
I agree, and very well stated.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Automobiles are taxed.
okrapod wrote:
An interesting thing about this is that Scriptural authority sort of created problems for Jesus concerning the zealots and religious leaders of his day.
Jesus said to some of them, even though you study the Scriptures constantly and know them pretty well, you don’t recognize me, that they point to.
Some of the Jewish teachers of Jesus’ day had taken parts of the Old Testament and distorted what God had originally meant in the text, another thing Jesus had to mention a few times.
It’s no surprise to me that some Christians today do with the New Testament what those Jewish people did with the Old Testament back then.
Even shortly after Christ’s ascension, in the first few decades of the church, you had stuff like Paul the apostle having to confront and correct Peter for spreading or supporting false doctrine (Galatians 2:11-13).
I guess it’s easy for even the most well-intentioned follower of God to sometimes get incorrect understandings of things God said, did, or wrote.
Satan misapplied biblical passages when tempting Jesus in the wilderness. (Matthew Chapter 4)
@ Nancy2:
But, then you only have to pay tax on livestock when you sell it – you have to claim the money as income.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh, Gram3!!! Don’t you realize????? You are a female! If you ask the same question more than once, you are RAILING! It makes no difference whether or not your question is answered.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Hey, didn’t the Duggar family promise some of that same stuff, but one of their sons was groping his sisters, and later into hiring strippers?
HUG said,
I’m not sure why, but this reminds me of the news articles I see about churches (especially around Father’s Day every year) about churches who host wrestling contests, or contests to give away fire arms to every third man who shows up to their church.
This past year, I think I saw one church that was going to give away BBQ grills to men who showed up for Father’s Day.
Churches Want Your Dad, and Will Give Him Bacon, Guns, and a Grill
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/21/churches-want-your-dad-and-will-give-him-bacon-guns-and-a-grill.html
Ken wrote:
Approaching this from a slightly different angle – and accepting Adam’s assertion of “being the head” and “submit to their husbands” as plain reading.
As it applies to marriage:
How does one define “being the head” – what does that look like, and how is it manifested in your life?
How does one define “submit to their husbands” and what does that look like, and how is it manifested in your life?
As it applies to the body of Christ:
Jesus is the Head of the body – what does that look like, how is that manifested in your life?
Your submission to Christ as the Head – what does that look like, and how is it manifested in your life?
Bridget wrote:
I’m glad you quoted that. I overlooked it. That is funny. And sadly probably true. 🙂
Ken wrote:
So you want to continue to maintain that “head” in regards to marriage in the NT means “authority over,” even though it does not mean that, and even though that understanding runs contrary to Jesus’ instructions to all his followers not to seek authority over each other?
Adam Borsay wrote:
Yes, it is possible that Christians, for many centuries have misunderstood parts of the biblical text, and at that, for many years.
The Jews of Jesus’ day did this with the Old Testament text on some matters, and Jesus pointed this out to them.
As I just said in a post above, even while Paul and Peter were still alive, Paul had to correct Peter to his face for supporting false doctrine.
The church, from very early on, has held to very sexist interpretations of biblical texts because they came to the text with a low view of women from the start.
You can read quotes indicating as such by early church fathers such as
http://valerietarico.com/2013/07/01/mysogynistquoteschurchfathers/
White Christians for how ever many decades up til the late 19th century felt it was morally acceptable for one group of people to hold other groups of people against their will as slaves and even used the Bible to justify and rationalize their position.
Adam Borsay wrote:
See also
(Re: how early on, attitudes against women colored how Bible versions were translated – or that might be in Part 1 of this series, there is a link to page 1 from 2):
Will A Truly Honest Bible Translation for Women Ever Be Made?: Part 2
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/will-truly-honest-bible-translation-women-ever-be-made-part-2
This stuff got started early on in church history, not just in the past 50 or whatever years.
Lydia wrote:
No, he would not more than likely.
I’ve said several times over (maybe on Julie Anne’s blog?) it’s quite easy for a male preacher to tell a 5 foot 3, 110 pound woman to stay married to a 6 foot tall, 200 pound man, who is beating her.
If you’re not the one actually living with the problem (whatever the problem is), it’s very easy to sit in your ivory tower and write blog posts about it, treating real life problems as nothing more than fascinating theological abstractions to pontificate upon and muse over.
I visualize John Piper sitting there, pausing, when writing his blog posts about these things, stroking his chin thoughtfully, taking sips of coffee. It’s just an intellectual exercise for him and guys like him.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Excellent reply! Some people treat the Bible like a book of rules. The Bible also doesn’t say anything about what a wife should do if her husband is a pedophile and has committed the serious offense (and sin) of sexual abuse toward children. What then should a wife do? Twiddle dee twiddle dum….ho hum….guess the wife should stay with the husband, or leave him and never be permitted to marry since the Bible doesn’t say anything about it – NOT! Sometimes common sense is a thing over-looked by Christians because they have become hard-core Biblicists. The Bible doesn’t address a whole host of subjects. Why not just use the brains God gave us and a bit of plain ole common sense? Yeah, that sounds like a pretty good idea!
Gram3 wrote:
Another off shoot of gender complmentarian teaching is that a lot of women feel insulted or devauled by it, so they either quit going to church or else leave the Christian faith entirely.
I just saw an article about a month ago that a lot of women are leaving Christian churches or the faith itself and getting into religions they believe are more woman-validating, such as Wicca or New Age.
I remember reading a book by an guy years ago who went to another country to visit a friend in a Roman Catholic hospital. He asked the nun nurse ladies at the desk why they were praying to Mary.
They said because they can relate to Mary, she is a woman. They said they did not feel they could relate to Jesus, because he is a man and God the Father is a scary authority figure.
Of course, there are example in Old and New Testament of God/Jesus displaying or using terminology of themselves that are stereotypically feminine, but churches so over-emphasize the maleness of God/Jesus, it causes some women to feel marginalized.
(BTW, to make clear, I do not believe that believing in Gender Complementarianism means that a person is not “saved”. I was a gender comp since youth up until around my mid-30s. I believe people can be Christians and be gender comp.)
Adam Borsay wrote:
Does context have no application? I think the reverse is actually happening. You are taking the modern idea of marriage and extrapolating that into the context of ancient marriages at the time of Paul’s teaching.
Some of the differences –
Marriages were arranged.
Polygamy existed.
Girls were usually just post-puberty.
Men were usually quite older.
Marriage was a legal arrangement between soon-to-be-husband and the father.
Marriage was a negotiated contract with dad & betrothed defining the terms/rights.
Daisy wrote:
Actually, you’ll be told that the abuse is your fault because you’re not submitting well enough. If you could just pray a little more, be a better wife, a better mother, then your husband will see the error of his ways and start to be more like Jesus.
Daisy wrote:
Worse is Paige Patterson’s response to the woman whose husband was beating her. No such thing as reporting him to the police. No such thing as leaving the beater. No, instead go back and pray by the bedside as he is falling asleep. And yes, he may get violent again, but hey, that’s the price you pay for being a godly, submissive wife.
Daisy wrote:
Thanks Daisy, that means a lot, coming from someone as sharp as yourself. I especially appreciate how you always speak for the unmarried, who are so often overlooked and undervalued by the church.
okrapod wrote:
Where does the biblical text mention that Jesus was married?
I suppose you can say that is an argument from silence, but had he had a wife, one would think she would have been at the foot of the cross as he was dying, and he maybe would have told a wife, not John, “behold, your mother.” -?
okrapod wrote:
Teshuqah: The Woman’s “Desire” in Genesis 3:16
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/teshuqah-desire/
js wrote:
Is this an admission that your view lacks biblical support, or that your interpretation of the biblical texts may not be correct?
@ Daisy:
I have read the pros and cons of this and of kephale and as each new thing comes along I try to read the pros and cons. But thanks for the link.
Gram3 wrote:
Indeed.
JS seems to have taken a swipe at you and Mara and left the scene.
@ BL:
I agree. I tried to explain this to Adam in a different way, but he didn’t seem to get my point.
@ Nancy2:
I find that sad and alarming that this happens to so many women.
If you’re a woman who never marries and never has children, you are forced to develop your own interests, own life, and figure out who you are and what you want.
Or, in the case of one of my Aunts, all her children are now in their 30s and 40s, living their own lives, and her husband died about ten years ago.
She had to move on – or, I guess like your friend, she could have chosen to live in the past.
But I think most women in that situation will probably feel compelled to move forward on their own and have to figure out who they are.
Daisy wrote:
I just saw this response now. I am not skeptical of Naghmeh at all. I think, however, that there may be more to this story than we know. Further, is it fair to rush to judgment on behalf of Naghmeh and against her husband? I do believe it is very possible that she is telling the truth, but I also believe that there may be other reasons she is saying what she is saying. So, I am reserving judgment both in her case and her husband’s until more on this story is revealed.
Think of it this way. If you were married, and your lives were on public spectacle for some reason, and your husband came out to the media and said that you were abusive during your marriage, would you want the public to believe him before you had a chance to defend yourself?
js wrote:
Who is this “we”? This blog? Or whom?
Because both comp and church discipline are constantly promoted and discussed by other Christians – famous preachers, authors, and on their blogs – like “Together for the Gospel,” John Piper, and those guys.
This blog is reacting to those guys and the negative consequences of them shoving comp and discipline down people’s throats.
This blog is not setting the agenda, but rather, reacting to it as it’s set by mega churches, celebrity preachers, and others.
No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Yes, comp itself is flawed at the basis of it. And it would take a perfect-Jesus figure to execute complementarinism flawlessly and consistently.
Comps themselves repeatedly appeal to the mantra of, “You ladies won’t mind submitting yourself to a man, because that man will love you just like Jesus loves the church.”
You have set Jesus up as the gold standard for complementarianism there. And what happens when a woman marries a Haman or Judas? Most comp pastors tell her, “tough luck, divorce is not an option.”
Nancy2 wrote:
He did, did he? Wow.
That’s a bit like Christians who take other non-commandment comments in the Bible and insist they are commandments, (like the part that encourages believers to assemble together).
Also, I’m not sure it’s a man’s place to insist to women that they carry it out, even if it where a commandment.
It’s directed at women, not men. A man screaming at a woman she must follow it because it’s a command belies that he thinks women are equal in worth. The Bible says let the older women instruct younger ones, not men to take Bible verses directed at women only and tell them “you must follow this.”
At the very least, it’s very poor form, like a supervisor who yells at you in front of your clients and co-workers. You take them in private in a back room for a chewing out.
js wrote:
I’m actually pretty open minded, and I never said any and all abuse can be attributed to CBMW or Owen Strachan.
You keep erecting a straw man argument on this blog, that goes everyone here blamed ANY and ALL abuse by men on complementarianism. Not true.
I think comp can and does play a role in sexism against women and in abuse. You seem to deny that, however.
Thank you for the admission that you don’t bother to contend with the real life outcomes of how gender comp hurts real women in their daily lives.
js wrote:
IIRC, you kept saying back on page 1 of this thread that wives being led by husband was “God’s will” or “design” for them. You feel this is true or should be true for all Christian marriages.
Without Scriptural backing, that remains your opinion only but is not a binding belief on other Christians and how they live out their marriages.
It’s pretty standard when claiming to Christians that God feels “x” about a topic that the Christians may ask you upon what biblical grounds do you make that case?
js wrote:
If you tire of her asking you for your scriptural backing on that point, you may want to reconsider saying on threads here that a wife being led by a husband is God’s will or design for wives, which is a point I think you raised a few times over last night or the one before on some thread.
How are we supposed to know that it’s God’s will for wives to be led? Do you want Gram3 just to take your word on it?
If you do have a Bible verse you feel supports your position on God thinking wives supposedly being need to be led by husbands, it would be nice if you could explain why your interpretation of that verse is the one the rest of us should go with and agree to.
dee wrote:
Dee, this is where I would have to disagree with you and this is why. If she were living with Saeed, that would be different because one would not want to take the risk of not believing – such a risk could put her life and the life of her children in jeopardy. However, her life is not at risk of being hurt by him now in that he is thousands of miles away in Iran. She doesn’t even have to have any communication with him at this point and there is absolutely nothing he can do about it if that would be the case.
Sadly, there is not an easy, immediate answer to this dilemma. Because if she isn’t telling the truth, then Saeed’s reputation has been smeared. And if she is telling the truth, but some (or many) in the Christian arena are still hesitant to be fully supportive, then she will suffer and feel hurt.
Our court system is such that one is innocent until proven guilty. Our recourse is to go through the court system, find reliable witnesses, bring in qualified psychologists who are trained in the field of sexual abuse, and be thorough before declaring someone guilty of sexual/domestic abuse. Surely you can see that claiming one has been abused does not necessarily make it so. There have been cases thrown out of court because it was found that the charge of rape was false. Further, I must apply the Christian code: Treat others the way I want to be treated. I wouldn’t want to be judged and found guilty of wrongdoing by my husband (or anyone for that matter) just by their words alone. More is required of in a court of law because otherwise people could condemn one another with their words alone.
Bridget wrote:
Yes.
I’d add that gender complementarians in general (as well as CBMW in particular) feel that complementarianism can and should save American culture from things such as (but not limited to):
Secular feminism, abortion, legalization of homosexual marriage, and removing “boy” and “girl” signs from Target toy store aisles.
Franklin Graham’s call to boycott Target for removal of gender signs gaining support
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/franklin.grahams.call.to.boycott.target.for.gender.signs.removal.gaining.support/62089.htm
numo wrote:
Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers Paperback – by John R. Rice (Author)
Which I think is mentioned on this page:
How Playing Good Christian Housewife Almost Killed Me
http://www.alternet.org/belief/how-playing-good-christian-housewife-almost-killed-me
js wrote:
That is because you get the catbird seat. Mutuality is better for everyone and won’t go to your head. :o)
Comp doctrine comes from Patriarchy. It is the same thing with an Orwellian word and lots of fancy mind word gymnastics. The point of it has always been hierarchy. In order to have a heirarchy someone has to be lesser. Call it inferior or whatever you want. It has been tried and failed as in “separate but equal” and “some animals are more equal than others” on the road to socialism. There is ALWAYS an oligarchy.
dee wrote:
I’m not sure I can agree with you on this, Dee. I think people can be detained, and charged with a crime, and arrested. But convicted? With no other evidence than a person’s word? This would be and is a dangerous precedent. Now, if person were to go to the police and say they had been raped or were being abused by their husband, the police would (or should) look thoroughly into the matter. But they are not required (as far as I know) to immediately believe the person’s accusations without probable cause.
Having been a teacher at one time, I was a mandated reporter if I thought sexual and/or domestic violence was occurring in the life of a particular student. But I had to have sufficient cause to report. Now, I was never in a situation where a student told me that they were being abused. But I know of situations where that was the case and before the child was immediately believed, an investigation had to be conducted. In fact, I know of a case currently in which the authorities have been notified that the children are in an unhealthy and unsafe environment. Immediately child services got involved and they are keeping an eye on the situation with unadvised visits. But the parents have not been arrested nor the children removed from the home because there is not sufficient evidence that abuse is occurring.
Darlene wrote:
Regarding your Elizabeth Elliot example.
How does what she taught about a husband making a poor choice about buying a car and the wife not speaking up to correct it-
Square with the Old Testament example of the wife who calmed David down? David was going to kill her husband Nabal for being rude to him or inhospitable.
This is mentioned in 1 Samuel:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2025
David speaking to Abigail:
And, how does her teaching on that square with Exodus 4:25, where Moses’ wife, or whoever this lady was, appeased God after Moses disobeyed God?
js wrote:
It does indicate inferiority because only by virtue of having been whatever gender do you say a male gets “X” position in a marriage for life, while the woman gets “Z” position for life.
And, despite your commentary of love and affection, you are also saying that the husband gets to “lead” the wife.
Further, your understanding of this seems to be that the man can order, or boss, a woman around, the man gets the ‘final say’ in a marital dispute, or over major life choices.
If you say no, you don’t feel that is how marriage should works, then you are arguing for a non-male-hierarchal- complementarian marriage, which is another way of saying “mutualist” or “egalitarian” marriage, because that is what mutualist and egals believe.
Egalitarians and mutualists believe that men and women “complement” one another.
They do not feel that it is necessary to have the same spouse (male, in this case) lead the other constantly in every matter, in charge over the other, or in authority over the other, in order to function well, and be loving, and to complement one another, or to model Jesus Christ or to emulate Jesus.
The rationales and apologetics complementarians use to defend male- hierarchy- marriages is the same rationales some Americans used to defend slavery and the “separate but equal” racism shtick decades ago to repress black Americans, even if you don’t feel your view of marriage is akin to slavery.
js wrote:
Also, unless I’ve missed it, you’ve not cited Biblical support for this.
Where does the Bible teach that the husband is to lead the wife, that this is a God given calling? If you do give a Bible passage or verse, why should we accept your interpretation of it?
Continually asserting that “husband leads, wife submits and this = God’s calling” does not prove the position.
numo wrote:
Numo, you have made some good points that I agree with. I wouldn’t blame her of becoming fatigued with all the public appearances and having to live up to a certain standard under the watchful eye of the Evangelical world. However, I am still reticent to condemn Saeed as a wife abuser. He very well may be, but am waiting until further evidence comes out.
Darlene wrote:
I assume that most men who are pro-complementarian who argue in favor of comp are blind to these points you were raising.
I think the comp men who sincerely love their own wives do not understand that there are comp marriages where the husband is abusive or selfish, so such husbands don’t care about what their wife needs, thinks, or feels.
In those types of comp marriages, the wife does not get treated fairly or with respect, and she does not get an equal voice.
The root of the problem is gender complementarianism itself, not just how it’s imperfectly applied, though.
numo wrote:
Numo, She may not “owe” an explanation to anyone, but then she (nor those who believe her) should demand that all Christians just automatically believe her. I don’t think Christians should feel compelled to believe or disbelieve her. This is what I mean: I won’t put either those who believe her or those who are sure she is telling the truth, or those who think there might be some other reasons for what she is saying – I won’t put any of them in the “awful” category as you have done. If you have reason to believe her, then do so. If others have reasons to hold back from believing her, then they should do so as well. Neither should be criticized for the stand they are taking. It really isn’t a clear cut issue at this point. I do think that those who are closest to Naghmeh – those Christians and family members who are actually a part of her life – should continue to be loving and kind to her and listen to her. But those of us on this blog who don’t know her personally are much more limited in our capacity and in getting at the truth of the situation. I do think that if Saeed is freed, the truth has a very good chance of coming out and I hope that it will.
Gram3 wrote:
I wish that God would sometimes pull a Quantum Leap (TV show) on men like this, the ones who are blind to what this stuff does to women.
God could put them in the body of a woman in a complementarian marriage, and have them attend a complementarian church, for around six months to see what it’s like to first hand live under these teachings.
For further information:
Quantum Leap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Leap
*I meant to say: those who aren’t sure she is telling the truth…
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Sadly, it’s become standard thinking and advice among a lot of “Rank and File” Christians.
I have seen this stupid thinking time and again on blogs, going back years on Christian shows, in Christian magazine articles, and so on.
Even “average joe,” Non famous Christian married men are advised to use the BG Rule by other Christians.
I’ve seen stories on here (and other places) of how single Christian women are denied car trips with a married Christian man even when their car breaks down on the side of the road, because it might look unseemly to others if he pulls a “Good Samaritan” and gives her a lift.
(Or, they will both be unable to control themselves and immdiately “get it on” in the car.)
That’s right, in their morality, BG Rule Trumps “Good Samaritan” compassion.
I find the assumption by pro-BG Rule Christians that because I am a single I must also be a loose harlot insulting as well.
Gram3 wrote:
It takes more effort to defend one’s position than to ask them to take just your word for it. 🙂
When I get to that point myself, I usually let the tell the other person we can agree to disagree and leave it there – if I’m not in the mood to debate a topic all day.
Daisy wrote:
To jump into the fray again… 🙂
I did some work on the word kephale/source that some here have used to dismiss the concept of leadership. Context, obviously, is vital. And Paul’s writing is the context. Elsewhere he uses the word in I Corinthians 11 to double down on the passage we are discussing in Ephesians. The word being translated as “source” doesn’t make sense in the passage in 1 Corinthians. Not to mention that the Greek has a more appropriate word for source, aitio, which is used elsewhere in the NT. Paul deliberately chooses not to use the direct sense of the word “source” but uses a word that conveys leadership as well.
Earlier in Ephesians the word in contention is used by Paul(direct context) to indicate the leadership of Christ over the Church(Ephesians 1:21). To then change the meaning of it a few paragraphs later and say it has nothing to do with leadership/authority is to ignore Pauls direct point of this specific letter…not to mention how else he speaks about it in multiple places.
Also, in the Corinthians passage he uses the word “ought” to indicate that the woman SHOULD have a symbol of authority. While the man “ought” to NOT have a symbol of authority over him. It also states that this is because woman was created for man, not man for woman….but you can’t also miss that Paul also says immediately after that men and women are interdependant.
Colossians 3:18 Paul uses the word “subject”/hupotossa relating to women being subject to their husbands.
The word for head is used through out the Old and New Testaments and indicates a variety of important things, and Paul’s deliberate usage of a word that was not limited in meaning to be source(since again, he had more direct word he could have used) indicates that the picture of male headship in the home and the Church is a consistent and logical conclusion based upon the testimony of scripture.
Gram3 contends that the complimentary position is inconsistent and not sourced in scripture, but I would contend that to move away from the picture of male headship described in the NT requires rejecting huge portions of Paul’s writing, or, creating a basis/hermeneutic for approaching scripture that puts us on very shaky ground.
Daisy wrote:
I hate to mention this, but you are missing the point. If you were married the BG rule would still apply.
When I was in practice I was recognized on sight by lots of people, some of whom were angry because I had dared bill them for medical services. I know this because they told me. My husband worked out of town a lot. I would no way and no how have been seen with some man, any man for any reason at any time or in any circumstance no matter how innocent, because people can be vicious and without a doubt in my mind I know that somebody would try to start some rumor of my infidelity behind my husband’s back. Why do I think that? Because it was a small town and people had elevated gossip to an olympic sport. I avoided men as if they literally had the plague. I did this not because I distrusted them or distrusted myself, but rather because I distrusted the rest of the town.
This is the BG rule on secular main street for personal protection.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
The sad thing about the “you have to be better at X before your husband can be more like Jesus to you” view is that it flies in the face of how the Bible says while we were yet sinners and enemies of God that Jesus died for us anyway and still loved us.
Daisy wrote:
And I’m trying to return to faith while still full of doubts.
GSD wrote:
Aw, thank you. I come from a very negative, critical type of family.
Other than my mother (who passed away a few years back) I don’t often get praise, kind words, or encouragement from anyone else in the family or from folks in general, so to get this from you means a lot to me. Thank you.
I’m also blushing in embarrassment. The closest I can find to a blushing emoticon is this “oops” one, 😳 🙂
Darlene wrote:
But we’re just average janes and joes on a blog.
Why are we not permitted to have or form an opinion based on what public information is shared?
Any opinion I reach here and now won’t really affect Saeed over in a prison in Iran thousands of miles away.
If however, his wife may be reading these messages here (as Dee indicated in a post above), it must hurt her, or may even anger her a little, that a few people have expressed skepticism on this thread, or who are saying she is possibly lying.
It’s pretty standard for people to dis-believe a wife when she comes forward saying her husband is abusive, even among Christians.
Did you see the several blog posts here about Christian blogger and author Tony Jones and his ex wife, Julie? You may want to do a search for their names on this blog and read about them, if you’re not familiar with that story.
Darlene wrote:
I don’t think anyone here is necessarily “demanding” you believe her.
We’re trying to persuade you to our view by citing our reasons, which is different from making a demand.
okrapod wrote:
It seems to apply doubly so in regards to un-married women, however.
Every time I see the BG rule argued in favor of, it’s always by preachers (and the occasional married Christian woman) who warn married men never to meet alone with un-married women.
There are books about why people are leaving the church, and in some of these books, single women talk about how it’s impossible to get a meeting with a preacher, because they either refuse to meet alone with a single woman,
Or they do really condescending stuff, like bring an adult chaperone with them to meet with a single woman at a coffee shop in public for an appointment.
In all my years of watching much Christian TV, reading Christian magazines and blogs, I have honestly yet to see a page where a preacher warns Christian men to avoid meeting alone, or in public, with a married Christian woman (or even Non Christian married woman).
@ Daisy:
I am sorry if the BG rule either in practice or in principle has hurt you or other people. That does not mean, however, that I do not believe that it is a very wise approach to use when indicated. People have a right to protect themselves and if they need the BG rule then so be it. Now if they are just being mean or unreasonable or trying to look more righteous than Santa Clause then that is another thing all together.
Adam Borsay wrote:
How does relying on reason, common sense, and one’s own divine image within put us on shaky ground?
Muff Potter wrote:
It’s when our “reason” is in opposition to what scripture is saying. As I illustrated, it is extremely difficult(if not impossible) to white out Paul’s consistent application of headship/leadership regarding the male/female dynamic in the family and Church. By shaky ground, I mean to avoid accepting what Paul says requires employing an inconsisten hermeneutic that opens up the door to other, more dangerous “misuses”.
And, to try to charitably read what you state…that reason, common sense and one’s own diving image is the standard approach to scriptural application…. puts man in the drivers seat and God’s word as a secondary
@ Adam Borsay:
What it seems like you are saying, Muff, is that my common sense tells me Paul can’t possibly mean that, so, I know enough about me to know reading it that way is wrong. When we start there we become willing to do hermeneutic gymnastics to force fit the readings to fit how we feel. Instead of approaching scripture with a heart to say, not my will, but Yours.
Wow, Adam. I appreciate all your comments, but so far I haven’t seen you do two things.
First, have you considered that Paul might have been wrong?
Second, have you considered that you might be wrong about what you think Paul is saying?
A few comments above you go on a philosophical hike about the dangers of following one’s one beliefs to the point of reinterpreting Paul, etc. What I haven’t seen you do is consider whether that applies at all to you.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I found “A Meta-Study of the Debate over the Meaning of “Head” (Kephalē) in Paul’s Writings” by Alan F. Johnson to be a very interesting overview of the whole debate. He takes a look at the twists and turns, points and counterpoints the debate has taken over the years. Arguing for “source” has become a little outdated, and of course “authority” is suspect as well. I think “preeminence” might be the contender for the latest definition.
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/meta-study-debate-over-meaning-%E2%80%9Chead%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%9C%E2%80%9D%E2%80%9Ckephale%CC%84%E2%80%9D-paul%E2%80%99s-writings
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
To your first point…. if we we start with the assumption that Paul is wrong(or possibly wrong), we completely change the dynamic of how we read the Bible, period. Either the New Testament is accurate and true and written through the Holy Spirit and can then be relied upon reliably, or it is not. The whole nature of this particular question radically changes from what is the relationship of men and women in the family and church, to, what even does it mean to be a Christian, read the Bible, etc. Because if the majority of the New Testament, written by Paul, is to be viewed as possibly in error in many ways, then everything changes.
To the second point, I am open completely to the possibility of me being off on what Paul is saying. But what I listed a few posts above, was a short, but thourough, reference to the context of how Paul uses those words, within and outside of marriage, and what their semantical range is and how it can be most consistently applied as we seek to apply it to ourselves.
And if I am wrong, in all honesty, it won’t have much effect on my life or marriage or church. I think there are many practical reasons, outside of the Bible, to why strong male figures have quantifiable and observable benefit. As I said, in my denomination we don’t refuse women pastors, so my church really won’t have to go through some crazy re-arrangement. I have no dog in this fight if I am misapplying Paul. But, if I am right, and Paul is right, I care about sound doctrine, not because sound doctrine saves people, but because being aligned with God’s truth is for our ultimate good.
@ Patrice:
Good sense & sanity Patrice. On the one polarity we have the Chuck Smiths, Chuck Misslers, and others who insist that the ‘plain reading’ is almost always the only valid one, and on the other end, there are the Bart Ehrmans who tell us that even the tenets of the Apostle’s Creed are suspect.
What you’ve argued for is a finely tuned balance between two extremes and regions under the whole curve’s domain. Well done!
@ okrapod:
Jesus met with prostitutes and other women alone, like the woman at the well who had previously lived with like five guys, even though the Pharisees told him it made his reputation look lousy.
Adam Borsay wrote:
But you’re actually using your own common sense, understanding, and what all to interpret the text as well.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I used to be a gender complementarian and even when I began having doubts about GC that grew and grew, I still tried to cling to the GC interpretation. So I did not let my personal dislike or GC drive my final rejection of GC.
One of my overall reasons for rejecting GC, or the thing that started me down the road, was that the overall picture of Scripture has too many examples of God being fine with women leading and teaching me. It does not make sense to choose to interpret the whole of the Bible with the assumption that one or two verses about male headship should be the prism thru with the rest of Scripture is interpreted
Or that since Jesus taught it wrong to Lord authority over and Galatians 3.28 says there is no male or female in Christ, it does not make sense to assume that “head” in some Ephesians text must mean “rule over” or “be boss over”.
I now suspect a lot of gender comps allow their inherent lust for power over women and sexist views about women to color how they read the text as they do.
Daisy wrote:
the “me” there should be MEN, not “me”
-teaching MEN, not “teaching me”
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
That is what I have thought too.
What he says about those who disagree with the GC understanding of “male headership” verses can also apply to him or to his position.
I don’t know why Paul is not interpreted through the lens of Jesus, rather than vice versa, or why Galatians 3:28 is not taken into consideration more, or all the women in Old and New Testaments who taught and led men. Junia was an apostle. Deborah was a Judge in Israel.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Again, I think you are reading a modern-day view of marriage into the Biblical time-frame.
Is it your understanding that wives had the same ability to divorce their husbands, as men did in divorcing their wives at that time?
From what I have read, they did not.
Wives were unable to get divorces in cases of abuse, because wives were unable to get divorces– unless the husband agreed to divorce and gave his permission.
And at that time, husbands didn’t have to give reasons, they just had to hand her a bill of divorce.
The “plain-face” understanding regarding divorce sans context can leave one believing that adultery is the only possible reason for divorce, especially since abuse is not offered as a reason.
But, do you think the number of men being abused by their wives was very high 2000 years ago?
Or that a goodly number of the husband-initiated divorces of the time were desired because of abusive wives?
Who would be left in a more precarious state in every way as a result of divorce – a husband or a wife?
Who was more likely to be the initiator of divorce – a husband or a wife?
Husbands were initiating the divorces.
Husbands did not have to provide justifications for divorces.
Old wife was being ‘put away’ – sent out of the home.
New wife was moved in and took her place.
How common was this?
Evidently, SO common that when the disciples realized what Jesus was teaching, they responded with (paraphrased) “Woah! If that’s the case – it’s better to not marry!”
So was Jesus teaching that adultery is the only reason for divorce, or was Jesus specifically addressing an issue to men who had proven their proclivity to divorce their wives for no substantial reason?
I know I am teaching only some of you this – many would know it.
Pornography is not “looking at pictures of naked ladies.”
Today’s Internet pornography are videos in which an actual woman get brutally mistreated for real.
Women who participated in porn have an average life expectancy of 36 years, and suffer PTSD at higher rates than war vets.
An analysis of the most popular porn found that more than 80% of the videos contained violence, verbal or physical, against the woman.
By the nature of what porn is like, much of it actually is rape – porn actresses cannot stand such pain and humiliation without drugs, and a drugged woman cannot consent.
Porn exist because many men see women not just as sex objects, but as abuse objects. And porn causes men to see women not just as sex objects, but as abuse objects. It also grooms women to expect abuse, and not decent behaviour, from men.
If you read of a man who loves porn, you are not just reading of a guy who look at pics of women who are not his wife. You are reading of a guy who gets off on traumamtizing violence against women.
If you want to know more about the effects of porn, I recommend reading Gail Dines.
Daisy wrote:
Galatians is about salvation, not leadership or the structure of the Church. It is misapplied to draw a line from that to draw conclusions about men/women leadership dynamics.
Junia is a disp0uted person. Even the early church fathers were split on whether they thought Junia(s) was a man or a woman. Also, some of the Greek texts would indicate not that Junia was an apostle, but that she was honored among the apostles for her faith. And finally, the role of apostle is listed seperately from elders and even has a number of different meanings and usages in the NT. Meaning, Apostles were specific roles that were a first century role that no longer exists, and was seperate than the clear statements about the Church. We don’t have apostles today(virtually all usages of apostles related to those with a personal connection with Jesus, or, was simply meant as a generic term for “one who is sent”) Again, even if Junia was a woman who was an apostle that has no direct connection to eldership in a church.
Debrah was a judge/prophet. Again, there is no parallel to the Church. She was unique in her role and we are not a theocracy, nor do we have a lot of modern day prophets(I lean towards cessasionism so I would say there are NO prophets).
Adam Borsay wrote:
Man, I’m on earthquake territory then. I do reject huge portions of Paul’s writing. And huge portions of the old Testament, I reject anything that puts one person over another person. We live in a liberal democracy. The bible started in a tribal era, went through a monarchy and finished in a dictatorship. Democracy as we know it didn’t exist. Slavery was still legal.
This sort of thinking is exactly why I stopped going to church in 2004.
Quite frankly I’m starting to think we’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. With the bible being the peg and the post modern world being the hole.
We keep going around in circles trying to make this book fit into our world and it doesn’t.
Ugh. I think I’m taking a break from religion for a good long while. Peace out.
Daisy wrote:
Here’s the thing, Daisy. Some here on this blog think it is wrong that some Christians are hesitant in supporting Naghmeh’s statements of abuse against her husband. I basically said to Numo that both sides should give each other slack. If you 100% believe her, then do so by all means. For those such as myself, who neither believe or disbelieve in that I cannot yet make a judgment call or decision, give me others like me some slack. My understanding is that this blog – thanks to Dee and Deb – is very open minded about allowing comments that may differ from the prevailing opinion and from their opinion as well. I’m trying to be as charitable as possible. I can’t condemn someone who hasn’t had the opportunity to defend themselves and I still am open to the possibility that what Naghmeh is saying is the whole complete story. But right now it is just her side of the story and nothing else. So, for me it isn’t even a “he said, she said” situation but just a “she said.” Could be true, but cannot be absolutely certain AT THIS JUNCTURE.
But as I said before, I’m more inclined to think the terrorists who are torturing Saeed might very well be behind this. So it isn’t so much that Naghmeh might be lying, but that the Islamic terrorists are doing things behind the scenes that we know nothing about. The Communists were adept at these kinds of manipulations and I wouldn’t put it past Saeed’s captors.
Bridget wrote:
Thanks Bridget.
Yes, he misread what I wrote.
And I’m frustrated that I’m too busy, and now too tired to be involved in this conversation, clarifying myself and explaining what I mean. Glad you were able to interject this in a timely manner.
By the way, I’m always willing to believe a wife if she says she has been abused. But by willing to believe, it means I will listen and I will be patient and I will look at all the necessary evidence before I make any decisive and final judgments. That is called be honest and fair-minded to all involved. I would never want to see anyone convicted of a crime by one witness’s testimony alone. More and more through the Innocence Project, it has been proven that innocent people have been sent to prison by false testimony, mistaken identity, and a host of other things. We must be very careful not to rush to judgment in situations like these. And at this point I will just have to leave it at: we must agree to disagree in charity and all graciousness.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I contend that defining male headship as it is addressed in scripture and recognizing how it pertained to the churches and culture of the time would actually make scripture more clear and less contradictory of itself.
And even if one were to cut out the portions that speak on male-headship, it would not be a huge amount. On the contrary, it would actually be quite minuscule.
I almost said it would barely be noticed, but then I remembered how much the church has exaggerated and hyper-focued the tiny smattering of male headship verses. Men clinging to those few little verses greatly depend upon them to bolster some imaginary leadership position they lust after.
@ Adam Borsay:
And what is the emphasis of the letter to the Ephesians? Why was it written. Who was it written to?
Adam Borsay wrote:
That view doesn’t make any sense.
What Galatians 3:28 Cannot Mean
http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-galatians-328-cannot-mean.html
Adam Borsay wrote:
Junia was a lady apostle.
Early Bible translators were so sexist, they could not believe a woman could lead men at all, so for a long time, some translations changed her name from the feminine to the masculine form of the name.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Doesn’t matter. She was a woman put in charge over and above men. In a leadership role.
Darlene wrote:
It’s all fine and dandy with me if you want to view things differently or hold another opinion, but part of that also includes folks who maybe disagree with your perspective pushing back and saying when or how they disagree with your position, is all.
About the waiting until you get more evidence and stuff before coming down on a side. I’m going to be repetitive here but…
This is very common in stuff like domestic abuse cases and child abuse cases in the United States. It’s one reason why a lot of victims do not come forward and report their abuse to teachers, churches, police, or whomever.
What Bill Cosby Shows Us About Our Victim Blaming Culture / Why Didn’t We Believe 42 Women?
http://theodysseyonline.com/vanderbilt/bill-cosby-shows-victim-blaming-culture/122151
Darlene wrote:
I don’t remember if you address this up thread or not, but as for me, I am not claiming that my opinions on this blog are legally binding. I’m just an Average Jane giving her two cents on the topic.
I don’t have any legal pull to do anything about this lady’s jailed husband, but I do think it’s okay for me to look at the information that has been put out there and draw conclusions from it.
Mara wrote:
As I was reading that part of your post, I visualized the Gollum character from the “Lord of the Rings” movies, grasping the ring and repeating, “My precious!!” over and over.
Daisy, to come back to those three examples….I read the link you posted, and re-read Galatians to make sure it was what I remember it being…The whole passage is about the law and how people USED to be justified before the law. The Old Testament law was ethno-centric(had to be Jewish) and was highly ritualistic with the only way for someone to be justified before the Lord being related to things that a Priest(man from Levi) did for you. Paul is saying, quite clearly, as his wrap up point to everything he just said….there is no gender/race/economic/etc status that defines your justification before God, only Christ. You don’t get saved because some mortal man proclaims you saved, you are saved by being found in Christ and His finished work.
And with the other two passages, I do not deny Junia was most likely a woman, but she was an apostle, not an elder. Which were DISTINCT roles prescribed to the church. And Debroh led in a theocracy. I would never contend that women are INCAPABLE of leading, I contend that in the context of the family and the church Men are appointed to lead. Not due to being more skilled at it, but because God prescribed it.
I am interested, truly, in how you would work around the multiple places that the NT clearly indicates male leadership in those SPECIFIC areas.
@ Adam Borsay:
Galatians 3.28 is not about salvation.
People in OT days were saved by faith.
To have a passage saying that Jews and Gentiles and males and females and slave and free were all saved the same way is a little redundant. I don’t see that as being what that passage is saying at all.
God did not prescribe male only leadership in the NT – not in church, not in marriages.
There are, again, examples in NT and OT of God being fine with women in various leadership roles, so obviously God did not dictate that there should be male only leaders in the NT.
You would have to explain WHY you feel God supposedly says only dudes can lead.
Which leads you to what -saying, as Flag Ken does, that women are more easily deceived than men are?
You have to cite a reason as to why women are more inherently wrong, incompetent, or stupid, or whatever, for them not to be leaders.
Otherwise, you are saying women are not qualified enough to lead, solely based on having been born with female body parts… which is sexism.
If a woman attends seminary and passes her classes, she is every bit as qualified to be a preacher/leader in church.
Women are just as smart as men so they can lead in marriage.
Not that I think there should be leadership in marriage, it should be mutual.
Women are not toddlers. They don’t need to be led, and they don’t need heads. I’m a 40 something never married woman, I don’t need a man to lead me now, why would I need one after marriage?
Adam Borsay wrote:
So, a woman could be an Apostle, but not an elder?
I would say they are functions – not roles at all. They are based on giftedness, not an assignment to the position. In your paradigm, no women are gifted in any of these areas.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Galatians 3:28 And Our Identity in Christ
http://newlife.id.au/christian-living/galatians-3_28-identity/
@ Nancy2:
Not in all states.
Adam Borsay wrote:
This guy also offers an alternative understanding:
Women In Ministry: Galatians 3:28
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/jesuscreed/2007/04/women-in-ministry-galatians-32.html
@ okrapod:
I think your example is a good one, though social standards vary widely, depending on where one lives. What coild be fodder for nasty gossip in Oklahoma City might not be noticed in Manhattan, and not just because it’s part of a much larger city.
But i get that it can be a huge liability for people in certain professions, and see what you did as a commonsense way to keep things as bearable as you could.
@ Daisy:
That’s Jesus, though. Not you or me or okrapod. Since Jesus was male, he wouldn’t have been the primary target in these cases, either.
@ Darlene:
But the people who imprisoned him are not “terrorists.” They hold to an extreme school of Islamic thought, yes, but they are not suicide bombers or snipers or anything close to it.
@ Adam Borsay:
By no means is it entirely “ethocentric.” There is so much about hospitality and fair treatment for the slien and stranger, there’s that notable point in Exodus about the “mixed miltitude” leaving Egypt, people converted then, in yhe NT era, and still today some do. Christ’s ancestry is by no means entirely Jewish, either.
numo wrote:
Next to Jesus, Rahab, the Canaanite harlot, is my favorite person in the Bible.
She was a woman, but she stepped up and brokered a deal that saved her entire family, including her father and brothers! By Adam’s and flag Ken’s standards, she very definitely stepped over the line, in more ways than one.
@ Adam Borsay:
Adam,
Men like you and flag Ken are why I’ve stopped paying attention in church and stare out the window. I’m sure if there is really anything I need to know, the man whom God has assigned the role of my earthly master will tell me.
Daisy wrote:
No-one is arguing for authoritarian shepherding and submission. We all agree that Jesus said
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant
He sent his apostles who confirmed this, for example Peter
Tend the flock of God that is your charge, … not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.
That said, there is a balancing verse in Paul tucked away in Thessalonians you may have overlooked:
But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you. I take it those who are over us in the Lord are the leaders to whom we should submit as detailed in Hebrews (‘Obey your leaders and submit to them’). So there is a submission – a yielding to persuasion – to leadership in the church and we are in rebellion against the revealed will of God if we refuse to do so. We are to give respect where respect is due. Free churches where the membership can vote in a Church Meeting often have difficulty with this concept.
This is also why I don’t believe submission is always mutual. Doesn’t mean we are to follow the example of the Fort Lauderdale 5 and the extreme this could be taken to, but the elders of a church do carry a responsibility for the direction and welfare of the church, for which they will have to account. A false egalitarianism that seeks to obliterate all distinctions of role here will mean no-one will take responsibility for sorting out the problems that occur in everyday church life. Admonishing won’t be possible.
Daisy wrote:
He also raised the dead. I am not god.
@ Jack:
I hear ya Jack. They cannot relate or glean anything from scripture unless they map it to today politically and socially. It is a disaster. I think the whole law/grace stance does the same thing.
To even suggest there is a trajectory or progression sends them into tail spins. It is one reason I just don’t bother with sermons anymore. The ignorance is astounding. I cannot believe how many pastors actually teach with a straight face that we are to “submit to governing authorities”. They don’t vote?
I enjoy scholars, though. But the agendas of pastors make sure to keep the beauty of what the scriptures contain elusive and turn them into a club to control people with. You know what is interesting? BookerT Washington complained about the same thing!
Muff Potter wrote:
For some reason, in that world, it is a sin to interpret Paul through the Jesus filter. Turns out, God is more reasonable than Paul in that construct. :o)
I don’t know what the issue is about property taxes but FWIW in my state we have three types of property tax. There is a tax on land and buildings affixed to the land based on the appraised value. There is a personal property tax on property not affixed to the land (boats, tractors, water skis, etc) to include any permanent improvements made to affixed property (meaning adding a porch for example but not meaning painting the kitchen or repairing the roof). And there is a tax on automobiles.
@ Adam Borsay:
In other words, Pastors have the special knowledge we cannot have. This thinking is all over Christendom. The pew sitters actually believe it and pay them for their special knowlege
@ Adam Borsay:
Paul is talking origins/source in 1 Corin. Where did Christ come from….where did Adam come from. If it were hierarchical, God would be first in the Greek.
You want to know how I know you are not doing your homework? “Symbol of” was added by translators. You won’t find it in interlinears. It was added in. Shame on you. Your quest should be for truth and accuracy.
Another reason why pastors can be dangerous.
@ Darlene:
I cannot believe they trust these ignorant and helpless women to educate the chidren. :o)
@ Daisy:
All that “full inheritance” talk in Galatians is scary. To them, it has to be about salvation only. Otherwise slaves and women might get uppity and forget their place in the spiritual caste.
@ Adam Borsay:
Wow! So no Non Jews were saved in the OT. Even those in the lineage of Jesus Christ? Abraham did not have the law, btw.
@ Adam Borsay:
Which early church fathers thought Junia was a man?
@ numo:
Thank you numo. I appreciate your seeing it for what it was. And I totally agree that this varies with the circumstances.
Adam Borsay wrote:
In 1 Timothy,
“Tis” means “anyone” who desires……. Gune can be translated as both woman and wife. ( not a lot of distinction back then and fewer Greek words). Then there is that pesky “likewise”….
You are basing it on practice not a NT law. Because there is no laws for such. If we are going to base it on practice then what do we call the women who went to the tomb and then went out to tell the others the good news?
Nancy2 wrote:
I’m pretty sure Adam would agree that neither of us is arguing in the slightest for a husband to a be lord and master. What we are trying to do is discern the will of God regarding marriage and good order in the church.
The idea a chunk of the NT doesn’t apply to us today because we are different won’t cut it. I’ve been told lots of stuff in the NT is not for today – gifts of the Spirit, demonisation …, only to discover that it is for today. Human nature hasn’t changed, the biblical diagnosis of it – and remedy for it – is as up-to-date as ever. This one reason why I have continued to believe it rather than the facile and shallow thinking all around us.
So, if headship is such a massive issue, and we must all play our roles in the church and home for the world to see God, then why don’t these roles apply to the other parts of life where we interact with the world? Most people don’t see us at home, and very few see us at church, unless we lead a mega, so why not play our roles in business and medicine and school and politics? Why should a woman have to go to the grocery alone and make critical decisions that affect the health of her family without her “covering?”. A woman doctor or politician needs her husband with her at all times. Voting alone? How scary.
If these roles are so critical, why do we limit them?
Lydia wrote:
Extraordinarily blessed and privileged, and who showed a loyalty that continued after the male disciples had lost the plot and gone to ground.
Adam Borsay wrote:
You say you parse God’s patterns/requirements through ‘plain’ Bible reading, yet you read it with eyes shaped and colored by your sub-culture.
You study the Bible like one studies a museum piece, on a clean table in a well-lit room with white gloves. You believe this is the best way to discover the full meaning of it—it’s very Western to think so. But when you isolate it from the places/cultures for whom the words were originally written, its meanings fade and what you draw from it is awry.
It isn’t respectful to do this to the Bible. Let it be what it is.
Your response to Muff shows a similar problem. You heard words that you long decided were wrong/inferior and jump to ‘charitable’ dismissal. You don’t see Muff. Makes for pointless debate.
This is a common problem in US Evangelicalism; tone-deaf and half-blind yet loud and certain. It makes people like Jack run away. There are a lot of Jacks out there, Adam. They are kind honorable people who refuse to accept power-over attitudes, exceptionalism, woodenness, and the violence they see everywhere including the Bible. They have much to offer. But they require being seen, heard, understood.
Ken wrote:
So then it has to be about “degrees” in the caste system and what you define as lording it over– or not.
He who defines, wins. And in your construct, males define.
@ GSD:
Excellent point. But nowadays with so many female professionals, that would seriously hinder the tithe. I have always been confounded by female professionals who buy into the idea they are spiritually inferior.
Adam Borsay wrote:
“Indicate male leadership” is a weasel term. It could mean:
a) Indicate that men were leaders (there were mostly male leaders in 1st century society, but most men were not leaders either at church or at home – with households usually consisting of several adult brothers (or brothers in law) and their wives and a father, and male slaves, most men simply could not be leaders.)
OR
b) Indicate that God wants men to lead (too) – I have no problem with that, God does not call women exclusively.
c) Indicate that God wants (only) men to lead – There is not, AFAIK, one text in the BIlbe that teaches only men should lead. Texts that say wives should submit? All believers should submit to one another, not that husbands should do the opposite of sumbitting.
Texts that say a woman should not exercise authority over a man? Without even going into the texts in depth, it does NOT say: “A man SHOULD exercise authority.” Instead, Jesus say the princes of the world exercise authority, it should not be so with believers.
More examples here:
https://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/how-ofte-does-the-bible-say-men-should-be-the-heads-of-their-households/
Ken wrote:
Why not? If they are to “obey” and submit to leaders? Are you actually suggesting people can seek wisdom on their own and use reason to make decisions for themselves? (wink)
Perhaps we need to rethink the whole “elder/leader” paradigm and what it really means in spiritual terms.
I certainly do not need for another human to “cast a vision” of Jesus Christ and His Body for me.
@ Ken:
All Believers have access to the Holy Spirit and wisdom. That should help with your “will of God” conundrum.
Ken wrote:
Has it not occurred to you the author of Hebrews was making a case for specific people that should be listened to? We do not even know if the author was referring to past heros of the faith or locals. The whole thing is anonymous for a reason.
If you wandered into Jim Jones church back before he was a wacko (Jimmy Carter promoted him at one time!) would you obey because that is what scripture teaches? At what point do you stop obeying? Because once you go along with small things, like authoritarianism, it is harder to draw the line. People tend to keep moving that line.
I think it is perfectly ok for people to decide for themselves. If they are not purposely hurting or using others in the process, what difference does it make? But sadly, many who push the caste system are using others for their own insecurities.
Lydia wrote:
Wait. Surely you do not think that everybody thinks that unless they are ordained clergy of some sort then they are somehow inferior. I have nowhere in my thinking or feeling or even worst nightmares that some pastor is spiritually superior to some physician. It is those who do venerate the ministry of pastor/teacher who would even be susceptible to feeling inferior.
Now here is one thing. I personally ‘believe in’ vocational specialization and believe in the education and skills and personality traits needed to perform well in ones’s specialization because there is just way too much information et al for everybody to do everything well. So I do defer to the theological ideas of let us say theologians (once one compares them to each other) but I do not attempt to formulate a separate theology for myself. This means that I was better at my calling that they were at my calling, and they are better at their calling than I am at their calling. This is not a superior/inferior thing. This is expecting people to do their job well and acknowledging that I personally had enough trouble keeping up in my own field without having the burden of keeping up in theirs, and I do expect them to get good at their job and maintain that level of performance. Just like lawyers and engineers and accountants. Frankly I thought that my calling was too important for me to have to neglect it and waste my time coming along behind sloppy religionists and clear up their intellectual mess, should it be a mess.
Anyhow, that may be what you are seeing. It not only is not a sense of inferiority but it may border on the sin of pride-just the opposite of inferiority.
Daisy wrote:
And I think that those good comp men would be equally good husbands if they were mutualists. I think that the good comp women would be equally good wives if they were mutualists. The basic “need” for comp is to provide a formula with a guaranteed outcome. Which is impossible. It is much better to stick with the formula “Both of you imitate Christ and work together toward oneness of body, mind, and spirit.”
Ken wrote:
I have to talk about this a bit. I think I mostly agree with what you are saying, but that sentence is too dogmatic and too broad to account for some things.
For example, the instructions to masters and slaves (which is what it was-not managers and independent contractors) cannot be cut and pasted into the here and now in the US. We don’t have slaves, and the employer/employee relationship is not analogous as we do it here and now.
We do not think that nature itself teaches us (we learn what nature teaches us through science) that hair length is self-evident between the genders. In fact, during the hair length furor in fundamentalism in the not too distant past those who advocated of short this and long that could not find enough specifics in scripture to implement that so they made up their own definitions as to what is short and what is long. So which is worse, pony tails on men or adding to scripture the traditions of men?
There are these sorts of issues that arise and must be dealt with.
Times do change and with that the implications and the implementations of some scriptural statements. The trick is to know how to manage change without letting change itself wreck havoc with faith.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Not so at all. Gen 15:6, Heb. 11
Adam Borsay wrote:
Paul uses the head/body metaphor in Chapter 4 where we are to grow up into Christ who is the head. Are women, therefore, supposed to grow up into their husbands who is their head? I think not. I am not dismissing the idea that head–in certain contexts–includes the idea of leadership. And I am not dismissing the idea of leadership at all in any of my comments.
What I have done is dismissed the idea that the meaning of “head” in Ephesians 5 does not carry the meaning of “authority over” because in the very immediate context, Paul explains *in what way* Christ is the head which he is referencing. Namely, Christ sacrifices himself for his body (including males!) and provides for his body (including males!) We can say that Christ is the authority over the Church, but it does not follow from that that the husband who is to be like Christ is to be the authority over his wife. If you want to insist on a one-to-one correspondence, then you should be consistent and say that the husband can sanctify his wife and save her. And, indeed, there are some who say that.
I am not dismissing leadership. But I am dismissing the raw assertion, without Biblical warrant, that God has ordained one class of people to always be the Leaders and another class of people to always be the Followers. If marriage initiates the Headship/Followership hierarchy, then it must be explained why that is. Why does a married woman need a Leader and a single woman does not? And, again, there are some who say that every woman needs a Leader, and single women are under the “headship” of their father, older brother, and/or pastor. This is the Gothard Umbrellas of Authority scheme. It is simply not textually based.
IMO, the notion of headship is derived by reasoning backward from the presumption of headship. And that is why it becomes circular. And I will further point out that every time I have mentioned the circularity, not one of the men defending the comp position can state a non-circular argument from the text for “headship.” And that is because there is no grounding for the notion of “headship” in the first two chapters of Genesis. There are the famous and ridiculous 10 points of male headship put out by Grudem, Ware, and Piper, but they are each ungrounded, and 10 times 0 is still 0.
okrapod wrote:
Not sure why you would think I believe someone is inferior if they are not an ordained minister. If I communicated that I need help! :o)
You mention them doing their job well and you doing your job well. I think the issues lies in this question: What exactly IS their job? Is pastoring a vocation or a function within the Body? I realize that tradition made it a vocation and that is ok, too.
What you might want to consider is that large swaths of evangelicalism believe women cannot be ministers so perhaps “inferiority” needs to be considered when it comes to viewing it as a vocation? If it is a vocation and large parts of Christendom exclude women from that vocation (including Catholics) then what are we to make of that as a ‘vocational category’? Just wondering. I don’t think the government should regulate such things but it is interesting to discuss.
Many in Christendom believe God does not allow women in certain functions. So perhaps there is something to the spiritually inferior part? That explanation usually does not play well in these more enlightened days. But no women pastors or elders is what they claim scripture teaches– so there has to be a reason, right? They usually say it is God’s design and we are not to question it.
But what are we really talking about? Gifts? Vocations? I am never really sure as traditions are different.
I would not put pastor/doctor in similar vocational categories. Pastoring, to me, is a spiritual verb, so to speak, in biblical vernacular. It is a gift, a function and not static. In fact, I would call parents sort of pastors in the same sense as shepherding their children for a time. In “pastoring” the people one pastors should mature and go on to pastor others, if so gifted. I believe there can be many “pastors” in one Body.
Of course, tradition has turned it into a noun/office and we have everything from teaching pastors to pastor elders, priests and so on missing the point of the gifting, IMO. Mileage varies on these issues. Tradition is fine, I am not discounting it just discussing how this plays out with the woman question.
Now, if we are talking about theologians (which I do not view as automatically “pastors” but not saying theologians cannot pastor! How confusing it all is) that would be going the way of more scholarship, right? Which would be more vocational requiring lots of study, I would think.
I do think one can pastor without being a theologian but that theologians can pastor. Hee Hee.
I fear we have over thought the gifts as vocations and not as functions for the Body.
But that is ONLY my opinion which is pretty worthless. And remember, I am pretty ignorant about liturgical traditions.
Gram3 wrote:
I have not heard of these 10 points. Can you point me to them, Grahm3?
Adam Borsay wrote:
Actually, “symbol of” is added to the “authority over/on” her own head. I believe this was added to the text because, in the patriarchal culture in which this English translation was done, the idea that a woman might have authority over her own head *and* the idea that Paul would command her to assume that authority was unthinkable. Therefore, to make it thinkable, the words “symbol of” were added to make Paul’s words make sense in the context of patriarchal assumptions. The reason the woman should wear a headcovering in worship in Corinth is that uncovering her head/hair would have been scandalous in the ambient culture. It would have brought shame on herself, on her husband, on her family, on the fledgling church at Corinth, and ultimately on the name of Christ himself.
I actually asked a Muslim friend about what it means to cover your hair/head and uncover your hair/head. She said that uncovering your hair/head in a traditional Middle Eastern/Mediterranean culture is analogous to a woman stripping in the food court of a mall. Only much worse because of the implications for her husband and family. However, in the family home, it is perfectly permissible for a woman to uncover her hair. Therefore, a woman in the church assembly would be among her brothers and in her “home” where it is permissible to uncover her hair. Nevertheless, she should decide whether she should uncover or cover her head in the new circumstance of the church assembly. Paul says there is no Rule regarding this for the churches. While she has the freedom to uncover, she should also consider the impact upon the name of Christ if she does so. This is consistent with other instructions about forgoing freedom for a greater purpose which is consistent with maturity.
@ okrapod:
Most states do jot have personal property taxes on vehicles of any kind, only sales taxes.
@ Lydia:
Yeah, we are on different planets here on this issue. Very possibly both planets have enough water and oxygen to sustain life, but we are light years away on some things. If I could think of any more cosmic terminology I would, but alas and alack I cannot.
@ okrapod:
If I’d been in your shoes, i hopemi would have done what was necessary in order to protect myself.
okrapod wrote:
“Take me to your leader”? :o)
Adam Borsay wrote:
Primarily it indicates the thing on top of the body. Figuratively, it has many meanings, and I have not said that the only meaning is “source” while also saying that “source” is one possible meaning which must be determined by context. You seem convinced by the idea that Paul could have chosen another word for source. Are you equally persuaded by the argument that Paul could have chosen a much more direct word for “authority over his wife” instead of “kephale over his wife?” Your stated principle of word choice must be consistently applied. My conclusion is that in Ephesians 5, Paul did not intend for “head” to convey either “source” or “authority over” but rather provision and sacrifice, which is how Paul explains his use of that metaphor or figure in that immediate context.
Ken wrote:
Why not, Ken? Unless you’re insisting that all non-clergy adult believers are hopelessly stupid and immature, I don’t see why they can’t work out their problems. I find that grown-ups generally do, especially when they all have the Holy Spirit.
Daisy wrote:
What I would like her to understand is that some of us have seen all kinds of situations which seemed one way at first and then turned out to be something else. We have seen true accusations which were not believed, *and* we have seen false and slanderous accusations which were believed. We have even seen one case where two parties were accusing one another of horrible things and we could plausibly believe both of them and also plausibly disbelieve both of them. And these were people we knew! It was a matter of confidence in our ability to judge rather than a statement on their personal believability in that particular situation, if that makes any sense.
In my own case, it is not that I disbelieve her but rather than I do not know enough to make a judgment with any confidence. I think people should listen to her and ask questions. Victims of abuse do not often recognize their abuse for some time, and that may be what is happening here. I don’t think people should dismiss her because she is just now speaking up. And sometimes people make up abuse stories for other reasons. So I don’t think people are awful or shameful because they do not automatically rally to her side.
Personally, I find the virtue-signalling circus surrounding her husband to be over-the-top, but then I’m not sitting in a jail in Iran, and neither is my husband. Invoking the Okrapod rule: It is complicated.
okrapod wrote:
Yes indeedy.
Gram3 wrote:
Just based on that sentence are you saying that a wife should be submissive to her husband because he pays the bills? I don’t have a problem with that idea itself, it is very practical, and she does need to keep him happy is she expects him to hang around and continue to do so, but I do want to know if that is what you are saying?
Adam Borsay wrote:
In what regard is my hermeneutic inconsistent? I really try hard to be consistent. Do you think women are saved by giving birth? If I deny that is what Paul is saying, am I on shaky ground?
Ken wrote:
At our church, women are just semi-, or quasi-members. Men run the church in it’s entirety. There are men there who shout “women must submit” and women aren’t allowed to speak in mixed gender classes or business meetings because we would be “usurping” the authority of the men. Yet, 9 year old boys are allowed to lead in prayer and speak from the pulpit.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Do you think there are practical reasons that strong female figures have quantifiable and observable benefits? What constitutes a strong male figure? A strong female figure? I believe that a strong man is a man who imitates Christ. A strong woman is a woman who imitates Christ. And that is simply because the man, Christ Jesus, is the ultimate Human who completely pictures what Humanity was intended by God to be. God, not Grudem.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Actually, Galatians is about status relationships within the Kingdom and how those relationships are changed. So, it is about much more than merely salvation. Slaves were able to be saved under the Old Covenant. So were women. The ability of all kinds of people to be saved was not a new thing under the New Covenant. What was new is that the old Order of fallen humanity had been overturned.
numo wrote:
In Kentucky and Tennessee, and Maine, we pay sales taxes when we purchase vehicles, and we have to pay taxes and registration fees on highway vehicles once each year based on the estimated values of our vehicles.
Jack wrote:
Jesus took a huge break from religion. Please do not take a break from Jesus because of the way people interpret certain aspects of the Bible. Many of us have trouble with aspects of the OT and with the problem of evil. Including the village inerrantist who happens to believe that is not an essential of the faith. 🙂
@ Nancy2:
I’m curious about why you’re still there? I couldn’t take thst.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Where is this prescribed or ordained? I think that inferred is a better word than prescribed.
@ Nancy2:
In most states, there is no annual personal property tax on vehicles. I 1st encountered it (and had to pay it) when i lived in VA. The law comes from a reduction of household inventories (as required from colonial times until the late 1970s) to tax on vehicles only. It is, to my way of thinking, crazy, but it certainly generates a ton of revenue in the more populated counties.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
It is especially good if these adults are all functioning in their giftedness. Many hands make the workload light, especially when people are doing what they are good at. Personally, I have seen more “pastors” burn out because they are not gifted in all the areas that is required when we treat a pastor as a CEO. We also stunt the body’s growth when we expect 1, 2, 3, 4 or so people to do all the work; or, the leader wants to run a body of believers like a corporation and bark orders to whomever will do the work.
@ Nancy2:
I didn’t mean my question critically, as i realize that there are all kinds of reasons for being in specific circumstances. I’ve never bern in or around a church that was so incredibly severe regarding women being “less than,” and would probsbly run away screaming, which is about me, not you!
Nancy2 wrote:
That is true. One may not pay a “property tax” on a car, bit in some states it has been renamed a “registration fee”/tax. This is the case in CA. The fee is based on the value of the car.
@ Ken:
I am weary of saying this but too stubborn not to say it again. An application of a principle may change due to circumstance without abandoning the undergirding principle. To say that disagreeing with an application is the same thing as throwing out the principle is simply false and misleading. And counterproductive to actually keeping the principle.
Ken wrote:
No one disputes that there is a need for order in the home and in the church. What we are disputing is the idea that God has ordained only certain people to be in authority in the home and in the church. And any plausible explanation for why that is the case. Because, if that is so, then God has broken his own Rule, and I do not think our God does that.
numo wrote:
Stupidity. We’ve been at this church for a little less than 2 years. My husband likes it there. He admits that because he is a man, his perception is biased. He doesn’t notice the huge discrimination against women. He doesn’t notice the comments, etc.
I’m toughing it out there so far because we have had marriage problems. My husband’s career change, his becoming completely engulfed in church, and my health problems resulted in a toxic mix.
I don’t know what would do more damage – me toughing it out in this church, or embarrassing my husband and tarnishing his reputation by walking away from it. Seems like a lose/lose situation, but the more I attend church, the more I lean toward quitting church.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, amen and precisely.
Patrice wrote:
Thank you for this!
Gram3 wrote:
Great point!
Gram3 wrote:
Exactly. Ken and Adam contend that men and men only must be the ones in charge of maintaining order. Men must run the show, however they see fit. If a woman has a different idea, or sees a flaw, or a way to improve order ….. heh, if the man wants to hear her idea, okay …… if not, tough luck. It’s the man’s God-ordained responsibility to decide when and where the woman matters and when and where she doesn’t.
I have heard men say that they must lead and make the decisions for the church and their families. If they make a mistake, that’s okay. We just go back to the fork in the road where the men made the wrong turn and try again. Everybody’s happy!!! Right???
While I’m thinking, “Yeah, right. Let me out of the truck. I’ll walk alone, thank you very much.”
Ken wrote:
Who said this?
Bridget wrote:
Here’s a link where they are discussed favorably:
https://johnploughman.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/bruce-ware-and-a-complementarian-vision-of-creationthe/
On a previous thread at TWW, I debunked every one, but I cannot find that comment via the search box here. I’ve seen them in various places, and Grudem probably has them on his site. They are also probably in RBMW, but I’m too lazy to look.
Bridget wrote:
Perhaps I did in saying quite often that was then and this is now. And more than one comment from time to time pretty well rules out the applicability of the apocalypse of John in some people’s thinking. Not to mention that the emphasis on context in interpreting some of Paul’s statements seems to firmly ground the idea of that was then and in that context but this is now and a different context. If I understand what he is saying, that is.
Gram3 wrote:
@ Nancy2:
Sorry – I messed up the quote part.
Here is what I added:Nancy2 wrote:
@ Nancy2:
I just talked to a friend this morning who is totally disgusted with church but continues in a diluted capacity for similar reasons. I figure she needs someone to vent to and encourage her in a non judgemental way. Basically my job is to assure her she is not nuts and in fact, perhaps sees things the other 400 there, don’t. :o) it can be a lonely place.
@ okrapod:
I think Paul was making a matter-of-fact statement that the husband was the wife’s sole means of support and sustenance in that culture. That was the common understanding of the function of the head at that time: source of air, water, food. If someone is providing me with everything I need, then ISTM that I should defer to that person in such a way as to not make that provision more difficult. I should express gratitude and not entitlement or insolence.
Conversely, to the husbands who viewed their wives as property, Paul instructs them that they should love and sacrifice for their wives as Christ does for his Bride. There was absolutely no need for Paul to instruct husbands that they were in absolute authority over their wives. Obviously, in the Artemis cult, women were viewed as spiritually superior. But in everyday life, the male still was the ruler.
If we read Ephesians as a book of church order or as a household management manual, then we get one reading. However, if we read Ephesians 5 in light of the preceding 4 chapters plus 21 verses in chapter 5, we understand that Paul is describing how life in the Spirit manifests in everyday life. And, indeed, how the Spirit fundamentally alters every relationship.
Way way back in the OP, Dee wrote:
“And, of course, there is TGC’s much admired Doug Wilson who recently wrote in Moving Out of Range
Often intractable marriage problems are also opaque. She reports his abusive behavior to the elders or pastor and the husband denies it. It is now a did too/did not situation. When that happens, it is not possible to excommunicate the husband on the testimony of his wife, any more than it would be lawful to go the other way and excommunicate the wife on the strength of his word. You cannot do this because sometimes men lie and other times women do. Scripture teaches that two or three witnesses are necessary in order to excommunicate anyone.”
Today, in an Empire Strikes Back piece which Wilson has been just itching to publish for 2-1/2 months, Wilson strikes back at ebil abusive patriarchalist Gary Greenfield, elaborating upon what abusive mistreatment looked like in his Kirk 10 years back.
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/109921.html
Here is one now-deleted backstory from 09/11/15 in Wilson’s comment thread:
‘ ‘ gary greenfield. 23 minutes ago I’m sure many of you may be thinking, what really happened to cause the breakup of our marriage of thirty-two years? It’s been ten years now since Pat and I separated and eventually divorced. I’ve never talked about what happened between us in a public forum and I’m not quite sure how far to go with this but I do think its important to talk about for the sake of the greater good of perhaps helping others gain clarity and even perhaps comfort from knowing that perhaps their concerns and intuitions are indeed valid. Troubles began to escalate to an intermittently intolerable level between me, Doug and the church elders shortly after moving to Moscow from Lewiston in the year 2000 to be closer to the Moscow Christ Church community of believers and to our business, Bucer’s Coffeehouse Pub. Sometime around early 2004, we made a decision to quietly begin extracting ourselves from the Moscow community to begin a new life in the Couer d Alene, Idaho area. I was a serial entrepreneur and figured we would start a new life and new business there. My primary goal in moving was to get out from the under constant pressure from Doug to get with the program and join the club, lock, stock and barrel but that was something I wasn’t about to do. Given the circumstances, it would have been like giving up my masculinity and the authority of my home to a person who had gone from being someone I respected and was proud to call my friend to being a meglomaniac and control freak. So, by the grace of God, we were able to secretly sell our mansion in the historic section of Moscow for significantly more money than we paid for it and it was accomplished without listing it or anyone even knowing that we sold it. The family that purchased it even agreed to allow us to live in the home for year while we worked out the rest of the details of our move. The next step was to quietly sell Bucer’s without listing it and without any public fanfare. It was at this stage of the plan that Pat began to act rather oddly in that whenever we would find a buyer which wasn’t all that difficult, she would find excuses not to sell. Eventually, she confessed to me that she didn’t want to sell Bucer’s and she wanted to figure out a way to move to CDA while also keeping an apartment in Moscow so that we could run Bucer’s, while also starting a new business up North. So, because both our names were on the business papers as partners, I couldn’t sell without her consent, so, I put money down for the purchase of an office/apartment building downtown to live in, so that we could commute between CDA and Moscow. For me, this was a compromise because I really wanted to get out Moscow but Pat was now coming out of the closet with her adamancy to remain in Moscow and I was between a rock and hard place. In the meantime, having been a part of the Christ Church/Wilson community in one capacity or another since 1976, I was always searching and studying the scriptures as a check and balance in regards to the Wilson teachings. As concerns and conflicts began to become increasingly apparent over the years and so much more so as the CRE grew, I began to come to the conclusion that perhaps this Christian movement had evolved into a cult like religious organisation that claimed the name of Christ but was gradually drifting away from tenants of faith as they had been preserved and passed down through the centuries. It all became clear to me as I was sitting in church one Sunday and I asked myself if the Holy Spirit was really here with us. I am a man who follows my heart and my intuition and I’ve been that way since I was a little boy, so I couldn’t ignore what my heart was telling me. tbc
* * Douglas Wilson gary greenfield an hour ago Gary, you are welcome to tell this story here, and I appreciate the calm way you are approaching it. I am very sorry for the grief you have gone through. But please keep in mind that you are getting to the parts where I will not be able to explain our actions in response to what happened. I would be willing to do this if the affected members of the Greenfield family all agreed to let me answer questions about it. But since that is not in the cards right now, I will be remaining silent. But please know that my silence is not convenient for me, quite the reverse.’
My question for Doug, if he reads, is — have affected family members now agreed to let him talk about them?
@ Gram3:
I read (mostly) the link on the 10 reasons. From my viewpoint, of course, #1-9 are based on ancient creation mythology which under no circumstance is either history or science. There are some good ideas in those myths, but the thoracic surgery stuff is not one of them. Even so and in addition they conclude things from the stories which are not there. I do not believe that people can actually be this inept; they are just doing this for their own purposes. And #10 is based on assumption of knowledge concerning the trinity. No wonder they believe apparently that YEC is essential for salvation-or apparently they think that, since it it essential for comp-ism which they think is essential to the gospel which is essential to salvation.
If I got migraines this would be the time.
@ Gram3:
Best synopsis I have seen!
@ Bridget:
I think any discussion about historical context prompts that sort of response. Perhaps they read it as a declaration there is nothing in scripture for us today?
@ Ken:
Submission in the Bible is not about being under someone, as though they are your boss, which is how comps understand the word “submission,” which is problem #1.
Problem 2: The Bible does call for believers to submit to each other (ie, Eph 5.21), regardless of gender, marital status, etc.
If someone wants a “boss” position over an entire other person or group of persons, Jesus says they are to actually put themselves last and be “servant to all.”
There really is no such thing as being “boss over” in Christianity, which is one of the points Jesus was driving home.
The Bible simply does not teach submission in the manner you feel it does.
numo wrote:
Christians are to emulate Jesus, not Billy Graham.
okrapod wrote:
Jesus said you would do greater things than he, which may include raising the dead.
But concerning how you are to treat other people, you are to pattern yourself after Jesus and his teachings. He said if you love him, you will obey his commandments.
It was Jesus who told the Good Samaritan parable.
Jesus did not insert a clause in that story where by a married Christian man in 2015 USA gets to step over a wounded un-married woman on his way to church because the neighbors might see him with her and gossip that there is “something going on” between the two.
Gram3 wrote:
Well said. It is frustrating to think that you give someone advice on how to better treat each other and they later ignore the intent and instead abide by the specifics and end up mistreating each other. Legalism, yuck.
@ okrapod:
Related:
Think The “Billy Graham Rule” Would Have Saved Tullian? Think Again…
http://www.missioalliance.org/think-the-billy-graham-rule-would-have-saved-tullian-think-again/
Snippet:
Rather than a pre-set universal rule mostly enforced by men for women, boundaries can be mutually discerned case-by-case based on a myriad of relational factors such as history, trust, context, and yes, gender.
Lydia wrote:
I already gave links to about 3 different web pages above that offer rebuttals to Adam B’s take on Galatians 3.28, but his view on Gal 3.28 just doesn’t make sense to me.
Why would Paul write Gal 3.28 to say salvation is to all to every body?
It’s already obvious from the OT that God meant for salvation to be for all, as God accepted anyone into Judaism (foreigners and other religions could convert), and faith was the criteria for acceptance, not animal sacrifice.
I don’t think folks would need to be told that slaves could be “just as saved” and redeemed as non-slaves, or Gentiles could be “just as saved as Jews” or women could be “just as saved thru Jesus” as men… I think they already knew that.
Daisy wrote:
There is absolutely no story told about Jesus when he was alone in a private setting with any woman at all. The village well in Samaria was public. The feast at the pharisee’s house was public. The women who traveled with them were women (plural) presumably together. We can be pretty sure that the alone with a woman thing did not happen because his enemies were watching him like a hawk apparently and no such story erupted. Yes, he taught the crowds which included women. Publicly.
Unless you go to the non-canonical writings where he was smooching with Mary Magdalen of course.
Daisy wrote:
But, the BG rule says, ” As a man of God, MY reputation, whether based on factual evidence or malicious gossip, is THE most important part of MY ministry!”
GSD wrote:
Very good points.
The more honest comp advocates (the real fringe ones) are at least more intellectually honest and take this male headship stuff to its logical conclusion, something the “soft comps” in this thread won’t do, or they don’t seem to realize where their views can lead.
The fringe guys believe women should not hold jobs outside the home, should not attend college, should not vote, and should never move out of mom and dad’s house until/unless they marry.
Even though the New Testament has nothing in it about Un-married women needing a male lead, or male headship, the fringe or hard comps will create un-biblical rules that insist a SINGLE woman must have a male covering/head/lead, so they will tell single ladies to look for a “Daddy Figure” in a male church pastor.
Some of the same folks (not all, but some) who argue in favor of the horribly insulting “Billy Graham rule” are some of the same folks who would argue that an un-married woman should cozy up to married male church elders or preachers, because she supposedly needs a “male covering”.
So, I, an unmarried woman, am supposed to let some dude who’s not related to me dictate my life choices or relationship with God, but he is instructed not to give me a ride in a car if, my car breaks down on a rainy day, and I am stranded?
I think a car trip is a lot less likely to risk a hot, steamy affair, or gossip, than a woman who is directed to meet regularly with a married church dude to get spiritual or life guru instruction.
Not that I personally would have an affair in either situation, but there you are.
@ Daisy:
Tullian made his own choices, and apparently during a time of emotional upheaval in his own life. But he did not have to choose what he did choose.
okrapod wrote:
There are preacher’s who say they would never stop on the side of the road to help a woman change a flat tire because people might get the wrong idea.
Have you read the rules that NAMB church planters have to sign off on?
Nancy2 wrote:
Jesus came to redeem and work through individuals, not institutions. The institution we call church is OK if it is preaching the Gospel (whosoever will may come), teaching the Truth (the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth) and equipping the saints to do the work of the ministry (every believer is a priest). Nancy2, what you are feeling is a burden for the church (little ‘c’) to really be the Church (big ‘C’) … there’s a big difference. Attending the church (little ‘c’) can be exhausting (as one TWW commenter put it a few posts ago). As a born-again, baptized believer in Christ you can never quit the Church (big ‘C’) … even though it might be hard locating it on this side of Heaven. If you opt to leave the church (the one without God active in its midst), Jesus knows that it has already left you, because it left its first love in Christ before you got there.
okrapod wrote:
It doesn’t really matter.
Because even pro- BGR (Billy Graham rule) advocates will tell married men don’t be seen with another woman in public – like don’t pick her up along side a road if her car breaks down, lest someone else see it.
BGR guys will say, Don’t meet with a single woman for a cup of coffee at a Starbucks (which is public), if you feel you must, bring another adult babysitter with you.
The BGR is totally ridiculous and casts women into temptresses and sex pots, when most of us single ladies have better sexual ethics than married couples.
I’ve seen I don’t know how many Christina shows do exposes on how tons of married Christian men are naughty site addicts.
And, yes, regarding the woman at the well story, the well was open, but IIRC the story says it was mid-day, when nobody would be at the well, which is why the woman went there. It was just the two of them.
Even meeting or talking to a prostitute in public was scandalous in that day.
Sorry not buying the over-caution of married guys meeting with women, all because the neighbors might gossip.
This view is so horribly insulting to single ladies, and needlessly isolates us.
It also assumes that single women are non-discriminate in who they are attracted to, as though we singles find every last married man attractive enough to want to bed.
@ okrapod:
One more thing and I will hush. You are advocating apparently and if I understand you for saying that a pastor (or others) should be alone with a female parishioner or whatever if she demands it, but then you turn right around and say that if some woman accuses some man of sexual whatever the world should believe her automatically based on mere allegation.
How is that fair to the man?
Ken wrote:
They were the first preachers of the gospel.
You would like to say that they were easily deceived, though, so we cannot trust their accounts of the risen Jesus.
God put women in leadership and preaching positions at times, in the OT and in the NT.
Lydia wrote:
If I am remembering right, the other comp person in this thread, JS, was telling me in an earlier post that I, as a single woman, do not need male leadership.
I don’t know how Flag Ken balances that with his comp beliefs.
(Flag Ken did basically tell me to buzz off on an earlier discussion, as these chats don’t apply to me, a single woman. But, I am a single woman who may or may not marry some day. Though I’m not keen on marrying a Christian guy)
As I’ve said a few times before, going with the JS view, if a single (unmarried) woman does not need male leadership, what changes when she marries that instantly makes her suddenly need male leadership?
Does God remove a Christian woman’s intellect at the marriage altar, or remove the Holy Spirit from her when she takes her marriage vows?
@ okrapod:
That sounds like I am talking to myself. I am old but not that old. That was part of the conversation with Daisy.
@ okrapod:
Why do you assume if a man and woman meet alone together, they are having an illicit affair or it will lead to one?
The problem with most of Christianity today is that they over-sexualize everything and assume people are incapable of sexual self control. As a celibate woman, I see this all the time in Christianity.
@ okrapod:
Did you read the entire article? Tullian was a spring board upon which to critique the entire concept of the insipid, sexist Billy Graham Rule.
The article was not only about Tullian in particular. The link to that again:
http://www.missioalliance.org/think-the-billy-graham-rule-would-have-saved-tullian-think-again/
Daisy wrote:
I am not making that assumption. You are the one who keeps bringing up the idea that something is really apt to go wrong, or not. I am making the allegation that people have enemies, enemies will try to destroy people any way they can, gossip and innuendo and outright allegations are epidemic in our society and I am saying that people would be foolish to allow themselves to be put in vulnerable situations where that sort of thing could happen. And yes, there might indeed be the woman scorned phenomenon, or the woman who tries to tell her friends that she and the pastor are really special ‘friends, wink wink’ to impress her friends or whatever. You keep talking about actual sex. I keep talking about viciousness and retaliation and envy and opportunity for malicious gossip or worse. We are not even talking about the same thing. Maybe that is why we have come to this impasse.
Nancy2 wrote:
I think there is a similarity of sorts between the Billy Graham rule and evangelical MT (Modesty Teachings).
All of these teachings have in common sexualizing girls and women, and blaming women for the sexual failings of men.
In Christian thinking, men are not encouraged to police their own behavior, or else, they are taught to go the other (extreme-ish) route, and do things like always refuse to meet with women, even in public places, like at a coffee shop.
In secular life, men and women sometimes meet for business purposes – over lunches in restaurants (which is a public place), and affairs do not always happen as a result. if they do, I’m not sure how one can insist that everyone stop meeting for business lunches?
Or maybe America should be like some Muslim nations and tribes, where women have to leave the house in a head- to- toe covering, and have to always have a male family member escort in public.
I think Christians (especially evangelicals) like rules a lot. They’d rather live by a set of check lists and rules, than make a daily, or event- by- event, choice on what to do in any given situation.
The Duggar family comes to mind. They taught their son not to go on the internet, to glance down at his shoes if a woman in a short skirt walked by. But he ended up groping his own sisters and hiring strippers as an adult anyway.
Anyway, the BG rule reminds me of Christian modesty teachings. Women are told that it’s up to them, how they dress and what they do to keep men out of sexual sin.
By virtue of being female and nothing else (well, maybe marital status, singles are viewed with more suspicion in these paradigms), you get this burden put on you.
It also reminds me of Genesis, when Adam blamed Eve to God, “But God, it was this woman you gave me…”
@ Bridget:
Adam, js, ken have been receiving thoughtful comments from a rather large number of intelligent generous people here, across the spectrum, from many different angles. In response, they do little but assert and re-assert. They circle in assertions.
We’ve been listening to people like them all our lives. But they do not listen back. I’ve not seen them listen to anyone with a different viewpoint. They pontificate outward.
Long ago and for a long time, I said ok to them, but it hurt me deeply, repeatedly, so I stopped. That didn’t matter to them. Jack doesn’t matter to them, nor does Nancy2, Naghmeh, etc. Their ideas of ‘righteous doctrine’ are more important than humans. Jesus had strong words about that.
It’s apparent to most outside the church that these folks are mostly governed by a need to maintain authority over others. I have no idea why this is–it might be a combo of arrogance and fear. Whatevs. I’m sick&tired of having it slung about everywhere as the truth from God.
@ Daisy:
I read the article and it is somebody who basically is saying what you seem to be saying. If nobody takes their pants off what is the possible harm-as in ‘don’t we trust ourselves enough.’ My whole argument is that if you/or the author think that the only danger is getting it on with somebody then you have misread humanity and underestimated what people do to other people .
Ken wrote:
Wondering if some have considered that it appears that reading the “plain” words of scripture, the woman rules in the home. 🙂
I desire therefore that the younger widows marry, bear children, rule the household, give none occasion to the adversary for reviling 1Tim. 5:14
Nancy2 wrote:
I think people ought to seek wisdom. But the BG rule can be taken to ridiculous heights. Some because it is all about image and they have too much to loose.
I know a mega pastor who stopped when a woman he knew well broke down. He called his secretary to come give her a lift. You just knew in that world you could not ride to lunch with the opposite sex.
A lot of these guys think they are targets ( or wish because it feeds their importance for protection. Most have body guards). And some are targets. Celeb xtianity is a strange world. Glad to be out.
There was also a rule about separate airline flights which I could never really understand.
I spent most of my career traveling with men. Gasp! I always wondered where the thinking came from that we turned into animals in such situations.
okrapod wrote:
That is one basis of the BGR, though, and in evangelical thinking: if a man and a woman are alone (or meet in public), a seedy affair is guaranteed to go down.
The otehr basis for the BG Rule is, which you seem to buy into:
Well, gosh, even if the man and woman do not ‘get it on’ in a fit of passion, someone might THINK they are “doing it” and that is enough to ruin a man’s reputation, so it should not be done.
Jesus Christ faced similar gossip and assumptions in his day.
The Pharisees were all, “If Jesus only KNEW the woman who was touching him now, he would not have allowed it, he must not be a real prophet.”
Did Jesus let that stop him from associating with such women, or any woman? No.
Jesus showed compassion to the biggest out-casts of his day, too, like the lepers and tax collectors.
If I take your earlier admonishment of, “Well, that’s Jesus, and I’m not Jesus,” that means I too can sit here and ignore the examples or teachings of Jesus that I personally am not comfortable with or that I dislike.
Which means I can blow off people I find really annoying even if they are injured or need help in some way.
okrapod wrote:
My understanding of your view is:
A man’s reputation is everything, and it should not be jeopardized by meeting with women. A dude could lose his marriage or ministry, gasp.
This rationale – protecting a reputation – for adhering to the BGR causes the same sort of damage to single women as the other rationale does, so I still object to it.
And why are we not concerned for a woman’s rep?
You don’t want folks thinking a married dude is a cheater, but are presumably okay with people assuming all single woman, (or a specific single woman who meets a married dude), is a temptress or fornicator?
Why is married guy’s rep of supreme importance here? (Rhetorical question on my part)
Lydia wrote:
Yes, I don’t know why some complementarians think women (at least wives) need a male leader, when the same Holy Spirit resides in lady believers (both married and single) as in male ones?
Lydia wrote:
(quoting Ken)
This touches on something that bothers me that I was posting about last night.
I don’t think it’s really any one Christian person’s place (not really Flag Ken’s place) to demand submission from other believers. When you start demanding it, it stops being submission.
I think he is also understanding the word “submission” to mean “take orders from others, being under control of a boss figure.” I don’t think that is how the Bible is presenting the word or concept.
The Bible talks about serving one another out of love.
Anyway, as pertaining to Christian submission to other Christians, the Bible is asking it of each person on a voluntary basis, and God wants you to do it out of love, not out of someone demanding it of you.
Even Jesus does not force followers to submit to him, he asks them to. He doesn’t command it per se.
I am having a hard time reconciling Christian male complementarians who strongly insist on blogs that I must submit to men, or else.
But then they’re like, “but hey, submitting to men is all groovy, because men will serve you like Jesus did!”
Well, Jesus did not brow beat me and demand that I submit to him the way male complementarians (and even some hostile female ones) go about in their books or blog comments.
Daisy wrote:
I was concerned for my reputation which is why I did what I did in my own life. I highly recommend it for anybody who needs it. My comment is way up there about living out this concept in my own life to protect my reputation when I was in practice. If other women do not do that for themselves, that is their choice.
Ken wrote:
Paul included instructions in the NT for slaves to be obedient to their masters, so you are saying slavery is for people today, in the year 2015?
Bridget wrote:
Yes, I also disagree with his take.
God, if I remember right, allowed anyone who wanted into Judaism to convert into Judaism in the OT.
I think it’s in the NT that says Abraham and all those OT Hebrew guys were justified by FAITH, not by the priest caste, or by animal sacrifice.
Paul wrote:
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans Chapter 4)
@ okrapod:
As someone who is getting over codependency, I’m no longer as concerned with what others think of me.
This has a lot of benefits in life, when you’re not quite as hung up on getting other people’s approval, or worrying about what they think of you, or may think.
However. One thing that bothers me about the BGR, though, is that it has concrete impact on how singles are treated in churches, and it plays into the continuing sexist garbage that both men and women have to put up with in church culture, which can further limit opportunities women have in the Christian community.
In a practical example as has been brought up before, a single woman whose car breaks down may have to walk in the rain into town because the married Christian guy thinks he cannot risk giving her a lift, because the neighbors may think he’s having an affair with her.
Gram3 wrote:
Isn’t leadership in the Bible based on an idea of wanting to serve others (out of love and concern for their well being), not wanting to rule over them and to have the final say?
The complementarian idea of leadership and having leader v. ruled over classes, seems to be driven in part by wanting to rule over others.
Matthew 20:21 – The mother in that passage wanted Jesus to put her sons in positions of power, and Jesus corrected her.
Some of Jesus’ audience wanted him to overthrow the Roman government of the time. Jesus had to tell them he was not here to establish an earthly political kingdom, and he was not about rulership, not like that.
Do these concepts not register at all with people arguing for male hierarchy in churches and marriages?
@ Daisy:
I hear what you are saying about recovery from codependency. I never experienced that. I am still working on becoming minimally civilized. But walk into town in the rain? I don’t know why the guy thought that this particular situation would put him in danger. Or why he cared to that extent, but I bet he has been accused of something before and is like the alcoholic who does not choose to hang out in the bar with his old buddies. Somebody might think we was at it again.
That is not like the pastor in the article who thought it was a good idea to meet alone with a long time woman friend for some counseling session in an empty small church because…because to him it was a sacred place of sorts? Because the world ought to be like that? Oh, bless him, somebody help this man.
I do not think either the man in the car or the pastor in the church was using good judgment.
Gram3 wrote:
I think that is a large hermeneutic key in understanding many of the disputed verses or passages in the New Testament about women in marriage, home, and culture.
Not that Paul was saying God was against women leading / teaching/ preaching to men in church or marriage, but a lot of his commentary on these thigs was stipulated because they were in highly partriarchal cultures where the Non-Christians would look askance at the Gospel if they saw Christians violating their (Non Christian) cultural norms concerning the place of women.
These days, it’s flipped around.
Complementarians insisting on limiting women as they do makes the Gospel look backwards, unloving, and unappealing to women (and some men) in a secular culture in 2015 that sometimes gives women more opportunity than the church does.
And a lot of women are fed up and leaving either church or the entire Christian faith altogether because of it, too.
Gram3 wrote:
This is my take on Ephesians as well.
That is why I was asking Adam about it here Bridget wrote:
He had not yet responded
Patrice wrote:
I hope Most of us get that. These convos are not only for them. I doubt many of us believe Ken, ADam or JS will change their minds because of our studied responses. After all, most of us are just women. What can we really know? Not even mutualists and egals agree on interpretive specifics except there are no commands about gender roles.
Ironically, comps are all over the place as to the degree of the caste. We tend to want to allow people to operate in their giftings.
I know some lurkers who are really trying to understand why they have believed what they believed for so long but now, for different reasons, cannot accept it anymore. They tied the comp doctrine to living out their salvation and now are adrift.
In so many of Ken’s, Adams and JS’s comments I hear the same concerns these folks have coming out of comp world. They are not hearing brave/open discussions at church. They only hear indoctrination. It is uncanny how ingrained it has become in a few generations. My mom and her generation had not even been taught Creation order, a relatively new one to affirm hierarchy in the Trinity and human relationships.
I am not as nice as I should be but frankly, I live at ground zero with CBMW, YRR and teachings like what Gram linked to from Bruce Ware at Clifton Baptist. This stuff is everywhere and not even non SBC churches are immune. I have heard it— all over and over and over. And around these parts, one usually stands alone from their church friends on this issue.
Jesus Christ gets such a bad rap!
@ Gram3:
Thanks for the link!
@ okrapod:
By the way, it’s not that I am entirely un-sympathetic to your view.
I understand there may be some scheming women out there who may try to make a guy look bad (or even if they are not, people get the wrong idea), which could land him in hot water with a wife or a job. I do get that.
So, while I roll my eyes at stuff like male preachers who insist on doing things like keeping a door cracked open when meeting with a lady visitor alone, or having glass windows installed in their office, I sort of understand.
And, to me, some of this stuff is a separate issue from abuse cases, where a married woman is claiming her spouse is abusing her.
I’m not sure how to articulate why I feel it is different, and it would probably take me a 34 page long post to attempt an explanation, so I’ll not go into that here.
There are just several assumptions or consequences from the Billy Graham Rule that burn my biscuits and rub me the wrong way.
Gram3 wrote:
The funny thing to me is, whatever the Greek word for “head” means in the biblical text is that I don’t think it means what complementarians assume it means.
The rest of the NT paints a picture of mutual service of all believers (not limited by gender or marital status), instructing believers not to seek to have power over each other, and it says there is neither male nor female in Christ, and so on.
Considering all that, I doubt that the word ‘head’ in certain NT passages means “boss over” or “authority over.”
Ken wrote:
All egalitarians (and anti-Gender Complementarians, whatever their label) say is that any so-called “roles” be based on giftings of the Holy Spirit and/or talents and skills of each person regardless of gender.
Rather than put into man-made categories of “for boys only” or “for girls only.”
Why does only one type or class of people in the church get the duty of “admonishing” others? Why can’t Average Jane and Average Hank correct Average Joe if Joe is doing something immoral?
Why would Jane and Hank have to go to Pastor Fred and ask Fred to go to Joe? Doesn’t the Holy Spirit often correct believers who go astray, too?
I know God sometimes works through people, but sometimes not.
From Hebrews 12:
“because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”
Acts 5:
Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.”
10 And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last…
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t feel people who are hesitant to believe her are awful. I’ve never said that or believed it.
The only thing I’ve tried to get across is that this usually happens when a woman says she was abused.
The standard, automatic response from most people in these situations is, “I don’t believe her,” or “what about the man’s side,” or “I need to know more before I can make a decision,” etc.
If a woman really is being abused, this sort of thinking paralyzes people, and the woman does not get the help she needs. She feels even more discounted, helpless, and isolated.
Lydia wrote:
Especially when they are only 30 years old and never held a real job.
Nancy2 wrote:
and ATTN Ken and Adam Borsay
There are also absurd situations like:
A male preacher invited a husband and wife team to his Sunday morning service to give some kind of financial advice lecture or some such (I read about this on another blog).
Everyone knew the wife was more the expert than the husband was. She had more college degrees and whatever in the topic.
The husband for whatever reason could not participate on stage with his wife.
Rather than have the wife stand alone and give the lecture herself, the preacher made the wife stand back stage, out of sight of the church audience, and read her rehearsed lecture lines into a microphone.
-Which was fed into the ear piece of a male speaker on stage, who repeated her comments word for word to the church audience.
This is gender complementarian at work in the real world.
Nancy2 wrote:
This reminds me also of how gender complementarianism is really not different from current or ancient sexist ideas and practices.
I guess gender comps do not think that Jesus was trying to usher in something new and better for women, than what they had endured other religions and cultures?
Christian gender comp is just a continuation of sexism that is in other religious views or secular cultures.
—–
Source for following:
http://newlife.id.au/christian-living/galatians-3_28-identity/
For two thousand years, every morning, many devout Jewish men have said the following prayer, or a similar form of it:
“Blessed are you God of the universe who has not made me a Gentile, who has not made me a slave, who has not made me a woman.”
———–
That’s essentially the gender comp prayer. Not much changes for women under Christian gender complementarianism.
Nancy2 wrote:
In some states, you have to pay for a second sticker.
I forget what it’s called, but is has something to do with vehicle emissions and pollution.
You have to take your car in once a year to pass a mechanic’s inspection and pay to get a sticker if your car passes that test.
Gram3 wrote:
I am curious to hear the folks arguing this point to please explain WHY they believe this to be so, or why they feel that God believes so.
I don’t see anything in the Bible where God argues that he created men to be capable to do only ‘X,’ and women are not.
I don’t see where the Bible says that God did not give women ‘Quality Z’ that he gave to men, etc.
About the only attempt at an explanation I’ve seen from complementarians who visit here to explain this, was Flag Ken who thinks women are more easily deceived than men.
I don’t agree with his reason, but he at least attempted an explanation.
Daisy wrote:
Yes, some fundies must have a very high opinion of their own erotic attraction. Too high, maybe …
I just found out that Christian author Rebecca Groothuis, who has written a few books about gender equality, was diagnosed with dementia. 🙁
Her husband discusses her medical condition and more here:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/november/bedeviled-by-my-wifes-dementia.html?share=yEzYjxdyuOjRPK71h9LuErPPYOZvdH4A
I enjoyed her book “Good News For Women” but think it was misplaced in a move several years ago. I’ve been thinking about buying a replacement copy.
I’m sorry to hear she has health problems.
Patrice wrote:
I agree. many people have given them many thoughtful responses.
As far as them listening to us, one or two of them do. But it is in order to find a hole of flaw or inconsistency or some not communicated in a way they can grasp that they jump on and then attack.
Yes, that has happened to me twice by one of them on this thread alone.
No acknowledgement or understanding of anything else said.
Just looking for chink in the armor to attack.
As has been said above, when I have time to engage, I don’t do this for the JSs. Adams, and Kens (JAKs).
I do it for the lurkers so that they can see that the trite and glib answers given by the JAKs of the comp world are not nearly as solid or biblical as the JAKs would like people to believe.
Mara wrote:
Good point, Mara.
Very interesting stuff on here, especially under the “Negative Experiences” sub-section, which is under “Women’s Experience of Marginalization”.
Experiences of Women ETS Members at the 2014 ETS Annual Meeting
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/question-mark-over-my-head?page=show
The following is by one lady, who says Christian men she talks to disregard, or disbelieve, her personal experiences of being marginalized by Christians, due to being a woman:
Unmarried women also talk on that page about being on the receiving end of assumptions by Christians, especially married men; here is what one lady said:
By another single woman who was in attendance:
“He [a Christian guy there] made a point to say several times he was married. You realize that even just your very appearance makes other people uncomfortable in some way. They may not be aware of it, but they make you aware of it. “
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Steve Taylor is an extremely perceptive man. And this was in 1985!
siteseer wrote:
I’ve always been partial to ‘Am I in Sync’.
I see from the comment that this one was written about Bill Gothard.
Ken wrote:
oh dear…. sigh…
Ken wrote:
1. Are you feeling that the same order should apply to both? An organization and an intimate one-on-one relationship?
2. Discerning Gods will in marriage… why would that differ from discerning God’s will in general? He has made his will known in such statements as these and countless others:
1 John 3:23
This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
Ephesians 4:32
Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
Romans 12:10
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor
Philippians 2:4
do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others
Does there need to be an authority and a subordinate before these things can be practiced in marriage?
Mara wrote:
Love Am I In Sync!
Yes, though this song could apply to many so-called Christian leaders, the umbrella part would seem to pinpoint old Gothard.
Sorry I leave comments than disappear for a while….But I do want to try to respond to a few things…not because I believe I am going to convince anyone that I am absolutely right, but when I am asked a question I like to respond as best as I can. I do appreciate peoples responses and their thoughts.
As I have mentioned before, I serve in a complementarian(ish) reformed denomination(EPC). As a younger denom we have a number of churches who are joining us each year(many from the PCUSA) and some have women pastors. We don’t tell them to step down, nor demand they only hire men from now on. IMO, that is the way to approach this issue. Contending for a secondary position, yet not breaking fellowship over it. So, my argumentation comes not from trying to “save” anyone, but from a perspective that good theology matters and it is worthywhile to engage in discussion/disagreement as we wrestle through issues.
Though I am not close to being convinced by the argumentation (biblical or philosophical) presented here, I try my best to hear what someone is saying because; 1) What someone says matters, and actually responding to what they actually said is important, 2) If I am going to be able to not just speak in an echo chamber I should actually understand what counter arguments/points are. I am not helping anyone if my complementarian argument is, “its just a bunch of bra burner radical feminists from the 60’s so we should dismiss them”. While there are of course some who do fit that description, the majority of people who have an egalitarian position do so out of a desire to bring the word to bear on their thinking process.
To the questions related to my apparent lack of listening to the reasoned responses provided; There are two ways to interpret that comment- 1- that I admit I was originally wrong, and if I haven’t yet admitted, I am not listening, or, 2- I respond by not actually addressing what was brought up, aka… someone says the sky is clearly blue and I respond by talking about tidal drifts.
I hope it is not the first interpretation, hopefully that is self-evidentally a bad position to take. As far as the second, if you feel as if you asked me a question, or made a point, that I avoided responding to, that isn’t my intention, since I do disagree with your position, it is helpful for me to actually understand what I am disagreeing to. Therefore, can you kindly point to me in what areas, and in what specific sense, I have been guilty of number 2?
My contention would be that I am also not interacted with appropriately based upon what I said. For instance, the word “kephale” was used up thread to make a point that Ephesians could not be talking about leadership in the way I contended it was. To respond to that I looked into the Greek for that word and its other comparable usages, and the idea of source in general. What I brought back was that the word Kephale is used as well in I Corinthians, and that it would be inaccurate to make it mean a source(or at least a limited sense of source that rejects leadership being a part of it) and also that the Greek word for “source” in the direct sense that I felt Gram was contending for is actually a NT word “aitia” which is used elsewhere when it clearly means that. Additionally, the concept of head equating to leadership within God’s people is not a foreign concept by any means. Indicating that Paul using Kephale to intend to indicate a leadership role is a reasonable and consistent position to take.
Additionally, a more direct word that specifically means Leader is also available and Paul deliberately choose to not use that one. This would lead one to conclude(reasonably) that the meaning of Kephale is more than just an “origination” concept, or provision place, and less than someone who gets to Lord over others. Which is tempered by the overall call of mutual submission and love to all Christians and the idea of mutual submission in marriage. So while the headship in marriage and Church is arguably prescribed it is balanced in such a way that even if one was to hold that “title” they have no right to demand obedience by anyone, let alone their spouse.
Therefore while male headship can/should be taught, it can’t be forced upon anyone. The moment one begins to force others to submit to them they have invalidated their appointment.
As far as cultural influences upon our reading of the text…this is of course extremely valuable. But within reason. When I advocated for a plain reading of the text, I didn’t mean to indicate a “wooden” limited reading, but to recognize a plain reading is a back stop to heresy.(not that egalitarianism is heresy). What that looks like is that we should use extra biblical research to enhance and enrich our understanding, but it should raise a red flag if extra biblical study causes to completely change the reading of the text.
If extra biblical reading starts to radically change the nature of what the text plainly indicates we run afoul of a few significant issues. It indicates an unreliability on the part of the Bible in general. It creates a philosophical position that says the scripture will be read through the lens of culture first. And when culture changes, or, when we find some new “Phoenician tablet” about such and such, it opens up for a brand new interpretation. This leads to the Bible becoming interesting, but not authoritative. This also is a form of, as CS Lewis calls it, Chronological Snobbery. If our new understanding of the text is rooted in something only those of us in the 21st century could have even been aware of, we are in the position of claiming our revelation of God’s truth is significantly “better” than all Christians before us. And puts us in line to eventually be considered prehistoric rubes by the Christians of the 23rd century.
Obviously inter-Biblical interpretive differences is a different issue. But as I tried to indicate previously, it is consistent within Scripture to say that the usage of the term “head” does indeed have a leadership application. But comps also need to be cautious because it is inbuilt with a series of serious correctives. And I dare say there are quite a few too many comps who read Kephale as ONLY leader, and as many here rightly point out, do not take into account any other instructions to Christian living concerning service, love and submission. And to be honest, I would have a greater problem with a comp saying a woman can’t work outside of the home than an egal saying women can preach. They egal might be wrong, but they aren’t abusing people.
Regarding the Galatians interpretations…I was a bit hasty in my response, but to force a few of equality in status according to the law(which is the whole surrounding passages point) and force it into also meaning that prescribed roles no longer exist or matter is to do a disservice to the text. To be simplistic, but illustrative, God prescribed women to bear children, Galatians 3:28 doesn’t now make men capable of bearing children. While the prescription of bearing children is outwardly self-evident, that doesn’t mean God hasn’t/doesn’t prescribe roles that are not so obviously obvious.
When we mention leadership roles of women in the OT and NT I don’t deny they exist. But the question is are they being husbands or elders? Those are specifically mentioned roles with specifically listed criteria. Apostle was a limited role that had a number of different meanings and roles, and is listed separately than Elder within the church. And has no gender qualification. God never said men were to be the Judges of Israel, and women doing great things for the Lord isn’t limited anywhere in scripture. What IS limited specifically is Eldership and who is the head of the household.
As a quick aside, I would add that it doesn’t say that only Elders are to speak at Church gatherings.
If anything the fact that 1 Timothy and Titus mention gender indirectly as he lists criteria for eldership we are given a more deliberate picture of men alone as Elders. We know that women in pagan religions had positions of leadership and authority. Many of the early converts were probably highly skilled female orators and leaders. Many probably were more skilled than the men in the Church. Yet we still get a clear statement about Elders being men of one wife.
For Ephesians “theme” question..it is mainly about being saved by the Gospel and how it is Christ’s work that has saved us, and that in turn our lives, and community should look a certain way as we are indwelt and made alive through and in the Spirit. The usage of Kephale than fits into what I was saying previously…that it can be seen as a source AND as a prescribed position, yet not one of absolute authority that is forced upon others.
My point in reiterating/expanding is to try to illuminate that I truly do want to hear what you are saying and that I want to do my best to respond in turn.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Not really. Not everyone thinks in binaries, and it is a historical fallacy to pretend that such an approach “completely changes the dynamic” – there are 2000 years of Christian theology, and it isn’t even close to being monolithic on this or any other subject.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
You don’t see how being open to considering Paul as being wrong…. Therefore meaning the bible was/is wrong has a profound effect on how we approach scripture? That truly confuses me.
@ Adam Borsay:
I don’t have the time right now to read your longer post above Dr. F’s, but about your and his post here.
Christians today don’t quite view slavery in the same way.
I am sorry to keep bringing this up, but this is not something I have seen the gender comps really address.
The passages Paul wrote to slaves 2,000 yrs ago may have been true and applicable to slaves back then, but not so much today.
Most people today (outside human trafficking and the like) do not practice slavery or find slavery moral. Which rather makes Paul’s 2,000 yr old instructions to slaves on how to be good slaves a bit on the moot side now in 2015.
This concept is applicable to some or maybe even all of his teachings about male headship (as taught by gender comps) and women teaching.
Even on one of the woman teaching verses, as others have pointed out, Paul addressed that comment to A (singular) woman at a particular church he was writing to, not to ALL women (plural) who would ever live.
It was a remark written in regards to ONE woman who was acting up in church services, or she was not educated enough to speak on spiritual topics, at that time. It wasn’t meant for every woman to ever exist on down to 2015.
@ Adam Borsay:
Like he said, he isn’t thinking in binaries. Neither sm i.
The Bible is a collection of ancient documents, written and compiled snd edited inyo their current form in cultures and times very different from our own. Paul’s original readers/hearers had a wealth of knowledge and cultural context that we simply do not have. And i think it is important thst we respect all of the biblical texts for whst thry are, on their own literary snd historical merits, before we start using them as an instruction manual. I think a lot of our current ideas regarding interpretation would be baffling to the people who actually wrote these things down in the 1st place.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
You go, Doc!
@ Daisy:
To briefly, and probably inadequetly address slavery….I would contend that Slavery as practiced in the ancient world, and practiced specifically by the Hebrews, bears little resemblence to our perspective of American Chattel slavery. So while Paul doesn’t demand all slaves go free, he does specifically say that masters are to treat their slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ and that in the case of Onesimus he goes as far as to request Philemon not excercise his legal rights since it would supercede his spiritual responsibility to Onesimus as a brother in Christ.
If someone wanted to be my slave today in the sense that scripture prescribes it, I wouldn’t have any problem with it, or vice versa. I would have to materially provide for them, give them complete freedom after 7 years, with pay, if they wanted it, and as a Christian I would have to treat them fully as my family the entire time they were in my employ. I would be responsible for all of their care, and care for their family during the time they were subjec to my household. I couldn’t work them to the bone, be unreasonable, couldn’t beat them, couldn’t split up their family, etc.
Today, the ancient concept of slavery is unneccessary because we don’t have a cival governing sense that would allow people to free themselves of debt by becoming my slave. And, if someone was unemployed and desperate their only recourse isn’t to find a master to take them in. But it isn’t impossible that our whole economic system could collapse and the Government implode and wealthy Christians could provide protection to destitute individuals by taking them into their families as bond-servants. And, if bound by the New Testament ethos it would probably be a much preferable life than starving on the streets without work.
As far as the woman teaching, it is a very difficult thing to prove that the context of 1 Tiomthy 2 is Paul addressing a singular individual. The context preceding this passage is Paul clearly addressing all men and all women. There is no indication that he suddenly shifts to an unmentioned singular person. The natural reading shows an outflow of a collective instruction. And that specific verse is even then sandwhiched by an explanation that indicates that all women are affected by what he is talking about as he alludes back to Eve. It would make no sense for him to give an instruction to all women, and bookend with a statement about all women, and in the middle reference some unnamed individual. It doesn’t flow logically at all.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Ok. God doesn’t make mistakes, the bible is literal and without a cultural context. I won’t go into the whole translation issue and figuring out which version I’m supposed to read but I pulled this off the Internet – I do not mean to offend anyone in this forum but I feel this must be addressed.
Here’s Jesus from Matthew:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
And here’s some highlights of the law:
“You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on that day must be put to death.” (NLT) — Exodus 35:2
“Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capitol offense. “(NLT) — Leviticus 20:9
“If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ … and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones … (NKJV) — Deuteronomy 22:13-14,20-21
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. “(NRSV) — Leviticus 20:13
The civilized world has repudiated these sentiments. We must take the bible into its historical context. It came from a different time. The irony is many biblical literalists claim to be patriots. Nothing could be more against what America and other nations have been attempting to create – a society with equality for all (we haven’t reached it but the tools are there)
If we can take anything from the bible is that it’s a journey. There are lessons here about where we’ve been and where we would like to go. Part allegory, part history, part philosophy. We can’t explain why things happened as they did, but we can take the good parts of it – what TWW spoke about some posts ago – the kindness of it and build from there. To do otherwise pits Christianity against the principles of decency, open mindedness and equality. Trying to drag it backwards into what it once was. (What WE once were).
I was born in the seventies and have never burned a bra.
Adam Borsay wrote:
?????
Jack wrote:
(Quoting Adam B)
But the understanding of the text has been colored by sexism since about Day 1.
Sexism has even influenced how Bible translators have chosen to translate Bible versions, their word choices, etc, see for instance
Will A Truly Honest Bible Translation for Women Ever Be Made? (part 1)
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/will-truly-honest-bible-translation-women-ever-be-made?page=show
Just a snippet or two (though I’d encourage you to read the entire page and not just the blurbs below):
———–
In 2 Thessalonians 3:12, men are exhorted to settle down and earn the bread they eat. But the exact same word translated as settle down when it refers to men is translated as be silent, or keep silent in 1 Timothy 2:11 and 12 when it refers to women.
…Eve is translated as a help or a helper for Adam in Genesis 2:18, a meaning which connotes subservience and assistance. However, the Hebrew word translated as help or helper is a strong word referring to power, rescue, and strength.
Daisy wrote:
To try to be as clear as possible, if you came to my house and said, “Adam, I have no money, no available job, no one to take me in, I don’t want to go on welfare and medicaid, can I be your bondservant and commit myself to you and your household?” And, if I had the means to actually provide for you (a bed to sleep, money to afford paying you, able to take care of your medical care, etc) I would be rather heartless to say, nah, go sleep on the street and panhandle. I would gladly take you in as part of our household. The NT ethos on Christian households would mean that I have to treat you with respect, kindness, as a sister in Christ, etc. Though you were my “employee” you were also saying you were committing to following the rules of my house. Again, those can’t be unbiblical and cruel. But you were committing to a lifestyle that was more than a 9-5.
To make the point again, that sort of relationship is completely unneccessary in 21st century America , and most of us would balk at having either of those roles, the principle is not unjust, just culturally odd to us today.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Yet, women’s “roles” should be exactly the same now as they were in Ephesus and Corinth 2000 years ago?
@ Adam Borsay:
In the Roman/gentile world of Paul’s time many slaves were the conquests of war. Some slaves were bondservants, but many were not. Did you happen to view the video that HUG posted about Roman culture at the time of Christ? It might be eye opening.
Adam Borsay wrote:
All slaves were not under the prescription of what scripture was describing. Maybe only Hebrew slaves were. Paul was most often addressing gentiles who had converted and were under much different bondage.
@ Bridget:
P.S. I can’t believe you said this.
http://skipmoen.com/2012/12/10/top-of-the-pyramid/
Hebrew Word study. This link is on “head”. There’s also stuff about “help-meet”/ezer kenegdo.
Adam Borsay wrote:
You would be way, way off there…
Adam Borsay wrote:
I think you have just nullified the whole teaching in that one simple statement, Adam.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I agree with plain reading, I just think you are failing to see how these few verses fit into the whole NT picture. This comp doctrine displaces Christ and what he has accomplished. It inevitably takes center stage. It cannot help but be legalistic, by its very nature. It is unnecessary and intrusive and encourages abuse. I doubt that you have a strong need to see that clearly since you will never be the target of the harm.
@ Adam Borsay:
Adam, please don’t kid yourself. Slavery is slavery, and one of the commonest things that happens to enslsved people (of either sex, and of sny age) was and still is rape. Slaves were sold in anvient times, there were slave markets, and i am as sure as sure csn be that families were broken up all the time, just as here.
I honestly think you are kind of uniformed about chattel slavery, and you might want to look into it further. To make it seem like enslsved people in the ancient world were better off thsn the people held in bondage in this country is very disingenuous at best, tjough I’m thinking it wasn’t intentional on your part.
However, your statemrnt to Daisy is just plain out there. I think the 1st thing that woild come to most peoples’ minds is employment. Further, supposing people did take in others on the terms you state… slavery and peonage are completely illegal under US law. And i have no illusions regarding how such enslaved people woild be treated – as non-persons, as convenient for sex (no matter how much the people in question fought or resisted) and on and on.
I think that it would be helpful for you to think these things through a bit more before posting, because when carried to their logical conclusions, well… this is also true of your beliefs about gender roles in marriage.
numo wrote:
Yeah, Adam’s comments to Daisy had me shaking my head too, Numo. Sure, Hebrews might have been semi-decent to their “bondservants” — that is, if they were fellow Hebrews. As I understand it, slaves from other nations could be held in perpetuity.
And let’s not forget that throughout the history of ancient Israel, the laws regarding Sabbath years and Jubilee years might not have been strictly observed.
No matter how you slice it, slavery is dehumanizing and demeaning. That was true in Egypt, true in Israel, true in Rome, and it’s still true today. The same goes for the subjugation of women.
Nancy2 wrote:
At the risk of repetition, but so you know where I am coming from on this subject:
When I helped lead a church a long time ago, we had to think through this whole issue of structure and authority. The church was primarily evangelical, reasonably strong charismatic emphasis (before this got de-railed).
The idea was ‘body ministry’ or every member ministry, according to gifts and inclination. This was open to all, completely mutual between men and women. When you come together each one has … a word of instruction, and we saw no reason why a woman shouldn’t share something in the meeting under the pray and prophesy teaching of 1 Cor. In all honesty, we never really broke free from the traditional church thinking we were all brought up with (congregational passivity), but on average I would say more were active than the passivity usual in a church gathering where ‘the minister’ or a select few – the team – ‘do’ the ministry.
We only drew the line at leadership and women holding teaching ‘office’ or ‘being teachers’ of men as per the usual arguments that rage over 1 Tim 2. This was in the belief that God himself through the apostle was putting in place a very specific restriction, and for our blessing and protection at that. I still don’t believe, but not for lack of thought or interaction with differing viewpoints, that we have the liberty to set this aside.
John MacArthur or Tim Challies would probably have been horrified. But justification by faith and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is for all. In this specific sense, there is ‘no male or female’.
As a comment, there weren’t the struggles over this that there seem to be today. No-one seemed to think women were being demeaned or were second-class citizens of the kingdom. My opinion is that this was in part due to being filled with the Holy Spirit. He wages war against the flesh, and the whole structure of giving way to one another in the church or in marriage is not something the comes naturally to us, it is the result of the work of God within us.
So the ‘men doing everything’ in my book is just plain wrong. Even if we had been wrong in our understanding, the freedom for both men and women to participate was vastly greater than the one-man band type of church.
In Titus 3:9 Paul says to avoid “foolish controversies”. These happen when the Bible is seen as a Rule Book. The Bible isn’t a book of rules. It is an intricately woven tapestry telling the story of God’s reconciliation to His creation through the finished work of His Son, Jesus.
Men have taken this beautiful tapestry, cut it into pieces and crudely stitched together patch-work quilts of their own designs. Then the they arrogantly present these quilts and declare, “The Bible says!” in their attempts to persuade others to submit to their opinions.
@ Uncle Dad:
Well said, Uncle Dad!
So Adam has been flushed out for all to see in that he would indeed practice slavery if in his opinion it was a type of slavery that he thought was a good thing.
This can be how far people will go if they adhere to certain kinds of understandings about scripture. We have seen this before in this nation. Wars have been fought. Lives have been destroyed. Nations have been weakened. For anybody who has been willfully blind to this, behold this sort of thinking.
Are we there yet where I can say ‘I told you so?’
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
My answer to this is basically contained in my reply to Nancy2 above at 05.39 AM.
I would add that you cannot have church without some sort of leadership or oversight. I speak from experience that if you have a meeting where all can contribute, sooner rather than later word goes round and ‘charismatic’ brethren will turn up to give you the benefit of their highly anointed ministry. Someone has to deal with them or they can do considerable damage.
They are often eccentric, rootless Christians who cannot get along with run of the mill believers for any length of time.
@ okrapod:
I think you are talking a lot of sense here. This subject has come up before under the guise of ‘avoiding the appearance of evil’.
I cannot imagine anyone here has not heard gossip, gossip that was almost always highly inaccurate, exaggerated to the point of falsehood, or gossip that was deliberately malicious in order to damage someone.
It strikes me as largely common sense to avoid if at all possible situations where such gossip could arise, especially amongst those who like to believe the worst.
It’s also rather futile to pray ‘and lead us not into temptation’ only to then put yourself in a position where you could be tempted.
Victorious wrote:
I whole heartily agree.
This is a very good word picture, Uncle Dad, of what the comp doctrine does and what the JAKs* espouse.
I wish, I wish, I wish the JAKs of the world would get a grasp and understand this. I wish they’d stop pushing the comp doctrine as if it actually WERE the Gospel. I wish they would stop pushing it as if it is what will heal marriages and save our nation from demise. I wish they’d stop looking upon and using bits and peieces of the Bible as a some sort of instruction manual and focusing on those bits as some sort of trouble shooting section. This is a total misuse of the Word.
With all the goings back and forth (even Adam revealing this little bit about slavery showing how much he really doesn’t get it) I do believe these JAKs commenting here are decent fellows. They are just pouring too much of themselves into a defunct doctrine, a different gospel, a gender gospel that brings division and strife and tears people down and families apart.
(*JAKs – JS, Adam, Ken)
Mara wrote:
I don’t disagree with them being decent fellows, but at the same time their insistence on hierarchical relationships must have some self-serving reward.
Uncle Dad wrote:
And the thing about tapestries, if they are cut apart and stitched back together they will unravel since they a woven. It takes a lot of extra stitching to keep it from unraveling, extra stitching that is completely unnecessary if it had just been left in its original form.
And where does all that extra stitching come from?
Who are all the little self-appointed stitchers swooping in to keep the former tapestry now quilt together?
They are quite an army of stitchers, many of whom have been dealt with here.
I nominate a few to TWW stitchers club: Grudem, Piper, Wilson, Gothard, Driscoll…
There are many more. But these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Quite a little sewing bee, these stitchers. Oh the webs they weave.
Victorious wrote:
Oh, I’m sure it does.
And this is the part they don’t get.
Guys like these will lecture long and ardently concerning how easily women are deceived. They do this all the while walking in a deep deception of their own.
It is a deception they embrace because they are emotionally invested in it and feel feeble with out it*.
(*all the while accusing women of being the emotional and feeble ones.)
okrapod wrote:
It isn’t my opinion, the question is what do YOU do with the text when Paul and Jesus don’t command the end of slavery. I am not contending that the general practice of slavery in 1st century Rome was some idylic career path(though it was for some in the sense that it was an improvement over other options), but that the practice of slavery in the US was very different in general to ancient slavery, and almost unrecognizeable to Israel’s instructions and practice of slavery.
Contextually, as i have tried to indicate, how God prescribed slavery to operate was much different than anything else in the ancient(or modern) world, and, the teachings of Jesus radically reshaped the very heart to how we even put into practice what it means to have slaves. Slavery was primarily a socio-economic issue that did not have many alternatives. There were no entry level positions at the local factory and Governmental services to help with medical bills and housing.
The point isn’t that we should all go pro-Jewish slavery with Christ centered rules, but that the principles and practice of slavery that a Christian would be beholden to is not an unjust practice. Because, again, you couldn’t force anyone to be your slave as a Christian, you couldn’t force them to remain your slave, you couldn’t treat them as NOT a brother and sister in Christ.
My case isn’t to defend slavery, but to say, “we don’t practice slavery today, so men being the head of the family/church we won’t practice either”. Has two distinct problems.
1- Slavery wasn’t instructed to Christians as a practice. Paul and Jesus never said, “this is how you go get slaves, and this is who should be your slave”. This shows that there isn’t a direct connection between men as heads and slavery as a practice. They become categorically different.
And to make another point within that….as someone mentioned, a lot of Roman pagan slave practice was pretty terrible. If you were a wealthy Christian wouldn’t it be a good thing to go buy slaves away from their pagan masters?? And you couldn’t just buy them and say, “good luck”, they weren’t Roman citizens and they couldn’t support themselves, your purchase of them meant you were now responsible for them for pretty much forever. But the Guiding Christian ethos is that you treat them as a true member of your family. Technically, on paper they were your slave, but they were your family.
2- What I think isn’t realized is that the argument for, “we don’t do slavery anymore even though the bible talks about it, so we surely shouldn’t have men as heads, because, like slavery, we know better” is that you have shifted the argument in an essential way. The majority of debate here has been on the meaning of the scripture text itself. This “new” argumentation is virtually disconnected from the text in a meaningful sense. It says, indirectly, “sure, the bible says men are the head/leaders, BUT there are a lot of stuff in the Bible we are smart enough to ignore, God wanted us to use our own brains and not just do what he said all the time, and so just like slavery, we are going to move past what the Bible says about “gender roles”.”
It tacitly accepts the text, but rejects it at the same time.
The irony of your statement is that you have confused what I said about slavery with what I said about being the “head”. While ignoring the multiple places in this thread off far more aggregious examples of problematic reasoning.
If I am horrifically wrong about slavery it doesn’t not absolutely follow that I am wrong about men as leaders. The problem, and the solution, to both is good/bad exegesis. So while one can make accurate assesments on the text in one area employing a consistent hermeneutic, they can make a mistake elsewhere, EVEN while employing the same hermeneutic. The argument, or support, of either position I stated has to be addressed in the same hermeneutic.
While you have used my apparently insane ramblings about slavery to show that comps are crazy abusive patriarchialists you have also ignored that many of the egal supporters have admitted and/or advocated for a number of positions that many egals would find extremely problematic…
1- Paul(and therefore the Bible itself) was wrong about stuff so don’t take it to seriously(which subtly is admission that he probably really did say men were the leaders, but he was wrong, so who cares..?)
2- Arguments for egal from a perspective of agnosticism/atheism (which isn’t a support for the egal position from scripture, but simply an argument from rejection of God primarily…which makes for strange bedfellows)
3- Arguments that also indicate that other sexual ethics(namely homosexual practice) are to be now accepted beccause we know better. Which, if I know some of the egals here, they would balk at the associating hermeneutic. Meaning, if the reason someone comes to an egal position is because they simply reject ALL sexual ethics that they don’t like, many of the egals at TWW would not want to be associated with or employ that specific approach at all.
Though I have noticed that consistenly in this thread, and many others, I have not said, see, this position is terrible because the people who argue for it also argue for “x”. Because that does a disservice to the context and argumentation for the particular point in contention. While you may think my assesment of Christian/Hebraic slavery to be nutty and unhelpful, it is not directly related to my assesment and case made for comp positions.
Mara wrote:
Concerning sentence 2 above. I am curious as to how that is consistent with being a decent fellow? How does one decently espouse a different gospel…which tears people down and families apart? Those are rhetorical questions, btw.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
I agree completely.
To those who are doubting her story, I would point out that conjugal visits are fairly rare in the US, most other countries seem to allow liberal visitation. In fact, some places even let family members live within the prison walls.
So, yes, I believe her.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I have often asked the comp apologists here to outline a coherent argument in 1 Timothy 2 using a consistent hermeneutic. If you want to say that Paul’s references to the Man and the Woman in 1 Timothy are talking about Creation Order and hierarchy, then you must find grounding for that in Genesis. If there is no grounding for Paul’s supposed argument for Creation Order in Genesis (and Paul studied under Gamaliel so I presume he had Genesis memorized) then Paul is either being illogical or making up a new law of gender. Where is the supposed Creation Order grounded in Genesis? No one will ever answer that question, except for the meager “evidence” offered in the Ware link I provided above.
If Paul is saying that women must not teach because the Woman was deceived and came into sin by being deceived (in other words that Paul is referencing either some moral disability of females due to Eve’s deception) then we must account for Paul’s reference to Eve’s deception in 2 Corinithians where he applies that to the entire church at Corinth which presumably also included men.
I am an inerrantist. I believe in the traditionally conservative view of inspiration. I believe in using a conservative hermeneutic. I do *not* believe in enshrining a particular interpretation that was formed within the sinful human construction of females as weak, easily deceived, designed to be ruled, and generally defective as human beings.
Until you address the grounding issue, the special pleading hermeneutic, and the fact that the plain reading hermeneutic used to prohibit female teachers *also* yields the doctrine that women are saved by childbirth. You want to have it both ways, and that is not honoring to the text but rather is using the text for another purpose.
Your statements regarding slavery ignore the fact that at least some slaves were born into a slave class, were captured in war, etc. Are you sure you want to defend the propriety of holding slaves under those circumstances, even if they are treated well?
@ Gram3:
Apologies for the numerous grammatical nonsense. It is early.
@ Bridget:
Beat me to it! And a very important point.
okrapod wrote:
Whew!
Cause I didn’t know how to answer that!
My only response would be this:
https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/whyileft-fundamentalism-part-6-why-my-parents-arent-villains/
Ken wrote:
????????????????
What about the clobber verses in Corinthians on women being silent in church, and if they have questions, asking their own husbands at home?
Timothy: Let the woman learn in all silence and subjection.
In Titus, Paul doesn’t say that wives should submit to their husbands. He says that wives should be obedient to their husbands.
You don’t think those verses put in place very specific restrictions on women should be used to bless and protect you, too? If you think God blesses the church by putting restrictions on women, shouldn’t you enforce all of those restrictions in order to receive God’s full blessing and protection?
Adam Borsay wrote:
I have not ever argued that we should ignore the text in any way at all. I have never asserted that the Bible “is not for today.” I have never said I am smart enough to ignore *anything* in the Bible. I have never said or implied that we should use the brains God gave us to avoid doing what he has said.
What I have said, repeatedly, is that no man or woman can say “Thus says the Lord and you must hear” without showing evidence using the a consistent hermeneutic and the words and grammar of the best texts that we have and using plain reason. Otherwise, said man or woman is *misusing* the text for their own purposes. This is the essence of legalism, whether intentional or not.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Yes, and I have consistently argued for consistent consistency. But no advocate for comp here has presented a consistent argument.
Adam Borsay wrote:
It is perfectly clear what you are saying. I have commented before that the older woman who gave Lydia a tutorial on the origins of comp-ism stated that the thinking dates back to the civil rights era, long before the Danvers statement. I have commented that the gender thing is merely the tip of the iceberg and that the larger picture of this dominance/submission ‘theology’ includes whole groups dominant over other groups (and that is best noted in dominion theology) and gave as an illustration the issue of elder ‘rule’ as men ruling over men in the church context also. I have stated that comp-ism is part of a thinking pattern that would like to see a permanent underclass of people who for one reason or another would be servile (in one way or another) to the dominant class.
And you seem to be confirming what I have said about this thinking style.
If the bible neither commands nor forbids slavery, then we come to decision time for people. Just like we did in the civil war, except then race was such an issue that it looked like it was all about race. No, it was about having a dominant class who could do whatever they wanted, and race just happened to be what it was at the time. The condition of the slaves was horrible and worse than the rest, but the status of women was bad and the conditions of the poor tenant farmers who made up a large chunk of the population were terrible. It is no use to try to limit this to race or ownership, it is a pervasive thought pattern which crops up again and again only wearing a slightly different mask from time to time.
I believe that there are principles in scripture which if put into practice lead to a rejection of this thought pattern. That is what I do with scripture.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I am not clear on which instance of kephale in 1 Corinthians 11 must mean “authority over” rather than “source” or the idea of something coming from something/someone/somewhere else. Where do you find a conclusive reference to kephale meaning “authority over?” The women are instructed to have authority over their own heads. Not a “symbol of” a man’s authority over them. That is what the actual text says, though it is not what Grudem thinks God should have said. Why is it acceptable to you for translators to insert words which are unnecessary to make sense of the actual words of the text? Is that not agenda-driven?
K.D. wrote:
Thank you!! You are so very right!!! (I only wish you could hear me cheering to read this comment).
@ okrapod:
Great comment. I believe that is the root issue and that it goes back to the Fall. We were meant to live in fellowship alongside one another with the only hierarchy being between God and humanity.
Adam Borsay wrote:
In most marriages in Paul’s time, the only difference between being a wife and being a slave was the fact that it is biblically acceptable for a man to use his wife to procreate. Then Paul came along and instructed husbands to love their wives.
Laws concerning slaves have changed. Laws concerning women have changed. But, comps/patriarchs still work hard to apply the same restrictions on women that were in existence in the 1st century.
Lydia wrote:
The local center has a policy: No man comes in the door. No. Man. Ever. That rule includes preachers. (Mind you, one of the biggest problems we have in this area is that there are some ministers who beat their wives every Sunday afternoon. Every. Single. Bloody. Sunday. Makes you wonder what kind of religious training they got as kids, doen’t it?)
dee wrote:
I totally agree, Dee. Adam just does not get it.
@ Gram3:
I agree that YOU have not. Nor, have I ever seen you do anything of the sort. I really enjoy your thought process and presentation. You challenge me to think more deeply in the meaning and application of scripture. In a strange way I was just thinking on this overall conversation and thought to myself, I would really enjoy having a coffee with Gram and talking in person about these things. I was referencing the multiple places/individuals who HAVE argued from that position. And my point being, I didn’t say, “see, egals are crazy, look what they have to accept to have their position”. That is scoring cheap and easy points that is just red meat thrown to the peanut gallery that already supports your position.
@ Adam Borsay:
One of the frustrations seems to be that “head” cannot be practiced today to the extent it was a fact in the 1st century. Women today don’t always need the provision “head” communicated to the hearer in Ephesus. Young women can be educated and even own a home before marriage. Some wives are the breadwinners today. That has even changed in the last 50 years which probably has a lot to do with the focus on comp and clobber verses as the Gospel. The wife cannot have two Heads if it denotes authority/leadership because of Jesus Christ. That would mean a totally different Gospel for married women today. (As an aside, the temple cult in Ephesus believed Eve was created first, ergo Pauls mentioning it at all. The cult had a focus on gods saving women in childbearing as women died in childbirth to a degree we cannot fathom today. Paul says “the childbearing” saves. He is using a literary device to communicate something familiar to them.
But this is what happens without historical context for understanding a much bigger picture.
All forms of slavery are now illegal. Therefore the attempt to make head into authority and master/slave into employer/employee is special pleading. It does not fit and ends up missing the larger point.
okrapod wrote:
But that is my whole point….lording ANY position over others is anti-thetical to the Gospel. What we are all influenced by is modern American churchianity, and there is much that we will probably be ashamed of when we stand before Christ one day. So, you are right, people use comp theology to bludgeon others, and this is abdomiable. In the Church, as indwelt born again believers, we enter into our relational contexts mutually, not one sidedly.
Outside of gross and actively destructive sin there is little we can/should do to “excommunicate” people. And this is frightening for most of us, especially pastor/leaders. Either we believe the Holy Spirit convicts and empowers unilaterally, or, we take upon the authority/responsibility ourselves and try to make everyone act regenerate. It initially feels safe and easy because it isn’t “messy”, but it is lifesucking and destructive ultimately.
Someone pointed out that when I said, the minute you force someone to follow you you have invalidated your call to lead, I invalidated my argument. But that is the whole point, EVEN WHERE you are called/prescribed/entrusted with Leadership, it is God who leads and changes, we are just along for the ride. I don’t change/save people, I just follow after God while He is doing what He is doing, He isn’t waiting around for me to get everybody shaped up. I can encourage, love, train(where capable), weep with, walk with, pray for, but, after that I really don’t have much I can do
Nancy2 wrote:
So sorry to hear that you’re going through this, Nancy. It must be a terrible thing, feeling so torn, and forced to choose between someone you love and your own well-being.
Please do whatever you have to in order to take care of yourself, and try to find someone nearby in whom you can confide. If you like, I can pray for you as well.
okrapod wrote:
Yes! I appreciated this comment when you made it on earlier page, and am glad to see you reiterate it.
Dave A A wrote:
Well, that settles it. With this blog post, Wilson has reached a brand-new low. As far as I can tell, there is no practical difference between his “kirk” and Scientology, except for the name on the door.
God help anyone who follows this man.
Somewhat on-topic, this week I have learned of another marriage failure of people deeply steeped in patriarchy. And I have learned of another instance of the failure of a marriage with the veneer of comp but with the reality of matriarchy. I am still working on the woman who thinks she must rule everyone. The inverse of Doug Wilson.
Neither matriarchy nor patriarchy are God’s intention. Mutual love and respect between all people and especially among husbands and wives matches God’s revelation of his intent, IMO.
okrapod wrote:
Yes! I appreciated this comment when you made it on earlier page, and am glad to see you reiterate it. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
It’s really awful, isn’t it? His precious ego was fed a few spoonsful of reality, and he plunged into destroy-mode. What a horrifyingly ugly heart he is exposing.
@ Patrice:
Oops, don’t know how Okrapod comment got into above comment. Sorry.
Gram3, first let me say I thoroughly enjoy your comments on this blog and appreciate your wisdom and experience.
The references in which the context of kephale would most likely call for a definition which entails the sense of authority are Ephesians 1:22 and Colossians 2:10.
I posted a link earlier to Alan F. Johnson’s meta-study of the debate surrounding the meaning of kephale. I found it very helpful. He concludes with several points of the lexical battle, which include these insights:
–“The actual evidence outside the Bible for kephalē meaning ‘source’ and kephalē meaning ‘authority over’ in the New Testament period is shrinking. Which option is ‘weaker’ remains debatable.”
–“Most all parties now agree that in certain contexts kephalē may mean either ‘authority over’ or ‘source.’ Whether both are always present is debatable.”
–“Prejudice seems evident in those studies that fail to recognize possible multiple meanings of kephalē and instead continue to force all texts in Paul to conform to a single primary meaning, whether ‘source’ or ‘authority over.’”
There is much more; and I found it all very enlightening. It was published in the “Priscilla Papers” of CBE International, an organization with which you probably find concord.
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/meta-study-debate-over-meaning-%E2%80%9Chead%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%9C%E2%80%9D%E2%80%9Ckephale%CC%84%E2%80%9D-paul%E2%80%99s-writings?page=14
Gram3 wrote:
@ bonnie knox:
Thanks for giving us the link. I have put it on reading list and will get to it relatively soon. Right now I just took the turkey out of the refrigerator after trying to defrost in the fridge only to find it still frozen solid, so things are not going too smoothly at this point. And that article requires time and attention, but it looks excellent.
@ Adam Borsay:
1. That the Bible describes something or gives rules for it, does not mean God likes what that “it” is,
nor does it means God gives it his stamp of approval, or wants Christians in the year 2015 to practice it, whatever “it” is.
Such as – (other than slavery),
a. polygamy, for example.
It was not God’s intent for one man to marry more than one woman simultaneously. (Jesus in Matthew 19:3-5).
But God “put up with” the Jews of the OT days practicing polygamy.
If I argued like you concerning marital roles, gender roles, etc, I could point to the fact polygamy existed in the Bible and God had rules about it, how a man was to treat his second wife, as “proof” that God is fine and accepting of polygamy for Christian men today.
b. Another example.
The Bible in the OT mentions ancient Israeli armies taking enemy women as spoils of war (God gave the Jews in the OT rules on how to treat such women).
If I were to argue like you, I could say God must be fine with the principle of men owning women as spoils of war, merely because people of that day practiced it, and God set rules in place for the practice.
That the Bible was set in patriarchal cultures, and God slapped rules on to how it was carried out by the people, does not mean God was okay with patriarchy (male leadership / male hierarchy) in the first place.
It only meant God was working in the framework of the culture of the day and making concessions to it, but it was never his intent in the first place, nor did he want to see such practices continued down to 2015.
When some stuff in the Bible was never approved of by God (e.g., polygamy), and some stuff was intended to be “phased out” over time,
(such as Old testament animal sacrifice by a priest caste. Jesus was the ultimate, final sacrifice and the NT says all beleivers are priests now. There is no longer need, after Jesus’ sacrifice, for believers to run down to a temple and have a priest kill a sheep).
Patriarchy (and all it entails, e.g., male rulership of women, barring women fro leader positions, even though God gifts women to be leaders too) was a result of the Fall, it was not designed by God. It is bad and wrong, not good nor godly.
2. You said,
You’re actually guilty of doing this yourself.
You do not arrive to the text without your own preconceptions and biases.
You have already moved past what the Bible says about gender.
The Bible does not teach that males should lead or rule women, as you assume.
God actually predicted back in Genesis shortly after Adam and Eve ate the fruit that one result of sin entering the world is that man would rule over woman – and you are perpetuating that very thing, by continuing to argue men should rule over wives / women.
You’re using your very flat, contextual-less reading to assume that any and all rules in the Bible are meant for Americans or Europeans today in 2015 and/or that they are to be applied in the same way.
Also, you’re not quite getting the opposing position correct across the board here.
Most of us on this thread dispute the gender complementarian interpretation of what “head” and “leadership” means, not that the text may mention the terms at all.
I don’t see that the Bible using “head” to describe the husband = husband = authority over wife.
The Bible tells you to be first (if you want to be first) means to put yourself last, and stop trying to be in authority or “lead” over another person.
@ Ken:
As I said a few times above, this view harms adult single women, and it does not “avoid the appearance of evil” per se, but actually “bears false witness against” as it insists even celibate single adult ladies are harlots who seek to bed married men.
Nancy2 wrote:
The trouble is, I’ve dealt with how I see silent women probably several times already. It ought to have been pretty easy to discern in the post above. The repetition becomes pointless, and is why I’ve started to limit comments on this theme.
Go and look at Titus again – Paul uses the word submit, not obey, and there is vital difference. If a wife had to obey her husband, she would have to follow him into sin if he demanded it of her. As it is, she can quite rightly refuse to do something wrong and refuse to obey, whilst simultaneously maintaining a submissive heart attitude, that is, continue to obey what the apostle teaches on submission.
If you have ever had to think through the errors of heavy shepherding, there are all sorts of liberating checks and balances on the subject of authority and submission in the NT that apply across the board, whether it be government, elders or within marriage. These do not negate the concept of submission, but do prevent its misuse if actually put into practice.
That said, I will repeat some wise words of an old pastor of mine on this subject: you (men) concentrate on what God wants you to do in a marriage, and leave it to the girls to work out what God wants them to do.
Adam Borsay wrote:
OK, so when is YOUR judicial murder scheduled? We’ll all come sing you “Always look on the sunny side of life”. In four-part harmony.
okrapod wrote:
The thought had occurred to me as well! How can you be a decent deceiver?
Now there may be some for whom complementarianism is their religion and their God, but I don’t think that applies to anyone commenting here. I would also have to say, to be fair, that having read some of the links designed to show me I am wrong on this, including comments sections, egalitarianism is itself for some a great idol.
Adam Borsay wrote:
No, you cannot be my bondservant.
You can be my brother/sister, share my roof and my food, and I will work with you however I can to help you get back up on your financial feet. Until such time as you do, however, you will have a home with me.
It’s called family.
Just to let Adam Borsay know: about two or three posts above this one, I have a long-ish post for him sitting in moderation that I’d appreciate him looking at, whenever it appears on the page.
Nancy2 wrote:
John Piper already does this.
Piper tries to come up with a Talmud for Women, where he says women probably should not work as police officers, but it’s okay for them to draw street maps for cities.
Grudem also tried his hand at this, and came up with a List of 80 Roles Women Can Do.
Wayne Grudem: 83 Biblical Rules for Gospel Women
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/03/wayne-grudem-83-biblical-rules-for-gospel-women/
More severe complementarians, and ones who go into full- blown patriarchy (which I feel is the logical conclusion of soft comp), says women should not vote, hold jobs, attend college, or leave home and live alone.
Comps cannot agree on how far comp should go.
Comps disagree on when, if, or where a woman may lead or teach, which should clue them in their interpretation of what the Bible says about women is way off, and / or not as “plain” as they think it is.
Gram3 wrote:
Would it be true to say that anything, if taken to an extreme, goes wrong?
Daisy wrote:
Reminds me of a cartoon I’ve seen about both comics artist Frank Miller (secondhand in a sketchbook) and Mark Driscoll (on the Web):
Frank/Mark sitting alone with this HUGE thought balloon over his head saying nothing but “WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES…” filling most of the panel.
P.S. This thread’s about to top 1000.
BL wrote:
Yes. In keeping with the thinking in John 15:15. If Jesus said that how could we justify saying less?
@ Nancy2:
Part 2, a continuation of my post above. Something in your post got me to thinking about this.
—–
By the way, God intended for the woman to be man’s equal – to help him get through life.
The word used in the Old Testament to describe Eve in relation to the man is the same one used for God himself when God defended Israel, yes?
God intended woman to be a warrior tough chick to stand along side the man, because it makes life easier for the man.
But comps put too much stress and pressure on the man, and say man should only lead and bail out the woman, who should always assume the helpless, damsel in distress role.
Which in turn turns the male gender into a deity (idolatry, which God forbids), as comps insist women turn to man as though man is her Savior, rather than Jesus Christ.
If you keep arguing that only man leads, woman follows, men are robbing themselves of the very capable, competent helper (helper = equal, not subservient weakling) God put on earth to help them out when life gets tough.
Patrice wrote:
“Occasionally their crust gets pierced, and the scalding lava of their hatred spills out.”
— C.S.Lewis, Preface to The Screwtape Letters
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Could you post that at Wilson’s article?
Gram3 wrote:
I think we have yet another devotee of St Wombat the Scratchy amongst us……
Nancy2 wrote:
Quoting Adam Borsay:
I think this confuses my point.
The same justifications and interpretation methods used by gender complementarians to defend keeping women in second place, was also once used to keep black people in slavery back in the day by Christian Americans.
The pro-slavery Christians way back yonder used the same biblical hermeneutics that Adam, js, and Flag Ken, and other comps use.
The pro-slavery Christians could also say they were using the “plain reading” of Scripture.
I’m sure that pro-slavery Christians once argued too that saying slavery was only for 2,000 years ago in specific cultures and nations, and not for 1861 United States, was “getting away from the text,” and so on.
Daisy wrote:
No, it insists that celibate singles use wisdom to make sure that they do not appear to be getting up to something that actaully they are not, in front of a rumour-mongering public. Perfectly innocent activities can be misconstrued, sometimes deliberately so.
@ zooey111:
I cited an example I thin back on the first page of this thread on how clergy who are
1. ignorant of how abuse works, or
2. who think a woman should always put up with mistreatment
-do tend to perpetuate negative or abusive relationships, keeping women trapped in them, because they always insist a woman perpetually forgive the wrong-doing man.
Only the man’s welfare or being restored counts; male clergy don’t seem to care how the woman is being taken advantage of.
I wrote on page 1 about a woman who finally kicked her gambling addicted spouse of ten years to the curb (he was stealing her money and lying about it, to gamble).
A local preacher convinced her to take the guy back, which is the only reason she did so. Her husband once more fell back into the gambling addiction / stealing / lying habit, so she had to dump him again.
Had the preacher left her alone to start with, she could have dumped the spouse once and been done to it, but the meddling of the preacher suckered her and guilted her into taking a year or more of this some more.
Ken wrote:
No, Ken, is assumes that single women are “on the prowl” for married men and that married men are incapable of self control. This teaching overly sexualizes single women.
Jesus was not afraid to hang out with women, not even prostitutes.
Adam Borsay wrote:
But lording authority over others is exactly what gender complementarianism, is, since it argues that men / husbands were ordained by God to rule over/ boss over/ have authority over/ lead over wives or women.
Calling it “servant leadership” does not change the outworking of what gender comp is.
Jesus says if you want to be first, you must put yourself last, which he says means being a servant to all.
Jockeying for or defending a concept that says one group of people, and due to some trait they were born with (skin color or gender) is rendering that group to be an inferior class for all time, since they cannot “work their way up” the ladder and shed their gender or skin color.
Gender complementarianim, in that regard is like the Hindu caste system, which says, once you are born into a lower caste, you can do nothing to change it.
You are forever at the bottom and can not work your way up to become an upper caste person, no matter how gifted you are, no matter how many college courses you pass.
You are put down due to your birth, not due to anything you have done. And you cannot change how you were born, so there is nothing you can do to escape being in second place.
Adam Borsay wrote:
In *everything* do unto others as you would have them do unto you, this sums up the law and the prophets.
Do you want to be a slave, with all that such can entail? If not, then don’t enslave others.
This legalistic gnat-straining is a direct result of people taking this verse and that verse and building a man-made religious structure to which you (generic you) must adhere, while teaching others that your man-made structure is actually God’s.
“Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you–although if you can gain your freedom, do so.”
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.”
~~~
Why do our illustrious leaders not teach, write books, chair conventions regarding the freedom we have in Christ?
I can assure you that the Scriptures contain SO much more regarding freedom, than you will ever find on the subject of the hierarchy, authority, and submission of humans to other humans.
In *everything* do unto others as you would have them do unto you, this sums up the law and the prophets.
Do you want a taskmaster to whom you must unfailingly prove your obedience and humility day after day?
Behind whom you must follow at all times without speaking a word even though you see that the path chosen is heading into a swamp of quicksand?
From whom you must receive beatings and abuse without recourse, because.. submission?
This is teaching that has come from what men have gleaned as they hone in on less than a handful of verses.
However, Jesus told us “In *everything* do unto others as you would have them do unto you, this sums up the law and the prophets.”
I think it safe to say, that it could also apply to the whole “authority and submission” hierarchy.
@ bonnie knox:
Great link, thanks. I would argue that how Kephale was used in secular Greek at the time would be our best indicator because that is how the audience hearing it used would have understood it.
I have no problem seeing “source” as akin to preeminant or prominent as that was understood at that time. We have seen it in secular Greek of that time to describe a king as “first among equals”. Bigger army, more land, etc, but no authority over the other kings….I think it can even be argued it has some relation to “origin”. I am not sure why the author makes the distinctions he makes that cannot be so? Just because some say source is “outdated” seems a rather silly approach. part of the problem might be how wooden and literal we approach the Greek when they did not approach communication that way.
We had these discussions on Suzanne McCarthy’s blog and bible translation blogs for a decade. She was crackerjack at bringing in secular Greek examples of Kephale as she had been reading Greek since a young girl. I came to see that discussing this with linguists was much more profitable and educational than with theologians! Although theologians can be scholars, too.
We have to ask: If Kephale can mean “authority over” then why not use clear authority words here? The answer has to be because that was not what Paul was communicating. Giles hits the nail on the head there. (of course I think his work on ESS was brilliant, too)
One thing I appreciate about CBE is they bring in all views and discuss them like grown ups. I ignored their resources for a long time. But then I found they are not afraid of conflicting views at all. You won’t find that position with many comp resources.
BL wrote:
Perhaps you would like to state which verses justify a man beating his wife.
@ bonnie knox:
What I was saying earlier last night about this is regardless of what “head” means by Paul, I don’t think it means what complementarians assume it does.
-as the overriding message of Scripture, especially the NT, is that Christians are not to seek to control over other people, but to serve each other.
I tend to look at the “big picture” of what the Bible is saying, and how Jesus treated people, rather than (as comps do) get hung up on 1 to 3 verses that has Paul saying something about forbidding a woman to teach, and so on.
There are also too many examples in OT and NT of women teaching men with God’s approval for me to take the 1 to 3 verses as being binding on all people every where for all time.
That’s one reason of a few I don’t like getting into nitty gritty debates over precisely what Paul may have meant with “head” in some particular Bible verse.
Complementarians usually like to ponder and stare at the branches on individual trees all day long, while my mind tends to step back and see the whole forest instead.
Ken wrote:
Several problems with this claim.
I have so far not seen any well-known (or lesser known) egals arguing that egalitarianism is “necessary” for the Gospel or to understand it, as I have seem complementarians make in reference to complementarianism.
Secondly, egalitarianism is asking for women to be treated fairly and equally, which is the opposite of making something an idol.
Comps have turned masculinity or the male gender into an idol.
Rather than instruct married women to look to God to get their identity and their needs met, they encourage women to think it’s God’s design for them to look to a husband for those things.
Some of the women debating with you on this thread, who oppose gender comp, are not egalitarians. They do not claim the term “egalitarian” for themselves.
One describes herself with the term “mutualist,” and I think the other simply says she is a conservative Christian with a desire to take biblical hermeneutics consistently.
I’m not sure if I’d apply the egal label to myself or not, but I’m not opposed to their writings I’ve seen so far.
I am in disagreement with complementarianism, and I used to be a comp.
BL wrote:
Hierarchy teachers fear losing control.
They fear believers ever finding out about their freedom in Christ.
One of my favorite verses concerning the freedom of the believer is found in John 3.
EVERYONE knows John 3:16.
But how many know about John 3:8?
John 3:8 “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
The hierarchy people don’t want people to have this much freedom.
The hierarchy teachers fear people, especially women, who have this much freedom.
People of the Spirit Wind refuse to be smashed down into puny roles.
To the hierarchy worshipers, this much freedom is intolerable. People must stay in their boxes so as not to disturb the fragile faith of the hierarchalists.
Daisy wrote:
But, Jesus’ teaching in the NT are secondary. Paul’s teachings are much more prevalent, stressed much more often, and, therefore, much more important!
At least when it pertains to women. Ugh, ugh, ugh!
BL wrote:
I agreed with all your post, just wanted to highlight this part of it.
Not just in regards to slavery particularly, but forcing gender complementarianism on to people is not ‘doing unto others as you’d have them done unto you.’
If we were living in a matriarchy, where a handful of Bible verses were used to justify men being subservient to women for all time, and barring men from meaningful roles in church life,
I can guarantee you the same guys defending male hierarchy gender comp would be protesting.
Also, that gender comps have to keep arguing down women to convince them to unilaterlly “submit” to men:
if it has to be forced on this, or argued out the yin yang over it, it’s not really biblical submission.
Biblical submission is a voluntary act to be motivated by love and is left up to each person, not to be enforced or dragged out of them.
It is so much easier to defend an unjust system when it does no harm to you personally (or so it would appear, I do think gender comp harms men ultimately) or if you benefit from it.
———–
I’d like to direct Adam Borsay to this response I left him, on the previous page:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/11/20/naghmeh-abedini-wife-of-imprisoned-pastor-abedini-is-a-victim-of-domestic-abuse-while-owen-strachancbmw-reports-that-complementarians-handle-abuse-really-well/comment-page-2/#comment-230027
Adam Borsay wrote:
There is no “leader” without followers. And that is where the fear sets in and why the focus on comp doctrine became so prevelant in such a short amount of time. The structure of society changed and that change was addressed with comp doctrine in large swaths of evangelicalism so that you would have someone to “lead”. It is a sin problem that people/groups (or whatever) need to be over others. It is simply another form of legal force using shame, twisting scripture, etc. Authority over other adults always requires some form of force whether it is a contract, bigger army or shame culture.
Personally, I prefer for grown ups to act like grown ups and be responsible and accountable for themselves and raise their kids to be the same. As someone who was involved in leadership training for many years, I cannot tell you how much I believe grown ups should seek wisdom and manage themselves. Once they do that, there is SO MUCH THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH when they come together. But there is always someone who messes that up because they need power.
Is this the first post to ever break 1000 comments?
Ken wrote:
Ken, some gender comps use your same understandings of the Bible and compism to defend the notion that they have, or should have, unilateral control over their wife.
I’ve seen numerous abused Christian wives on blogs* for domestic violence say as much.
*(such as “A Cry For Justice” blog, which is linked to from TWW blog)
Also, in a book by a Christian psychologist who counsels women, she says the only Christian husbands who have displayed an abusive, controlling spirit toward their wives, are the only ones who…
Trump verses such as Ephs 5.22, “wife submit to the husband.” (That is the very same verse you find so appealing to argue that women should be under a man’s authority.)
That psychologist says non-abusive husbands do not, in her experience as a counselor for ten or more years, use those verses to throw their weight around.
Like it or not, Ken, I hope you come to realize that your Gender Comp views and biblical interpretations can and do lead to some men mistreating their wives, or are very attractive beliefs to men already prone to doing as such in the first place.
GC views also cause GC preachers to, much of the time, give ineffective or dangerous advice to absued women on how to deal with an abusive husband.
Such women usually find better and more practical help by going to (secular) DV (Domestic Violence) shelters.
Gender comp ideas have consequences – even the warm and fuzzy, non-violent type of gender comp that I was raised under.
It royally hosed me over, and I’m having to work out some of that stuff even now.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Accurately graphic, and exactly how I experienced reading Wilson’s post last night.
I am curious as to whether Adam, js, and ken feel something similar when reading Wilson’s post. What say you, guys?
Here’s the post: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/109921.html
@ Patrice:
I’ve just glanced over Wilson’s post.
Wilson pretends to be upset over being criticized by folks like the Jezebel site, but I think his ego feeds off the attention, actually.
At other times, he pretends to be thrilled with the negative attention, as in the post where he says he clicks his heels together with joy when bloggers write critical commentary of him, and his wife buys him whiskey or scotch or whatever.
My impression of Wilson is that Wilson is about Wilson, not about Jesus Christ or helping the hurting and outcasts, and helping the hurting and outcasts was a big concern of Jesus’.
Daisy wrote:
Just to play Captain Obvious:
The husband is present to enforce his wife’s “submission” in many concrete ways.
Jesus is NOT present to enforce the husband’s “loving his wife as Christ loves the church” in any real, discernable way.
Some thoughts on the “Complementarian Vision of Creation”
1 The order of creation, with the man created first, indicates God’s design of male headship in the male/female relationship.
This is called the doctrine of “First Come, First Served”: “I was first so I get to be the boss.”
Or maybe it just means God created the man first.
2 The means of the woman’s creation as “out of” or “from” the man bears testimony also to the headship of the the male in the relationship.
Or, maybe it rather speaks to their equality and sharing in humanity as “equal heirs of the grace of life.” Once God “took from” the man to make woman, the man was less than he had been. He was now half of two parts.
The husband’s ruling over the wife and her continuing to desire him, in spite of the misery of it, came later- they were products of a nature corrupted from innocence to sin. (Perhaps this very list is an example of the sinful desire of man to invent reasons he can rule over woman as if he stands in God’s place?)
3 While both man and woman are fully the image of God, yet the woman’s humanity as “image of God’ is established as she comes from the man.
Gen 1:27, both were created in the image of God.
4 The woman was created for the man’s sake or to be Adam’s helper (Gen. 2:18, 20).
The woman was created after the man had a chance to be alone long enough to appreciate a companion -a friend- of his own kind. She was not created because he needed a servant.
5 Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and the woman learned God’s moral command from the man.
or didn’t… he doesn’t seem to have done too good of a job, did he?
6 Man named the woman both before and after the entrance of sin.
This is the doctrine of “if you think of a handle for someone, you must be the boss of them.”
7 Satan approached the woman (not the man) in the temptation, usurping God’s design of male-headship.
“Usurping God’s design of male headship” is not in the text. We simply know that Satan approached the woman- and that Adam offered no resistance or “headship” or “leadership” of any kind.
8 Although the woman sinned first, God comes to the man first, holding him (not her) primarily responsible for their sin.
Eve did not understand what she was doing when she ate of the fruit.
Adam was not deceived. He willfully ate of the fruit, knowing full well what he was doing. When his wife did not immediately die, he saw the opportunity to be “as God” and rule over her and creation in God’s place- and he seized it, apparently without hesitation.
Adam was held accountable for knowing, willful rebellion.
Perhaps Adam’s rebellion is a sign that rebellion and usurping of authority is an intrinsic part of the male’s nature to this day? Perhaps it would be best for them to be limited from serving in any official capacity where they might be tempted to usurp authority and rule over others? (I am being facetious! but this is no different than the idea that women are more easily deceived than men because Eve was deceived.)
9 The curse on the man and woman indicate the fundamental purposes for which each were created, respectively
How strange, to look to the curse to find the ideal. The curse corrupted all things. After the curse, some animals began to eat others. Does this reveal their fundamental purpose before the curse? I think not.
10 The Trinity’s equality and distinction of Persons is mirrored in male-female equality and distinction.
I notice there is no reference given for this one and I can’t even comment on it.
More on #3 above:
3 While both man and woman are fully the image of God, yet the woman’s humanity as “image of God’ is established as she comes from the man.
—
If the point is that the man is more like God than the woman- in spite of being created first in this grand likeness of God, Adam sinned and brought the curse on all creation. Every child born since (male or female) has been created in the fallen image of Adam. Adam is the source of death for the human race. “in Adam all die” (1Cor 15:21).
So, how did that “being created in the image of God” work out for Adam? Has he got some kind of ground for boasting?
Nevertheless, the second Adam has supplanted the first Adam and we have been set free from “the law of sin and death.” Those who have believed are made alive in the second Adam, Christ:
1 Corinthians 15:45
“The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1 Corinthians 15:21-23
For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
All who have believed, male or female, are “in Christ”:
Romans 8:1
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 12:5
so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
So – my question for anyone who has been set free in Christ- why would you want to return to the state things were in right after the fall?
Are some men keen to remain stuck there because that desire to rule in God’s place is still driving them?
Since I do not believe, and did not assert, that a man is justified in beating his wife, exactly why would you assign me such a task?
And out of all that I wrote in that post, this became your focus?
You attempt to address a point in your response, that cannot be found in anything I wrote.
It is exactly this sort of interaction that results in assertions of ‘you (rhetorical you) aren’t listening’.
When submission to authority is the paramount teaching, conveniently taught by those in authority, then there is no greater sin than a lack of submission to that authority.
I would assert that submission to authority is the paramount teaching: the lynchpin, the foundation – of the majority of those in leadership today.
This is why we see within the church issues such as child sexual abuse, adultery, marital abuse, psychological warfare, spiritual abuse, etc., swept behind the scenes – but let someone within the organization start speaking to leadership about these overt sins that are not being addressed – and you will quickly discover that none of the above sins compare to the sin of not submitting to your leaders – by shutting up.
The authority/submission teaching has been around for millennia – the last big public round of it was via the shepherding/discipleship movement. Which movement never went away, instead it permeated and percolated throughout the body and became mainstream.
Are you saying that you have never read, heard, seen teaching regarding the importance of wifely submission along with examples of the supposed success of these anonymous submissive wives who took a black-eye (or variations thereof) in the pursuit of their submission?
And in response to your specific question:
The leadership doesn’t have to justify that wife-beating is wrong, they just have to prove that the wife isn’t submissive enough to her husband.
@ bonnie knox:
Thanks for that link. I sense an agenda whenever a word *must* mean a certain thing regardless of context. Once the pumpkin pies and turkeys are done, I’ll take a look at it.
Lydia wrote:
I agree with your assessment.
The rod of fear used today is the accusation of “individualism!”
The rod used in the 70s was the accusation of “rebellious!” and that battle-cry ushered in the Fab Five of shepherding fame and their man-made pyramid structure o’ gawd.
What is interesting to me, is that the answer to whatever rod of fear is being used to whack the body and drive them into the herding pens at any given time – the answer always and forever is –
submission to whomever is wielding the rod.
BL wrote:
Modern day Moseses —- leading the people back into bondage.
Ken wrote:
I think that it is true that something that is not true is not true no matter how much it is dressed up or glossed. It is hard for me to see how being Christlike, for example, can ever be wrong.
Matriarchy is wrong. Patriarchy is wrong. “Complementarianism” is patriarchy with makeup. Therefore, it is wrong. Male and female are complementary, but that is not what the “complementarians” mean with their obfuscation. Unless you can show where God ordained it, I do not believe it just because lots of other people have believed it for a long time. Sola scriptura. Sufficiency. If you want to cling to tradition, then that is your privilege. If you think that being equal is not a big deal, then perhaps you would surrender your rights as a male to do whatever God has gifted you to do and then get back to us.
Simply googling the phrase “disciplining your wife” will give you an idea of some of the outer areas of where stressing this wifely submission/ hubby authority teachings have led.
Daisy wrote:
True. But in this particular post, Wilson is additionally hating on Natalie and her family, trashing their privacy, maligning them top to bottom, and outright lying. On the internet.
Poor Douggie has hurt feefees and must make the most vulnerable pay. He is a pastor with a poisonous heart. It’s disgusting. He reveals that for all to see.
My main concern right now is what it’s doing to Natalie. She is not all that far away from being a shredded person. I pray that she is become sturdy enough to blow it off.
BL wrote:
Don’t get me started!!! :o)
siteseer wrote:
I no longer read Genesis as a creation science text but just for grins lets say it is. Here is what we know: God created the first “human”. Adam means human. It reads, “create THEM”. It would also have to mean that the image of God is not male OR female….but both. Weird, huh. But that is what happens when we read it literally and woodenly.
This brings up all sorts of related problems that don’t fit neatly into the doctrine of creation order or much of what is taught in Patriarchy or comp doctrine being God ordained. Both in their various forms are actually a result of sin. Therefore sin is sold as a virtue.
Because Eve “turned” to Adam (instead of God), he would rule over her. And the rest is history of a Patriarchal culture that was not God’s design.
His design was of a “blessed alliance” as Carolyn Custis James so aptly put it. Eve was to be an “ezer” for which God is also described in the OT. Ezer even has some warrior connotations as in valor, standing fast, etc. They were to work together with God’s wisdom/guidance to build a wonderful earth.
siteseer wrote:
Well, this has been my argument with Creation order types. In fact, Eve showed repentance by admitting she was deceived. Adam just sinned more by blaming God and Eve.
Is that really a qualification for mortal leadership by way of genitalia?
siteseer wrote:
I assume this alludes to the pain in childbirth stuff for women, mentioned in Genesis?
Some women never have children (such as myself). We also have pain killing drugs for women in labor now.
I fail to see how a biological given (that it’s women who are capable of carrying babies) means 1. they are limited to ONLY that role and that 2. they cannot lead, preach, or teach.
And. It’s funny how the ‘man will have to grow crops by the sweat of his brow’ is not obeyed by gender comps today as though it’s a commandment for me.
Many of the men who believe this stuff wear suits and ties to work, sit in comfy, cushion-y office chairs while doing paper work in air conditioned offices.
And, if they go by that way of thinking, shouldn’t all comp males be working as farmers today, not lawyers or dentists?
Funny how some gender comps believe the ‘curse’ doesn’t apply to men for all time, but only to women. How convenient.
Patrice wrote:
Same here. It is my fervent hope that she can strike off the shackles of a sick and twisted religion and gain her freedom. That she can learn to live and love again without fear.
siteseer wrote:
And man was created from dirt. :0) Bruce Ware, Prof at SBTS and Owen Strachen’s father in law, teaches that women are made in the “indirect image of God, a derivative (he calls us). Men are made in the DIRECT image of God.
Reading the Torah literally and woodenly brings in all sorts of problems that are nothing but distractions. And we miss the most important part! The provision of RESCUE by a LOVING MERCIFUL God.
siteseer wrote:
Good catch.
There really is no accountability for a male gender comp who is abusing his wife, or being selfish with her, etc.
When a woman called into a radio show about this very situation, the 3 male pastors told her to take the husband to a preacher.
But the husband had refused. The husband had also refused to see a marriage counselor.
The only thing the male pastors suggested at this point was for the wife who called the show to pray harder for her abusive spouse, and take him on an ice cream cone date at a park and communicate with him more.
I am not making this up.
You can read it here:
http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2015/11/20/to-every-man-an-answer-but-if-its-an-abused-woman-lets-lance-her/
So, there is almost always accountability for a wife who veers from her gender complementarian role, but usually none for a man who does.
Gram3 wrote:
Complementarianism…… Danvers Statement…… CBMW…….. RBMW……… SBC BF&M Article xvii……
All of that stuff was cooked up right her in the good old USA at the tail end of the civil/equal rights movement. Makes me wonder if it’s just a underhanded way to justify the supremacy of one and the subjugation of another while staying within the bounds of federal and state laws.
BL wrote:
He may actually concede that point, but argue that it’s just an example of gender comp not being perfectly applied, in which case (I bet he’s sick of this page):
No True Complementarian Fallacy
http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html
But that page very much applies. 🙂
(Also, the one by Nate Sparks, “Not All Comps”)
Gram3 wrote:
Oh no, not pumpkin pie! I’ve always preferred pecan or key lime.
Lydia wrote:
Thomas Edison (a cruel and amoral man in his own right) once declared that direct current was the only way to light cities.
History chose Tesla’s method (alternating current) instead.
I hope there’s an object lesson in it with regard to ongoing Church history.
BL wrote:
I can believe it.
There’s a blog that pushes gender complementarianism that some folks can’t tell if it’s for real, or a troll.
But a lot of people agree that even if it’s a joke or troll blog, it takes gender complementarian views to their logical conclusions and says what a lot of gender comps really think about women but are too polite to say forthright.
You can read a commentary about that blog here, on this other one:
Is Biblical Gender Roles Blog a Big Hoax?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2015/10/is-biblical-gender-roles-a-big-hoax/
The guy who runs that BGR Blog has some way far out there, oppressive, sexist views about women and marriage. To say the least.
@ Patrice:
I think it was that post referenced, or another recent one of his, I glanced over where Wilson once more claims to have some super, ultra, damaging private information he is going to unleash in public, if Ms. Greenfield doesn’t retract or quiet down.
I’m not sure at this point anything he could reveal about her would make him or his side look any better.
I am having a hard time seeing how anything she may have said or done would erase his weird victim blaming views about young ladies who are groomed by pervs, or that he believes marriage cures pedos, so he resides over pedo marriages.
Lydia wrote:
Yes. As I was just saying several posts above, men who advocate for gender comp are robbing themselves of a strong side kick that God intended for woman to be.
The wife (or women in general) become one more responsibility for man to wear themselves out taking care of, when they could let some of the burdens in life be equally carried by a wife / women.
If you insist on being head cheese at all times on all or most issues, and taking on all decision making, always being the strong one, yada yada, you are going to burn out, be exhausted, have a heart attack, etc. That’s what gender comp men have brought on themselves.
Also, competition with other men to be Top Dog.
Daisy wrote:
My mom is doing pumpkin pie, banana nut cake, pecan pie, chocolate pie, peanut butter fudge, and dressing.
My aunt (we eat at her house) is doing the turkeys, mashed potatoes, gravy, and green beans.
I’m doing 2 qts. of “fried” corn, a 3 qt. sweet potato casserole, and 3 qts. of broccoli salad.
My daughter, sister-in- law, and cousin are bringing food, too!
Lydia wrote:
Another reason I find that to be a stupid argument on their part is that the text says God directly created Eve, regardless of the means he went about it.
God yanked a rib out of Adam, but he, God, was still the one who made Eve from the rib, or around it or whatever.
Ironically, I think the “made from the man’s rib” deal was to reflect that both Adam and Eve were / are equals – the opposite of how some gender comps interpret that part.
@ Nancy2:
That all sounds really good! Except for, well, I’m not much of a pumpkin pie person (but to each his or her own)!
I know key lime pie that I brought up before isn’t a very Thanksgivingish type pie, but I really like key lime pie. 🙂
Lydia wrote:
In a standard slope-intercept equation, y = mx + b, y is the derivative of x.
x is the independent variable and y is the dependent variable.
So, I’d say Bruce Ware has his x/y chromosomes confused!
@ Muff Potter:
Yes, shouldn’t a history of history show improvement in all areas? :o) If not, why not?
There are some who would love for us to be back in the stone age
@ Daisy:
I don’t like pumpkin pie, either!
I just finished listening to Janet Mefferd interview Thom Rainer (in this broadcast Nov 11, 2015):
https://soundcloud.com/janetmefferdtoday/11-09-2015-janet-mefferd-today
-About serving in a church.
Rainer was really hammering home that Christians need to serve in a church. I find this funny, because there are a lot of conservative Christians who will not allow women to exercise their God-given gifts and talents, whether it be teaching or whatever.
I’m not sure about Rainer, but Mefferd, who I do like, is never- the- less on the gender complementarian end of things.
In other cases, a conservative church (e.g., Baptist, evangelical – which tend to lean complementarian) will only offer women very limited roles (such as child care, kitchen work) which women like me are not interested in or good at.
How are women supposed to serve in a church and contribute to the body of believers or the community they are in, as Rainer was going on about, if a church will not permit a woman to serve?,
Or when churches expect for a woman to be a square peg in a round hole (serve in an area in which she has no talent or interest)?
I’ve read that a lot of women in the last ten or more years have been leaving churches to go put their talents and skills to use in para-church ministries, or in charities they start themselves because their churches won’t let them contribute.
Snippet from
Domestic abuse and theologies of control and submission
http://shaneclifton.com/2015/11/26/domestic-abuse-and-theologies-of-control-and-submission/
by Shane Clifton
Domestic violence is grounded in and justified by distorted constructions of masculine power. Abusers are enabled to act as they do because they believe in the abhorrent logic that men have the divine right (nay obligation) to exercise authority over women whose role it is to submit.
This attitude is too often reinforced by church teaching. And Christian women are too readily pressured to internalise their own submissive inferiority to authoritative men. The results are as inevitable as they are tragic.
…But that such benevolence is possible doesn’t override the fact that violence has its origin in unequal power, and the solution to violence is not merely a kinder exercise of power, but the overturning of such power. That is precisely what Jesus models when he tells us that he came not to be served, but to serve
@ Nancy2:
HA HA HA! I found this hilarious. #nerdsrule
I’ve never forgotten Jane Elliot’s “Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes” experiment and the effect it had on her class. Just announcing that the blue-eyed children were superior and were allowed more privileges caused them to become arrogant and disrespectful toward those with brown eyes (inferior).
And who can forget the Stanford University’s Prison experiment where those who volunteered to act as guards (superior position) began to take their “role” so seriously that they began to abuse those who had volunteered to be inmates who were their peers. IIRC, the experiment had to be called off earlier than anticipated due to both the sadistic behavior of the guards and the horrific depression of the inmates.
Both experiments resulted in some very interesting questions about human nature and the outcome of power and a sense of entitlement and superiority.
@ Adam Borsay:
Adam, people have been approaching the New Testament this way since the first century AD. Read the ante-nicene fathers. You do realize that Christian theology is not limited to post-reformation, Protestant, inerrantist philosophy, right? Right?
Nancy2 wrote:
The Calvary Chapel empire was built on the ‘Moses Model’.
Patrice wrote:
He’s the archetypical Kurtz upriver.
~ From Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness ~
numo wrote:
Well sure, and Adam’s hilarious reinterpretation of history such that “bond-servants” weren’t somehow real slaves is nauseating, frankly. But this is a really good example of how complementarians have any following at all. People are so bought into a system that they will twist scripture, twist logic, and ignore things like history or ethics just to defend the system. They all look like Cypher to me.
Gram3 wrote:
That may take a while… turkey soup, turkey sandwiches.
With all the crap that came down in the last year there is still much to be thankful for. Best wishes to all.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
You’re not wrong, Doc! [:sly grin:]
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Wrong… 😉
js wrote:
“Servant Leadership”
This phrase tops my list of might-sound-good-but-isn’t concepts that has been absorbed from the corporate world into christianese and parroted endlessly.
Closely followed on said list by “vision-casting”.
“Intentional”
“Missional”
“Spiritual covering”
“Authentic”
“Seeker sensitive”
The term “servant leadership” is little more than a fuzzy, tarted-up phrase primarily used by authoritarian leadership.
Appending the word servant may help to disguise, but it isn’t going to change the reality of Pharisaical leaders.
Sort of like gluing cotton-balls to the sharp edge of a knife – from a distance the cotton-balls may hide the knife’s edge, and make those nearby feel all warm and fuzzy, but the cotton-balls do absolutely nothing to protect anyone who finds him/herself in an up-close encounter with the business end of the knife.
Nancy2 wrote:
Indeed.
And in their great humility, they do not hesitate to publicly appropriate to themselves the authority of Moses.
I have lost count of the number of times that I have encountered teachings on the rebellion of Aaron & Miriam, Korah, and “touch not My anointed ones” over the decades…
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
No, that does not even enter into their minds. For them, Christianity was only really understood as a result of the Reformation. And that understanding is read back into scripture.
I was astounded when I heard NT Wright say this very thing about Piper! Not that I agree with Wright on everything but he sees this problem clearly. I was pretty shocked he actually said it out loud.
BL wrote:
Moses never made it to the promised land.
Muff Potter wrote:
I see her commenting here/there to bloggers who are busy reaming Wilson, so I think she’s ok. She says she doesn’t need a building to be with God, and also makes clear that her husband is greatest ever.
Very glad.
@ Daisy:
Rainer is a Mohler made loyalist. Basically, their approach to the dwindling numbers in the SBC is:
“Beatings will continue until morale improves”.
They are building their own little shame/honor culture. Honor is being in the church tribe and following your tribal leader. Shame is not being loyal to the tribe and its tribal leader.
None of it has anything to do with Jesus Christ.
Nancy2 wrote:
I sometimes suspect that a number of our modern day Moses won’t either.
Victorious wrote:
Groupthink is scary and very dangerous.
Lydia wrote:
I kind of picked that up in the interview, yes.
Rainer really beats up on people in that interview who view church as a place to get their needs met.
I just can’t accept that shaming technique any more.
I was brought up in a Christian family that taught me that – that my needs and feelings never matter, only other people’s matter.
That view is not going to convince me to plant my behind in a pew again regularly. Rainer is barking up the wrong tree there.
Daisy wrote:
Church is where the PASTORS needs are supposed to be met. (That is what he really means)
Kind of reminds me of David Platt telling people to write a blank check to support all his new missionaries now that he got rid of the over 50 years old missionaries. What is Platt’s blank check? These guys have no concept of modeling– which is what leadership is.
@ Daisy:
@ Lydia:
We pew peons should go to church to get our souls revived and our spirits refueled — we should go to church to empty our pockets and expend all of our energy! ????
BL wrote:
Implied in your statement was that there are a handful of verses that mean an abused wife, as part of her submission, just has to take it. Along the lines of Piper’s botched answer to this problem of what to do with an abusive husband. That complementarianism can result in abuse if frequently asserted by its opponents, and I would like to know what verses are used to justify this. You later said:
Are you saying that you have never read, heard, seen teaching regarding the importance of wifely submission along with examples of the supposed success of these anonymous submissive wives who took a black-eye (or variations thereof) in the pursuit of their submission?
The answer is no I haven’t. Not once. What I have seen (rather than read about on the internet) is either marriages where this whole submit/head teaching is simply ignored or actively rebelled against, and others who have thoughtfully worked out a differentiation of responsibility. No lording it, no subjugation, no pretending to have it all worked out, no great hang-ups about it, and a large dose of common sense!
What I have seen go wrong is abuse of authority by church leaders.
Working out sensibly how a marriage should work is not central to the gospel. Nevertheless, obedience is always important and that is why this issue has to matter to Christian couples; and the issue is what God wants from them. Wifely submission is ‘as to the Lord’, the husband has to love as Christ loved the church. The refusal of either party to try to work out what this means and then do it is sinning. If a marriage is in any sense a reflection of Christ and the church, then this excludes absolutely any abuse and mistreatment or manipulation by either spouse.
BL wrote:
BL wrote:
I strongly agree with you on this! And, incidentally, Gal 5 : 1 is also one of my favourite verses.
In my day, it was ‘submission to godly elders who would shepherd and care for you’. Something you could hardly refuse. The trouble with this is when the godly elders aren’t as godly as they make out, and qualifications need to be added to the submission to ensure it is not unconditional. They mustn’t become a new priesthood between you and God (Christ is the head of every man – directly), and you have the right to tell them to get lost if they interfere in areas not their responsibility. If you are getting into debt, they should take you to one side to sort this, but if they want you to submit your holiday plans, tell them to visit a taxidermist.
Your other list of words I also find disturbing – worldly thinking coming into the church.
I find the expression ‘servant leadership’ to be too similar to the godly elders jargon. What does it actually mean? It sounds good, but even I find that some complementarians I have read jump from the word ‘head’ to the word ‘leader’ a tad too quickly. To me servant-leader seems like a contraction in terms, as though you can play the part of Lord Granthan and his butler at one and the same time.
If ever you were foolish enough to want to be a translator, you would find stacks of modern business jargon that, when you start to think about it – and few people do, doesn’t really mean anything at all. Meaningless claptrap disguised in clever phrases. Either that, or it is a euphemism for something nasty (downsize for make people redundant), and I can well imagine some of the church jargon from that sector of evangelicalism (so-called) that models itself on the corporate culture also reflects worldy thinking.
Just want to point out something that does not sound right in this report, I am not understanding his wife’s statement about his porn problem got worse as he was in prison. I am pretty sure, yet I could be wrong, but Iran bans a lot of Internet abilities within the country much less allowing prisoners to access it?? Something does not sound right in this. P
Guys, really wondering if she was coerced or threatened to dump the advocacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Iran
@ Ken:
“A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken,
This is a snippet from the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. It’s all about the men. A wife’s sole purpose in life is to submit to her husband and serve as his helper. A wife has no identity outside of being a helper and servant to her husband.
A lot of men say that a wife is to submit to her husband as if he were God! A wife only has the freedoms and responsibilities that are granted and delegated to her by the husband. If she disagrees with him she may meekly and politely state her case one time, then shut up and stay out of his business, and submit to his God-ordained authority over her. If something is wrong in the marriage, she still must submit, unless the husband is commanding her to commit an obvious sin.
This is preached, taught, stressed, and oftentimes insisted on from the pulpits, in the classrooms, and in casual conversations.
Some churches make their members sign a contract saying that they will abide by the BF&M 2000. For a couple to do Missionary work in the NAMB and the IMB, they must sign a contract committing to the BF&M 2000 in it’s entirety.
Would you want your daughters to enter into a marriage that is primarily and centrally focused on these teachings???
Ken wrote:
Of women as well? Are women priests of the New Covenant? Or do you see those verses in 1 Corinthians as being a description of the various hierarchies? Man over woman, God over Christ, Christ over man?
I agree with much of the rest of what you said. Especially about worldliness and sinful human ideas coming into the church.
@ BL:
“Tarted up” word is right on. It was coined for mega church pastors. And now it is ingrained as a “spiritual” description of the clergy class. Word meanings over time are interesting and how they catch on. Few question them.
For the pumpkin pie deniers, it is awesome. The problem is that most commercial pumpkin pies are beyond terrible. Tasteless and containing odd ingredients like gelatin. Pumpkin, dark brown sugar, evaporated milk, eggs, salt, and *lots* of cinnamon, cloves, and ginger. Pre-bake the crust and top off the pie with whipped cream.
On key lime pie, I am an absolute legalist and purist. Key lime juice (not Persian limes), condensed milk, eggs, graham cracker crust. Green “key lime pie” is a deception from the pit of hell. It must be yellow or it must be gone. Also, key lime pie follows the white shoe rule. Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Banana, coconut (fresh, not bagged), and chocolate cream pie may be consumed at any time without censure. Same with fruit pies. I allow some latitude regarding the crust of an apple pie. It may be solid, lattice, or crumb. Cherry must be lattice, however. Peaches and berries are best in cobbler form where they can be heated and topped off with vanilla bean ice cream.
Dessert Expert is my God-ordained role, and I intend to be faithful to do it.
@ Gram3:
That is awesome. I am just about the total opposite of that. I am more wont to tell people, take what you get and be glad of it, and next time you can do all the work so don’t be asking me.
I am about to load the turkey into the car. It was cooked by an ancient tried and true method which has been in my family for years. It is a three step process. (1) Place turkey in pan, (2) Turn on heat, (3) Come back later.
Happy thanksgiving to all.
@ okrapod:
LOL! Love this! Happy Thanksgiving, okrapod!
Gram3 wrote:
In our biblical world of servant leadership, the Dessert Expert is first by serving the last dish.
I bow to your superior wisdom and obvious exquisite taste.
I hope you and everyone here has a lovely restful day, with (nearly) no family squabbles.
Thanks be to God, He is among us.
okrapod wrote:
Yes. I have just finally found out from an American colleague that thanksgiving is for the harvest and not for getting rid of those nasty, monarchical hierarchical, taxation-obsessed British! 🙂
@ okrapod:
I have never cooked a Turkey in my life. I am trusted to bring salad and appetizers. One of them consists of dates wrapped in smoked bacon which my teen aptly named, pigs on a date. :o)
@ Gram3:
I have a pumpkin pie recipe that everyone says is to die for, and I make my crusts from scratch. But, I sampled so many nasty pumpkin pies when I was a kid that I just can’t bring my self to try anymore!!! My mom used to be the cook at a restaurant, and she uses my recipe!
Gotta roll in 10 minutes!
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!
Patrice wrote:
Yes, he is, and we have much to thank him for. May everyone enjoy a blessed Thanksgiving!
BL wrote:
Really loving the word pictures people are coming up with to describe the false teachings of hierarchy and worldly authority paraded around as Christian.
I am glad creative and scholarly people are taking on this issue. It is a leaven of the Pharisees that has had a long time to leaven the whole lump of dough. It has been around so long that people believe it IS a part of the gospel.
Gram3 wrote:
The context of my point about Christ being the head of every man was not with the emphasis on the ‘head’, but that no-one needs an intermediary between them and God, as per the priesthood for Catholics or shepherds for heavy shepherdists.
We used to have a book for those joining the church (called How to Join the Church oddly enough!) to explain its ethos, and I added this to avoid the impression that it was all about leaders and the apostolic team. I don’t think the team had any intention of becoming a new priesthood, but it was good imo to get rid of the idea or impression of a clergy/laity divide. This thinking is deeply entrenched in the minds of many Christians, something the reformation never really got rid of, even amongst free churches who actively believe in the priesthood of all believers.
I actually think the creation and life within it is highly hierarchical, something I’ve come to appreciate again more recently, and a good discussion could be had of this except I fear it would continously get side-tracked, so I’d rather not go there!
Nancy2 wrote:
Well, I suppose primarily you want them to find someone with whom they will be happy, and who will stick with them through thick and thin.
Your snippet isn’t a bad attempt at summarising Eph 5, but it would bother me if there isn’t a balancing clause spelling out what the husband should do. It is not a man’s job to instruct his wife in being submissive, and I would be more than wary of any prospective husband who could only think in those terms. Any man who thinks he has God-ordained authority over his wife and could even command her has serious problems – he could probably do with the laying on of hands. Under no circumstances should the word ‘head’ be allowed to go to his head!
I sincerely hope the snippet does not intend to imply that a wife’s submission to her husband is unconditional, as the submission of the church to Christ is.
Your description of a husband granting his wife her freedoms and responsibilities speaks to me of a man who doesn’t know how to love his wife. Love does not insist on its own way. If a man has no idea of how to be considerate and honour his prospective wife, I doubt if he is ready to get married. He certainly needs to be disabused of the idea that a wife is a substitute mother who will wait on him – he’s not a child any more.
The ‘one-flesh’ relationship of marriage does not imo remotely imply a wife loses her identity to her husband. There is a new unit, a new family, with two parts being joined together, not one part being absorbed into the other.
You emphasised the ‘serve as helper’ for the wife, but I would emphasise the words ‘respect’ and ‘manage the household’, where I think the wife will have areas that she is in control of, perfectly in line with the apostle’s doctrine. You need a composite picture of the whole of what the NT says on this, not a favourite passage or two. With this in mind, the snippet is bound to be inadequate, and imo it overdoes the submission aspect.
Both husband and wife are themselves under authority, the authority of Christ; they are both submitted to him. They are not free to set aside what is written, nor to go beyond what is written, and istm there is an ongoing temptation to do so that needs to be guarded against.
Ken wrote:
It’s really not your place to keep trying to convince, guilt, shame or brow beat or argue women into “graciously submitting.”
It’s something the Bible asks of them of which they are to decide to give voluntarily.
Every time a Christian man keeps arguing for wifely submission, the submission then really ceases to be voluntary and to be true submission.
Husbands are also directed to submit to their wives in Ephesians 5.21 and to be a “servant to all.”
Your unilateral wife- to- husband submission is not equality. It’s making the husband the boss over the wife.
The Bible does not teach there is to be a hierarchy among believers in this manner.
The NT would also expect the husband to respect his wife. Respect, love, submission, etc, are not “one way” traits or qualities for only one group or another.
Ken wrote:
Also, P.S.
The Bible does not really dictate that all wives everywhere for all time are to have children and raise them.
Some couples choose to forgo having children. Some couples are infertile and cannot have children.
Some Christian women are not gifted, skilled, or interested in stereotypical “Susie Home Maker” activities such as cleaning and baking.
In some Christian marriages, the wife works outside the home, while the husband stays at home and does the child rearing.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, I didn’t write that quotation. There should be a post on this once it and this post have found their way out of moderation.
@ Gram3:
I love key lime pie so much, I can eat it any time of year. I’ve never made it myself, but I’ve tried store bought, which was okay.
I used to get key lime pie at a Mexican food restaurant in a city I used to live in years ago that was really good, but at some point, they changed their recipe, and it was bland. It had no flavor. Their pie used to be so good, too!
I’m not too keen on apple pie, either. I do like pecan, though.
One of the things that kills me about pumpkin pie is not just the flavor, but sometimes it has a little bit of a slimy texture, which grosses me out.
Gram3 wrote:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength.”
If taking things to an extreme always goes wrong, then the biggest commandment would be wrong.
@ Gram3:
When I was a kid my Gramma made the best rhubarb pie there was.
The rhubarb itself came from the the rich black loam of South Eastern Wisconsin.
Rhubarb pie is much desired in Yankee States up North.
How bout’ down South?
To this day rhubarb pie is my all time fave.
@ Ken:
But do you or do you not believe that women are to submit to men, particularly wives to husbands, and you have been supporting this position, arguing for it, on this blog for a few months now?
Male complementarians do not do their “side” a favor when they keep saying they think men and women are equals, but they keep insisting to women that women submit to men.
It really seems more like male comps are more interested in having power / control over women, than in any self-less, altruistic motive.
Also, the Bible says older ladies are to instruct the younger ones, so it would be up to women to teach submission to other women anyhow.
(But the text directs this to the individual reading it; it’s something be asked of, not demanded by other parties.)
Also, submission means caring for someone else, looking out for their needs – it is not about letting another person have “final say” in disagreements, or taking orders from that person.
And, again, serving (submission) is something all Christians, even husbands, are to do to other people, even to wives.
zooey111 wrote:
Okay. I’ll bite.
Who’s St Wombat the Scratchy?
P.S. Almost up to 1100 in this thread. New Wartburg Watch record?
BL wrote:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Lydia wrote:
You DO know that the Greek for “knowledge” is “Gnosis”?
And “Gnostic” means “He Who KNOWS Things (that you don’t)”?
And if this speshul knowledge is hidden from the pew potatoes and common rabble, well, the Greek for “hidden” is “OCCULT”. As in The Occult.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Got a ways to go yet to top 1591 here:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/07/27/complementarians-or-eternal-female-subordinationists-why-i-still-dont-get-it/
Daisy wrote:
They claim women are of equal value, but we must serve in “roles” of subjugation. Our “roles” are of lesser importance, and lesser value. Harrumph!
Daisy wrote:
As written in Paul’s letter to Titus in the 1st century. Older women are told to teacher the younger women to love their husbands and their children, too. Do women need to be taught to love their husbands and children??? Maybe in a forced or arranged marriage, but how about now?
And, the majority of the restrictions on women come from the personal letters that Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus in regards to how to handle problems in the church at Ephesus. is our entire Christian society exactly like church at Epesus?
Muff Potter wrote:
I have never had rhubarb pie, but my grandmother said she liked it when she was a girl. I could never get past my impression of it as red celery when I was very little!
Ken wrote:
OK, but surely you know that those who maintain that there is a God-ordained hierarchy look to that verse to justify it. That’s one place they go to for ESS. And it is one place that they must have “head” mean “authority over” at any price.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about hierarchies in creation. There is God, humanity, angels, and everything else. Where do you find any indication of hierarchy of male over female in Genesis or anywhere else? I hope that if I rail on this enough, someone will point me to the textual justification for hierarchy. 🙂
Ken wrote:
Your comment conveniently overlook that no comp say to women:
“Only obey when your husband’s wishes are loving and wise and right.”
I will give one testimony, and then ask you what advice a complementarian can give this woman:
I know, Ken, you will say her husband is not acting within his rights. But what do you tell her to do? Complementarianism say she should obey like she obey Jesus. Which is nonsense in this case – obeying such a set of burdens is not obeying like she obey Jesus at all, Jesus do not give such burdens.
Ken wrote:
Does “she manage the household” mean to you
a) she is in control of the house – he is second in command in all things pertaining to the household.
OR
b) a) she is second in command in all things pertaining to the household, beneath him?
Most complementarians mean the latter. And that means that wives have no real “area of control”.
@ Muff Potter:
My southern Kentucky grandma made rhubarb pie, but I preferred strawberry-rhubarb brownies!
Ken wrote:
Expand, please. What areas should a wife be in control of that would be in line with the apostle’s doctrine?
Retha wrote:
Here are the comp/pat clobber verses. If Paul’s letter to the Ephesians must be applied to all Christians for all time, there is no wiggle room for the wife. If you read, the entire chapter, Paul tells how the husband should treat the wife, but he doesn’t give the wife any justification not to submit if the husband treats her badly. I wonder if Ken give give us his spin on these verses.
*********************************************************************
Ephesians 5:22-24King James Version (KJV)
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
@ Ken:
Your last paragraph speaks to the problem of defining “head” in the Western understanding. In that scenerio, the wife has two “heads” to submit to as her leader. The husband has one. Your interpretation produces a mediator between her and Jesus Christ.
Nancy2 wrote:
Maybe this is not an instruction “to” love them but wisdom in “how” to love them. For instance, there is a lot that older women who have raised children or weathered the storms of marriage over time may be able to share and encourage younger women.
(Caveat: be sure you are listening to a godly woman who truly has loved her children and not a wicked woman promoting the horror of infant abuse or “breaking the will” of children… arggg it’s a minefield out there)
Retha wrote:
The testimony you quote (and I’ve seen it before) is a complete caricature of what any biblical notion of being complementary is about. I don’t doubt this kind of thing happens, but no-one ever got it from the bible.
I think I’ve largely answered your question above. The first person here who needs sorting out is the husband.
But you asked about the wife. She seems to me to need to understand what submission is not. It is not obedience, it is not being a doormat with welcome written on it. She could do worse than talk to an older lady in the congregation to get some light on this.
The authority of God and his word trump every other authority. She is not expected to submit being treated as a child or servant. Her husband cannot enforce this, neither can the elders. On the contrary, he is under obligation not to treat her like this, the NT always explicitly states this wherever wives are exhorted to submit.
Talking of elders, they may need to be the next port of call to get the husband straightened out. If they do so, all well and good. But I can anticipate you saying too many elders might take his side automatically. In this instance, she may have to consider the teaching of the apostle Peter on dealing with abusive husbands, and trust God to intervene where human help has failed. She still needs to do what is right, even if he doesn’t, meaning to keep a right attitude whilst refusing to submit to his idiocy. She cannot expect God to bring the husband to repentance and obedience if she herself rebels against NT teaching.
Very difficult area, and no-one says being a Christian is easy. It can require some very hard thinking at times.
Failing this in extreme cases, I think the apostle Paul makes allowance for her to leave her husband, to be physically removed from the source of the problem. If there is likelihood of physical harm, this must be prevented. This might be the only way to get the husband to grow up. I think God will hold him accountable for the possible break up of the marriage, not her.
I’ve had a little bit of experience with irresponsible husbands in churches, and I don’t envy the pastors who have to confront this kind of behaviour and try to clear it up. It’s not something I would ever relish having to do.
I don’t see how one person can be in authority over another in a spiritual sense, without that person standing in the place of God- which is sin, the original sin- “you shall be as God.”
No matter how godly a husband or a pastor or an elder may be, they are not God, and no one can be expected to go to God through them or owe them a level of respect or submission that is due only to God.
Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other.
I would paraphrase this that a woman cannot have both Christ and her husband both as master. You cannot serve two masters; one negates the other.
And further,
Matthew 23:8-12
But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
@ siteseer:
Amen, siteseer! It’s so clear with no need to twist scripture!
Ken wrote:
Ken,
as soon as you have to explain yourself in the details, you almost begin to sound like an egalitarian. The problem with complementarianism is that for husbands and wives willing and able to submit to each other, life together is mostly easy, and they will not find submitting too difficult.
If one partner is unwilling to submit, the situation becomes difficult. A situation where the more authoritarian part of the church has been telling women to submit and men to expect submission creates the perfect storm for women. All the men who don’t know how to honour their wife – and there enough of them – and who are not ready to be married – and they do exist –
will find complementarian teaching very useful in subduing their wife.
If you leave out the call to mutual submission – “submit to each other” -, submission is extremely dangerous, because it sets up countless people (99.9999% women) for unhappiness if they are lucky, and for severe abuse, if they’re not.
Complementarianism is the perfect excuse for every immature j**k out there to abuse his wife, or any woman, and feel good about it – “It’s god’s will.”
@ siteseer:
And all of 1 John.
This is why comp/pat interpretation cannot be right. One of the main things about Jesus Christ is NO earthly mediator. No priest. He in dwells individual believers. We go through no one.
This truth is one reason I am so concerned with the concept of the “bad Lone Ranger” Christian gaining ground these days. It is often mentioned on pastor blogs. Evidently we cannot live out the kingdom without them. Christianity should produce more stand alone Richard Wurmbrands than followers of the Pipers, Chandlers and Driscolls.
Gus wrote:
You are not the first person to say that! The very first time this came up and I got into the discussion, someone said ‘you don’t sound like a complementarian’, and since then I have learnt the expression covers a fairly wide range of opinion.
Once you have ditched illegitimate extremes and extra-biblical agendas, in the end there is no middle position, which means you have to opt for one ‘side’ or the other rarher than sitting on the fence.
I suppose if being faithful to the text means sounding egalitarian or sounding complementarian as the case may be, being faith to the text is what matters and not to a party line.
Nancy2 wrote:
“Kinder, Kuche, Kirche”?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The Nazi Gospel to the Aryan Nation?
@ siteseer:
Bravo!
Ken wrote:
Is it? The texts in question seem to believe that living right is what matters. Not being ornery,but that whole sentence sounds like a party line to me, and somewhat recursive.
Ken wrote:
Which gender complementarianism is and relies upon…
I found this article most illuminating (link way below).
It discusses how preferences for male children in some Asian nations – including all the control, land, assets, etc, going to male children – led to a huge gender imbalance.
There are now more single young adult males in these nations, but no women for them to marry.
Because all the girls – due to preference by decades of parents for males – led to neglect of female children, or sex selective abortions, where parents aborted female babies.
Some of the things I saw in this article, how it described the beliefs about the genders in Asia, sounds remarkably like some of the very same attitudes held by American, Canadian, European, and Aussie Christian gender complementarians.
The article said that one of the things that has halted the dismal treatment and attitudes against girls and women in Asia, and turned the tide on targeted abortion of females, and the thinking that having a daughter is shameful, is feminism.
That’s right, feminism. Not Christianity or gender complementarianism, but feminism.
(I don’t agree with most of American feminism, but I do think they are right about a few things here and there.
I think they have taken to correcting sexism in society, which gender comp Christians want to see remain.)
You can read the article here:
Asia’s Missing Women
http://www.wsj.com/articles/asia-struggles-for-a-solution-to-its-missing-women-problem-1448545813?mod=e2tw
Snippets:
—
[There is a “bride shortage” in Asian nations, men who want to marry cannot, because all the female babies were aborted, or girl babies allowed to die. There are cultural biases in favor of men, and against women]….
….Even so, Confucian cultural practices, codified into law, dictated that the eldest son inherited most of the family property, worshiped ancestors and continued the family lineage. This meant that even the newly educated, smaller urban families still felt the need to have a son.
[Women then turned to ultra sounds to determined if a fetus was male or female, and they had female fetuses aborted.]
…By then, Korea had held its first democratic elections. Free from military dictatorship, the feminist rebellion, already brewing, was unleashed.
[Gender-targeted abortions were then out-lawed]
… Feminist groups worked the media, the legislature and the courts, demanding gender equality.
In 1997, Ms. KoEun helped launch a campaign for allowing families to use either the mother’s or the father’s family name, instead of always the father’s.
The campaign had more symbolic than practical impact, driving home the idea that girls were important too.
…The next year, she helped found the Citizens Association Working to Abolish Hojuje, the practice of fathers being considered the legal head of the family.
—–
Now, some of those very things are things that Ken Flag and other gender complementarians think are biblical and right – that only men (fathers) should be considered the legal (and/or moral and/or godly) head of the family.
But note how such thinking about gender roles led to the ending of millions of lives of unborn females and little girls.
Ken Flag (and a lot of other gender complementarians) opposes feminism – but it’s feminism in that male-centric culture which turned back the practice of sex-selective abortion, where many female lives were taken in the womb.
Feminism, despite some of its flaws, sometimes is on the correct side of morality in fighting injustice against girls and women.
The article goes on to say that where these male-centric views were challenged, that attitudes have changed.
Mothers no longer cry when the doctor says the ultra-sound says they are pregnant with a femal – they don’t seek abortions for that anymore there. Women (and men) in that nation are now just as proud and happy to have daughters as they are sons.
Nancy2 wrote:
This is why I find the slur “feminazi” for feminists ironic – the Nazi idea of womanhood was not “feminist.” If someone like Michelle Duggar was an Aryan in Nazi Germany, she would have received prizes from the government for having so many children.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Ah, my dear Wombat has finally been remarked on:
I discovered St Wombat many years ago, on a site far, far, away….People kept showing up, with what they claimed were “Bible verses”; I would ask where that “verse” was found, & they waffled…..And since we had been merrily passing pix of wombats around, in lighter moments, that was the 1st word that came to mind when I needed a put-down. I would reply to these folk, “That occurs in [say] the 951st Gospel According to St Wombat the Scratchy” (since, I am told–wombats have huge claws & are not afraid to use them), the 1 millionth chapter & the 442nd verse, part 17″.
In a word–I invented the laddie. He remains my favorite way of answering to people who arrive shouting, “the Bible says” & proceeding with nonsense that never saw the inside of any book on the planet. Much less Scripture. You have my permission to use ol’ Wombat any time you need him.
Thank you for asking….I really thought that enough folks had followed me here, to spread the word to others. (Besides, he’s such a nice wee fellow…even if he was caught adding to Biblical texts just for the fun of it!)
😉
siteseer wrote:
This reminder is well worth re-posting. It really is scary the things that people end up doing to the most helpless amongst us.
Nancy2 wrote:
Precisely!
zooey111 wrote:
Eh, I don’t know. With so much self-publishing and vanity publishing and publishing companies owned by the likes of Doug Wilson, some of that stuff might have seen the inside of some book somewhere.
But I always found it humorous that people would quote Benjamin Franklin’s wisdom as biblical.
Then we’d say something along the lines of, The Book of Benjamin.
We also used, “The Book of Hezekiah” for Old Testament sounding B.S.
But I like St. Wombat the Scratchy. I won’t be afraid to use it in the future.
zooey111 wrote:
Ah, like The Book of Hezekaiah:
If it isn’t in the Bible, but (a) is thought to be or (b) sounds like it, you shuffle it off to the fictitious “Book of Hezekaiah”.
Retha wrote:
But to me “Feminazi” is a word meaning “Female Supremacist”, and there have been a lot of crazies across the board.
P.S. As far as anyone can tell, “Feminazi” was coined by American talk-radio mouth Rush Limbaugh. Guy actually used to have a sense of humor once, before he started believing his own PR.
One discussion that was taking place up thread was talking about when to believe victims and accusations, and when not to.
I’m still not sure how to explain myself at this point, but I think this all depends on the type of accusation someone makes.
If “Worker X” says “Worker Z” stole $100 from their workplace’s cash register, I may be inclined to want more evidence first and have someone do an investigation. I may not automatically believe, nor want to believe, that “Worker Z” stole some money.
However, from what I’ve read about child abuse, sexual assault victims, and domestic violence, those coming forward – to family, police, or whomever- seldom lie about being victims of these things.
Victims are actually either not believed, or, if they are believed, they are blamed for the crime (‘why were you walking alone at such an hour,’ ‘but you were wearing a short skirt,’ ‘you were tempting the man intentionally’).
There seems to be other dynamics at work when a person steps forward to claim having been abused by a spouse, a co-worker at work (i.e., workplace abuse), kids who say the youth pastor touched them inappropriately, etc. In these cases, informally, people seem to want tougher standards for whatever reasons.
There are other pages out there which talk about this. I found this one:
Why Victims Don’t Tell: Sandusky case sheds light on complexities of sexual abuse
http://www.lacasacenter.org/why-victims-dont-tell-sandusky-case-sheds-light-on-complexities-of-sexual-abuse/
See especially the part on that page with this heading:
“Believe them”
A page from The Independent, Oct 2011:
“Child sex abuse victims `were not believed'”
“Children who had the courage to speak out about sexual abuse were not believed according to a study by a children’s charity.”
From allgov site:
“Most Domestic Violence Victims Say Police Don’t Believe Them or Make Things Worse”
There are other, similar pages online with the same information, saying when victims of domestic violence (or other types of abuse) step forward, they are not believed, or they are afraid of not being believed.
One of the things I’ve seen constantly in books or blog pages about domestic abuse, or in testimonies by women who divorced their abuser, is that their abuser acted one way in private and another in public.
The abusive husbands will be polite, friendly, and congenial with co-workers and when out and about in public, but when in private with their wife, the facade comes down, and they either verbally berate the wife, and/or physically abuse her.
When these women seek sympathy or help from friends, family, or church members, nobody believes them, because their husband is so nice, warm, funny, charming, or such a stand up, pillar or their community.
With verbal abuse, it’s the same deal.
I have a family member who is almost always sweet as pie to me when we’re in the room with other family, but when this person gets me alone or on the phone, they let loose and tare me up something vicious.
So, most people aren’t going to likely believe that this family member of mine is nasty to me in private, because this person takes care to put on a “nice act” around others.
Nancy2 wrote:
You know, and I know, that if I gave a list, a reply would emerge within minutes containing the word ‘legalism’. 🙂
I don’t have a list. I continue to be fairly relaxed about the whole thing. I see the husband as primarily being the breadwinner, and the wife primarily concerned with the home and children – saved by childbearing and the Titus verses. These are general areas of responsibility.
There are strands in American complementaranism that can put men under unnecessary pressure to be ‘head’ – in charge, boss over or being a kind of overseer of everything in the household. Women’s organising ability is legendary – she should simply get on with it. She should manage the household.
One revolutionary idea is to communicate – talk to each other about who is best at doing what. The complementary strengths and weaknesses and aptitudes. In my own life, generally who does what has just happened. I’m afraid I’ve not agonised over all this, and most of the people whose thinking has influenced on this didn’t either.
Diffent couples will arrange things differently, and circumstances may change or necessitate either spouse having to take on what otherwise the other would normally do. The last thing they need is condemnation for this.
Should women take up employment outside the home? I think this is a conscience issue, provided she is not neglecting her family. (The anti-family attitude of modern Anglo-Saxon ‘free market’ thinking has made this largely academic – you can’t provide on one income very often these days.)
Nevertheless, the apostle speaking under inspiration does use the word ‘head’ for the husband, so we’ve got to work out what this meant and what it means, like it of not. Facing the challenge of this has been a chunk of the reason for my own pontificating on this subject so often. I’m sure the essence of it is God is looking for husbands who take responsibility. We will all have to give an account on day for where we have got this right, or got it wrong through sin, through weakness and our own deliberate fault.
If I had a bee in my bonnet over the subject, it is when it is simply ignored, when there is an attitude of rebellion over it, or when extreme positions are held based on deception. Whatever submit on the part of the wife entails, if this no longer applies, then to be consistent and ‘mutual’, the commands to the husband must also be set aside. You could then argue everyone does everything as they think fit, a kind of unisex attitude, but I don’t doubt this is precisely what God does not want.
The Maker’s instructions still make more sense to me than the gender confusion we see around us, and as you know God is not the author of confusion.
Daisy wrote:
“Go ahead and squeal, tattle-tale! Nobody will EVER believe you! Because you’re The Crazy Kid and I’m the Sweet Little Angel!”
— My probable NPD and possible Sociopath brother (i.e. “He’s SOOO Polite (pat pat pat on the head)”
Ken wrote:
I thought that was the responsibility of the husband who desires to be an overseer. Pretty sure the management of household and children are his.
He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity….
Ken wrote:
hmmm… interesting choice of words….”her” family. /sarcasm
Ken wrote:
The comp idea of family life is a very comfortably middle-class idea of family life. (I think Nick Bulbek had the question “Is Church for Middle Class?” on his now defunct blog.)
There are seriously poor people even in rich countries like the US or in Western Europe. Are you a bad christian if you don’t make enough money to keep your wife at home?
At least the (rather lame, IMHO) entertainer whose name rhymes with “friskle” seemed to think so.
Ken wrote:
It is so funny that men are overwrought with whether a woman outside the home is neglecting her family while many men working outside the home neglect their family and are looked upon as noble sacrificers.
And whether or not a woman is considered to be neglecting her family/home is judged by such and arbitrary and subjective even, at times, elusive set of rules.
The set up is nowhere near fair or even reasonable. It is set up for women to be easily judged and condemned on the whim of another.
1138
@ Ken:
There is no where else for comp doctrine to go except a “list” of do’s and don’t for the genders. that is one reason there are are rarely open and free discussions on comp sites. They prefer vague platitudes.
@ Victorious:
In the US, more women are outpacing men in admission to med school and other professional schools. More women are graduating from college. This is based on sheer will. There are no particular barriers put up for young men not to be able to do any of it. It is their choice. Perhaps we start there?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
My family member has never been diagnosed with NPD. I suspect she is simply a garden variety Verbal Abuser.
She seldom rips my head off around others. It turns my stomach when she comes up for visits, and we are around other family. She is on her best behavior with them in the room, and is uncharacteristically sunny, up beat, and cheerful with them around.
When it’s just her and me in the room, or in e-mails, or over the phone, she reverts back to her somber, negative, critical self and is very hostile to me (verbally).
She raises her voice, uses a lot of profanity, screams horrible put downs at me, is very judgmental.
I don’t know if she has any mental health problems or not. But she is definitely verbally abusive. It’s common, I read, for abusers (physical and verbal) to pull this “Jekyll and Hyde” persona, where they act sweet and nice in public but alone with the victim, they act hateful or mean.
@ Lydia:
I hope you know I was being facetious in that comment. 🙂
Comps use the 1 Tim. 3 verses with absolute certainty that overseers must be men (husband of one wife), must have children, must have them under control, and must manage the household well.
But when it’s convenient, they relegate these functions to their wives who are not allowed to be overseers for doing the same things.
Ken wrote:
And, I don’t think “head” means what you think it means.
Ken said,
The current Christian church is too, too “pro family.”
They are so “pro family” in reaction to a perceiced anti- family bias, they have made “the family” (as well as kids and marriage) into Golden Calves which they worship.
Therefore, there is no place in contemporary Christianity for anyone who is single, widowed, child free, infertile, divorced, or childless.
Ken said, Whatever submit on the part of the wife entails, if this no longer applies, then to be consistent and ‘mutual’, the commands to the husband must also be set aside It depends.
We can say that those comments originally addressed to husbands in the text can apply to wives also.
A wife who loves her spouse would be willing to love him as Christ loved the Church and be willing to lay down her life for him.
Also, if you understand that the New Testament was not written only or primarily with 21st century European and American believers in mind, but to people living 2,000 years ago in very specific contexts with their own set of cultural problems to work through that the Apostle was addressing.
Ken said
But gender complementarian creates gender confusion by coming up with artificial “gender roles” and tells men and women they MUST cram themselves into those man-made boxes.
I was a tom boy growing up and still rather am and do not fully fit the artificial, gender complementarian gender role box of “be passive no matter what, always defer to men, enjoy wearing pink and dresses, you should love being around children and working in the church kitchen.”
I prefer wearing jeans and sneakers, have no interest in cooking in the church kitchen, kids make me uncomfortable (so I don’t enjoy being around them in person), I don’t like the color pink, I refuse to defer to men on basis of gender only, etc.
Growing up, these Christian created gender roles confused me, as I was being told I am somehow disobedient for preferring wearing Chuck Taylors to lady like flats, or enjoying Bat Man episodes more so than feminine “My Little Shortcake” dolls.
Gus wrote:
(and attn Flag KEN)
Yes, gender complementarianism is possible and applicable only to middle class Christians in nations such as the United States.
This author wrote a page explaining that in detail:
Biblical womanhood, or cultural womanhood?
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/being-woman-after-gods-own-heart
@ Victorious:
About the man works outside the home, the woman should only care for the home / kids.
I think this puts women in a dangerous place, should the husband die prematurely or decide to divorce the wife and leave her for another woman.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, your description of yourself is nearly identical to me. I was never confused and never felt obligated to live up to the expectations of others. That did cause some problems for me as the continual efforts to fit me into their mold didn’t work and mostly caused both parties frustration.
So unfair and unnecessary….
Ken wrote:
A Post Script to my post above about this comment.
I already mentioned to Ken previously (on maybe an older thread?) that gender comp messed up my identity when I was younger (and I’m still having to work through that now and other issues).
I gave Flag Ken a link to this page, by a women whose experience was similar to mine – gender comp confused her identity.
Or, it robbed her of her identity, and she’s having to figure out who she is now.
This page was similar to what I have gone through:
How Complementarianism Stole My Identity
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/how-complementarianism-stole-my-identity
Gender complementarianism can and sometimes does mess up and confuse people’s gender identities – it does not clarify them.
Lydia wrote:
Actually there may be. There is talk (seminars, hand wringing etc) among the education establishment, for lack of better terminology that the way we do school in the US may be biased in favor of a learning environment which may give females the advantage. And there is similar talk among at the same levels that the school environment we have now may put certain ethnic groups at a disadvantage. In other words the idea that one size fits all is not correct if the size is specifically geared toward the white middle class female child.
Victorious wrote:
Yes, pretty much the same here.
I was okay with being a girl who liked to run, climb trees, watch Bat Man, and wear jeans.
I did care a lot about pleasing my Christian mother and God, though, and these Christian sources (mom, preachers, Christian books, etc) told me I was in the wrong somehow for liking Bat Man, wearing jeans.
That if I want to be obedient and pleasing to God and to my mother, I’d have to cram myself into the girly girl Christian womanhood box.
I was told that a true, good, godly Christian girl was supposed to like wearing pink, frilly dresses, playing with Barbie dolls, etc… all the stuff that didn’t appeal to me at all, or barely.
I tried to be girly and please my mother, but the whole thing made me feel bad about myself, as though I am horribly defective because I did not naturally gravitate towards pink, dolls, etc.
On top of that, I was naturally low in self esteem to start with, my father was (and still is) a super critical guy (so too is my sister), so I never was accepted just the way I was.
The gender comp stuff laid on top of all that made the situation ten times worse. I felt like God must not love me or be disappointed in me, because I failed at being a “real biblical” girl, according to all these other sources in my life.
Daisy wrote:
In Brony terms, you were a G4 Rainbow Dash, and “Christian sources” demanded you had to be a G3 Pony.
okrapod wrote:
There’s similar stuff in place showing that a lot of school environments discourage female participation.
I posted links to this blog before of studies that show that some teachers generally encourage boys to speak up, give answers, be assertive, etc (traits that will help them get ahead in the workplace and life generally),
While girl students are encouraged to, or praised for, showing stereotypical feminine qualities, such as being quiet, passive, taking direction well, being neat and tidy, etc.
Here is just one page about it:
https://www.noodle.com/articles/the-achievement-gap-we-dont-talk-about-a-parents-guide-to-addressing-gender-bias
@ Daisy:
I don’t know if you missed Wade’s post about “Time to Make New Friends,” but he mentioned a book entitled “Tired of Trying to Measure Up” and I sent away for it. It was very helpful and I have passed it on to another woman who was tired of trying to live up to the expectations of others.
In case you’re interested….
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/05/it-is-time-to-get-new-friends-when.html
The following page is pertinent for this thread, especially the part that starts,
“Complementarians have kept their act together for over..”:
New Era of Peace-Making Feminists
http://www.jorymicah.com/a-new-era-of-peace-making-feminists/
Snippet:
Complementarians John Piper, the Duggars, and Matt Chandler all get mentions on the page
@ Victorious:
Thank you, Victorious. I will definitely take a look at that! 🙂
@ okrapod:
The format has not really changed that much in decades (which I think it part of the problem overall for many). What has changed is more and more accomodation to the format. Eas
The format is loosely based on instruction/reading/practicing/testing in various ways. I guess we have to ask why this format was not the problem before more female competition.
We could also ask why more Asian students are excelling overall. One reason is emphasis on the value of education. My Asian friends make their kids do school during summer break. Japanese execs who came here to start plants developed a Japanese weekend school for their kids because they thought our education system was not rigorous enough.
The difference is in effort and how education is valued. I say this because while I think our education system is a big fat mess and non effective, I also think the education “experts” are responsible. Therefore I tend to shy away from their research and solutions. In their world, every student has a learning disability (often just laziness or discipline problems) which actually hurts those that really do.
We have every kind of “alternative” school here to address the problems and nothing is working.
Daisy wrote:
I am reminded of a posting by an Iraqi Muslim blogger from the time between the fall of Saddam and the rise of ISIS, regarding the Taliban types:
“What do they expect of me? That I spend every day on my face in Prayer in the Mosque while my wife languishes in a locked harem? What?”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Someone posted a quiz on their web site several months ago.
The quiz had a title with something like, “Who said it: Sharia Muslims or Gender Complementarian Christians”
There followed a list on that quiz of quotes taken from either extreme Imam (Muslim clergy) about women, or by Christian gender complementarians, and you had to guess who said what.
I was hard pressed to figure out who said what comment, so similar were the views espoused by both about women, marriage, and the role of men.
You would think this would give gender comps pause to reflect.
About a year ago, Julie Anne did a blog post on her blog where she had quotes by a gender comp guy who was praising extremist Muslims for enforcing ever-more rigid rules and stuff on Muslim women in some other nation (I forget where). The Christian guy (some author or famous blogger) was saying that Christians need to take cues from the Muslims on that. Everyone at Julie Anne’s blog, including me, was horrified.
When your teachings about women, family, and marriage and all that stuff starts to echo that of Sharia / Taliban Muslims (and/or Mormons), you may want to think, “Hmm, perhaps our views are veering into totally unbiblical territory.”
There is nothing liberating or revolutionary about Christian gender comp – it’s an extension of sexist or weird views that are already in other religions. Why Christians want to repeat what other religions are doing is beyond me.
Jesus came to set women free from this stuff, not ask Christians to mimic Muslims or Mormons on it.
Daisy wrote:
Sounds like she might just fly into a screaming rage very easily — I’ve encountered the type. However, she seems to have enough control to maintain when she’s in public or around someone who might actually have authority over her (like bosses or cops). Must maintain appearances…
The best (and creepiest) pop culture illustration of this was in the pilot of the short-lived Eighties TV show Eerie, Indiana, where in one scene the “Foreverware Lady” drops her Angel of Light mask after she closes the door and is out of public view. It’s like her face just changes like flipping a light switch — from sweet and motherly to demonically enraged.
Daisy wrote:
Sounds like that dark humor piece Julie Anne posted once on Spiritual Sounding Board, except the quotes you had to place were from CCM Worship songs or 50 Shades of Grey.
Ken wrote:
So, at the judgement seat, do you think men will be held responsible for whether or not they assuming their “God-ordained authority” over their women?
Will women be judged according to their child bearing and housekeeping abilities?
Ken wrote:
Do you believe that if men were more authoritative and women were more submissive it would bring an end to homosexuality, transgenderism, and cross-dressing?
Ken wrote:
Really? Does this mean that men’s inability to organize is legendary. He should manage businesses, armies, and governments?
Ken wrote:
Uhmmmm???? Dude, this is not a definition of complementarianism! This is equality.
@ Lydia:
Well, my resident educator and her whole department have been being sent to a lot of seminars lately as to what we are doing wrong. The one I want to talk about is the math one, in which cameras were placed in a chinese math class room in china and in an american math class room at the same level, and low and behold they think differently about math itself and the instructor and the kids interact differently with each other and the thinking and the instructional approach are different. I realize that you were not talking about asian students outside the US, but that is ex
@ okrapod:
I was trying to delete that comment and it posted. I-hate-computers. I think that mine is possessed actually.
Ken wrote:
I assume you are being serious here, not sarcastic. My family has been adopting children for five (5) straight generations. Are all of these adoptive mothers going to hell? We’ve otherwise been an exemplary lot in our behavior—cleaning the house, sewing and mending clothes, seeing to the children’s education, putting up pickles and jams, ferrying casseroles to church and whatnot. But oh, that barrenness that has afflicted some of us—is that the true sign of our nature and our eternal destiny? If that’s your belief about a God of love and mercy, I am astounded that you can be fairly relaxed.
okrapod wrote:
Please consider starting a thread under the Open Discussion. I have grand kids in elementary school here in Ga and I don’t easily recognize what is taught about math and my formal education involved a lot of it!
@ OldJohnJ:
I will try to gather some specifics and see what I can do. I will try to get you some contested vocabulary in that area that you can check for yourself, for example. At my house we first became alarmed when the g’kids mom and I could not help with some basic arithmetic because we could not even understand the questions. We could not determine what was being asked. Then the mom got put into a high school inclusion math class with some of here special ed kids and she got to know the math faculty at the school and they filled her ear with complaints. One even resigned.
Anyhow, I will see what I can do-on the OD page.
Friend wrote:
I was thinking along the same lines. If we read simply what the scripture “plainly says” (as Ken and his kind say to do) , without taking into consideration the time and the people to whom those letters were written, that would mean that a man can be saved by repenting of his sins and accepting Jesus as his savior. For a woman, salvation is a bit more demanding: she must bear a child, or several children, to be saved. Jesus’ death on the cross meant nothing to women who can not or do not bear children, whether by choice or whether she is barren or whether her husband is sterile.
It would also mean that 1 Cor. 7:8 is for men only. And that if all men lived by 1Cor. 7:7-8, then all women would be subject to eternal condemnation.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
If or when I do call my sister out on the profanity (she knows I don’t like profanity and don’t use it too much myself), she will cut down on that.
She may even drop her voice, if I tell her she is raising it.
But even when she drops the vulgar language and speaks in a modulated, quieter tone, she is very harsh, judgemental, and can and does say things intentionally calculated to hurt deeply.
The content of what she says remains just as bad and hurtful, only without the cuss language.
She fights dirty. She will go after your weak spots. As a result, I stopped confiding in her about anything serious.
But yes, she will put on the social butterfly, sweet- as- honey persona when she and I are around our relatives, and behaves herself if our father is around.
It is the most bizarre thing to behold. She acts all smiley- chatty- friendly around the aunts, uncles, and cousins of ours, but if it’s just me and her in the room or on the phone or e-mails, it’s catty put-downs, or cuss language screamed at me.
Nancy2 wrote:
Tee hee, he has never met my sister. My sister is a slob and a half. She’s very disorganized and messy, as a general rule.
Ken wrote:
I missed the last part of this my first glance over.
Women are not saved by having children, they are saved by putting trust in Jesus to save them of their sins.
Your view – if I understand it right – condemns never-married virgin women like me to Hades. (What about virgin men, do they go to Hades for failure to pro-create?) and infertile couples. And couples who simply choose to forgo child bearing, even if capable.
Daisy wrote:
Hades will offer lovely companionship if the comps are right about this narrow little reading. Some sweet ladies from my family will be there along with a great many nuns, girls who died before reaching adulthood, and–come to think of it–all the virgin martyrs of the early church.
okrapod wrote:
You’re not alone, I despise them (computers) too. And what’s sad is that it doesn’t have to be this way. The computer originally started out as a useful invention, much like the steam engine, a great boon to humankind. But now it seems that the computer is becoming an end in itself. Not good.
@ okrapod:
Please do okrapod, math education is in a dismal state and needs to be fixed.
Kick off the convo over on the free thread.
@ okrapod:
It seems the well paid education experts far away in gov offices or gov grants thought it best to teach math as an abstract to 9 year olds who are concrete thinkers.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, I picked on this a representative of numerous objections!
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues [mg. they continue] in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Despite the very loose use of the word ‘saved’ to mean ‘become a Christian’ or ‘be born again’ in many evangelical circles, I can’t understand anyone thinking this verse in 1 Tim teaches women become Christians by giving birth to children. Justification, heaven or hell is not the issue here. It must mean something else.
Baptism now saves you is another example of saved not being used in a new birth sense; this passage is not unique.
It is clearly linked with Eve’s deception in the previous verse. Despite her falling into sin she can be saved. Not by the birth of the Messiah as promised in Gen 3, this is past and the verb here is future.
I think the gist of the meaning is she will be ‘saved’ from a repetition of Genesis 3 by having and bringing up children, the whole commitment of family life. The salvation here is not from the penalty of sin, but from temptation to stray into areas she is not authorised, namely the office of pastor-teacher that Paul forbids in the previous two verses and by implication in chap 3. I think this is born out later in the epistle:
So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us. For some have already strayed after Satan.
This a very down-to-earth means of protecting the church from Satanic infiltration, seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. Gossiping and idleness. A strategy to save the church from the power of sin and protect it from a particular form of spiritual attack. And it is contingent on women, plural and related to the women who do good deeds and profess religion in v 10, remaining in a state of faith, love and holiness, coupled with self-restraint. No hint of salvation in the sense of being put right with God by works.
That’s my current take on this verse.
It doesn’t mean men cannot be deceived. I am aware of 2 Cor 11 and superlative apostles (celebrity pastors) who can deceive both men and women with a different Jesus and gospel.
It doesn’t mean women who are single for any reason cannot have a valid ministry or will inevitably end up in deception. Being single may, depending on circumstances, be a good thing and even worth choosing. But marriage is the norm in the sense that most get married.
The only sense to my mind that a woman’s salvation could be put on the line would be if by disobeying this teaching, she does indeed go into serious deception, drifts away from the faith, cultivates an evil and unbelieving heart and, if continued salvation is contingent on continued faith, gets to a point of forfeiting her salvation by ceasing to believe, by disowning the faith. Calvinists would be horrified, but there are warnings in the NT – that apply to men equally – that we ought not to get complacent about our salvation. But this is very far removed from any idea of not getting into heaven by virtue of not having children.
Nancy2 wrote:
You’re putting words in my mouth. I’ve only ever talked in terms of headship and the element of authority this contains; there is no verse in the bible that in so many words says ‘a husband has authority over his wife’, God ordained it so you can’t argue against it.
Something that has become clearer to me recently is this whole issue is viewed very differently in the UK to the US. Some in the US have made complementarianism something that covers the whole of life, whereas in the UK it is more specific to married life in the home and ministry within the church.
If Gram3 is still on this thread, she may find the following interesting.
I think Flag Ken should take a look:
Selective Literalism: Female Elders
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/selective-literalism-female-elders
Daisy wrote:
Also, in all the fandoms I’ve been involved with, “disorganized and messy” is universal. Like bookshelves overflowing onto the floor, it’s the most common characteristic of a fannish household.
Daisy wrote:
Thanks for recommending this. It’s excellent.
@ Friend:
You’re welcome. It’s a more detailed revelation and look into a practice that “Flag Ken” and gender complementarians in general practice.
They say they take the Bible literally and when to apply it literally, but they sometimes really pick and choose when to do so.
I’m for a nuanced literalism myself. Take the Bible literally where it’s meant to be taken literally (there are passages that are meant to be hyperbole or allegory), but also take the culture, time period, original audience, and what all into account.
I don’t think absolutely every last comment or command that was written by Paul 2,000 years ago was intended for all people of all nations, cultures, and times. Some of the principles may still apply, but not the details.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The irony about my last post about my sister being messy. One of several things that finally caused her to break up with her long-time, live in boyfriend were one or two of his specific slob habits.
My sister can be neat and organized when she chooses to, btw, but more often than not, she is messy. She was messy as a teen, too.
I find it funny one reason she dumped her BF was over him being messy, when she herself is not a pillar of cleanliness or organization.
Scans prove there’s no such thing as a ‘male’ or ‘female’ brain
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28582-scans-prove-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain/
Snippet:
Daisy wrote:
Nature vs. Nurture?
Or, in the case of some women, maybe it’s Nature vs. Subjugation.
Daisy wrote:
It amuses me I have become Flag Ken – presumably a red warning flag in case I post – yet again – something controversial and outrageous! 🙂
I read your link. I agree with their basic criticism in that churches when selecting elders (or whatever you call them) are being selective in taking the qualifications literally. My answer would be that rather than claiming that this is because we have moved on from the cultural situation of the original readers and can change the text for our culture in 1 Tim 3 etc. to he or she or husband of one wife or wife of one husband for an overseer, we should insist the original qualifications are met. They are not rocket science to understand, and focus on character rather than the MDiv or sundry other academic qualifications. (And aren’t most of the problems critiqued on this site due to bad character of pastors rather than their particular doctrinal stance?)
This means no young elders; it does mean mature family men with a proven track record. It might be legalism to insist on this without exception (they must have more than one child?), but I would take what Paul says at face value and make it the norm.
Since few become elders anyway, the restriction is hardly ‘silencing’ one half of the church. Not all elders will have a teaching ministry. It’s possible to have a teaching minstry without being an elder. And women can have a teaching ministry, the restriction is only public teaching to the gathered church. And no ministry whether by men or women is an ‘entitlement’.
I don’t agree with their vision that abolishing the restriction to men would lead to the church [being] energized in amazing only-God ways. This will open the door for unbelievers to investigate the newfound unity, celebration of diversity, and culture of community modeled within marriages and communities of faith. And this will provide opportunities for Christ-followers to share with others the ‘good news’ about the quintessential love of an amazing triune God.
This has been done by churches such as Hybels’ Willow Creek, and it has sadly led to deception in the church, the very thing the restriction is designed to prevent. I’m not saying it’s all bad, but I’m not fooled by the numbers indicating a ‘successful’ church, and we ignore the apostle’s instructions at our peril.
Daisy wrote:
We are, for once, in agreement!
I would say the older I have got, the more I tend to take the text more rather than less literally. Heard too much allegorical stuff in my time (e.g. the King and his Army by Ern Baxter. An iffy way to use the bible).
Ken wrote:
Oh, okay. Women aren’t part of the church. I guess when you take the restrictions into consideration, women are merely quasi-members, anyway. Oh well.
Ken wrote:
So, we matter outside of the church, but not inside of the church. Why should women even attend church?
Ken wrote:
The Bible plainly says “children”, plural. Unmarried men and men with less than 2 children can not be elders. The Apostle Paul disqualified himself for the position of elder.
Ken wrote:
There is no indication that bearing children prevents spiritual deception or Satanic infiltration or seducing spirits or doctrines of demons. If men cannot bear children, what protects them from the same spiritual perils?
You have again made a circular argument that leads to a faulty interpretation. You have first assumed that Genesis 3 is about the Woman leaving her proper place. Then you say that women staying in their proper place will protect them and the church. You then somehow tie that to women being instructed to tend to their households. All the while you neglect the prologue to 1 Timothy where Paul says he was saved despite being deceived. Similarly, this woman at Ephesus would be saved through the Childbearing in the same way that Eve and Paul and every one of us is saved. There is no indication in the actual text about Roles or spiritual deception being caused by straying from Roles. Spiritual deception happens due to being unlearned or willfully ignorant of God’s words to us, including his Incarnate Word. At least this time you acknowledged the reference to Eve in 2 Corinthians applies to males as well. Why not stay consistently with the text *without first assuming* that Genesis 3 is about the Woman leaving her proper place? Once again, you have made that assertion without showing where that assumed proper place is ordained in the actual text.
Ken wrote:
Because women don’t really matter at church, anyway. Church is really just for men. Women who attend church should be kept on the periphery. God said so. Right???
I used to go to church every time the doors were open. I used to teach teenagers in Sunday school, Wednesday night classes, and VBS. (How dare a woman teach teenaged boys, even when a man won’t step up and do the job!).
I used to ride as a monitor and supervise the children on the church van when we provided transportation for children whose parents were not church attendees. (Never mind the fact that I was a teacher in middle schools and high schools ~~~. How dare a woman make teenaged boys behave on the church van, even when a man won’t step up and do it! My husband used to drive the van ~ said that every time I didn’t ride with him, the kids were out of control! The van isn’t used to transport children, anymore.).
I used to sing in the choir.
I don’t/won’t do any of that anymore because of the attitudes of so many sexist men. When enough men won’t step up and take over those responsibilities, it’s their problem and their fault. I no longer care when certain needs are not being met. After all, I am just a woman.
Ken wrote:
Since very few become President of the USA or Prime Minister of the UK, then it is OK to prohibit women from those positions?
ISTM that you are refusing to see the obvious point we are trying to make. Was Phoebe a deaconess? Is it likely that all of the people qualified to be elders in the early church were male? I think it is very likely that the overwhelming number of people who were qualified to teach were male because females were not permitted to learn. And that is also why Paul ordered that the females at Ephesus be permitted to learn.
Why do you perpetuate the double bind for women? Not allowed to learn, so therefore not allowed to teach/oversee. Now that we are permitted to learn, we are still prohibited from teaching/overseeing in the conservative churches. Because conservatives refuse to consistently use a conservative hermeneutic!
Ken wrote:
You keep bringing up Willow Creek as an example of the deception which occurs due to female leadership in the church. What is your explanation for the deception which occurs under male-only leadership? Is that the woman’s fault as well, as Bruce Ware maintains?
Ken wrote:
The cure for loosey-goosey allegorization is not rigid and non-contextual literalism. It is intelligent exegesis and application.
Gram3 wrote:
Men aren’t easily decieved – only women are. The more children a woman has, the less spare time she has to fall into deception!
At least that’s the faulty impression I get.
Woe is to women who cannot bear children!
Gram3 wrote:
Stereotyping.
If a handful black people are lazy, then all black people must be lazy.
If a handful Germans are are evil, they all must be evil.
If a handful of foolish women lead their church into evil, then all women must be foolish and all women will lead their churches into evil.
Gram3 wrote:
I am not convinced he does not see it. He simply reverts to the “plain meaning of the text” for these verses. He then does not revert to the “plain meaning” for “cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin” or “women are saved in child bearing.”
Ken wrote:
No, you are pretty much a “selective literalist,” -only a literalist when it suits you, as Gram3 has demonstrated time and again.
Except on the “women shall be saved in childbirth” thing, you seemed to suggest in a post above that women who are infertile or who are virgins are doomed to eternity in Hades because they have not reproduced.
(You also feel, contrary to most conservative Christian scholars and apologists, that it’s wrong or liberal to use outside sources to understand the Bible and its meaning.)
Ken wrote:
So you would not be fine with Apostle Paul, Jesus Christ, or other mature Christian people being elders in a church.
You are also fine with churches discriminating against infertile men, or married men with infertile wives, or against never married or divorced men. I don’t think that is a loving, Christian view point to hold. Jesus was more about inclusion than excluding people on life situations such as those.
Ken wrote:
Swap out the words “women” in there and substitute words or phrases such as “black people” or “people with blue eyes” or “21st century Europeans” and read that back to yourself, Ken.
Let me give it a try:
Your argument is side stepping the basis of the whole problem.
I never said that being an elder or whatever is an entitlement, that anyone and everyone who wants to be one should be one. You are missing the point entirely.
I don’t care if only three people every decade become elders, or are qualified to be one; or if there are three thousand who are qualified or who become one.
The fact remains that you are incorrectly interpreting and/or applying the Bible as a weapon to discriminate against an entire category of people, whether that is three persons or three thousand.
And what if you do have a woman who DOES meet the criteria to be an elder, one who does have the skills to be an elder? You would tell her “no” anyway.
Ken said,
And women can have a teaching ministry, the restriction is only public teaching to the gathered church. And no ministry whether by men or women is an ‘entitlement’.
There are several problems here as well. I don’t know if I have the energy or space to get into it all.
There are comp churches who totally disagree with you there.
Other comps think women should not teach any where, at any time, for any reason.
Some don’t really feel that women should even direct or teach men in secular jobs (see John Piper and police officer women example).
There are ridiculous scenarios like at this complementarian church I wrote of earlier,
where a woman does get to teach in a church that is against women teaching in churches, but only so long as a person with male body repeats her words verbatim on stage:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/11/20/naghmeh-abedini-wife-of-imprisoned-pastor-abedini-is-a-victim-of-domestic-abuse-while-owen-strachancbmw-reports-that-complementarians-handle-abuse-really-well/comment-page-2/#comment-229892
-Your position creates idiotic situations like that. That woman was in fact publicly teaching in a church that is opposed to it, but in a round-about way that the pastor came up with.
If you’re going to allow a male body to verbatim repeat what a woman says from back stage, you might as well allow the woman herself to stand on stage and say whatever she was going to say.
There is nothing intrinsic in the male body that makes it more smart, godly, or holy than a remark or thought that comes from a person in a woman’s body.
Women are not more easily deceived than men. They are not lesser than in any way, shape, or form.
Comps have made the male gender or maleness into an idol, a deity – and you really need to repent of that.
Jesus Christ came to remove nit picky rules and laws, especially like the Pharisses laid on people’s shoulders.
That you have to have a Talmud of what women can and cannot do and when and where is one indication you are off the Gospel; you are following what the Pharisees did.
Jesus said his burden is light. He came to free women.
Women were already under oppressive rules under the Pharisees and other religious leaders in that culture 2,000 years ago – you and other comps are fighting to hold on to that same mentality.
There were a few other points I wanted to make, but some of them escape me at the moment.
There Are No Stereotypical Male and Female Brains
http://www.beacontranscript.com/no-stereotypically-male-female-brains/3886/
Daisy wrote:
My husband has 3 1/2 years of Bible College, but he has no children, and is, therefore, inadequate, as the Bible “plainly says”.
Ken wrote:
I have a post above this one that has not been published yet, so if this one shows up, I would ask that you please check in later to see the one above this.
Anyway. So you are engaging in selective literalism. You only apply the text literally when it suits your position.
Now you are arguing that the “saved thru child birth” verse is really only for the culture or time period in which it was written
– while ignoring that is also the case for many of Paul’s other comments about women in the church or in marriage.
The text flatly says, “Women will be saved through child bearing,” so I guess the redemptive work of Jesus was not enough to save virgin or infertile women from sin and Hades. That reading is taking the text literally.
Ken wrote:
If you are not interpreting “head” to mean boss or authority over, you are, it appears interpreting it more like mutualist or egalitarian Christains are interpreting it.
There is no point in defending “head” in the comp sense if you are denying that “head” means in authority over, or similar (ie, the husband gets “final say so” in disagreements in a marriage).
Women are not perpetual toddlers who need their husband to be a “daddy figure” to lead them in a marriage or out of a marriage. But this is what the comp view pushes for.
I am opposed to both the “man is in charge” view in the context of marriage, church, and in secular life, btw.
I do get that some comps argue for these positions only in the spheres of church and home, but that view is also condescending and wrong. It also sets women up to be abused by abusive husbands.