History of Complementarianism – Part 2

"I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80s and early 90s when we began this, I expected that this would probably be over in ten years."

Wayne Grudem

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=74363&picture=silhouette-woman-and-manSilhouette Woman and Man Profile

In Part 1 of the History of Complementarianism, we explained how a group of like-minded individuals drafted the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood under a cloak of secrecy.  This statement, which was finalized in December 1987, serves as the foundational document for complementarianism (an invented term).  It was during the secret meeting in Danvers, Massachusetts that the signatories voted to incorporate the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).  Thanks to Wayne Grudem's Personal Reflections, we have an accurate history of this movement.

NIV's Gender Neutral Bible

One of the early challenges CBMW faced was how to address the NIV's Gender Neutral Bible.  At the November 1996 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Wayne Grudem read a paper called “What’s Wrong With Gender Neutral Bible Translations?” In it he analyzed many verses in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible but didn't discuss the NIV because there were no indications of a plan to change the gender language.  In his personal reflections, Grudem revealed that he gave multiple copies of his paper to the Secretary of the NIV’s Committee on Bible Translation, who planned to share them with committee members.

A few months later the issue of gender-neutral Bible translation exploded. According to Wayne Grudem's Personal Reflections:

The March 1997 issue of World magazine had an NIV Bible on the cover that was morphing into a stealth bomber, and the magazine’s cover announced that the NIV was quietly going gender-neutral. The entire gender-neutral Bible controversy resulted, and the following issue of World had an article by me analyzing several verses where I thought the British Inclusive-Language NIV (NIVI) was distorting Scripture.

Eventually Dr. James Dobson called a meeting of twelve people at Focus on the Family in late May, 1997. It included representatives from CBMW, World magazine, the NIV’s Committee on Bible Translation, Zondervan (the distributor of the NIV), and the International Bible Society (the copyright holder for the NIV), and some others. But just before the meeting began, the IBS issued a statement saying they had “abandoned all plans” for changes in gender-related language in future editions of the NIV. So we thought the controversy was done and the NIV would remain faithful in its translation of gender-related language in the Bible.

Little did we know, however, that the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV had not “abandoned all plans”! Far from it! Unknown to anyone outside their circles, for the next four years the Committee on Bible Translation, apparently with the quiet cooperation of people at Zondervan and the International Bible Society, continued working to produce a gender-neutral NIV. They had publicly “abandoned all plans,” but privately they were going full-steam ahead. Then suddenly in 2001, they announced unilaterally they were abandoning the agreement not to publish genderrelated changes in the NIV, and they published the TNIV New Testament in 2001 and the whole Bible in 2005.

Grudem explained that the TNIV was not very successful, which he saw as 'God's protection on the accuracy of his Word in English'.  Had it not been for CBMW, there would not have been an organized way to oppose the TNIV, according to Grudem.  He went on to state:

The long-term result of that controversy, which no one expected or foresaw at the time, was a new awareness of differences in Bible translation theory in the evangelical world. The dominance of dynamic equivalence theory has clearly been broken, and the trend now is decidedly toward essentially literal translation. CBMW played a large role in that, and I am thankful to the Lord that we were able to do that.

SBC's "Baptist Faith and Message" Addendum

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood had been in existence for just a decade when it began to make significant inroads into the largest Protestant denomination in the United States — the Southern Baptist Convention.  When SBC messengers convened in 1998, they approved the addition of complementarian language to the denomination's doctrinal statement, called the "Baptist Faith and Message".  The following language was added to the 1963 BF&M:

http://www.baptiststart.com/print/1963_baptist_faith_message.html

Wayne Grudem and his complementarian colleagues 'rejoiced' when this occurred.  In his personal refiections, Grudem stated:

 This is wonderfully helpful because it sets the denomination on the right course on this issue for a generation or more to come.

Two years later the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM2000) was adopted at the SBC annual meeting.

That same year (2000), CBMW co-sponsored a marriage and family conference in Dallas with Dennis Rainey's Family-Life.  It would be interesting to know whether this conference was held prior to June 14, 2000 (when the BFM2000 was adopted) as well as who was in attendance.  With regard to this event, Grudem stated:

That conference had a wonderful impact with ongoing influence in terms of books published and much networking and encouragement for others.

To this day, it's all about networking… 

Grudem and Rainey went on to write a book entitled Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood, which was published by Crossway Books in 2002.  There are some familiar names in the Table of Contents.

In 2004 Grudem's 865-page book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth was published by Multnomah Books.  According to Grudem:

"It includes everything I’ve learned on biblical manhood and womanhood for the last twenty-five years."

Two years later Wayne Grudem's book Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism was published.  It was in this book that Grudem shared his conviction that…

Many evangelical feminists are not going to change their minds or be convinced because, it seems to me, they have repeatedly adopted principles or chosen exegetical decisions that undermine or deny the authority of Scripture. Once that abandoning of scriptural authority comes about, then a movement will not be persuaded by Scripture, and in that case, when the culture is going the other way, they will not ever be persuaded on this issue.

At the conclusion of this post, we are including a panel discussion held at one of the Together for the Gospel events entitled Complementarianism:  Essential or Expendable?  One of the panelists is Wayne Grudem's buddy John Piper, so you can imagine how the conversation goes…

In his Personal Reflections, Grudem summarizes all the accomplishments of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  (see screen shot below)

http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/personal-reflections-on-the-history-of-cbmw-and-the-state-of-the-gender-debate/

Even though Wayne Grudem believes CBMW has made tremendous progress promoting biblical manhood and womanhood (aka complementarianism), he points out some challenges (see screen shot below):

http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/personal-reflections-on-the-history-of-cbmw-and-the-state-of-the-gender-debate/

So what would be the price to pay for going down the slippery slope toward egalitarianism?

What surprised me most in Wayne Grudem's Personal Reflections was the first paragraph of his conclusion (see below):

http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/personal-reflections-on-the-history-of-cbmw-and-the-state-of-the-gender-debate/

What I can't believe is that Grudem and gang expected everyone to bow down and worship their sacred gender roles without any questioning.  Not only that, he infers that those who do not embrace 'blblical manhood and womanhood' as described in the Danvers Statement are impure.  

http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/personal-reflections-on-the-history-of-cbmw-and-the-state-of-the-gender-debate/

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) website includes the following in their History:

CBMW has played a formative role in helping numerous denominations and organizations promote gospel-driven gender roles, including the Southern Baptist Convention and the Presbyterian Church of America. Under the leadership of leaders like Randy Stinson, Bruce Ware, and J. Ligon Duncan, CBMW increased its influence in the first decade of the 21st century, holding several major conferences on gender roles, launching CBMW.org, and publishing the Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. JBMWhas been published in journal form since 1994 and has fostered critical academic discussion of crucial exegetical, theological, and pastoral issues.

In 2015, many evangelical groups are convictionally complementarian. The contemporary surge of interest in the gospel and the greatness of God has coincided with widespread adoption of complementarianism, with many prominent churches, seminaries, authors, and para-church organizations joyfully celebrating God’s good design for manhood and womanhood, home and church.

CBMW is in its fourth decade of operation… God has used a once-fledgling outfit to lead many Christians and many churches to health, and we trust this work will only continue and grow by his grace.

Earlier this month it was announced that Owen Strachan, son-in-law of ESS proponent Bruce Ware (who is a close colleague of Wayne Grudem), has resigned as CBMW president.  Denny Burk is the newly appointed CBMW president.  Is the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood really being blessed by God?  We think not…

Comments

History of Complementarianism – Part 2 — 1,027 Comments

  1. Ken F wrote:

    Truth, intelligent questions, equality, loss of privilege,…

    To not tell the whole truth is to lie. These boys are surely running scared these days.

  2. mot wrote:

    To not tell the whole truth is to lie. These boys are surely running scared these days.

    It’s only a matter of time before it comes crashing down. I’m just wondering when to buy the popcorn.

  3. Paula Rice wrote:

    Daisy, look, first take the log out of your own eye, ok? Then you’ll be able to see clearly so you can go after the speck in mine.

    I’ve no idea what you are talking about. I’ve not been rude to you, nor have I had an attitude where I behave like only my views are the correct ones, and anyone who disagrees is anti-Bible or so on. You can discuss this with me more on the Open Thread if you like.

    You defend the Bible a lot but don’t follow its teachings on how to treat other people.

  4. @ Ken F:
    It is going to be interesting to see how it plays out. Burk is back at CBMW (I wonder how that works being Dean at Boyce. Is he a figurehead? Not sure)

    Mohler is now playing the middle on all of it as we saw in the article linked in the last thread.

    You gotta wonder who he will throw under the bus if it comes to it. . They have several fronts going on: CBMW problems, ESS problems from Presbyteran theologians they admired and Russ Moore very public unstatesman like problems from the rank and file.

    One tactic is to unify all parties under the comp banner. It’s all they have left.

  5. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:

    even so, may crickets of all kinds infest the bedrooms and bodies of those who exploit it for their own benefit.

    I’m glad you returned us to the primary topic of cricket, Daisy

    Thanks for making me burst out laughing 🙂

  6. Daisy wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:
    Daisy, look, first take the log out of your own eye, ok? Then you’ll be able to see clearly so you can go after the speck in mine.
    I’ve no idea what you are talking about. I’ve not been rude to you, nor have I had an attitude where I behave like only my views are the correct ones, and anyone who disagrees is anti-Bible or so on. You can discuss this with me more on the Open Thread if you like.
    You defend the Bible a lot but don’t follow its teachings on how to treat other people.

    Paula Rice,

    Daisy is a gracious person, a lovely person, a good researcher.

    You have chosen to be hostile to nearly everyone on this thread and have not shown them respect or Christian love. Please stop.

    Dee asked you to change your tone earlier today because of your hostile posts to people.

    Thank you.

    Also is there something hard going on in your life (or that has gone on) that we need to pray for you about? I asked you up the thread, hours ago, and never got a response.

  7. Lot of the argument regarding ESS as a bolstering point for complementarianism have reared their ugly head in the LCMS. A complementarian book was suppressed in 2008 by LCMS because two of the essays advocated ESS. DW had commented earlier that the bastion of orthodoxy would be the Orthodox churches, the RCC and Lutheran churches. ESS has invaded strange places. Interesting some of the arguments in this letter.

    https://www.ordainwomennow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Arnie-Voigt-letter-to-CTCR-1-5-2010-secured.pdf

  8. Ken F wrote:

    mot wrote:
    Wonder what the teachers are afraid of?
    Truth, intelligent questions, equality, loss of privilege,…

    Having to grow up…

  9. Barb Orlowski wrote:

    It seems a shame that the topic of this post and the conversation around the seriousness of this biblical error has been diverted into some internal issues about the Bible and what it means to be a Christian. I am really wondering if this is helpful.

    It seems that extra topics might be better discussed elsewhere, Open Discussion maybe?? Or is everyone happy to continue to try to explain themselves to one another on this thread? Again, the internal differences expressed, clarified, and then re-clarified could go on and on. Wouldn’t it be a better plan to keep to the topic at hand and focus around this heresy in the church??

    You are probably right. I do feel like this whole discussion has opened my mind to some perspectives I have not really thought about before and given me a lot of things to ponder, though, and for that, I thank all who shared.

  10. @ Ken F:

    Excellent article! The differences in approach are immense. And one can see how it ends up feeding into atonement theories.

    “To the Greek Fathers, what we inherit from Adam is not his sin and consequent guilt, but mortality.4 From Adam (understood, really, as an archetype), we “inherit” the sting of death. Death has spread to all of humanity, as an inevitable consequence of our fallen nature; yet each of us, under the threat of death, rebels personally against God, the Author of Life. This means that our guilt is our own; we bring it upon ourselves. (A sign in our local marina declares: “You are responsible for your wake!” How true…)”

    And this

    “The difference between this notion and the Orthodox perspective is well illustrated by our respective interpretations of Romans 5:12. In the West, at least in the popular mind, the debate was long polarized between Catholic emphasis on salvation through “works-righteousness,” and Protestant insistence on “justification by faith (alone!).” The presupposition underlying both views is that we inherit Adam’s guilt, which resulted from his sinful disobedience to the divine commandment.2 St Augustine seemed convinced that the guilt resulting from Adam’s sin is transmitted through the sexual act, from generation to generation, like some deleterious gene. This “original sin” must be removed if we are to be saved from death, to share in eternal life. The question as to how this is accomplished has received many different answers.”

  11. Velour wrote:

    Having to grow up…

    Sadly the preacher boys and others have been indoctrinated and I am not sure how you unindoctrinate them. They truly are dangerous to the cause of Christ. I am not sure they know much about him.

  12. dee wrote:

    You haven’t, you attend each Sunday…:)

    Yeah, I was thinking about that this morning. I’m one of Driscoll’s most faithful attendees–from the sidewalk!

  13. mot wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Having to grow up…
    Sadly the preacher boys and others have been indoctrinated and I am not sure how you unindoctrinate them. They truly are dangerous to the cause of Christ. I am not sure they know much about him.

    I have never seen so many beaten down wives, women, and daughters as I did at my ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite/Comp-promoting church.

    I went to the smaller church wanting to escape a mega church that I had been invited to by a friend that was anonymous and weird. I went from the fire to the frying pan. Gram3 insightfully noted months ago that when people leave one bad church they frequently search for a new church that seems opposite and miss the red flags. I thought how nice the new pastors/elders said that they would ‘care’ about us, ‘counsel us’, ‘help us’, ‘guide us’, ‘meet with us’. How nice, I thought, not like the pastors at the mega church who drove fancy cars and didn’t know us.

    I didn’t realize that my new smaller church, that wasn’t anonymous, was just practicing ‘heavy-Shepherding’ and that ‘care’ wasn’t really ‘care’, but insufferable control and domination of Christians’ lives. “Meetings” with the pastors/elders consisted of listening to their insufferable advice, when they weren’t qualified, and having to learn to ‘throw them a bone’ in order to escape. Sometimes meetings consisted of being screamed at by 2 of them or 4 of them.

    Scores of former members — all ages, marrieds and singles — reported this when I interviewed after I was no longer a member.

  14. @ Barb Orlowski:
    Agreed. Dee and I put a lot of time into writing these posts, and it so frustrating when an important topic gets derailed. How many times have we reminded commenters to stay on topic?

    I would like to see us discussing things like …

    Why did Wayne Grudem think this would be a done deal in just a decade?

    Why doesn’t John Piper remember more about the history of the Danvers Statement and complementarianism? Did you pick up from the video that he said Danvers, CT instead of Danvers, MA. Wasn’t he at that historic meeting?

    Is complementarianism really of first tier importance (as purported in the video)?

    Please honor our request to keep your comments relevant to the post topic.

  15. @ Deb:

    Thanks, Deb.

    I will do my part to keep the topics on point on the thread.

    You and Dee do a lot of work writing these articles, lots of research, and it shows.

    From the bottom of my heart, thank you. You ladies have taught me so much. Same for fellow posters.

  16. My previous comment was an affirmation of what Barb wrote.

    The words after “Agreed” were directed at those who are continually off-topic.

  17. @ Velour:
    There are people I know personally who have just started reading our posts. Until fairly recently, they knew nothing about the Neo-Cal movement, complementarianism, or Wayne Grudem. I fear these tit for tat exchanges may discourage them from following the discussion or reading future posts. 🙁

  18. Deb wrote:

    Why did Wayne Grudem think this would be a done deal in just a decade?

    That is a puzzle. The folks who signed Danvers represent influential people in most (all?) sectors of the conservative church, so he was feeling optimistic? Because it is really only the conservative evangelical church that is affected by this. He does strike me as really confident (at least that’s how it appears) in his understanding, as his response to the Trueman post demonstrates.

  19. Deb wrote:

    Why doesn’t John Piper remember more about the history of the Danvers Statement and complementarianism?

    Maybe he does remember but does not want to say what he remembers. I think that part of his response was awkward. Mary Kassian seems to remember.

    That said, I empathize with people whose memory and mental function is less than sharp. They just should not have a platform where lots of young people hang on his every word as if it is from God.

  20. So here’s today’s report from the House of Driscoll.

    He’s split it into two services and they are into their “soft launch,” which is scheduled for August 7, two weeks from now.

    The first service is at 9 am. I realized when I got there that I will have to be out there at 8:30, not 8:45. There were 61 cars in the lot when I left. I then drove around to a local breakfast spot, got something to eat, and hung out for an hour working on refreshing my Spanish. I got back out there at 10:25 for the 10:45 service and stayed until 10:55. There were 46 cars in the lot at that time, but many of the cars were from the first service. I suspect that people are having to do double duty in order to have a fully-staffed Sunday school as well as a full worship team.

    The rent-a-cop was in his car in the far parking lot. I presume he gets paid well for being out there a few hours on Sunday to watch a middle-aged woman stand with a sign.

  21. Deb wrote:

    Is complementarianism really of first tier importance (as purported in the video)?

    The Gospel Glitterati certainly believe that it is. It is enshrined in the founding documents of both T4g and TgC. 9Marks says that it is a gospel essential.

    If you cornered them on whether it fits properly into the first tier, they would probably admit that it is not. However, they would say, as Piper does, that it protects the Gospel, whatever that means. How is anyone supposed to use a plain sense hermeneutic with Piper?

    I do think I am most disappointed in Greg Gilbert, since he wrote the little Gospel book. If he spent that much time thinking about what is and what is not the Gospel, then he should be able to do better than this. I hope, hope, hope that young guys like Greg Gilbert will just stop and think. Just stop and think if what you are protecting is worth sacrificing your daughters and your granddaughters. Just stop and think if it is worth sacrificing the full deity of the Son. Because that is what these young guys are flirting with. Just stop and think about whether there is a firm foundation under the impressive edifice of “Complementarianism.”

  22. I see I did not properly credit Acts29 for their strong advocacy for Female Subordinationism. Because their former kephale, Mark Driscoll, and their current kephale, Matt Chandler, have been such un-stellar examples of what real, Christ-like men should be. Protectors of the Gospel and of women and children. And worse yet, their rigid adherence to ESS.

  23. Deb wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Thanks so much. Your testimony about what happened at your church has been eye-opening and helpful.

    I am writing it up. Gail, who posts here, has asked me to do so.

    You and Dee have asked me before, but I wasn’t ready. I think I’ve deprogrammed from enough of it that I can see it more clearly. And I’m ready to hone in on the issues.

    Here’s my YELP review about my ex-church. (I did have to omit the issue of the Megan’s List sex offender, because whenever I’ve touched that, YELP has removed my review.)
    So I sanitized it.

    I was really excommunicated over that issue by my former pastors/elders, who excommunicated and ordered to be shunned any adult with an iota of critical thinking skills, including a doctor who is a friend of John MacArthur’s!

    https://www.yelp.com/biz/grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley-sunnyvale

  24. Deb wrote:

    @ Velour:
    There are people I know personally who have just started reading our posts. Until fairly recently, they knew nothing about the Neo-Cal movement, complementarianism, or Wayne Grudem. I fear these tit for tat exchanges may discourage them from following the discussion or reading future posts.

    Yes, I’m with you.

  25. @ Daisy:
    I would say that comps are in opposition to the Scriptures, and that for many it is intentional.Nancy2 wrote:

    So, where does that leave Jesus with respect to women?

    The men who wrote the article used what knowledge of Scripture they possessed, or at least a concordance to develop a deceptive doctrine. The frequent citation of verses and partial phrases to support comp, is no different then Mark Driscoll advocating communicating with demons under the guise of spiritual warfare. The Committee is relying on ignorance of the Scriptures with those reading the report. The readers will never actually read the verses or stay mentally connected to a long article.

    I don’t think they give a rip about Jesus. He’s just a name.

  26. Deb wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I’ll be praying for you as you write your testimony of what happened at your former church.

    Thanks, sweet lady.

  27. Deb wrote:

    Why did Wayne Grudem think this would be a done deal in just a decade?

    It’s a good question. I wonder if it has any relation to another question:
    why did it take so long for ‘pushback’ to come from comps in leadership who reject ESS and who are ‘respected’ by neo-Cal leaders?

    maybe Grudem et al. had some sort of ‘timeline’ plan and there is another ‘phase’ coming up that they cannot begin until all the controversy and challenges die down

    Or maybe Grudem fears running out of time to nail down his ‘fame’ as an innovative theologian in the field of complementarianism/ESS
    . . . after all, Grudem has opened up about having Parkinson’s Disease and has noticed the beginning of symptoms. Perhaps he fears not being able to continue to push his ESS agenda in the face of the latest controversial challenges to it because he is losing physical strength to do so. Failing health MAY be the reason he is running out of patience with controversial attacks on his beloved pet doctrines. He’s tired and he’s ill. That is something to consider, yes.

  28. At 11.00 in the video, when Piper speaks of the inevitability of malfunction in the church where there is egalitarianism – is not the evidence actually that there is malfunction where this conjured-up doctrine of complementarianism flourishes?

  29. Christiane wrote:

    Grudem has opened up about having Parkinson’s Disease and has noticed the beginning of symptoms. Perhaps he fears not being able to continue to push his ESS agenda in the face of the latest controversial challenges to it because he is losing physical strength to do so. Failing health MAY be the reason he is running out of patience with controversial attacks on his beloved pet doctrines. He’s tired and he’s ill. That is something to consider, yes.

    Ugly thing to say, but I’ll say it:
    Maybe Grudem fears that his degrading health will force him to surrender marital headship to his wife before ESS and the Danvers Statement take down the entire evangelical world.

  30. Nancy2 wrote:

    Maybe Grudem fears that his degrading health will force him to surrender marital headship to his wife before ESS and the Danvers Statement take down the entire evangelical world.

    In his Fuehrerbunker ordering Scorched Earth?

  31. Velour wrote:

    Here’s my YELP review about my ex-church. (I did have to omit the issue of the Megan’s List sex offender, because whenever I’ve touched that, YELP has removed my review.)
    So I sanitized it.

    I Noticed you’re the only bad review in a sea of Five-Star Reviews in fluent Christianese gushing Praise upon Praise atop Praise.

  32. Deb wrote:

    Why did Wayne Grudem think this would be a done deal in just a decade?

    The eighties & nineties were a time of Christian political ascendancy. Maybe he thought America would be a theocracy in a decade.

  33. Deb wrote:

    Why did Wayne Grudem think this would be a done deal in just a decade?

    Because he, like Piper, Mohler, MacArthur, and all the others of their tribe, remain stuck in the 16th century and its cultural milieu. They didn’t count on an informed and educated populace in Christendom, one that would not accept at face value what their betters told them, otherwise it would have been a done deal.

  34. @ mirele:
    I don’t recall the exact numbers you gave from your first stake-outs. You seem though, to be describing a tanking church start-up, or a lot of attenders are on vacation this weekend.

  35. Nancy2 wrote:

    mot wrote:

    Wonder what the teachers are afraid of?

    Wimminfolk.

    They’re afraid wimmen are going to steal their penises, just like the Witches in the Malleus Malefacarium.

  36. Lydia wrote:

    @ Barb Orlowski:

    Most blog threads drift. I always forget the ODP. My bad!

    You think blog threads drift?
    Attend a panel at a sci-fi litcon and you’ll see some REAL topic drift.
    And if SF author David Brin is present, you WILL see a thread hijacking.

  37. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Here’s my YELP review about my ex-church. (I did have to omit the issue of the Megan’s List sex offender, because whenever I’ve touched that, YELP has removed my review.)
    So I sanitized it.
    I Noticed you’re the only bad review in a sea of Five-Star Reviews in fluent Christianese gushing Praise upon Praise atop Praise.

    Indeed, H.U.G.

    I think many people who were burned by my ex-church just moved on, didn’t find the resources I did (Wartburg Watch, Spiritual Sounding Board, A Cry for Justice, Wade Burleson, and other blogs).
    I had to deprogram from that hot mess that I was subjected to at my ex-church and I would say that the articles that Dee and Deb write and the posters here helped me the most
    get a grasp of what I had been through.

    I didn’t even know about excommunications/shunnings and I had to do a search of that.

    I just figured I would warn other people, nut shell the issues, and if they are having questions — I’ve given them some good resources to start down the path.

    I wanted to give hurting people, hurt in this authoritarian/NeoCalvinist church, a hand up.

    So, I guess my trial was used for some good.

  38. Nancy2 wrote:

    Max wrote:

    There have been recent movements within SBC to rename the denomination

    Sanctified Boys Club. After all, the only use they have for women is:

    Providing free daycare for the children.
    Housekeeping services.
    Catering services.

    Sex Objects.
    Breeding Stock (for SONS, of course).

  39. Nancy2 wrote:

    http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/articleXVIII.asp
    Found this. Clearly states that the plan to write the BF&M2K specifically and solely to add article xviii.
    So, the updated version of the BFM was to secure male dominion forevermore.

    “The rule of The Party is forever.”
    — Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, 1984

  40. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I Noticed you’re the only bad review in a sea of Five-Star Reviews in fluent Christianese gushing Praise upon Praise atop Praise.

    Dude, you didn’t vote for my YELP review.

    I’m sorry, but you can’t have a FREE sample at See’s Candy.

  41. Velour wrote:

    My sister and others have wondered if my ex-senior pastor might be a pedo. His ardent defense of them, his outright hostility for boundaries, safety, his constant need to be around children.

    Or he might be a “pedo by proxy”, not doing the deed himself but really getting off on having his pet pedo “confess” to him in JUICY detail.

    There was an old South Park episode where the kids falsely accuse their parents of molesting them to get rid of them, leaving the town a cross between the OT Trek episode “Miri” and “Children of the Corn”. The parents are all incarcerated in a Federal prison receiving “therapy” from a “therapist” who is strongly implied to be a closet pedo himself getting off on the JUICY detailed confessions — even if he has to make up the confessions himself — and does.

  42. nathan priddis wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    Jesus did not say, “It is from feminism or females that all sin came, and if only women will submit to men, all problems in society will cease.”

    Augustine, the father of the western church, did say that. Sin entered the world through a women’s corrupted soul.

    And Auggie brought a lot of personal baggage into his conversion and theology which were all taken at face value.

  43. Deb wrote:

    Until fairly recently, they knew nothing about the Neo-Cal movement, complementarianism, or Wayne Grudem. I fear these tit for tat exchanges may discourage them from following the discussion or reading future posts.

    As I mentioned before, when I read this blog, I feel like I live in a parallel universe. Never heard any of these names. Yet they are influencing the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. As for tit for tats, there are many roads to the truth. When you’re told you’re not a Christian enough times…boom…you cease to identify as one.

  44. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    That could be an angle, H.U.G., about my ex-pastor. Time will tell. But given his highly abnormal behavior (not caring about the safety of kids in the face of a pedo when most fathers would have out their shotguns, including unbelievers), and the high rates of abuse in patriarchy/comp teaching churches – highest divorce rate in the nation (Barna study), record amounts of domestic violence, incest, and sexual abuse (non-relatives)…you just never know.

  45. @ Velour:

    I have known one of the staff members at Grace Bible Fellowship for 30 + years. Don’t necessarily agree with this persons devotion to John McArthur , but this person is an OK person . 30 years is pretty good history for knowing someone’s character and beliefs.

  46. Back to the subject at hand, which Deb has asked to do and the video of the four men discussing Comp, including John Piper. I will admit that I read the Wartburg Watch article but I didn’t watch the 30-minute video until now. I have to get up my energy to watch John Piper and listen to him discuss anything.

    So here are my thoughts/observations, I did take notes but didn’t number the pages or which man said what in the discussion.

    1. I’d like to use Mirele’s father’s saying about today’s churches because to me it applied to this panel of 4-men discussing Comp and Egalitarianism: a mile wide and an inch deep.

    2. I honestly wish that Sojourner Truth, the woman who was a slave and whose children had been sold into slavery, were present. She could have taken out all 4 of these men and put them in their places about God. (Another poster here has kindly posted Sojourner Truth’s stories and quotes.) http://www.sojournertruth.org/Library/Speeches/

    3. 4 white men telling us about Comp. Upper middle-class. Even wealthy men. No women, no people of color, no other classes represented. No Egals, including Christian men and women, theologians/thinkers/writers present to discuss the issue, including conservative Christians.

    No discussions, no real life examples from people other than the 4 men, no push back. Just four men pontificating in their rarefied, privileged world.

    4. Ephesians 5. They repeatedly made the statement that if you get this wrong (which they use to justify Comp) you get The Gospel wrong and everything else. Preposterous. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    5. Why is Comp needed? Their answers were bizarre. John Piper cited a woman (I had to look her up and she apparently went to conservative Christian colleges and was a professor) who came out as a lesbian. And this is his argument about why Comp is so important. Another pastor on the panel cited a church member’s husband who wanted a sex change but still wanted to be married to her. OK, what do these issues have to do with what they are promoting? All I got was that they seemed scared, weirded-out, and that they were going to impose rules and rules would make everyone conform. That dog won’t hunt.

    6. Children Asking Questions About Their Roles. John Piper – sigh – said that children are going to ask what their roles are, being a boy or a girl, and what do you tell them if you don’t have Comp. Oh puuuhlllssssseee. Children ask no such thing. They play. Ask for food. Hugs. Watch tv. Color. Ride their bikes. Play. See their friends. Get on the computer. Ask about who they are? Nope.

    John Piper says that Egals have no answer to this. Why should they? It’s NOT their job. It doesn’t come up. Normal kids don’t ask these questions, they just live life. He is a very odd man. I’m shocked he doesn’t know that kids don’t talk this way.

    John Piper wants to know what people will do who don’t have these answers about how to be men and women. How about go see a psychotherapist if you’re this hung up on something that doesn’t even cross peoples’ minds!

    7. Garden of Eden – Adam & Eve. According to John Piper and the others Adam failed in his headship role and Eve messed up and was too aggressive and deceived. Comp, therefore, would have prevented The Fall. How interesting. And Comp would have therefore, in their logic, prevented the birth of Jesus, his life, death, and resurrection – salvation through Him. God did something important with the Fall. He redeemed people from it, showing that He’ll always redeems and He alone has the power to that.

    8. Jesus & Comp Men. John Piper compared the Comp man’s role to Jesus’ role to the Church.
    Piper said that a disciple wasn’t going to let Jesus wash their feet, but Jesus insisted on doing this for His church.

    Piper gave this gave this example to show that a Comp man have to “insist” on doing the right thing for his unruly bride who doesn’t know any better.

    Piper missed the point of Jesus’ washing the disciples’ feet. It was a lowly, dirty, job and respectable people didn’t do it. It would be like having the Queen of England for dinner and she insists on doing the dinner dishes. And you say, “No, you can’t!” It would be embarrassing. Jesus was showing His servant hood. His love. His humility. An example.

    Piper gave another example of a disciple saying that Jesus couldn’t die on the cross and do this for the Church. In Piper’s world a Comp man is to insist on doing things his way for his “bride” who doesn’t know any better. Preposterous. The disciple didn’t know what Jesus was sent to do, had to do, and that he would be raised.

    There is NO comparison between Jesus and a mortal man, and John Piper’s insistence that Comp men are assigned to do these things for their brides.

    9. Not following Comp is Satanic. According to the 4 panelists that when people don’t follow Comp and their God-given roles it’s *Satanic*. Wow, a big scary word. Comps are special and *true Christians* and anyone else is *Satanic*. They are a puffed up crowd, aren’t they?

    So when Nancy2 (poster here) took a towel and captured a bat that had flown into her and her husband’s bedroom and was clinging to the bedroom curtains, taking said bat outside to the relief of her Green Beret husband who wanted nothing to do with the situation…this was Satanic?

    10. Pagan Patriarchy. The 4 panelists claimed that *pagans* (another really scary, bad word) were *unhinged from The Gospel* and responsible for porn, and the harming of women and children.

    Porn is around not because of paganism but because it’s a money maker, just like these pastors and their friends pushing their wares (books, conferences, etc.).

    There is a high rate of porn among conservative Christian pastors/elders and conservative Christians.

    There’s also a high rate of sex abuse in churches, the No. 1 reason churches are sued.
    There’s an epidemic of child sexual abuse in evangelical churches and families. To act like the “pagans” are the ONLY ones with problems is NOT being truthful.

    11. “Clear” – Scripture and roles. Piper and the panelists said it was all “clear” in Scripture, the roles, and that a failure to do your role was — bad word coming — “Satanic”. I am shaking in my boots. Terrified. Gasp.

    Back to Nancy2’s marriage to a Green Beret. Nancy2 was laid up resting the other day, not feeling well, and I believe she’d been canning a lot. She was wiped out. The kitchen was dirty, dishes piled high. While she slept, her Green Beret husband did the dishes. Nancy thought it was true “Soap Bubble Submission”.

    12. The Advancement of Comp Against the Pagan Egalitarianism Since the 1980’s.

    The panelists – including John Piper – were proud that they had fought the tides of Egalitarianism that had been rising in colleges, society, and young people since the 1990’s.

    OK, now for the fall out, boys.

    The Facts:
    *Comps now have the highest divorce rate in the nation (Barna study), higher than even atheists
    *Comps have soaring rates of domestic violence, incest, and sexual abuse. It is an epidemic. The teaching – that women and girls are garbage – has gotten them treated like garbage.

    13. Jesus/Holy Spirit/Headship. No where did these men talk about how Jesus is to be the head of the marriage, not the man. No where did the panelists talk about the role of the Holy Spirit in a couples’ marriage. No where did they talk about a couples’ gifts, personality traits, and how they could use those to better their marriage. It was all about roles. Epic fail.

    John Piper said that Grudem had studied 3,000 uses of the word “kephale”, of course omitting all of the other thousands of uses in their contexts that one of our posters pointed out to us in a recent post.

    14. Positives

    1 Comp on the panel said that Comp wasn’t about a woman bringing a man chips, etc.
    That was nice, fleeting remark. When they teach the ‘obey’ and ‘submit’ stuff to women,

    15. Take Away.

    Can I get 30 minutes of my life back?

    I’d rather that Nancy2 and her Green Beret husband taught us about marriage. Or Gram3 and Gramps3. Or any of the other level-headed people.

    If some form of Comp works for you as a couple – like Ken F. and his wife – more power to you. But that’s about your giftedness and what you are comfortable with.

    The rules/the laws don’t work — they kill.

  47. Leslie wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I have known one of the staff members at Grace Bible Fellowship for 30 + years. Don’t necessarily agree with this persons devotion to John McArthur , but this person is an OK person . 30 years is pretty good history for knowing someone’s character and beliefs.

    There are a lot of lovely people there. I have no doubt that there are people of good character there. I know them.

    The problem is with the leaders and how they run the church, their authoritarianism, their abuses of the saints, screaming, yelling, blaming, accusing, and outright lying.

    It is so confusing. Church members are openly lied to by the pastors/elders and told to never talk to so and so again, and they’re under discipline, and we worked with them.

    And when I interviewed former church members, all ages (marrieds and singles), they described the same thing I had experienced: being called into meetings and being screamed at. The arrogance of the pastors/elders, the lording it over the flock, the legalism.

    They are skilled and inveterate liars. In fact, I recently asked for a full financial refund of all of the money I gave them because they lied to me about who they really were and their level of abusiveness. I also asked for full refunds for the other families that had accused them of lying about them, abusing them.

    They destroyed my reputation, and the reputation of others.

    I wonder what God will have in store for them?

    The Bible says that when you dig a ditch for someone that you are bound to fall in to yourself. (I would read the stories of blacks who survived terrible abuses in The South and other places, and their faith, and how they dealt with it. Those stories gave me courage. And this was one of the verses that old women used many times.)

  48. Leslie wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I have known one of the staff members at Grace Bible Fellowship for 30 + years. Don’t necessarily agree with this persons devotion to John McArthur , but this person is an OK person . 30 years is pretty good history for knowing someone’s character and beliefs.

    I don’t know which staff person you’re talking about, by the way. If it’s one of the screamers and yellers and liars — then no, that’s not good character.

    Would you tolerate being treated that way for a single second?

    Over and over again former church members (godly families, including men) have talked about the Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley pastors/elders claims to “authority” over peoples’ lives.

    Two very conservative Christian men who left Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley recently told me (both are husbands) that the GBFSV pastors/elders are blinded to the level of damage they are doing. Absolutely blinded to it.

    Those men and their families have gone to new churches, also conservative, but that don’t have the authoritarianism and legalism that GBF has.

    They have harmed many peoples’ lives and they need to repent.

    They are also incredibly abusive behind closed doors and they need to be in professional therapy to deal with how abusive they are. They are like Mark Driscoll behind closed doors.

    They demand “respect” and don’t realize that it’s earned.

    I will never step foot in a church again like GBF.

  49. Leslie wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I have known one of the staff members at Grace Bible Fellowship for 30 + years. Don’t necessarily agree with this persons devotion to John McArthur , but this person is an OK person . 30 years is pretty good history for knowing someone’s character and beliefs.

    By the way, would you tolerate being verbally threatened by your friend? That you were *destined for Hell* and *not one of us* for having an iota of critical thinking skills.

    Just pompous.

    You haven’t seen these guys behind closed doors. I have.

    Arrogant, untrained men running their mouthes about things they know nothing about. I have never been required to waste more hours of my life by men who no so little and do so much damage. You have to “throw them a bone”, like they did you a tremendous favor. Nod your head. Make your escape.

    They treat adults like idiots, with no knowledge, gifts, insights. And we had to listen to them pontificate.

    Former church members and I have discussed how we got treated: all the same terrible way.

    The GBFSV say they were *called to ministry*. Whom are they kidding? Is that because they can’t get jobs in the real world?

    Jesus called you to scream and yell and threaten and bully and lie about people and harm them and excommunicate them and shun them and destroy their reputations? Are we talking about the same Jesus? Were they on drugs, perhaps, when they *got the call*?

    Because everyone who has dealt with them, who left said, a person of God who is truly called never treats people this way.

  50. @ Leslie:

    By the way, Leslie, and Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley many of them pride themselves on buffing and shining their hatred of other people, their vile, low-class speech, including toward gays.

    I work a job in the real world, I am required to uphold anti-discrimination laws, I can get fired for not doing that, and my boss is gay (knowledgeable, wonderful, and kind). GBFSV pastors/elders required me to use hate speech and to be friends with those who use it, who pride themselves on this low-class, trashy behavior. And yes, they are old enough to know better and there is no excuse for such deplorable manners!

    Here is a story that I posted earlier on the thread. And it’s why I part company with Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley.

    ***********************

    At my former NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church many people espoused a hatred for gays. They had vile speech, and were proud of it.
    I can’t do that because of my job, I have to uphold anti discrimination laws, and because a boss (who is a wonderful, talented professional) is gay.
    On a deeper level, I couldn’t abide by the lack of love. In these groups people also proudly shun gay relatives. John MacArthur recommends this.
    As a Christian, I can’t.
    Years ago, in December a few weeks before Christmas, some friends called to say that their young neighbor in the countryside in their town by a river had been taken by paramedics to my city’s emergency room. He was dying of AIDS.
    It was the middle of the night, a pouring rain storm, I was in bed, cozy and warm.
    And God insisted that I go visit this young man in the middle of the night. I had never done anything like that before, or with an AIDS patient (which on my own strength would have frightened me). But the Lord was insistent. “Go!”
    So I got dressed, got a teddy bear and some Christmas candy together (early Christmas gifts from others). I called a little old lady friend Catherine, 100 years old, Catholic, a retired social worker and a lovely, warm, kind person who could melt anyone’s heart. I asked her if she wanted to come with me. I told her the Lord insisted I go, and I was going. It would be nice to have company, but I understood if she wanted to sleep.
    She said she wanted to come. She got out of bed and got dressed as well.
    I went to a 24-hour supermarket and bought a small table top Christmas tree, with little decorations on it, some sports magazines, entertainment magazines, and some snacks.
    My elderly friend and I went to the hospital. I told the nurse at the ER that, “Sean’s [the young man who was so sick] Christmas Angels have arrived.”
    He was so stunned when my little old lady friend and I walked in with gifts to see him. I introduced us. He was so terribly weak. And he hugged us. I got him a Pepsi and fed it to with him a straw. Sean kept hugging Catherine, 100 years old. She stroked his hair.
    He kept saying, “This is the best Christmas I’ve ever had in my entire life.” He was in his mid 20’s. His mother had died when he was a child. His family that remained was very dysfunctional and they had disowned him. They lived back East in Massachusetts.
    The little room for indigent patients was nothing spectacular to look at. Old large discolored white tiles on the floor. No art work on the walls. Old, tired sink near by.
    It was 3am and it was pouring rain outside.
    But I could feel the presence of God and the angels in that room. I could feel them.
    I thought when I went to give Sean some Pepsi or a hug or whatever that I would bump into an invisible visitor. That room was physically ugly but it was so beautiful because it glowed from the presence of God!
    Sean said to me, “If you ever need anything, call on me and I’ll be there.” I smiled and I thought to myself, “What is a guy with AIDS who is this weak going to do for me. He couldn’t even lift a box if I moved.” I smiled and nodded. Sean repeated it, “If you ever need anything call on me and I’ll be there.” I nodded and said, “If I ever need anything I’ll call on you and you’ll be there.” He smiled weakly and said, ” Yes.”
    I went, or so I thought, to minister to a young man named Sean dying of AIDS that night.
    I thought that was what God wanted me to do.
    Instead something entirely different took place: I was ministered to. It was glorious.
    I told Sean I would see him a few hours later that day, bring him some Mickey Mouse socks from the mall to keep his feet warm. He said he’d like that.
    When I called the hospital in the morning to ask about Sean, the nurse said, “Oh you’re the lady who was here with the 100-year old lady visiting Sean. Sean passed away peacefully this morning at about 6:30 a.m.”
    “When you did this for the least among Me, you did it for Me.” That is what my Lord would have me do. The Royal Law of Love.

  51. @ Velour:

    “I have never seen so many beaten down wives, women, and daughters as I did at my ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite/Comp-promoting church.”
    ++++++++++++++

    can you describe what they were like? what about them seemed beaten down?

  52. @ Velour:
    Just went to the website of this church. The membership contract is a vague rip from Purpose Driven Life but the bylaws are the meat & potatoes!
    In short, this corporation has no members. Members abrogate their rights upon signing the contract.
    Just reading the bylaws lights up every warning alarm on the TWW checklist of what to look for in an abusive church.
    No doubt new attendees are love bombed before they read the fine print.
    You should write this up as a case study of churches to stay away from.
    It would be interesting to know how you came to be involved.

  53. A friend told me quite a whole ago that they didn’t think the majority of people here were Christians, and that discussing the issues here from a biblical perspective wasn’t encouraged.

    For example, the observation is that, for most of you, you’re not against Complementarianism because it’s not biblical, it’s just a topic you’re treating, more or less, like feminism or something, and you want to discuss the history of it, things like that, but not the root cause. So, basically, you don’t want issues discussed as they pertain to the Bible in a general sense, that’s the feedback I’m getting, which matches the observation I was given. In fact, I was told by one long-time reader that the blog is hostile to Christianity, and is inclined to treat biblical perspectives as abuse. I wasn’t willing to accept this, or the belief that you all aren’t really Christians, but when someone treats a person like they’re derailing the conversation because they mention the Bible, I think it’s become clear what’s happening here. It’s just taken me awhile to figure out, maybe because I was taken in, like so many Christians can be, by the appearance of godliness here!

    Anyway, I’ll leave you all to your discussion of biblical things apart from the Bible lol. Christianity is the most fascinating religion in all the world, and I hope you all join the party someday. It’s a lot more fun than sitting there and picking on it, let me tell you!

  54. “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.”

    Matt. 10:14

  55. @ Paula Rice:

    I don't take kindly to your judgment of our TWW community, so perhaps it is time for you to move along (if that's how you really feel about us).

    I do find it interesting that you are the only one being defensive. My request was not aimed at anyone in particular.

  56. Paula Rice wrote:

    For example, the observation is that, for most of you, you’re not against Complementarianism because it’s not biblical, it’s just a topic you’re treating, more or less, like feminism or something, and you want to discuss the history of it, things like that, but not the root cause. So, basically, you don’t want issues discussed as they pertain to the Bible in a general sense,

    I think this is a summary of a “Christian trend” towards fundamentalist thinking.
    We cannot analyze the Bible because it’s sacred.
    Yet we can’t analyze complementarianism without returning to the Bible, that same Bible that the proponents of complementarianism use to justify it.
    You can’t discuss the history of complementarianism without discussing the Bible.
    In the past people have been executed for such discussion, wars have been fought, hundreds of thousands dead. I’m pretty happy with keeping it to just blog comments.

  57. JYJames wrote:

    At 11.00 in the video, when Piper speaks of the inevitability of malfunction in the church where there is egalitarianism – is not the evidence actually that there is malfunction where this conjured-up doctrine of complementarianism flourishes?

    Absolutely yes! By when people like Ruth tucker try to tell them they dismiss.

    I think they blame everything wrong in society at large on ‘egalitarianism’ and conveniently forget that things were not perfect before.

  58. Paula Rice wrote:

    It’s a lot more fun than sitting there and picking on it, let me tell you!

    Picking on YOU after you just went around telling everyone they aren’t Christians??

  59. Lea wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:

    It’s a lot more fun than sitting there and picking on it, let me tell you!

    Picking on YOU after you just went around telling everyone they aren’t Christians??

    Sorry I misread that sentence. It’s early.

    But maybe I’ll just leave that here because that’s definitely the impression you give.

  60. Christiane wrote:

    the neo-Cal ‘leadership’ are not willing to accept the life-giving sacrifice of Christ the Kyrios; instead they look to the draining of the spirits of healthy, vibrant women to shore up a view of ‘male headship’ that is a cultic expression of the idolatry of maleness.
    Yeah, the neo-Cals have hold of the wrong sacrifice, and it is a hollow blood-letting of the spirit of women, abusive, and extremely corrosive to the spirits of all involved

    It’s vampirism of the soul & the mind.

  61. Paula Rice wrote:

    I was told by one long-time reader that the blog is hostile to Christianity, and is inclined to treat biblical perspectives as abuse

    If a “biblical perspective” is abusive, it’s time to question, deeply, if that perspective is really so “biblical”. And that’s what this is about.

    Either our understanding of what is abusive will change, or our understanding of the Bible will change. The Bible isn’t going to change, nor is the abhorrence of abuse. But our perspectives on one or the other.

    People wrestling with these things is what good Christians do. I don’t think conversations get derailed because people “mention the Bible”, but how the Bible is mentioned is very important.

  62. Christiane wrote:

    In my tradition, we do believe this one MAJOR point about sacred Scripture: that there is within Scripture enough information for people to be able to find God and salvation, even if the translations of the translations of the translations are a bit mangled . . . something remains, and that something can bear fruit

    This is very close to what I believe, as a Methodist.

  63. Max wrote:

    I resemble that remark! The Baptists I grew up with were neither Calvinist or Arminian … they were Biblicists. Gram3, I keep waiting for the SBC masses to wake up and put the brakes on the reformed movement, but they just snooze on.

    Max, IMO most Baptist do have the stomach to wage the fight it would take to bring the SBC back to the pre-Takeover days. These people leave no prisoners.

  64. Jeff S wrote:

    People wrestling with these things is what good Christians do. I don’t think conversations get derailed because people “mention the Bible”, but how the Bible is mentioned is very important.

    I have learned a lot about the bible from this site.

    I think some people hate to see how the sausage is made. I love seeing who wrote what and when and to who and all the details surrounding that. It doesn’t hurt my faith to know the bible was written by men even if was inspired. I do think some people are bothered by the details…

  65. zooey111 wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    In my tradition, we do believe this one MAJOR point about sacred Scripture: that there is within Scripture enough information for people to be able to find God and salvation, even if the translations of the translations of the translations are a bit mangled . . . something remains, and that something can bear fruit

    This is very close to what I believe, as a Methodist.

    I believe people can find God without scripture. Scripture is useful for pointing us towards God but it is not God.

  66. zooey111 wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    In my tradition, we do believe this one MAJOR point about sacred Scripture: that there is within Scripture enough information for people to be able to find God and salvation, even if the translations of the translations of the translations are a bit mangled . . . something remains, and that something can bear fruit

    This is very close to what I believe, as a Methodist.

    Hi Zooey 111
    I think when Christians realizes the power of sacred Scripture’s ability to lead people to Christ and to salvation, they will begin to view these writings with a sense of awe. People have said that ‘sacred’ and ‘holy’ were not fitting words, but words like ‘inerrant’ were somehow better. But I disagree with that personally. Maybe it’s because since before I could walk or speak, I was carried into Churches and witnesses the elevated Gospels being carried in procession into the sanctuary. And when the Scriptures were read aloud, and came the time for a reading from the Holy Gospels of Our Lord, everyone stood up. And before I even knew the meaning of these words, they were spoken in my hearing in Latin many times: ‘This is the word of the Lord’, and the people responded ‘Thanks be to God’.

    You don’t forget these things when they are a part of your Christian formation …. the sense of ‘awe’ at those moments of intersection where human persons meet with sacred Scripture, and are profoundly grateful for the encounter.

  67. Nancy2 wrote:

    Maybe Grudem fears that his degrading health will force him to surrender marital headship to his wife before ESS and the Danvers Statement take down the entire evangelical world.

    Though I do not agree with Grudem regarding ESS or his gender views, I heard years ago from a friend who is familiar with Grudem that his wife suffers from a chronic illness that demands much care–my friend was very impressed with Grudem’s character revealed in that circumstance. This is, obviously, second-hand information from years ago, and the present circumstances may be different, but I would encourage circumspection before addressing speculation regarding his family.

  68. Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

    I would encourage circumspection before addressing speculation regarding his family.

    Just a thought, not a blatant accusation.
    I know a few men who really would rather die than turn the helm over to their wives. So, naturally the thought did cross my mind.

  69. @ Cousin of Eutychus:

    I have seen a video with the Grudems in which Wayne explained that they moved from Chicago to Phoenix due to Margaret's health issues. While they appear to have a wonderful marriage; their comp position has been abused by those who embrace patriarchy.

  70. Lea wrote:

    I think some people hate to see how the sausage is made. I love seeing who wrote what and when and to who and all the details surrounding that. It doesn’t hurt my faith to know the bible was written by men even if was inspired. I do think some people are bothered by the details…

    They’d rather have a Koran, dropped down word-for-word from Heaven in Kynge Jaymes Englyshe instead of Meccan Arabic.

  71. Tom wrote:

    Max, IMO most Baptist do have the stomach to wage the fight it would take to bring the SBC back to the pre-Takeover days. These people leave no prisoners.

    The most Vicious and Ruthless WINS.
    “I. WIN.”

  72. Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Maybe Grudem fears that his degrading health will force him to surrender marital headship to his wife before ESS and the Danvers Statement take down the entire evangelical world.
    Though I do not agree with Grudem regarding ESS or his gender views, I heard years ago from a friend who is familiar with Grudem that his wife suffers from a chronic illness that demands much care–my friend was very impressed with Grudem’s character revealed in that circumstance. This is, obviously, second-hand information from years ago, and the present circumstances may be different, but I would encourage circumspection before addressing speculation regarding his family.

    He was actually quite public about the situation in a way that made me very uncomfortable for his wife. People are different and how they view these sorts of things. But I felt as if he used the situation to promote What he saw as an example of submission that I thought highly inappropriate under the circumstances.

    He announced he was giving up his prestigious position to move to Arizona due to his wife’s health problems. He claimed this was an example of him submitting to his wife and her needs, It was all the talk at the time about what a great sacrifice he was making. The focus seemed be more on his career then her health issues.

    Where I come from you don’t get medals for that. You just do whatever is needed to be done. It is called life. And it not a sacrifice, it is an honor.

  73. Lea wrote:

    I think they blame everything wrong in society at large on ‘egalitarianism’ and conveniently forget that things were not perfect before.

    Lea, Lea…

    “Everything was PERFECT before” is the first of the three axoims of a Grievance Culture, a culture whose only reason for existence is Revenge on the Other:

    1) “Once WE were Lords of All Creation, and Everything Was Perfect in Every Way!”
    2) “Then THEY came and took it all away from Us!”
    3) “IT’S PAYBACK TIME! WITH INTEREST!”

  74. Lea wrote:

    I think some people hate to see how the sausage is made. I love seeing who wrote what and when and to who and all the details surrounding that. It doesn’t hurt my faith to know the bible was written by men even if was inspired. I do think some people are bothered by the details…

    Nick’s Monday afternoon post 1 of 2

    The “sausage” point is a very good one, Lea!

    Biblianists (for want of a better umbrella term), who want/like/need to believe the Bible is something it says it isn’t, also tend to romanticise its origins and become upset when it is brought down to earth – where God himself put it. Equally, Jesus himself – God made flesh – was just too ordinary for some people. Especially in the early decades of the Church’s growth around the Mediterranean, it ran into gnostic mindsets that tried to put Jesus in a box that fitted their existing philosophy.

    I’m struggling to put this into [fewer than 500] words here *, but I suppose the point is this: no matter what background you approach Jesus from, he is not what you think or expect. Unless you are converted and become like a little child, you’ll never see his kingdom – what you’ll see instead is a poor imitation shaped and filtered to fit your own cultural preconceptions. Moreover, the longer you pursue this “kingdom”, the more – not less – it will conform to your expectations and the further you get from God. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that when a certain Saul of Tarsus first encountered the risen Jesus he was blinded and knocked off his horse…

    * So what’s new? – ed

  75. Lea wrote:

    I believe people can find God without scripture. Scripture is useful for pointing us towards God but it is not God.

    I agree with you LEA. My own thinking corresponds with this: that in any work of salvation, God initiates the process, but that He does not decide for us what we choose . . . that a part of the dignity of the human person IS the opportunity-curse-freedom to choose life or not to choose life

    We differ from evangelicals in one major way, this: Our Vatican Catechism states:
    “”Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.”

    In my Church are on the same page with evangelical Christians in that we do believe that whoever IS saved, is saved by Our Lord Himself.

    I once said that the most ‘Christian’ person I knew was an Orthodox Jew, an old rabbi, who counseled my Jewish friend when her son died and she was so bereft. I drove her to the meeting. This old man was the epitomy of the gospel of the Beatitudes and his humility and compassion shone so brightly in the presence of my friend’s agonizing sadness. It’s a ‘mystery’, who comes into the Kingdom . . . but this old, learned, much respected rabbi had a child-like reverence for God and you KNEW the old man already had a strong footing in the Kingdom of Our Lord. There are people that when you meet them, you KNOW. You just KNOW.

    “““And I saw the river over which every soul must pass to reach the kingdom of heaven
    and the name of that river was suffering:

    and I saw a boat which carries souls across the river
    and the name of that boat was love.”

    (Saint John of the Cross)

  76. Lea wrote:

    Jeff S wrote:
    People wrestling with these things is what good Christians do. I don’t think conversations get derailed because people “mention the Bible”, but how the Bible is mentioned is very important.
    I have learned a lot about the bible from this site.
    I think some people hate to see how the sausage is made. I love seeing who wrote what and when and to who and all the details surrounding that. It doesn’t hurt my faith to know the bible was written by men even if was inspired. I do think some people are bothered by the details…

    You nailed it about sausage making. I remember reading a study years ago about the high percentage of people who go to great lengths to avoid conflict. We need them as peacemakers but there is a price. They can also be the ones who look the other way or put a smiley face on heinous abuse, basic wrong doing, etc. In Spotlight, the curmudgeonly small time lawyer who had been fighting for the working class poor of abuse said, ” if it takes a village to raise a child it also takes a village to abuse one”.

    Most of the spiritual abuse and other things we discuss carry on for a long time because people avoid conflict. I often think of the bravery of Karen Hinckley. I still cannot get over that such a young woman stood up to her authoritarian mega church. I so admire her. May her tribe increase!

  77. Nick’s Monday afternoon post 2 of 2

    So, on the topic of scripture and its relation to the role of women:

    Acts 15 (here, if anyone fancies a refresher) describes the Council of Jerusalem, as it is sometimes called, in which the very early church momentously decided that gentile converts did not have to be circumcised, nor obey the Mosaic law. To me, it’s a life-altering example of how to apply scripture, and where scripture itself fits in the whole scheme of God’s purpose.

    The whole controversy – for such it was – began when uncircumcised gentiles became Christians, and not only that, but the Holy Spirit himself fell on them (or filled them, or baptised them… the exact vocabulary isn’t important here). In other words, the church weren’t responding to “culture” or the fact that Christianity was becoming cool; they were responding to what God was doing. In the light of this, they radically re-examined everything they had previously believed about scripture.

    It’s worth noting that scripture was not by any means absent from the Jerusalem meeting. It was certainly quoted. As was their current theology, testimony of what God was doing, and recollections of what Jesus had said and done among them previously. Their final judgement was not, It is clear to us that the correct interpretation of the correct scriptures is…. It was, It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us….

  78. @ Paula Rice:

    I have been told by Neo Cals for the last 10 years, I am not a Christian. Just this past month, a Calvinist from the McArthur/JD Hall wing questioned my salvation because I participate on this blog.

    I consider it an honor.

  79. Nick’s Monday afternoon post 3 of 2

    And finally… cricket permitting, anyway…

    I make no apology for saying this more than once, but my acceptance of “egalitarianism” is not built on “culture” or “feminists”. It’s built on my conviction that Jesus himself must be given primary authority to interpret scripture, which is his property, not his master, as he sees fit. Just as he did as recorded in Acts 15. There were clear “biblical” grounds for requiring gentiles to be circumcised: but Jesus was bringing other scriptural promises to life.

    Likewise, we have increasingly seen women called and anointed by the Holy Spirit to preach, teach, initiate, lead, rule, and much else. I have seen both women and men do these things presumptuously and produce no good fruit – well, we’ve all seen this. But I’ve also seen both women and men do these things with love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, kindness, self-control, etc, and do so in a way that draws others after Jesus, not themselves, and builds them into him. For all that this might apparently contradict some verses, it accords with others – not least, In Christ there is neither … male nor female… Therefore it seems clear to me that Jesus is fulfilling this promise to his Church today, and exercising his royal right to appoint whomever he chooses to whatever role or office he chooses.

  80. Velour wrote:

    . The Royal Law of Love.

    Velour, do you remember reaching out to PAULA and asking her if something was wrong and if she needed prayer, when most were upset with her negativism?

    Kindest thing I read all day.

    And I thought, yes, this woman ‘gets it’ . . . . that people who hurt sometimes lash out at others, and that Paula was showing signs of being in distress, and could not verbalize it directly. I think your instincts about Paula were right, and I am blown away that, in the midst of the maelstrom surrounding her comments to others and their responses to her, that you were the one who offered her the way of grace. God BLESS you, Velour.

  81. @ Christiane:

    You may be correct, but I have seen Paula’s approach both utilized and also taught in hyper-fundamentalist circles and by no means were all those people hurting. I would not dismiss her as just another hurting person when it may well be that she learned this approach to evangelization and argumentation from the same or similar sources where I heard it.

  82. Jack wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Just went to the website of this church. The membership contract is a vague rip from Purpose Driven Life but the bylaws are the meat & potatoes!
    In short, this corporation has no members. Members abrogate their rights upon signing the contract.
    Just reading the bylaws lights up every warning alarm on the TWW checklist of what to look for in an abusive church.
    No doubt new attendees are love bombed before they read the fine print.
    You should write this up as a case study of churches to stay away from.
    It would be interesting to know how you came to be involved.

    Thanks, Jack. I appreciate your going over there and reading the information at my ex-church and giving me your feedback.

    I had been at a large, anonymous mega church that I was invited to by a friend. Everything was money driven. People even had to pay for classes if they wanted to attend. The senior pastor I thought was superficial and his *hip sermons* to the crowds irreverent about God. The pastors didn’t know us. They drove fancy German cars. Most of us didn’t know each other.

    I also was concerned by the senior pastor’s growing hostility and digs at his meek wife, who sat in the audience. I thought “What is wrong with their marriage? What is he doing? Something is about to blow up.” He was having an affair, it blow up, after I left, and he was forced out of his job as pastor. He started a new church later at a hotel conference room.

    So I thought that if I went to the opposite of the mega church, I would find a healthy church. Gram3 has pointed out in previous posts on this blog that many people, including her and her husband Gramp3, have made this mistake and missed the red flags in the new place.

    I thought a smaller church where we knew each other was better than a mega church.
    I thought that when the pastors/elders said that they *cared* about us and would *watch over us*, they meant it. I didn’t know that *care* meant *control*. I didn’t know that it meant that we would be stripped of Christian conscience and autonomy, expected to conform to their wishes. I didn’t know that it was the 1970’s heavy-Shepherding Movement’s tactics, which I only heard about once I arrived to this blog.

    I didn’t know that the pastors/elders *working with you* consisted of them inviting you to meetings, screaming and yelling at you, and bullying you.

    I didn’t know that *care* involved them having no healthy boundaries, not being asked for their opinions, but instead foisting them on church members. That included: calls to peoples’ home, giving people unsolicited advice (that was actually offensive and patronizing), demands for lunch/coffee meetings (in which you actually can’t get out of them — trust me I tried and I didn’t want to even attend), discussions about your life with the other pastors/elders.

    *Care* involved being hunted down for any absences from church. Having a Bible study leader report about you up the chain of command.

    *Care* involved them choosing their friends for you. I was told to be friends with sick, abusive, toxic women who should have been in professional therapy years ago. I was told to be friends with a woman alcoholic. She should have been under the care of a physician.

    I was constantly told, for having an iota of good sense and healthy boundaries, that I wasn’t showing love and unity. Just insulting. These people are sick and destructive, they could have availed themselves of professional help years ago and gotten their lives together. They chose not to. *Care* involved 7-years of MANDATORY meetings with the pastors/elders to make me be friends with sick, abusive, toxic women –that other church members also avoided.

    *Love bombing. I would say they use the fellowship meal/potluck lunch to hook people in and get them to stay.

    There are so many other things that I missed.

    I didn’t know you had to look at a church website, all of the links, the organizations and figure them out. I didn’t know about Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood, 9Marks, and others organizations that were on the church’s website. I didn’t know how those organizations had oppressive, abusive, destructive teachings that would play out in our lives.

    I didn’t know that “elder-led” meant a bunch of “yes-men” who were chosen by the senior pastor. They had disguised it as being *Biblical*. As people have pointed out here, there are many forms of church government.

    It’s been quite an education.

    https://www.yelp.com/biz/grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley-sunnyvale

  83. Velour wrote:

    7. Garden of Eden – Adam & Eve. According to John Piper and the others Adam failed in his headship role and Eve messed up and was too aggressive and deceived. Comp, therefore, would have prevented The Fall. How interesting.

    Which also means that Eve usurping Adam’s headship and Adam abdicating his headship were really the Original Sins. Not disobeying God by eating the forbidden fruit. Very odd re-write of the Genesis narrative which says nothing about usurping and abdicating before the Fall.

  84. Lydia wrote:

    Where I come from you don’t get medals for that. You just do whatever is needed to be done. It is called life. And it not a sacrifice, it is an honor.

    Amen to that!

  85. I read here all the time as I’m sure many others do and hardly ever comment. It seems as if you have a different point of view something is wrong with you. What Paula Rice is saying about the bible is pretty much mainstream Christianity. I know very few people IRL who do not believe that bible is holy spirit inspired… it’s not just any ole book as some have implied here. But to each their own…

    As for the topic at hand, the root problem with complementarianism has to do with the bible. You can look into the history of it etc, but if you really get to the root cause it has to do with the way the scriptures of the bible are twisted.

  86. Christiane wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    . The Royal Law of Love.
    Velour, do you remember reaching out to PAULA and asking her if something was wrong and if she needed prayer, when most were upset with her negativism?
    Kindest thing I read all day.
    And I thought, yes, this woman ‘gets it’ . . . . that people who hurt sometimes lash out at others, and that Paula was showing signs of being in distress, and could not verbalize it directly. I think your instincts about Paula were right, and I am blown away that, in the midst of the maelstrom surrounding her comments to others and their responses to her, that you were the one who offered her the way of grace. God BLESS you, Velour.

    Thanks, friend.

    Yes, I do remember asking her if she needed prayer, asking her what was going on in her life.

    I don’t know people here and what’s really going on in their lives. That’s why I candidly asked her to explain a little bit more about herself, her life.

    Have they been through something and haven’t healed? Are they abusing alcohol? Drugs? Do they have a mental health issue? Are they friendless? Jobless? In pain? Are they taking a medication for a health problem that makes them behave oddly? Do they need to see medical doctor, specialist, psychotherapist or psychiatrist.

  87. Lydia wrote:

    I have been told by Neo Cals for the last 10 years, I am not a Christian. Just this past month, a Calvinist from the McArthur/JD Hall wing questioned my salvation because I participate on this blog.

    I’m pretty darn tired of using threats to control other people’s behavior.

    The “you’re not a Christian if” stuff is just another example of authoritarian control. It’s like it’s baked into our psyche or something. Funny thing is, I don’t see Paul running around trying to figure out who is real and who isn’t. The only thing that really gets his ire up is when people are fake or set out fake rules for others.

  88. Velour wrote:

    If some form of Comp works for you as a couple – like Ken F. and his wife

    They are a good example of working out their marriage without *external* rules and Roles. When that happens, no marriage will look exactly like any other marriage or even like that marriage at another time because circumstances change. If some egalitarian were to say that all marriages must be structured along certain egalitarian lines, then that egalitarian would be guilty of imposing another Law as well on people who see Paul’s words differently.

  89. okrapod wrote:

    @ Christiane:

    You may be correct, but I have seen Paula’s approach both utilized and also taught in hyper-fundamentalist circles and by no means were all those people hurting. I would not dismiss her as just another hurting person when it may well be that she learned this approach to evangelization and argumentation from the same or similar sources where I heard it.

    Good Morning, OKRAPOD

    I am tuned to seeing people in distress act out against others because they have no words for their own pain, and no one to turn to, and no one who will listen.
    This comes from working many years in the inner-city schools, where a child’s sudden change in behavior for the worse can be a huge red light that they are in serious trouble: one of my students was being abused by her foster father who had threatened her …. her behavior changed sharply and we knew to send her to the counselors. They sent her to the nurse. And the authorities were called. That child’s acting-out was her cry for help.

    I had a mother call one morning before school, and yelled at me that she wasn’t going to let me fail her son in science. She was ‘out of control’ screaming at me, far more than the situation warranted, so I heard her out and then I asked her: Are you all right? Is something else wrong?

    She began to cry, and I invited her to come in to see me. Turned out her husband was unemployed and very ill, and her employer knew the situation and threatened her with dismissal (and loss of benefits) if she did not give him sexual favors.

    Yes, sometimes people in trouble send out ‘cries for help’ but not in the way most of us ‘get it’. Sometimes their cries are heard and understood.

    I would rather err on the side of mercy, even in cases where it may not be warranted ….. but then, maybe somehow it’s those cases that are the most needy of all. Who is to say? ? When I am not sure, I too often keep silent. It was Velour who acted, God bless her. Maybe we can learn something VERY important from her reaching out.

  90. ibelieve wrote:

    What Paula Rice is saying about the bible is pretty much mainstream Christianity.

    What Paula Rice said about the Bible, on two occasions and in exactly so many words, is that it and Jesus are one and the same. When last I looked, that wasn’t mainstream Christianity.

  91. @ Christiane:

    Your examples seem to be mostly people or children whose behavior has changed. That absolutely is a red flag that something might be going.

    People who have consistent behavior or a certain type are sometimes a different story.

  92. Lydia wrote:

    Just this past month, a Calvinist from the McArthur/JD Hall wing questioned my salvation because I participate on this blog.

    But they go to such great lengths to say that they are missions-minded. Don’t they consider you a missionary to the heathens here at TWW?

  93. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Velour:
    “I have never seen so many beaten down wives, women, and daughters as I did at my ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite/Comp-promoting church.”
    ++++++++++++++
    can you describe what they were like? what about them seemed beaten down?

    I’m short on time right now, so pardon me if I don’t cover all of the bases.

    I’m not going to speak for all women there, as that wouldn’t be fair or accurate. And there are some that are quiet content and this is *them* and they’re fine with it, the whole Comp thing/women as 2nd class citizens/obeying and submitting.

    But here’s what I did see in the women who were beaten down:

    *Women who were obviously being abused by their husbands and had to put on a *happy face* that everything was ok. You could tell that *he* was watching her every word for one screw up on her part to an outsider at church. These women were afraid, depressed. Kept a tight rein on themselves. No place to relax, to be heard. Everything is their fault because they need to “obey” and “submit”.

    *Even men friends in Europe who have been Christians for 40+ years watched Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley’s services online, without me ever saying a word to them and when I was still a church member there, and were bothered by it and the way the women were beaten down. It was only after I left GBFSV that these men friends — all of the way in Europe (and one is an elder in his church) — said they were so happy that I was out of GBFSV.

    *Women’s Ministry Leader. She bragged to us at a ladies event that there was a woman who called her to talk about her husband and that she had shut her down from *gossiping* about her husband, refused to listen to it, hung up. The message at this social event for church women was — you aren’t allowed to have problems, to seek help for your problems. The women’s ministry leader was really, really, really proud of having not helped a woman who was obviously in distress about her marriage.

    My heart broke. So a woman who needs help was shut down and humiliated, lectured. And whom will she ever open up to again?

    *Women, including young women, who didn’t fit the frilly girl/Comp mold were constantly pressured to be something that God never made them to be. It was a failure on their parts in this Comp world to not be *feminine* enough. Obviously they weren’t *submitting*.
    Perhaps to use John Piper’s words in the video (and the other Comp promoters) even “Satanic.”

    *Segregation of events. Strictly segregated social events for men and for women.
    Many of us women wanted to go on the fishing trips, go outdoors on the trips to the Santa Cruz Mountains, go to the Giant’s baseball games in San Francisco, and do other events.
    But those were for the men to *fellowship* together. Instead, we women were stuck with endless teas, having to dress up, having to listen to speeches about godly submission, and Biblical womanhood, and the home, and doing crafts.

    Some of it was ok. But at a certain point those of us who are tom-boys at heart, who don’t want to dress up, hear speeches, but just want to get out and do something fun and relaxing…would roll our eyes at one another. We’d also send each other emails.

    *Comp Lies.

    Women weren’t permitted to serve in any capacity, to lead anything. Godly women with Ph.D.’s couldn’t serve. A Megan’s List sex offender who is a felon had “the right parts” physically and was ushered to the front of the line to head a team. Just outrageous.

    There was a constant harping about Eve being deceived, etc. OK, so their argument is that Jesus atoned for Adam’s sin, but not Eve’s? Therefore Eve is greater than Jesus?

    They are so illogical.

    There’s a lot more. I’m short on time.

  94. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I make no apology for saying this more than once, but my acceptance of “egalitarianism” is not built on “culture” or “feminists”. It’s built on my conviction that Jesus himself must be given primary authority to interpret scripture, which is his property, not his master, as he sees fit. Just as he did as recorded in Acts 15. There were clear “biblical” grounds for requiring gentiles to be circumcised: but Jesus was bringing other scriptural promises to life.

    Bears repeating several times.

  95. Gram3 wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    7. Garden of Eden – Adam & Eve. According to John Piper and the others Adam failed in his headship role and Eve messed up and was too aggressive and deceived. Comp, therefore, would have prevented The Fall. How interesting.
    Which also means that Eve usurping Adam’s headship and Adam abdicating his headship were really the Original Sins. Not disobeying God by eating the forbidden fruit. Very odd re-write of the Genesis narrative which says nothing about usurping and abdicating before the Fall.

    You’re right, Gram3.

  96. Gram3 wrote:

    But they go to such great lengths to say that they are missions-minded. Don’t they consider you a missionary to the heathens here at TWW?

    We are obviously not of the Elect. ; )

  97. @ Jeff S:

    Since Dee and I co-author this blog, then I guess we aren't Christians either.

    That's my biggest criticism of this crowd. They are so darn sure who is and is not a follower of Christ. I believe this attitude will be their downfall.

  98. Gram3 wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    If some form of Comp works for you as a couple – like Ken F. and his wife
    They are a good example of working out their marriage without *external* rules and Roles. When that happens, no marriage will look exactly like any other marriage or even like that marriage at another time because circumstances change. If some egalitarian were to say that all marriages must be structured along certain egalitarian lines, then that egalitarian would be guilty of imposing another Law as well on people who see Paul’s words differently.

    Completely agree.

  99. Deb wrote:

    That’s my biggest criticism of this crowd. They are so darn sure who is and is not a follower of Christ. I believe this attitude will be their downfall.

    That is one of the things I find strangest of all! And arrogant, it goes without saying but I'll say it anyway.

  100. Deb wrote:

    That’s my biggest criticism of this crowd. They are so darn sure wh is and is not a follower of Christ. I believe this attitude will be their downfall.

    **If you don’t interpret and believe exactly the same thing the way we do, from the exact same perspective and experience, YOU must be HEATHEN!**

  101. zooey111 wrote:

    Christiane wrote:
    the neo-Cal ‘leadership’ are not willing to accept the life-giving sacrifice of Christ the Kyrios; instead they look to the draining of the spirits of healthy, vibrant women to shore up a view of ‘male headship’ that is a cultic expression of the idolatry of maleness.
    Yeah, the neo-Cals have hold of the wrong sacrifice, and it is a hollow blood-letting of the spirit of women, abusive, and extremely corrosive to the spirits of all involved
    It’s vampirism of the soul & the mind.

    I also refer to it as Spiritual Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. Colorless. Odorless. Deadly.

    It will knock out some sweet saint in record time.

  102. ibelieve wrote:

    it’s not just any ole book as some have implied here

    I believe exactly one person used the above phrase. And several have said that scripture is not equal to Jesus. I am one of those because, well, Jesus.is.God. and Jesus entered my life and changed me, not scripture. This does not mean that I believe the Bible is “just another book.”

  103. Velour wrote:

    If some form of Comp works for you as a couple – like Ken F. and his wife – more power to you. But that’s about your giftedness and what you are comfortable with.

    Amen. Each person, each couple has to find what works best for them.

  104. Lydia wrote:

    He announced he was giving up his prestigious position to move to Arizona due to his wife’s health problems. He claimed this was an example of him submitting to his wife and her needs, It was all the talk at the time about what a great sacrifice he was making. The focus seemed be more on his career then her health issues.
    Where I come from you don’t get medals for that. You just do whatever is needed to be done. It is called life. And it not a sacrifice, it is an honor.

    I was used as a great example of sacrificial love on Grudem part, except it wasn’t an example of that at all.

  105. okrapod wrote:

    You may be correct, but I have seen Paula’s approach both utilized and also taught in hyper-fundamentalist circles and by no means were all those people hurting. I would not dismiss her as just another hurting person when it may well be that she learned this approach to evangelization and argumentation from the same or similar sources where I heard it.

    And both options may apply – hurting and learned argumentation. I just don’t understand calling those you don’t agree with unbelievers.

  106. Lea wrote:

    People who have consistent behavior or a certain type are sometimes a different story.

    Yes. Patterns of behavior are learned, and re-inforced, and sometimes generationally perpetuated.

    But, in the end, who are we to judge, when it is Our Lord Who, in agony, from the Cross prayed: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”

    I am an older person, and maybe I have spent too much time with those who ‘act out’ . . . and we need to constrain those who are destructive to themselves and to others from behaviors that are harmful, yes.

    But we do have an obligation to try to look a bit deeper into those we view as ‘worse than ourselves’ and rightfully deserving of our condemnation. But most of us are not capable of doing that. What was it that Our Lord wrote in the sand that made the men put down their stones and sadly walk away from the place of execution of the woman taken in adultery? We are not told.

    At some point, there are those among us who have a ministry for reaching out that most of us do not have. I salute these people, not because they ‘excuse’ the wrong done to others, no, because they DON’T. What I think they do, that most us us cannot do, is that they SEE something in the person that is MORE than their troubled ways, and that something has at its core, the kind of pain for which there are no words.

    I ramble. Pain meds. Forgive.

  107. Bridget wrote:

    I just don’t understand calling those you don’t agree with unbelievers.

    Although I have seen this said by celebrity (and not) men and women of the church who use it to take their toys and go home.

  108. Lea wrote:

    zooey111 wrote:
    Christiane wrote:
    In my tradition, we do believe this one MAJOR point about sacred Scripture: that there is within Scripture enough information for people to be able to find God and salvation, even if the translations of the translations of the translations are a bit mangled . . . something remains, and that something can bear fruit
    This is very close to what I believe, as a Methodist.
    I believe people can find God without scripture. Scripture is useful for pointing us towards God but it is not God.

    That was my experience. I was led to God by Him pursuing me and using other people.
    I didn’t need Bible verses and for me they would not have worked.

    Every person is different and our Lord knows that.

  109. Christiane wrote:

    . I salute these people, not because they ‘excuse’ the wrong done to others, no, because they DON’T. What I think they do, that most us us cannot do, is that they SEE something in the person that is MORE than their troubled ways, and that something has at its core, the kind of pain for which there are no words.

    This can be taken too far, though, to the detriment of the victims. Is this not what we see in cases of abuse in churches, where the abuser is coddled, and forgiven by those who have not been harmed?

    We can go too far making excuses for people.

    But this is not really germane to the discussion of comp, except insofar as the ones who are coddled tend to only be men.

  110. Christiane wrote:

    I salute these people, not because they ‘excuse’ the wrong done to others, no, because they DON’T. What I think they do, that most us us cannot do, is that they SEE something in the person that is MORE than their troubled ways, and that something has at its core, the kind of pain for which there are no words.

    I offer this woman as an example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465872/Antonia-Brenner-nun-gave-Beverly-Hills-life-live-Mexican-prison-dies-86.html

  111. @ Christiane:

    I think that you operate basically from a position of kindheartedness. And i note that you reference your experiences in your profession of teaching. And I note that you frequently cite catholic thinking is one area or the other. All of that can be very good, but none of that is necessarily the whole picture in individual cases. My professional background and personal experiences focus in a different direction, which can also be not the whole picture in individual cases. It is bound to be that we see some things differently. Now, I do think it possible that we could both be correct about Paula, we will have to wait and see.

    But, I have been there and done that with baptist fundamentalism including a close encounter with hyper-fundamentalism, and I can play this particular game just as well as Paula can, except for the fact that I believe it to be misguided and destructive.

    There are some clues in the approach itself. First the attitude: I am right and everybody else is not only wrong but also bound for perdition and I must by whatever means possible get them to consent to what I am saying because their eternal salvation depends on it. Or else, God may require their (spiritual) blood at my hands.

    So, by what means can this be done? There can be several aspects. There is the biblical aspect of memorize a short and compact series of bible verses which, used in sequence and without any other input from the totality of scripture constitute the gospel of salvation. Romans Road is one of these sequences but there have been others. Other short bible verses can also be used but for the purposes of confusion and distraction and the purpose of convincing your target person or audience that you can quote more verses than they can, even remembering chapter and verse. Limit the ‘conversation’ to the specific words of the specific chosen verses, the idea being the words more than the ideas behind the words.

    The personal aspect requires that the person you are trying to convince (get saved/ agree) must first be thrown off balance. In matters of salvation this is expressed as ‘you have to get them lost before you can get them saved’. To do this you control the conversation and jerk the person around until you convince him that he is not only disagreeing with you but is rather a sinner, or ignoramus, or heretic or even a child who needs the very words put into its mouth. This can be done with random bible verses, personal extreme self assurance that one is right, a minimal knowledge of whatever beliefs the person already has that you want to discredit, ridicule, distraction, misrepresentation up to and including outright lies (if the person does not catch you on it), false concern for the individual, claiming that you once also thought what they think but you yourself have changed (the jehovah’s witnesses use this right much) and whatever else comes to mind at the time.

    Then you try to close the deal. If the other person either prays to ask Jesus into his heart it all ends there. Or if the issue is not salvation but rather some particular belief if the other person finally admits that he was wrong and you were right (both aspects of the wrong/ right thing) then you can claim victory in the joust and quit. If the person does neither then you–are you ready?…here it comes…you shake the dust off your sandals and depart. Yes. Depart dustless whether or not that is actually expressed in words, because there in a bible verse that says that-never mind why and when and to whom it was said. Never forget that it is about the words, not the meaning.

    IMO this may convert people to a hyper-fundamentalist view of scripture but is not apt to convert people to Jesus (who was, BTW, an observant Jew and not a baptist fundamentalist) but don’t tell anybody that.

    This is all a masterful example of how to win a battle but lose a war.

  112. @ Christiane:

    I respect people who have prison ministries. Or people like Lundy Bancroft who work with abusers. But they also tend to understand that these people are not all innocent ‘hurting people’. They have serious issues that need to be worked out, and often giving them too much of the love part and not enough consequences is detrimental. Balance is important here.

  113. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    What Paula Rice said about the Bible, on two occasions and in exactly so many words, is that it and Jesus are one and the same. When last I looked, that wasn’t mainstream Christianity.

    That’s not what I referred to as mainstream Christianity. This is what I said: “I know very few people IRL who do not believe that bible is holy spirit inspired”

  114. Paula Rice wrote:

    A friend told me quite a whole ago that they didn’t think the majority of people here were Christians, and that discussing the issues here from a biblical perspective wasn’t encouraged.

    Why burn bridges? Setting aside who may have the right perspective I am reminded of a recent post elsewhere by Ken, who used to post here, that our attitude or behavior will be remembered long after our arguments have been forgotten.

  115. I was so bothered by statements made by the four men panelists in the video above with this article, including John Piper, about Ephesians 5 and The Gospel that I woke up out of a dead sleep last night and thought about it.

    These 4 Comp-promoters insisted that if you got Ephesians 5 wrong you would get The Gospel wrong.

    So was The Gospel *wrong* before Paul wrote the Ephesians letter and Ephesians 5 didn’t even exist? Was The Gospel wrong before the canon of Scripture was put together?

    Was The Gospel wrong before people had printing presses, literacy and money — access to Ephesians 5?

  116. Gram3 wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Just this past month, a Calvinist from the McArthur/JD Hall wing questioned my salvation because I participate on this blog.
    But they go to such great lengths to say that they are missions-minded. Don’t they consider you a missionary to the heathens here at TWW?

    Ha ha. Perhaps it’s more like others here are missionaries to me. But you bring up an interesting point about being missions minded. It seems their mission field has been mostly converting non-Calvinist churches to Calvin. Or taking John Calvin to the world as John piper encouraged them to do in his retirement video. Sigh.

  117. Velour wrote:

    Was The Gospel wrong before people had printing presses, literacy and money — access to Ephesians 5?

    They are supposedly intelligent and spiritually minded but they seem to me ignorant about so many things relating to the Bible.

  118. Lea wrote:

    They have serious issues that need to be worked out, and often giving them too much of the love part and not enough consequences is detrimental. Balance is important here.

    I am not see the ‘duality’ that giving love takes away from the consequences. I am knowing that when someone is hurt, the response to that is to try to stop the perpetrator from continuing to harm others, yes. Believe me, I do know that, and I know it very well.
    ‘love’ in the way of Sister Antonia was not given as a replacement for ‘consequences’ ….. she moved INTO the prison. She lived there. Among the prisoners.
    She ‘came down’ from a mansion on the ocean in California, and moved in to a Tiajuana prison.

    She came ‘along side’ people who had hurt others. She wasn’t supporting ‘what they did’. She was supporting their broken humanity …. what was left to them at least after sin had taken its toll on their souls. She served the remnant in them that found reason to call her ‘The Mama’, and she called these murderers and rapists her ‘children’ …..

    I couldn’t do it. But she did. No one could stop her. And this gave her the power to walk into the middle of a riot with bullets flying everywhere and raise her arms and quell the riot. She said she could do it because she was ‘not afraid’. I would have been too afraid. I agree with you that among those of us who cannot be ‘that way’, we look more towards the ways we know to lock up and punish and exile offenders.
    But sometimes comes a person who will go into the midst of the storm and I think they are given a ministry to calm the waters and they are given the power to do it, too. This is a mystery to me. But I know it is deeply connected to the Gospel of Our Lord in a way that I don’t understand.

  119. I just linked to an interesting post on biblical inerrancy by Scot McKnight on the Open Thread(*), and under that post at McKnight’s “Jesus Creed” blog, someone named David Moore left this comment:

    by David Moore

    In the early 1990s I spoke to Wayne Grudem about how many proponents of innerancy make a deadly assumption.

    They assume that people will automatically make the Bible authoritative once they know the Bible is inerrant.

    I told Wayne that we have plenty of data that the divorce rate, etc. of inerrantists is not appreciably different than non inerrantists.

    Wayne agreed that it was a terrible assumption.

    (*) My post in the Open Thread of this blog with the link to that page with comment at McKnight’s blog:
    thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-11/#comment-270966

  120. ibelieve wrote:

    I read here all the time as I’m sure many others do and hardly ever comment. It seems as if you have a different point of view something is wrong with you. What Paula Rice is saying about the bible is pretty much mainstream Christianity. I know very few people IRL who do not believe that bible is holy spirit inspired… it’s not just any ole book as some have implied here. But to each their own…
    As for the topic at hand, the root problem with complementarianism has to do with the bible. You can look into the history of it etc, but if you really get to the root cause it has to do with the way the scriptures of the bible are twisted.

    I will admit that the way Paula approached the subject was eerily similar to how most exchanges go with the YRR. If no people are being harmed, I am at a loss as to why differences in how we approach scripture matter so much. Why the insistence on conformity? As to what exactly is mainstream Christianity it depends on who you are talking to and what era you live in. :o)

    Despite all the differences, it is heartening to see so many of such differing views questioning comp doctrines!

  121. ibelieve wrote:

    That’s not what I referred to as mainstream Christianity. This is what I said: “I know very few people IRL who do not believe that bible is holy spirit inspired”

    OK; go on then. I’ll play one more round with you, then I’m off.

    This is what you said, complete and unabridged:

    I read here all the time as I’m sure many others do and hardly ever comment. It seems as if you have a different point of view something is wrong with you. What Paula Rice is saying about the bible is pretty much mainstream Christianity. I know very few people IRL who do not believe that bible is holy spirit inspired… it’s not just any ole book as some have implied here. But to each their own… As for the topic at hand, the root problem with complementarianism has to do with the bible. You can look into the history of it etc, but if you really get to the root cause it has to do with the way the scriptures of the bible are twisted.

    I repeat: what Paula Rice is saying about the Bible is that it and Jesus are one and the same. This – exchanging the Creator for the created – not only is not mainstream Christianity; it is the heart and soul of all false religion.

  122. @ Christiane:

    My mom ministered in inner city ghetto churches for 25 years. Much of it is learned behavior. Her mission was always to help the kids/teens see a much bigger and better version of themselves as image bearers. See The possibilities not wallowing in the soft bigotry of low expectations I fear too many well meaning people end up doing. . They want to feel important and valued just like the rest of us. Some of them are still in contact with me today. Of course there were serious issues that must be addressed usually for the safety of the kids who wanted to be there. You don’t put up with just anything. That is enabling. She had her car stolen 3x. The first time she made up a song about it with the kids while waiting for the police to come. The next two times they all knew the words and sang it together. :o) she was 80 when she got too sick to go there.

  123. Velour wrote:

    6. Children Asking Questions About Their Roles. John Piper – sigh – said that children are going to ask what their roles are, being a boy or a girl, and what do you tell them if you don’t have Comp

    Regarding that part of your post, and some other portion (I think it was this same post) where you mentioned that some complementarians punish girls or women who don’t fit the complementarian idea of what it means to be feminine.

    Complementarians seem to think that them defining what being a girl or women means is the final say on the matter, and anything or anyone who deviates is ungodly, isn’t being “biblical,” and what have you.

    Complementarians also seem to feel that them delineating what is “feminine” and “masculine” will erase things they perceive as problems in society or marriages, such as transgenderism, or girls not wanting to be SAHMS, and so on.

    In my experience, being raised by parents who believed fairly strongly in traditional gender roles (all very similar to what gender comps believe and teach), did not eliminate problems for me, but created them.

    I go into detail about all that on my own blog, so I will not get into it here. The one problem or two I will mention is that-

    I was a tom boy when I was a little girl. I was not interested in stereotypical girly hobbies, such as playing with dolls. I did not like wearing dresses.

    I preferred watching the Bat Man TV show, wearing sneakers with cut-off jeans, and climbing trees.

    My mom would sometimes indulge my boyish interests (such as buying me ‘Bat Man’ comics, etc), but she really pushed me somewhat hard to take up girly interests, such as wearing pink, frilly dresses, and playing with Barbie dolls.

    The end result of the pressure my mother placed on me, with the picture of femininity she and the churches we went to depicted, made me feel bad about being a girl, and it made me feel bad about who I was.
    I did not naturally fit their idea of girly girlhood, so it made me feel as though I was flawed.

    I also hated the version of girlhood and womanhood I was being shown by my mother and Christian culture, even as young as age 5 or 6.

    The picture I was given at even that young age (by my mother and Christian sermons I heard, etc), is that girls and women are supposed to be weak, passive, doormats, and sit around and look pretty.

    That picture of femininity turned me off to being a female, to femininity, and to girlhood/ womanhood.

    It was a complementarian / traditional gender role outlook that made me unhappy and ashamed to be myself and to be a girl.

    Complementarianism also confused me. They were teaching me there was only one “right” or “godly” way to be a girl – but I did not fit it.

    Complemetnarian-like teachings did not help me understand what it means to be a girl, but it confused me and made me feel ashamed to be me, and to feel bad about being female.

    So I wish John Piper and other complementarians would stop acting as though complementarianism is some great guide in regards to gender, or as though it’s the ultimate, best solution to cultural issues.

  124. ibelieve wrote:

    … it’s not just any ole book as some have implied here. But to each their own…

    I am no Canon scholar but it is interesting to do a bit of research into how it came about. It’s actually a collection of books which is what the word “bible” means. In some cases we refer to letters as books. A select group of men decided which books would go into the Canon. The Protestants decided to leave out the apocrypha. I still cannot figure out why since the book of Esther does not mention God, either. I don’t know if that means they were not considered inspired or what. Anyway I think it was a mistake to leave it out. There are even Bibles out there with 81 books!

    With all that said, I think Jewish oral tradition was inspired. Some scholars think the oral tradition of Torah was written down during or after the Babylonian captivity. i view scripture as a witness to God’s patient provision for our rescue. With a few exceptions most scripture was written down by Jews. If any Canon scholars reading please correct me!

    Much of the world was in awe over the accidental discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

  125. @ Christiane:
    That is great. But what about ministering to the victims of all those who are in prison? Society puts forth a lot of resources to those who do the horrible wrongs to others but very few resources toward the victims who have lifelong ramifications from the harm done. In some cases their lives were lost. It is unbalanced.

  126. Lydia wrote:

    They want to feel important and valued just like the rest of us. Some of them are still in contact with me today.

    Hi LYDIA,
    your mom sounds like a wonderful person ….

    my own ‘kids’ sometimes walk up to me in the mall with THEIR kids and look down from a tall height, but with familiar eyes and say, “Mrs. Smith, do you remember me?” I give hug and say, ‘not your name, but I remember YOU, yes’.

    I can go no where in this town without giving and getting hugs. I know it must have been the same for your mom. 🙂

  127. I have had my “salvation” questioned for many years because I do not buy into young earth creationism… so, we are all in great company..remember, McArthur et al are YEC!

    Lydia wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    Lydia wrote:
    Just this past month, a Calvinist from the McArthur/JD Hall wing questioned my salvation because I participate on this blog.
    But they go to such great lengths to say that they are missions-minded. Don’t they consider you a missionary to the heathens here at TWW?
    Ha ha. Perhaps it’s more like others here are missionaries to me. But you bring up an interesting point about being missions minded. It seems their mission field has been mostly converting non-Calvinist churches to Calvin. Or taking John Calvin to the world as John piper encouraged them to do in his retirement video. Sigh.

  128. Daisy wrote:

    My mom would sometimes indulge my boyish interests (such as buying me ‘Bat Man’ comics, etc), but she really pushed me somewhat hard to take up girly interests, such as wearing pink, frilly dresses, and playing with Barbie dolls.

    My mom hated it that my sister and I had long VERY straight blond hair. She decided we needed to get ‘perms’ and there was a sale on perms before Easter downtown, five dollars each, walk in, no appt. necessary (it was a beauty school). . . so, dressed for town, down we went. You could smell the ammonia and the burned hair three blocks away from the beauty school facility, I kid you not. I knew I was in trouble.
    Three females walked in. Three females walked out four hours later with Afros, burned ears, and frown-faces. Minus fifteen dollar (my mom refused to tip them).

    Next day was Easter. Mom tied our ‘bonnet-hats’ on by extending the ribbon lengths and having my poor father push the hats downward on our heads while she tied the ribbons under our chins. We stunk of ammonia. It was awful. People looked at us askance and moved to sit elsewhere. I will never forget how much my mom loved us, or how much she wanted ‘girly’ daughters. (sigh)

    It (the ‘girly’ curse)skipped a generation. At sixteen, my daughter’s haircutter asked if she could model in NYC at a hair styling exhibition. I said ‘yes, but no perms’. (My Jen had red hair then.) She came home with metallic bright med hair. I should have been shocked, but it was BEAUTIFUL! My daughter was never without the cutest hair styles or the pretty nails or the CLOTHES and the SHOES, a true girly-girl- Kassian= would- be- proud … Me? After retirement Uniform: jeans, white girl-friend shirt, long straight clean shining untouched blond hair (with white, now) and NO frills.
    ah . . . freedom . . . and I think I look nice. 🙂

  129. @ Jeffrey Chalmers

    It is ridiculous. It is kind of SNL funny how they communicate their disdain, sometimes. The JD Hall type guy referred to us here as “Ladies” (no problem with me) but added, “with egalitarian coiffures”. lol!

    I think it would be a hoot to visit their churches, sometime. If anything for skit material.

  130. @ Lydia:

    BTW, did you see Pruitt has apparently posted some sort of ‘not a complementarianismistisist’ column?

    Of course he also says he happily affirs and teaches “the spiritual leadership of men within the church and the headship of the husband at home. These are important truths grounded in the doctrines of creation and the cross and clearly affirmed in the New Testament.”

  131. @ Paula,

    The ‘topics’ that you wanted to challenge people with were plainly a diversion from the topic and inappropriate at this time, on this thread topic.

    Since I was the one who suggested that the thread diversion stop and the topic be focused, you have taken to questioning the biblical and Christian foundations of those who comment here. Seems that there is a lot that you have missed in this regard.

    It is too bad that you have fallen into the trap of labelling people ‘UnChristian’ when it was suggested that you are simply out of line in your personal direction for comments. I hear your concerns, but they are unfounded.

    In my experience as a moderator on a Linkedin discussion, with the topic: Are Women Biblically Permitted to be Pastor/Elders, there were numerous times that commenters were challenged if they were ‘really’ Christians or not. Since many held to a mutualist view from Scriptures, that apparently was suspect when it came to even being considered Christian by some with other persuasions about women in church leadership. It was important to quell any flawed notions that commenters who held to a mutualist view were anything other than Christian.

    Yes, there are various views expressed on this blog. People are at various places in their personal journeys. One thing for sure is that they are agreed on the dangers of Complementarianism. This is mainly derived from their study of the Bible and how it has been misinterpreted regarding ‘the place of women’ in the home and in the church!

    I am a Christian and have been for decades. Being ‘IN Christ’ is who I am.
    In my personal journey with Christ, I felt led by the Holy Spirit to get further biblical training in my life. For what it is worth, I have three theological degrees. The last one is entitled: Doctor of Ministry. This credential is from a reputable Christian seminary, which happens to be a consortium of a number of denominations, not just one solitary denomination.

    For myself, I would invite you to check out my website and see whether I pass the test of being a bonafide Christian in your eyes and/or if I have the suitable credentials that measure up to your view of what Christian adult education at the seminary level might look like.

    You are welcome to contact me at: info@churchexiters.com

    My website is: http://www.ChurchExiters.com

  132. @ Lea:
    Really? Do you think they are trying to move away from the word, complementarian? It would not surprise me since it is now connected to ESS. This will be something to watch!

  133. @ Lea:

    http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/i-am-not-a-complementarian#.V5ZSPJD3arU

    Pruitt ends with” “If anyone accuses me of being a “thin complementarian” or “stealth egalitarian,” then that will be a clear case of slander since the documents to which I am bound (the Scriptures, the Westminster Standards, and the PCA’s Book of Church Order) make it clear that I am none of those things. My vows will not allow it. So from now on in addition to the other things you call me you may add Confessional.’

    Lol! He is still on the slander shitck.

  134. Lydia wrote:

    @ Lea:
    Really? Do you think they are trying to move away from the word, complementarian? It would not surprise me since it is now connected to ESS.

    Sounds like it to me. We shall see!

    I’m not sure that it’s not better to keep all the ‘submit ladies’ crowd in one camp, but I can see why that camp would want to keep some of the more obvious crazies out…

  135. Lydia wrote:

    He fears there will be no accountability?

    When they have produced resolutions and paperwork that establishes accountability for LEADERSHIP, and after a few years of proving the quality of their accountability requirements for leadership – then I might listen to whatever they have to say regarding accountability for the pewishioners.

  136. Lea wrote:

    Of course he also says he happily affirs and teaches “the spiritual leadership of men within the church and the headship of the husband at home. These are important truths grounded in the doctrines of creation and the cross and clearly affirmed in the New Testament.”

    I see this phrase about “grounded in the doctrine of creation” here and there. I wonder if they are they referring to Grudem’s view of the creation account, which I observe he seems to read a lot of his own opinions in between those few lines. Otherwise, all I can think is they are referring to the part of the creation account that explains the results of the fall and I don’t see how that should be our example or goal.

    I’m not sure how the leadership of men in the church and headship of men at home is revealed through the cross, maybe somebody else can help me.

    I guess it’s not so ‘clearly’ affirmed in the new testament to all of us or we wouldn’t all be disagreeing on it.

  137. Daisy wrote:

    Complementarianism also confused me. They were teaching me there was only one “right” or “godly” way to be a girl – but I did not fit it.

    I was fortunate. I was raised to do whatever I could do, or whatever needed to be done, to the best of my ability: make good grades, fix the fences, work in the fields, tend to the animals, shovel corn, cook, sew ………
    There were times when I would spend Saturday wearing jeans in the tobacco field with the “boys” where I was treated like one of the “boys”, or maybe breaking a horse/mule/pony to ride …. Whatever circumstances demanded, or whatever I had the time to do. But, then on Sunday morning, I was in church …. In a dress and high heels. ~ I guess I was raised to adapt, no gender roles involved anywhere.
    Maybe that’s a big part of the reason the BF&M2K riles me so much.

    Let me tell ya though, I think it would be mighty uncomfortable to try to break a mule to ride bareback if you’re wearing a dress and high heels! And, cutting/spiking tobacco in a skirt really IS NOT very ladylike when there’s a man cutting/spiking the row right beside you!
    “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do”? Yeah, that applies to women, too.

  138. siteseer wrote:

    I see this phrase about “grounded in the doctrine of creation” here and there. I wonder if they are they referring to Grudem’s view of the creation account, which I observe he seems to read a lot of his own opinions in between those few lines. Otherwise, all I can think is they are referring to the part of the creation account that explains the results of the fall and I don’t see how that should be our example or goal.

    I’ve read commentaries (I wish I could find one to link to) where some big comp dude says that part of the reason Jesus’ death and resurrection was to correct marriage and return it to the perfect male-leader/submissive woman state that God intended befor the Fall. (Please excuse. I can’t quote what I’ve read directly, but this is the gist of it.)

    Help me! Where does it say that in the Bible? And, If that was part of the reason for Jesus’ death and resurrection, why don’t all Christian marriages exist in the perfect Edenic state?

  139. Lea wrote:

    BTW, did you see Pruitt has apparently posted some sort of ‘not a complementarianismistisist’ column?
    Of course he also says he happily affirs and teaches “the spiritual leadership of men within the church and the headship of the husband at home. These are important truths grounded in the doctrines of creation and the cross and clearly affirmed in the New Testament.”

    So, he likes some/most of their teachings but doesn’t like the “complementarian” label? Is that it, or is something else going on?

    I provided a link on this blog a day or two ago by a complementarian women who is so upset by the weirdness by other comps (support of ESS and so on) that she actually did a blog post for other comps saying, “We Need A New Name” 🙂

  140. @ Nancy2:

    I *think* they take that part in timothy? where eve was deceived, and apply it to the marriage stuff, and go way back to genesis and say eve was deceived ergo adam should be in charge? Which makes no sense at all but there you go.

    I’ve also heard the weird interpretation that eve turning to her husband was her wanting to rule over him! That doesn’t fit at all with the text to me. And her husband ruling over her is not listed as a good thing.

    The other thing I’ve heard is the ‘adam was created first’ which I think is also tied to the timothy(?) bit. That’s when they go into the creation order bit, which makes NO sense. They have to do quite a bit of interpreting to make this into what they say it is.

    Also, they think Eve made to help adam makes her subordinate. Which is not true even using the English word. I can help my boss with something. I can also help someone who works for me. And I can help an equal.

    So whenever people start yammering about genesis showing all of this I just want to beat my head into a wall.

  141. @ Daisy:

    Oh, I just found his post:

    I am not a complementarian by Todd Pruitt
    http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/i-am-not-a-complementarian#.V5ZaX9QrLGg

    Snippet:

    But I have come to the conclusion that complementarian is no longer a word I can use to describe myself. It is not because I have changed. I have not changed one iota.

    Unfortunately it has become clear that the word complementarian is freighted with unacceptable doctrine concerning the Trinity and speculations about the roles of males and females in the new creation.

    So, I need a new way to describe myself.
    ——

  142. @ BL:

    The pew sitters have to demand it. And right now I see more lemmings than I do independent thinkers. They are leaving!

  143. Bill M wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    My ex-pastor recently sent out an email to church members telling them that I was mentally ill.

    It goes with the territory, if you find yourself a sane person in an insane organization you get labeled as the nut by the other inmates.

    Just like Dissidents in Brezhnev-era Russia, where the System was by definition Perfect in Every Way.

    “There will come a time when men will go mad. And they will lay hands on the sane among them, saying ‘You are not like Us! You must be Mad!'”
    — one of the Desert Fathers

  144. Lea wrote:

    I’ve also heard the weird interpretation that eve turning to her husband was her wanting to rule over him! That doesn’t fit at all with the text to me. And her husband ruling over her is not listed as a good thing.

    Can these guys even get up in the night to pee without filtering it through the lens of Power Struggle?

  145. Christiane wrote:

    Three females walked in. Three females walked out four hours later with Afros, burned ears, and frown-faces. Minus fifteen dollar (my mom refused to tip them).

    Next day was Easter. Mom tied our ‘bonnet-hats’ on by extending the ribbon lengths and having my poor father push the hats downward on our heads while she tied the ribbons under our chins. We stunk of ammonia. It was awful. People looked at us askance and moved to sit elsewhere. I will never forget how much my mom loved us, or how much she wanted ‘girly’ daughters. (sigh)

    I kind of doubt they exist, but are there any surviving photos of that Easter?
    Sounds like quite a sight…

    This sounds like something out of a sitcom or an SNL skit.

    It (the ‘girly’ curse)skipped a generation.

    You were a Rainbow Dash who foaled a Rarity…

  146. Lydia wrote:

    JD Hall

    Funny how the actual things that people like JD Hall and Matt Chandler and Mark Driscoll *do* negates what they *say* they are teaching.

  147. Lea wrote:

    I *think* they take that part in timothy? where eve was deceived, and apply it to the marriage stuff, and go way back to genesis and say eve was deceived ergo adam should be in charge? Which makes no sense at all but there you go.

    Exactly. The serpent deceived Eve into disobeying God. Adam disobeyed God knowingly and intentionally. Therefore, God commanded Adam to be the leader!
    (Rigghhhhht. That’s an example of how all good military forces function. He who intentionaly disobedient is promoted to Kephale.)
    Uhmmm, this makes perfect sense how?
    Maybe there’s a reason why most of the men at our SBC church won’t talk to me. (smile)

  148. Gram3 wrote:

    Funny how the actual things that people like JD Hall and Matt Chandler and Mark Driscoll *do* negates what they *say* they are teaching.

    They show their hand. You can’t trust what they say because they don’t mean it.

    All that matters is that men are in charge! Any damage to women is incidental and unimportant, because they know they’re right.

  149. @ Nancy2:

    My mother did allow me to wear jeans, watch Bat-Man, and she purchased me Bat Man toys and so on, but at the same time, there was a pressure by her (not a mean-spirited pressure, but a pressure never- the- less) to play with more stereotypical girly things, like dolls, or to wear girly clothing.

    Concerning church, she put her foot down, though.

    I was forced to wear dresses and those little Mary Jane shoes, with the girly white socks with a tad of lace on the tops/ends when I went to church as a kid.

    I felt like such a dork in those things – the Mary Janes, girly dresses, frilly socks. I couldn’t wait to get home and change into my cut off jean shorts, football style jersey shirts, or super hero t-shirts.

    Christians who are into traditional gender roles and complementarianism do NOT make being a girl or woman look fun or appealing to some girls and women.

    It looked to me as though boys and men got to have all the fun and were encouraged to do so under traditional gender role views – to take risks, go on adventures, etc. That was what I wanted when I was a kid.

  150. Nancy2 wrote:

    Maybe there’s a reason why most of the men at our SBC church won’t talk to me. (smile)

    Logic is not their strong suit.

  151. Velour wrote:

    I was so bothered by statements made by the four men panelists in the video above with this article, including John Piper, about Ephesians 5 and The Gospel that I woke up out of a dead sleep last night and thought about it.

    These 4 Comp-promoters insisted that if you got Ephesians 5 wrong you would get The Gospel wrong.

    So was The Gospel *wrong* before Paul wrote the Ephesians letter and Ephesians 5 didn’t even exist? Was The Gospel wrong before the canon of Scripture was put together?

    Was The Gospel wrong before people had printing presses, literacy and money — access to Ephesians 5?

    It is troubling to me, too. The comps want to add their definition of gender roles to the very gospel, itself, inferring that unless you accept their definition of “manhood” and “womanhood” you are unable to understand, believe, or obey the gospel.

    Paul summed up the gospel in 1 Cor 15: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”.

    In Galatians, Paul wrote:

    I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

    Any attempt to modify or add to the gospel -the good news of Christ’s atoning death for all who believe- is a distortion of the gospel. I perceive these teachings on gender roles to be a distortion of the gospel.

  152. Lea wrote:

    These are important truths grounded in the doctrines of creation and the cross and clearly affirmed in the New Testament.

    Wonder if he can tell us where those magic Male Authority verses are which ground those doctrines in the Genesis pre-Fall narrative. I don’t know how the Cross had anything to do with Complementarian doctrines. And finally, I do not know where those doctrines which are grounded in Creation and the Cross are clearly affirmed. How can someone clearly affirm something which was never asserted in the first place?????

    We were taught many years ago to look for emphatic language being used as a mask for a lack of argument.

  153. siteseer wrote:

    unless you accept their definition of “manhood” and “womanhood”

    Which isn’t even biblical. I mean, the majority of it isn’t even mentioned, the rest is a distortion of what is mentioned and they ALWAYS ignore all women in the bible who don’t fit the mold, which is most of them, or explain it away by saying it was an ‘exception’.

    Cluebat: how do you know another ‘exception’ isn’t sitting right next to you?

  154. Daisy wrote:

    Snippet:
    But I have come to the conclusion that complementarian is no longer a word I can use to describe myself. It is not because I have changed. I have not changed one iota.
    Unfortunately it has become clear that the word complementarian is freighted with unacceptable doctrine concerning the Trinity and speculations about the roles of males and females in the new creation.
    So, I need a new way to describe myself.
    ——

    Uh mm. How does “Biblical(TM) Sexual Discriminatorian” sound?
    At least that would be honest.

  155. Lydia wrote:

    @ Lea:
    Really? Do you think they are trying to move away from the word, complementarian? It would not surprise me since it is now connected to ESS. This will be something to watch!

    I think it means they are moving away from the term. They are confessional Reformed, so I think it is unlikely they are going to go mutualist in the church and home any time soon. The view they hold is basically the view I held for a very long time.

    The first step will be for them to even consider the remote possibility that the church has got(ten) this issue all wrong for 2,000 years. Just as the church took a long time to recognize the evil of slavery due to traditions which followed the plain reading of “Slaves, obey your masters” and the other slavery clobber verses, it is going to take a long time, IMO, to change the minds of the confessional Reformed who take a similar plain reading view of the clobber verses on gender.

    Another hurdle will be to actually come to grips with the fact that the same interpretive principles are used now as were used for slavery. Most people cannot get past the offense of that realization. But maybe I’m projecting my own experience getting past the plain reading view.

  156. @ Jeff S

    Agreed: “People wrestling with these things is what good Christians do. I don’t think conversations get derailed because people “mention the Bible”, but how the Bible is mentioned is very important.”

    Yes, the key thing is that Christians who are alert and seeking answers for themselves and others need to ‘wrestle’ with these topics.

  157. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Can these guys even get up in the night to pee without filtering it through the lens of Power Struggle?

    I was so floored by parts of Patricia Evan’s book on verbal abuse where she spend a chapter or two on how abusers view relationships – I also saw similar things mentioned in books on workplace abuse-

    That is, some people do in fact view all relationships (especially personal ones, like with a spouse) as Power Struggles.

    Everything to them comes down to who is on top in a relationship, who is in control. So, they use abuse to stay in control over their partner (or co-workers, or whomever).

    Otherwise, they WRONGLY assume everyone else is just like them and views relationships just as they do and will try to control them, and they don’t want to be in the “one down” position in the friendship, marriage, etc.

    The book I read said that the other major group of people are Mutualists.

    Mutualists (or whatever term the author used, I don’t recall) -they view relationships in a totally different way. Not as power struggles, but as mutually beneficial situations.

    I am a mutualist in that regard and found the “power over” group’s approach to relationships totally foreign (and weird!).

    I had to re-read the book’s chapter on that topic several times over to even begin to grasp that sort of thinking, it is so strange to me.

    I am not interested in controlling other people or having authority or power over them, so I have a hard time understanding the mentality of those who are into that stuff.

  158. Gram3 wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    JD Hall
    Funny how the actual things that people like JD Hall and Matt Chandler and Mark Driscoll *do* negates what they *say* they are teaching.

    The divine right of kings. :o)

  159. Lydia wrote:

    He is still on the slander shitck.

    I don’t think it is a schtik. I think he is referring to the 9th commandment. If someone accused him of breaking his ordination vows because he does not affirm CBMW-type Complementarianism, then that accuser would be breaking the 9th commandment. That’s something that comes up in Presbyterian circles because of their view of the Ten Commandments and their church court system where elders can be brought up on charges.

    As much as I disagree with him on any kind of restriction on women in the pulpit or non-mutualism in the home, I think he is being totally sincere (though I have not read his post.) A confessional Reformed elder is going to have a tough row to hoe if he changes his mind on something this ingrained in Reformed culture. It would be much more difficult than changing his mind on infant baptism, IMO.

  160. Daisy wrote:

    Otherwise, they WRONGLY assume everyone else is just like them and views relationships just as they do and will try to control them, and they don’t want to be in the “one down” position in the friendship, marriage, etc.

    The only way to win with some people is not to play the game.

  161. Daisy wrote:

    My mother did allow me to wear jeans, watch Bat-Man, and she purchased me Bat Man toys and so on, but at the same time, there was a pressure by her (not a mean-spirited pressure, but a pressure never- the- less) to play with more stereotypical girly things, like dolls, or to wear girly clothing.

    I had Barbie dolls, but my Barbies drove my big Tonka trucks. My Granddaddy gave me a bridle and saddle for Christmas one year. An uncle gave me a Tonka truck for my 7th birthday, and a Swiss Army knife for my 9th. In grades 6-9, I played basketball, fast-pitch softball, and ran track. In my spare time by 6th grade, I was more into horses/mules/ponies and dogs than toys.
    Frilly feminine clothes? Nah, my mom didn’t push that, except in church. When I played on a summer church basketball team, I wore blue jeans to the youth classes.

  162. Nancy2 wrote:

    my Barbies drove my big Tonka trucks

    My mom thought Barbie was bad for you, so she wouldn’t let me have any. Wasn’t really into dolls so I didn’t care.

    I grew up with a brother, though, so I was playing with transformers and cars and all that as well as my girly toys. So I’ve never understood all the focus on what toys anybody plays with. It’s not a big deal for kids to play with each others toys.

  163. @ Gram3:
    It is interesting because if there is one thing Al Mohler needs right now it is for the comps to be unified. When Mohler wrote his recent article about the need for humble disagreement and unity, I don’t think he was talking to the SBC Non Cals but his Presbyterian friends. After calling Trads Semi Pelagians and bordering on Heresy and insisting they should be marginalized, he has quite the nerve calling for humble disagreement and unity when he could not model it, himself. What a hypocrite!

  164. Nancy2 wrote:

    Exactly. The serpent deceived Eve into disobeying God. Adam disobeyed God knowingly and intentionally. Therefore, God commanded Adam to be the leader!

    Isn’t it interesting and rather sick that in complementarian thinking (that buys into that), Eve is made into the villain of the story, when the real villain is… the serpent.

    There were consequences to Eve and Adam’s disobedience, but God was willing to eventually redeem the humans – not the serpent. Jesus Christ was willing to pay for the sins of fallen humanity but not the serpent.

  165. Lydia wrote:

    @ BL:

    The pew sitters have to demand it. And right now I see more lemmings than I do independent thinkers. They are leaving!

    I met recently with a couple who have returned from the mission field who are older than I am. They are not IMB missionaries though they have worked with them over these years. They recently went to a Baptist church and were shocked to find they were teaching ESS. Very shocked at the changes which have occurred in the SBC.

  166. Lea wrote:

    they ALWAYS ignore all women in the bible who don’t fit the mold, which is most of them, or explain it away by saying it was an ‘exception’.

    Yet they do not explain how it makes any sense for God to be so erratic about his ironclad Creation Order. If God makes a rule, is his ordained will somehow thwarted by men not “stepping up” to their responsibility as Leaders? I do not see how that makes any sense *AT ALL* in a Calvinistic framework.

  167. Gram3 wrote:

    Funny how the actual things that people like JD Hall and Matt Chandler and Mark Driscoll *do* negates what they *say* they are teaching.

    Another thing I have a hard time computing is how J. D. Hall (and other guys who think like him) assume because all humans are sinners it supposedly follows from this that all people are all guilty, or prone to wanting to commit, the same types of sin.

    J D Hall and his cronies were telling Janet Mefferd on Twitter about a year ago that her husband is just as prone to raping women as some guy they were talking about.(*)

    And you get preacher fan boys show up to this blog to say all of us are pedophiles or just as bad as pedophiles.

    I am like, speak for yourself! I’m guilty of some sins in life, but not molesting children, or raping people. I have no interest or desire to rape or fondle anyone of any age.
    —-
    (*) Predators, Dangerous Deviants & J.D. Hall
    http://janetmefferd.com/2015/05/predators-dangerous-deviants-j-d-hall/

  168. Gram3 wrote:

    Yet they do not explain how it makes any sense for God to be so erratic about his ironclad Creation Order. If God makes a rule, is his ordained will somehow thwarted by men not “stepping up” to their responsibility as Leaders? I do not see how that makes any sense *AT ALL* in a Calvinistic framework.

    Moses wasn’t exactly the epitome of courage, leadership, and communication skills when God called him to deal with the Pharoah and lead His people out of Egypt.

  169. @ Paula Rice:

    I just wanted to let you know that I have been praying for you, Paula. Yesterday, last night, this morning.

    Some music for you:

    1. “God Is Keeping Me” Mississippi Mass Choir
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES84WBFQgMY

    2. “Grace and Mercy”, Mississippi Mass Choir and soloist Frank Williams
    (the late founder of the choir and a humble man).

    This beautiful song reminded me of you and what you said about the cross, about
    not constantly harping about our sins (like your ex-pastor CJ Mahaney did).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxz-c8MLAoU

    3. “I Love to Praise Him” Mississippi Mass Choir and soloist Mama Mosie Burks
    (I think she is the most beautiful woman and she’s more than 80 years old!)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGsmL-lgBZ0

    Love, hugs, and prayers,

    Velours

  170. @ Velour,

    I loved your critique of the Comp. panel. Well done! Agreed, yes, it is yucky stuff to have to plow through.

    It is comforting to know that they feel that Comp’ism could actually have prevented the Fall. Wow, imagine that??!!

    From your No. 7: “7. Garden of Eden – Adam & Eve. According to John Piper and the others, Adam failed in his headship role and Eve messed up and was too aggressive and deceived. Comp, therefore, would have prevented The Fall.”

    Yes, an arrogant lot with flawed logic, a faulty biblical hermeneutic, and harmful teachings. Yes, painful to have to listen to that rot!

  171. Barb Orlowski wrote:

    From your No. 7: “7. Garden of Eden – Adam & Eve. According to John Piper and the others, Adam failed in his headship role and Eve messed up and was too aggressive and deceived. Comp, therefore, would have prevented The Fall.”

    And since Adam failed to lead, ESS for women. Guess that’ll teach those wimpy men!

  172. @ Lydia:
    Humble Disagreement is what someone calls for when their grip on the narrative is threatened. The former denominational reporter is in trouble, and I think he knows it, because he and the other Gospel Glitterati have made their version of Female Subordination a primary doctrine which is included explicitly in the founding documents. No Humble Disagreement is permitted if the dissenter is a mutualist. Those people are a threat to the Gospel or do not understand the Gospel or something.

  173. Nancy2 wrote:

    Uh mm. How does “Biblical(TM) Sexual Discriminatorian” sound? At least that would be honest.

    LOL. 🙂

    I agree, that would be truth in advertising, but “Biblically Endorsed Sexism” wouldn’t sound as attractive to people, especially not to women. You’d have a harder time selling it if it went by a more honest label, I guess.

  174. Barb Orlowski wrote:

    @ Velour,
    I loved your critique of the Comp. panel. Well done! Agreed, yes, it is yucky stuff to have to plow through.
    It is comforting to know that they feel that Comp’ism could actually have prevented the Fall. Wow, imagine that??!!
    From your No. 7: “7. Garden of Eden – Adam & Eve. According to John Piper and the others, Adam failed in his headship role and Eve messed up and was too aggressive and deceived. Comp, therefore, would have prevented The Fall.”
    Yes, an arrogant lot with flawed logic, a faulty biblical hermeneutic, and harmful teachings. Yes, painful to have to listen to that rot!

    Wow that’s high praise, Barb, coming from a heavy-hitter like you with the rest of the heavy hitters over here (Gram3, Max, Lydia, Nancy2, Daisy, Ken F.) and the others.
    I am just a young pup at this stuff, by comparison to all of you. But I so appreciate the fine examples you have all set for me, and you have all helped deprogram me of those teachings.

    When Deb reminded us how hard she and Dee work on these articles, it’s frustrating for them when we go off topic in post after post, and to get back on topic, and she discussed the video — I thought, “OK, I’ll kick it in gear and watch the video.” I dread watching those men. 8 pages of notes later and a black magic marker that was running low, I was ready to make my little presentation to you, my fellow students.

  175. Nancy2 wrote:

    Moses wasn’t exactly the epitome of courage, leadership, and communication skills when God called him to deal with the Pharoah and lead His people out of Egypt.

    Yes, that is true! And that whole Zipporah narrative is very inconvenient for their viewpoint.

  176. Gram3 wrote:

    Another hurdle will be to actually come to grips with the fact that the same interpretive principles are used now as were used for slavery. Most people cannot get past the offense of that realization.

    I think that is one key point and a huge deal.

    I’m surprised that many complementarians don’t wrestle with this point, or are so blinded to it.

  177. Lydia wrote:

    It is unbalanced.

    It doesn’t make ‘sense’, does it? Maybe it isn’t supposed to be ‘balanced’. Maybe what we are talking about isn’t something finite that CAN be divided and lessened in the process?

    I’m thinking that what is going on is a part of ‘behold, I make all things new’ . . . and a part of the Kingdom that is all around us NOW . . . you divide ‘caring for others’ and it multiplies … you have another child and say ‘how can I love the new baby as much as I love my first one?’ and the ‘miracle’ happens and the parents experience it in wonder.

    I think we talking about drawing from a deep well of living water, Lydia, when we talk about ‘resources’ for caring for victims as well as those who have hurt others for whatever reasons …. and the Source we draw from ? It sure is not the river that flowed out of Eden.
    It’s not ‘earthly’. No. When it is shared, it is not diminished. It is two fish, five small loaves, and many baskets filled with what remains. The cornucopia of grace does not run dry. It cannot. That is the nature of grace.

    The victims deserve JUSTICE. And help. And freedom from worrying that their perpetrators will come to harm them again.
    That is a given. No one speaks against that.

    Is SOME chance for an individual who has injured others to find Christ, and to be redeemed in their soul, then that hope is a part of our faith. It is ONE of the reasons why many, who believe in the right to life from conception to natural death, want to see the death penalty end in all but the most necessary cases.

    Those people in the jail in tiajuana had families and children, and Sister Antonia served/advocated for their needs as well. She took care of the guards and their families. And when earthly resources got low, she went out and TOOK THEM from the bishops up in Cali. They said ‘no’ and she put the stuff in her truck and laughed and drove away. She knew something the bishops didn’t about how the Kingdom works its miracles.

  178. Regarding Grudem’s quote at the top of the page:

    “I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80s and early 90s when we began this, I expected that this would probably be over in ten years.”

    I think complementarianism is on the losing side, thanks to the internet.

    The internet was not terribly widespread until around the late 1990s. Prior to that, it was very difficult to get alternative views on gender, or to find material that refuted complementarian views and talking points.

    I think the internet will help defeat complementarianism, or it’s already started doing so, to the point other complementarians have started to question types of complementarianism that is out there (though why they didn’t see the nutso branches of comp much sooner is beyond me).

  179. What is a Complementarist’s take on Judge Deborah? She was “leading Israel” at that time. She clearly taught men on many things and told Barak a message from God. (Judges 4)

    And what is their view on Mary Magdalene? She saw Jesus outside the tomb. Jesus commended her to to tell the Apostles about his resurrection. (John 20:11-18) This was Jesus commending a woman to teach men about him. Today we also teach non-believers about the resurrection of Jesus. Some might argue that there is a difference between “telling” and “teaching” others about the resurrection of Jesus, but honestly there is no much difference.

    So I don’t believe we can take verses like 1 Timothy 2:12 literally. I am sure there was very good reason why these particular women (target audience) cannot teach these particular men. But I don’t believe this verse applies to all women across all generation. Once again what about Judge Deborah and Mary Magdalene?

  180. Daisy wrote:

    J D Hall and his cronies were telling Janet Mefferd on Twitter about a year ago that her husband is just as prone to raping women as some guy they were talking about.(*)

    That whole story was really disturbing. Someone should quietly shift JD Hall out of the public eye. He doesn’t seem like a very nice person, and if someone actually killing themselves some time after being bullied by him didn’t shake him, I don’t know what will.

  181. Lea wrote:

    The only way to win with some people is not to play the game.

    The strange thing about it is since I am a mutualist in outlook regarding relationships, I wasn’t even aware there was a game.

    My sister is a verbal abuser who views relationships as power struggles, and I’ve had co-workers in the past and friends who were the same way. I could never figure out why these people (my sister and others) treated me like an adversary.

    Not until I read these books about abuse and was hit with the realization they view relationships in a totally different light.

    I do wonder how many complementarians fall into the “Power Over” group. They must view marriage, friendships, and working relationships as being power struggles?

    One tip the books about abuse give is to stop wasting one’s time trying to figure out why a friend or boss is being a rude meanie, and more time holding up your boundaries
    (which may mean, don’t invest energy playing their head and anger games – just leave the room when they fly into their rages, or cut the toxic person out of your life).

  182. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I kind of doubt they exist, but are there any surviving photos of that Easter?
    Sounds like quite a sight…

    This sounds like something out of a sitcom or an SNL skit.

    It (the ‘girly’ curse)skipped a generation.

    You were a Rainbow Dash who foaled a Rarity…

    HEADLESS, we have pictures. With the hats sitting on top of the Afros, we are at least five inches taller than normal. It’s hysterical.
    My hair, naturally thick and healthy, broke off and looked like I had been through chemo, but then in time, Mom let me get a cute pixie cut until my hair grew long again. (sigh)

    My poor sister. She won’t go near a beauty shop. She cuts her own hair and does a really good job. She’s gorgeous. (the pretty one) 🙂

    Mom tried.

    As for my daughter, the princess, well . . . that’s another story.

  183. Christiane wrote:

    The victims deserve JUSTICE. And help. And freedom from worrying that their perpetrators will come to harm them again.
    That is a given. No one speaks against that.

    The problem is that it is NOT a given and people DO speak against that! That’s what we hear over and over again from comp churches. Forgive the sin, accept the perpetrator and love on them. That’s completely fine and maybe even a lovely thing when you are talking about a prison ministry. It doesn’t work so well when people have to make a choice who to support – who to keep in their church. I don’t want to go too far in this direction though, or it will get off topic.

    Daisy wrote:

    I think complementarianism is on the losing side, thanks to the internet.

    I think when people actually can read what these folks are saying, doing, and the results of these things in church (abuse, excommunication, etc), they are out in the light. They have to defend them to the wide world, where they don’t have the power they have in their own little fiefdoms. That’s a whole different ballgame.

  184. Christiane wrote:

    I once asked, if two members of the same Church, see a passage of Scripture in a different light, how does this get resolved. But no answers came. I’m not sure there are any answers, unless it’s consensus.

    On *every* passage of Scripture?

    I question the basis of the question.

    Why would it be necessary for all believers to have exactly the same understanding of all passages? Or even just two believers?

    Have you (rhetorical you, here and going forward) determined that ALL passages are of equivalent importance?

    Or have you determined that *some* passages are more critical than others?

    If so, which ones?

  185. Daisy wrote:

    I do wonder how many complementarians fall into the “Power Over” group.

    So many. Quote I hear over and over again from these men: “How will we make decisions if no one is in charge”?

    ?????? The normal way!

    Daisy wrote:

    The strange thing about it is since I am a mutualist in outlook regarding relationships, I wasn’t even aware there was a game.

    Sometimes you don’t know and then it hits you like a ton of bricks.

  186. I do want to say that I believe Satan attacks women harder than he attacks men. Now Satan attacks everyone. But in the Garden of Eden Satan attacked Eve first. And this was mentioned again in 1 Timothy 2:13-14.

    I might be wondering into dangerous territory here. And tbh I am not 100% sure. But it does seem to indicate two possibilities:

    1) Women are, in spiritual warfare, more easily deceived than men.

    Here I am not saying male lawyers/doctors are better than female lawyers/doctors. What I said has nothing to do with wisdom or work ability. I am only talking about spiritual warfare. This includes many things, such as being led to falsehood.

    2) Satan prioritize attacking women over men.

    For some reason Satan likes to pick on women more. So he much more bad thoughts into their heads. He puts more false prophets in their way. etc.

    Conclusion:

    It is possible that Satan had reasons to attack women first. It was a luck of the draw between male and female.

    If that is the case, women must be extra careful in their walk with Christ. They must be more careful against false prophets and their falsehood. If they are teaching a sermon to men, they must do extra research to ensure they are teaching the truth.

    Once again I am not sure #1 and 2 is the truth. But it is something to consider.

  187. @ Nancy2:

    I had a friend when I was a kid who had tons and tons of Barbie toys. She would invite me over to play Barbie. I tried to be a good sport about it (Barbies and stereotypical girl girl doll play was not my thing), so I sat there clueless.

    I had no idea how one played Barbie (this friend also had a Ken doll).

    I was supposed to, apparently, play ‘pretend marriage,’ using Ken and Barbie in their pink plastic condo toy building she had. I still sat there clueless.

    Now, playing Bat Man, I understood. I was able to pretend to be Bat Man and pretend I was after the Joker.

  188. Lea wrote:

    That is a given. No one speaks against that.

    you are right:
    I should clarify, that no one HERE speaks against that. And that is what makes this site such a sanctuary for victims. And thanks to Wade, people in recovery even have their own Church service on Sundays …. a beautiful ministry for them and for all of us who want the best for them.

  189. Gram3 wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    they ALWAYS ignore all women in the bible who don’t fit the mold, which is most of them, or explain it away by saying it was an ‘exception’.

    (Gram 3 said)
    Yet they do not explain how it makes any sense for God to be so erratic about his ironclad Creation Order.

    If God makes a rule, is his ordained will somehow thwarted by men not “stepping up” to their responsibility as Leaders? I do not see how that makes any sense *AT ALL* in a Calvinistic framework.

    If God really wants a man to follow his will, he does not have to “resort to” a woman, so their argument doesn’t work on that ground, either.

    The only example to pop to my mind at the moment is Jonah. God wanted Jonah to go to Nineveh, but Jonah kept running in the opposite direction.

    God did not twist his hands in worry and say, “Oh well, I guess since Jonah, a man, won’t do this thing, I will have to find some woman somewhere to take his place!”

    God was able to get Jonah to do what he wanted him to do all along.

    If God had really, really wanted a woman to fight Israel’s enemies way back when, I think he could’ve found one, rather than use Deborah.

  190. @ Velour,

    We are all basically learners here. We can do our own research and we can learn from one another. I liked your enumerated points and commentary.

    One thing we have in common: we our outraged with this Comp. teaching, that is dubbed ‘biblical’–which is based on cultural Patriarchy. And, it is just a longer word to type! It is NOT biblical, nor is it common sense. It is great to have a place to ‘dissect’ this trend!!

  191. Gram3 wrote:

    Yet they do not explain how it makes any sense for God to be so erratic about his ironclad Creation Order. If God makes a rule, is his ordained will somehow thwarted by men not “stepping up” to their responsibility as Leaders? I do not see how that makes any sense *AT ALL* in a Calvinistic framework.

    Whether it makes sense or not has nothing to do with it. All that matters is that you believe it.

  192. Daisy wrote:

    If God had really, really wanted a woman to fight Israel’s enemies way back when, I think he could’ve found one, rather than use Deborah.

    I meant, if God had really wanted a MAN to fight…

  193. @ CHIPS on

    Thanks for your comment and trying to ponder the possibilities. Here is a quick response. So often we assume that Eve was all alone when she was tempted. And: Where was Adam?

    The Bible says that Adam was right there with her. Let’s look at this account in Gen. 3:1-6:

    “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
    2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
    4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
    6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.”

    Adam was NOT deceived but he willfully took of this fruit and with no hesitation!

    Men and women can equally be deceived. It is not just a ‘women can be deceived easier’ thing! That faulty logic is as old as the hills! Hope this helps.

  194. @ CHIPS:

    1, no. 2, eh. Conclusion, no, I don’t think so.

    Possibility 3, the serpent went to Eve because she wasn’t there when god explained and he knew adam probably did a terrible job explaining. Men subconsciously know this, hence years and years of mansplaing to try to fix it! Ha.

  195. Barb Orlowski wrote:

    @ Velour,
    We are all basically learners here. We can do our own research and we can learn from one another. I liked your enumerated points and commentary.

    I have an American Bar Association accredited paralegal education, top of my class.
    I’ve also worked in law offices for years. In law, and for court documents, we enumerate our paragraphs. Ditto for trial briefs and other documents. It helps us. It helps the judge read the documents. Same for our client. And opposing counsel.

    @One thing we have in common: we our outraged with this Comp. teaching, that is dubbed ‘biblical’–which is based on cultural Patriarchy. And, it is just a longer word to type! It is NOT biblical, nor is it common sense. It is great to have a place to ‘dissect’ this trend!!

    Spot on. And the Comps use of *Biblical* means *do it our way*, blind obedience, no critical thinking skills, no questions permitted.

    In other words, their arguments are weak and they don’t have a leg to stand on.

  196. @ Lea:

    Also, Adam was probably curious what would happen when Eve ate. When he saw she was ok, he went for it too.

  197. Lea wrote:

    Also, Adam was probably curious what would happen when Eve ate. When he saw she was ok, he went for it too.

    You have no idea just how much sense that makes.

    Signed,
    A Man.

  198. Another interesting point from Todd Pruitt’s post is that he does not agree with the submission/subordination of women in the New Creation. This is puzzling since I assumed that the Reformed all believed that the New Creation has been inaugurated. And if the current Order of female submission is rooted in Creation, as he says, then why would the New Creation not continue that Order? This is confusing…

  199. CHIPS wrote:

    What is a Complementarist’s take on Judge Deborah? She was “leading Israel” at that time. She clearly taught men on many things and told Barak a message from God. (Judges 4)

    Complementarian teach that Deborah was an exception, that God had no choice but turn to a woman because no men were willing to do what he wanted.

    Deborah and the “no available men” argument
    http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/deborah-and-the-no-available-men-argument/

  200. Daisy wrote:

    I think complementarianism is on the losing side, thanks to the internet.

    Your comment made me think of how many people comment here at TWW with some version of “I had no idea there were other people who have been through what I have been through.” There are probably others who had no idea there were so many others who are thinking the same thing they are thinking/questioning.

    I think you are right, though it can go the other way as well where people silo themselves into a POV and only read stuff from that same POV. Still, the information is available, and perhaps we will reach a tipping point against Female Subordinationism sooner rather than later.

  201. CHIPS wrote:

    Once again I am not sure #1 and 2 is the truth. But it is something to consider.

    I do not think we can know that it was either 1 *or* 2. There is an embedded assumption in your comment, IMO, that the serpent made the decision to tempt the woman because she was female. I don’t think you can support that assumption from the text, so to extend the meaning of that to all women universally is unwarranted from the textual evidence.

  202. Former slave Sojourner Truth (also a preacher) in 1851 and her thoughts about Eve in the Bible:

    “The Speech Delivered By Sojourner’s Truth To The 1851 Women’s Right Convention • Akron, Ohio [1851]

    I want to say a few words about this matter. I am a woman’s rights. I have as much muscle as any man, and can do as much work as any man. I have plowed and reaped and husked and chopped and mowed, and can any man do more than that? I have heard much about the sexes being equal. I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get it. I am as strong as any man that is now. As for intellect, all I can say is, if woman have a pint, and man a quart—why can’t she have her little pint full? You need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear she will take too much,—for we can’t take more than our pint’ll hold. The poor men seem to be all in confusion, and don’t know what to do. Why children, if you have woman’s rights, give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and they won’t be so much trouble. I can’t read, but I can hear. I have heard the bible and have learned that Eve caused man to sin. Well, if woman upset the world, do give her a chance to set it right side up again. The Lady has spoken about Jesus, how he never spurned woman from him, and she was right. When Lazarus died, Mary and Martha came to him with faith and love and besought him to raise their brother. And Jesus wept and Lazarus came forth. And how came Jesus into the world? Through God who created him and a woman who bore him. Man, where is your part? But the women are coming up blessed be God and a few of the men are coming up with them. But man is in a tight place, the poor slave is on him, woman is coming on him, he is surely between a hawk and a buzzard.”

  203. Lea wrote:

    @ Lea:

    Also, Adam was probably curious what would happen when Eve ate. When he saw she was ok, he went for it too.

    Makes sense…

  204. CHIPS wrote:

    But in the Garden of Eden Satan attacked Eve first. And this was mentioned again in 1 Timothy 2:13-14.

    Yes, that is what the Bible records. What the Bible does not record is the *meaning* of that order of events, if there even *is* a meaning to those events which bears on authority or teaching by females universally. The meaning ascribed to Paul is due to prior assumptions about the presupposed meaning of the events recorded in Genesis.

  205. CHIPS wrote:

    2) Satan prioritize attacking women over men.

    For some reason Satan likes to pick on women more. So he much more bad thoughts into their heads. He puts more false prophets in their way. etc.

    Paul disagrees with you. He used Eve as a representative for all *people* who are deceived in the Corinthian church and not just women.

  206. CHIPS wrote:

    I might be wondering into dangerous territory here. And tbh I am not 100% sure. But it does seem to indicate two possibilities:
    1) Women are, in spiritual warfare, more easily deceived than men.
    Here I am not saying male lawyers/doctors are better than female lawyers/doctors. What I said has nothing to do with wisdom or work ability. I am only talking about spiritual warfare. This includes many things, such as being led to falsehood.

    The problem with this view is that for every supposedly deceived woman you can point to as an example, we can point to several men who have been shown to be deceived or to teach wrong doctrine.

    The majority of huckster tele-evangelists are men, not women.

    I’ve seen men admit on other sites there were duped by false Word of Faith teachings to send in money to ministries.

    I don’t see there being a greater number of women who have been more duped more often than men.

  207. Daisy wrote:

    Another thing I have a hard time computing is how J. D. Hall (and other guys who think like him) assume because all humans are sinners it supposedly follows from this that all people are all guilty, or prone to wanting to commit, the same types of sin.

    I suspect we’re getting a glimpse into the ManaGAWD’s own Secret Fantasies, i.e. “What I Wish I Could Do”.

  208. CHIPS wrote:

    Once again what about Judge Deborah and Mary Magdalene?

    Deborah is an exception to female subordination due to the supposed fact that there were no men available to be judges. Mary Magdalene has been used as an example of how Jesus honored women. That is just what I’ve heard taught in Comp churches for many decades.

  209. CHIPS wrote:

    For some reason Satan likes to pick on women more. So he much more bad thoughts into their heads. He puts more false prophets in their way. etc.

    What evidence do you have that Satan prioritizes attacking women over men? Read the history of Israel. Keep a talley sheet. How many times did Israel go off the rails because of a woman vs. because of a man?
    Historically, women have been much less educated than men. For much of history, most women were not even literate. In general, on whom is it easier to pull something over: an educated, informed person, or an uneducated person who has little, if any access to information?

    More bad thoughts in women’s heads? Ha ha. Prove it. On what evidence do you base these ideas – Cain? Nimrod? Saul? Jeroboam? Nebuchadnezzar? Belshazzar? Herod? Ghengis Khan? Hitler? ?????

    But, if you want to run based on assumptions, here we go:
    Those “false prophets”, by and large, are men. So, where does that leave us? Please tell me.

    BTW, would you happen to be a man?

  210. Paula Rice wrote:

    The Messiah and the Word are synonymous. Diminish one you diminish them both together. That’s what the Bible teaches us in John chapter 1.

    The Messiah and the Word are not synonymous with Scripture.

    “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,”

    “If I testify about Myself, My testimony is not valid.”

    Jesus did not testify about Himself.

    The Scriptures testify about Jesus.

    The Scriptures do not = Jesus.

  211. Gram3 wrote:

    Another interesting point from Todd Pruitt’s post is that he does not agree with the submission/subordination of women in the New Creation.

    Part of me is glad that complementarians such as him are willing to concede that women can, or should be, leaders in secular life. They only disagree that women should be preachers and so forth.

    However, I don’t think that such complementarians are being consistent with complementarian views, or where such views can be logically carried out.

    As much as I dislike the complementarian view that says women should not only be barred from being preachers but also refrain from holding political office, or from being police officers, etc, at least those types of complementarians are carrying comp out to its logical conclusions.

    I’m not sure how or why the ‘Pruitt variety’ of comp has grounds to say, “I am OK with women being President of the USA, or being a cop, but just not OK with women being preachers.”

  212. Paula Rice wrote:

    Complementarians will point to how they believing baby-making should occur, and that the way this takes place should be a reflection of the different roles men and women play. In the act itself, it is the man who gives and the woman who receives; the man who penetrates and the woman who is penetrated.

    LOL – you’re having fun with Dougie quotes!

    Ever since I saw his “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants” siren song, I have been wanting to review his assertion from a different standpoint…

    “A woman envelops, surrounds, encloses.”

    Now who sounds like they’re ‘receiving, surrendering, and accepting?? 🙂

  213. Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, that is what the Bible records. What the Bible does not record is the *meaning* of that order of events

    Yes.

    A. Bible says Eve was deceived.
    B. Adam was not deceived and so sinned with full knowledge of his sin.

    We are not told that this means anything at all! We are told that it happened. To take it and say this means anything for all women or all men is severely reading into the text. And if it did apply to all women and men, well, Paul seemed much more concerned about correcting people who were deceived and much less inclined to give a pass to those who weren’t. So where would he fall (although I understand there is some doubt he wrote Timothy).

  214. BL wrote:

    Christiane wrote:
    I once asked, if two members of the same Church, see a passage of Scripture in a different light, how does this get resolved. But no answers came. I’m not sure there are any answers, unless it’s consensus.

    On *every* passage of Scripture?

    To be fair to Christiane, I think I understand the question. The disagreement might be a very minor thing, a church-splitting monster, or anywhere in between; but it’s still to my mind important to have some embedded process(es) in a local gathering of believers that will enable them to handle them like adults who love one another.

    It might sound trivial, but I’ve seen relationships gradually erode into suspicion, coldness and vague disrespect over minor doctrinal differences that aren’t properly resolved. (You understand: this is different from the kind of massive You’re_A_Lackey_Of_Satan bust-up that attracts attention and, sometimes, headlines.) I’ve been involved in these sad cases of subtle “relational death” myself, and carried at least a share of the blame for it more often than not. There’s a particular kind of disrespect – not saying it’s the worst kind, but it’s a particular kind – that is experienced when someone refuses to honour your prerogative to interpret scripture, instead telling you that you haven’t understood it and/or are wrong (before God).

    On the other hand, I’ve also been in settings where doctrinal differences were fully and openly aired and were honoured. That, by contrast, can help make a very strong local expression of the church. To paraphrase a wise first-century Galilean rabbi: any fool can love someone who agrees with him. It’s how you love those who don’t that shows whether you love or not.

  215. ION:

    In just under two hours’ time BST (i.e. UCT + 1), it will be 26th July.

    Famous birthdays on the 26th July include:
     Roger Taylor, drummer/singer (who will be 67)
     Mick Jagger, singer/hellraiser (who will be 73)
     Nick Bulbeck, Wartburger (who will be 48)

    I don’t like to mention it – I just mention it.

    IHTIH

  216. siteseer wrote:

    Paul summed up the gospel in 1 Cor 15: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”.

    CBMW’s version:

    “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, gospel gender roles established from Genesis to eternity, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

  217. CHIPS wrote:

    I might be wondering into dangerous territory here. And tbh I am not 100% sure.

    Neither am I.

    On the other hand, Paul mentions it too, so whatever it means, it’s in the Bible and it means something. On those grounds alone, it’s worth considering.

    So yes, you wandered into dangerous territory in much the same way as a man wearing armour made entirely out of sodium walking into a shower-room full of hungry alligators directly beneath a nuclear reactor that is in the final stages of meltdown could also be said to be walking into a setting that is less than optimally safe. But at least you tried…

  218. @ BL:
    Oh, BL. You leave so many opportunistic words out!
    “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, gospel gender roles established from Genesis to eternity, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day to *sanctify testosterone*, according to the Scriptures.”

  219. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    So yes, you wandered into dangerous territory in much the same way as a man wearing armour made entirely out of sodium walking into a shower-room full of hungry alligators directly beneath a nuclear reactor that is in the final stages of meltdown could also be said to be walking into a setting that is less than optimally safe. But at least you tried…

    People Eaters do not discriminate based on race, creed, or gender!
    Bwaaa ha ha ha ha!

  220. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    THANK YOU for this, Nick. Now, one more question: in a community of faith that does not have a central teaching authority, how is it determined whether or not a passage of Scripture is to be taken literally or in some other way (allegorically, perhaps)?

    This has always puzzled me. REASON: I am aware that many people who come from a strong fundamentalist evangelical background like to interpret the Bible literally. But in certain cases, they don’t.

    How do they sort out literal from allegorical as a way to view a passage of Scripture?

    There MUST be some ‘guidelines’ and if so what are they, and who decides what they are?????

    I really like this question. Maybe you can help with this one, too. 🙂 Again, thank you. Much appreciated.

  221. Max wrote:

    I was in a Bible study once with a fellow who said that when God looks at us, all He sees is Jesus standing in front of us hiding our sin.

    This is typical of a shallow belief in Christendom (e.g., New Calvinism) that God does it all and we can do nothing. Taken to the extreme, it produces followers who never repent of their sins and stretch Christian liberties beyond their Biblical bounds.

    You are so right!

    “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”

  222. @ Christiane:
    Sorry not buying. It is human responsibility to prevent, protect others from evil where we can and when we can’t we seek justice for victims. Platitudes don’t really help anyone but they sound very nice. A lot of people buy into that.

    Sometimes I think it would benefit people to sit and listen to the long drawn-out gory details that vile evil people CHOOSE to do to others including the most innocent of our society. Barbaric.

    You may not think there needs to be a balance and resources for victims, I get that. There are plenty of Christians out there I would never trust in a million years when it comes to this issue. They are the ones packing out the courtroom asking the judge for leniency when it comes to the child molester. And then they are so proud of themselves for being so compassionate. Personally I think that they need a dose of basic right and wrong teaching.

  223. Nancy2 wrote:

    People Eaters do not discriminate based on race, creed, or gender!
    Bwaaa ha ha ha ha!

    On the other hand, the alligators in question would be well-advised to steer clear until the sodium armour had fully combusted and the resulting caustic soda solution had washed away. Though if the reactor were about to melt through the ceiling, they might want to throw caution to the wind and make culinary hay while the sun shines… so to speak.

    As you see, the situation is fraught with complications.

  224. @ Lea:
    I was reading a Blog thread of a bunch of SBC Baptist pastors talking about the need to forgive a “Christian” child pornographer at the Village church. Beside the fact they totally misrepresent the concept of forgiveness (as even our Lord requires the hard work of repentance) but they seemed to have absolutely no idea of the barbaric torture these poor children are put through. They thought they sounded like such Godly men in how they would Minister to the child pornographer.

    Where is the same compassion toward children and stopping this heinous practice? Where is the outrage that someone would actually derive pleasure from viewing such a thing?

    And these are the pastors! Has evil become so normal that we are totally desensitized to it and the poor victims are to be the ones who “forgive and move on” while the vile evil predators are celebrated and ministered to?

  225. Tom wrote:

    Max, IMO most Baptist do have the stomach to wage the fight it would take to bring the SBC back to the pre-Takeover days.

    Tom, I just don’t see any generals in the wings to rally the troops.

  226. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    To be fair to Christiane, I think I understand the question. The disagreement might be a very minor thing, a church-splitting monster, or anywhere in between; but it’s still to my mind important to have some embedded process(es) in a local gathering of believers that will enable them to handle them like adults who love one another.

    I meant no unfairness – I only wanted to narrow down the topic into more manageable bites. 😉

    In regards to an embedded process in place to handle such instances, I think that you would end up with rules/structures that might help to mute disgreements, but would do little to nothing to address the heart issues.

    Which brings me back to the question regarding what passages?

    It might sound trivial, but I’ve seen relationships gradually erode into suspicion, coldness and vague disrespect over minor doctrinal differences that aren’t properly resolved.

    I’ve been involved in these sad cases of subtle “relational death” myself, and carried at least a share of the blame for it more often than not.

    May I ask what the differences were?

    There are foundational things and there are optional things and there are things of freedom – which circles back to “what passages”.

    I’m interested in the discussion – which may need to continue on the Open Discussion forum?

  227. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    As you see, the situation is fraught with complications.

    Ah, Nick. You have ignored the possibility that the alligators may have already mutated!

    And Happy Birthday!
    My birthday was on Bastille Day. By my count, my daughter is older than I am, now.

  228. Max wrote:

    Tom, I just don’t see any generals in the wings to rally the troops.

    And too many of the lower ranking soldiers are double-agents?

  229. Nancy2 wrote:

    And too many of the lower ranking soldiers are double-agents?

    Sadly, it is hard to trust people in the church. I’ve learned to keep my cards very close to my vest.

  230. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Well, I’m not normally one for jazz, but I had to love that! Thankyou so much…

    You are welcome, Nick.

    (I wasn’t one for Jazz before. But an (African-American) woman fighter who was a fellow student in a college History class was taking Jazz Appreciation and she kept telling me to sign up for it. I told her it wasn’t me. She said the class was so fun and every Friday the professor turned down the house lights, put on a CD, and played his saxophone. I’m glad I took the course. It truly expanded my horizons.)

  231. Tom wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    And too many of the lower ranking soldiers are double-agents?
    Sadly, it is hard to trust people in the church. I’ve learned to keep my cards very close to my vest.

    Yes, I learned to NEVER write prayer requests on the white cards at church. They will later be used against you.

  232. Velour wrote:

    Happy Belated Birthday to you, Nancy2.
    Here is a song for you. French music students performing a Beatles tune at a lovely old square in France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJQdo1kLiis

    Beautiful video: beautiful music! But there isn’t a bit of French DNA in me.
    I’m Scottish, Irish, Swiss-German, and 1/128th Cherokee.
    I guess bagpipes, Whiskey, lederhosen, and a peace pipe (or a tomahawk, as the case may be) for me? Eewww. What kinda bad combination is that!

  233. Lydia wrote:

    You may not think there needs to be a balance and resources for victims, I get that.

    I am NOT for people being asked to ‘forgive’ their abusers, especially when the victims are children . . . that is just one more kind of abuse.

    And what some women have been put through …. like Patterson telling a woman to go home to her abusive husband and kneel down and pray in front of him ….. my dear God, I can’t imagine this.

    Maybe I spent too much time teaching in the drug rehab, but there are those who have broken the laws who still need ministry, especially the young ones. Maybe they have a chance. Maybe not. But they can’t be marginalized and ignored by Christian people who point and thank God they are not like those other sinners, no.

    I don’t think our topic can be seen as a ‘duality’ of help the one and by doing it, hurt the other. I do know that among professional mental health workers, there are only a few who CAN work with certain types of perpetrators. And I know that there aren’t many Christian men or women who will put themselves at risk to go to places where they are themselves in danger. For the ones who are ABLE to serve the most vile of perpetrators, I see that they have a special calling.

    I have seen ministry that worked with someone who was a mentally-ill outcast, and I wrote about it on the discussion section, this:
    “On a gurney, across from us, was a man who was mentally ill, perhaps schizophrenic, but certainly dillusional. I remember how it was that people would walk by him and ignore him EXCEPT there came a minister (had a Scottish brogue) who stopped and stood by him for a time and listened to the man’s rantings patiently. But then, the minister laid his hand on the man’s shoulder and prayed for him, it seemed for quite a while. And the poor man quieted. Shortly after, the man slept for a while. I will never forget this as an example of a Christian work of mercy for someone the police had brought to the ER who had no home and no one else to help him.”

    That minister? I may have been the only witness to his kindness, but I to his back, and he did not see me. I’m sure he helped the man for the sake of the Kingdom, where all ‘outcasts’ are seen in a different light.

  234. Nancy2 wrote:

    Beautiful video: beautiful music! But there isn’t a bit of French DNA in me.
    I’m Scottish, Irish, Swiss-German, and 1/128th Cherokee.
    I guess bagpipes, Whiskey, lederhosen, and a peace pipe (or a tomahawk, as the case may be) for me? Eewww. What kinda bad combination is that!

    Welcome.

    Wow you are quite a mix. And Cherokee.

    You mentioned your birthday was on Bastille Day. And so that was good enough to get you this song (which my relatives send to people in countries around the globe and is how I got it)!

  235. Velour wrote:

    You mentioned your birthday was on Bastille Day. And so that was good enough to get you this song (which my relatives send to people in countries around the globe and is how I got it)!

    Loved it!

  236. Nancy2 wrote:

    And too many of the lower ranking soldiers are double-agents?

    Yes, there is a rather slimy bunch in SBC who always make sure they are riding the wave. They are chameleons who compromise their theological persuasion when necessary. They are preacher boys, but not men of God.

  237. Lydia wrote:

    It is interesting because if there is one thing Al Mohler needs right now it is for the comps to be unified.

    He also needs to make sure the news of SBTS supporting and promoting the ESS heresy does not reach the pewpeons. I have spoken with a few of them, and they could not believe their pastor believes such a thing.

  238. Christiane wrote:

    Maybe I spent too much time teaching in the drug rehab, but there are those who have broken the laws who still need ministry, especially the young ones. Maybe they have a chance. Maybe not. But they can’t be marginalized and ignored by Christian people who point and thank God they are not like those other sinners, no.

    Drug abusers, schizophrenics and child molesters are not in the same category in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I’d hazard a guess that many drug abusers are muting the pain of having been victims of child molesters.

    I posted a pertinent description of child molesters on the other thread. Being wise as serpents doesn’t mean marginalizing anyone (if molesters are marginalized, they’ve marginalized themselves) and it doesn’t mean Christians who are realists are pointing the finger and thinking of themselves as more righteous.

    I’m kind of wondering if you have not had any dealings with child molesters, Christiane, and are unaware of the reality, or whether you have and are trying to find excuses for them. But I do think this subject belongs on the other thread.

  239. Max wrote:

    Yes, there is a rather slimy bunch in SBC who always make sure they are riding the wave. They are chameleons who compromise their theological persuasion when necessary. They are preacher boys, but not men of God.

    Sadly, as a pastor of SBC church’s my experience is I could not even trust the deacons.

  240. BL wrote:

    In regards to an embedded process in place to handle such instances, I think that you would end up with rules/structures that might help to mute disgreements, but would do little to nothing to address the heart issues.

    This might sound rather a lame response, but I didn’t word that very well – I was thinking more of an embedded culture in which, for instance, the elders and leaders set an example of respecting differences, and people were actually taught how to do this. I agree that a “process” would very much suck, sooner rather than later.

    One example of a difference that went sour in a kind of low-grade way:

    A children’s song entitled “Great great brill brill” was sung in a Sunday meeting a while back. This song has the powerful and moving chorus:

    Oh, it’s great, great, brill, brill,
    Wicked, wicked, skill, skill,
    To have a friend like Jesus…

    OK, so it’s not my favourite song – whatever. The weans liked it. But an older couple in the church did not. Because of the word “wicked”. Nowadays, it means “cool” in the UK (and possibly elsewhere too). But they regarded anything “wicked” as being evidently wrong, and describing good things as “wicked” was just the thin end of the wedge that led to the wholesale toleration of sin. And wouldn’t be told otherwise: a word can never change its meaning. The irony is that the husband of the couple frequently uses the word Blimey! – nowadays, a trivially mild “minced oath” but originally a contraction of God blind me!, in its day a very strong curse and considered an expletive. TBH, that couple’s relationship with the church has never been very good ever since. Again, it’s not led to a huge explosive bust-up: just a lingering, sad, slightly rotten relationship, because they don’t know – and won’t learn – how to appreciate different vocabularies and perspectives.

  241. Velour wrote:

    If some form of Comp works for you as a couple – like Ken F. and his wife – more power to you. But that’s about your giftedness and what you are comfortable with.

    Very good critique. Every now and then I try to watch something from Piper, but I have to do it in limited installments because it’s like listening to someone scraping a fork across a plate at the wrong angle. And when my wife hears him she literally pukes.

    But I don’t know what to make of being categorized as someone who holds to “some form of Comp.” What does that mean and what did I write that would put me in that category?

  242. Ken F wrote:

    Very good critique. Every now and then I try to watch something from Piper, but I have to do it in limited installments because it’s like listening to someone scraping a fork across a plate at the wrong angle. And when my wife hears him she literally pukes.
    But I don’t know what to make of being categorized as someone who holds to “some form of Comp.” What does that mean and what did I write that would put me in that category?

    I based my comment on what your wife posted a few days ago.

    I honestly don’t like the categories/titles because to me it’s about giftedness.

    If I have caused offense to you, please accept my apologies. You’re a good man and your wife is a sweetie.

  243. @ siteseer:
    I DO THINK child molesters will likely repeat. We had one in the lake community where we lived. He was ‘on a list’. He was arrested and sent away again for hanging out at the edge of a school ground when the children were being dismissed. Apparently, he was very sick.

    I am for these perpetrators being physically segregated from any possible contact with children. If that means incarceration or placement in a hospital setting, then I see this as one answer.

    The priority is the protection of children.

    ‘marginalizing’ is something Christians need to fight in their heads because ‘there, but for the grace of God, etc. etc.’
    and because we are here to serve …. the minute we see ourselves as ‘superior’ to someone who is blatantly displaying evil tendencies, we have lost perspective ….. if we were spared the other’s brokenness by the grace of God, it was to allow us the privilege of serving those worse off than ourselves if God calls us to do so,
    not the privilege of ‘thanking’ God we are not like that broken person.

    We can’t lose perspective. The crucifix is a help sometimes.

    believe me, I know that there are some people too broken to be allowed the freedom to be around those they may harm

  244. Christiane wrote:

    but there are those who have broken the laws who still need ministry, especially the young ones. Maybe they have a chance. Maybe not.

    I worry about the offenders who have been legally released back into society. Who are they going to hang out with in their free time if they don’t have opportunity to become productive citizens? I would think that it would be good for them to get some solid Christian fellowship along with professional treatment. It’s certainly not a ministry for everyone, and it requires incredible discernment, and can only be done well if God is in it. But it seems to me that church has some responsibility to help those who are truly repentant. And I don’t think it logically follows that taking care of people like this means that victims will be ignored. Both need ministry, but in very different ways and locations. Victims should never be forced to integrate or associate with offenders. There is no justification for re-abusing victims in this way.

    This comment of mine will probably be widely misunderstood. Please don’t jump to the conclusion that I condone abuse or that I would advocate for putting offenders in children’s ministry.

  245. Lea wrote:

    Should we find you some bagpipes??

    Q: Why does a pipe band march?
    A: Because it’s harder to hit a moving target.

  246. Ken F wrote:

    But I don’t know what to make of being categorized as someone who holds to “some form of Comp.” What does that mean and what did I write that would put me in that category?

    I don’t think Velour was categorizing you. That’s just not her usual style. I think she used the word “Comp” for lack of a better term. You and Mrs. Ken do what works for you. If both of you are happy with it, that’s what matters. There aren’t many of us that could be placed comfortably into any “category”.
    Tell Mrs. Ken, “Hi!”

  247. Ken F wrote:

    t’s certainly not a ministry for everyone, and it requires incredible discernment, and can only be done well if God is in it. But it seems to me that church has some responsibility to help those who are truly repentant.

    The Mennonites have been doing this work in Canada and the U.S. called Circles of Support. It is very time intensive and requires lots of training, and money.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4KQdtTViXw

    http://sorl.org/535/

    http://csgjusticecenter.org/reentry/media-clips/circles-of-support-socialization-reduce-sex-offender-recidivism/

  248. Velour wrote:

    If I have caused offense to you, please accept my apologies. You’re a good man and your wife is a sweetie.

    Thanks. Based on everything I’ve read here I don’t think I have any sympathy for the comp teachings. I am still working to sort out some of the general differences I see between men and women. Whether it’s nature or nurture, there are real differences. Failing to take those differences into account can result in loss of productivity and hurt feelings for both men and women. I see the differences as a strength, not a rationale for hierarchy and control. The comps don’t understand that they are destroying the incredible alliance that God seems to have set up between men and women. I thought my description or ezer in the part 1 post was pretty clear, but I wrote one misunderstandable sentence that completely derailed what I had hoped to communicate.

  249. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    but originally a contraction of God blind me!,

    No kidding? I think i thought it was about the ocean or something.

    I was reading something about cookies vs biscuits today (been watching the British bake off show). Apparently there are things Brits call cookies? Which I never realized.

  250. Ken F wrote:

    Failing to take those differences into account can result in loss of productivity and hurt feelings for both men and women. I see the differences as a strength, not a rationale for hierarchy and control. The comps don’t understand that they are destroying the incredible alliance that God seems to have set up between men and women. I thought my description or ezer in the part 1 post was pretty clear,

    You were clear. And I know that you’re not a tyrant. I was just struggling – like Nancy2 indicated – in her post above to try to find a term for you and your wife’s marriage in all of the various configurations.

    Sorry I just didn’t remember “ezer”.

  251. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Lesley particularly liked that!

    Good!

    I may be across The Pond, but I do have Scottish ancestry. My great-grandfather was from Edinburgh, Scotland. When he (an architect) married my American great-grandmother, the U.S. government revoked HER citizenship! And she was born here.

    By the way, I make delicious trifles in a trifle bowl. I make one with 3 boxes of chocolate pudding (large, family size, and 9 cups of milk/2.13 litres; chocolate cake or brownies cut up; whipped cream; raspberries; and sometimes some jam dropped with a spoon here and there in the layers). I also make a Mexican version – Tres Leches. A holiday version.

  252. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Should we find you some bagpipes??
    Q: Why does a pipe band march?
    A: Because it’s harder to hit a moving target.

    Too funny.

  253. Ken F wrote:

    general differences I see between men and women. Whether it’s nature or nurture, there are real differences. Failing to take those differences into account can result in loss of productivity and hurt feelings for both men and women. I see the differences as a strength, not a rationale for hierarchy and control. The comps don’t understand that they are destroying the incredible alliance that God seems to have set up between men and women. I thought my description or ezer in the part 1 post was pretty clear, but I wrote one misunderstandable sentence that completely derailed what I had hoped to communicate.

    I suspect there are general differences. The problem is that it is easy to misunderstand what is meant by “general.” I love your language of an “incredible alliance.” ISTM that what happened at the Fall is that the alliance turned into a power struggle. How sad that today’s “Complementarians” miss that alliance. Such an alliance between a husband and wife *is* a picture of the Gospel and the reconciliation Christ makes possible through his death and resurrection.

  254. Gram3 wrote:

    The problem is that it is easy to misunderstand what is meant by “general.”

    Indeed. A ‘general’ difference matters little when talking about individuals. We are more alike than different.

  255. nathan priddis wrote:

    I don’t recall the exact numbers you gave from your first stake-outs. You seem though, to be describing a tanking church start-up, or a lot of attenders are on vacation this weekend.

    He’s never had more than 70 cars.

    The only difference this weekend is that he has two services. There were 61 cars at the first service and 46 at the second service. Thing is, a whole bunch of cars did not leave the lot for the second service. I think that if he got one or two new families, I’d be surprised, but August 7 will be the test.

    If anyone in the Scottsdale area sees any signs of advertising, please post about it. I can’t imagine where he’d advertise, though. It’s not like he’s going to run a marriage series he can flip up on expensive billboards. He’s starting with Jonah, I believe.

  256. CHIPS wrote:

    I do want to say that I believe Satan attacks women harder than he attacks men.

    I’m not sure what you are basing that belief on. There is one sense in which you may be right but I’m not sure how it applies-

    Genesis 3:15
    And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.

    Maybe you have put your finger on the underlying motives of the female subordinationists? In which case, it is sad that Christian men, who have been born of the Spirit to new life in Christ, where there is “no male or female” would still hang onto those attitudes…

    Now Satan attacks everyone. But in the Garden of Eden Satan attacked Eve first. And this was mentioned again in 1 Timothy 2:13-14.

    Do we know for sure that he never approached or tempted either of them before this day? (If the Bible contained every detail of history, it would be a large collection of volumes rather than one book). Do we know that he specifically attacked Eve? Or did he approach both of them and Eve simply responded first?

    I might be wondering into dangerous territory here. And tbh I am not 100% sure.

    In what way is it dangerous to examine your thoughts and compare them with the others’ perspectives and the scriptures to come to a better awareness? I thought the Bible encouraged us to do this? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning?

    But it does seem to indicate two possibilities:

    1) Women are, in spiritual warfare, more easily deceived than men.

    Here I am not saying male lawyers/doctors are better than female lawyers/doctors. What I said has nothing to do with wisdom or work ability. I am only talking about spiritual warfare. This includes many things, such as being led to falsehood.

    I have seen no evidence of this in real life, have you?

    2) Satan prioritize attacking women over men.

    For some reason Satan likes to pick on women more. So he much more bad thoughts into their heads. He puts more false prophets in their way. etc.

    Bad thoughts in their heads? Which sex accesses pornography the most? Which is represented most among pedophiles? Which commits spouse abuse the most often? Which commits the most murders?

    Many men do seem to have more of a struggle with desiring to hold power over others (not sure if that is nature or nurture), what if that is an extra temptation for them?

    I’m not saying men are worse than women, just trying to illustrate that the argument doesn’t hold up. I don’t think there is any way to know or prove that men or women have “more bad thoughts in their heads” but it would be a hurtful assumption to make about someone, don’t you think?

    Conclusion:

    It is possible that Satan had reasons to attack women first. It was a luck of the draw between male and female.

    If that is the case, women must be extra careful in their walk with Christ. They must be more careful against false prophets and their falsehood. If they are teaching a sermon to men, they must do extra research to ensure they are teaching the truth.

    In the many passages about false prophets, there is no extra warning to women. Everyone is warned equally. And, indeed, if the comps were correct that only men were responsible for leading the church, then Paul was speaking to and laying the blame specifically on men for this:

    “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” Acts 20:29-30

    There is no reason to think one sex is more vulnerable to falsehood than the other.

    I think these are mostly ideas that have been used to rationalize men having power over women in the past. I know that I heard them all used during my time in church. But when you really examine these ideas, there is no evidence for them. You realize that’s all they are- rationalizations for men to hold onto power over women.

  257. Velour wrote:
    “When you did this for the least among Me, you did it for Me.” That is what my Lord would have me do. The Royal Law of Love.

    Thank you for sharing this! *sniff*

  258. mirele wrote:

    The only difference this weekend is that he has two services. There were 61 cars at the first service and 46 at the second service. Thing is, a whole bunch of cars did not leave the lot for the second service. I think that if he got one or two new families, I’d be surprised, but August 7 will be the test.

    Oh joy! sitting through 2 Mark Driscoll sermons in a row!

  259. Gram3 wrote:

    I love your language of an “incredible alliance.” ISTM that what happened at the Fall is that the alliance turned into a power struggle.

    Yes!

  260. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    I really appreciate what you are doing.

    Thanks. There are days I think I’m just crazy to be out there, but then I remember discussions I’ve had with ex-Scientologists, especially the ex-Sea Org (Hubbard’s Damnation Navy “religious order” aka slave labor). They’ve said that they noticed us out there protesting, letting them know that there WERE people out there who cared about them. I’m just hoping that my persistence, more than anything else, gets people to use Google to find out more about Driscoll and decide he’s not good for their spiritual health.

  261. mirele wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    “When you did this for the least among Me, you did it for Me.” That is what my Lord would have me do. The Royal Law of Love.
    Thank you for sharing this! *sniff*

    Welcome, friend.

    I mean I just can’t hate gay people. I can’t do what the people at my former church did (many of them, including leaders). I can’t buff and shine hatred toward people and hate speech. I can’t shun them. I can’t disown people like pastor John MacArthur tells them to do. Because if I did that…my heart would have hardened to do what God called me to do that night. He ordered me to do it.

  262. mot wrote:

    Sadly, as a pastor of SBC church’s my experience is I could not even trust the deacons.

    I understand. I refused requests in the past to become a Southern Baptist deacon because I would not serve on deacon boards with men who were not Biblically qualified for that office. Young folks growing up in SBC ranks have observed some deacons praying on Sunday morning, but living hypocritical lives during the week. While I don’t agree with the New Calvinist movement, I can understand why these young folks desire to do church differently than their parents. The Southern Baptist Convention has needed a genuine revival in its ranks for decades.

  263. mirele wrote:

    I’ve had with ex-Scientologists, especially the ex-Sea Org (Hubbard’s Damnation Navy “religious order” aka slave labor). They’ve said that they noticed us out there protesting, letting them know that there WERE people out there who cared about them.

    I can’t thank you enough for your love and sacrifice out there every Sunday, Mirele.

    When I first was excommunicated from my abusive NeoCalvinist church, I searched for that term — shocked that such a Salem Witch Trials type practice existed in this day and age.

    The search term “excommunication” and “shunning” brought me to the Petrys blog, Joyful Exiles. Paul Petry, a godly pastor/elder and attorney, was fired from Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church in Seattle, lied about, and excommunicated/shunned (along with his wife and children) for opposing Mark Driscoll’s un-Biblical consolidation of power in the church.
    Same with others.

    Thank goodness the Petrys also spoke out.

  264. Max wrote:

    I understand. I refused requests in the past to become a Southern Baptist deacon because I would not serve on deacon boards with men who were not Biblically qualified for that office. Young folks growing up in SBC ranks have observed some deacons praying on Sunday morning, but living hypocritical lives during the week. While I don’t agree with the New Calvinist movement, I can understand why these young folks desire to do church differently than their parents. The Southern Baptist Convention has needed a genuine revival in its ranks for decades.

    My experience with deacons has been they act one way when they are knowingly in the congregation members presence and another way when they are behind closed doors.

  265. Gram3 wrote:

    I suspect there are general differences. The problem is that it is easy to misunderstand what is meant by “general.”

    That’s a very good point. I used the word “general” because there are no absolute differences between men and women (even reproductive differences have exceptions, such as hermaphrodites). It’s more like a statistical clumping. If studies show that certain traits are 50/50, then I would argue that there is no difference. If another trait is 60/40, then there is a general statistical difference, but one cannot assume much when meeting any one person. But I think there are some areas where the differences are more pronounced. I’ll mention just three that I think are not too risky.

    1) Romance novels. I have a colleague who is a physicist. His wife writes romance novels. I asked him what is the percentage of women to men who buy romance novels. He says it’s all women, but I suspect that there may be some men who enjoy them. I’m not saying that all women like them (my wife does not), but the vast majority of people who do are women. Does anyone know of a man whose idea of a relaxing evening is to slip into his pajamas, put on some Bocelli or Kenny G, light some candles, prepare a cup of chamomile tea, curl up in the couch and get lost in a romance novel? I’m guessing that would be a statistically rare man. (I read this to my wife and she busted out laughing because it describes her mom and sister).

    2) Porn. Until recently, this was predominately a male vice. My personal opinion is porn and romance novels are two sides of the same coin (that will certainly get me in trouble with the romance novel fans). I have heard of studies that show porn use is increasing among women, but the vast majority of porn users remain male.

    2) Sports. More men than women get wrapped up in sports, especially the aspects dealing with rules, penalties, and statistics. Now that I live in SEC country I’ve found many women football fans. But statistically, they are not nearly as common as men sports fans. I must have a defective Y-chromosome because I only somewhat enjoy watching sports (I’ve probably watched only a handful of football games in the last five years).

    I’ve worked with women all my life. I’ve supervised women and have been supervised by women. I’ve never found any difference in competencies that can be attributed to gender. I work as an engineer and feel incredibly blessed to work with (and supervise) highly competent women engineers. I cannot imagine anyone who would think that I should treat them with less respect just because they are women. I also see that they bring a feminine perspective to the table, which greatly strengthens our solutions. I am grateful that they disagree with me when I am wrong. Thank God the results don’t depend just on me.

    I tried to make the point earlier that complementarians use the types of differences I’ve just described to justify their abusive teachings. They’ve ruined God-given graces. I’ve probably dug a deep enough hole for myself, so I’ll put away the shovel again.

  266. Gram3 wrote:

    I suspect there are general differences.

    I took a stab at trying to clarify what I meant by that. But my comment is stuck in customs. Please check back later.

  267. am concerned for Paula …. she is VERY intelligent, but something is not working FOR her in the way she is communicating to others OR in how she is processing the communication others direct toward her when she receives it,
    so then results in some definite social awkwardness

    have we failed to understand her difficulty?

  268. mot wrote:

    IMO they sure complicate what should be a simple matter.

    Really. I tried to read it. But, I am still recovering from a Chronic Fatigue Syndrome “crash” and I found out Saturday that I have caught a virus to boot. I can’t focus clearly enough tonight to make sense of his profusion of mumbo jumbo. Can’t keep my brain and my vision on track long enough to process it. I’ll read it again later!

  269. Christiane wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    I’m not sure, but for some reason, she appears to be in over her head where communication is concerned
    I hope we haven’t failed her.

    I did take the time, as you know, to ask her point blank if there was anything going on in her life – past or present – that she hadn’t healed from, needed us to pray for her about.
    She didn’t respond to that specific post, even though she responded to others.

    I really have no clue if someone isn’t candid about what’s going on. Some people lash out because of anonymity. Others because of substance abuse problems (alcohol or drugs), mental illness.

    Since Paula had posted once before that she had been a member of CJ Mahaney’s church, had seen him cry, his manipulations, that church was in Maryland. Perhaps she’s still in the area.

    https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/HHS-Program/Program.aspx?id=BHCS/BHCS24hrcrisiscenter-p204.html

    phone: 240-777-4000 (24 hours/7 days a week, including holidays)

    National Suicide Prevention Hotline: http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/
    1-800-273-8255 (24 hours/7 days a week)

    Here is a link for services for help there: http://www.fs-inc.org/services/programs/mental-health-services

  270. Bill M wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    The Devil in disguise.
    So was the serpent male or female?

    Both. It had a multiple personality disorder.

  271. Dr. Steven Lambert writes of the difficulty of Christian leaders to renounce false teaching once they are committed to it. This might parallel the issues with those who are committed to the Comp teachings.

    http://bit.ly/2aGx1fD

    ” … he literally CANNOT renounce those covenant relationships because the demonic spirits behind them, to which he has subjected himself over many years, have him bound. In fact, I believe (and it pains me deeply to say this) those words were in actuality the words of those demons uttered through the lips of Mr. Simpson.

    Typically, when a person becomes indoctrinated by these doctrines of demons, it is as though it has been seared into his or her conscience as with a branding iron (1 Tim. 4:2), and that person has become psychologically enslaved by the demons behind the religious lie. So much so that it becomes virtually impossible, except through the supernatural intervention of God, for that person to renounce the teaching and the idolatrous covenants he has made. Yet, renunciation of those unBiblical teachings and practices, as well as idolatrous covenantal relationships, is the primary requirement for emancipation from the demonic captivation they engender.”

  272. mirele wrote:

    I’m just hoping that my persistence, more than anything else, gets people to use Google to find out more about Driscoll and decide he’s not good for their spiritual health.

    I don’t know whether it means much to you, but I think Jesus would agree: “Keep asking, and it will be given to you. Keep seeking, and you will find. Keep knocking, and the door will be opened to you.” He was talking about prayer, but I think it applies in other contexts as well. Consistent, respectful determination in reaching out and seeking to be heard is likely to be recognized and appreciated, by someone.

    From the attitude of Grudem and others involved with the CBMW, I don’t think that they’ve quite grasped that concept. Even in the midst of a free society, they act as though secrecy, manipulation and emotional browbeating are the way to bring people to their point of view.

    Thank you for all of your efforts, Mirele!

  273. @ Max:
    Nancy2 wrote:

    I can’t focus clearly enough tonight to make sense of his profusion of mumbo jumbo. Can’t keep my brain and my vision on track long enough to process it.

    Sorry, but nothing can make that mumbo jumbo understandable.

  274. Ken F wrote:

    There’s also this lovely pearl: http://theblog.founders.org/six-ways-a-church-should-use-a-confession-of-faith/. The author has written numerous articles on The Gospel Coalition. The two ministries are undeniably linked. Point number two sounds 9Marxist, but his name does not show up yet on 9Marks.

    Yea it says–:A more recent example of this is the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. Southern Baptists, rightly, revised their confession, adding article XVIII to address areas where feminism had begun to encroach on the church and Christian family.”

    IMO feminism was used as a ruse to modify the BF&M. They are just afraid of wimmin and made them second class citizens.

  275. Ken F wrote:

    Were angels created with gender? I don’t think they were.

    I was talking about the snake and it is irrelevant, but then some folks base a lot of doctrine on irrelevant details.

  276. Ken F wrote:

    Sorry, but nothing can make that mumbo jumbo understandable.

    It is pure gibberish. He must have been drinking when he wrote such unintelligible nonsense.

  277. Ken F wrote:

    The two ministries are undeniably linked.

    The “Founders” have been stirring things up in SBC ranks for a while – they are the architects of the “Quiet Revolution” to reform the denomination. They are classical Calvinists who have tried unsuccessfully for years to take the SBC back to its Calvinist roots, but the Southern Baptist masses moved past that error 150 years ago! While they may not agree with the message and method of the New Calvinist movement, the more sophisticated old guard are putting up with their neo-brethren since they need the energy of the YRR to pull off what they could not do … Calvinize the SBC.

    It’s actually good to see the Founders getting involved with ESS. If arrogant theologians from various Calvinist factions start debating each other about this aberrant doctrine, it will draw more attention to the ails of the overall movement and it will implode.

  278. mot wrote:

    IMO feminism was used as a ruse to modify the BF&M. They are just afraid of wimmin and made them second class citizens.

    Yup. I agree. I think social and political changes gave women more freedom and more choices, hence giving the menfolk almost no control over the wimmenfolk. Power and ego.

  279. Max wrote:

    It’s actually good to see the Founders getting involved with ESS. If arrogant theologians from various Calvinist factions start debating each other about this aberrant doctrine, it will draw more attention to the ails of the overall movement and it will implode.

    I dunno. They’re going pretty low-key. I wonder if they are just trying to bridge a gap: stay in partnership with the YRR, while saying just barely enough to keep traditionalist from severing ties with both factions of Cals.

  280. Nancy2 wrote:

    Yup. I agree. I think social and political changes gave women more freedom and more choices, hence giving the menfolk almost no control over the wimmenfolk. Power and ego.

    Those that tookover the SBC had to take it backwards to put the wimmin in their place and sadly they have achieved it to this point in time. But now these same “men” are running scared to death of the Calvinist who why they were keepin the wimmin in there place stole the SBC from them.

  281. Ken F wrote:

    Were angels created with gender? I don’t think they were.

    The Bible does mention the Nephilim as beings who entered this world in order to hook up with the daughters of men, some of whom were exceedingly beautiful. Scripture also says (implies?) that they produced progeny. The details are sketchy. Who can say for certain? A topic best left for the open discussion thread I think.

  282. Nancy2 wrote:

    There aren’t many of us that could be placed comfortably into any “category”.

    My wife still has a green card. We joke that ours is a marriage of inconvenience. That’s a category I can live with.

  283. mirele wrote:

    He’s starting with Jonah, I believe.

    Let me guess. He’s going to say that God removed him from his comfort zone and sent him to Scottsdale on a mission.

  284. Muff Potter wrote:

    Ken F wrote:
    Were angels created with gender? I don’t think they were.
    The Bible does mention the Nephilim as beings who entered this world in order to hook up with the daughters of men, some of whom were exceedingly beautiful. Scripture also says (implies?) that they produced progeny. The details are sketchy. Who can say for certain? A topic best left for the open discussion thread I think.

    I’m sure H.U.G. will have answers.

    In the meantime, I’m voting for the Tooth Fairy. I can’t say the Tooth Fairy was beautiful. I was asleep. But the money beneath my pillow. Awesome!

  285. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Should we find you some bagpipes??
    Q: Why does a pipe band march?
    A: Because it’s harder to hit a moving target.

    Happy Birthday, Nice Keckbulb!
    I always heard that the reason pipe bands march, is to get away from the noise. 😉

  286. Nancy2 wrote:

    I can’t focus clearly enough tonight to make sense of his profusion of mumbo jumbo. Can’t keep my brain and my vision on track long enough to process it. I’ll read it again later!

    I read Nettles’ book By His Grace and For His Glory some years ago, but it was tough sledding. Very dense prose. I did learn that Nettles is a real hypercalvinist. He says the Atonement is only sufficient for the elect. That is a departure from the usual Calvinist formulation of “sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect.” Or at least that was my understanding of what he wrote. That really surprised me, even for a Founders guy/

  287. Nancy2 wrote:

    I wonder if they are just trying to bridge a gap: stay in partnership with the YRR

    Founders’ folks like Tom Nettles and Tom Ascol are too fuddy-duddy to hang with the YRR, but they do indeed understand the importance of networking with the younger Calvinists. They need YRR youth and energy to keep the movement moving – they use the young folks. The old boys just ain’t cool, like Matt Chandler and David Platt, so the YRR don’t pay much attention to them. The only old guy in SBC that they seem to like is Al Mohler since he is the most visible champion of their cause. They put up with the old Calvinst seminary professors until they get their diploma and then link up with their peers in the reformed movement to help carve out their ministries. It’s difficult sometimes to determine who is using who in the new reformation.

  288. @ mirele:
    I would think that your faithful persistence in protesting MD’s latest venture could have a definite effect on any increased attendance. I don’t think that many churches have protesters outside. Discerning people would find that off-putting and hopefully would also check out the online info.

  289. Gram3 wrote:

    Jumping on in the bandwagon sense of affirming ESS or jumping on in the sense of taking it on and debunking it. I assume the former and would be shocked at the latter.

    They are affirming ESS. In a sick way I think that’s good news. ESS is the most likely means to take them down.

  290. mot wrote:

    IMO they sure complicate what should be a simple matter.

    Prosopologically speaking. Not a term that exactly invites you to grab a mug of hot chocolate and snuggle down in an overstuffed chair to read. I hope the post has good illustrations.

  291. Max wrote:

    They put up with the old Calvinst seminary professors until they get their diploma and then link up with their peers in the reformed movement to help carve out their ministries.

    I prefer the term “franchise”, instead of “ministry”, because most of them preach another Go$pel.

  292. Ken F wrote:

    They are affirming ESS.

    At this point, these guys must stick together … too much is at stake. Together for the Gospel (I mean Calvinism)!

  293. Nancy2 wrote:

    Yup. I agree. I think social and political changes gave women more freedom and more choices, hence giving the menfolk almost no control over the wimmenfolk. Power and ego.

    4 Everyday Things That Caused Huge Panics When They Were New
    http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-everyday-things-that-caused-absurd-panics/

    Probably my favorite from their list:

    The Postal Service

    According to people in the 1850s, allowing a woman to write a letter and then post it without anyone in her house ever knowing was going to throw the whole world into chaos.

    Women obviously could not be trusted to contact only respectable people, and once they started sending letters unchecked, who knows what kind of things they would get involved with (sex things).

    Even Trollope, the guy who pioneered the pillar box revolution, regretted it the second he realized it was going to give women a tiny bit of (probably sexy) freedom.

  294. Ken F wrote:

    Point number two sounds 9Marxist,

    I can assure you that Founders and 9Marks are very closely linked.

    Kudos to you and Lowlandseer for wading through all this stuff and providing links.

  295. Max wrote:

    Ken F wrote:

    They are affirming ESS.

    At this point, these guys must stick together … too much is at stake. Together for the Gospel (I mean Calvinism)!

    Party First, Comrades!

  296. Velour wrote:

    I prefer the term “franchise”, instead of “ministry”

    Good point. The reformed church planting movement is a good example of a franchise operation. They are cookie cutter imitations of each other which are franchising their brand as quickly as they can. It’s not about planting churches – it’s all about planting theology.

  297. Gram3 wrote:

    The first step will be for them to even consider the remote possibility that the church has got(ten) this issue all wrong for 2,000 years. Just as the church took a long time to recognize the evil of slavery due to traditions which followed the plain reading of “Slaves, obey your masters” and the other slavery clobber verses, it is going to take a long time, IMO, to change the minds of the confessional Reformed who take a similar plain reading view of the clobber verses on gender.

    You have put this very well. My approach to reading the Bible has differed from many of my peers who appear to respect the recitation of chapter and verse from the Bible as if it were a manual, Samuel section 1, subsection 2, paragraph 3. Likely much of my disinclination to follow that pattern is related to my inability to memorize or even remember which book contained what passage even when I had intensively studied the book mere months earlier.

    I particularly liked the 59 “One Anothers” Victorious offered up a weeks ago, it was a good reminder that “one another” is a main theme. Reading through the gospels I find my reaction continually reinforced that Jesus was revolutionary. Not in the sense that he promoted tearing down specific institutions or traditions but in the sense that if we fully grasp Jesus, much of what passes as acceptable would be seen as incompatible with what Jesus was about. Slavery was one of these incompatible institutions, authoritarian leadership, putting yourself above others is another one, I’m strongly inclined to add patriarchy to the list.

    Even outside the gospels I don’t see the apostles letters diverging from the sense that we are all equal, there are many dozens of passages that reinforce there is no partiality with God. Against these main themes some have assembled relatively small numbers of “clobber verses” as you so aptly name them, and when I don’t use a specific verse in response I get labeled as UN-scriptural or worse UN-Christian. I won’t say that I grow weary of the tactic, it is just one of those things to deal with, similar to keeping the slugs out of my garden.

    Thanks, Gram and others, I have found reading here for the last year has provided me much needed validation.

  298. Ken F wrote:

    My wife still has a green card. We joke that ours is a marriage of inconvenience. That’s a category I can live with.

    Eh, don’t feel too badly. Our marriage is a North vs. South thing. I’m a Kentuckian, Hubby was born and raised in Maine. We’ve had lots of “culture” jokes running between our families. The first time I travelled up north with to meet his family, there really was a language barrier.

    Notice: all true Southerners, consider yourselves warned, don’t evah try to place ya own ohdah at ah restraunt in Western Maine!

  299. Gram3 wrote:

    He’s starting with Jonah, I believe.
    Let me guess. He’s going to say that God removed him from his comfort zone and sent him to Scottsdale on a mission.

    Right after that big fish named Mars Hill vomited him out?

  300. Gram3 wrote:

    I can assure you that Founders and 9Marks are very closely linked.

    Yes. Look Dr Stan Reeves. He makes the connection undeniable.

  301. Gram3 wrote:

    Let me guess. He’s going to say that God removed him from his comfort zone and sent him to Scottsdale on a mission.

    Unless someone watches the sermons and tells me about it, I wouldn’t know, because I don’t feel it’s good for my mental health to watch Mark Driscoll.

  302. @ Tom:

    re: the 4 panelists – “They are supposedly intelligent and spiritually minded but they seem to me ignorant about so many things relating to the Bible.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    it’s like they feel they can say whatever they want, whatever unqualified, unjustified, undefined, unfounded thing and leave it. whether something dogmatic or something suggesty but loaded. like they’re above being accountable for what they say.

    their self-perception is one of being ‘too-big-to-fail’.

    if they don’t have a God-complex, they definitely have a Moses-&-Elijah-complex.

    (I can’t imagine how outsized the proportionate shortcomings must be to overcompensate like this)

  303. Nancy2 wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    He’s starting with Jonah, I believe.
    Let me guess. He’s going to say that God removed him from his comfort zone and sent him to Scottsdale on a mission.
    Right after that big fish named Mars Hill vomited him out?

    Oh Miss Nancy2, I would like to say that I had PRAYED fervently for that day.

    Thank you Jesus for an answer to prayer.

  304. Max wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    I prefer the term “franchise”, instead of “ministry”
    Good point. The reformed church planting movement is a good example of a franchise operation. They are cookie cutter imitations of each other which are franchising their brand as quickly as they can. It’s not about planting churches – it’s all about planting theology.

    My ex-pastor was a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary. I see it now for what it is – a franchisee training ground. It’s like learning how to operate your own 7-11.

  305. @ deb
    From the post intro:
    “Are these denominations better off as a result?”
    This is the million dollar pertinent question.

  306. Bill M wrote:

    I have found reading here for the last year has provided me much needed validation.

    Me, too. Lots of thoughtful commenters here.

  307. @ Lydia:

    “Al Mohler ….his recent article about the need for humble disagreement and unity”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    like using his power to get rid of everyone who didn’t toe his party line… yeah, that’s humble disagreement and unity.

  308. Bill M wrote:

    My approach to reading the Bible has differed from many of my peers who appear to respect the recitation of chapter and verse from the Bible as if it were a manual, Samuel section 1, subsection 2, paragraph 3. Likely much of my disinclination to follow that pattern is related to my inability to memorize or even remember which book contained what passage even when I had intensively studied the book mere months earlier.

    I like how you put this. I read much the same way. I remember the wording and concepts but usually need a reminder on exactly where to find them again.

  309. JYJames wrote:

    @ deb
    From the post intro:
    “Are these denominations better off as a result?”
    This is the million dollar pertinent question.

    A rhetorical question that answers itself. There was an article written about a couple decades ago. It was called the “New Independents.” It was referring to Baptist churches that had quietly left the Southern Baptist Convention and had not joined any other body. These weren’t IFB style churches but traditionalist baptist churches that were more mainstream Evangelical. I think we will be seeing more of this. They aren’t better because they are becoming cult like, in my opinion. So much they consider essential is becoming oppressive and legalistic. And this form of radicalism is very different from conservatism in my opinion. I might take up what my independent baptist brethren follow and practice a form of secondary separation towards Neocals. Any member of a group that wants to take over by stealth should be shunned. And then there is the threat of heresy to boot. I don’t know….. And I feel wrong for feeling this way. It makes me feel like a “fundamentalist.”

  310. @ Lydia:

    “And these are the pastors! Has evil become so normal that we are totally desensitized to it and the poor victims are to be the ones who “forgive and move on” while the vile evil predators are celebrated and ministered to?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    i think lack of oxygen to the brain as a result of breathing each other’s exhales, all bobbing around in the same bubble together, is what is so normal.

  311. @ Ken F:

    “I work as an engineer and feel incredibly blessed to work with (and supervise) highly competent women engineers. … I also see that they bring a feminine perspective to the table, which greatly strengthens our solutions.”
    +++++++++++++

    you’ve dug no hole at all. just your observations & thoughts.

    i’m curious as to what a feminine perspective engineering perspective is.

    when i hear the word feminine, images of lace and ruffles and a cooing voice come to mind. it’s certainly a stereotype, but far from reality. (certainly light years away from my reality!)

    what is feminine? i mean, truly? is it even possible to come with an empirically true description of ‘feminine’?

    when i think of what/how are women, the main thing that comes to my mind: my observation is that women at once see the big picture as well as all the moving parts that make up the big picture, the strengths & weaknesses of the parts and how each is faring, and how they work together.

    would you agree? is this a feminine perspective?

  312. Mark wrote:

    JYJames wrote:
    @ deb
    From the post intro:
    “Are these denominations better off as a result?”
    This is the million dollar pertinent question.
    A rhetorical question that answers itself. There was an article written about a couple decades ago. It was called the “New Independents.” It was referring to Baptist churches that had quietly left the Southern Baptist Convention and had not joined any other body. These weren’t IFB style churches but traditionalist baptist churches that were more mainstream Evangelical. I think we will be seeing more of this. They aren’t better because they are becoming cult like, in my opinion. So much they consider essential is becoming oppressive and legalistic. And this form of radicalism is very different from conservatism in my opinion. I might take up what my independent baptist brethren follow and practice a form of secondary separation towards Neocals. Any member of a group that wants to take over by stealth should be shunned. And then there is the threat of heresy to boot. I don’t know….. And I feel wrong for feeling this way. It makes me feel like a “fundamentalist.”

    Clarification : Neocal churches aren’t becoming better because they are becoming cult like and legalistic

  313. Thank you to those of you who responded regarding my comment about Grudem; I was unaware that he was so public with that information. Once someone brings a very personal situation into the public realm, especially if one is using it as a justification for a behavioral imperative–well, that is a game changer in terms of opening oneself to critique. Again, thanks.

  314. FWIW, I think it would make an intriguing post sometime to consider the *future* of complementarianism in a digital era. As we’ve been seeing with this political season’s primaries and conventions, the new technology has substantially changed the playing field. Many things that used to be missed are now captured instantly and permanently. And although that has turned incredibly nasty with its “flame war” tactics, we don’t have to do that with complementarianism, whether the hyper-comp or soft-comp varieties. We can spotlight the facts, impacts, and implications — and let people discern and decide without all the cyber-bullying.

    And frankly, given the advances in technology and survivor communities’ ability to use them, I don’t think comps stand a chance any longer of getting away with so much stealth function in the cyber-era.

    Complementarian thought leaders cannot go back to when all was only in books, and there were no substantive ways for people to hold them accountable as authors, other than not buy their books. As we are seeing, online accountability is far harder to avoid, and its attempts have consequences: Either you respond and explain your views and the alleged fallout therefrom, and that becomes part of the record, or your non-response itself becomes part of the ongoing documentation.

    Some proponents have been hiding unorthodox doctrine under gooble-de-gookish language — and deleting their posts when they get push-back. But the information published is really deleted in full. So that veil in their temple has been recently ripped asunder from top to bottom by orthodox theologians and experts on church history, and because of the internet, what’s been behind the veil is now being seen in the spotlight for what it actually is. They’re being called out either to renounce their unorthodox views, or to stop saying they hold to Nicene Trinitarianism when it is now clear that they do not.

    And it looks like some proponents of complementarianism may now be looking for new terms to mask old associations so they can de-link themselves from the hyper-complementarians who are under such scrutiny. In the digital era, this won’t work. The history of past associations remains intact and can be researched. And neither can the ongoing profiling of these destructive views simply be erased, or redefined by sleight-of-hand with terminology.

    The Complementarian Industrial Complex is being cracked open by crowd-sourced processes that post digital details. And as that interconnected, interdependent system comes more into the light, the less “attractional” its pull may become, because the repulsive end results of the more highly abusive forms of complementarianism and patriarchy are being documented in the stories of real-world women and men and families and churches and networks and denominations.

    Because of cyber-advances and more scrutiny beyond survivor communities, it looks like the future of CBMW’s three-decade movement to infuse their views into all of evangelicalism may end up far more highly limited than they ever thought possible. And even though it wasn’t the digital spotlight that spoiled Wayne Grudem’s dream of a 10-year timeline, today’s technology may keep his dream from becoming the Church’s nightmare.

  315. http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm
    “Women’s history in America”
    Snippet (emphasis mine):
    “During the early 20th century the term new woman came to be used in the popular press. More young women than ever were going to school, working both in blue- and white-collar jobs, and living by themselves in city apartments. Some social critics feared that feminism, which they interpreted to mean the end of the home and family, was triumphing. Actually, the customary habits of American women were changing little. Although young people dated more than their parents did and used the automobile to escape parental supervision, most young women still married and became the traditional housewives and mothers.”

  316. @ brad/futuristguy:

    This is such a great point! CBMW started in print and mainly pastors subscribed. From there, the overall comp industry was from books , stages, weekend retreats, conferences, etc. There was no over arching debate going on. They managed to paint the other view in scary terms. And worse, you were not going to find resources like Bushnells book in the public library, for example. The list is endless.

    But as the Internet exploded, we had access to other scholars and interlinears, etc. And not only has a public debate followed but many saw the “other side” is not all made up of radical feminists who hate men. In fact, it has a lot of men. And there are quite a few from many differing quarters of Christendom. Lumpkins reminded a Comp Neo Cal recently that Roger Nicole was part of the early SBC Founders movement.

    What could be the future of such a movement that depends on such one way narrow message? Social media demands interaction. And as we have seen, they are prepared for that. The doctrine is not even practical in application much less clearly taught in scripture. They tried to pass off a new law for the new covenant that did not exist in the old. More people are figuring that out when it comes to women teaching men.

  317. Bill M wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    The Devil in disguise.
    So was the serpent male or female?

    Now there is a question I never thought to ask the literalists!

  318. @ Ken F:

    Ken, we used to discuss this all the time looking at things like MBTI states in the org dev field. It was a huge issue in the 90’s workforce. The real question is, are these non biological differences nature or nurture? As more research on brain development comes out, I think we are going to be surprised how much is nurture. NT Wright once mentioned this in light of a research project on London cab drivers and how the wiring in the brain mimicked the other sex as they learned the intricacies of navigating the complicated system of roads, etc. other research has been done on what happens when we raise girls to love science and math. We have even seen a cross over from music to math. The brain seems to be the new frontier in this discussion.

  319. @ mirele:
    Some of us here have experienced what it can mean for our lives when just one person suggests we look deeper and beyond the facade. You are a trooper!

  320. Lydia wrote:

    Social media demands interaction.

    The internet and other technologies have changed many a thing from a top-down movement to populist-up response. It breaks isolation for those who thought they were the only one with questions, or who’s survived abuse because they find the similar questions and stories of others. It provides public access to primary resources on particular views and the people who created or support those views. Anyone who has issues with the people at the top of hierarchy in a movement can push back directly, or leave a trail of digital breadcrumbs for others to follow as they consider leaving that point of view …

  321. Lydia wrote:

    As more research on brain development comes out, I think we are going to be surprised how much is nurture.

    I think most of the things ken mentioned are more nurture, actually.

    There was an article recently that compared male and female brains and said basically there is not a ‘male’ or a ‘female’ brain. There is so much overlap.

  322. Lydia wrote:

    @ mirele:
    Some of us here have experienced what it can mean for our lives when just one person suggests we look deeper and beyond the facade. You are a trooper!

    Brava!

  323. @ Ken F:
    Good thoughts, though you may get some feedback. Your point about the misuse of statistics is excellent. I know a very, very bright female engineer who is also very feminine in the stereotypical sense, and the people she supervises and the people they supervise are mostly male!

  324. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Lydia:

    “And these are the pastors! Has evil become so normal that we are totally desensitized to it and the poor victims are to be the ones who “forgive and move on” while the vile evil predators are celebrated and ministered to?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    i think lack of oxygen to the brain as a result of breathing each other’s exhales, all bobbing around in the same bubble together, is what is so normal.

    Or smelling their own farts and falling madly in love with the aroma:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U
    “POOT! SNIFF! AHHHHHH…”

  325. Max wrote:

    Good point. The reformed church planting movement is a good example of a franchise operation. They are cookie cutter imitations of each other which are franchising their brand as quickly as they can.

    Doesn’t that also describe a viral infection?

  326. @ brad/futuristguy:
    And some groups who have don’t know what to do with the fact that anyone with a computer and connection has a say. That includes the jerks, sad sacks, scary people and many who are quite articulate we would never have had the opportunity to interact. Like you. Exciting times.

    James Duncan had the right idea in his response to those afraid of allowing anyone a voice. He named his site, Pajamas Media. Lol.

  327. Lea wrote:

    There was an article recently that compared male and female brains and said basically there is not a ‘male’ or a ‘female’ brain. There is so much overlap.

    One great big BINGO. But don’t confuse with fact the imbeciles at CBMW who insist that the Almighty has cast-in-concrete-roles for men and women based on plumbing received at birth.

  328. Muff Potter wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    There was an article recently that compared male and female brains and said basically there is not a ‘male’ or a ‘female’ brain. There is so much overlap.
    One great big BINGO. But don’t confuse with fact the imbeciles at CBMW who insist that the Almighty has cast-in-concrete-roles for men and women based on plumbing received at birth.

    Daisy has been very good about posting these brain research articles and tweeting them, refuting the Comp nonsense.

  329. Velour wrote:

    Daisy has been very good about posting these brain research articles and tweeting them, refuting the Comp nonsense.

    Indeed she has. This is what I like about TWW. We may not be in lock-step on everything, but the stuff we do agree upon is heartfelt and unifying.

  330. Muff Potter wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Daisy has been very good about posting these brain research articles and tweeting them, refuting the Comp nonsense.
    Indeed she has. This is what I like about TWW. We may not be in lock-step on everything, but the stuff we do agree upon is heartfelt and unifying.

    Indeed, brother Muff.

  331. Muff Potter wrote:

    One great big BINGO. But don’t confuse with fact the imbeciles at CBMW who insist that the Almighty has cast-in-concrete-roles for men and women based on plumbing received at birth.

    Notice which set of plumbing those who insist are packing.

  332. Muff Potter wrote:

    One great big BINGO. But don’t confuse with fact the imbeciles at CBMW who insist that the Almighty has cast-in-concrete-roles for men and women based on plumbing received at birth.

    Even before the foundations of the world.

  333. elastigirl wrote:

    like using his power to get rid of everyone who didn’t toe his party line… yeah, that’s humble disagreement and unity

    Yep, there was no humble disagreement and unity when Dr. Mohler took the axe to staff at SBTS. He demanded that they agree to a reformed creed or lose their jobs. Most chose the latter, even when it meant disrupting their lives, sacrificing their teaching ministries, and losing income and homes. You don’t disagree with the good doctor and get off lightly; this guy is serious about Calvinizing the SBC. Not much Christlikeness among New Calvinist leaders.

  334. Max wrote:

    Yep, there was no humble disagreement and unity when Dr. Mohler took the axe to staff at SBTS. He demanded that they agree to a reformed creed or lose their jobs. Most chose the latter, even when it meant disrupting their lives, sacrificing their teaching ministries, and losing income and homes. You don’t disagree with the good doctor and get off lightly; this guy is serious about Calvinizing the SBC. Not much Christlikeness among New Calvinist leaders.

    Captain Al Mohler steering the Sunk Baptist Convention on a path of Destruction.
    Drunk with power.

    A religious Exxon Valdez spewing toxic sludge everywhere.

    Meanwhile discerning *passengers* have quietly put on life vests, gotten in life boats, and rowed away from the mess (200,000 living members a year…escaping).

  335. Muff Potter wrote:

    One great big BINGO. But don’t confuse with fact the imbeciles at CBMW who insist that the Almighty has cast-in-concrete-roles for men and women based on plumbing received at birth.

    There are a lot of good reasons to reject the complimentarians’ conclusions on gender, roles, and hierarchy. The best reasons are because their ideas are stupid, unfounded, logically inconsistent, and have no basis in the Bible. The statistical argument is a red herring that should be avoided.

    We have to be very careful in using statistical proofs because statistics can be badly misused. The article cited above uses statistics very poorly. If anyone tries to use that article as a proof against the comps, it will backfire as soon as the comps bring in statisticians because a good statistician will rip that article into pieces.

    For the sake of everyone who wants to prove complementarianism wrong, the mathematician in me cannot help but to expose the statistical fallacy. I don’t want people to fall into a trap. I’ll try to do this with an example:

    Take a group of 1000 men and measure their heights. If it turns out that their average height is 180.37 cm, the probability will be near zero that any of them will be exactly the average height. But this does not prove that there is no such thing as an average height for that group. However, if one creates a range, such as 179.5 to 180.5 cm then there is likely to be perhaps a handful of men in that height range. Making the range larger will increase the number in each range. But make it too large (like a range that includes 10 cm to 300 cm) and the ranges will become meaningless. Do that same thing with a group of 1000 women. Let’s assume that their average height is 172.62 inches. Same thing, there will almost certainly be no woman of that exact height. Now line each group up by height and pair them off. It’s almost certain that in every pair the man will be a bit taller than the woman even though there are many women who will be taller than many of the men. So we have a case where in a particular group of 1000 men and 1000 women there is an actual difference in average height, in nearly every pair the man will be taller than the woman, and there will likely be significant overlap in the range of heights. Using the rationale of the article cited earlier, one would have to conclude that there is no real height difference because there is no person exactly average and there is significant overlap.

    Now take the same groups and record test results for the following physical tests: 500m swim, 20km bicycle, 10km run, push-ups in 2 minutes, sit-ups in 2 min, pull-ups in 2 minutes, 100m dash, and vertical jump distance. There will be an average result for each event for each group. Like before, there will be near zero chance that any of the subjects will be exactly average in any event, and there will be significant overlap among the genders for each event (except perhaps pull-ups). But this time, if we decide to take ranges instead of fixed points for each average, we will find men and women who fall into the average range, but we will find that no man or woman will fall into the average range in all areas unless we make the ranges so large as to be meaningless. This is because different people will excel in different areas, both for men and for women. So if we take the significant gender overlap and the lack of any ideal averages in the same way as the cited article, we would have to conclude that there are no significant physical differences between men and women. With these statistics we could confidently claim that the women and men in these groups will have equal chances in winning a challenging physical event such as a triathlon, a soccer (football?) match, or a series of track and field events. But I would not put my money on that bet based on everything I’ve observed in differences in athletic performance between men and women.

    Sample size is also important. In this example we know the average heights of the two groups. But we cannot assume anything for other groups because the sample we chose might not be representative. The best we can do is sample other groups. But we can never be sure that we know the exact average unless we measure every person on the planet. For practical purposes, there is no such thing as a worldwide average. The best we can do is make some guesses based on probability and statistics.

    Here’s an article that takes the other article into account, but I think it better reflects reality: http://www.webmd.com/brain/features/how-male-female-brains-differ. A search on “male vs female brain” yields many interesting and contradictory results. It’s risky to support an argument on such a conflicted position.

    Even if scientists can definitively prove that there are actual differences between men and women, so what? What is the big deal? The differences themselves are neutral. It’s the conclusions we draw that make all the difference. Comps conclude that the differences justify hierarchy, heresy, authority, control, and abuse. My take is that God knew what he was doing when he created us male and female. I believe there is something powerful in the differences that needs to be discovered.

  336. @ Ken F:

    “For the sake of everyone who wants to prove complementarianism wrong, the mathematician in me cannot help but to expose the statistical fallacy.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    well, sure, i’d love to be the one to discover The Med Sea Scrolls containing papyri which clarify & contradict the comp conjecturing.

    until that happens,… can you explain the statistical fallacy to a creative person? like, in a few sentences?

    how many times have i heard in a sermon “statistics show…” to prove gender roles. ridiculous.

  337. elastigirl wrote:

    can you explain the statistical fallacy to a creative person? like, in a few sentences?

    The logical fallacy in any particular compelling statistical argument cannot normally be exposed in just a few simple sentences. This is why statistics can be so powerful in deceiving people. In the big picture, beware of statistics. The old adage is true: “figures lie and liars figure.” Here’s another good quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics.

    Statistics is a very useful and powerful tool when used well. But it involves things like choosing the right sample size, ensuring the samples are representative, calculating the confidence factor, understanding the limitations, understanding the assumptions, etc.

  338. Velour wrote:

    Yep, there was no humble disagreement and unity when Dr. Mohler took the axe to staff at SBTS. He demanded that they agree to a reformed creed or lose their jobs. Most chose the latter, even when it meant disrupting their lives, sacrificing their teaching ministries, and losing income and homes. You don’t disagree with the good doctor and get off lightly; this guy is serious about Calvinizing the SBC. Not much Christlikeness among New Calvinist leaders.

    My heart breaks every day for those the TAKEOVER cost them their jobs. Al and the others who did this have no conscience. What a horrible choice to sacrifice your beliefs or stand up for them and have your life thrown into turmoil.

  339. @ Ken F:

    Thanks Ken. I never got into stats, it’s an area of math I’m totally ignorant of. I know just enough to be dangerous in the plane, 3-D space, and electronics network theorems.
    But yeah, if I understand you correctly, stats builds upon concepts common to all math disciplines. The only real difference is that stats can be used to bamboozle folks as you’ve pointed out to elastigirl.

  340. @ Max:
    Muff Potter wrote:

    But yeah, if I understand you correctly, stats builds upon concepts common to all math disciplines. The only real difference is that stats can be used to bamboozle folks as you’ve pointed out to elastigirl.

    Yes. I had to take a few courses in probability and statistics. And I have to use some in my job. It’s a very rigorous science that can bw badly used.

  341. It truly saddens me as to what the gender wars have done particularly to the SBC and its churches. There was a time in the SBC when people in the pews could have differing views and still worship, but in many churches if yours is not the prevailing–anti-woman view you are not welcome.

  342. Daisy wrote:

    If she is anything like the KJVOs I used to run into years ago (and maybe she’s not, but if she is), that phrase will set her teeth on edge.
    It’s not enough to say or believe the Bible “contains” truth…
    You must affirm it is THE TRUTH, wholly, every part, and that is is your “final authority” in all matters of faith. etc. etc. and so forth.
    But even if you stick a group of 100 Christians into a room who all agree that the Bible is THE truth, and they all ascribe to a literal translation, inerrancy, etc., they will all still disagree on some doctrines.
    They will still interpret it differently. They may occasionally agree with each other on some topics, but not all.

    Once upon a time,many aeons ago, on a website far away, the regulars were visited by one of these folk who shriek “The Bible, The Bible” whilst acting as unlike Jesus Christ as is humanly possible (without bursting into flames). He demanded that I tell him “One thing, just ONE THING, that is not inspired”!!!
    I didn’t hesitate an instant. I answered, “The table of contents”.
    Its been at least a decade…..he may be sitting up & eating solids again any day now……

  343. Christiane wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    I salute these people, not because they ‘excuse’ the wrong done to others, no, because they DON’T. What I think they do, that most us us cannot do, is that they SEE something in the person that is MORE than their troubled ways, and that something has at its core, the kind of pain for which there are no words.

    I offer this woman as an example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465872/Antonia-Brenner-nun-gave-Beverly-Hills-life-live-Mexican-prison-dies-86.html

    I read a book about her at our local library. What a great testimony to the power of God’s love!

  344. Christiane wrote:

    Those people in the jail in tiajuana had families and children, and Sister Antonia served/advocated for their needs as well. She took care of the guards and their families. And when earthly resources got low, she went out and TOOK THEM from the bishops up in Cali. They said ‘no’ and she put the stuff in her truck and laughed and drove away. She knew something the bishops didn’t about how the Kingdom works its miracles.

    The more I think about her, the more she sounds like my beloved Teresa of Avila. (Probably the 2 of them are sipping a cup of tea in Heaven, & shaking their heads over the foolishness of the rest of us!)

  345. @ Ken F:

    Thank you, Ken. i sort of understand. So, the next time i should happen to hear a pastor rattle off some statistic to sell his point, what would be a good response i could give him? to illustrate the questionable & deceptive potential of poorly done statistics?

  346. mot wrote:

    It truly saddens me as to what the gender wars have done particularly to the SBC and its churches. There was a time in the SBC when people in the pews could have differing views and still worship, but in many churches if yours is not the prevailing–anti-woman view you are not welcome.

    So very true.

    When I think about the oppression of my ex-NeoCalvinist authoritarian church, they were horrible in their views of women. 9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite/Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood oppression.

    I remembered as a child going to my maternal grandmother’s Presbyterian Church and meeting medical missionaries — women doctors who faithfully served people in African countries and Asian countries. They took care of people physically and spiritually. They lived and carried The Gospel. They changed lives.

    The NeoCalvinists are dead wrong. They shackle The Gospel. What ‘love’ is this?

  347. mot wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Yep, there was no humble disagreement and unity when Dr. Mohler took the axe to staff at SBTS. He demanded that they agree to a reformed creed or lose their jobs. Most chose the latter, even when it meant disrupting their lives, sacrificing their teaching ministries, and losing income and homes. You don’t disagree with the good doctor and get off lightly; this guy is serious about Calvinizing the SBC. Not much Christlikeness among New Calvinist leaders.
    My heart breaks every day for those the TAKEOVER cost them their jobs. Al and the others who did this have no conscience. What a horrible choice to sacrifice your beliefs or stand up for them and have your life thrown into turmoil.

    Mine too. And I’m not even a Southern Baptist. But what those men did – Al Mohler and the rest of them – is so incredibly wrong.

  348. zooey111 wrote:

    The more I think about her, the more she sounds like my beloved Teresa of Avila. (Probably the 2 of them are sipping a cup of tea in Heaven, & shaking their heads over the foolishness of the rest of us!)

    And my little old lady friend Catherine, bless her, who went with me during a rainstorm to see that young man Sean dying of AIDS one Christmas, is also in Heaven having tea with them!

    Catherine had tea every day at her house. Jasmine or Earl Grey. Loose tea. All were welcome. Crackers, cheese, olives, pickles, chocolates, fruit, mixed nuts. It was lovely.
    I make myself tea and these wonderful snacks too.

  349. @ Ken F:

    There is also a book called ‘how to lie with statistics’ which is very explanatory. I think I took about 9 hours of stat? Easy to misuse.

    The short answer is that differences across groups do not necessarily apply to individuals and thus are pretty worthless in the way the comps tend to use them..

  350. zooey111 wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    If she is anything like the KJVOs I used to run into years ago (and maybe she’s not, but if she is), that phrase will set her teeth on edge.
    It’s not enough to say or believe the Bible “contains” truth…
    You must affirm it is THE TRUTH, wholly, every part, and that is is your “final authority” in all matters of faith. etc. etc. and so forth.
    But even if you stick a group of 100 Christians into a room who all agree that the Bible is THE truth, and they all ascribe to a literal translation, inerrancy, etc., they will all still disagree on some doctrines.
    They will still interpret it differently. They may occasionally agree with each other on some topics, but not all.
    Once upon a time,many aeons ago, on a website far away, the regulars were visited by one of these folk who shriek “The Bible, The Bible” whilst acting as unlike Jesus Christ as is humanly possible (without bursting into flames). He demanded that I tell him “One thing, just ONE THING, that is not inspired”!!!
    I didn’t hesitate an instant. I answered, “The table of contents”.
    Its been at least a decade…..he may be sitting up & eating solids again any day now……

    Why does Protestantism contain 40,000 sects? Because 40,000 different people who founded the sects decided one or several issues, as interpreted from their inerrant or infallible Bible, was enough for them to shun brethren. They may have felt that the people hey divorced were not Christians because their doctrine lacked purity? Or as frail egos were hurt, they separated as their vengeance was fed. For many years J. Frank Norris would send George Washington Truett dead flowers with some nasty message. It was about some ego matter, and J. Frank may not have considered Truett a Christian. History reads things differently though some of the leaders of the CR idolized Norris.

  351. elastigirl wrote:

    So, the next time i should happen to hear a pastor rattle off some statistic to sell his point, what would be a good response i could give him? to illustrate the questionable & deceptive potential of poorly done statistics?

    You probably won’t be able to confront immediately unless you already have solid facts. But you could ask him where he got his info. If you don’t have solid facts, the best thing to do is do your own research. There is a lot of bad info on the internet, but also a lot of good info. Peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals are a great source of info. If you cannot get access to the journals on the web you might be able to find the names of some studies and look for the journals in the library. You can also find general info on the internet that could be good, provided you take it all with a grain of salt. Try to read articles and studies from opposing sides.

    Statistics is a great tool, but it has limitations. For example, if a study is performed on brain structures between men and women, the only real facts are related to the actual people studied. Everything beyond that is conjecture. So if there were 100 people in the study, we know about the brain structures (similarities and differences) only for those 100 people. Can we extrapolate the results to other people? Yes, but with limitations. First, we need to know whether or not the samples were representative. For example, were the men all in the 80s and the women all in their teens? If so, the slight differences could be due to age. Were they all of the same ethnicity? If all of the women were Asian and all of the men were African, the slight differences could be due to ethnicity rather than gender. One also has to be careful about not confusing correlation with causation. There is the story of the man who woke with headache after drinking gin and tonic with ice, another headache the morning after after drinking rum and coke with ice, another headache after drinking scotch with ice. So he decided to quit putting ice in his drinks. We can make the same logical mistake with statistical studies. On the other hand, if we use the right methodology, we can gain confidence in our conclusions when continued testing with larger sample sizes confirms earlier results.

    Sample size is very important. If you want high confidence in your probabilistic conclusions you need a large sample size. But a large sample size can be difficult to obtain. One example is testing products. The only way to test the breaking strength of a rope is to pull it to the point of breaking. But you cannot do that for every rope you hope to sell, so you have to sample a few and hope that the results can be applied to the rest of the untested items. Another example is political polls. The pollsters don’t have the time of money to ask every person eligible to vote, so they have to shoot for a sample they think will be both representative and large enough.

    Here are a few basic questions you can ask:
    What was the sample size?
    Were the samples representative?
    What are the correlations?
    How tightly can correlations be confirmed to be causes rather than effects?
    Who did the study?
    Who paid for the study?
    What is the ideological bent of the person/group doing the study?
    What is the ideological bent of the person/group using the results?
    Were the result peer-reviewed? By whom?

    The other very important factor to consider is what I call the “so what” factor. What difference does it make and why why should it make a difference? Just because a study shows a difference between men and women (or fails to show a difference), does not mean that one can run wild with conclusions. The conclusions themselves need to be tested.

    I strongly suspect that more and more studies will confirm statistical differences between men and women in how they process information, relate socially, solve problems, etc. Whether I am right or wrong, the differences do not justify what the comps are concluding.

    I hope this helps. A real statistician could give much better info/advice.

  352. @ Ken F:

    wow — thanks so much for the information! however i might address future statistics-as-christian-offensive-weapon, i’ll start it off with “i don’t share your high confidence in your probabilistic conclusions”. That ought’ta get their attention.

  353. elastigirl wrote:

    “i don’t share your high confidence in your probabilistic conclusions”.

    Be careful though. There isn’t anything these guys hate worse than smart women. And you dear lady will draw their fire like Kraut 88(s) to a flock of B-17(s).

  354. Ken F wrote:

    I strongly suspect that more and more studies will confirm statistical differences between men and women in how they process information, relate socially, solve problems, etc. Whether I am right or wrong, the differences do not justify what the comps are concluding.

    I would bet on it. Whether or not this can be seen as anatomic variance on brain imaging is not the entire story, though functional scans are interesting, if what we read is correct. We do need to remember that as bodies of knowledge go this issue of what the brain is and does, and what it ‘looks’ like and to what extent it’s functioning can be modified is a new body of knowledge. I think we can expect masses of information in the near future.

  355. okrapod wrote:

    I think we can expect masses of information in the near future.

    There are also studies of how the brain can rewrite itself in the face of trauma. I think the brain is more flexible than we tend to think.

  356. Lea wrote:

    I think the brain is more flexible than we tend to think.

    In the meantime we are making social and political decisions based on the assumption that this is not true in the area of sexuality since born that way and can’t help it and not subject to change or modification is the current position. Even while at the same time we say that binary sexuality is a taught concept, and if we could only switch from blue/pink ideas to something else then people would change. Something is not consistent here. I will wait for the evidence in all of it.

  357. @ Muff Potter:

    “Be careful though. There isn’t anything these guys hate worse than smart women. And you dear lady will draw their fire like Kraut 88(s) to a flock of B-17(s).”
    +++++++++++

    at such a moment, you want to see smug? i’ll show you smug!

    (can’t think of a compliment i’d enjoy more.)

  358. Muff Potter wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:
    “i don’t share your high confidence in your probabilistic conclusions”.
    Be careful though. There isn’t anything these guys hate worse than smart women. And you dear lady will draw their fire like Kraut 88(s) to a flock of B-17(s).

    She’d get “keyed out” [excommunicated] like our own dear Gram3 (and Gramps3). That’s what happens to Bereans.

  359. @ okrapod:

    I'm willing to bet that the variance between individuals of the same gender is as great as, and quite possibly greater than, the differences between men and women.

  360. okrapod wrote:

    In the meantime we are making social and political decisions based on the assumption that this is not true in the area of sexuality since born that way and can’t help it and not subject to change or modification is the current position.

    Something about whether you’re “born that way and can’t help it”.
    I once had the misfortune to know a sexual predator (same-sex, tropism for jail bait).
    When he was trying to groom his way into my pants (he didn’t succeed), it was all a Choice (which he was pressuring me to make in his favor), “Eveybody’s Bi, you’re just in Denial, bla bla bla.”

    But when AIDS hit the big time and/or you pushed back at him, suddenly I Was Born That Way And Can’t Help It(TM), you HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT!

    It was a choice when it was to his sexual/dominance advantage on the attack, it was Born That Way when it was to his sexual/dominance advantage on the defense. Note the common denominator.

  361. Why I Left the Band of Brothers for a Blessed Alliance
    http://www.missioalliance.org/texas_blessed_alliance/

    This was a watershed moment for me. Not only had I failed to rescue a single marriage, but I had failed to see the issues behind the issue. As I reflected on this annus horribilis, I realized that each of the husbands, having fully embraced a complementarian view of marriage, demanded submission from their wives and, in two cases, became physically violent when the wives did not submit.

    It was becoming clear that behind these troubled marriages were false conceptions of marriage, of male-female roles, and of masculinity itself.

  362. I saw this at SCCL – it’s written by Wayne Grudem, who is a complementarian.
    What was highlighted was this portion:

    “[Trump] is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic – I think these are unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless statements he has has made.”

    A fish doesn’t realize the water is wet. Grudem floats around in sexism all day long, so it figures he cannot see it in others.

    (I’m not posting this to start any political debates. I’m a right wing Republican but am not a Trump fan.

    I do believe Trump has said and done sexist things in the past, and to me, that’s somewhat separate from political stuff; I don’t intend on offending any Trump supporters here. This is more about Grudem’s sexism and him being blind to sexism / misogyny.)

    Source:
    Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice (By Wayne Grudem)
    http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

  363. Lea wrote:

    There are also studies of how the brain can rewrite itself in the face of trauma. I think the brain is more flexible than we tend to think.

    You’re talkin’ ’bout me here. Severe head trauma at age 18; stroke at age 45. Neurologists can’t figure out how I’m still walk in’ and talkin’ and all that other good stuff. Ha – really gives me a good out when I say or do something stupid …… brain damage, doncha know?

  364. Daisy wrote:

    were false conceptions of marriage, of male-female roles, and of masculinity itself

    maybe that false conception of masculinity is where the trouble starts

    a young boy grows up in a home where the father is abusive to the mother …. verbally and sometimes physically …. and the child watches (this in itself is a form of child-abuse)

    I wonder, in those troubled marriages, how many comp. men were once those little boys watching the abuse of their mothers by their fathers?

  365. A woman ensnared in New Calvinism must endeavor to search Scripture herself and know that “We must obey God rather than men” Acts 5:29 … before she falls for the new reformer’s version of complementarity and a twist on that verse “We must obey men rather than God.”