Christian Marriage, Doug Phillips & Vision Forum, Family Integrated Churches, God's Design for the Family, Homeschool Movement, Kevin Swanson, Marriage, Marriages Damaged-Destroyed by Sp. Ab., Patriarchal-Complementarian Movement, Reconstructionist-Dominion Movement, Shunning, Spiritual Abuse, Spiritual Bullies, Stay-At-Home Daughters Movement, Vision Forum, Voddie Baucham, Women and the Church

Doug Phillips: Question about Pastoral Position, Timeline of Events, and Understanding True Repentance

Julie Anne

*      *      *

Doug Phillips:  a timeline of events, understanding true repentance and question about Phillips’ teaching elder position at Boerne Christian Assembly

*     *     *

“Over the years, my sensitivity to these problems has only heightened, until several years ago, I set about to align with men who were sounding the alarm of truth and offering Biblical answers to the problems we are facing. Doug Phillips was one of those men, and Vision Forum was one of those ministries which the Lord has providentially raised up at this time in history to rebuild our Christ honoring foundations, one family at a time.”  Scott Brown, director of National Center for Family-Integrated Churches

I’ve gotten a little flack from various well-known names regarding the comments on my previous post, Doug Phillips Resigns from Office of President at Vision Forum, Discontinues Speaking Engagements.  One thought is about how wrong it is to “chortle” over the news of Doug Phillips stepping down as president of Vision Forum Ministries (he did not mention stepping down from the for-profit arm of Vision Forum).  I don’t think anyone has been doing any chortling (gotta love that word), but people might be glad that truth is exposed because that is the beginning of healing.  But some have been saying people should remain quiet and pray for him and his family as he has shown great humility by his public statement.

We all want a happy ending which includes repentance and restoration, but it’s important to test the waters and see the fruit evidenced.   Part of that evidence included this:

Is Doug Phillips still a teaching elder/pastor at his church, Boerne Christian Assembly?

This was first question that came to my mind after the big news this week of Phillips stepping down. If this man, who taught others how to have godly families, how men should be godly husbands and fathers, had fallen into sin – – so much that he felt the need to resign his Vision Forum Ministry position as president, then what about the even more important ministry work – – that of shepherding of God’s flock?

I checked the Boerne Christian Assembly website when the news broke and saw Phillips’ name still listed as elder (elder is the same as pastor in family-integrated churches):

*     *     *

Screen Shot 2013-11-02 at 9.23.57 PM
Source

*     *     *

The question as to whether or not Phillips remains in his position as teaching elder is an important question as it helps people to be able to examine the validity of his statement of repentance.  If families are looking to this man for godly teaching, yet he has recently been living a life contrary to what he is teaching, this is a problem of integrity and moral character.

Someone left this comment on my previous article about Phillips stepping down from his elder position at his church:

*     *     *

Screen Shot 2013-11-02 at 9.33.34 PM

*     *     *

I’m uncomfortable posting an anonymous comment as fact.  I need more than that.  Well, yesterday, more credible information came in via Voddie Baucham’s Facebook page.  If you recall, Baucham and Phillips are good buddies.  They both follow the family-integrated church model, are into similar ideologies of Patriarchy, Homeschool Movement, courtship, etc.  They speak together at conferences.  Here’s a snippet of screenshot from a father/daughter retreat in which both Phillips and Baucham spoke.

*     *     *

Screen Shot 2013-11-02 at 9.46.55 PM
Source

*     *     *

(By the way, if you want to get a good idea of what these guys teach at a father/daughter retreat, check out the message titles.)

Ok, so now that we have established that Baucham and Phillips have pretty close ties, I think Baucham is a pretty credible source when he says this on Facebook, not once, but twice –  that Phillips has in fact stepped down as elder from his church.

*     *     *

Screen Shot 2013-11-02 at 9.15.09 PM
Source

*     *     *

Take a look at this, however.  Phillips must have felt like his life was in order enough to speak at a conference put on by FORGE Ministries held less than two months ago:  “Engage the Battle” and “Master’s Plan for Fatherhood,” which included familiar names, Kevin (Embedded-Fetuses) Swanson and Scott Brown.

*     *     *

Source
Source

*     *     *

This female blogger has questions.

What compelled Phillips to resign this week?  Why didn’t he step down from the Vision Forum Ministries president position in February when he allegedly stepped down from his teaching-elder position?  Why, if he felt the necessary to step down from his elder position, did he continue speaking on topics such as godly fathering, godly husbands when his own marriage and home life were going through their own battle?

We talk about spiritual abuse here.  We study false teachers.  Many of us missed the warning signs in our own churches.  So now, in order to prevent that from happening again, we study so as not to repeat the same mistakes.  We watch Christian leaders use their positions of leadership inappropriately, say one thing, do another, etc.  Some of us probably have trust issues.  We want to see the fruit in a leader’s life, which is a Biblical response.  We want to see true repentance before we can trust.

What does true repentance look like?

I typed a phrase for a Google search:  “what does repentance look like?” and found a sermon entitled, “What Does True Repentance Look Like?” by none other than Scott Brown, Doug Phillips’ friend whom he recently spoke with at the fatherhood conference shown above.

The date of the posting was February 28, 2013 (sermon was actually given April of 2011). I have no way of knowing if Brown knew of Phillips stepping down from his elder position around that time, or of any personal matter, but find the February timing strangely coincidental.

So, what does repentance look like?  Let’s see what Mr. Brown said:

How do you define repentance?

Notice that John uses a verb metanoew (meta-no-eh’-o) which means to turn and change. In this sense, John has a turning ministry. And in many ways we have that same kind of ministry. Our job is to go out into the world to call for repentance – for turning, because repentance is turning. Most people are turning from either an intentional lifestyle of irreverent God hating wickedness or, religiosity and moral fakery. These are the two kinds of people that were actually out coming to John in the wilderness.

Having experienced a 7.9 earthquake, I appreciated this word picture when describing repentance:

True repentance is like an earthquake of the soul that changes the configuration of your life. And it is like the restructuring of the earth happens when the hills are brought down and the valleys are raised up. This is the radical restructuring of life that is true Christianity.

Brown continued with the earthquake illustration:

So these are the earthquakes of the soul, that come from the pressure points that are building in people’s lives. At some point there is a breaking point, a metanoeo, a restructuring of life. These changes all come from the question, “What do I do with the things that God has given me?” The answer is, repent and let the landscape change. You may ask, “What do I do with my job?” Repent; let the landscape of your labors change. You may ask, “What do I do with my family?” Repent; let the landscape of your family change. You may ask, “What do I do with my church?” Repent; let the landscape of your church life change.

Those are strong words.  You can find Brown’s complete sermon on repentance here.

Scott Brown does a good job describing repentance. A lot of people have been hurt by Phillips directly and indirectly.  There are many personal accounts scattered throughout the internet. At some point you have to say either they are all bogus or there is a pattern.  Well, now he has publicly confessed to an affair with a woman.  Yes, I think we are looking for these signs of repentance from this very prominent and respected Christian leader.  Should we not expect any less?

Interestingly, just recently, in August of 2013, Doug Phillips himself wrote on the topic of repentance in a blog article.  Here is an excerpt:

Restitution: Those who experience godly sorrow and true repentance will desire to make restitution to the victim. There is a spiritual debt to God himself which they can never pay and which only the blood of Christ will satisfy. But there is a temporal debt to their fellow man which they must be willing to pay. It is not enough that they will cease and desist from the wrongdoing. They will do whatever is necessary to heal those they have injured by restoring to them what they have taken. Godly sorrow produces such compassion for the injured party that the penitent man aches to bring health and wholeness to those he has injured.

Phillips’ public ministry and pastoral ministry has affected many lives.  We are all hoping and praying that there is complete repentance, including restitution to those harmed.

*     *     *

408 thoughts on “Doug Phillips: Question about Pastoral Position, Timeline of Events, and Understanding True Repentance”

  1. Quite a lot has been said, asked of me and even alleged that probably merits a response. However if I were to respond to everything it would take up quite a bit of space here. I’m willing to continue to participate in the discussion, but I don’t want to write a treatise that takes up a lot of space on the blog, which really isn’t about me or my opinions in any event. So I will try to respond to a few things quickly.

    I will repeat what I said at the beginning — I don’t represent anyone, any movement, any group. I’m just a guy with an opinion. I’d never even heard of Doug Philips until I came to this blog — at least I don’t think I have. I am flattered by whoever said I was charming (or was it charismatic?). I don’t think I’ve ever been described that way. That said, I’m not trying to reel anyone into anything. Even if I wanted to, how could I? I don’t know you people and you don’t know me. I’m just a guy with an opinion, that’s all. I’m reminded of a saying: ‘Opinion are like a__holes… everyone has one and most of them stink’, so take what I say for what its worth (though I don’ think my opinion stinks!)

    I am not a Calvinist. I don’t think anyone suggested that I was, but there you go, just in case.

    A Mom — I agree with just about all you said about child-rearing. One of the things my wife and I discussed very early on (and still do from time to time) is the overwhelming sense of stewardship we have for our children (who are still young yet). They don’t ‘belong’ to us, yet we’re entrusted with them for a time; I have been given the power, authority if you will, to care for them. That’s what I meant by the term ward — someone entrusted to the care of another. I never made the connexion with the term warden. What you said about child-rearing actually fits quite well with the definition of authority you cited, “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.” Such power isn’t absolute, it isn’t unlimited, but it is real. You have the right to tell your children what to do, decide for them what should happen, and enforce obedience.

    I don’t appreciate however how you changed what I said about authority — I never mentioned “authority=enforced obedience=supremacy of husbands over wives “. Those are your terms, not mine. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

    And yes, I read everything you said. After all my mom was my first teacher, instructor in righteousness, giver of wise counsel, and a woman.

    Lydiasellerofpurple said – If what he described above is what he thinks is in the Patriarchy movement, he is either not informed or is playing a game.

    To be fair, I would say it is the former and not the latter. I don’t know anything (or not much) about the Patriarchy movement.

    Lydia asked about Katherine Bushnell. I hadn’t heard the name before so I had to look it up. I have heard of her book, though I’ve not read it. She’s too late to be a ‘first wave’ feminist, but apparently her work was very instructive for 2nd wave feminist theologians. I can’t give much on who those are, but if memory serves, 2nd wave feminism is around mid-twentieth century to early seventies or so. 1st wave was in the 19th century into the early 20th (think women’s suffrage movements, etc.)

    What? Are you saying here they accept what you term as “scriptural authority” or they don’t? And which translators do you deem to have had Inspired scriptural authority?

    I was only attempting to describe Evangelical Feminism (alternately called Egalitarianism). I don’t understand the 2nd question as translation issues is a whole separate category.
    Barb Orlowski – I hear you, really I do, and I respect what you’re saying. I believe there should be a LOT more vetting going on BEFORE marriage, preferably by sober minded outsiders who can see the red flags that young, dumb, and in love refuse to see. I don’t however follow your re-frame of the issue to it being about what males and females believe etc. Men & women are both victims of abuse, though it is not popular to say so.
    Peter Attwood – I agree with you about the nature of authority in the Bible, though it is not exclusively relational (e.g. the relation of citizens to the state).
    Julie Anne – Sunshine Mary’s place is an odd place with a diverse and odd audience. Probably 2/3rd of the people there disagree with each other at least ½ the time and some of her posts are…odd… to say the least
    Okay, I think that’s everything. Gary W I haven’t forgotten our raincheck.
    I will say I am not who you all seem to think I am. I’m not trying to resurrect some ancient Patriarchy, keep women and children under the boot heel of men, or twist scripture to enforce some system of male dominance.

    Like

  2. For the feminist theologian, theology in general and scriptural hermeneutics in particular have been co-opted as tools for patriarchal oppression of women by using masculinist language and narratives to paint women as always and only whores or virgins and as perpetually inferior to men. This, they posit, extends even to the use of masculine terms for God (like Father, Son) …. A third group seeks to retain both the language AND the framework of scriptural authority and thus argue that scripture does not mean what it has traditionally been interpreted to mean. This group might be termed Evangelical Feminists.

    But does the third group, the Evangelical, feminists, fall under the description of “feminist theologian?
    See the definition of a feminist theologian:

    For the feminist theologian, theology in general … have been co-opted as tools for patriarchal oppression

    You can be an evangelical feminist without believing that.

    For the feminist theologian, … scriptural hermeneutics in particular have been co-opted as tools for patriarchal oppression

    Yes, evangelical feminists believe that.

    by using masculinist language and narratives to paint women as always and only whores or virgins

    No, evangelical feminists does not believe that.

    … and as perpetually inferior to men.

    Yes, we believe theology have been used that way. But then, you could be a complementarian and also believe that. In fact, many in patriarchy believe scripture have been used that way, and is rightly used that way. This is not a good distinguishing factor between an evangelical feminist and someone who is not one. What is more, it is entirely possible to be taught an egalitarian message straight from your youth, and thus to be “egalitarian”, a term often used interchangably with “evangelical feminist”, and not even know the Bible have been used that way.

    This, they posit, extends even to the use of masculine terms for God (like Father, Son)

    Evangelical feminists do not, as a rule, have problems with God being called Father and Son.
    So, my question is: Is it right to lump so-called “evangelical feminists” with “feminist theology?” And is it even right to call everyone who believe scripture have been used to oppress women as into “feminist theology”?

    Like

  3. Retha – I think I said earlier that my was a broad stroke and probably inadequate description, so why the questions? If you can round out the description (someone asked me about it), then do so. I am merely saying that Evangelical Feminism is a variant of feminist theology, though they don’t necessarily draw the same conclusions or work with the all of the same baseline assumptions as some of the more radical feminist theologians.

    Like

  4. The best, safest environment for learning & living (especially in church) is when authority is absent. Same with marriage.

    A Mom, while I understand your meaning, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot with that wording. When they hear “authority … absent” they think of anarchy and nonbody ever following anyone’s advice and nobody agreeing on anything or thinking of another while making a decision that affects both.
    I know you don’t mean that, but we could choose our words more carefully, or be clearer on what we mean.

    Like

  6. I disagree that egalitarianism is a variant of feminism. I am not an advocate of female authority or rule. I am not an advocate of male authority or rule. I am an advocate of equality. Advocating equality is sometimes mislabeled feminism because females were subjugated and seeking relief from subjugation in society and the legal system. It was and, to some extent, still is a civil rights movement.

    My parents, born shortly before 1920, lived an egalitarian marriage, but would not have described it that way, because Southern Christian culture was complementarian and masculinist, and they did not stir the pot. Equal partners in the home and in society, with a thin veneer. BTW, my mom was active in church work and traveled several states to organize and teach women how to have effective church women’s missionary societies.

    In my own marriage, my spouse has been my equal and I hers since before marriage. We need no one to tell us who is to be in charge of what, we do what needs to be done, by whomever has the time, energy and tools to do that task. I do not think my spouse would marry into a husband-dominated relationship, and I know that I had no desire to be married to someone who felt she had to kowtow to my whims. We continually adapt and adjust our lives together to fit the demands of the situations in which we exist. BTW, we recently celebrated the 35th anniversary of her proposal of marriage to me.

    Phallocentrism is a misunderstanding that says what once was must be what God ordained, rather than what sin produced. That men were dominant when physical strength and brute force was the determinant of survival does not justify the social, psychological, and, sometimes physical, abuse that male dominance inflicts on half of humanity for life.

    Like

  7. Retha,

    The best answer I can give is to Love and seek God and Love yourself.

    For me to make any other comments not knowing what kind of circumstance that brought you to a thread like this would be insensitive on my part.

    Like

  8. Thank you, Mark.

    You spoke of ” the responsibility that God has for individual genders.” But your answer, while true ( “Love and seek God and Love yourself”) say nothing of an individually gendered responsibility – men should certainly do so too. Could I ask you to stop speaking of gender responsibilities until you can actually show there are some?

    Like

  9. I think I get the point of SSM’s water tower post. We said Vision Forum/ Doug is male-centered. SSM challenged us and disagreed.
    We then gave hir conclusive evidence that ze is wrong: Doug Phillips is male-centered.
    Instead of admitting we were right, SSM changed the topic with a new blog post: Well, male-centeredness/ phallocentricity is a good thing, and we feminists don’t know what we are missing!

    Like

  10. An Attorney — It sounds like you have a lovely marriage. God bless you and your bride and I hope you enjoy many more years together.

    Like

  11. Retha, That’s just SSM’s typical M.O.: Find a blog/forum
    that espouses ideas that are not completely in line with the “Godly
    righteousness of male dominance and female subjugation”, and do a
    drive-by comment or two. Return to her own blog to engage in the
    oh-so-very-Christian behaviour of pointing and snickering, thereby
    receiving further adulation from her male supremacist echo chamber
    that gives her the attention and validation that she does not
    receive from her philandering husband. Yes, she believes that all
    you feminists or egalitarians need is a good spanking from a
    dominant man and you’ll soon come to see the error of your
    ways.

    Like

  12. An Attorney,

    Phallocentrism is a
    misunderstanding that says what once was must be what God ordained,
    rather than what sin produced. That men were dominant when physical
    strength and brute force was the determinant of survival does not
    justify the social, psychological, and, sometimes physical, abuse
    that male dominance inflicts on half of humanity for
    life.

    Exactly!! It baffles me how some want to
    proclaim that the perpetuation of our fallen proclivities is “Godly
    manhood and womanhood”.

    Like

  13. tbc, in case you decide to get back to me on the question of authority:

    When all is said and done authority involves, to whatever greater or lesser degree, the exercise of dominion by one person over another. Authority exists only where dominion is exercised by right. All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been give to Jesus. As between humans, therefore, only that dominion which is exercised by right of authority delegated by Jesus is righteous.

    Husbands have been exercising dominion over wives since the Garden, when God informed Eve that Adam would rule over her. Gen. 3:6. The question is whether this dominion is exercised by right of authority. The immediate context clearly indicates that Adam’s exercise of dominion over Eve was a consequence of the couple’s sin. To argue that this passage somehow establishes a husband’s right to dominate his wife, to whatever degree, is a prime application of An Attorney’s observation that “Phallocentrism is a misunderstanding that says what once was must be what God ordained, rather than what sin produced.”

    Before it can be said that Husbands have rightful authority to dominate their wives, even if only to the extent of having the final say after attempts to reach agreement have failed, it must be established that a delegation of authority has been made by Jesus Himself. Except in the matter of sexual relations (1 Cor. 7:4), there simply is no direct Scriptural delegation to husbands of authority over wives; and in the instance of sexual relations the delegation is reciprocal.

    Any attempt to establish husbands’ supposed authority over wives must be based on inferences drawn from Paul’s teachings on submission and headship. While many substantive objections have been raised with regard to such inferences, the final lie is put to all such arguments by Jesus commandment to love one another, and also by Paul’s admonition to husbands to love their wives. Jn. 13:34; Eph. 5:28. The requirement to love excludes any possibility of dominion, whether right of authority or otherwise. Why? Because love does not demand its own way. 1 Cor. 13:5.

    Of course, the commandment to love one another also excludes authority as the basis of relationships between Christians generally. Only love, or perhaps I should say Love, will serve.

    Like

  15. Pam,

    ” Return to her own blog to engage in the
    oh-so-very-Christian behaviour of pointing and snickering, thereby
    receiving further adulation from her male supremacist echo chamber
    that gives her the attention and validation that she does not
    receive from her philandering husband.”

    Thank you for that explanation. Love your phrase “male supremacist echo chamber.” Brilliant!
    Someone should take some screenshots to show the world how “Christ-like” the male-headship pushers are.

    Like

  16. “Retha, That’s just SSM’s typical M.O.: Return to her own blog to engage in the
    oh-so-very-Christian behaviour of pointing and snickering, thereby
    receiving further adulation from her male supremacist echo chamber
    that gives her the attention and validation that she does not receive from her philandering husband. Yes, she believes that all you feminists or egalitarians need is a good spanking from a dominant man and you’ll soon come to see the error of your ways.”

    Thank you!!!! You summed it up perfectly. I’ve never seen such a thing and seeing their bizarre responses threw me. I did notice the wife spanking reference, justifying the practice and the comment was readily received.

    Another thing, if you are a woman who fornicated before marriage, it seems the woman is to blame for any and all problems.

    Btw, welcome, Pam. I was really glad to read your comment because I hadn’t had time to digest what I had just experienced. Wow! That was some crazy ride.

    Like

  17. Here is my question: what happens to complementarian “headship” in the world to come–where people shall “neither marry nor be given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven…”? It seems that, at most, human patriarchy has a present–but neither a past nor a future…

    Like

  18. Ok Gary — thank you for patience. As I read what you’ve written I think we much closer on some of these issues than was perhaps initially apparent. I’ve jotted some thoughts in relation to what you just posted.

    When all is said and done authority involves, to whatever greater or lesser degree, the exercise of dominion by one person over another. Authority exists only where dominion is exercised by right.

    I agree partially. Authority does not only extend to persons, but also to things, to systems, etc. And all exercise of authority / power is not the same. Some power / authority is exercised as a stewardship (parents over children for example) and some is exercised more as ownership (a property owner over his property). Ultimately all forms of power or authority that are exercised are derivative, limited, and have a stewardship component to them because human beings are not the source of power (to employ the Pauline play on words), we are not unlimited, and we don’t ultimately ‘own’ anything. It all belongs to God.

    And yet within that overarching framework, human beings do have authority.

    Implicit within authority is submission / obedience (and obedience is linguistically related to submission). One yields to another. Jesus demonstrates this ultimately by his own willing submission to death (see Phil 2). It was ironically, this submission/obedience to the point of death that lead to Christ’s exaltation.

    Husbands have been exercising dominion over wives since the Garden, when God informed Eve that Adam would rule over her. Gen. 3:6. The question is whether this dominion is exercised by right of authority. The immediate context clearly indicates that Adam’s exercise of dominion over Eve was a consequence of the couple’s sin.

    I agree that the ‘rule’ indicated in Gen 3.6 is better understood as a consequence of sin than an ideal prescription of how men & women should relate.

    Before it can be said that Husbands have rightful authority to dominate their wives, even if only to the extent of having the final say after attempts to reach agreement have failed, it must be established that a delegation of authority has been made by Jesus Himself. Except in the matter of sexual relations (1 Cor. 7:4), there simply is no direct Scriptural delegation to husbands of authority over wives; and in the instance of sexual relations the delegation is reciprocal.

    This is true (I think) if you look only for instance of direct use of the word ‘authority’ as it relates to the relationship of husbands to wives. Neither the wife nor the husband have power over their own body, particularly in the case of sexual relations. This is not properly speaking a delegation however, but a description of mutual belonging. The husband belongs to the wife and the wife to the husband – they are one another’s. I don’t know about the use of the word ‘dominate’. It isn’t a word I’ve used and it doesn’t really fit scripturally either.

    It is not true that the authority of husband’s over (their own) wives is not indicated. 1 Peter talks about subjection to secular authorities, of servants to masters, and then continues to mention that wives too should be subject to their own husbands.

    The requirement to love excludes any possibility of dominion, whether right of authority or otherwise. Why? Because love does not demand its own way. 1 Cor. 13:5.

    This is not true in my opinion. Love and the exercise of authority (or as you re-phrased it dominion) are not mutually exclusive. Love (charitas) indeed does not demand its own way – and neither should authority be exercised for its own sake but rather for the sake of others. Christ again is the example – he did not hold tightly to his prerogatives as the Son but took the form of a servant and became obedient to death – that is he placed the full divine authority of God at the disposal of his bride – the Church – for whom he died. This does not mean, however, that authority is no longer present. Christ ties love and obedience inextricably together, which is nonsensical unless there is some element of authority present.

    Power/authority are real and thus need to be dealt with properly.

    Like

  19. Here is my question: what happens to complementarian “headship” in the world to come–where people shall “neither marry nor be given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven…”? It seems that, at most, human patriarchy has a present–but neither a past nor a future…

    That would apply to every human institution – egalitarian marriages alike, along with secular governments and their attendant military forces — they are all part of ‘this present age’ and presumably won’t continue in the age to come. We the church will all then experience the direct ‘husband-ship’ of Christ, since we’re his bride. I admit I have trouble imagining all of that, but there you go.

    Like

  20. Hi tbc,
    Interesting…so you would agree that human “headship” is (like animal sacrifice) a temporal matter–a sin result that belongs neither in Eden nor in the New Earth–not an item of spiritual permanence?

    Like

  21. JA wrote~

    “You got Little Mary Sunshine writing a post about phallocentrism – and she even blamed us over here (linking and mentioning us). For the life of me, I cannot figure out the audience of that blog.”

    Wow—THAT was a disturbing post and visuals, SSM wrote the following in a comment under her post-

    “[ssm: LOL, men thought we were just pretending, but no, we really are just as dumb as we seem.]”

    She forgot deceived. Dumb AND deceived. Why are the men fans reading there?

    Like

  22. Sensible – I did say that marriage was temporal. I did not say human headship was the result of sin. There is an interesting discussion on that term by the way as used in Corinthians… the whole kephale debate.

    Like

  23. “I was only attempting to describe Evangelical Feminism (alternately called Egalitarianism)”

    But you have not described it at all. From what I can surmise you seem to think egalitarianism is sin. If so, then the only alternative is Patriarchy or Matriarchy.

    Perhaps you think egalitarian automatically means Matriarchy? I know that many do from the comp/pat world..

    I personally do not like the word, Egalitarian. It has too much of a French Revolution ring to it. However, I do understand the spirit behind the concept. And I believe that spirit goes back to creation before the fall.. I believe all the “one another’s” in scripture point to a “mutuality” in the Body. For marriage, I love Carolyn Custis James’ descriptor of “blessed alliance” which I think better describes Gen 1 and 2.

    Like

  24. Sorry about that tbc,

    Since you mentioned military forces and other “human institutions” which would not be on this earth if mankind had not fallen (we could include slavery in its various forms, for that matter…interesting how Paul addresses slavery and marriage within the same rhetorical “package”), I assumed (too much, clearly) that you were talking about sin results. So–let me modify that question–you would agree with me at least that human “headship” is a temporal matter?

    Like

  25. tbc,

    Thank you for your thoughtful response. It likely won’t be until after work this evening, but I would like to take a run at the way you, as I am understanding you, infer the existence of authority from admonitions to submit. In this regard, I would like to give special attention to your reference to 1 Peter.

    Like

  26. “But Jesus said of himself that our helplessness is not a bug but a feature in that he himself could only do what his father was doing.”

    A mom responded: Sounds like Eternal Submission of the Son doctrine. God is 3 separate persons in a hierarchy doctrine. Argo, I’m understanding your heightened sense of concern over this.
    ”

    Yep.

    That is because people tend to forget that Jesus was also fully God in the Flesh. As far as Jesus saying he could only do what his father was doing– that is a Hebrew construct that most people miss because they are busy making Jesus a “lesser god”.

    In that day and time doing business with a man’s son as his representative was thought to be exactly like doing business with his father. the Pharisees understood this perfectly and wanted to kill him for claiming such a thing as to be a son of God or doing what his father was doing. (See John 5)

    But what concerns me the most is the idea that sin exists so we will rely on God. Not even sure we can make an historical argument for that one much less a biblical one unless one is reading scripture with the Augustine/Calvin filter.

    An analogy would be a parent having a child sin so the parent can “save” them because the child now has to “rely” on the parent.. We have names for such parents and they are not nice. That is cruel.

    Once you go down the road of determinism, even when trying to soft peddle it, it becomes an exercise of circular reasoning and appeals to mystery where it is not really that mystical at all. .

    Like

  27. Diane said:

    Wow—THAT was a disturbing post and visuals, SSM wrote the following in a comment under her post-

    “[ssm: LOL, men thought we were just pretending, but no, we really are just as dumb as we seem.]”

    She forgot deceived. Dumb AND deceived. Why are the men fans reading there?

    That’s a good question.

    I’m not sure if her latest post lines up with this:

    All of my writings will be from a Christian perspective and will promote Jesus as the one true path to reconciliation with God the Father. You do not have to be a Christian to participate here.

    Like

  28. Lydia — if you want to describe Egalitarianism differently (or better) than I did then have at it. I don’t think those who take the egalitarian position are necessarily ‘in sin’ any more than those who adopt the complementarian position are necessarily ‘in sin’. They both have high view of scripture and both seek to be faithful to the biblical text. They do come to some different conclusions and tend to have different hermeneutical approaches. That is all I’m trying to say.

    Sensible — yes, I suppose that ‘headship’ is temporal in some sense of the word. Obviously a husband cannot be ‘head’ of a wife when there is no such thing as either husbands or wives.

    Like

  30. ” So–let me modify that question–you would agree with me at least that human “headship” is a temporal matter?”

    Can we talk about headship before we even suggest it means authority? There can be no “headship”. That would be like saying “armship” or legship. It makes no sense in that context.

    Kephale means a literal “head” and that is a metaphorical understanding of what that audience would understand what it entails. In the 1st Century they believed the source for the “Body” was the head. As in eating, hearing, smelling, etc. The head “provided” for the needs of the body. Conversly, they believed that all decisions and thinking came from the heart. (they had no real concept of a brain controlling the body until about a 100 years after Paul when Galen discovered the brain in animals controlled their limbs)

    So as Christ is the head of the body (the source of all it needs for the body to function) so is the 1st Century husband to a wife who was legal chattel. (There are exceptions for some of the wealthy women) and could not provide for her own material needs.

    It is interesting to note how Kephale is used in secular writings of the time describing rulers and one example of kephale as in “first among equals” as in status or material wealth or something like that..

    However, one thing we do know is that the Holy Spirit could have chosen very clear common Greek words for “authority” as there are several, but did not.

    Like

  31. “They both have high view of scripture and both seek to be faithful to the biblical text. They do come to some different conclusions and tend to have different hermeneutical approaches. That is all I’m trying to say. ”

    I thought you said earlier that feminists (which we finally surmised means egalitarian to you) have a “low” view of scripture. I cannot keep up. Perhaps if you chose to be specific it would help understanding.

    Like

  32. BTDT, I just read that article, too. It’s excellent. I already posted it to the SSB FB page. I love what these HKs (homeschool kids) who are now adults are doing to bring awareness to what they experienced.

    Like

  33. This continued harping on the semantics of what is variously termed evangelical feminism or egalitarianism doesn’t seem to be very productive. I have invited those who feel better equipped to define them to do so, but no one has done so as yet. Continuing to ask me questions about it isn’t really helpful.

    lydiasellerofpurple — yes I know kephale means head and also the varying meanings attached to it.

    Like

  34. “Unconditional election also does not mean what he says. It means as Paul explained in Romans 11 that we are chosen in him before the foundation of the world, before we do anything good or bad.”

    Yikes. We sure do read Romans differently. You read it as individual election and I read it as Paul dealing with what I will call corporate election issues and dealing with the whole Jew/Gentile dichotomy now making up the Body of Christ. The backdrop is interesting because the banished Jews started making their way back to Rome. There had to be some conflict with this other “atheist” sect in Rome who worshipped ONE God.

    Romans is extremely dangerous to proof text as it is a culminating argument. But when we read it with corporate election in mind (those who believe live by faith are “elect”) it makes much more sense and much more sense than God choosing you to be saved before Adam even sinned which means He had to choose some to be damned before they were even born or Adam sinned….simply by default. That sounds more like Allah to me.

    Like

  35. “This continued harping on the semantics of what is variously termed evangelical feminism or egalitarianism doesn’t seem to be very productive. I have invited those who feel better equipped to define them to do so, but no one has done so as yet. Continuing to ask me questions about it isn’t really helpful.”

    tbc, See your comment: November 4, 2013 @ 1:39 PM before you read the rest of this comment.

    tbc, The above response is a cop out. You brought up a vague description of some sort of movement or hermeneutical construct called “evangelical feminism” which you also term as “egalitarian”. But you refuse to be specific so we will know exactly what it entails. And where on earth did you hear the term, evangelical feminism?

    Now you arrogantly blame others for not defining the vague terms for you (because you ‘invited” them) instead of defining what YOU introduced into the convo.

    It is one of the oldest tricks in the book and quite cowardly.

    Your patriarchal elder slip is starting to show.

    Like

  36. Tbc, Thanks for your response.

    You said, “I don’t appreciate however how you changed what I said about authority — I never mentioned “authority=enforced obedience=supremacy of husbands over wives “. Those are your terms, not mine. Please don’t put words in my mouth.”

    I know the word “authority” has been applauded, drilled into us so often & for such a long time in many churches that we start to automatically think it is good, without question. I have heard it myself. So it’s easy to understand why many are fuzzy on what the definition of authority is.

    Tbc, Please understand. Those terms are not my terms either, which is why I listed them at the top of my comment. They are the definition & synonyms (words that have the same meanings) of authority. Google “authority”.

    Authority: the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Synonyms: power, command, control, charge, dominance, rule, sovereignty, supremacy

    When you speak of authority, these are the words you are using. I am not putting them in your mouth. I am glad you are disgusted by them. We agree.

    Herein lies the real problem. Many folks are being baited & switched by bad teaching. The solution is to be Bereans by tring to understand words & what they really mean, so that real discussion can occur. Otherwise, we will go around & around. This is what authority means. No, this is. Solution? Let’s go to the dictionary.

    We all misunderstand sometimes, which is why I wanted to be clear on understanding the word, first. What I won’t agree to is someone redefining a word or words to make their case right.

    I want to make it clear I abide by the law & beyond that, I strive to obey God’s commands & prescription for a good life. God does know best, right? My comments consistently show the importance I place on doing right. I am not a hater of rules.

    Like

  37. So I don’t have a problem with authority. What we have been discussing is whether or not husband’s have authority=enforced obedience=order wives. And whether that is really the correct word description of a parent to child relationship.

    I say not in a marriage or church. And not an accurate description of parent-child. There are far more words to pick from that more accurately describe parent to child.

    Not really in a typical job. Bosses can’t truly enforce obedience. The employee chooses to do their job, quit, or be fired.

    A chain of command is more realistic in military or gov. But not all authority, which some Christians get quite confused over. They think even in these settings authority is to be obeyed without question. We are to NEVER obey or follow wrongdoing or evil, even at personal cost.

    Which brings us to the real application of the word. The ONLY authority is Jesus. Jesus holds all authority (EVERY knee WILL bow & tongue confess Jesus is Lord). And Jesus says so in Matthew 28. Go and make disciples, teach them to DO what Jesus commands, & Jesus is with us always. 🙂

    Like

  38. lydiasellerofpurple (LSOP) — I re-read the comment @1:39… so it was you who asked me to define feminist theology. Honestly I had forgotten. I tried to answer you as best I could since I thought you were really curious about it. In my original answer I said explicitly that my answer was inadequate. What I said was this exactly (I’ve highlighted my disclaimers about the inadequacy of my description):

    feminist theology is a fairly well known branch of theology with its origins primarily in 2nd wave feminist critiques of traditional scriptural hermeneutics amongst other things. Typically it is characterized by what is termed a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’, that is, the reader is supposed to interrogate the text (in this case of the Bible) with an eye towards retaining that which confirms or validates her own lived experience and to reject as oppressive those which do not. I’m muddling the whole thing terribly as feminist theology is not exactly my field, but that is the basic layout.

    For the feminist theologian, theology in general and scriptural hermeneutics in particular have been co-opted as tools for patriarchal oppression of women by using masculinist language and narratives to paint women as always and only whores or virgins and as perpetually inferior to men. This, they posit, extends even to the use of masculine terms for God (like Father, Son) and so some feminist theologies reject entirely the framework of Christianity as irredeemably oppressive to women and advocate going beyond Christianity to other systems of meaning, some of which are goddess based, and some of which are purely secular. Other feminist theologians seek to reform Christianity from within by retaining the superstructure of Christian thought but replacing those narratives and systems they deem to be oppressive. Both of these groups generally hold a ‘low’ view of scriptural authority. A third group seeks to retain both the language AND the framework of scriptural authority and thus argue that scripture does not mean what it has traditionally been interpreted to mean. This group might be termed Evangelical Feminists.

    So there is a broad (and inadequate) sketch for you of feminist theology.

    I stand by what I said. If I recall I mentioned feminist theology in here:

    As to the other, I think I and others may be talking past each other given the loaded nature of the term ‘patriarchy’. It seems to have a connotation here of which I was previously unaware,except in feminist theologies and feminism generally. That there are groups espousing some extremist views concerning husbands’ authority viz their wives and children, I was vaguely aware, but never thought to categorize these under the label patriarchy, but rather as extremist cults. So a bit of enlightenment there for me.

    So you can see (if you are willing to see) that I only said anything about feminist theology in the context of understanding why the term patriarchy is so loaded on this blog. I haven’t tried to make any claims about the validity or otherwise of feminist theology — I was just trying to answer the question to the best of my limited ability because I was asked. So please, stop trying to twist what I’m saying into some kind of wicked plot.

    Like

  39. To tbc (and others)

    As one who has no children (but has had many, many students), I would like to offer my thoughts on the matter of “authority”, fwiw.

    Someone brought up the parent-child relationship as an illustration. My opinion is that parents do have some measure of authority over their kids (apologies to A Mom and other parents out there who feel otherwise). Ideally, moms and dads should try to reason with and explain things to their kids as much as possible. Sometimes, though, I think parents will be forced by circumstances to “pull rank” as it were. In some cases, saying “Because I told you to!” is all a parent has left.

    I find this authority necessary simply because of how dependent kids are on their parents, and for how long. Still, as has been mentioned by others, this authority must be limited, and I think it can be lost if a mother or father becomes unfit for those duties. And as that child grows, that authority must gradually become less and less, and eventually fade away to nothingness when that child becomes a full-fledged adult.

    But to make this analogous to the relationship between husbands and wives, is deeply flawed, I think. Both parties are adults, and on equal footing in most cases. Especially in the modern age, when women have so many opportunities for education and employment. To force a hierarchy upon them, with no clear necessity for it and no universally-accepted mandate in Scripture, seems wrong-headed to me.

    As I said above, each couple should be allowed to work this issue out on their own, as long as neither spouse is abusive. Why should either of two equal, loving, committed adults have “authority” over the other? That is, unless anyone agrees with the commenters over as sunshinemary’s place that “women are more easily deceived” or whatever. I, for one, will never agree with that.

    (P.S. Hats off to JA for slogging away at SSM as long as you did. I don’t know how you managed to remain courteous and rational all that time. The misogyny is there palpable and nauseating — ugh)

    Must go now. Past my bedtime. Everyone else, have at it.

    Like

  40. A Mom – yes I see where you are coming from and see why the term ‘authority’ creates such a challenge. I am not willing to abandon the term because it is a good term. But I understand the concerns.

    And no authority (aside divine authority) is unlimited. Hence why the Pauline letters are so radical. The household is reconfigured entirely to being centred on being ‘in Christ’ — which totally changes how we are to relate to each other and understand authority, submission, the relation of parents to children and so on. Christ is then the model of both authority/power (which he used on behalf of others) and of submission (in his willing submission/obedience to the will of the Father). In such a configuration it is never about the self, but about the best interest of the other.

    Like

  41. A word or term itself is not a challenge once one learns the definition & what it means.

    The challenge occurs when rational-seeming people reject word definitions. As Dohse says over & over ad nauseum: words mean things. We don’t get to redefine them or change their meanings at whim to suit our thinking. To think so is elementary thinking, IMO. Sincerely don’t mean it as an insult.

    It’s weird, but there is a pattern. Remember when I said up is down, & down is up? That’s what’s going on here. Used to be, when someone said, we can’t agree because I don’t like what a word means in the dictionary, they would be seen as self-absorbed.

    Listen. As a homeschool mom, I don’t even get that excuse when I’m grading a vocabulary paper! What does that say?

    Like

  42. P.S. That rationale has never be pulled on me as a parent or “schoolteacher”, BTW. I would never fall for it. Doubt tbc would accept it from his kids, either.

    But this rationale is alive & well (cognitive dissonance) in certain pockets of Christendom.

    Like

  43. The concern I have is women & children who are suffering due to teaching authoritarian=forced obedience=order of wives by husbands. And it’s the cognitive dissonance that says yes to it, but no to what it actually is, by definition.

    It’s quite cruel to hold on to it knowing others suffer because of it. Suffering in silence likely, because they don’t have help to turn to in many churches.

    I will not be that cruel.

    Like

  44. in the context of understanding why the term patriarchy is so loaded on this blog.

    Christian patriarchy/ Biblical patriarchy is a name for a poisonous set of cultic ideas which is often used here. Doug Phillips, the topic of this thread, co-wrote “the tenets of Biblical patriarchy” a set of abberant religious ideas his group live by. Here, the term patriarchy usually refers to this set of ideas.

    Like

  45. @A Mom:

    The challenge occurs when rational-seeming people reject word definitions. As Dohse says over & over ad nauseum: words mean things. We don’t get to redefine them or change their meanings at whim to suit our thinking. To think so is elementary thinking, IMO. Sincerely don’t mean it as an insult.

    I refer you to “The Principles of Newspeak”, by G.Orwell (appendix to 1984)

    Or Screwtape’s letter regarding semantics — specifically, redefining words into “their Diabolical meanings, My Dear Wormwood.”

    Like

  46. “Retha, That’s just SSM’s typical M.O.: Return to her own blog to engage in the oh-so-very-Christian behaviour of pointing and snickering, thereby
    receiving further adulation from her male supremacist echo chamber
    that gives her the attention and validation that she does not receive from her philandering husband. Yes, she believes that all you feminists or egalitarians need is a good spanking from a dominant man and you’ll soon come to see the error of your ways.”

    Thank you!!!! You summed it up perfectly. I’ve never seen such a thing and seeing their bizarre responses threw me. I did notice the wife spanking reference, justifying the practice and the comment was readily received.

    Ah, the pointing and snickering, while she supports one Doug Phillips, who say that women’s worst Internet sin, to be mentioned in one breath with men and porn, is blog gossipping…

    It gave me flashbacks to another pro-Quiverful blog I read before I understood more of Patriarchy/ dominionism, where people looked “godly” at the start and like her commenters later. That was where, when they heard I am single, they told me to advertise for a man who would hit me… That thought, and the blog they sent me to in order to explain it, taught me things I never wanted to know… It led me to finding BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Domination, Submission, Sadism and Masochism) on the Internet, and get the equivalent of nightmares before falling asleep at night. And between patriarchy, “Men’s rights” and BDSM, the former two which was directly linked to that blog and the third indirectly, I developed a fear of men which I am overcoming the past 2-3 years by simply finding out all men do not think like that…

    Like

  47. @A Mom:

    A chain of command is more realistic in military or gov. But not all authority, which some Christians get quite confused over. They think even in these settings authority is to be obeyed without question.

    “Ich habe nur meine Befehle ausgefert.”
    (“I was only following orders” — a valid defense in German Bureaucratic tradition of the time)

    Like

  48. @Pam:

    Yes, she believes that all you feminists or egalitarians need is a good spanking from a dominant man and you’ll soon come to see the error of your ways.

    Every time I hear of “adult spanking” or “wife spanking”, I have only one word to say:

    Followed by this piece of advice:

    Like

  49. The challenge occurs when rational-seeming people reject word definitions. As Dohse says over & over ad nauseum: words mean things. We don’t get to redefine them or change their meanings at whim to suit our thinking.

    This is a huge red flag. If you are able to observe a pattern where the same word definitions are rejected over & over again by many different people who don’t know each other but who hold to the same theology or doctrine – then the doctrine is wrong. They do this because it is the only way for their doctrinal interpretations to make sense. Words MUST be twisted. When that happens, doctrines can become dangerous.

    This isn’t the first or last time we’ll see this happen, here or elsewhere.

    Something to watch, will a person cement themselves or are they willing to grow?

    Like

  50. “Or Screwtape’s letter regarding semantics — specifically, redefining words into “their Diabolical meanings, My Dear Wormwood.””

    How lovely, nice, polite & respectful sounding, those Screwtape Letters are, right? But what’s being communicated is from the pit of hell.

    HUG, It reminds me of the baloney between truthy-buns.

    Like

  51. In scripture, which is what counts for our purpose, authority is rather broader than giving orders, and also rather less. For instance, 1 Cor 9.4 asks whether we have the “authority” to eat and drink. Look it up.

    In his second letter to the same church, with heavy sarcasm Paul also made clear what authority among us is not:

    “Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly. For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face. To my shame I must say that we have been weak.”

    Someone said before that authority in the civil state is not reciprocal. In fact, it certainly is, and not only where democratic forms prevail. Even dictatorships like the military regimes of Chile and Uruguay feel the need to seek legitimacy through plebiscites, and in fact both were mortally wounded by losing them. So-called absolute rulers like the Turkish Sultan have had to observe limits, and those that didn’t would be killed or overthrown. No civil state will long endure if it loses the consent of the governed. That’s what happened to Doug Phillips: those that exalt themselves do get abased.

    Like

  52. “Julie Anne on November 4, 2013 at 7:29 PM
    I’m too lazy to use my search feature, but look what one of you did …

    You got Little Mary Sunshine writing a post about phallocentrism – and she even blamed us over here (linking and mentioning us). For the life of me, I cannot figure out the audience of that blog.”

    Ok I will point out the guilty party! Lydia! Lydia got us all in trouble! She gave us a word, and I took it and did use it. And I, the newest woman that God gave ye posting on this site, did suggest the word to Gary W, and he took, and he used it. And we agreed that it was good! But we weren’t using it like exfeminist Mary thought we were. just because her feminist indoctrinators defined it to mean one thing in her formative years, she simply could not understand what we meant by it, even though the meaning and intended use was discussed here. Haha. Seriously, if you search the comments on yesterday’s post it should be pretty clear.

    I’m not a feminist, haven’t studied feminism, don’t care to know their lingo, have always been disgusted by the way some (not all) of my feminist professors objectified men as just a bunch of walking phalluses trying to foist themselves into a desirably shaped receptacle, and they wrongly thought all men were just made like that and would not change; it was the the male nature. Oh, wait, that makes sunshine mary, very clearly from her blog post objectifying men in this way…STILL A FEMINIST. Sorry for the all caps i just had to yell that.

    But instead of thinking of it as being a manifestation of the sin nature in some men, she believes it to be the god-given nature of all men. Hilarious. As someone else has said, confusing the effects of sin with original design is a fundamental error for patriarchists (phallocentrists) and so our friend sunshinemary just had to go prove that point.

    If anything makes mary not a feminist anymore, according to her post, it’s
    that unlike feminists, she actually likes to be objectified by men, and to reduce her position and her view of her husband’s position, and the whole Bible, down to the function of penis and vagina. And that, more than anything, proves that Lydia was right to give us the term “phallocentric.”

    I find it interesting though, that she is able to consider herself not a feminist, because, while she feels like she holds us to feminists’s definitions to conveniently ridicule the point being made yesterday without understanding what it means, she’s clearly redifined feminism however she likes. To her, feminism is anybody who disagrees with patriarchy. So that makes her not a feminist anymore, even though she’s totally cool with the objectified ideas of men so many feminists hold (and nobody here has indicated they hold).

    Well, that’s ok, sunshinemary, we expressly redefined “phallocentric” to basically mean anybody who holds to the patriarchal paeudo-gospel. So just to be clear, now you know. So you can put away (or better yet, throw out) that dusty college feminist textbook. it’s ok to define a word as long as you’re transparent about it so everybody knows what you mean. We did. You did. And you were very transparent about it.

    Ok, also Julie Anne, seriously on the previous post you totally warned us not to click on ar1032’a vile website. I could have used a little warning here. If anything, I expected sunshinemary to have the same overdeveloped sense of modesty that i still retain despite my many years away from those people. My mind’s eye is just… Wow… Totally screaming in agony and pain right now.

    I have to say I like sunshinemary personally, at least she’s honest. But from now on if i ever check out her blog, i’ll find a way to turn off the pictures.

    Like

  53. “Yes, I suppose that ‘headship’ is temporal in some sense of the word. Obviously a husband cannot be ‘head’ of a wife when there is no such thing as either husbands or wives.”

    Exactly, and that is the thread by which the tangled skein of patriarchal heterodoxy unravels…

    Like

  54. “”Ok I will point out the guilty party! Lydia! Lydia got us all in trouble!”

    My middle name is Trouble. (wink)

    And I did not make up the word so I cannot take credit. I am not that clever. I saw it way back in ’06 on a blog discussing Patriarchy. Cannot even remember which one. But the fit the doctrine perfectly.

    Well I have not checked out ssm blog and won’t as I mentioned earlier. But, it became obvious to me many years ago that when you strip away all the “christianese” in both the comp and patriarchy movements, it is really about sex. Period. There are many variations from Driscoll to CJ Mahaney to Wilson to the IFB and so forth. Some hidden perversion and some disgustingly in your face. ssm just sounds like she is honest about it. doctrinal sex? Spank me cos I am a doormat bad girl?

    And I have found this salvic sex focus quite curious since people have figured this out for thousands of years and needed no permission or encouragment from the priest or pastor. Color me confused. But then, one can slap a fish on just about anythying and people will do it for Jesus. :o)

    Like

  55. “Yes, I suppose that ‘headship’ is temporal in some sense of the word. Obviously a husband cannot be ‘head’ of a wife when there is no such thing as either husbands or wives.”

    Is the husband the authority while his wife is having to change his Depends? It happens, you know.

    Like

  57. Lydia the purple troublemaker,

    Thanks for the perfect word. With it, you got them to blow the lid off the lies they had stuffed into a garbage can of false doctrine. And we all got to look inside. And it was visually and conceptually the disgusting filth you warned us it would be when you gave us thay perfect descriptor.

    And to think, despite fleeing from a mainline denomination heavily signed up on the patriarchy wagon,
    in college i never was even tempted by my feminist professors to come over to their camp. I was too disgusted by their reduction of everything to sex which, as you so eloquently put it, is just exactly the sort of ungodly thing i was running from. Seems to me that my feminist professors also got a real kick out of this annoying hobby they had of finding phalluses and vaginas in every literary device and every water tower, especially ones that weren’t really there. Because that’s how they viewed the world–everything was about the power struggle between penis and vagina (a struggle i believe humanity inherited as a result of the fall). And don’t look now, but sunshine mary sees phalluses in water towers and every biblical metaphor too. She still sees the world and the written word just like the feminists trained her to do. She just got to the point where, when she finally correctly realized that feminism wasn’t going to change all the injustice inherent in the gender power struggle or win the war on men, she surrendered to the other side.

    I hope one day mary will consider rejecting the whole sinful power struggle entirely instead of learning to love losing it. In God’s kingdom, there is no need for a power struggle between men and women. We are all sons of god through christ jesus, and our struggle is not against our brothers, against flesh (including penises) and blood, but against the powers and principalities and rulers of this dark world. Together, men and women, we are not enemies cannibalistically devouring and conquering and surrendering to each other as feminists or patriarchists. We are colaborers with Christ. Mary’s left feminism but she’s still fighting the wrong war.

    About the religion and sex issue you mentioned. Respectfully, I don’t think it’s anything new. It has long been a pagan tradition to mix religion and sex. Phallocentrism is just another fertility cult like the ones many new testament believers were called from and into the light.

    May he soon call Mary out too. But if he doesn’t, i still offer her love and peace. The choice is hers.

    Like

  58. Retha,

    Thank You for challenging me with scriptures. I think a great place to start where God isolates the role of Men and Women is when I read the whole Chapter of Proverbs 31.

    If I have offended you I’m truly sorry. If you feel I have recklessly stereotyped different genders that certainly wasn’t my intention. All genders have an obligation to share the Gospel with others.

    Maybe I’m the one that needs to be set straight but I can’t help realize that God made Men and Women and he wired us differently so we could co-exist together, one not being better than the other.

    I understand we live in complicated times when Women (and Men) are being spiritually and mentally abused. Where women (like my own mom) carried the load of being a single parent, I have deep sympathy for the pain of rejection and deep admiration for what my own mom did.

    I think you have given a great challenge to study in scriptures how God used both Men and Women.

    Like

  59. Lydia
    ” spank me because i’m a bad doormat girl? … Color me confused, but then, one can slap a fish on just about anythying and people will do it for Jesus.”

    You have a way of stating the truth that makes me snort.

    Like

  61. Peter Attwood,

    I have to go do a few things now, but I have a few thoughts on Total Depravity maybe later this afternoon or evening.

    Like

  62. I’m getting reports of comments that are not being approved at SSM’s site. If you have tried to comment on SSM’s blog and your comment does not get approved, feel free to post it here. I think we’d all like to see what is not getting approved.

    Like

  63. “I can’t help realize that God made Men and Women and he wired us differently so we could co-exist together, one not being better than the other…”

    Here is a question from a concerned, asexual Christian: beyond biological factors, how are men and women “wired” differently?

    Like

  64. So, just so I am understanding properly, the perspective here is post-sexual? That is, that the relationship between men and women as husbands and wives is not really sexual in nature, but is elevated beyond that? Or somehow transcends that, such that the sexual is mean, base and not a focus?

    Or is it that your understanding of the sexual nature of the relationship between husbands and wives is itself different from how SSM describes it?

    Like

  65. Hello sensible,

    I’m not a psychologist, but I’m aware that some brain mapping studies and other such things suggest that men’s and women’s’ brains work differently. Sorry, too lazy to post links, but you’d be better off listening to an expert on that than listening to me. Might be worth looking into.

    I wear a black ring on my right hand from time to time, you will know what i mean by that. It reminds me that we are all unique, uniquely gifted, uniquely called. My path is not the same as my married christian brothers and sisters, no better, no less honorable, just different. Looking back, i think the reason for the ring is one way God lovingly equipped me to know in my heart, even as a kid, that I was being fed lies, and to search and find the truth.

    God bless.

    Like

  67. “Thank You for challenging me with scriptures. I think a great place to start where God isolates the role of Men and Women is when I read the whole Chapter of Proverbs 31. “

    You never actually answered yet: What does those texts spell out is the role of a woman and not a man? And since the common view is that everybody has a gender role, what gender role should I fulfil as a single female?

    Like

  68. Hi Free At Last,

    I’m no psychologist either 🙂 , and I have heard of some of those brain mapping studies. My question to psychologists is this: can you establish that a man or woman’s brain will absolutely map in a certain way–with no individual “anomalies”? I am not so sure…our only certainty is (as you aptly put it) our individuality and unique (not gendered) callings. I guess what I am looking for is rational (rather than empirical) proofs for the spiritual “differences” between men and women. Thus far, I have yet to find any rational absolutes, only generalizations. Thanks for the reply!

    Like

  69. “You never actually answered yet: What does those texts spell out is the role of a woman and not a man? And since the common view is that everybody has a gender role, what gender role should I fulfil as a single female?”

    My question exactly. Rhetorically, Proverbs 31 functions as an encomium for an individual woman (or type of woman); there is nothing in the passage to signal to the reader that Proverbs 31 is a universal directive…otherwise celibate Christians would committing a grave lifestyle error. 😉

    Like

  70. Hello again sensible,

    I agree with you. Any mapping study is pretty much going to give you average differences. Certainly gender is not the only variable in brain mapping studies, which means that, within each gender, brains do work differently. So, I’m on the same page with you there. I think i misunderstood what you meant by “biological factors.” You understood what I was alluding to about the ring; yep, my brain isn’t a typical female, or even typically normal human brain, in that way. We’re a statistical minority.

    I doubt anybody can give you any real reason to back up the claim that men and women are spiritually different. We have the same Lord and the same holy spirit inside of us. Last time I checked, the holy spirit didn’t get handed out in pink and blue. So again, i’m with you. Thanks for setting me straight.

    Like

  71. Your welcome Free at Last…and thanks for setting me straight! Glad to hear from another member of the statistical minority 🙂 God bless.

    Like

  73. Novaseeker,

    “So, just so I am understanding properly, the perspective here is post-sexual? That is, that the relationship between men and women as husbands and wives is not really sexual in nature, but is elevated beyond that? Or somehow transcends that, such that the sexual is mean, base and not a focus?

    Or is it that your understanding of the sexual nature of the relationship between husbands and wives is itself different from how SSM describes it?”

    These type of questions always make me chuckle. We made an observation among our local full-quiver congregation that it was almost ridiculous to present such a strict purity or “holiness” image with the large broods we produced. We OBVIOUSLY had the “birds and bees” figured out just fine.

    First, I’ll start by saying that my intimate life is not for public discussion. I believe there are aspects of a marriage relationship that are private. That said, my husband is first and foremost my best friend. Every other aspect of our relationship branches from that, including our intimacy. intimacy is not what defines it. But, five kiddos later, I think you could assume we are crazy about each other.

    Like

  74. If you put enough variables into the analysis, all of us exist in some statistical minority, and most will be on a fringe somewhere! No one is in the majority on every dimension or measurement, and in fact, for many variables, there is no majority anywhere on the dimension. We are all unique, as in a one-off creation by the genes we have and the experiences we have had and the unique gifts God has given each of us. So being “different” (in at least some ways) is the normal. Even applies to “identical” twins, who are only identical at birth, and then soon have different experiences and likely different gifts.

    Like

  75. Sensible

    You are. Despite already posting too much, I’m adding this to my reply to you because i’m home with a bug so i have time to come up with really cheesy puns.

    The argument that “men and women are different, therefore men and women are spiritually different” is exactly the kind of logical phallacy 🙂 that leads people down the errant path of patriocentrism/phallocentrism.

    Like

  77. An attorney,

    So true! I’ve often said that the only true statistical minority is the one made up of people who don’t fit in any statistical minority.

    Sensible and I both fall into a particular statistical minority that is currently thought (but no one knows for sure) to affect one percent of the population more or less. It’s not a visible minority at all, so it’s really rare that we come across each other and realize it. Thus the greetings to our fellow minority members.

    We’re all unique. If you’re not unique, then you sure aren’t like anybody else!

    Like

  78. Free At Last,

    Ha–brilliant! Yep, being at home with a bug does that to you.

    An Attorney,

    “If you put enough variables into the analysis, all of us exist in some statistical minority, and most will be on a fringe somewhere!”

    Well said. Thank you!

    Like

  79. “In God’s kingdom, there is no need for a power struggle between men and women… We are colaborers with Christ.”

    Amen! Co-laborers. But not for Pat/Comp “phallacy” believers.

    “We are all unique, as in a one-off creation by the genes we have and the experiences we have had and the unique gifts God has given each of us.”

    Amen! Exactly that. What a marvelous creator to make each of us unique. And preoccupation of roles is juvenile. But it sells!

    How refreshing your readership on this blog is, JA! 🙂

    Like

  80. A mom,

    Your family is blessed.

    Was wondering, i’m familiar with patriarchy, having survives its influences. But what is the “comp” that keeps coming up in the comments? New here, so I would appreciate your help.

    Like

  81. Free At Last,
    Comp is short for complimentarian. A “softer” version of Patriarchy, if you will.

    Like

  82. The idea being that men and women are spiritually unique and therefore “complement” each other. Logically, a celibate individual in this system is missing an appendage.

    Like

  86. Complementarianism is not very complimentary to one-half of those humans created by God to serve him. Hope that helps keep the two very different words separate. The practical opposite to complementarianism is egalitarianism. The impractical opposite of feminism is masculinism; impractical for a large number of reasons. Sometimes it is called phallocentrism.

    Like

  87. I have complementarianism listed in categories if you want to check out some old posts, Free at Last.

    I didn’t know what it was until last year as I kept encountering the word – – especially by certain Christian leaders.

    Like

  88. In large parts of our society, the opposite of feminism is “status quo”, as in “keep them skirts in their place, by God”.

    Like

  89. “Sensible on November 5, 2013 at 12:13 PM
    The idea being that men and women are spiritually unique and therefore “complement” each other. Logically, a celibate individual in this system is missing an appendage.”

    Oh, yeah, i get that a lot! Despite the fact that the Bible makes clear that God values both marriage and singles and calls us all to purity in our respective circumstances. Though only in my mid-thirties, I’m old enough now, finally, and live my life in such a way that church people sort of figure they can allow me the privilege of woman called to be single. They’ve even stopped asking me to take a nursery shift (no can do, i don’t have the immunity teachers and parents develop around sick kids and being single i don’t have anyone to help me if i am sick; i minister to kids in less dangerous environs, but not the nursery and sunday school!) and praise jesus in heaven above they’ve stopped trying to set me up with divorced christian men. I have nothing against divorcee’s, like single women they can sometimes be unfairly subjected to worse than second class status too, but you know, I’m not single because i need any help attracting the opposite gender (i don’t!). It’s my calling and i am content with it.

    I am so glad for the married and single believers who do not treat me this way! The rest I’ve learned to tolerate. They mean well and are uninformed. I’m sure I’m unintentionally the same way at times.

    Take care sensible, i know i’m preaching to the choir on this one.

    Like

  91. @FreeAtLast:
    Seems to me that my feminist professors also got a real kick out of this annoying hobby they had of finding phalluses and vaginas in every literary device and every water tower, especially ones that weren’t really there. Because that’s how they viewed the world–everything was about the power struggle between penis and vagina (a struggle i believe humanity inherited as a result of the fall).
    –
    And when you reduce something — anything — to Power Struggle, there are only two possible end states: His Boot stamping on Her Face or Her Boot Stamping on His Face. And the only way to avoid one is to Make Sure of the other. Forever.
    –
    Until you wind up like the one half-white and one half-black alien in that original Star Trek 3rd season episode.

    Like

  92. Free At Last,

    Ah, the nursery shifts! There are two things that I fear holding: cats and infants. I have been lucky so far…my church is large enough for me to fly under the nursery radar. Glad to hear you are free at last from those duties (couldn’t help it…that pun was begging to be written…) 😉

    Like

  93. “Sensible on November 5, 2013 at 12:51 PM
    Free At Last,

    Ah, the nursery shifts! There are two things that I fear holding: cats and infants. I have been lucky so far…my church is large enough for me to fly under the nursery radar. Glad to hear you are free at last from those duties (couldn’t help it…that pun was begging to be written…) ”

    Good one sensible. I deserved that after my awful logical phallacy pun.

    Like

  96. “Ah, the nursery shifts! There are two things that I fear holding: cats and infants.”

    Yeah, except, what’s wrong with cats? (Just kidding)

    Like

  99. Thank you for the warm welcome! And you’re welcome for the explanation of the motivation behind SSM’s brief sojourn to this site and the resulting post she made back at her own blog. I’ve witnessed her do the same at other blogs…her intention isn’t to engage in honest debate or discussion, it’s simply to drop a couple of “you’re in rebellion to God if you don’t obey mortal men” quips, then race back to her blog and collect her “good girl” pats on the head.

    In their zeal to proclaim that Genesis 3:16 is a command from God for men to rule over women which was His intention from the beginning (as I have oft seen them “say”), they somehow miss Genesis 1:27-28, in which God gives co-dominion of the earth to both men and women, but does not give either one of them dominion over the other. Or maybe that earlier chapter in Genesis is just feminist revisionist drivel and thus can be dismissed.

    Like

  100. “Yeah, except, what’s wrong with cats? (Just kidding)”

    Haha…I’ll admit, I am probably not in the best position to censure cats. My first cat experiences were with the demonic strays that lived in my grandmother’s basement. I have recently met some more personable ones, though…so maybe there is hope for me 🙂

    Like

  101. A book that is both stimulating and an easy read that opens up some research findings of interest regarding gender is:
    Why Gender Matters by Leonard Sax, M.D., Ph.D.

    It is a fresh look at the topic of gender outside of Christian circles. 🙂
    What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences.

    “Until recently, there have been two groups of people: those who argue sex differences are innate and should be embraced and those who insist that they are learned and should be eliminated by changing the environment. Sax is one of the few in the middle — convinced that boys and girls are innately different and that we must change the environment so differences don’t become limitations.”
    — TIME Magazine, cover story

    http://www.whygendermatters.com

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)