Pods from the locust tree
“No struggle can ever succeed without women participating side by side with men.” Muhammad Ali Jinnah
__________
Israel vignette
Deep down inside, I used to get a bit grossed out by the diet of John the Baptist who supposedly showed up on the scene eating locusts and wild honey. I had to dissect a locust when I was in a high school biology class. It did not go well. The inside of the locust was basically a disgusting mush and I was unable to identify any required organs.Thankfully, my view of John’s diet has taken a turn for the positive due to my trip.
The very first day I was introduced to the locust tree which is also known as the carob tree. Here are 10 Useful Facts About The Carob Tree
6. Carob pods can be ground into flour and used as a cocoa substitute for chocolate flavoring.
7. Carob contain just 1/3rd of the calories of chocolate so great if you are on a diet.
Yep-it’s kind of like chocolate. So it is believed that John ate honey and a form of cocoa from the locust tree which makes his diet sound little less weird!
Honey is found on every buffet I saw in Israel. Even more fun is that our morning buffets would feature a huge honeycomb dripping honey onto a serving platter.
This locust thing was a good lesson for me. It is important to understand that our views of Scripture can be biased with our modern or limited cultural understanding which brings us to the reason for this post.
_______________
Recently a story appeared in The State Pro-life activist opposes photo of SC women lawmakers, says they are unfit to serve.
A request to hang a group photo of the General Assembly’s female lawmakers in the State House led to an uncomfortable debate Tuesday in which a pro-life activist urged lawmakers not to endorse such symbols of “destructive and evil” feminism.
…Lefemine had passed out packets of anti-feminist literature, expressed his view that the Bible says women are not fit for public office, and read aloud from an article titled, “The Feminism of the Mothers is the Destruction of the Daughters.”
…Just as Lefemine began to explain Tuesday why the “Biblical doctrine of the headship of man disqualifies a woman from civil office,” state Rep. Russell Ott interrupted.
…Rep. Ann Thayer, R-Anderson, the only woman on the committee, told Lefemine that female legislators feel called to their positions, and that some pray before taking them.
“We are heirs to the kingdom, and being heirs to the kingdom, that makes us all equal,” she said. “Ladies, we can’t let things like this stand in our way.”
The debate was over a moot point.
There is a decade-old moratorium on placing additional monuments on the State House grounds or in the State House, meaning the composite photo of the General Assembly’s Women’s Caucus will need either an exception to that law or an alternate home.
Recently, The Gospel Coalition posted an article 5 Myths about Complementarianism which can be found at the Crossway website. The article was written by a husband wife team, Andreas and Maragret Köstenberger who teach at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary which is very devoted to the New Calvinist Baptist movement. You need to remember their names because they frequently write about the need for strict complementarianism. This particular article is a bit alarming to me because one needs to read carefully to understand what they are saying,
The Genesis 3:16 ESV ploy: Women are just a bunch of contrarians and that is why they need a male head.
They begin their article attempting to disprove that complementarianism is not obsessed with male authority. However, in the second myth, they proceed to denigrate women but you have to actually follow what they are saying.
At the creation of the first woman, Eve is presented as a companion and helper to her husband (Genesis 2:18). This portrayal is then reflected in the judgment she receives after the Fall: pain in childbearing and relational struggle in marriage, directly corresponding to her divine calling in relation to her husband and children (Genesis 3:16).
How many of you remember what happened when the ESV was released? A maelstrom ensued because the *author/translators* claimed that they would not make any subsequent translation changes. Do you remember what it was about?
- Rewriting the Biblical ‘Curse’ on Womankind
- Three Unmistakable Examples of Gender Politics in the New ESV Translation
- Crossway Reverses Decision to Make ESV Bible Text Permanent
Here is the verse in question. Genesis 3:16 ESV:
To the woman he said,“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
In other words, somehow the translators mix something up. Here is a short and effective rebuttal to this translation. Why the ESV’s “contrary to” in Gen 3:16 Matters by Scot McKnight
The consequences of sin for Eve, as Macintosh points out, are ‘defined against [this] background of [the] radical complementarity of the sexes in creation: precisely where woman’s joyful fulfilment in life is found … here now is the burden of pain, and of subordination.’ Just as her childbearing is a ‘good’ now tainted by pain (3:16a), so too her ‘devotion’ is a good now tainted by domination (3:16b). In my opinion, the only ‘contrariness’ in Gen 3:16b exists in the husband toward his wife.
McKnight’s summary is important because he appears to suspect that this translation was a way to slam home the one the TGC/Reformed Baptist objectives which is to place women under the dominance of men.
To repeat, for “el” to mean “contrary to” the woman’s “desire” must be negative. One has to wonder if the ESV’s translation is not an ironic manifestation of the dominance of the man over the woman.
I suspect that the Köstenbergers would attempt to deny that complementariansim should be applied as that guy did in South Carolina but I’m not so sure they can wiggle out of it that easily. Don’t you see, women are problems and that is why they need a strong hand to guide them ala ESV Genesis 3:16?
Should women really be working outside of the home and family? What is their gender specific creation purpose?
Read carefully. They mention the Proverbs 31 women so it is possible, so they say. But watch how they pull their punches.
The need for each woman, then, is to determine God’s particular leading in her life as to involvement outside the home (work or otherwise) at any given stage of her life as it relates to her primary role in the family. Yet there’s no need to back away from God’s design for women as centered in family and home, barring extenuating factors such as the husband’s illness, etc.
Overreactions are common, however, such as insisting that women may engage in any activity outside the home with virtually no or minimal concern for God’s specific creation purpose for each gender.
What do you think they are really saying? Note, as well, that they couch this by saying it is OK for her to work if her husband is sick. However, could they be saying more? For example, I know a female physician whose husband stayed home with their children. While at home, he created a home business. However, some members of TGC have claimed that men who stay at home are *man fails.*
This is important to understand. They believe the Bible claims there are irrevocable roles for men and women that go far beyond *women cannot be pastors.”
Complementarianism limits women’s role far beyond the pastorate.
Read this very carefully. Women are to be limited in many other roles.
we’ve increasingly heard it taught by complementarian pastors and other self-identified complementarians that the only restriction complementarians should impose on women is that of assuming the pastoral office; every other leadership role should be open to qualified women in the church. However, the biblical teaching on gender is much more thoroughgoing and profound than a singular negative stipulation would convey, a mere rule that restricts women from one particular (though highly significant) office, otherwise allowing unfettered male-female equality.
in other contexts where the teaching of Scripture or the exercise of spiritual leadership occurs, this should be carried out by qualified men. Barring women’s access to the pastoral office as the only limitation for appropriate participation in the church therefore reflects a simplistic and reductionist view of God’s design for feminine involvement in the church. It is the teaching and ruling authority that leadership roles entail that is at issue here.
Unduly opening all leadership roles in the church to female participation (except for the office of pastor/elder) without assessing other potential leadership roles for their suitability is hardly responsible,
Towards the end of this section it appears they indicate that the role of women is got be limited to: motherhood, partnership with their husbands, and teaching of other women only.
They consider this a *gospel* issue as well as an issue that undermines the authority of God and even undermines God Himself.
They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
to neglect proper theology and practice in this or any area is to truncate vital entailments of God’s creation and the gospel. In some cases, this is done by compartmentalizing biblical truth into multiple levels or layers, which will inevitably reduce the effectiveness of the church and gradually corrode the advance of God’s mission in our world.
… If we follow suit and deny this creation reality, we’ll inevitably become complicit in undermining the authority of the Word of God and the One who gave it to us.
Yep, they are against abuse. They don’t get why it might be a problem.
They have a section to claim that complementarians do not abuse and are against abuse. I will beg to differ. I am on the receiving end of call after call from women who have been abused. Their complementarian husbands claim it is their fault because they do not submit. The Köstenbergers have inadvertently set up a paradigm to make abuse more likely.
- Women are contrarians when it comes to their husband and are responsible for relational struggles within the marriage.
- The man is supposed to rule over his wife since she is causing trouble.
- If a man does not control his wife, he is looked at as weak by some complementarian churches.
Tell me why this might not lead to abuse in some circumstances. It is this paradigm that urges men like the guy in South Carolina to sidetrack women. These assumptions sound nice but they are not working.
Summary:
It appears to me that the New Calvinist crowd is digging in their heels when it comes to attempting to strictly define gender roles based on a peculiar reading of Scripture. There is a reason that The Gospel Coalition featured this article. If the Köstenbergers have their way, women will be relegated to the women’s balcony while the men continue to *discover* more and more things that women cannot do. It’s articles like this that overstate gender roles as a gospel issue that will eventually lead to fewer people listening to such nonsense.
1 – Batta BOOM
“The Women’s Balcony” is an excellent film.
This is an excellent post as well.
Attempts to force a believer’s role in the Body of Christ into a prescribed model based on gender is to abort the plan of God for that individual. There are to be no distinctions in race, class or gender… we are all one in Christ. To restrict the flow of spiritual gifts He bestows upon us, regardless of gender, is to hinder the plan of God for His Church. Aberration of faith in this regard is just another reason the church is in such a mess and so far off-track in fulfilling the Great Commission assigned to us. When we separate the Body into “him” and “her” we fail to equip the saints of God – all of them – to do the work of the ministry together.
Can you recommend a book to read to help me articulate better why I don’t agree with complimentarism? Or a book that dissects the two side complimentarism and egalitarian. Here is what irks me. We have woman judges in our judicial system yet still some churches hold this complimentarism view! Also the curse was also for men to have to work the soil weeds etc well, we’ll and behold hardly any men are in the fields anymore fighting the weeds and for those that are we have herbicides tractors etc. so if man over came the curse why haven’t we as women been able to be viewed we also overcame it??? It’s all so messed up in the churches
Ann,
I recommend Craig Keener’s “Paul, Women, and Wives” the most.
“Christ purchased our freedom and redeemed us from the curse of the Law” (Galatians 3:13)
Hyper-complementarian belief and practice puts female believers back under bondage to the curse … you have been set free in Christ.
Paul and Gender by Cynthia Long Westfield. Excellent read so far.
Ann,
“Good News for Women” by Rebecca Groothuis. It’s been several years since I’ve read it, so don’t remember all the details. But I remember it resonating very clearly with finally clearing up all those things that seemed “off” in the complementarian/patriarchal churches I grew up in.
Just a reminder: Complementarianism does nothing for the slightly over 50 percent of adult American women (other countries, your mileage may vary) who are either never married, divorced or widowed. Why yes, for the last decade or so, more adult women in the USA are in the state of “not married” than “married.”
When you make complementarianism your gospel, those of us who are adults and who are not married pretty much get that you’re counting us out. I’m not sorry about that, because of the oppressive nature of the complementarian “gospel” to women.
I wish someone would confront these men with the fact that demographics is dead-set against them and see what they say. Oh, and by the way, “get married” is not the appropriate response. Some of us don’t want to be married, some of us aren’t ready to be married, some of us have been there and done that, and some of us…well, there are as many reasons as women. One thing is for sure, the gospel of complementarianism is founded upon something that Jesus said nothing about.
In Australia, the founding director of GenevaPush (outfit endorsed by Mark Dever) Andrew Heard is in the news for his stark complementarianist gender dogma:
https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5868469/go-and-make-babies-pastors-message-to-married-women-raises-hackles/
“[Andrew Heard] told church women they should ‘turn off the lights and do what you’ve got to do.. whether you want kids or not'”
https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/profile/andrew-heard/
“Andrew Heard…the founding President of a new association of churches called the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, and…a founding director of Geneva Push”
GenevaPush is an official partner of TGCA (The Gospel Coalition Australia):
https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/about/gospel-partnerships-across-australia/
https://vimeo.com/genevapush
“Geneva Push is an Australian network dedicated to inspiring, equipping and unleashing church planters.”
My parents were missionaries and told me growing up of the single women who led churches on the mission field but couldn’t talk from the pulpit in good ole US of A. Perhaps we’re full circle on that, or never left it behind.
“for “el” to mean “contrary to” the woman’s “desire” must be negative. One has to wonder if the ESV’s translation is not an ironic manifestation of the dominance of the man over the woman”
I believe that is exactly what it is. I see this current movement for male superiority in the name of God as insubordinate stubbornness in the face of God, refusing to accept their equality with their sisters in Christ. I would not be surprised at all if it brings the judgment of God down. Maybe he is getting sick of watching women be abused and oppressed.
Well, THAT problem has long been solved: they should be under the guardianship of a male relative: an adult son, brother, cousin, father.
In some countries, they don’t see that as a problem, and their religion has given them an answer to the “problem”. I’m sure Köstenberger and his ilk will see the light and come to the right conclusion. Any difficulties should be easily resolved by inviting a Saudi cleric
😉
Max,
Discovering Biblical Equality, edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, with many contributors of chapters.
Beyond Sex Roles, by Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian
Websites with many good articles:
Christians for Biblical Equality, https://www.cbeinternational.org/
>This website also has a store with many other books.
Margaret Mowczko’s website: https://margmowczko.com/
TGC is strongly against female missionaries, too. When they took over the IMB, they made nearly all women “support staff”.
Many women on the field were recalled in their firings because of a so-called unbalanced budget, but the North American Mission Board suddenly was starting huge programs to “revitalize” churches. “Revitalizing” is just New Calvinist for Calvinizing.
It is my suspicion, and I know some others here, that the budget shortage was a flat out lie. It was merely to fire anyone who didn’t call into the New Calvinism line, and that means any woman in charge. They moved that money to NAMB for their church takeovers. The SBC did not vote on this and were not made aware of it until after it happened.
Max, I am interested in your definitions, where do you draw the line on complementarianism and hyper complementarianism ? And what are the beliefs that push someone from regular C to a hyper C ?
I hate to think what my life would be without female professionals. A few of them have been my doctors and surgeons. I worked outside the home for many years, then went to part time due to health reasons. It wasn’t a problem. By the way Dee, my son took the same trip you did last fall. He has some great pics. Brought me back 3 gorgeous scarves from Israel and 1 blue one that sort of looks like a prayer cloth, etc. I love them.
Women, men, equal. Check your constitution. While this is still a work in progress, the principles are already in place.
Irony is the constitution was created with some classic Christian ideas like love thy neighbor & treating others how you would want to be treated.
Every time these individuals from the Gospel Coalition et al use the phrase “Gospel issue” I want to scream and vomit.
They seriously don’t get it.
Ann,
Ann, Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian,Professor Emeritus,Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL challenges each erroneously interpreted scripture regarding male/female roles in a very succinct post here:
https://godswordtowomen.org/bilezikian.htm
A Challenge for Proponents of Female Subordination
To Prove Their Case from The Bible.
Ann,
Wade Burleson addresses these issues in his books “Fraudulent Authority” and “Radically New”. You can also search his blog for key words such as “Authoritarianism” or “Complementarianism” to get some articles. I refer to Wade because of his exacting standards and methodology of Biblical interpretation. He doesn’t cut any theological corners.
It’s caused me to notice that Christians often redefine words to suit their theology without explaining what they mean. And separate “true Christians” from those not approved.
It’s purely a political practice on TGC’s part. By making everything a “gospel issue”, they want to imply it’s inarguable. Of course, “gospel” means Calvinism in their definition (a la Spurgeon), but it’s simply the new version of “It’s Biblical” to end an argument.
Oh No! wouldn’t that be terrible 😉
Yet another thing I never noticed in the Bible, and a refreshing interpretation:
Adam had been instructed about the prohibition relative to the tree directly from God while Eve was not yet in existence. For this reason, of the two, she was the one less prepared to face the tempter. He was present during the temptation episode but he remained silent (Gen. 3:6). Despite this disadvantage, she boldly engaged the tempter and she became deceived. This illustration from the Genesis temptation story has nothing to do with assigning all women of all times a subordinate status in church life. It was cited in this epistle to make the point that untaught and unqualified individuals should not aspire to teaching functions or to positions of leadership. They should first become quiet learners (1 Tim. 2: 11-12).
From the article…this is not really helpful.
I was born and raised in complementarianism and it hurt so bad my whole childhood. I felt degraded and demeaned. I definitely felt hated and unloved by god. My father said this crap about women every day of my little girlhood and it was so gross, mean, and extremely painful. I would have rather never have a father.
It was growing up comp that made me a pro-choice atheist. To me, complementarians are the biggest signs that Christianity was made up by insecure, sexually abusive, selfish, unattractive MEN.
Complementarian is so degrading; no God that promotes comp could ever love a woman or a little girl. If my pervert parents had loved me thay would have never raised me comp or wanted me to marry a comp man. Complementarian is degrading, oppressive, abusive misogynistic, and is female slavery. And that is actually what comp men want; a trapped female that cannot tell them no and has to feed their feeble juvenile egos.
All over the world, we see men selling, raping, kidnapping, enslaving, and pimping girls and women. Comp men belong in this category. They too do not want women to have the right to tell them (((NO))). Or, to have a safe free life without men owning them. Growing up comp my biggest dream was to one day be free of men and have the right to tell any man no.
Because of complementarian, I will never believe in the Christian god. If the Christian god is real I would rather go to hell than worship such a misogynistic, heartless, hateful, male worshiping pimp.
I would like to ask everyone here to think and care about how much this perverted misogyny hurts little girls. I was being repeatedly raped as a little girl and having this sewage on top of sexual abuse amplified my unbearable toxic putrid pain. Because of Christianity’s misogyny, I did not breathe growing up, my stomach always hurt, my shoulders were always scrunched. There are no words to convey how much complementarian hurts and reaffirms the gross feelings a little girl who is being sexually used feels. But, comps are so selfish, misogynistic, and perverted they do not care at all how much this evil slop hurts raped little girls. One comp man takes precedent over all raped little girls in comp land.
As someone who grew up in comp I will always have comp men in the same group as the Taliban, ISIS, Areal Castro, and Phillip Garrido.
https://www.biography.com/people/phillip-garrido-20995807
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Castro_kidnappings
The article claims comp is again abuse, and all they have is one or two CYA statements put out literally last year when they got called on it? Not impressive.
They didn’t even attempt to engage with all the errant teaching that has come out over the years. Ignoring evidence and saying ‘other people abuse women too’ does not help their case.
I think being single for an extended period of time and/or childless, helps women see how limited and ridiculous this entire ‘gospel’ really is.
Y’all need to call me for about 5 minutes so I explain what a ‘Reformed Baptist’ is, because anybody “in the know” clicking this and hearing about TGC is gonna instantly assume you don’t know what you’re talking about and your other details might be off, too.
JD,
ROFL. Whenever I write about this subject, I hear from Reformed folks who claim that Baptists can’t be Reformed. Then, I hear from other Reformed Baptists who disagree what constitutes Reformed Baptist. I prefer the catchall term of Calvinista but sometimes I try to define people on their terms. I give up. You all can argue about it. I. the meantime, I am now a Lutheran and this sort of nonsense doesn’t occur.
drstevej,
Back in the lead in 2019!
Just a brief point about the Scott McKnight piece in which he quotes Matt Lynch’s exposition of’el and tesuqa. The enhanced Briggs Driver shows that tesuqa can have a negative meaning which then makes 3:16 and 4:7 can have equivalence.
“TWOT Number 2352a
9592 תְּשׁוּקָה (tešû·qā(h)): n.fem.; ≡ Str 8669; TWOT 2352a—LN 25.12–25.32 desire, urges, longing, i.e., a very strong emotion or feeling to have or do something (Ge 3:16; 4:7; SS 7:11[EB 10]+), note: this strong desire may refer to sexual urges or desires, or a desire to dominate, or just be independent of the man, other references may also be possible”
Hyper = bondage. There are expressions of faith (e.g., some pentecostal groups) which stand out in their bondage of female believers: don’t talk, don’t wear pants, don’t put on makeup, long hair only (in a bun preferably), submit when I say jump, etc. Complementarianism within New Calvinism is softer – they still put women under the thumb and rule of men, but with a smile. Whether “hyper” or “soft”, church leaders have to distort Scripture to defend their belief and practice in this regard, IMHO.
I’m guessing there is no room in “complementarian” churches for someone who doesn’t take Genesis 2-3 literally.
Southern Baptists – the new champions of complementarianism in the American church – don’t want you to know the whole truth about foreign missionary Lottie Moon … she was a dynamic preacher and evangelist in China! Nor would they want you to study the ministries of other extraordinary women who gave their lives on foreign fields, teaching and preaching the Gospel: Ann Judson, Adele Fielde, Mary Slessor, Amy Carmichael, Gladys Aylward. These women, and many more, could preach “over there”, but asked to only give short testimonies about their ministries when they returned on furlough to the “good ole US of A.” Foreign fields were blessed to have them preach, the American church was not.
I don’t know your thoughts about the ordination of women and don’t want to make assumptions. (My views: Each tradition has a right to make up its own mind, but folks would be wise to stick with established reasons instead of crafting novel arguments. I have benefited from the preaching and pastoral care of women clergy.)
Women have been always been ordained, somewhere, in some fashion. In the US, women’s ordination began to go mainstream in the 1970s, yet some groups treat the idea like an unprecedented future threat. Women clergy are now found everywhere from conservative megas to the liberal mainline. Most women clergy quietly go about their work, but they have spoken on TV at our most recent presidential inauguration and presidential funeral. Why are complementarian groups trying so hard to narrow women’s horizons?
It’s clear that there are more flavors of “reformed” than Baskin Robbins ice cream (31, I think). They are all masters at twisting Scripture to make it fit their particular reformed tribe … they spend more time debating jots and tittles than they do preaching the Gospel.
As luck would have it, Founders had the foresight to clear this up for all of us: https://founders.org/2017/03/30/what-is-a-reformed-baptist/
There shouldn’t be room in the church for complementarians who don’t take the whole of Scripture literally. Cherry-picking passages to support a pet theology denies the whole counsel of God.
Another point often missed is Eve told the truth about what happened while Adam shifted blame.
I wish they would ask themselves that! A little introspection here would be good.
There are so many things to be concerned about in the world, it says a lot about them that this is what they choose. Nothing good either.
Max, thanks, the reason I ask is we ( the Sunday school class I teach), we are taking a slow walk through 1 Corinthians, I just introduced chapter 7 last week and the questions have already started to fly.
Allow me a couple of more questions;
Do you think Paul was ever married?
Do you think Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin?
Lastly, where do you personally fall in the comp. vs egalitarianism debate ( if you don’t want to answer the last, I understand).
Whew! Now there’s a cast of characters! Clear things up?! Heck no! SBC’s Founders Ministry have successfully muddied the water on Southern Baptist identity and paved the way for the New Calvinists who have waded out further into a turbid stream of mis-truth and half-truth.
Theologically, the distinction comes in on the belief of where the “ruling over” starts.
Most comps will say it’s not a ruling over situation, just different roles.
New Cals claim the curse where they mistranslate Gen. 3:16 was God’s plan from the beginning. Women are contrary, so they need ruling over by men. I do know some New Cals who believe women can’t be saved on their own, but only by the election of a “male head”, in a corporate salvation sense. Some charismatics have a similar view.
For example, Bryce Ware says women are not made in the image of God, only men. He fails to imply an outcome of that, so some New Cals have taken it to mean women are not included in the promises of God.
So hyper-comp tends to have a much worse view of women as basically slaves.
“The Full Rights of Sons”
by Kathryn E. Stegall
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18382131-the-full-rights-of-sons
I am “complementarian” in this regard: I have spiritual gifts. My wife has spiritual gifts. Our gifts complement each other as we walk out our faith together … that has worked for us for nearly 50 years.
I am “egalitarian” in this regard: All believers are equal before God, regardless of race, class or gender. As Christians, we have equal rights and opportunities in the Body of Christ.
I don’t really like labels of this sort and only raise my voice when I see another believer oppressed or abused. I recognize that there are extreme views and liberties taken in both camps. I simply prefer to give every believer – male and female – the chance to be who they are in Christ, to exercise the unique spiritual gifts they have been given, and to walk freely in the church without bondage to religious rules and regulations which Christ freed them from. When we restrain any believer in fulfilling his/her destiny, we are all restrained from joining God in what He is trying to do through us.
I plead the Fifth Amendment. 🙂
(Matthew Henry provides a good commentary for 1 Corinthians 7)
Their translations are biased, their exegesis is flawed, and their hermeneutics are terrible. For them to say it is a “gospel issue”, and to preserve power structures in the church, home, and society according to gender, completely misses how subversive Jesus was in his day and what the “good news” meant to the original hearers in Jesus’ time. You can’t play nice with the comp tribe anymore because they desperately want to oppress half the population and call it gospel.
Skimmed the Köstenberger article discussed in the OP. That is a lot of verbiage to go through to assert that a woman’s place is in the home. They value some cosmic scheme of fulfilling gender roles over the liberating freedom of being mutually submissive to one another in Christ.
Yes, Bruce Ware has taught that women are a mere “derivative” of the image of God:
“It may be best to understand the original creation of male and female as one in which the male was made in the image of God in a direct, unmediated and unilateral fashion, while the female was made image of God through the man and hence in a indirect, mediated and derivative fashion.” – Bruce Ware
While the Bible teaches:
“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)
dee,
Really? The following is taken from the Lutherans in the USA website.
“There are three main bodies of the Lutheran Church in the United States. These bodies are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).
Likewise, there are many other smaller Lutheran bodies in the United States. The better known of these smaller bodies are The American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC), Church of the Lutheran Confession (CLC), Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS) and the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations (AFLC).
–The ELCA–
Prior to 1988, the ELCA did not exist. The ELCA is now the largest Lutheran body in the USA with about 5 million members. The ELCA is a product of the merger of the Lutheran Church in America (LCA) and the American Lutheran Church (ALC) and the Association of American Lutheran Churches which broke off from the Missouri Synod.
The ELCA ordains women and believes scripture to be historical and not always literally. Also, there is no set opinion of if when taking Holy Communion it is actually the Body and Blood of Christ, it is up to ones opinion when taking it.
Website: http://www.elca.org
–The LCMS–
The second largest Lutheran Church body is The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and has about 2.6 million members. Originally, this church was named “The German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and Other States.”
The LCMS does not ordain women, but they do allow women to serve as officers in the church. Also, the church believes it is the true body and blood of Christ at Communion. The church also takes the Holy Scriptures as literal.
Website: http://www.lcms.org
–The WELS–
The third largest Lutheran body is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, with about 400,000 members. The WELS is the most conservative of the three major Lutheran churches in the United States.
The WELS does not ordain women and does not allow women to office. They take the Holy Scriptures to be totally true. The WELS also does not consider members of the ELCA and of the LCMS to be ‘legitimate’ Lutherans.
Website: http://www.wels.net
–Other Lutheran Church Bodies–
The other Lutheran churches are Association of Free Lutheran Congregations (AFLC), The American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC), Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS) and the Church of the Lutheran Confession (CLC).
The Association of Free Lutheran Congregations (AFLC) was formed in 1962 and is the fourth largest of all the American Lutheran bodies. The churches that formed the AFLC were members of the Lutheran Free Church who did not wish to join the the American Lutheran Church (ALC). The AFLC has more than 230 congregations currently.
Website: http://www.aflc.org/
The AALC were formerly churches of the American Lutheran Church (ALC) and formed in 1987 due to the ELCA merger. These churches did not want to join the ELCA. AALC Lutherans believe:
The full authority of the Bible as the inerrant and infallible Word of God;
The Lutheran Confessions as a true interpretation of Scripture;
A purpose focused on the Great Commission with priority for Evangelism and World Missions;
The authority of the local congregation as the basic unit of the church.
Website: http://www.taalc.org/
The ELS is another smaller Lutheran body and is very conservative. This church has about 21,000 members and was originally known as the “Norweigan Synod”. The ELS is in full fellowship with the WELS. Website: http://www.evangelicallutheransynod.org/
The CLC was formed in 1963 due to the break-up of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America due to disagreements of principles. The CLC was created primarily from the WELS and Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS). The CLC teaches that the Bible is the only authoritative source for doctrine. It subscribes to the Lutheran Confessions as an accurate presentation of what Scripture teaches. Website: http://clclutheran.org/”
But…but…but if a woman’s place is in the home, isn’t Mrs Kostenberger sinning by working? And teaching men too presumably..tut tut.
I was raised Anglican (Episcopal in the U.S.). Our minister’s wife was also a minister with her own congregation (not a sub pastor to her husband). I have absolutely no issue seeing women ordained and personally I believe full equality in church – whichever one you follow – is a good thing.
How can a faith be balanced when 52% of the congregation is on the underside of the power differential?
Even in Saudi Arabia it’s changing and though it’s like turning the Titanic with a spoon, it’s changing here too.
I firmly believe that there will be a grassroots revolution of women who have had enough. Conservative and liberal or whatever. This isn’t a “feminist” thing, it’s a human thing.
Benn, if you are a Southern Baptist, you are most likely using LifeWay Sunday School literature. Beware! LifeWay materials introduce students to reformed theology. It’s subtle, but it’s there. As a teacher, you would do well to simply glance at the Bible passage to be covered, but don’t read the commentary … as you prepare for the class, get alone with your Bible as you study those verses and pray that the Holy Spirit would teach you Truth … be influenced by the Spirit, not the words of mere men. I was a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher for 40+ years. I never read the lesson material in the SS teacher guides (it just seemed too shallow), but I was always prepared to lead the discussion.
And everybody shouted AMEN! (or should have0
Gus,
Hugely funny Gus!
And yet not so funny.
Woe is me!
I’ve just learned that Mr Kostenberger had one book temporarily removed from bookshelves because of his plagiarism. (His commentary on John’s Gospel.(Baker Academic). Baker allowed him to rewrite it. However, having quoted it in a Zondervan publication, they pulled their book, removed the e-book and destroyed the stock and commissioned another author. Which is all very well except that both books are quoted in a third Kostenberger book – A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters – (which I have just bought) which hasn’t been pulled. Who can you trust? I’d take what he says with a pinch of salt.
Exactly, they wanna’ make it a non-negotiable, like say the tenets of The Apostle’s Creed.
“They pulled” = “Zondervan pulled”
The Devil must be very pleased with those who say half the population can’t teach or preach the Word of God.
There are two creation stories in the opening chapter of Genesis, and the one that mentions being created in the image of God is not the one with a separate creation for man and woman.
Katharine Bushnell provides an excellent piece of evidence that shows the origin of the word “desire” as opposed to the (correct) word “turning” in her book “God’s Word to Women.”
The time chart can be viewed best in pdf format here:
http://godswordtowomen.org/teshuqa_chart.pdf
My reading of scripture does say a wife submit to her husband. The one who is supposed to be willing to die for her. It does NOT say to submit to men in general. Whatever submission means….it does NOT mean a random guy with an attitude can tell elected public servants that they are in the wrong.
You’re correct. That doesn’t matter to them. These are people that intentionally mistranslated the Bible to support their theology.
Anything that doesn’t fit, they just ignore. That includes most of the gospels.
It takes nothing away from your post to point out that whoever suggested to you that John the Baptist ate carob pods or seeds instead of insects was spinning a tale, probably trying to make the Baptist’s diet appeal to your Western palate. In fact, the Greek word in Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6 referring to John the Baptist’s diet is transliterated “akris,” which is, in fact, the insect that English speakers call “locust.” The insect called locust is eaten in many regions around the world where they are available in abundance, including Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Evidently they are a good source of protein as well as being rich in fatty acids and minerals. Sometimes locusts are eaten raw, but often they are roasted and even seasoned (when possible) with butter, salt, or other herbs or spices. I have heard from those who know about trees that it is most likely the locust tree is so named because its pods kind of look like the insect.
Take a look at the Greek interlinear of Ephesians 5:21-22 and see if you notice anything missing in the Greek:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage/?q=ephesians+5+&t=kjv
Ok, this is going to be a kind of long comment, the contents of which would get me kicked out of most evangelical churches. Many people on here may disagree and that’s perfectly fine. I’ve just been thinking a lot about this.
I think the problem here stems from a very literal reading of Genesis. The basic storyline from this reading is: God gives command, man and woman disobey (woman disobeyed more in some traditions), God punishes man and woman with a cure that they are supposed to continue to enforce upon each other. This is where it gets weird, because if we are supposed to continue to enforce women being under the dominion of men, should we also still enforce women’s pain in childbirth. There are some radical sects that prohibit epidurals during labor. This is not a widespread practice, but it seems like a reading consistent with also enforcing male dominance in marriage.
I have been learning a more symbolic reading of Genesis over the past year. Many of the church fathers (Athanasius, Irenaeus, Origen) read the Bible this way, and I have been learning it from modern folks like Jonathan Pageau, Paul VanderKlay, Richard Rohr, and Brad Jersak. In this reading, humans develop consciousness and realize that they are now vulnerable to injury and death. My personal reading of the “knowledge of good and evil” is that people began to divorce their work from its inherent meaning and began to pursue it for the power and influence they could gain from it. Take three jobs: turkey farmer, musician, President of the United States (I’ve done two of these jobs). You can pursue these jobs for the inherent meaning that they have, or you can pursue them for their own inherent meaning. The second way is the path to meaning (God). Anyway, after people realized they were vulnerable, the “curse” is really a description of how reality will look in light of this knowledge.
Human history before around 1900 has been incredibly brutal to all but the most high-status men. Women, without reliable birth control, could get pregnant at any time, and it was a coin flip as to whether they would survive, to say nothing of their child. This left them completely enslaved to men. The vast majority of men either fought and died in the military or engaged in backbreaking labor to support their families by farming with out machines, mining, or eventually working in incredibly dangerous factories. They lived their lives in pain and suffering and often died horrible deaths and young ages. Only kings and nobles were exempt from this sort of absolutely crushing mode of being. We loose sight of this because all of our histories are written by and about high status men, so we don’t really consider the fact that the vast majority of humans who ever existed didn’t live this way.
In light of these facts, the “curses” of Genesis 3:16-19 can be understood as a description of how life will be in premodern society. Women’s lives in premodern society were marked by pain in childbearing and domination by their husbands. Men’s lives were marked by backbreaking labor to provide just enough for their families to get through the next day. This is the curse of consciousness. Once you understand that you have a future and you could die, you have to sacrifice in the present to try to keep your family alive. I believe these verses are describing this reality, a reality that humans are beginning to overcome. When Jesus talks about “greater miracles than these. . .” I wonder if the advances of modern medicine is part of what he was talking about.
It’s funny how selectively these verses are applied in the “literalist” context. These complementarians are ok with epidurals (mostly) and don’t require every man to be a farmer (they read that as a metaphor), but man’s dominance over woman can be nothing other than a DIRECT COMMAND FROM GAWD. They are being too clever by half, and their inconsistency points to their bias. I have found great freedom in a symbolic reading of these texts, and I think others could find the same.
Also missing is a command ANYWHERE in scripture given to a man or husband to have authority over a woman or wife. It’s found nowhere!!
The Puritans did.
Relieving pain in childbirth (like many midwife/herbalists) was WITCHCRAFT.
This attitude lingered as a folk belief in England clear up to Queen Victoria, who set an example by having painkillers administered during her labor. If the Queen and Head of the Church of England could…
Which is what I was just intending. AMEN!
AKA “More Male-Supremacist Than Thou!” One-Upmanship?
Gospel being “Who Keeps Wimmen MORE Barefoot, Pregnant, and with My Boot on Their Necks, GAWD SAITH!”?
The Race to the Bottom has officially begun.
Two words: QUEEN BEE.
Rank Hath Its Privileges.
Dee, just curious, the JD listed above looks vaguely like JD Hall of pulpit and pen..
Saudi Clerics are compromising the Koran by being too soft on gender role restrictions.
Try Taliban or Boko Haram Mullahs.
Or the Caliph of ISIS.
More Islamic than those More Islamic Than Mohammed.
Worse than that.
If they’re “not made in the image of God”, that makes them ANIMALS, not people.
Beasts of the Field (with Benefits — nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean…)
Headless Unicorn Guy,
This whole line of dogma gets Real Sicko Real Fast.
I think those are amazing, thoughtful and helpful possibilities, and similar to what my ‘uneducated’ interpretations were in my youth. Until my betters taught me what scripture really meant. 😉 I’m reverting to my childhood faith.
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her” … don’t quote twisted Scriptures to her! “Wash her in the water of the Word” … not your interpretation of it!
Well, actually… 😉
You’re allowed to do anything you want so long as your husband ‘coauthors’ (wink/wink) it….[interesting that said husband has been accused of plagiarism? Also, interesting to see his bio refer to his ‘wife’ and kids, and his wife’s bio refer to ‘her husband Andrew(?) and kids’.]
Single ladies left in the dust. No ‘head’ to give us these little allowances…
Secular people also make the same mistake as complementarians do in that quote: that unmarried people have lots of free time, no obligations, so they get exploited.
It is assumed that all single people have lots of free time to run around meeting the needs of other people.
Single workers aren’t there to pick up the slack for their married bosses and colleagues
https://qz.com/991030/your-single-coworkers-and-employees-arent-there-to-pick-up-the-slack-for-married-people/?utm_source=atlfb
“NOWHERE DO WE CORRUPT SO EFFECTIVELY AS AT THE VERY FOOT OF THE ENEMY’S ALTAR!”
— Screwtape
That is something I’ve been saying for ages.
Other than repeating that women should not be preachers, complementarians only acknowledge married women who have children.
They don’t have a clue what to do with or about women who are divorced, never married, or widowed, and/or child free or childless.
Most complementarians do not realize that the demographics in the U.S. have changed in the last several years, so now there are single adults than married couples, but for the ones who have noticed it:
They respond not by supporting and respecting singleness, but by shaming singles and singleness. They scream and throw tantrums in their blog posts and podcasts (see Al Mohler as one example) that singleness is second-rate to marriage.
They shame singles for being single.
They assume all single adults are deliberately choosing to stay single (which is not the case for many women).
They complain about a corresponding decline in natalism – they really pressure women to have children to create a larger tax based, to (direct quote from some of them) to “out breed” their “opponents.”
The Bible itself is not so nearly preoccupied with natalism or marriage.
Jesus of Nazareth never married, never had children, and the apostle Paul wrote it is better not to marry (1 Corinthians 7).
But complementarianism is really for and about married people who have children. They have little to say for and about people who don’t fit that niche, except for the ones who shame anyone who falls outside it.
“BUT EVERYBODY’S DOING IT!”
(I had that line used on me some 30+ years ago by a same-sex sexual predator trying to high-pressure his way into my pants. I didn’t fall for it then, and I don’t fall for it now.)
And since women normally live longer than men, they’re going to face being single even if they marry.
(Unless they end up in an Elsie Dinsmore marriage to a man much older than themselves. Hmmmm…. Feature, not Bug?)
Lifeway resources, not a chance.
I do my own exegesis. I am just starting to learn Greek, I think using interlinear sources is suspect, akin to learning a foreign language on a phone app.
I take James 3:1 extremely serious, ( one modern translation says basically do everything you can to persuade anyone from becoming a teacher, since they will face a must greater judgment).
As far as being in SBC, not much choice left. Can’t go IFB, too many of them are out there.
Can’t go with baptizing infants, ( seen too many folk people meet Jesus long after they were dunked as a child
i.e. Breeders.
Fits right in with Quiverfull.
And the herd bull’s instinct to spread his seed/DNA to as many descendants as possible.
I tweeted Dee a link to that story about Lefemine about a week ago.
Do guys like Lefemine assume that all women are married to a bread winner?
He’s saying that women should not, in his opinion, work in political office (does he extend this to other outside the home jobs too)?
How are women who are widowed, divorced, or never married, supposed to support themselves? They don’t have husbands to financially rely upon.
Even in many relationships I’ve seen first hand, the woman is the one who has a job outside the home and pays all the bills while her live-in boyfriend or her husband stays at home all day watching television.
Even in a lot of marriages in the last decade or two, one salary is not enough, so that both people in the marriage have to have a job outside the home to cover the bills.
Complementarians need to recognize we’re not living in 1950s “June and Ward Cleaver” times any more, and that their weirdo brand of gender theology is not universally true, nor is it workable or practical, for every person.
The comps that go outside the “man= head of household and women should not preach” have gone way outside of the Bible’s parameters.
The Bible actually has examples,of women, with God’s approval, leading men, women working outside the home, etc.
The Bible has examples that contradict the complementarian interpretation of “male headship” and “I forbid a woman to preach” passages.
The Bible simply does not teach that God is against women working outside the home, or women being single and childless. -That’s all cultural preferences held by some people, and they badly want to say it’s “biblical” and “God’s design.”
Fantastic post, Dee.
I’d agree with the Köstenbergers that the gospel is at stake.
However, it is their complementarianism – a man-made grid imposed on the Bible – that perverts the gospel.
After all, if all women are doing continual penance for Eve, then hey, who needs the cross of Christ?
If wives depend on their husband’s spiritual authority, then hey, no need for Jesus to be wives’ only mediator!
Also, if there is something mysteriously defective about women – so that they must not share spiritual authority with their husbands and male pastors – then why on earth would women’s voices carry any weight whatsoever when they come forward with accounts of pastors and husbands abusing them?
Meanwhile, I’ve noticed that complementarians tend to get a whole lot more defensive about their man-made fave theological grid than they are bothered by the actual harm done to the bodies, minds and souls of women. Russell Moore, for example, says that egalitarians raising concern over abuse is just a “red herring.”
I’m reading these days about the work of Katharine Bushnell. Fascinating – she called out the heresy of “complementarianism” (long before it had that name) and completely nailed the awful theology and cultural dynamics of #ChurchToo a whole century ago.
Also not the case for a lot of men.
With me, it was extreme social awkwardness, kid genius isolation, the observation of proto-hookup culture all around me, and the fear of being taken by a gold digger — in short, a Matter of Trust. After all that, I could not overcome the distrust.
Only the incarnation of Priapus between hubby’s legs.
FEATURE, NOT BUG.
Like I said above, this Gospel(TM) gets Real Sicko Real Fast.
(Come to think of it, didn’t that Rabbi from Tarsus have something to say about “another Gospel than that we proclaimed to you”? None of it good?)
That still is not a solution.
I’m at an age now where my relatives have been dying off, many live in a different state from mine, none of them have an interest in looking out for me, etc.
Some women do not have male relatives. Some have abusive male family members and have to cut off all contact.
There is nothing in the Bible, certainly New Testament wise, that says all women have to have a “male covering” even if that means a male church elder or male church preacher.
If women followed those teachings, it would be easy for the males to exploit the females, and we already have enough of that in churches that don’t teach “male covership,” or whatever it’s called.
Complementarianism simply does not and cannot address every woman in every situation.
Complementarians badly need for all women to marry by age 25 and have ten kids apiece, married to a guy who has a career that pays enough money he can pay all bills on his salary alone.
Their theology doesn’t work under other circumstances.
Then you are on the right track as a Bible teacher. This is serious business … souls are at stake.
P.S.
That is a very Islamic type thing.
I recall in taking classes on anthropology back in the day, learning in some of our text books, that some Muslims teach that a woman has to be in company of a male relative at all times.
If she is walking in public to the market, she has to bring a brother with her, an uncle, etc.
Often times Christian complementarians teach very similar things about women as Muslims or Mormons do.
But complementarians have the audacity to turn around and also say that Christianity is Not like other religions, and thatChristianity or complementarianism are counter-cultural.
No, it’s not – not when they (complementarians) are copying the practices and theology of Islam or Mormonism, as they sometimes do.
I remember my OT prof in seminary gently telling comps, “You need room in your theology for Huldah.”
I also feel like saying to comps: “You need room in your theology for women who have been abused by it.”
I do think comp theology is wrong. But those comps who actually do take abuse very seriously – the Denhollanders, for example, are truly following Christ.
Benn,
I hope you consider Gordon Fee for your exegesis on 1 Cor. 7
Agree with everything you say there, just wanted to add that it reminded me of this post:
Control: The Reason The Gospel Coalition and CBMW Cannot Actually Condemn Spousal Abuse
http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/2016/01/control-reason-gospel-coalition-and.html
I could write entire volumes about all the things, all the problems you start noticing , with complementarian views as you get older and are still single and childless, but briefly, I’ll toss this one out:
All the sermons, or the attitude expressed in complementarian posts and articles, about how “being a wife and mother is a woman’s highest calling, being a wife and mother is God’s greatest calling and purpose for a woman.”
As a middle-aged woman who’s never married and never had kids, where does that leave me?
Or obviously, women who are in the same position, no spouse, no kids?
Some never married, childless men I’ve run into have told me they spot similar (or same) problems in Christianity or with complementarianism specifically – because a lot of comps assume all men are married fathers.
(Being a “good” or “godly” man, who is living out God’s purpose, is often associated by most Christians, and with complementarians particularly, with having a wife and being a dad.)
This is commonly called “deadbeat husband”, a specific type of “mooch-and-sucker show”.
The Rule 63 genderflip of a female gold-digger sleeping her way to riches by snagging a wealthy husband. And just as low-life a Parasite-and-Host “relationship”.
(Yes, Parasite and Host.)
I remember reading a couple years ago about successful single businesswomen having to take precautions against such male gold-diggers when seeking marriage (again, a genderflip role-reversal of previous times, when successful men had to guard against gold-diggers).
I wonder if another good distinction of what makes a Soft Comp Vs. Hyper one would be to point out that in Soft Comp marriages, the marriage is actually only nominally Comp but is Egalitarian in function.
That is, in such marriages, the husband and wife behave in an egalitarian fashion – the husband never pulls rank o the wife, doesn’t boss her around, the wife doesn’t act like a brain dead, docile doormat.
They operate as a team, but if you ask them what their religious beliefs are, they will say they totally agree with complementarianism, that the man is the “head” of the wife, etc, even though they don’t actually live those beliefs out.
I’ve even seen blog posts by self-identifying complementarians who say, or indicate, they are soft complementarian, and when they go on to explain what soft comp is for the reader, and how it is lived out, they add tons of qualifiers that nullifies the Male Headship Stuff they claim to believe in.
The self-professing soft complementarians I’ve seen sometimes end up basically describing an egalitarian marriage – they just slap the “complementarian” label on it.
Many times this is true.
Also, kids grow up eventually. If you get married young, pop out 4 kids and raise them you might be 40 with lots of time on your hands. Comp really says nothing to these people either, except mind your husband and house. How boring.
Are You Funding Persecution? The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering
https://tictocministries.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/are-you-funding-terrorism-the-lottie-moon-christmas-offering/
This reminds me of the pro-Complementarian guy who used to post here a lot over a year ago, who would quote extra-biblical resources to try to prove his comp arguments.
However, when I did the same thing – quoting extra-biblical resources when making a point – it was prohibited by him, because it’s supposedly a “liberal” practice, he said.
I told him that is not only a double standard, but it’s really funny because I’ve never been a liberal in any sphere (religious or otherwise).
Yep, sure do, I love his book how to read the Bible for all its worth ( terrible title).
I have it ( using it now along with other extra biblical info, to answer Grandmothers with their hair on fire about Andy Stanley comments about unhooking from the Old Testament ( old covenant)
I try to look at a lot scholarly writings from all different camps..
It’s interesting, I’ve been reading relationship stuff at reddit, and one girl talked about her ex made most of the money so he basically controlled everything in their lives related. So she determined to make more money, and dated a guy who made less, only to realize that he still wanted to control what *she* spent!
I really wish people spent more time educating everyone about what a healthy relationship looks like, and red flags to look out for, because there are so many things that can go wrong.
1 in every 200 humans is a descendant of Ghengis Khan
Jesus Christ had no children
Who has had a larger impact on the world, whose ideas are still known today? This outbreed our opponents stuff is sick and twisted. It really did a number on me when I was dealing with the fact that, due to the issues that lead to my daughter’s very premature birth, we would only have one biological child. I still battle the guilt of this decision from time to time.
Speaking of which-
The Handmaidens Conspiracy: How Erroneous Bible Translations Obscured the Women’s Empowerment Movement STARTED by JESUS CHRIST by D. L. Howell
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2018/06/01/%E2%80%A2-the-handmaidens-conspiracy-how-erroneous-bible-translations-obscured-the-womens-empowerment-movement-started-by-jesus-christ-by-d-l-howell/
Very good points.
Ann,
I just finished reading the second edition of Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothius, and with major contributions by Gordon D. Fee. It is a good strong work on the subject. A weakness is that it is a collection of essays, and I’ve never read an essay collection without some relatively weak parts. A really good pair of chapters near the end (but not in the final section) about why the supporting women in leadership is biblical but support for homosexuality is not biblical. (Though I think there is an unaddressed weakness in the argument if generallized, the weakness is not relevant to the biblical argument for the equality of women so it didn’t need to be addressed in this volume.)
True, but in some cases, the wife dies first, like in my parent’s marriage.
Which means (as I was saying at SSB like a week ago), my Dad has to do much of his own housework.
My Dad does not have a wife to nit-pick and order around in how, when, or if she completely washes sudsy soap bubbles off soapy glasses, as one complementarian article was saying husbands should do to their wives.
If my father wants his suds wiped off his glasses, he has to do it himself. His wife (my mother) passed away years ago.
Marriage is happening later in life for most, if at all. Which means a man may be single until his late 20s, or his 30s. Unless that man’s mother visits his apartment every day (if he is on his own), he will have to do his own laundry and clean his dirty dishes.
Complementarians are woefully out of step with how most Americans today are actually living their lives.
They want time to stop in 1951 – but time goes on, and culture changes.
“Handmaidens Conspiracy” or “HANDMAID’S TALE CONSPIRACY”?
Because these convenient/intentional mistranslations would easily justify The Handmaid’s Tale.
And (for a theology that’s also adamant on Young Earth Creationism), it’s as DARWINIST as you can get.
When Darwin wrote “Survival of the Fittest”, he was talking about Relative Reproductive Success Over Time; a group that outbreeds the others (for whatever reason) ends up with their genes dominating many generations down the road.
(Darwin also did not like the term “Evolution”, which had the baggage of Linear Upward Progress. He preferred the more neutral term “Descent, with Modifications” to describe such change over time, as this had no intrinsic directionality. The branching bush, not the single-file march which ended with the Victorians.)
I know I wasn’t taught “what a healthy relationship looks like”. Cannot go into details, but in retrospect there was something missing from my parents’ very Nifty Fifties marriage. And outside of that deliberate Ozzie & Harriet 1951 refuge was The Sexual Revolution free-for-all. Ended up with a “Whose Truth?” situation with two contradictory TRVTHs about everything to do with relationships.
Ricco,
I at least don’t disagree with you. I’ve been listening to Peterson and VenderKlay (and Pageau to a lesser extent) also. There is definitely something in there. I haven’t gotten as far as you, as I feel a need to integrate the symbolic / archetypal reading with a more fundamentalistic “God’s Word” understanding, and I don’t have it yet. But I’m confident that there are elements in both of those perspectives that are important and needed, while there are others in each that have the potential to cause problems.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Continuing from the above, I ended up presented with only two extreme alternatives for a girlfriend-turned-wife:
* The brain-dead docile doormat
* The sexually-active Liberated Woman who didn’t need a man except for (frequent) casual sex
Neither of those was attractive, and since then I’ve aged out of the marriageable age window.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
The phrase “survival of the fittest“, which was coined not by Darwin but by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, is widely misunderstood. It doesn’t mean having the most offspring, it means fitting the best into the environment
Headless Unicorn Guy,
I think that’s exactly where they want to go. Not just with women, but politically as well.
Brent Thompson,
I do’t think it is one person spinning a tale. I checked it out after I had learned of this translation. It apparently is a rather well known understanding. Even more amusing, I spoke with some 5th grade church kids last evening about my trip to Israel in passing. I brought this up. One of the kids actually ruined my punch line by saying that he learned John the Baptist might have eaten chocolate.
However, to each his own. I hardly think it is a *gospel* issue.
Daisy, I think there are some ( maybe a lot) people that try to twist scripture, spiritualize scripture to fix their interpretation of scripture, most all of us look for the translation that fits our personal comfort zone.
But I think the most challenging aspect of scripture ( not just trying win arguments), is separating exegesis, from hermeneutics.
Exegesis- what does the Bible say.
Hermeneutics- what does the Bible say for today
I have no use for people trying to weaponize scripture.
My first reaction to any passage that I am studying is – does this relate to me.
I look at scripture two ways: prescriptive vs descriptive.
Is God prescribing something for all people.
Or is he just describing an event that has nothing to do with me.
This is the rub in the comp. vs. egalitarianism debate going on today was Paul describing or prescribing for all time
1 Timothy 2:12
I am a 50/50 egalitarian with my wife, always have been, always will
But I have to be sure on the biblical side, so that’s why I am under taking to learn Greek, both sides have good arguments, so I want to learn Greek and I will accept where the actual text leads me.
Oh, I’m quite sure they are VERY aware of the demographics, and that that is a huge driver for what they are advocating. Some of the fringe literature of the movement explicitly stated that believers are called to “outbreed” the liberal heathen. So get married and get “busy”, ladies. /SARC
Lowlandseer,
Thank you for your informative comment. You did quote exactly. I’m not sure to what your “Really?” comment refers but let me assume that it is the part in which I say I’m out of this extreme complementarian discussion in my church.
Before I joined my church I had to accept the fact that women cannot be pastors in this denomination. However, as I spent 2 1/2 years observing how women were treated in this church before joining(I’m a hard sell), I was encouraged by the participation of women in the life of the church. Participation which is sadly lacking in most of the comp churches in my area which are dominated by SEBTS which is in it up to their eyeballs.
There are only two elders of the church which are the pastors. However, they recognize the DCE who is a woman and who is ordained but is not a pastor. The pastors listen to the leadership council which is made up of those who lead various ministries within the church as non ordained volunteers. This group includes women. I think this is a marvelous idea and believe that all Reformed churches should try it.
It is important for me to be in a church which takes the Bible seriously and this church does this. It offers me a well thought out practice of the church and has encouraged my faith as I have studied Lutheranism in books and have even take a course online at a Lutheran seminary. The young men in my class loved my participation. I regaled them with stories of weird evangelicalism.
My church has been supportive of me as I carry out my ministry which is this blog. They do not *endorse* it but instead pray for me and how God is moving in my life online. Also, the synod rose to my defense when I was maligned by an anonymous idiot posing as a Lutheran and writing letters calling for my excommunication. I am forever grateful and humbled.
Yes, they do view the Bible as literal which means things like creationism. However, I read very, very carefully online to see if one could be a member of this synod and not adhere to a young earth view. In fact, one can. I have found my church avoids being dogmatic on this view and one will find, amidst the members, varying points of view. Unlike my ridiculous SBC (Reformed) church which taught kids from K-12 grade 6 weeks of YEC each year while offering similar classes as adults, that does not happen in this church.
Our pastors know how to major on the majors and do so with kindness and care. As for their view on communion, I accepted this point of view after much study and consideration and am at peace with this. I have had fun explaining it to friends whose Bible study I have been in for almost 17 years. I can be persuasive at times. 🙂
I think a lot of people don’t know what a healthy relationship is. Long lived relationships are not always healthy. I know being in a good relationship made me zero in on so many things that were wrong with past ones it’s unreal.
Divorced adult men have also generally figured out cleaning/cooking on their own.
Not a good idea to eat those big grasshoppers raw.
They are known vectors for parasitic worm infestation.
Nor is it a good idea to get baptized by immersion in the Jordan river like they do at the tourist traps in Israel.
The risk factor for contracting something really nasty from water-borne pathogens is very high.
You’re in good company Ricco.
I’d get kicked out too.
They tell the little ones that in some churches so they won’t get grossed out about the locust thing and stop reading the Bible. It’s akin to lying to them about the wise men discovering baby Jesus in the manger, when they actually found him two years later living in a house … it just messes up the Christmas story to tell them the truth.
Regarding John the Baptist, if he’s going to wear a camel’s hair coat in the desert, he would have no trouble eating cicadas. As far as locusts and honey go, throw some peanut butter in there and it would make a great energy snack! I can see it on the shelves now!
… and another thing, if “locust” really means chocolate, then a great swarm of chocolate will be released upon earth when the Fifth Trumpet sounds in Revelation 9.
OK, I’ll stop now … sounds like you had a great trip to Israel, Dee!
Benn,
Great, truly excellent. I am going to be starting a home Bible study but I really feel I need to go over that book first. I love that book. Then we will pop in N.T. Wright and Michael Bird’s new DVD study on the historical backgroud of the New Testament. “The New Testament You Never Knew”
For your I Cor. study, also consider Fee’s NICNT commentary on 1 Cor. Very, very good.
Max, you rogue! You’ve gone and turned me into a biblical literalist!
Max,
Wow – that explains a lot!!
I’d always suspected that comps don’t really believe that women have been made in the image of God as much as men. That’s at the root of the problem.
That’s also why they protest so loudly that really, women are so so so SO equal in dignity and value!
Some comps do treat women that way, but it’s in spite of their theology, not because of it.
Oh, I definitely don’t “have it” yet either, but for me it has been a good path to be on. The other option was not be a Christian anymore. I’m not saying this needs to be true for everyone, but I couldn’t keep being a Christian if the only way was being a Calvinist Evangelical. I’m so thankful for YouTube!
Max,
Yum! A great swarm of chocolate!
I highly recommend that book. As I was reading it I was surprised by how much it agreed with Paul Young’s book “Eve” – until I looked at his acknowledgements and found her listed. Paul Young’s book is a bit like science fiction, but very good for an alternate way of interpreting the creation and fall of humanity.
In case you didn’t know, Bruce Ware is a “theologian” at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (ground-zero for New Calvinism). With teaching like this, is there any wonder why recent SBTS graduates are so messed up and radical?
… yes, and maybe a third:
“… what we egalitarian feminists have to offer in exchange is not so easily appealing. We’re saying hard things right: Discipline yourself, forego the immediate pleasure [liberalism]. Keep an eye on your power relationships [conservatism, complementarianism – terminology?]. Those are harder sells but in the long run — like not drinking too much and getting into a car or smoking cigarettes [or eating without nutrition] — it’s better. But it’s hard.” – Linda Hirshman, from the podcast/transcript of Slow Burn, Season 2, Episode 7, produced by Leon Neyfakh.
With themselves as God’s Elect Commanders of Gilead, of course.
Like the one neo-Nazi type I met during my time in college.
Very into Master Race theory —
Guess which category (Herrenvolk or Untermenschen) he put himself into?
Everytime I see the name “Bruce Ware”, I think “Bruce Wayne”…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jgE-lrfZ3k
Considering the cacao tree is native to Central America, that takes some doing…
What Am I Saying? They’ve already anticipated me:
“AND THEN A(NOTHER) MIRACLE HAPPENED…”
The helicopter gunships armed with chemical weapons and piloted by long-haired bearded hippies was weird enough….
Doesn’t the last chapter of the (last) Book of Revelation pronounce a terrible curse upon those who do that?
In an age (early Roman Empire) where Ancestry, Lineage, and Extended Family meant EVERYTHING, didn’t the early Church provide a Divine Ancestry, Lineage, and Extended Family for those rejects who had none?
Not if you keep her knocked up like a Duggar wife — “20 Kids and Counting” should consume 40+ years, using up her entire life expectancy when you factor in all that wear & tear.
Excellent resource. Thanks.
Benn,
“But I have to be sure on the biblical side, ”
++++++++++++++++
are you concerned it might be a sin to treat another human being as an equal?
Eli,
“I’d always suspected that comps don’t really believe that women have been made in the image of God as much as men. That’s at the root of the problem.
That’s also why they protest so loudly that really, women are so so so SO equal in dignity and value!”
++++++++++++++++
methinks they doth protest too much.
(i mean, how obvious can they possibly be?)
Guest,
Guest, I am grieved to hear that you were abused sexually and verbally as a child. I extend empathy for your painful past. I understand why you reject the god (little g) portrayed by your complimentarian father and others around you. You are in good company. I reject that god too. And yet despite the awful things you experienced in God’s name (when it wasn’t really God) and despite the abuses of men there is a creator of the universe who does not oppress but loves and sets people free. It’s OK if you can’t feel it or see it or even believe it yet. Just please keep coming back here and hanging around.
Yet, Jesus had no qualms about using female imagery to show people what God is like. See the Parable of the Lost Coin: woman with broom and oil lamp as exhibit 1.
Jack,
“How can a faith be balanced when 52% of the congregation is on the underside of the power differential?
Even in Saudi Arabia it’s changing and though it’s like turning the Titanic with a spoon, it’s changing here too.
I firmly believe that there will be a grassroots revolution of women who have had enough. Conservative and liberal or whatever. This isn’t a “feminist” thing, it’s a human thing.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
indeed. it’s in motion now. there’s not a chance this genie is going back in the bottle.
i’ve mentioned this a few times already, but it’s just so a propros:
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”.–Dr. Martin Luther King
what could possibly be just, right, and good about being restricted from participating in your own life? restricting others from participating in their own lives?
preposterous. (a preposterously mild descriptor itself)
using God to justify it. to get people to buy into it.
i’m not sure what strong word to use.
I’ll just leave this here:
http://www.bpnews.net/13580
“”When I first heard about the Holman Christian Standard Bible, I was not excited about it,” Mohler said. “I think in many ways there are too many translations, and having one more translation is not necessarily a great thing. [However,] the changes in the last several months have convinced me that in the end this is an important thing for Southern Baptists to do — if for no other reason than that we will have a major translation we can control.””
Lowland seer, take a look around you at the actual world, at all of recorded history, in every society on this sorry earth, and you will observe 2 consistent things:
1. Men lording it over women. Men controlling, owning, exploiting, abusing, pimping, raping, oppressing women.
2. Women, in spite of all of this – in spite of the pain, the danger, the heartbreak – loving, adoring, remaining loyal to, serving, desiring their men.
The obvious meaning of the passage is born out in the real world.
The attempt to change the meaning is just another example of men sinning against women.
Operative word being *control*
Wow.
Guest,
Guest, I have no words. I am so very appalled at and sorry for all you have suffered. My heart goes out to you. Your feelings about God are only natural. <3
dee,
Hello Dee
I must have misread you. I thought you meant the denomination was out of this type of discussion. Apologies.
I’m also glad that you’ve found such a supportive fellowship. Best wishes.
I have no problem with not reading it literally, but I just wanted to point out that, in reading the story literally, God only explains that this is how things would be from that point on. He never gave anyone the job of enforcing it.
A correction – I had linked this response incorrectly to Max’s comment.
Ann,
Discovering Biblical Equality, edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, with many contributors of chapters.
Beyond Sex Roles, by Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian
Websites with many good articles:
Christians for Biblical Equality, https://www.cbeinternational.org/
>This website also has a store with many other books.
Margaret Mowczko’s website: https://margmowczko.com/
That’s pretty blatant. But he wasn’t as blatant as he could have been …
“in the end this is an important thing for [Lifeway] to do — if for no other reason than that [I] will have a major translation [I] can control.”
Link? Where did you get this?
I have before me Enhanced BDB. It does not say that.
“Control” being the key word. Mohler is all about control. He is firmly in control of most SBC entities … he controls the trend toward Calvinism … so why wouldn’t he want to control what Bible translation Southern Baptists use. And the pew (the majority are non-Calvinist) still don’t have a clue as they finance the takeover of their denomination by the New Calvinists.
Ricco,
Just to piggyback on your excellent comment if you are still reading this thread. many scholars believe the Torah was “written” down during or after the Babylonian captivity. I have come to view Genesis, especially, as a Creation narrative juxtaposed against other Pagan barbaric creation narratives. There is an overarching theme of a good One True God of creation, His intention, free will, consequences and God’s provision for our rescue. Sadly, many read the consequences as commands but that makes sense within their determinist paradigm/filter.
Who “wrote” Torah? Most say Moses but one has to wonder about Numbers 12:3. The story scribes threw that in, I suppose? And the last few verses of Deuteronomy. Lol. For some reason we tend to start backwards when it comes to scripture historical context and subsequent interpretation. Then, if we don’t subscribe, we are accused of all sorts of horrors concerning our beliefs. It’s one reason I have come to view religious institutions as groupthink no matter how cool and open they think they are. The are usually more about indoctrination into their particular bent.
I do think Dr. Peterson gave an excellent overview of Christianity for someone outside the institutions who is coming from a non theological background. Refreshing! I was surprised as it’s very similar to mine. What is hilarious about the discussion between the two, is the Jewish Shapiro, had the Calvinist view of Christianity. Lol.
Endorsing LifeWay’s new Holman Christian Standard Bible might get Mohler in a squeeze with Crossway Publishing. Crossway supplies ‘the’ sword used by New Calvinists (the ESV Bible) and is the leading publishing house for all-things Calvinist. Perhaps he is supporting production of the new HCSB because he envisions a personal ability to influence how select passages are interpreted, to benefit reformed theology? Southern Baptists (the majority are still non-Calvinist) should be asking “Uhhh … what is wrong with the current HCSB?”
There were previous concerns in this regard about LifeWay’s new CSB Study Bible:
“NOBTS professor detects Calvinistic tilt in study notes of LifeWay’s new Bible (CSB)”
http://baptistmessage.com/nobts-professor-exposes-calvinistic-tilt-study-notes-lifeways-new-bible-csb/
The New Calvinists are consuming Southern Baptists one bite at a time. Slowly but surely they will swallow the whole thing soon. The frog is in the kettle.
A quick thought in reflection on the OP; my apologies if I’m echoing a prior comment; am late to the post and haven’t read through the comments yet:
I find it very odd that Jesus’ language about “those who would be great must become servants of all” and the numerous related sayings about the meaning of true greatness in the Kingdom get overlooked in these arguments about “authority” in church and home.
And even in Paul, the occasional exhortation to order and respect for those with functional authority (presbyters) is exalted above the much more numerous “one another” commands.
And Christ evidently does not undo “the curse” after all.
It’s as if the New Testament’s theology of New Creation never gets mixed in to theology of the fallen world. Max has noted that neo-calvinism doesn’t mention Jesus much in pulpit practice. It seems that His commands are also elided.
Perhaps we should call this “the Louisville theorem”
Telling from Mohler. Everyone knows the most important part of translation is who has *control*.
The desire thing is odd to me, as I read the other verse (referring to sin) as poetic, not ‘negative’. It’s so obvious that this doesn’t mean that women are trying to control men that it seems crazy to even see the attempt at explaining it that way. It’s certainly not the way real life seems to go most often.
Jerome,
The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon. 🙂
Lowlandseer,
It’s my own copy so no link.
The new reformation – as manifested by the New Calvinist movement – is all about domination, manipulation … and a dose of intimidation, when necessary. “Where else are they going to go?” … “We’ll ‘make’ you go there, brother!”
Lydia,
Good stuff! Yes, I had heard this theory of when Torah was written, and it makes a lot of sense. The stories are obvious much older than that, but they would have gotten condensed over time as they were handed down and then they were eventually written down so they stopped changing. It’s amazing how dense these stories are. Some are just a few sentences long, but they contain so many layers of meaning.
The comparison and contrast with the Mesopotamian stories of fascinating. An incredibly helpful lense through which to read Genesis is “what were they trying to say about God” rather than looking for a journalistic account of exactly what happened.
Paul VanderKlay made and excellent video about the Ben Shapiro/John MacArthur discussion. I like Shapiro, but this was hard to watch. VanderKlay makes the point that these two get along because they are on the same team in politics/culture war, and their conversation shows that this is very high on their heirarchy of values. Also, both are very modernist in what they expect the Bible to do. An ancient would not have expected a historical/grammatical/literal bible. Those of us living post-Enlightenment often demand that of the text, and the text wasn’t written that way. The creative use of the Old Testament by Paul is just one example.
I love how Peterson gets criticized for being “too Christian” by some and “not Christian enough” by others. When someone is getting both of those criticisms, I pay attention to what they have to say.
Bottom-line: Beware of ‘anything’ Al Mohler endorses. There is an agenda behind his support.
SiteSeer,
That’s a fair point. I’m not saying God commands them to continue to enforce it on each other, just that this is how it is often read in the Calvinist/Comp tribe. Of course, then you have my point that they are consistent (allow epidurals, not every man has to be a farmer)
Lea,
It can have a number of meanings. See this from NIDOTTe
“תְּשׁוּקָה (tešûqâ), nom. desire, request, longing, appetite (#9592) (HALAT 1658).
ANE This word is attested in Sam. and in Mish. Heb. with the meaning urge, craving, impulse.
OT This nom. is used 3× in the OT, 2× in Gen and 1× in S of Songs. The term has generated much controversy (cf. Foh, 376–77), but most agree that the word emphasizes craving, desire, or urge. In Song of Songs 7:10 [11] the term “has a decidedly romantic and positive nuance, describing the feeling of a mutual attraction between two lovers” (Hamilton, 201). In Gen 4:7 the term has a decidedly negative nuance, describing the desire of sin that lies poised, ready to leap at and dominate Cain. It is a reference to conquering, the desire to defeat a foe.
There is not much disagreement on these passages. However, there is disagreement on whether the term in Gen 3:16 is to be positively or negatively construed. Is woman’s desire (תְּשׁוּקָה) toward her husband to be lauded as virtuous or lamented as manipulative? Some commentators view the term more positively in this passage (cf. von Rad, 93; Holder, 40; Aalders, 108) and others more negatively (cf. Hamilton, 202; Cassuto, 165–66; Wenham, 81–82; Foh, 383). Wenham notes that “given the rarity of the term, ‘urge,’ certainty is impossible” (82). Susan Foh provides a good foundation for further study. Her conclusion that the desire is a contention for leadership, a negative usage, seems probable for Gen 3:16.
P-B The LXX uses ἡ ἀποστροφή, return, or a form of this term in all 3 instances. They are apparently reading תְּשׁוּבָה (#9588) for תְּשׁוּקָה (Hamilton, 201; cf. R. Bergmeier).”
Elastigirl, simple answer is yes.. I am concerned about any and all sin/injustice.
I have three precious granddaughters ( two grandsons)
But, ( there is always a but) the world is full of seemingly gross injustice,
I think of all the gentiles that we’re dying during Jesus speaking only to the lost sheep of Israel ( albeit there were a few outliers), was this an injustice, were not the gentiles worthy of Christ telling them what they needed.
Why did sin hang over a family for 7 generations after a farther sinned, doesn’t seem fair to my finite pea brain.
I believe I will stand before Christ and give an account of my life, what I did with the gospel, how I treated all people, regardless of gender, race, etc.
It is possible that what Paul wrote about was just to the specific churches that the letters went to, or it could be new revelation for all believers going forward, I just want do all the research I can possibly do.
I believe we all will be judged by the Bible, you may not hold to this view, time will tell.
But I don’t think we will be judged by a blog, a Wikipedia link or the like..
Guest,
I am so sorry for the pain your endured. If I can ever be of help to you, please contact me.
Lowlandseer,
The argument in favour of a negative vie is summarised in the NET Bible notes but everyone has to make up their own minds here.
“Genesis 3:16 (NETBFEN): Notes for 3:16
46 tn The imperfect verb form is emphasized and intensified by the infinitive absolute from the same verb.
47 tn Heb “your pain and your conception,” suggesting to some interpreters that having a lot of children was a result of the judgment (probably to make up for the loss through death). But the next clause shows that the pain is associated with conception and childbirth. The two words form a hendiadys (where two words are joined to express one idea, like “good and angry” in English), the second explaining the first. “Conception,” if the correct meaning of the noun, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception; it is a synecdoche, representing the entire process of childbirth and child rearing from the very start. However, recent etymological research suggests the noun is derived from a root הרר (hrr), not הרה (hrh), and means “trembling, pain” (see D. Tsumura, “A Note on הרוֹן (Gen 3, 16),” Bib 75 [1994]: 398–400). In this case “pain and trembling” refers to the physical effects of childbirth. The word עִצְּבוֹן (’itsévon, “pain”), an abstract noun related to the verb (עָצַב, ’atsav), includes more than physical pain. It is emotional distress as well as physical pain. The same word is used in v. 17 for the man’s painful toil in the field.
48 tn Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (téshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376–83.
49 tn The Hebrew verb מָשַׁל (mashal) means “to rule over,” but in a way that emphasizes powerful control, domination, or mastery. This also is part of the baser human nature. The translation assumes the imperfect verb form has an objective/indicative sense here. Another option is to understand it as having a modal, desiderative nuance, “but he will want to dominate you.” In this case, the Lord simply announces the struggle without indicating who will emerge victorious.
sn This passage is a judgment oracle. It announces that conflict between man and woman will become the norm in human society. It does not depict the NT ideal, where the husband sacrificially loves his wife, as Christ loved the church, and where the wife recognizes the husband’s loving
leadership in the family and voluntarily submits to it. Sin produces a conflict or power struggle between the man and the woman, but in Christ man and woman call a truce and live harmoniously (Eph 5:18–32).”
Myth #1: Complementarianism is obsessed with male authority.
“The full-orbed creation mandate for man and woman, and its implications for masculine and feminine identity and roles, should be a concerted focus of attention from the pulpit and be upheld in our churches as beautiful, worthy, and desirable. Doctrinal instruction on these matters and mentoring in male-female roles should be an essential part of our ongoing discipleship and life of worship.”
Sounds like something John Piper could have written. I have to wonder how *much* time they think should be spent on this relative to something like, preaching of law and gospel?
Myth #2: Complementarianism confines women to the home.
“Yet there’s no need to back away from God’s design for women as centered in family and home, barring extenuating factors such as the husband’s illness, etc.”
Uh…what? Is a woman who must be the primary or sole bread winner backing away from God’s design for women? Tell that to Ruth. Or Lydia. Or the Proverbs 31 woman.
“Overreactions are common, however, such as insisting that women may engage in any activity outside the home with virtually no or minimal concern for God’s specific creation purpose for each gender. This is contrary to biblical teaching and deeply problematic.”
They don’t explain what they mean here, so I’m not sure what this is supposed to convey. If they’re thinking of women in the military, for example, they should make that clear.
Finally, it’s astonishing that they would claim comps are against abuse simply by quoting a formal statement, and appealing to the existence of good comp marriages. Seriously, this is the extent of their response to egalitarians and #churchtoo?
I don’t believe we will be judged by the bible, but by God.
Many words can. I don’t think the womans desire for her husband makes sense as ‘manipulative’ or negative in any way.
Wait, it was woman who came up with the complementarian spin on Genesis 3:16?
Susan Foh?
I should say, the only people I see pushing this as negative also somehow view a man ‘ruling’ over his wife as positive. That’s telling.
This read of every passage is obsessed with control. I think this is a hammer/nail issue.
Susan Foh. There she is again being cited for having concocted this interpretation.
ION: godly bible cricket
With England once again collapsing in their first innings and the Windies now 132-1 on Day 2, just 55 behind with 9 wickets in hand, the hosts look set to wrap up the 3-match series with one to play by Day 4 at the latest. It’s highly unlikely that the Windies will have to bat twice, as England have simply not adapted to the uneven bounce of the Caribbean wickets. Though that’s to take nothing away from some very fine West Indian bowling.
The solitary wicket to fall in the innings thus far was that of John Campbell, caught behind off Ben Stokes just 3 runs short of his half-century. He’ll be a bit annoyed…
IHTIH
I find the academic theories about how the Bible came to be in its current form fascinating, and for the most part they make a lot of sense. Unfortunately there isn’t always a lot of consensus, but as far as the creation stories in Genesis go I think it’s fair to say most scholars believe the story of God creating the world in 7 days was not written by the same person who wrote the Garden of Eden story, and that the Garden of Eden story is older (which makes conflating the two stories in order to denigrate women even more despicable, in my opinion).
The Garden of Eden story contains enough wordplay that I wonder whether it was intended to be believed as historical fact by the people it was written for. For example, the word for “man” in that story is “adam”, and the word for the ground from which man is formed is “adamah”. Ultimately I believe the purpose of the story was simply to explain why people wrote clothes, why childbirth was so much worse for women than for animals, why farming was hard, and why snakes crawled on their bellies.
Interesting:
https://www.theaquilareport.com/desire-woman-response-susan-fohs-interpretation/
“In 1974, Susan Foh wrote an article for the Westminster Theological Journal on the meaning of Genesis 3:16, ‘What is the Woman’s Desire?'”
“For such a short article, it has had a profound influence on conservative Christian teaching. 40 years later, numerous books, articles, sermons, and even Bible translations have adopted Foh’s unique interpretation of Genesis 3:16. Even those who swear they’ve never heard of Susan Foh teach her interpretation as if it is the best or only understanding of the passage.”
(Rachel Miller, “The Desire of the Woman: A Response to Susan Foh’s Interpretation:
Foh’s article demonstrates sloppy research, weak and inconsistent reasoning, and poor exegesis”)
Benn,
“It is possible that what Paul wrote about was just to the specific churches that the letters went to, or it could be new revelation for all believers going forward, I just want do all the research I can possibly do.
I believe we all will be judged by the Bible,”
++++++++++++++++++
seems to me the terminus of this exercise is Wayne Grudem’s list of 83 things which he ranks according to authority, responsibility, and influence.
the doctrine of complementarianism holds that it is a sin for women to have too much. where is the dividing line? not even Wayne Grudem knows.
so, assuming this is a sin issue, we are going to be judged on things no one can figure out. the standard by which we are going to be judged…. well, there is no standard.
but oh, yes, it is a sin! beware!
no one can figure out what the sin actually is.
you won’t be able to figure it out.
you will end up with a clipboard and a checklist, deciding arbitrarily what women should and shouldn’t do. which you will allow or disallow. choose wrong and you’re both guilty of sin.
in the end, both you, your granddaughters, and all the women in your life will be living on a summit with enough room to plant your feet, but take one step in any direction and you’re liable to slide down the slippery slope of sin.
for which you will be judged.
Whenever asked about that, they say “Those are exceptions! That can’t be the standard!”
It’s just another way they argue away anything in the Bible that doesn’t fit with their framework. The problem is never their theology or framework, it’s that we’re not truly “understanding” it according to God.
Jerome,
“Even those who swear they’ve never heard of Susan Foh teach her interpretation as if it is the best or only understanding of the passage.””
++++++++++++
critical think at its finest.
oh, what great leaders we have who speak for God! 😐
(and of course challenging them is ‘satanic to the core!’)
I can think of several colorful expressions
Susan Foh and Dorothy Patterson were the founding mothers of Complementarianism:
https://cbmw.org/about/history/
“Our History
CBMW has been in operation since 1987, when a meeting in Dallas, Texas, brought together a number of evangelical leaders and scholars, including John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Wayne House, Dorothy Patterson, James Borland, Susan Foh, and Ken Sarles. These figures were concerned by the spread of unbiblical teaching. Under Piper’s leadership, the group drafted a statement outlining what would become the definitive theological articulation of ‘complementarianism'”
Now, Dorothy Patterson resigned just last year from the CBMW council.
Seems Susan Foh is no longer involved, and hasn’t been for some time.
Accurate.
I think the real ‘soft’ comp folks simply refuse to list these things, excepting women to figure them out given some vague, restrictive guidelines, and frowning on them when they do imaginary wrongs. Maddening.
elastigirl,
“you will end up with a clipboard and a checklist, deciding arbitrarily what women should and shouldn’t do. which you will allow or disallow. choose wrong and you’re both guilty of sin.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
at that point, the cognitive dissonance is just too much to bear, and the exercise goes in a few different directions:
–let’s just be nice to each other
–i’m a man and i might as well enjoy the power it turns out i have, and do what helps my ego and soothes my insecurities
–i’m a woman and the more i suppress myself the more God points i get. i might even get more then the men 🙂
–my reputation, power, and revenue are staked on this ‘doctrine’, so i’ll do whatever it takes to promote it.
You know, I think most of them have lists with specific things, but they just won’t talk about it. If you are “Christian enough”, you’re supposed to just fall in line, but because they don’t talk about it, they all have different lists.
I know one common item on the list is simply being single. I’ve been to at least 5 churches who have said aloud “We don’t like for marrieds and singles to mix”. What they won’t say is that it’s because they believe single women will “entice” the married men.
Mary Mohler was in that bunch, too. Dorothy is married to Paige Patterson … proof that you don’t have to be a Calvinist to control the spiritual life out of women through the “beauty of complementarity.” Paige has been a vocal anti-Calvinist, although he sometimes comes across as moderate on the issue. Right now, he is pretty silent on everything after being booted from SWBTS.
Lydia,
Lydia,
If you haven’t yet seen them (my guess from your wording in reply to Ricco), there is a much longer version of Peterson’s take on the stories in the book of Genesis. It is in the form of monologues with some Q&A. He doesn’t speed through them. The first 16 videos of the series at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUrrFTzkpat are the talks he gave in Toronto before his book came out. Each is about 2.5 hours long (except one where he has co-speakers is only 1.5 hours) so don’t plan on binge watching them without a sleep break or three. Peterson has promised that he will get back to continuing the series with Exodus, but hasn’t given us solid dates for when yet.
Let us remember, Jesus went *first* to the Jews, because he had fulfillment of promise and prophecy to carry out. The rest of humanity was soon added, in the book of Acts. And now, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
By what shall we be judged?
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Sadly, rather than practice the obvious, we find Christians often concocting strained definitions of love.
Jerome,
Way back in 2012 The Gospel Coalition questioned Foh’s interpretation.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/problems-with-a-new-reading-of-an-old-verse/
I think it’s the unwritten rules thing we see in business. They won’t actually write it out because they know 1. people would be horrified and/or call them out and 2. there are holes in their rules you could drive a truck through.
Single women throw off the whole ‘all women can do is care for husbands and babies’ thing. They are embarrassing to the whole the system because they expose it. They would rather pretend they don’t exist.
What if to Benn, The Bible IS God?
I can’t speak for her, but I suspect that if people are judged for their actions, treating women like lesser beings is a major thing men will be judged for.
Yes, and even thought they won’t spell it out they will hold you accountable for not following these rules that they won’t acknowledge. And when it benefits them, their will be exceptions.
At base, it is a lack of faith in God, that he can act and accomplish his purposes without our setting up certain arbitrary conditions dealing with petty and inconsequential things. They are like Uzzah, rushing to nobly hold up the ark, lest God fall down.
And all airplane pilots sound vaguely like Chuck Yeager. 😉
The sins against women and children must have about reached the heavens by this point. How men can remain so oblivious and focused on nit-picking rules about ‘do not taste, do not handle, do not touch’ I do not know.
“These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you”
The National Association of Evangelicals is now accepting nominations for a new president (Leith Anderson recently announced his retirement):
https://www.nae.net/presidentsearch/
Any suggestions?
some guidance from the ‘NAE President Profile’ they’ve provided:
“The NAE president will conceive and communicate vision and mission for the NAE and the evangelical community at large. She or he will play an important role in setting the tone of the evangelical community”
“She or he will have graduate degree(s) in theology, religion, ministry or another field related to the position. The candidate will have a minimum of 10 years of fruitful executive leadership experience, including experience with nonprofit or ministry fundraising and engagement with the press and media”
Blech!
Not sure the job description is based on reality, since it includes “She or he.”
I wish I could be that optimistic. I feel so alone in this, even as I reside in one of the most liberal states in the country. And it does not seem to matter whether one is religious or not. People like to think of the man as the responsible head of every household. What I find consistent with my female friends is that they love to blame the man for their problems. The fortunate ones have no problem deferring to their men and letting them believe they are in charge, just as long as they keep bringing in the dough and treating them as equal even they don’t actually believe in equality. The not so fortunate ones do not blame themselves for not rising to an equal level of responsibility. They simply whine and gripe about how their man is not or has not fulfilled his god assigned duty of dying to themselves for them. I alone, once I became an adult, am responsible for believing and acting on the errors that I was raised under, and how that negatively contributed to problems in my marriage, and placing undue responsibility on my husband to operate in gifts that God gave me instead of to him or that we hold equally. We are both egals now. At least I am pretty sure my husband is telling the truth about that. Or could he just be “weak,” afraid to disagree with me, LOL, as the comp experts criticize men who believe in equality.
LOL, yes they did allow a point/counterpoint presentation on this topic.
I presume Susan Foh herself has been questioning, or discarded, complementarianist dogma, seeing as the last time I checked she’s involved in a female-clergy-affirming Episcopal church!
I don’t know, that metaphor might overstate the rate of change. One of the new (effective 13 January 2019) “improvements” in Saudi gender law is that women are now entitled to be told by the court when they get divorced. Not when their husband goes to court to divorce them, but after the divorce is final. See https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/01/saudi-arabia-women-to-receive-notification-of-divorce-by-text-message/.
I know it well.
During my time in the Calvary Chapel cult, love got used as a bomb, an artillery shell,… and after being there for a spell, like a whip over the backs of slaves hauling multi-ton granite blocks.
Perhaps Dr. Mohler has someone in mind … a Mohlerite who would set the tone for the evangelical community, to make sure it rings reformed … he better scramble before a “she” gets that post!
Don’t abusive parents also “concoct strained definitions of love”?
…someone he sees every time he looks in a mirror…
Not so much today as during the era of The Right Stuff…
It occurred to me that some Wartburgers may not have ever seen/heard Dr. Mohler. Here’s a short sample of the man/the legend from his radio program this week. Answering once and for all, the question “What does the ‘husband of one wife’ mean as it pertains to the qualification of elders?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr3mlrcq7LY
Off topic a bit, but just wanted you to see Mohler in action.
Which ends up advancing the male supremacists.
Stories like this spread, and other men hear, and see, and decide they want no part of this.
Who wants to get stuck with a Debbie Downer?
Benn,
“Do you hold to a view that individuals will in fact one day be judged, have to give an account for their actions?”
+++++++++++++++++
hmmmm…. I’ll try to articulate my thoughts:
i think we reap what we sow. This certainly works itself out in our allotted life on earth.
i think it also factors into the hereafter somehow. However, i also know there is forgiveness through Jesus Christ. I’m not entirely certain how to understand “as far as the east is from the west so far has he removed our transgressions from us.” Not sure how or if that extends into the hereafter.
i think the OT/NT are inconclusive on this and many other topics as well. I don’t believe the purpose of the bible is to answer all life’s questions. Largely because it can’t.
regarding gender roles, bottom line:
looking at the history of CBMW, i think they were invented by christian men who are very insecure and/or have a misogynist bent in response to what they deemed a threat to their power and position in society.
no, i don’t think they are a sin issue. (if they were, i’d go invent some of my own for my own convenience.)
no, i don’t think they are a gospel issue, only because “gospel issue” is a meaningless term.
it is a euphemism for “we want this to be a sin issue so we can control people, but we can’t prove it. so we’ll just scare them into it. Besides, we have too much reputation, power, and revenue tied up in it to quit now.”
yes, i believe in kindness, mutual respect, generosity, humility. they are the heart of the matter.
i don’t think God gives a flying fick who gets to stand behind the podium, who gets to speak into the mic, who gives the directions, who chooses the restaurant,…
do you??
Thank you everyone for the reading suggestions! I’m going to get some books!
Lea,
“I think the real ‘soft’ comp folks simply refuse to list these things, excepting women to figure them out given some vague, restrictive guidelines, and frowning on them when they do imaginary wrongs. Maddening.”
+++++++++
whatever is too much self-confidence and walking with straight posture and shoulders back, too much direct eye contact, too much assertiveness, too much speaking directly and to the point,…
and the comp men I have known don a look of either concern or disapproval (not sure). they look down, they look away, they walk away… my impression is that they either dig it (which i guess is sinful) or they feel their manhood begin to shrink — both are enough to activate paranoia.
my guess is that is the point they decide the woman has sinned.
Guest,
Your story is just heartbreaking & I wish I could go back in time, scoop you up & obliterate your abusers. Your reading of those kind of men is right – they have no love in them, only a longing for power & a delight in subjugation.
I wish all good things for you as you struggle with the trauma of your past.
I just love this question. Sometimes dear hubby and I sit around and yack about TWW’s various case studies. He just can’t imagine telling me what I’m allowed to wear, say, do, think, spend, pray, hate, love, question, mock, endorse, follow, create, or destroy. With all that responsibility for me, when would he be allowed to start his own day?
I believe you can prove that hypothesis by looking at the behavior of church leaders who endorse and support CBMW. They look for every avenue to exclude women from visible roles in church by twisting Scripture to support their views. Whether it’s insecurity, misogyny, or just plain old hate of wimmenfolk, these bad-boys are wrong to treat half (or more) of the Body of Christ this way. If they can get an organization, such as CBMW, to nurture their beliefs in this way, they feel better about dominating, manipulating, and intimidating the spiritual life out of female believers. It’s a sin before God they will answer for.
I would just point out that it’s not clear to me that John the Baptist was wearing a coat made out of camel skins. It was camel *hair*, a completely different thing. See, camel hair can be brushed off the camel and then spun. I’ve spun camel hair. It’s kind of difficult because, unlike sheep’s wool, the shaft of the camel hair doesn’t have the microscopic scales sheep’s wool has. So camel’s hair tends to slip by each other when being spun, unlike sheep’s wool, which entangles easily when given a slight twist.
If I were to spin camel’s hair again, I’d probably card it with some sheep’s wool just to give it a bit of help in the spinning process. I doubt this was done in ancient Judea because of the general prohibition between mixing fibers. But you can spin camel’s hair, make a yarn and then weave it.
SiteSeer,
The rest of humanity was soon added…….
But, of the rest of humanity that was soon added, was it fair that some of the rest of humanity died in that condition, before he turned to the rest of humanity, some could argue that the delay was not fair.
SiteSeer,
“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Sadly, rather than practice the obvious, we find Christians often concocting strained definitions of love.”
++++++++++++++
well, solving for biblical turns one into a contortionist.
“CONTORTIONISTS FOR CHRIST!”
cramming and jamming it all together, missing the bigger ideas in the process.
if God = love and God = the bible, then bible = loving.
(i’m sure there’s algebra in there somewhere. i wouldn’t know. creative person, here.)
(i’m sure there’s some logical fallacy in there, too)
goodness, how many times do i have to hear and read about female subjugation as beautiful and flourishing because it’s biblical.
about leaders with their thumb on a human life, and squashing away, with smiles and “God loves you” because it’s biblical.
Hi Benn,
When you say, “died in that condition,” what does that mean, precisely, to you?
My personal belief is, God has always drawn near to those who approach him with faith. If God is good, and God is love, (and he is) then we can trust that he was so not only to Israel but also to those whose stories aren’t extensively covered in scripture.
Is it important if they called God by the same name that the Hebrews did, if their concept was the same? What about the wise men who came from other nations to worship the Christ child? What about the good Samaritan? God already knew Cornelius’ family and approved their faith before he sent Peter. Within Israel and without it, there were always those who had faith, and those who did not.
God chose to tell the story through his dealings with one nation, the nation of Israel, and Jesus chose, during his earthly ministry, to keep to that track and keep the progress of the story clear, yet he also showed mercy to Gentiles at times. He might have chosen any nation as his example and I’m sure the story would have unfolded the same. At least that’s my hunch.
We tend to read with filters running that we’ve learned in church, not realizing we are adding assumptions -our church traditions- between the lines.
I don’t know Greek so I can’t speak to the accuracy of this, but my old pastor, who did study Greek, used to teach that the Bema seat for believers was more what we would call an awards ceremony. Some would perhaps have many, others few or no rewards, depending on how they had used their talents. I seem to remember there was a separate judgment for those who don’t believe but this is something I haven’t gone back and restudied so I’m not sure where I would stand on it now. Over the last decade or so I have really been re-examining most of what I had been taught and finding there was not much evidence for some of it. I thought this might be an interesting thing to bring up, though, not sure what others understand about the judgment.
Well, you could knock me over with a feather!
I did not know the Jesus of our Scriptures was a complementarian, let alone a baptist, reformed or un-reformed.
I need to check with the Holy Spirit on these assumptive teachings from the religious sect.
Guess the Nabals are alive and well within the visible church. Oy Vey!
Paul Young’s take on this is interesting: https://relevantmagazine.com/god/william-paul-young-has-some-interesting-thoughts-about-death-and-eternal-judgment/. He is by far not the only one who believes this, but this article was easy for me to find and it is nice and short.
Here is a short explanation of the Greek words and a possible interpretation at how this plays out: https://www.perichoresis.org/judgment/.
SiteSeer,
My overarching point is this, who are we to say what is fair, I have been asked multiple times on this thread, do I think it would be fair if God placed 52% of the population to be ( pick your phrase) under the leadership of the 48%,
Or God does not allow the 52% of population to preach, be leaders in a church, and my answer is I don’t know.
I am not approaching this from a it’s complementarism or the highway position, I am making one simple point,
Can the creator determine something that the creation ( or only 25%, 48% or 52%) does not seem fair?
I am undecided on comp. vs. egalitarianism debate, and only saying that I see things in scripture that don’t seem fair to me, but I remember that I’m not God.
By the way I agree with most everything in your reply to me…..
Here is a very interesting article I found this morning on the coming judgment: http://bertgary.blogspot.com/2009/02/father-judges-no-one-1.html?m=1. It’s a bit long, but the basic outline is:
1. The Father will not judge you directly.
2. The Son will not judge you directly.
3. On the last day the word that the Son spoke will judge you on behalf of the Father and Son.
4. The Father commanded that the Son should speak that word.
5. The word the Father commanded the Son to speak is eternal Life.
Here is something similar from an Eastern Orthodox perspective: https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_sunday_of_the_last_judgment.
The often unspoken suggestion behind the inappropriate oppression of women in fundagelicalism is the same ol’ copout Adam started out with – ‘The woman you gave us . . .’
‘You see, the reason we’ve so ravaged this world you gave us, and told us to care for with our own hands, is, well, it’s her fault! She didn’t make us feel manly enough, so we had to wage war on other men to win her admiration. When that didn’t work, we threw in slavery, a little torture and genocide. We tried to woo her with vast wealth, acquired on the backs of other men. But she still refused to give us the admiration we so deserved.
But don’t worry, we finally figured all this out, and if we can just keep her in her place, force her to respect us as we deserve and keep her busy with those yungins, all of the abuse, oppression, injustice and evil in this world will finally come to an end. I mean abortion. Yep, uppity women. Homosexuality. Caused by women, obviously. And don’t forget, YOU gave us this wretch to deal with. What’s that? War, drug abuse, homelessness, the sex trade, organ harvesting, pedophilia . . . Don’t worry, we’ll take care of the small stuff after we put that woman in her place. We’re taking care of the gospel issues first.’
TS00, how do you view through your filter 1 Timothy 2:14: And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.. ( NLT).
I find your opinions on most all topics to be well researched and full of passion, so how much value can you place on this verse?
I’m not trying to win arguments, or even trying to change anyone’s personal beliefs, I just am trying to make a determination on a very deep subject…..
Benn,
“My overarching point is this, who are we to say what is fair, I have been asked multiple times on this thread, do I think it would be fair if God placed 52% of the population to be ( pick your phrase) under the leadership of the 48%…
I am making one simple point, Can the creator determine something that the creation ( or only 25%, 48% or 52%) does not seem fair?”
+++++++++++++++++++
well, there’s fair and then there’s stupid.
“Thou shalt always and in everything reject the woman with more experience and superior skillset and chooseth the man with less experience and less skills, all of which are underdeveloped, because he hath a donger.”
“Though I have given her the gift of teaching and though she hath earned a doctoral degree from a favored institution she speaketh not into the mic, nay not a word. Chooseth a man from among yourselves, any man, instead because he hath a donger.”
but getting back to fair, do we really think the concept of “fair” in the hands of God is suddenly going to lose all symmetry and become totally alien ?
take the concept of love, for example. it is completely recognizable human to human the world over, and equally so God to human. it is observable amongst animals.
the human race would not have gotten this far without a relatively common understanding of the concepts of love, justice, what is fair… (of course societies do not always apply these things equally, unfortunately, but the concepts are understood)
do we really think that where God is concerned they suddenly become unrecognizable?
i firmly believe being made in God’s image (God’s image bearers, as is popular to say these days), means these ‘traits’ of existence have been passed down to us.
God and all creation are connected by the DNA of love, justice, and i believe fairness is in this same category, as well.
I think you have a mind for math and just don’t know it yet.
Creativity and math go hand in hand.
And yeah, the contortions involved in solving for ‘biblical’ get mind-numbing because of all the unknown symbolic constants and variables.
There’s just too many of them.
On both sides of the equals sign.
Benn,
“1 Timothy 2:14: And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.. ( NLT).
…I just am trying to make a determination on a very deep subject…..”
++++++++++++++++
if you determine that every woman on the face of the earth is suspect and not to be trusted, life will become impossible for you.
meanwhile, you will be observing women increasingly make great advances in solving many of the world’s problems.
the benefits of which will be available to you.
some you will unwittingly partake of and enjoy. all others you will have to reject, to be true to your belief system. even if a matter success or failure, or life or death.
the fact of the matter is no one really believes this verse.
no one.
Muff Potter,
“I think you have a mind for math and just don’t know it yet.
Creativity and math go hand in hand.”
+++++++++++++++++
ha. could be…
i’d have pages and pages of diagrams and calculations to prove it:
working out carpools with 6 families & 2 schools, some with 2 kids at 2 schools, some with 1 kid at 1 school and 1 kid at the other school, some with only 1 kid at 1 school. no more complex problem on earth. but i did it! and it was 100% equal and fair.
now, working out the restaurant tab for a large group? the restaurant ends up owing us money. better left in someone else’s hands.
Realizing that I’m coming into this conversation late (and well past my bedtime here, to boot), I would still like to offer my thoughts on your questions, Benn.
My personal opposition to complementarianism comes less from verses in the Bible that seem unfair to me (although some do), or from the perceived unfairness of women not being allowed to preach if they like, and more from the very real injustice that I see as a result of gender comp ideology.
Jesus claimed that He came to give His sheep abundant life. If He truly requires (as some gender comp gurus claim) that a woman abused by her husband mustn’t divorce him without pastoral approval, or remain single if she does divorce him, then Jesus is simply a liar, because there is no “abundant life” in that situation.
Jesus quoted from Isaiah, proclaiming freedom for prisoners and comfort for all that mourn. If He’s in agreement with preachers who, even obliquely, blame wives for “provoking” abuse from their husbands, or women for “provoking” rape, then Jesus is a hypocrite. What comfort is there in being told you have to repent for your “role” in felonies committed against you?
And if God is anything like what was presented to Guest by her monster of a father, then God is nothing more than a fiend.
I refuse to spend eternity with a liar, a hypocrite or a fiend, Benn. And I’m not interested in being judged by one. If God is any of those things and wants to say, “Depart from me”, I’m happy to oblige him. I’m sure he knows exactly where he can kiss me goodbye.
Lowlandseer,
Thank you for the heads-up.
That doesn’t stop them from applying it as if they understood it. (The verse right before says that Eve wasn’t yet around when Adam went to Tree training.)
Serving Kids in Japan,
You don’t really mean that do you?
Serving Kids in Japan,
Well put.
Well said, and I concur.
I have no desire to go to fundagelical ‘heaven’ either.
God made us. We know in our hearts that these things are wrong. Sometimes people let their greed, and selfishness and self-interest override what is right.
I don’t think God made half of humanity inferior by roll of the dice. If that’s the god you want to worship, have at it. I’m not interested.
Here’s the rub. If you judge god to be a monster, why on earth would you worship god?
You are too kind. My initial thought would be that the intention of scripture here is not so much to suggest how easily deceived women are, but that Eve’s transgression was of a different caliber than Adam’s. Then and now, Satan knows how best to target each individual, what their particular neediness and weaknesses are. Eve fell for the trap set for her, and thus was manipulated/deceived rather than deliberately disobeying a known command.
This is not to say that the same could never, and does not ever, happen to Adam, or males as a whole. But in this signal event, the record is being set forth, that, unlike Eve, Adam was guilty of ‘sin’, deliberately doing what he knew was wrong. I do not believe that God judges those who are truly well-meaning but deceived as guilty of sin, unless and until he makes them aware of the wrongness of their actions. This might explain how some couples claim to be complementarian, yet, in reality, interact with one another as egalitarians. Such have been deceived by faulty teaching, but their genuine, Christ-like love does not lead to dishonoring, abusive behavior.
The suggestion that this is a uniquely female trait, requiring unrelenting male supervision of females, was prominent in ancient cultures (and strongly pushed in the comp circles I am familiar with). Paul obviously shared this bias. It is, however, IMO, unsupportable. I simply know too many couples for which the exact opposite is true, and the wife is the better maker. I do not believe this is a strictly gender issue, as I know men who are trusting and gullible. If anything, it seems to me that the male ego presents a great risk of men being manipulated – think yes men elders who are cleverly manipulated by narcissistic pastors. They never know that they are doing exactly as their manipulator wishes, genuinely believing that the ‘decisions’ they arrive at are their own. In most couples I know, it depends on the particular issue. A man may, for instance, find his practicality vanishing in the face of that amazing truck he’s always dreamed of, whereas the woman’s weakness may be in an entirely different area. If wise, they will trust one another, and allow each others’ strengths to apply where needed and helpful, rather than submit to a very black and white, ‘men are more logical, so they should always have the final say’. I have witnessed many instances in which this has brought harm to families who would have been better served had the women been valued and allowed to contribute the gifts they possessed.
I lean more toward the early church viewpoint that the Word of God refers to Jesus, rather than the written testimony (selected by men that inerrantists would declare anti-Christ papists) of those who gave testimony to his life and teaching. This, of course, is in direct opposition to the views of Mohler et. al, which seem almost solely directed at defending strict gender distinctions.
This approach allows some of Paul’s ‘opinions’ to reflect his own cultural and/or personal biases. Though many wouldn’t admit it, this is the same approach that allows modern believers to not take literally Paul’s comments on praying with hands raised, wearing headcoverings, greeting one another with a holy kiss, washing feet, speaking in tongues, etc. I am not convinced that Paul’s instructions on particular issues of the day directed to particular situations should be considered as authoritative and timeless teaching. Again, if I did, I would have to insist on headcovering, kissing, footwashing, etc. Yes, this makes me a liberal heretic in the eyes of those who (inconsistently) assert inerrancy, as I at one time was led to believe myself. 😉
I claim no authoritative insight, but simply offer these as ideas to ponder.
elastigirl,
the concepts of love, justice, what is fair… (of course societies do not always apply these things equally, unfortunately,
+++++++++++++++++++
Correction: Societies never apply them fairly.
—and at least one more: They begin asking: Where is the abundant life? Where is the joy? Where is the love by which others will recognize Jesus’ followers? What happened to “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? God’s chosen (the church we were a part of) seemed like the most joyless, least loving, most judgmental people we’d ever known. And so we began to awaken from the evil spell of churchianity’s cognitive dissonance, and we left. To various degrees. Some in our family left to become atheist or agnostic. Some now attend a softer, gentler (but unfortunately still TGC-affiliated) church (how I wish they could break free of that influence!).
Benn,
Benn, as I read through this thread I wonder…if you thought Scripture told you to discriminate against women, or black people, or old people, or sick people…would you do it? If you thought Scripture was asking you to do something that most people & most laws would say was unfair, wrong, horrendous…would you do it?
You can cop out & say, ‘but it doesn’t say that’, but what I’m asking is whether you would do anything at all that you thought Scripture commanded, irrespective of your feelings, or conscience?
The only answer could be fear.
Not fear as in awe or respect but fear as in terror.
This is how I read it, as well. It is not setting forth a rigid pronouncement that each gender would hereafter adhere to these examples. Indeed, the world around us makes it clear it isn’t so. How many comp couples have ended in ruin because the wife was the one with excellent business sense or the one who was gifted at keeping books or spotting scams, yet stayed quietly in the background while the naive or misguided husband plunged ahead with an ill conceived idea?
I remember in church being taught that most false religions were started by women, as proof that all women are ‘easily deceived’ – well, that is absolutely not true and shame on those who serve God by telling lies.
Maybe if we were choosing the people most gifted for positions without regard to gender, the church wouldn’t be such a mess today.
As for Paul’s teachings, they often seem needlessly convoluted and complex; even in his day they were referred to as hard, but I have come to doubt that Wayne Grudem was the first man through church history who was willing to tweak a word’s meaning here or there in the service of his own bias. And this, to me, is another reason we must not snuff out our natural senses of fairness, justice and love. We may come to find out we were serving a false idea.
This is a good analogy for the cognitive dissonance grappling in my mind after too many years of sermons, books, and Christian speakers. I had to withdraw and reset. What a relief to rediscover the easy yoke, the light burden and rest for the soul.
But it does. God’s very explicit and none too merciful in the old Testament.
This puts literalists in a quandary. God either decree death for all sorts of moral crimes or he didn’t.
I’ve heard all sorts of wriggling to get off that hook. God only meant the mercy bits in the NT for believers, God killed his son (or himself or whatever) because we were incapable of following OT law.
The fact is the bible reflects the cultures it came out of. If you’re a believer then it’s like the divine seen through the prism of imperfect human interpretation.
Everyone tries to guess what God wants.
Until he comes in a golden chariot to explain the whole mess then I’ll keep on keeping on in my heathen universalist ways.
I just do it without expectations of a mansion in heaven. If there is such a thing, it’s probably beyond our comprehension too.
I have often said to people that if God really teaches this or that thing that some Christians believe, then God is wrong. Oh, the gasps that creates! But seriously, growing up in a Calvinist church and a Fundy Baptist school that would not even let girls take offering in chapel or be a speaker at chapel or be class, let alone student body president, I learned to dislike a very unfair God. They even told our very few African American and Asian American students that they could not take Caucasian American students to the banquets (substitute for proms).
Anyway, it seems to me that a lot of Christians would switch sides if they thought the devil was winning. They only care about who is the most powerful, not the most righteous. And that is because they do not really love God because they do not really know God. I have been told that my line of thinking indicates that I make myself out to be more righteous than God. Well, alrighty then. Back to the beginning, if God is the selfish misogynistic creator that I was told he is in my Catechism classes, well? What can I say? But I believe that God had mercy on me because I was running away from a wrong concept of God, not the true God. I think Paul said something along those lines for himself, as well.
Oh, I absolutely mean that. With all my heart.
Jesus Himself taught that the entire Law of Moses and all prophetic teachings are summed up in the Golden Rule (as we call it). So if I respect and support women’s freedom, individuality, gifts, talents, dreams and aspirations — that is, if I treat them as I would like to be treated — why should He turn around and condemn me? And yet, gender comp gurus insist that God disapproves of men who support and value women as full equals. In other words, they teach that God’s judgement would fall on me for doing what Jesus commanded!
My solution to this dilemma? I reject the gender comp interpretation of the Bible, because all too often its demands lead to abuse, subjugation and cruelty. I choose to trust that the Maker of the Universe isn’t anything like what Piper and Douglas Wilson preach. If it turns out that he is, and he condemns me to hell, so be it. I refuse to be forced to treat anyone — including women — in any way that I’d hate to be treated.
Are you asking me why I worship a monster? The short answer is, I don’t. I don’t accept gender comp ideology, and I utterly reject the John Piper/Douglas Wilson/Lori Alexander version of god. I cannot accept both that concept of deity and Jesus at the same time.
If you’re asking why people do believe in, and worship, such a fiend: I haven’t the faintest clue.
Oh! but you must snuff them out!, and the clobber verses to ‘prove it’ are in Isaiah (55:8-9).
Pure snark on my part yeah, but it’s not just the neo-cals who teach this horse-malarky, Calvary Chapel also teaches a ‘kinder gentler’ version.
Awhile back, Roger Olson did an excellent series on whether or not God operates on completely different standards of goodness and fairness.
Yes, this one.
I think understood that you yourself don’t believe this. I am not persuaded by ‘maybe god really wants us to treat other people like dirt?’ arguments myself. I don’t think he does. But I would not respect or worship a god who did. Also! It makes sense to me that the sort of men who are trying to convince women that they should ‘respect’ completely terrible husbands might think that argument would work. It’s similar. Respect people who don’t deserve it because someone said so.
There is a WELS church in Baraboo, Wi. that decided to vote to get rid of their parochial school principle because he believed women should be treated with a screaming more respect in WELS. The women who objected were told to shut up and let the men vote as women were to be silent. Many of these women were going to pull their kids out of school and send them to public school. That was a few years ago so not sure what happened, but someone on CBE International blog said women in comp churches only get one vote and is with their feet. Just walk away. I think she is right.
I don’t believe Jesus Christ (the One of our Holy Writ), was a gender comp.
Satan has used his own minions well in brainwashing the masses into the Nicolaitan system, which Jesus literally hates.
To preach and practice gender comp is no difference than practicing Sharia (Islam).
The masses in the American church have no idea that this has taken over. Jesus hates the deeds of the Nicolaitans.
@Lily Rose; “The women who objected were told to shut up and let the men vote as the women were to be silent.”
It sounds to me that the men were very “emotional” in not letting women have a voice in the vote. I once heard a “Lutheran” pastor via an internet podcast, proclaim during one of his “Lutheran sermons” that women are far more “emotional” than men, which I believe to believe a lie from the devil himself. Emotion can work quite effectively in both genders, equally!
Here in my community, there exists a “Wels pastor man,” and when I visit with his wife in our hometown stores, she always speaks of her husband as “pastor.” The first time I heard her refer to her husband as “pastor,” I was quite taken aback, as Jesus is to be our Teacher, Master, LORD, and Savior…..not a mere man or woman for that matter.
My heart cries for her.
And I have a sneaking suspicion that, even if proven to some degree in error, those who have seen the oppression and abuse that patriarchy has generated will find compassion and understanding from the God who is love.
Since escaping fundagelicalism, I no longer view God as angry and controlling. I honestly don’t think his big concern is how well we follow the rules. I think we will be given mercy, even if we didn’t fully grasp what God intended in creating genders, seeing how terribly the so-called concept of male authority has been abused.
Jesus explained how God instructed Moses concerning divorce (which has also been terribly distorted and abused!). Of course God desires marriages to never fail. So do most people who get married. And yet God is far too kind to compel people to be sentenced to a lifetime of misery and potential abuse, stuck with someone who despises them.
Jesus asserted that the Law of Moses required that the option of divorce be provided, and that it should be done as prescribed. He was not forbidding divorce, as the institutional church has been wont to teach, but condemning the rulers for not following the instructions given to Moses for an orderly, fair and official divorce that protected all parties from abuse.
Women, who had few rights and options, were at great risk of being misused, without the assurance of legal divorce, providing official papers and alimony. Without papers of divorcement, an abandoned woman was unable to marry again – which left her with few alternatives but a life of adultery. She sure couldn’t go out and get a job to support herself, and who knows what sort of treatment she might receive from an angry father or brothers. Modern patriarchy would return women to a helpless and hopeless future, should they fail to find a ‘good’ husband and keep him happy.
TS00,
Hmmm . . . whose interests might be served if women once again had no options but to keep men happy?
Much of the time I think Christian mothers look at their little girls the same way Christian men look at women; as subhuman. If these mothers believed their little girls had feelings and cared about their little girl’s feelings they would never allow men with these selfish degrading opinions around. My mother didn’t care if I was around men who hated me for the fact that I was female and men who wanted me to grow up and become a slave for men and I got sexually abused. My mother never loved me, she was extremely dumb, and a very bad mother.
Warning to Christian women. If you keep men around who degrade and trash talk women your daughters could grow up and start believing you are stupid, a pervert, never loved them, and are a very bad mother. They could become an atheist because of your creepy misogynistic men.
There are so many little girls growing up (trapped) in toxic Christian misogyny and they can’t understand why their own mothers do not love them and won’t protect them from Christian men’s selfish insecure desires.
Sadly, you’re right, but adults can overcome this. Around young men, I deliberately imagine how a young woman would respond to their words and actions—both good and not so good. Because I’m an adult, young people tend to behave well around me. Still, there are opportunities to praise young men’s awareness, or to raise an eyebrow. “That’s a thoughtful idea! She’ll appreciate it,” or, “I thought you were supposed to leave ten minutes ago. Does she typically do things on time, or does it not matter?”
Young folks notice that my husband and I are best friends, and some have asked for relationship advice. Although I struggle with past religious abuse, we do offer an example of a happy egalitarian marriage.
Friend,
“Still, there are opportunities to praise young men’s awareness, or to raise an eyebrow. “That’s a thoughtful idea! She’ll appreciate it,” or, “I thought you were supposed to leave ten minutes ago. Does she typically do things on time, or does it not matter?””
+++++++++++++++
Would there ever be an opportunity for, “Mr. Entitlement-on-legs, how about your emotional age matching your chronological age?”
With your permission, I’ll add that to the reserve stock of snappy comments. 🙂 Most of the young men I know aren’t entitled jackwagons. The issues are awkwardness and inexperience. They have all been around straightforward young women, so I’m not a lone voice.
Guest,
Guest, I am sorry for what your parents did you growing up. It is beyond belief that a mother any mother would allow her daughter to go through what you did, and I don’t doubt you that your parents did that to you. All I can say is some Christian mothers involved in more cult like Christian environments allow themselves to become heavily indoctrinated especially if since childhood that their maternal instincts are suppressed to protect their children from this heavy patriarchy junk. It is tragic, but as you know, it happens.
Friend,
“Most of the young men I know aren’t entitled jackwagons. The issues are awkwardness and inexperience.”
+++++++++++
permission granted. with the way you put it, i can’t help but have some compassion for them.
although my observation is entitlement is a matter of being oblivious (to what’s right & wise & sensible, oblivious to other human beings, and oblivious to the impact one’s own actions or unactions have on others). just like a seven-year old.
As they gain confidence, i hope awareness is part of the mix.
Agreed. The young woman might not know, or have the energy to care, whether a tardy young man is 1) too important to be prompt, 2) too inexperienced to realize his absence might distress her, 3) frozen by anxiety. The burden is on the young man to think of her first. The burden is on parents to teach consideration. But it’s awesome when the girl texts WHERE THE HECK ARE YOU.
Lily Rose,
Guest,
Lily Rose said, “some Christian mothers …allow themselves to become heavily indoctrinated especially if since childhood that their maternal instincts are suppressed to protect their children from this heavy patriarchy junk. It is tragic”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
i’m so very sorry for your circumstances, Guest. i hear you. i believe you.
patriarchy and complementarianism silence a woman’s voice. they literally silence it. if a woman attempts to speak, her voice is silenced in men’s ears.
but more importantly, her voice is silenced to herself. her inner voice. her voice that says “this is wrong”, “this is stupid”, “this is dangerous”, “this is not what i want”, “this is not what i believe”.
the patriarchal woman (can there be such a thing? or is she a woman locked in a world of patriarchy?) and the complementarian woman have been told that these inner messages are suspect and at risk of being ‘satanic to the core’.
she is surrounded by imaginary slippery slopes and her only option is to ignore and suppress her own voice. she is then rewarded with imaginary God points.
Friend,
“But it’s awesome when the girl texts WHERE THE HECK ARE YOU”
++++++++++++
ahhh, direct (as long as one can receive it). gets us all to the destination of what we want to be doing quicker.
Friend,
“The burden is on the young man to think of her first.”
++++++++++++++++
hmmmm… why is the burden on him? because it’s right? because it’s the only way he’ll learn to grow out of entitlement?
Guest,
Guest, your story (which you’ve related on this and other blogs) is the worst story of abuse I have ever come across on these blogs. I don’t know how you were able to survive it. That is the level of abuse where the abusee either winds up dead or with psych damage so severe they may as well be.
And they did it all to you citing God for Cosmic-level justification of what they wanted to do anyway. (The actual original meaning of the Commandment “taking God’s Name in vain”.) There is no other word for this but EVIL (and most Christians wouldn’t know real evil if it bit them in the butt).
It was for me.
No, sorry, oops! I wrote that because I know far more young men than young women, from years of volunteering.
Most girls still prefer to be asked to the prom. The burden is on boys to overcome shyness and other causes of hesitation, while girls wait, not knowing what (if anything) will happen. I know a retired teacher who used to offer an annual after-school session to teach boys how to ask a girl to the prom, walk them through the whole prom-expectation minefield, and answer pent-up questions. Her room was packed every year.
There’s a healthy version of wondering, “Am I worthy of the one I love? How can I grow and change?” When I sense these thoughts (again, as healthy questions, not self-flagellation or sexism), I think people are on the right track.
I think this is an element to it, yes. Which is why in trying to talk to people, it can be helpful to figure out where they are coming from. Who needs education and who is a rude person who needs to be left alone…sometimes that’s hard to sort.
I think people learn what is acceptable and what is not by how people react to it. If she is left hanging for an extended period of time and subsequently leaves, he learns that is not ok. He may need a bit of introspection to figure out *why* he did that, but he can sure figure out how not to do it again I think?
Karen,
Karen, I am sure it was emotional, but WELS has it in their doctrine women cannot vote in the assembly. My husband grew up in a WELS church/ parochial school environment, and he said it “wasn’t like that because the women ran everything” while his mother said otherwise. I guess as a boy, my husband was oblivious to the difference between the ones making all the decisions (men) and the ones who do the grunt work (women). I, on the other hand, attended an ALC Lutheran Church when I was a young child. This church merged with two others to form ELCA which I did not know until I looked into my Christian roots abandoned in childhood. I was glad to see my childhood church already ordained women before other Lutheran churches so this was already part of my Christian heritage. I sometimes wish my parent’s divorce did not end our church attendance and I might have seen this more growing up. I know a sister church had an ordained women pastor where I attended a relative’s baptism at age 12 so I know it was happening.
When we are dealing with young women, though, sometimes it takes years to learn to be direct. Particularly if they have been taught by parents, church, society, to be otherwise.
It’s easy to miss the fact that the said Law allowed a man to divorce his wife if she displeased him. It doesn’t really define “displeased”, but in historical context, it probably wasn’t because she beat, sexually abused and/or enslaved him. If she did, I seriously doubt whether ancient cultures would have been content with divorcing her.
That is key. But if he arrives after she has left, the two people do need to talk, to ascertain that both are safe, and state whatever is on their minds (flat tire, inconsiderate, it’s fine, sorry…). Silence is not a reliable teacher. And you are right, many women struggle to assert themselves. This is a big reason I try to help young men ask themselves, “What would she want?”
I agree Elastigirl. I know of a child custody called Gertler versus Gertler where the parents decided to live in an isolated, patriarchal, Amish like religious existence although not Amish. They had several daughters where they wore long skirts and covered their hair. The mother made their clothes, and they didn’t have any electricity. The girls were home schooled. The father didn’t believe in medical or dental care etc., and he made all the decisions. After a few years of this, the mother woke up, divorced the husband, put the girls in regular school and activities and an otherwise normal life, but the dad made them wear dresses and scarves on weekend visits. The couple had joint legal custody which only really works if the parents can work together. The mother filed for sole custody after a while because the father tried to dominate the decision making because he still believe d he had a God given tight as the head of the family to make those decisions although divorced. Thankfully the court saw this and gave Mom sole legal custody. A lot of women aren’t so lucky and have to endure a dominating and abusive husband post divorce do many women may not leave if they can’t get away from this stuff if the court enables an abuser especially a religious one.
Eh, it can be sometimes though. Sometimes accepting that you won’t always get answers and that’s ok, is healthy.
As for the particulars of contacting people and the detail of it, I think some of this depends on the particulars, first date is different from 200th! And cellphones are useful things.
Lea,
🙂
Friend,
“Am I worthy of the one I love? How can I grow and change?”
++++++++++++++++
now that’s a t-shirt i’d wear.
(or give to my husband! 😮
Gertler versus Gertler divorce and custody battle is fascinating and disturbing ,but with a good outcome. Joann Gertler deserves a medal
https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/court-of-appeals/2015/2015-ca-000100-me.html
elastigirl,
🙂
You are asking the ecclesiastical equivalent of Do you still beat your wife ( or husband), no serious, sencere answer will suffice.
If I say no I don’t beat my wife, the questioner’s response will be, ah, so you finally stopped.
Obviously if I say yes I still beat my wife, well, then I’m a wife beater…can’t win…
But I will try to give you a sincere answer, but let me preface the reply first by saying you mentioned the ongoing back and forth on this thread, did you notice that I tried to answer any questions put to me directly as I could.
I don’t think I ever got a direct answer to: can God, the uncaused first cause, the infinite creator, act within his prerogative to decree something that the creation would deem unfair ?
I think that is a simple, basic question, Bueller, Buller, Buller……
But with all that said, your question is basically fair, but hard, and a mind field.
Let’s try to qualify your question, even though I am in an exploratory time, of evaluating complementarianism, if I did say that I did believe that complementarianism was biblical, fair, good for women, would that be an answer to what you are asking ? And would you consider that to be discriminatory?
In general terms, when you take these bad apples, ( the true repugnant abusers, that I agree are a blight on the cause of Christ, I’m embarrassed, and truly repulsed by their conduct), most anyone can tell you that there are plenty of good men and women would fall under-the complementarianism flag, that far outnumber these sleeze balls.
Sadly due to a lot of women that have had it up to here, ( where ever here is for each), I can understand why they are conflating bad men truly bad men, with bad hermeneutics, at least in their eyes.
You are asking the ecclesiastical equivalent of Do you still beat your wife ( or husband), no serious, sencere answer will suffice.
If I say no I don’t beat my wife, the questioner’s response will be, ah, so you finally stopped.
Obviously if I say yes I still beat my wife, well, then I’m a wife beater…can’t win…
But I will try to give you a sincere answer, but let me preface the reply first by saying you mentioned the ongoing back and forth on this thread, did you notice that I tried to answer any questions put to me directly as I could.
I don’t think I ever got a direct answer to: can God, the uncaused first cause, the infinite creator, act within his prerogative to decree something that the creation would deem unfair ?
I think that is a simple, basic question, Bueller, Buleller, Bueller….
But with all that said, your question is basically fair, but hard, and a mind field.
Let’s try to qualify your question, even though I am in an exploratory time, of evaluating complementarianism, if I did say that I did believe that complementarianism was biblical, fair, good for women, would that be an answer to what you are asking ? And would you consider that to be discriminatory?
In general terms, when you take these bad apples, ( the true repugnant abusers, that I agree are a blight on the cause of Christ, I’m embarrassed, and truly repulsed by their conduct), most anyone can tell you that there are plenty of good men and women would fall under-the complementarianism flag, that far outnumber these sleeze balls.
Sadly due to a lot of women that have had it up to here, ( where ever here is for each), I can understand why they are conflating bad men truly bad men, with bad hermeneutics, at least in their eyes.
I looked around and found this https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/03/c-s-lewis-said-it-gods-goodness-cannot-be-wholly-other/
It’s very good, thanks for mentioning it. It seems to me that separating God from our native understanding of goodness is a good way to replace God with the god of this world.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28
Surely if we are equal in Christ, then we are equal in his church.
And why was it so necessary for the early church to emphasize this fact? Because the Religious leaders of Israel were false teachers, and had, for many years taught a false doctrine of ‘election’ of a select ‘chosen people’. The Israelite had been raised on this kind of thinking, which is very similar to what is often asserted today: ‘It is all about you. You are special. God loves you more.’
Jesus came to break the bad news; which was actually good news for all of mankind: God loves all without distinction. No the gentiles were not made to do Israel’s dirty work. Slaves were not given to wash their feet. Women were not created to do the cooking, cleaning and other useful services. They were all loved and important in their own right.
Even today this shocking claim of Jesus is downplayed. But he came to overturn all of the traditional, narcissistic, racist, sexist thinking. We should not be surprised when the old ‘isms’ once again rear their ugly heads. Sin is narcissism – I matter more than anything else.
Jesus turned all of that on its head, and said love others, the first shall be last, wash one another’s feet. He offered Israel the salvation they had always sought, but he refused to give it to them on their terms. The stone upon which they stumbled was God’s love for all men and women, no exception, no distinction. All people are chosen and loved. There are many who still reject this good news.
There’s a major difference between Old Covenant and false teaching. Jews today still live under what Christians call the Old Covenant. Most Christian traditions accept the Old Covenant as enduring, not abandoned by God, even though Jewish people do not accept Jesus as Messiah.
TS00, true but with a caveat, people quote that God never changes, true but in God’s terms…..
I for one am really glad that in fact God does change…..
He never changes in character, i.e. he cannot lie, hatred for sin, etc.
But how he deals with people changes all the time.
God starts out with a lamb for a man, then it escalates to a lamb for a family, then it escalates to a lamb for a whole nation.
Then John the Baptist says behold the lamb of God that takes away the sin of The Who,e world…..
I for one am truly thankful that God changes……
Benn,
“I don’t think I ever got a direct answer to: can God, the uncaused first cause, the infinite creator, act within his prerogative to decree something that the creation would deem unfair ?”
++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you, Benn, for your gracious interaction on this heated topic.
i think i answered you directly. my point was just as love is recognizable the world-over across cultures, and recognizable the spirit world-over, so it is with things like justice and fairness.
for what is “fair” to suddenly be recognized as “unfair” on an ultimate level would be like the sun suddenly revolving around the earth. Sure, God could do it, but everything in the physical world would come apart.
my direct answer is that for “fair” to suddenly be reversed to unfair, the world of everything not tangible would come apart. which is a short skip and a jump to everything tangible falling apart.
or, for “love” to suddenly be “hate”, and “fair” to suddenly be “unfair”, life forms would end up killing each other if not themselves.
to me, it’s a silly & meaningless thing to consider.
elastigirl,
“to me, it’s a silly & meaningless thing to consider.”
+++++++++++++
sorry for how i put that. should have said something like, ‘as i see it, a valid question. to ponder for not very long’.
Benn,
That was an interesting answer, in many ways.
Your answer to me didn’t really answer my question though – if you believed that God through the Bible was telling you to do something that wouldn’t be considered good by others, or even maybe you, would you do it because Scripture said it? You changed my question by adding ‘good & fair’ to what I had asked.
I ask this because of all the times I see people go over the edge in their alleged dedication to God via Scripture, & they start to redefine the word good because of cognitive dissonance, to ensure they can label even damaging results as ‘good’. This is often seen with the results of patriarchy for example, where the men would never in a million years want to suffer the same conditions they put the women amongst them under, yet label them ‘good’.
It just makes me wonder which way someone is going to go when they start heading down this road.
Count me among the single Christians (not by choice in my case, but by inability to find a suitable partner) who have zero use for complementarianism and the “Estrogen Sucks Version.”
Regarding Lottie Moon, etc., I highly recommend this recent book: https://www.amazon.com/Significance-Singleness-Theological-Vision-Future-ebook/dp/B07D6YHDJ8
Yes, exactly.
I found this part a bit DARVO like too. Telling.
I too found that answer a deflection.
Ok, I will try to be more precise, but first can you answer me yes or no, with no qualifiers, Does the creator have the right, to do something to their creation, that the creation, might not view as fair, to some, fair to many, fair to a select few, or fair to all?
Now, I am assuming that you believe in an eternal God, that in fact did create us.
And this isn’t a trick, gotcha question (imho).
I hold to the view that God can do what ever he pleases, but their are many gods in our world today, you have asked a very volatile question, so I am trying to see if we share the same view of God, most likely not, but at least see where we agree, and I will try to answer.
Dude.
You flipped her question because you don’t want to answer it. Not really. Maybe you should think about why.
My Dear Wormwood:
I refer you to my previous epistle on Semantics, specifically the redefinition of the Enemy’s words into their “diabolical meanings”.
Nowhere do we corrupt so effectively as at the very foot of the Enemy’s altar!
Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape
Anyone remember “The Paradox of Evil”?
1) God is all-Good.
2) God is all-Powerful.
3) Evil Exists.
Any two of these three axioms, no problemo.
All three, Paradox.
Both Calvin and Mohammed solved this by crossing out Axiom 1 and putting God beyond Good & Evil. As I encountered the Christian version, “God Wills what God Wills and who are we mere creatures to say otherwise? We are the Creatures and HE IS THE CREATOR!”
The link also related that in such a case, the only difference between God and Satan is POWER, i.e.. God has a bigger boot. God becomes nothing more than Infinite POWER to force His Will on everything.
“There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
— Lord Voldemort
Is it any wonder so many of these Godly Guys are “authoritarian”? They are trying to be like their God, POWER.
“The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering upon the powerless.”
— Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Nineteen Eighty-Four
“For the hearts of Men are easily corrupted, and a Ring of POWER has a Will of its own.”
— Tolkien(?)
Lea, I don’t think I filpped the question, I was just trying to see the level of agreement on scripture, before I tried to explain my position, and should I try to use secular examples, or just biblical, or both.
So I will just stick with the biblical aspect.
My question was asking for a personal opinion, what do any of us think about the question I asked, and I gave my opinion, but beakerj had an IF in the original question that was asked of me, a hypothetical, if scripture plainly said to : discriminate against, women, black people, old people, sick people would I do it, short answer is no, of course not.
But there is no real way to qualify what most people and most laws say is unfair, not dodging the second part.
But you two, Lea or beakerj could not affirm that hypothetically you would follow or affirm any law, the pendulum swings both ways, laws that you two agree with could change very quickly.
But I will say this I will honor all American law ( qualifier: laws of affirmation, even if I don’t agree, e.g. I think abortion is wrong, but if it is the law of the land so be it, as long as no one some day can be compelled to have an abortion.)
I will not discriminate against anyone for any reason, I will not try to stop anyone from doing anything, as long as I am free to not participate ( and I am talking about not taking any freedom away from you two),and it doesn’t cause collateral damage to me, abortion, SSM, open boarders, if the law of the land says ok, then I won’t restrict your rights.
But I do have an orthodox Christian worldview, and that is the filter I view things.
I am a follower of Christ, and I don’t care how anyone else lives their life.
So I am not required to follow the old covenant that was given to Israel.
I believe in, and try to live by the new covenant given in the Christian Bible
I hate long post, so I will stop, but will answer any questions either of you have.
So I will leave it at this, do you believe in any absolute truth?
She doesn’t need to agree with you for you to answer a question.
Correct, and now I feel I have answered hers, Just waiting for answer to mine, and / or if more info is needed ftprom my end
I don’t recall agreeing on anything of the sort and also why are you so concerned about making sure people ‘agree’ and ‘affirm’ your thoughts?
Well that is good. But in the next sentence your hedging about what is reall ‘fair’ which is not so good. It’s pretty easy to see things that are blatantly unfair, children see it. You have to train yourself out of seeing it really. Half points.
Benn,
“I will not discriminate against anyone for any reason, I will not try to stop anyone from doing anything”
+++++++++++++++
that’s great to hear. (sincerely)
you won’t be able to embrace gender roles and maintain this stance.
Benn,
Again, interesting answers. You are teetering on the brink of gaslighting, & those with experience of that have focused in on your answers to me. However, just in case there’s a benign interest behind there…
If you wanted to know my stance on Scripture, why not just ask? Then you’d know if it was worth answering me or not 😉
I used to hold to an Evangelical style inerrancy model, but with a lot of study & experience this has been modified to more of a Wesleyan quadrilateral view, with a lot of interest in Orthodox hermeneutics. And yes, I do believe in objective truth.
I believe God can do anything consistent with his character, so as long as we can discern what that is, we can work it out from there. My problem comes when some Christians talk about God being good & loving, & then redefine this in terms that are qualitatively different to anything we understand by those terms, which obviously descends into total nonsense. They may as well say God is X. Only if God’s goodness & love are totally redefined by Scripture – I don’t believe they are – can it be said that God can do things which are unfair, or even evil. Things that ‘seem’ unfair may be explainable, but otherwise it’s a big & very ugly semantic game over love, something no-one should be playing games over.
If something seems evil, but we think Scripture tells us to do it – & people have thought Scripture tells them to do lots of things, from slavery, to marital rape, to brutal physical chastisement of babies to break their spirits, to genocide & it goes on – then we need to be very clear about whether we will do it or not, as we risk, as Lewis said, turning God into a Devil, the Devil, & worshipping him because of his power, not his goodness.
I think you just hit something with axiom #2. Yes, God is all powerful. BUT, He willingly lays down power and relinquishes it into mankind’s hands, hence axiom #1 and #3 exists. This is the paradox of the cross. God gave up His power in Jesus, allowed His own creation to crucify Him. In a way, He gives up power all the time by allowing humans free will to sin or do good. Anyone claiming to know Jesus who grasps after power and is not willing to lay it down instead is not following Jesus at best, and might not even know Him at worst. May God forgive me for all the times I’ve wanted more power.
I am trying to be transparent, your first response to me was about what I had been back and forth I believe was elastigirl, and maybe TSOO, and I was asking if God has the power, Authority, to decree as the creator to the creation something that some, few,most, all, almost all, could not be ok with, not seem fair, have trouble reconciling with, we can pick our phrase. I am not trying to gas light anybody, please don’t take it that way,
I struggle with some things I am told to do, I take all comments, responses from you, Lea, Elastigirl, and anybody else as sincere, just because I may not hold to that view, why am I not afforded the same deference?
The main reason I ask is most everyone on this blog has nothing positive to say about Calvinism, and I don’t either.
Max and TSOO speak out more than most, I believe due to personal experiences.
So if most everyone on here is non Calvinist ( or as I call it a traditionalist).
Traditionalist hold to free will on most all issues,
So as a free will choice by some Christians to hold to a complementarianism view, is their free will choice.
I just think there is a difference between what God decrees, and some bad people abusing that biblical position.
And people have a free will choice to mistreat people, but no one is forced to hold to a complementarianism view.
I just take people at their word that they are being sincere, I don’t have enough discernment to try judge people’s motives
Just as if Dee decides to limit everyone to 5 comments per thread, as owner and creator of TWW she can do it,
And she doesn’t have to ask anyone their opinion
What about absolute truth, have you an opinion?
Benn,
“So as a free will choice by some Christians to hold to a complementarianism view, is their free will choice.
I just think there is a difference between what God decrees, and some bad people abusing that biblical position.
And people have a free will choice to mistreat people, but no one is forced to hold to a complementarianism view.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
free will choice vs God hath decreed….
you would always choose what God hath decreed, correct?
no one is forced to hold to a complementarian view — but if God hath decreed it, then they are obligated to, correct?
not sure where i’m going with this, but i really want to add this:
being subjugated to a benevolent dictator who is a truly good human being is still subjugation. shackles that are cute, stylish, and comfortable are still shackles.
no one who buys into the Golden Rule can simultaneously embrace male headship. they are lying to themselves.
I’ve wanted to reply to this since last night (my time, when I read it) but I wanted to give Beaker time to reply first, since it was in a comment directed to (?)her.
Benn, this sounds as though you believe that God can do anything He wants and declare anything He chooses to be “good”, and that His word alone makes it so. If that’s what you think, then I can’t agree. On this subject, I think C.S. Lewis was correct in saying that things are not good simply because God says or does them. Rather, His infinite wisdom perceives and knows what is truly good, and he speaks and acts in accordance with that.
Now, I accept that there might be times when God teaches us what is right and good, and we have trouble understanding it. That seems to have been the situation in Ezekiel 18, when He sought to correct the Israelites’ thinking on personal vs. corporate guilt. But for God to unilaterally state that something evil is actually “good” is topsy-turvy thinking. It’s completely at odds with His word to Israel through Isaiah in 5:20. More fundamentally, it would make trusting God’s goodness a hopeless and impossible exercise.
In high school, I remember reading John Wyndham’s novel “The Chrysalids”. The protagonist’s Uncle Axel quietly questions the corrupted yet “official” teachings of the local church, because he travelled in his younger days, and his experiences have led him to wonder how a good God could commit such a holocaust on the world. HIs nephew (the preacher’s son) remarks that God, being an all-powerful God, can do anything He pleases. Axel’s response: “We have to believe that God is sane. Whatever happened out there, was not sane.”
My thinking is much the same as Axel’s, and that of Lewis. If God can arbitrarily define what is “good” (rather than perceiving and acknowledging what is good), then we’re in danger of worshipping an omnipotent fiend. That’s the very last thing I want to do.
Along with Elastigirl, I’m glad to hear that you don’t intend to discriminate against women, or anyone else. But I also agree with her that, if you accept gender comp teachings, you’ll likely end up doing so sooner or later.
If scripture ‘appears’ to induce us to evil or unloving actions, we do not understand it properly, as Jesus summed up the law and the prophets pretty succinctly as ‘love others as self’. If Christian scripture were to genuinely teach us to be unloving, abusive and evil, you would have to count me out of Christianity. Gasp! Wail! There it is.
My faith in a living God who is loving and faithful and desires us to treat one another justly and kindly goes beyond a book of treasured words and beliefs. If cruel, tyrannical Christianity, i.e. the Inquisition and Crusades, or modern authoritarian churches is the real deal, then I guess I’m in the market for a new religion. They can have the bible, if they must, but they cannot take my God, who is living and real and interacts with my spirit.
No, that one was Peter Jackson.
Still holds.
There
arethings that, according to the bible, God cannot do. He cannot lie.
He cannot be something He is not.
A lot of stuff about the notional “omnipotence” of God comes from neo-Platonist thought-experiments about what “god” “should” be like – not from the written testimony about Jesus. For instance: if God is truly sovereign and omnipotent, can he create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it? If he can, then he’s not omnipotent, because he’s set himself a challenge he can’t overcome. But if he can’t, he’s not omnipotent, because there’s something he can’t do. What’s really going on here, of course, is that a meaningless and self-refuting definition of “omnipotent” is in use (basically, you may as well ask: can God beat himself up?). But the same absurdity lurks behind a lot of sovereignty_of_God theology too.
Benn,
Ha, Max & TSOO are almost amateurs when it comes to hating Calvinism. Meticulous determinism is meticulous nonsense.
For me the question is not ‘could God X?’, but ‘would God X?’, every time. Without character driving action, all you are left with is power, again.
And I thought I’d covered the subject of truth by saying I believe in objective truth.
As for the gaslighting thing…you proceed very like those sounding out other people’s theology in a roundabout way, with the intent of popping up with some theological slam dunk at some point. It makes me nervous & weary. I could be wrong & you just have an unfortunate tone, in which case apologies to you.
Nick Bulbeck,
Oh yes. Well put Mr Blubneck.
I think this is key.
Seems like a lot of this is diversionary. Reminds me of the Music Man sending his inquisitors off into harmless four-part harmony. I figure anything the human mind could imagine, the Creator of all things could probably manage. What sort of nonsense is it to try and imagine God outsmarting himself? Same sort of logical labyrinths Calvinism creates.
As you suggest, the real issue for us small folk is what ‘would’ God do – because he instructs us to be imitators thereof. Would God brainwash, manipulate, bully or abuse others in order to get what he wants? Look around. He has tolerated a heckuva lot of rebellion and ‘missing the mark’ on our part. Just doesn’t add up if you believe in an all-controlling mastermind, unless you grant that he is deeply into evil.
Seems to me that love, patience, kindness and mercy are the only good and logical answers.
And thanks for the compliment. If I ever get to graciousness, I’m making progress.
That sort of thing just makes me irritated. There is a difference between having a conversation and trying to score points or ‘win’ or something. Like a game.
This isn’t a game. People’s real lives are being hurt because of bad theology and bad behavior alike. That’s not ok.
I realize I’m tough on “New” Calvinism, but really don’t have much beef with “Old” Calvinism – even though I don’t agree with the tenets of reformed theology. The young reformers are arrogant, militant, aggressive, and deceptive as they take over traditional non-Calvinist churches for the New Calvinist movement. I have found classical Calvinists to be more civil in their discourse and respectful of other expressions of faith; I consider some as friends. While they might get a little nervous when I’m around, none of them would say I hated them. Perhaps I’m too amateur to make them squirm.
I resemble that remark. I was young and now am old. I’ve had a lifetime of personal experiences – some of the best were in church, some of the worst were in church. The single most life-changing personal experience I’ve ever had was an encounter with the living Christ. As I’ve shared my journey with Christ to others, I’ve only had “strict” Calvinists minimize it. Apparently, they had a mistrust of a personal Christian experience, preferring to think of the essence of Christianity as doctrines ‘about’ grace rather than a direct experience ‘of’ Grace. I guess that causes me to speak out more than most.
Bingo Beaks, I was just gonna’ say that too.
What’s the point of exercising power capriciously?
I remember a quote from some Medieval Theologian (cannot find it on the Web) that went:
“Of course God can make a tree into a cow; but has He ever done so?
Bring evidence, or this is all idle speculation.”
Or a Debate (with twirling pens…)
I told you about those twirling pens!
And anyways, a proper debate has rules. If you just keep talking in circles and asking a bunch of irrelevant questions, you’re not actually going to win. It’s not like tv where the person who talks the loudest and claims to win *actually* wins. And none of it has any bearing on what is really right or true.