Complementarian, Egalitarian, Teaching Children, Children Desiring God, John Piper
Series Introduction
Vaccinating Children with Complementarianism
by Kathi
I spent many years reading books to my children. Homeschooling families know all too well the importance of reading. However, I can say that I never read a book like this to my kids.
God’s Design is a children’s books which teaches about the importance of gender roles.
Oh, yes. You read that correctly.
About the Organization and Authors
God’s Design is written by Sally Michael and Gary Steward. It is published by P & R Publishing and sponsored through Children Desiring God. I purchased my copy through Amazon. Research and benefiting my charity of choice made this purchase a little bit easier to swallow. Here is some information about the authors from the back cover:
Sally Michaels is the cofounder, curriculum author, and publishing consultant of Children Desiring God. She is also an author, speaker, and former Minister for Children at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis.
Gary Steward is an assistant professor of history at Colorado Christian University. Previously he served as pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.
***
A couple of things stand out in these bios. First is the name, Children Desiring God. Does that sound familiar in any way? A simple Google search brought this up:
***
***
Yes, Children Desiring God is linked to Desiring God website. Desiring God’s year end 2014 statement has them listed as a ministry partner (or is it an extension of Desiring God? Either way, they are linked together.). Children Desiring God offers Sunday School curriculum, homeschool curriculum, books, seminars and an annual conference. Sounds like Children Desiring God runs about the same as Desiring God, only it’s solely geared toward children.
This leads me to my second stand out in the bios….who do you immediately think of when you hear Desiring God? It is no wonder that Sally Michaels is writing for Children Desiring God when she served at Bethlehem Baptist along side John Piper for 10 years (Sally’s husband, Michael, served for 20 years). What I want to know is how Sally managed to earn and maintain the coveted Minister title while working under John Piper’s leadership. Gary Steward also spent three years under John Piper’s tutelage and has contributed curriculum for Children Desiring God.
About the Book
God’s Design is roughly 100 pages long and consists of 26 short story chapters. Follow-up questions and activities are provided to ensure that children grasp the concepts in the lessons. The main purpose of this book is to build a theological foundation for “biblical manhood and womanhood” in children.
The preface offers more:
Now more than ever parents need to talk with their children in age-appropriate ways about God’s good design for manhood and womanhood. Parents also need to talk with their children concerning how many ideas about manhood and womanhood – egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, gender blending/bending – go against the beautiful design of gender complementarity.
And…
Children need to understand, before their teenage years, how God created men and women to be equal in personhood, dignity, and worth, and yet different regarding the roles He designed them to have.
We find many of the familiar catch phrases here. First there is the idea that egalitarianism and feminism go against the Bible. This is a hill to die on and for the life of me, I really do not understand why. All I can determine is that the last great stand for men to retain total power is in the home and in the church. I can understand why some Christians struggle with accepting homosexuality, but the reality is that God loves all people, and we should too. I find it fascinating how the theology of complementarity can be so focused on homosexuality. We must remember, though, that it is the view of biblical marriage which homosexuality threatens.
The other familiar catch phrase that is found in this part of the preface is how God created “men and women to be equal in personhood, dignity, and worth, and yet different regarding the roles he Designed them to have.” Different but equal. When will these folks ever learn that those who are “different” will never feel “equal” as long as this mentality is in place?
Continuing in the preface:
Hopefully this book can serve as a springboard for further interaction between parents and children, not just about manhood and womanhood, but about God and the gospel . May the Lord bless you as you inoculate your children against the Devil’s lies by speaking truth from God’s Word, and may your children grow up to be godly men and women who spread the light of the gospel and live out God’s design for men and women in a dark and needy world.
This book is about God and the gospel. THEIR gospel. That’s the problem with where complementarianism is at this point and time. It has become a primary doctrine issue and has become their gospel. The gospel is merely proclaiming the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and the eternal hope we have in Him alone. I often wonder if God looks down on these churches and leaders and is thinking that they have lost their first love.
But it’s this golden phrase that has me worried the most about this book: “May the Lord bless you as you inoculate your children against the Devil’s lies…” Oh, Lord, may we vaccinate our children against the evil lies of equality and women’s rights! This book may be damaged from being thrown across the room too many times.
About the Series
This series will consist of reviewing 2-3 chapters of God’s Design at a time. The goal is to post at least once a week. Given that summer is winding down quickly, we still have company coming to visit at some point within the next two months, and school will be starting back up, I may have to go a little longer in between. But, I will try to keep pauses short so that we don’t lose track in discussion.
Why am I doing this series? It’s not easy for me to hide my disdain for complementarity. I think that organizations such as Desiring God and CBMW have gone too far in convincing people that this is not one way of looking at marriage, gender roles, and roles in the church. It is the way. The gospel way. I think that their insistence on this issue is damaging and binds the freedom that we have in Christ. I hope you will find it informative to see what people embedded in the complementarian camp are using to vaccinate impressionable young minds.
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Love how egalitarianism is mentioned in the same breath as gender-bending…
LikeLiked by 5 people
Kathi, I’m so glad you are doing this series. I am sickened that they are trying to brainwash children into thinking this teaching is a primary doctrinal issue. I’m so tired of hearing of one more abuse story coming from the complementarian camp. If your core belief is that women are of equal value, you are not going to hurt women, period. The equal “but different” sets up hierarchy, and that means it is not an equal marriage.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I guess the things that confuses me most is how no one in that camp can apparently hear “separate but equal,” or if they do hear it, how they can be so completely deaf to the tone.
LikeLike
I was thinking about my college fellowship group which placed a great deal of emphasis on gender roles. Of course only the guys were in leadership roles. So we had a spectacle of a 20 year guy exercising “spiritual authority” over 18, 19, 20 year old girls. Didn’t think much of it cuz it was biblical.
What a joke it was. Our group might have been extremely ineffective in exemplifying the love of Christ to the campus community, but my golly, we had our gender related doctrinal ducks in a row and made John MacArthur happy. Most of the women that I stay connected with have anything to do with Christianity. I guess Piper and Co. see that children need to start much earlier on gender indoctrination. Why not start at the fetus stage? Why wait until they can speak and understand?
LikeLike
I am glad that the Complementarian camp is being finally heavily challenged about their beliefs, including by conservatives. Comps are under fire, most recently, for their Trinitarian heresy the Eternal [a lie] Subordination of the Son promoted by Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware that they use to justify the subordination of women. They are behind Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood.
Additionally, Ware, Grudem & CBMW also believe — apparently never having made it through Genesis — that women are a “derivative image of God” and not “made in the image of God”. According to them, men ARE made in the image of God.
So Bruce Ware’s mother, for example, in his argument was “a derivative image of God” being born female, she carried Bruce, gave birth to him and he is made in the image of God. How exactly does that work?
The Comps decided in the 1990’s to spread their beliefs, including in to seminaries and mainline denominations. They have been quite successful. And the fallout is now being seen: record amounts of church members fed up and leaving (Southern Baptists are losing a whopping 200,000 living members per year), record amounts of divorce (when the nation’s is dropping), incest, and sexual abuse (non family members).
Women are now relegated to Dark Ages roles in these churches. Women missionaries and teachers, who would have been sent out with prayers and encouragement 100 years ago, are now silenced and punished from using their gifts in many of these churches.
Why should we give our money to churches where we aren’t respected, our gifts aren’t respected, the Holy Spirit in our lives isn’t respected, we can’t use our gifts to better our church, and we have no voice and no vote?
Close your wallets. And walk out of the door of any church that supports this nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@David C.,
My former church, headed by a John MacArthur Master’s Seminary graduate,
had a Bible study start at the nearby elite Stanford University. I think that was intentional, to get the potential high net worth undergraduate and graduate student earners. The poorer state university – San Jose State – was bypassed for a Bible study for its students.
Lots of bright Stanford students at my ex-church have Comp doctrine shoved down their throats by my ex-pastor, a guy who claims he has a Ph.D. but it’s $299 from an online diploma mill in Missouri in addition to having a sub-par education from MacArthur’s sub-par schools.
The first church discipline case – before all (hundreds of members) – my ex-pastor/elders carried out was on a middle-aged, professional woman who had fled for a saner church. The “charge” against her? She was “unsubmissive to her husband”. When I interviewed her she told me that the pastors/elders had repeatedly screamed at her, including the senior pastor coming to her home and screaming at her to obey and submit. She moved out of the family home and disconnected her cell phone and her email over the campaign of harassment the pastors/elders waged against her. I think they should be arrested and prosecuted for Criminal Conspiracy, Stalking, and other charges.
LikeLike
I object to the tone of this post. It ignores the truth that husbands are to love their wives like Christ loved the church. It also assumes that anybody who believes in male headship is a chauvinist pig who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Both extremes are wrong and unloving. But this is exactly what Satan wants. People rush to the liberation or submission extremes and then start fighting among themselves. As with all things in scripture, context matters the most.
LikeLike
It would be helpful if you would post specific quotes to back up your claims, Bruce. Thank you 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bruce,
1) Male headship says it all, doesn’t it? Doesn’t matter what you think it means.
2) There’s no such thing as Satan; it’s a boogeyman that exists in your imagination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Male headship” has been used since the late 1990’s by those promoting Patriachy/Complementarism. Their plan was to take over seminaries, kick out moderates (even conservative Christians), train seminarians in Comp teachings,
have them take over churches including main line denominations. Comp teachings
are primarily from NeoCalvinists, whose proponents are known for being strident and bizarre in their beliefs.
The proponents of Complementarianism have also supported their own friends taking over the U.S. government, having the U.S. be a theocracy run on an Old Testament model, they have said that slavery was a good thing, they have proposed a return to slavery (including for non-Christians), dislike Jews (Jesus was Jewish), and deny the Holocaust ever took place.
Additionally, when you scratch the surface of the Comp proponents’ lives you see the most vicious and unethical men, who think nothing of harming dear Christian men and women who aren’t in lock-step with their opinions.
What do any of these supposed “Christian” leaders have to teach any of us?
I would never listen to their ideas.
Even Satan knew Scripture verses, but Jesus didn’t listen to him.
LikeLike
Bruce – Yes, please. Tell me where my tone suggests that husbands should not love their wives. I neither said nor implied that. Are you suggesting that in egalitarian marriages that husbands do not love their wives like Christ loved the church?
If a couple wants to live their marriage in a complementarian way, fine. As long as it is not an abusive relationship, and it works for that couple, go ahead. It is the teachings of comp doctrine, though, that bothers me because it is stressed as a primary doctrine issue. I cannot find any scripture that mandates that the way women and men relate to each other in marriage and in the church as a gospel issue. We do, however, find more scripture that talks about how we are to relate to all people – equally with love, honor and respect.
Teaching children that complementarianism is an important doctrine to uphold is wrong. Children need to learn two things that Jesus stressed as the most important: 1) love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and, 2) love your neighbor as yourself. There is no greater law than that.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Persephone – When we finally meet up I can bring the book and we can have story time! Yay!
LikeLiked by 1 person
These books were not around when I was a kid, but my parents (as well as churches they took me too and a lot of Christian books my mother read, which I also read) believed in much the same thing that gender complementarians today are promoting.
I was thoroughly indoctrinated with this complementarian gender role malarky from the time I was a kid. And it messed me up badly. I have been having to “un-learn” it the last few years and deal with the negative ramifications it created in my life.
I have written several blog posts about my history with complementarianism, how it damaged me, and I also critique it in other ways on my blog, if anyone would like to read up on it:
Miss Daisy Blog
Currently, my blog has only like 7 or 8 posts in total, so it should be easy to find all the complementarian themed posts I’ve done on there.
I think I tagged all the posts about complementarianism with the word “complementarian” or some form there-of, so it should be easy to search for, if that need ever arises.
I’m only pointing to my blog to help others, or give them more background information and so on. It’s not an ego thing for me, I don’t care if I get a lot of followers/ readers.
In a nutshell, Christian gender complementarianism is nothing but codependency for women with Biblical jargon tossed into the mix, and, as such, it creates many, many problems for women who believe in it and live by it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is a bit off topic but I think we need to teach children to think and be critical even cynical in some ways. Teaching children/ women / parishioners to submit opens the door to all sorts of creeps who feed on that tribal nonsense. I appreciate Bruce coming by but I to would like to understand which tone. Now I know I have a tone problem the evangelical religion almost killed me so I am negative. JA is fair and after all the twaddle she has had to listen to from the true believer crowd I don’t blame her for being put off by the complementarian view of women and men. Personally, why not let people lead who can, who cares what their color, sex, age within limits etc.
Now to my off topic have you ever noticed that many of those who seem to be involved in this and other “movements” are also against science and things like vaccines in some degrees and some are against reporting abuse because it takes away the leadership of the elder / pastor etc. ? The problem with inerrancy and absolutes is that they do not translate well into situations when we try to apply them. They sound great on a doctrinal sheet but are lacking in the application department. Just look at the entire subordination of the Son I mean turning the trinity upside down for a third or fourth level doctrinal interpretation that is neither biblical or historic. I hope this was not too far off topic JA, and Bruce I did mean it when I said thank you for posting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Bruce who said,
Loving wives is not the problem. Complementarians promote and defend the concepts of male hierarchy and female subordination. But comps try to dress that sexism up by saying it’s a form of Christ like servant leadership. It is no such thing.
Also, there is such a thing as Benevolent Sexism.
Yes, even friendly complementarianism, with its noble-sounding goals like the ‘husband lovingly protecting the wife,’ causes problems for women. Really. Please go to Google and paste in the phrase “Benevolent Sexism,” hit the enter key on your keyboard, and start reading articles about the topic.
You may also want to read:
_John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy_
_3 Ways Egalitarian Theology Opposes Abuse_
LikeLiked by 2 people
One of my posts above is sitting in moderation.
I find it telling that the complementarians are now finding it necessary to brainwash CHILDREN in this nonsense. Maybe I am wrong, but I take this as a sign that either complementarianism is losing or THEY, the complementarians, feel they are on the losing side, and have lost ground to Christian egalitarians / mutualists.
I also find it interesting the comps are now tossing in “egalitarian” as one of their scare-words, or scare-concepts. For a long, long time, complementarians would mainly, or only, refer to (secular) feminism. You’d see the word “feminist” or “feminist” pop up in their writings when they were pearl-clutching about the downfall of American society. Now, this new material is also dropping the word “egalitarian” into the mix.
Egalitarians believe that the genders complement one another, by the way.
The word “complementarian” was first created by egalitarians but then later hi-jacked by today’s CBMW complementarian guys.
From the OP, quoting the complementarian book or site for kids:
Oh brother. A Christian does not have to be a complementarian to spread the Gospel.
Also, as I get into on my own blog (Miss Daisy Flower on Word Press), the complementarian idea of “biblical womanhood” or “God’s design for girls and women” is for girls and women to live as codependents (doormats), which the Bible is actually in opposition to.
The Bible warns or commands believers NOT to engage in some of the VERY behaviors the complementarians say girls and women should engage in to be good little Christian women. (Again, I get into that at my blog more, so I won’t belabor it here.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Green Eggs and Ham sounds better for story time.
LikeLike
I thought we believed gender roles are not doctrinal issues. Therefore, we can allow others to have their own perspectives–and we can educate our children on all sides of the issue. That promotes critical thinking.
This is actually a beautiful series–even if this one book has some things we disagree with. Do you really want publishers to only print what you personally agree with?
LikeLike
brian – I, too, am all for critical thinking. And, I do not think it is a bad idea to use critical thinking in your faith. My views of faith and challenging my kids to think about what they were learning changed over the years of our homeschooling. We did use some curriculum that pushed creationism and (unknown to me at the time) complementarian thinking. I did use those moments not to dwell on “right teaching” (because I grew farther away from what the curriculum was promoting), but to present it in a way where my kids could ask questions and decide for themselves.
I have a feeling that this older generation that’s pounding comp doctrine is afraid that the children and young adults that follow will not continue the legacy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irene – Authors are free to write what ever they want. Publishers are free to print whatever they want. I am free to have an opinion about what is written and published. And, there are plenty of sites that will support what these authors and publishers are putting out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Julie Anne – We loved “If You Give a Pig a Pancake,” “If You Give a Moose a Muffin,” etc. We could even read stories from our children’s Bible over and over. This book wants you to read the stories multiple times to the children. I couldn’t do it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Almost all of these comments are totally unfair to this series as a whole. Don’t throw out great children’s books (and authors–and no, I don’t know her personally) just because you disagree with one book.
LikeLike
Irene,
I don’t see where anyone has mentioned a series of books — only one book by thes particular authors. I assume Kathi has read the book, and she’ll be presenting it bit by bit over the next few weeks. We’ll all have the chance to look at it (or at excerpts, at least) and analyze it for ourselves. No one on this blog is banning anything, or calling for a ban. This is an opportunity for critical thinking (of which you seem to be in favour) of the gender comp position.
As for it being a “beautiful series” of books… well, that remains to be seen. The way that the authors seem to conflate egalitarianism and feminism with “the lies of Satan” in the preface, I have my doubts. The authors aren’t off to a great start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irene – I have opinions about books all the time. Usually, if a book doesn’t capture my interest I stop reading it. I don’t even go to the end to see how it ends. Including children’s book. Take for instance the beloved “The Little Prince.” I couldn’t stand it. Am I allowed to write a critical review of the book on Amazon among the sea of supporters? Of course I can.
Why is it wrong for me to write a review of a book where I do not agree with the theological premise behind it? Again, there are plenty of other people and sites who I am sure would write glowing reviews. I choose to be one who doesn’t. And, why is having a critical opinion so divisive?
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is just sad. These kids are going to think that believing in God is all about gender roles. Very likely they will reject the whole thing when they are old enough. What is the matter with people. Parents, just love and nurture your kids and they will turn out fine. SHEESH.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Bruce,
That’s fine. I object to the tone set in the preface of the book, in which egalitarianism and feminism are mentioned in the same breath as homosexuality and “gender bending”, as though all of these are somehow inextricably linked. Then in a later paragraph, all of these are called “the Devil’s lies”. The authors also smuggle in the term “inoculation”, subtly suggesting that egalitarian thinking and feminism aren’t only lies, but horrible diseases to be eradicated.
Not exactly conducive to critical thought or rational dialogue, is it?
LikeLiked by 5 people
PS. Why do people feel they can confidently say what Satan wants and what God wants. Something more along the lines of “I think this might be what Satan wants” might be a bit more accurate, no?
LikeLike
David,
In utero thought reform? Wouldn’t put it past the Pied Piper to at least think of it. Maybe we shouldn’t be giving him ideas…
LikeLiked by 1 person
For the record, I’d let Kathi post this even if I didn’t agree with her. I value her opinion and for bringing good discussion to the table.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“In utero thought reform? Wouldn’t put it past the Pied Piper to at least think of it. Maybe we shouldn’t be giving him ideas…” Serving Kids in Japan
John Piper is so off base. Piper wasn’t the least bit concerned about Mark Driscoll’s abuses at Mars Hill, vicious firings and excommunications of good and godly men and women who disagreed (including elders). When Mars Hill finally closed, and Driscoll was fired, John Piper called it “a loss for The Gospel” in Seattle. A win for Satan.
No, I call it an answer to prayer. I prayed long and hard for Mars Hill to close before more lives and families were damaged. That’s a win for The Gospel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you see Kathi, Sally’s full title was “Minister for Children”. I guess it didn’t “violate” anyone’s “sense of manhood” in Piper’s eyes for her to have authority over teaching kids. If she were giving orders to any adults, they must have been all women. After all, she mustn’t press upon any men with her femininity (or however the Pied Piper phrased it).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Serving Kids – I wonder if it is okay for a woman to teach middle school and high school boys. They are budding men after all. I only found it surprising because the non-denom churches that I have been a part of even struggle with calling a woman a minister. She usually holds a director or coordinator title, even when leading a children’s ministry. But, coming from Piper’s church, knowing Piper’s view of women in ministry?
LikeLike
Kathi: I sorta wish I hadn’t thrown out my copy of Bruce Ware’s “Big Truths for Little Hearts” when we moved last year. We could’ve had a weekly Koffee Klatch, going through all of this stuff!
(Disclaimer – the book was given to me when I was still homeschooling, by a dear-hearted gal I still consider a friend, even if I no longer see her much or agree with her on some things)
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Velour, that does not surprise me one bit. You would think that Stanford kids would be too smart to fool with this non-sense, but I guess not.
@Serving Kids in Japan
I don’t have kids of my own, but I remember seeing my friends apply the “growing kids in God’s way” stuff when their kids were just toddlers. Even as they were screaming their lungs out crying, my friends would stay put in the livingroom. As the wife finally had it and was about to get up, my friend gave her that look. She sat back in the chair looking distraught. Lost touch with most of the friends who bought into the system, but I often wonder what came of the kids now that they are young adults.
So yeah, I would not be surprised see them take this concept further.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My kids and I are in different, but weird, places with the gender comp stuff in some ways. I was raised by a mentally ill single mother who was extremely liberal politically and socially. My take on feminism, once I hit adulthood, was that it hurt kids, since it tended to result in selfish women begrudging having had kids (in my opinion as a young woman, remember).
So I always knew that I not only wanted kids, but was desperate to stay home with me when they came. I also happened to become a Christian when my first was an infant. Gender roles were comforting to me at first, because I was coming from a chaotic background.
Our first church home was a conservative evangelical “community church.” It taught and stressed complementarian nonsense from at least the time we began attending in the late 90s. I specifically remember when the pastors rolled out CBMW materials one weekend. They had been talking it up for weeks, and the sermons all centered on how IMPORTANT it all was, how it was the only truly biblical (= godly) way. They even had little booklets for everyone, which looked like little passports.
So I raised the kids that way. Rigid, rigid gender roles. I homeschooled, so it was easy to do. I even thought courtship sounded like a good idea. Still, always being a black sheep/rebel at heart, I never quite bought in to everything, and began backing off as my oldest entered her teen years.
Fast-forward to today. I’m divorced from an abusive husband, and I’ve got three teens who are trying to unlearn the gender role malarkey…along with me. The four of us talk about it a lot, but I sometimes forget that can’t just shrug it off the way I can. They were raised to believe it was Truth, while I was raised to believe the opposite.
Thankfully they’re amazing kids and human beings, and we have great relationships. But it’s still hard for them.
For me, it’s mostly trying to figure out how to do friendship with people I no longer agree with, since they’ve been taught that complementarianism is next to godliness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For those of you who disagree with me, I am fine with that. It may not come across that way, but I am. You are free to think and believe what you want and defend it all you want. Please don’t expect me to back down on what I think.
I have experienced first hand discrimination against women in leadership in the church and I did not like it one bit. I am very happily married to my best friend of 25 years and he would be the first to tell you that we are equal in our partnership. I have seen churches blatantly pray for men and not women who were hosting small groups on their homes and then preach about the importance of male leadership. As if the women would have no impact in the people who entered her house.
I cannot support comp doctrine.
LikeLiked by 2 people
David C,
It breaks my heart to hear of people stifling their own wisdom and sacrificing their babies to a formula they read in a book. All of the research in child development points to the fact that it’s through the infant reliably getting his/her needs met (including the need for comfort and connection!) that all other emotional development grows out of. When you damage an infant’s trust, you are working against the very results you are hoping for. Conscience itself depends upon trust. Trust begins with a loving and dependable adult meeting a helpless infant’s needs when he cries out.
We have reams of research now- actual trained professionals studying and observing real infants and children and their caregivers, over generations. Yet people will not only ignore all of that knowledge, they will deny their own God-given instincts and follow the advice of quacks who have NO, NONE, ZERO training in child development! Children deserve better than this, especially from parents calling themselves Christian. Love, people. It’s all about love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right on, Kathi.
PS I was too bored to finish The Little Prince, too 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bruce, I have a question for you. Do you think a husband can only love his wife as Christ loves the church if he is in a position of authority over her? Is there some reason he can’t love his wife unless he is boss?
Can a wife only respect her husband as a human being if she is subservient to him?
What is stopping both from loving and respecting one another without ‘gender roles’?
LikeLike
I’m constantly amazed how the Pride Piper and the 9 Marks creeps are all so obsessed with AUTHORITY. They act like authority completes the gospel or something. Sometimes I wonder if they would be as violent as ISIS if they thought they could get away with it. Really it’s the same mentality, intolerance with other’s beliefs and attempting to force their own.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My brain can’t cope. Haha
Last night my husband cooked the most incredible dinner and we mutually wish to thank Egalitarianism for allowing him such an opportunity to serve.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Different but equal. When will these folks ever learn that those who are “different” will never feel “equal” as long as this mentality is in place?
Excluding the extremes of man-hating feminism and woman subjugating patriarchy, ‘different but equal’ is probably shared at least to a limited extent by everyone across the board on this subject, albeit often loath to admit it.
What I don’t get is ‘feeling equal’. How can you feel equal? When discussing genders and roles and the bible etc., feelings are completely irrelevant, are they not?
LikeLike
“[F]eelings are completely irrelevant, are they not?”
As a child of the Enlightenment, and as one who has lived his life and faith primarily in the realm of the mind, I am inclined to agree with this. However, this approach denies the nature of God, in whose image we are created. Our God is Love, Love is relational, and we relate to others to the extent we identify with them, both intellectually and emotionally. We are commanded to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and this is at it’s core an appeal to our own emotional, feeling sensitivities.
Applying this to the topic at hand, I do not wish for women to impose gender roles on me as a man. I have a negative emotional reaction to the very idea. Therefore, I as a man cannot legitimately seek to impose gender roles on women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Somewhere above somebody objects to the tone of this post. Since when is the expression of that which is true discredited by being expressed with righteous indignation? Indeed, how can one not be angry when considering how these heretics, presenting themselves as though they are some sort of latter day law-givers, would seek to bind even children to their error?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Salty – My husband cooks dinner on Sundays and he’s really good! He’s never really enjoyed cooking, especially the timing part of it all, but he’s learning lots. And, years ago he decided to start doing his own laundry. I taught the kids at a very young age to do their own laundry, so he decided he needed to do his own too. Now all I do is my own and the towels and sheets. Woo hoo!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely it does. Children have to learn to obey, and yet they should also be discerning because they can be preyed on too. Women have to be discerning and know that god wants good things for them, not evil. Life isn’t black and white and neither is the bible, really.
OT, I am deeply creeped out by them teaching ‘gender roles’ to small children. Teach them to be good. Teach them to be kind. Teach them to love others. That is biblical and right and good.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As for Bruce, children aren’t married. Husbands should love their wives. That’s great. I think these books are probably going WAY beyond that, or it wouldn’t be a whole book.
Also, love is not a ‘role’. Children need to know to love others. That has nothing to do with gender roles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m surprised no one picked up on this. Why is God and the gospel secondary to manhood and womanhood?
To Bruce: “Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children.” (Luke 7:35)
This is my struggle with complementarianism. What are the children of complementarianism theology. Maybe a good friend who says that God commands her to obey her husband, even when he is doing something wrong and stupid that will hurt her and her family? Maybe my mom who submitted to years of verbal and emotional abuse from my father because she wanted to be an example of godly submission? Maybe CJ Mahaney who created a complementarian church that told wives not to report their incestuous husbands to the police, and, in violation of the law, did not report them to the police. And when they were finally charged, paid for their defense? CJ Manahey is back on the preaching circuit with the right hand of fellowship from fellow comps. How about Doug Wilson who sat next to a child molester during his trial while the victim sat alone, wrote letters asking the judge to go light on the molester, and then excommunicated the victim and her father. After declaring the man forgiven and restored, he married him off, and now he’s being charged with domestic violence – apparently the police were not thrilled with the finger-shaped impressions on his wife’s throat.
What is the fruit of complementarianism? If it is natural and right and part of God’s plan for blessing humanity, wouldn’t the Holy Spirit lead husbands and wives TOWARDS it rather than away from it? Why would we have to spend countless hours beating it into the heads of little boys and girls?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Gary W., we object to the tone of the comments because they don’t seem to fit the idea of LOVING the people on the other side. I don’t like the idea of calling Piper and others names just because we interpret the Bible differently. In fact, this is one thing that kept me a complementarian for a long time–I felt like the egalitarians were arrogant and I didn’t believe that a doctrine from the Holy Spirit would come across that way. We are supposed to humbly–knowing that none of us has all the answers–come to the other side, whether it is in this issue or a personal issue with someone in the church.
LikeLike
“I’m constantly amazed how the Pride Piper and the 9 Marks creeps are all so obsessed with AUTHORITY. They act like authority completes the gospel or something. Sometimes I wonder if they would be as violent as ISIS if they thought they could get away with it. Really it’s the same mentality, intolerance with other’s beliefs and attempting to force their own.” -Scott1253
Mark Dever (Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington, D.C.) started 9Marks of an [un] Healthy Church where he just recycled the 1970’s abusive heavy-Shepherding Movements’ tactics. The Florida founders of the Shepherding Movement repented for its un-Biblicalness and its many abuses. Even the repentant founders have been shocked by how the ideas have come back and been adopted, when they aren’t Biblical and are harmful.
John Piper and many other authoritarian pastors follow this model. It’s Thought Reform. It’s used by all kinds of authoritarian groups.
LikeLike
Irene,
Was that directed at me? I don’t call these men names because they interpret the Bible differently. I do so because they’re abusive wolves who interpret it selfishly — in ways that primarily benefit them, and hurt others.
In particular, Piper has said and taught things that might actually be amusing, if they didn’t contribute to spiritual abuse. This is a man who has taught that God doesn’t want women to be muscular, and shouldn’t be police officers or drill sergeants, let alone teachers in the church. And he tries to explain all of this with the strangest, most nonsensical language in his sermons and blogposts — although he saves the best word salad for his tweets. Jack Handey’s “Deep Thoughts” on SNL come to mind.
Much more seriously, Piper has advised that wives tolerate spousal abuse “for a season”, has claimed to know the specific sins which are being punished by natural disasters, and even now can’t bring himself to say anything bad about the plagiarist and bully Mark Driscoll.
And in spite of all this, so many young evangelicals fawn over him and treat his every word as though it embodies divine wisdom. That’s why I call him the Pied Piper — because he can teach or tweet whatever he wants, no matter how cryptic or harmful, and he can still count on his lemming-disciples to eat it up, and follow him anywhere. Even if they’re being led off a cliff.
You want me to show love to John Piper? The most loving thing I can say is, that I think he’s going senile. It’s the most generous way that I can interpret his behaviour. The only other possibility is that his teachings are confusing and misogynistic by design. And even if they’re not, they are no less harmful to the faith of those who take him seriously.
If Piper can’t start making sense and stop contributing to spiritual abuse, the best thing for him to do is retire and step out of the spotlight. Until he chooses to do either, I feel fully justified in calling him “Pied, baby… Pied”.
P.S. Julie Anne is our host here. I know she’ll warn me if she thinks I’m stepping out of line. Considering that she’s been through spiritual abuse, I trust her judgement in this matter.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Irene, while I appreciate your point, it occurs to me that Jesus referred to the sanctimonious, self righteous false teaches of his day by calling them things like hypocrites, white washed tombs, serpents, vipers, and even sons of their father the devil. Piper and his ilk are every bit as dangerous as the Pharisees of Jesus day. They are maybe even more dangerous. At least the Pharisees didn’t claim to be coming in the name and authority of the resurrected Son of God.
Even if I am ill advised in saying that we may follow Jesus in this regard, surely we can still be righteously indignant at error and, especially, its imposition on children.
LikeLiked by 4 people
And thanks to Serving for reminding me that Jesus called people wolves. He also called them pigs.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“Gary W., we object to the tone of the comments because they don’t seem to fit the idea of LOVING the people on the other side. I don’t like the idea of calling Piper and others names just because we interpret the Bible differently.” – Irene
I disagree. “Loving” someone is criticizing them when they are wrong and NOT enabling them. John Piper is a bizarre man with bizarre beliefs who has caused a great deal of damage to marriages, families, women, men, children and churches.
Many of these men who call themselves “pastors” are unfit for ministry and should have never been in it. And they should have stepped down long ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These authoritarian pastors and their churches, and para church organizations, engage in what is known as Thought Reform.
Psychologist-therapist/cult expert/author Steve Hassan writes about that here:
https://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/BITE/bitemodel.php
https://www.freedomofmind.com/
The BITE Model
I. Behavior Control
II. Information Control
III. Thought Control
IV. Emotional Control
LikeLike
OK, so you justify calling some leaders names. Do you also feel that anyone who follows complementarianism is “doing Christianity wrong”?
LikeLike
I’d like to add that John Piper prays in a specific way which Jesus condemned in Matthew 23.
At what point do we start taking the Lord’s words seriously?
LikeLike
For me, Irene, it sort of depends on what you mean by comp. I think people can have a relationship and work things out between themselves.
Some of them, though, particularly the authoritarian, women don’t count, men are everything, go back to your abusive husband and suffer folks, are ABSOLUTELY doing Christianity wrong. They do not love women the way Jesus told us to love each other. They are self serving, self seeking, and yes, arrogant men.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“OK, so you justify calling some leaders names. Do you also feel that anyone who follows complementarianism is “doing Christianity wrong”? – Irene
People can conduct their marriages however they see fit. That’s up to them to negotiate between themselves, Egal, Comp or whatever else. The Comp teaching, including John Piper’s, that YOU “must do it this [cookie cutter] way” or you’re not “Biblical” and not following “The Gospel” and not a “true believer” is heresy. It’s NONE of John Piper’s business.
Here’s a short list of some bizarre John Piper-isms:
*Women shouldn’t be police officers.
*Women shouldn’t run for elected office.
*If a man is lost and asks a woman on the street for directions that she should be careful in how she speaks to him so as not to threaten his masculinity.
*And on and on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me that the problem lies not in deciding that the man is the “head” or not, but in either sex lording it over the other. Jesus said that was the way Gentiles ruled over each other and that we should be different. Let the man be the “head” because as long as I am the “heart” he needs me too!
If, on the other hand, he needs to tell his wife how much she needs to bow down to him, we have the problem of the woman feeling like she has no voice and then stuffing her emotions to try and make that work. It ends up to be unhealthy for her and for the relationship as a whole and even the children in the mix.
You see, I don’t think I am at odds with most of you. But I have immense compassion for the women that are trapped in this thinking and trying so hard to make it work. It is very difficult, and throwing out a doctrine you have believed your whole life is upsetting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Give me your children when they are young and I will make them mine. You will pass away, but they will remain Mine.”
— A Hitler, cult leader
LikeLike
“You see, I don’t think I am at odds with most of you. But I have immense compassion for the women that are trapped in this thinking and trying so hard to make it work. It is very difficult, and throwing out a doctrine you have believed your whole life is upsetting.” – Irene
All of the people I know have compassion for the women trapped in Comp marriages and/or thinking. We do understand that they tried to make it work,
did what they were told to do, were told it was “Biblical”, had any number of clobber verses thrown at them…and it didn’t work out. It’s a lot to grieve.
Daisy, who posts here and at a couple of other blogs, is a political and social conservative, was raised in a Comp church and family, and she’s in her 40’s
and never married (not by her own wishes of course but the right “match”
hasn’t come her way, yet), and she figured out that Comp was wrong, was merely sexism disguised with Biblical terms, was full of abuse, and was Codependency.
It demands that women (and girls) not have healthy boundaries.
They are targets for abuse by not only men, but also by abusive women (in life, church, and the workplace).
I’m glad that I wasn’t raised with Comp. I’m glad that I had something to fall back on in my thinking when I got sick and tired of the Comp teachings at a NeoCalvinist/9Marks [aka 9Marxist]/John MacArthur-ite church. I’m glad that there were highly educated and accomplished women in my family, including my grandmother who died at 102 years old. She had a university education that her father, an architect, encouraged her to get. The children in her family, including the girls, all got university degrees in the sciences. Her sister got a degree in Physics.
I’m also glad that – unlike Comp teaching – I saw Christian women leaders, teachers, and missionaries in my grandmother’s Presbyterian church. My grandmother had many women friends who were medical missionaries – doctors in African villages. Those women carried The Gospel, taught, bettered lives,
and practiced medicine.
Comps have set women, including in conservative denominations, back by hundreds of years.
LikeLike
Irene, it’s a pattern. For a long time, I was a comp and my wife was egal, but no one could look at our marriage and say it was comp or egal. That’s because she respected me and I respected her and we never got ourselves into situations where the man had to make the final call. We figured out how to work through our differences and come to a consensus. Often, with parenting, that consensus was “you do it your way and I’ll do it mine.” Sometimes later I would see it her way or she would see it mine, or the issue itself just went away altogether.
But… my church taught a very black and white comp. theology. It was NOT okay to agree to disagree, ESPECIALLY with respect to parenting. It was of utmost importance that we be a united front to all others, and that, of course, meant that the wife had to “submit” to the husband, even if she thought he was foolish and wrong.
My belief is that our marriage and family are stronger because she didn’t submit. She refused to spank our kids for every infraction. That was the work of the Holy Spirit in her heart and eventually I became convicted it was the right approach. If she had submitted to my abusive approach, would we have grown?
I will also digress a bit and say that there is a difference between complementarians and mutualists. I feel that complementarians take the approach that the husband is all sufficient (except for the womb, of course), and that the wife is just the helper who lightens the load he would otherwise have to do solo. Just like if I started a painting company. I would be responsible for everything, and it’d be nice to have an employee to share the load. I might even ask the employee’s opinion on how to approach a job or give him more and more freedom and latitude, but ultimately, the presence or absence of that employee doesn’t change that it’s my painting business.
Mutualism (what I thought was comp.) is a bit different, aside from the womb, the perspective is that God’s removal of Adam’s rib signified that God removed some of Adam’s characteristics and made those part of Eve. Thus, Adam and Eve had essential characteristics that they contributed to the relationship, more than simply complementary sexual organs, and that there were areas each should recognize the other as the “superior”. The outcome of comp, though, is that the husband is taught he is superior in all ways, and the wife is taught that she is inferior in all ways.
Again, if you look at the logical conclusion of the above, the wife is simply an employee with necessary sex organs for procreation, and my experience is that comp churches are following that in practice.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mark, thank you for that explanation. Do you say that both you and your wife believe in mutualism now? That sounds great actually!
LikeLike
KAS,
you said, “What I don’t get is ‘feeling equal’. How can you feel equal? When discussing genders and roles and the bible etc., feelings are completely irrelevant, are they not?”
here are my thoughts on this. the christian powerbrokers seem to live in ivory towers, removed from everyone else. it is very easy for them to make their pronouncements about ‘truth’, doctrine, and rules for living. they seem to have no clue as to their impact on people.
CBMW & co go to great lengths affirming this equal in dignity and worth, different in role thing. their maxim of equal in dignity and worth means nothing at ground zero where you and i live when i am told i can’t have a bulletin at church but only my husband can because he’s the husband; when christian men will not dare or deign to make eye contact with me; when i as a skilled musician and group leader am ignored and passed over in favor of a less skilled man. i can think of so many other examples.
CBMW & co may tell me i am equal (in dignity and worth). i sure as hell don’t feel it. Utterly empty words.
Seems to me that that unless equality in practice takes place, where people are judged not by the appearance of their gender but by the content of their skills, talents, and qualifications, there will be no experience of equality. no feeling of equality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She would probably still consider herself egalitarian, but I can’t say I have a huge desire to figure out exactly what label she would take.
LikeLike
“It also assumes that anybody who believes in male headship is a chauvinist pig who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant. ”
Frankly there is no such thing as “headship”. Kephaleship is absurd. It would be like claiming slaves have legship or handship.
Best to delve into words and meanings. The place to start is to identify how a 1st Century listener would have understood kephale.
LikeLike
“It seems to me that the problem lies not in deciding that the man is the “head” or not, but in either sex lording it over the other. Jesus said that was the way Gentiles ruled over each other and that we should be different. Let the man be the “head” because as long as I am the “heart” he needs me too!”
No, actually it is understanding the 1st Century context of Kephale. Usually, only wealthy women did not need to rely on the husband as her source for living.
In that era, the “head” was viewed as the source of life for your body. In contrast the heart was viewed as the place where thinking and decisions were made. About one hundred years after Paul walked this Earth, the physician, Galen, discovered that the head or brain controls our limbs. ( don’t tell Peta but evidently he experimented on animals). After that time thinking started to slowly change.
The “head/body” in Scripture is metaphorical. As word meanings changed over time the word head started to be defined as the” top”.
Why you guys want to go back to 1st Century caste just boggles. I must assume your husband greets brothers with a holy kiss? :o)
People are so focused on the caste system they miss the bigger message which was quite radical for that era. It’s not like a believing wife in Corinth could run down to the Corinth women shelter or enroll in the Corinth Community College.
LikeLike
“OK, so you justify calling some leaders names. Do you also feel that anyone who follows complementarianism is “doing Christianity wrong”?”
I don’t think it’s anybody’s business how you arrange your marriage. Sadly, the church has made it their business and work very hard to shut up over half of the body who are also full co heirs of ALL gifts and functions.
I think it should be taught that all believers submit to one another and the full value of every human. The problem is humans devaluing themselves by their evil or deception or needing to be over other adults.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am now wondering what a “holy kiss” between brothers looks like.
Thanks Lydia 😊
LikeLike
“I am now wondering what a “holy kiss” between brothers looks like.”
Back then in that part of the world it was not unusual for it to be on the lips!
I think Piper would be appalled to read how men communicated by letter with each other. Shared beds (think Lincoln and Joshua Speed) and so on.
LikeLike
“What I don’t get is ‘feeling equal’. How can you feel equal? When discussing genders and roles and the bible etc., feelings are completely irrelevant, are they not?”
Feelings are a poor choice word. How about value? What is our image of God? Do women have a derivative image of God, not a direct one? There are many out there who would have us believe just that. I believe you and I have discussed this issue on another thread.
Value is important when speaking with any human. I would prefer more Muslim women value themselves but their religion teaches them to Value men more. We value ourselves and othersby living the universal Golden Rule.
What you have suggested before is your biblical interpretation is the only one that can be right. I simply challenge you on your understanding of such and the filter in which you read scripture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that’s one of the dumbest word vomity things to come out of this crowd. ‘headship’ is made up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Velour, I grew up around independent thinking women who were “doers” in the kingdom, too. Back when women were welcome after the turn of the century my grandmother received an M div at Moody. That was after her teacher college training. She never sought to be a paid preacher she just wanted to study theology. I just did not grow up around this gender tyranny. Your plumbing at birth did not make you automatically dependent for the rest of your life.
We could use more Katherine Bushnell’s and CatherineBooths..
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that’s one of the dumbest word vomity things to come out of this crowd. ‘headship’ is made up.”
Yes and it can be confusing. Take 1 Corin 11. Paul uses it both metaphorically and literally in that passage. He is being a bit clever as the cultural issue in question is “head” coverings for women as they pray or speak in the body. But his message is this:
Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
The Subordinatist gloss right over that part.
Very sad that translators added “symbol of” to that passage. I believe many of them regret it now
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS: “When discussing genders and roles and the bible etc., feelings are completely irrelevant, are they not?”
This is completely non-biblical. You’re saying that robots would make better Christians than humans. God created our emotions and feelings, and many times, God uses those feelings to wake us up to the reality that we are rationally repressing.
Jesus was angry, Jesus was sad, Jesus had compassion. I think it’s unwise to say that somehow the writers goofed when they put those emotions in. Was it irrelevant that Jesus wept when he saw Lazarus dead? Was it irrelevant that Jesus got angry with the Pharisees who told him he couldn’t heal on the Sabbath?
Suppressing emotions is key to abuse. If I hit my wife, she will almost certainly get angry. What happens if she takes that anger to the typical church? The church shoves it back in her face as her sin and tells her that she has no right to be angry. They throw a bunch of verses at her and tell her to forgive me and move on. So, the next time I hit her… what happens? She accepts it by shoving her natural anger in a box. She’s now been conditioned to accept abuse. Three cheers to the church!
Now, what generally happens (happened to me WRT the church) is that the repressed anger doesn’t like to stay in the box. Again, this is the way God designed us to be. It can come out in healthy ways like divorce or unhealthy ways like suicide or passing the abuse along to the children.
This is not to say that emotions are always in tune with the Spirit. If I sit in the recliner watching the football game and tell my wife to fetch me a beer, I might get angry if she said, “get it yourself if you want it.” That anger would be coming out of a mistaken view of myself and would be unrighteous.
I find that emotions are a powerful check on rationality, and that check gets suppressed by the church because they want people to override the natural sadness, anger and disgust they might feel when the church does something evil. They want to say, “well, obviously your anger shows that you are not coming to us in truth.” It’s a great red herring! The speck of their abusive treatment is a drop in the bucket compared to the anger I’m showing! They will show grace by saying, “come back when you are completely dissociated from any emotion regarding the supposed evil we’ve done and then, perhaps, we can talk.” Oh yeah, and be careful to step over the bloodied sheep on your way out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS said Excluding the extremes of man-hating feminism and woman subjugating patriarchy, ‘different but equal’ is probably shared at least to a limited extent by everyone across the board on this subject, albeit often loath to admit it.
I have no problem with seeing there are differences between the sexes. I believe God has designed men and woman to work together, ideally each supplies a different perspective or skillset, not just in marriage but in the world at large. But this has nothing to do with what freedoms or privileges each should be allowed or forced into.
What I don’t get is ‘feeling equal’. How can you feel equal? When discussing genders and roles and the bible etc., feelings are completely irrelevant, are they not?
I’m not really clear on what you mean here, KAS, but speaking for myself I ‘feel’ equal when I have the freedom to make the choices that I would like to make. I ‘feel’ equal when I am not being told how I supposedly think or feel or when I am not being told I must do a particular thing because of my sex, regardless of my own inclinations. I ‘feel’ equal when I have opportunities that are open to me without reference to my sex. I ‘feel’ equal when doors are not shut for me because of my sex and nothing else. I ‘feel’ equal when my being is not mocked or patronised or condescended to because of my sex; when my opinions are heard as equally valid.
Secondly, again I am not really sure what you mean by feelings being irrelevant, unless you are saying our theology shouldn’t be swayed by our feelings? I believe feelings are highly relevant, they are part of our makeup and to deny them is to head blindly through the fog. They can be misinformed, which is why we should seek to understand our feelings and examine them, but they can also be very strong and stubborn reality indicators that ought to be listened to. Sometimes they actually make more sense than our misinformed intellectual beliefs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Shy1:
Isn’t the whole idea behind vaccination to introduce/expose someone to a weakened/harmless/bogus version of a pathogen to make them immune to the real thing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Remember all this is coming from a meter-sixty wet noodle of a man who is afraid of “Muscular Women begetting unnatural arousal” while fluttering his hands like a Victorian virgin with a case of The Vapors…
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ServingKidsInJapan:
Why not encode it into the DNA at conception?
That’s how Comrade Trofim Denisovich Lysenko became Comrade Stalin’s court favorite geneticist. Lysenko taught that acquired characteristics were inherited by the offspring (Lamarck instead of Darwin), i.e. thought-reform the parents enough and the children would be utterly loyal to The Party and loving Comrade Stalin literally from conception. (Remember, this was the regime that was the main inspiration for Orwell’s 1984 — “It is not enough for you to obey Big Brother, 6079 Smith W; you must LOVE Big Brother”.)
LikeLike
Shy1–“These kids are going to think that believing in God is all about gender roles.”
Again, let’s look at the series as a whole. The first book came out in January 2011, and it was called God’s Names. Then came God’s Promise, God’s Providence, God’s Wisdom, God’s Gospel, and God’s Battle. All of these were printed before God’s Design came out. If Sally Michael thought “believing in God is all about gender roles” why didn’t she start with that message? She didn’t even get to it until 5 years into the series.
LikeLike
Wet.noodle.
😂😂😂
LikeLike
“Again, let’s look at the series as a whole. The first book came out in January 2011, and it was called God’s Names. Then came God’s Promise, God’s Providence, God’s Wisdom, God’s Gospel, and God’s Battle. All of these were printed before God’s Design came out. If Sally Michael thought “believing in God is all about gender roles” why didn’t she start with that message? She didn’t even get to it until 5 years into the series.”
The warm up, most likely. If it came from DG it is the determinist-caste-system-angry-god that punishes people with tornados and such. His Sovereignty means He is controlling every atom 24/7. Now, let’s talk gender roles to the children.
LikeLike
JA, I like your dog. S/he looks like the type of hypoallergenic dog I have to have.
LikeLike
I haven’t had time to read all the posts since I was last here.
Quoting from Velour’s post, who is quoting someone named Irene:
I was brought up a gender complementarian and used to be one, up until around my mid-30s.
I am no longer a complementarian, haven’t been for several years now.
I discuss some of my background in complementarianism and reasons why I left it the posts about comp on my blog:
Miss Daisy Flower blog, posts on complementarianism
I don’t know about the women still stuck in complementarianism, but I see no reason to tip-toe around the big-named Christians who promote this sexist swill in their books, blogs, and radio shows, such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Owen Strachan, or Mark Driscoll, Mary Kassian, and all the rest.
I see no reason to treat any of them (the famous Christians who promote comp) in a genteel fashion, or with kid gloves. They are promoting views that are very damaging to girls and women – they can all get bent as far as I am concerned.
LikeLike
Kas said,
Nope, feelings do matter.
Feelings cannot be divorced from ramifications of doctrine.
Orthopraxy matters, not just orthodoxy.
I was brought up complementarian, and yes, being complementarian and being exposed to complementarian teachings made me “feel” less equal.
Being constantly told by complementarian Christians (in books, sermons, articles, or Christian TV shows) that you are automatically disqualified from certain roles and tasks for the duration of your life, based only on your biological sex (not due to your skills, intelligence or competence, but due to only how you were born)…..
And being repeatedly told that you are of second-status to people with penises, and that God designed it to be so, does make you feel like dirt.
It also can make you question if God really loves you or not, all because you are female. The message I took away from all this complementarian teaching when I was a kid is that God does not love girls and women AS MUCH as he loves boys and men, if at all.
You can read more about what I feel that way at my blog:
Miss Daisy Flower blog – posts on complementarianism
(I’m pointing people to the posts at my blog so I won’t have to repeat myself here on Julie Anne’s blog – my posts about it can be quite long.)
LikeLike
Daisy said:
Having had an 8-year “tour-of-duty” of an authoritarian, NeoCalvinist, 9Marxist,
John MacArthur-ite, Comp promoting church, I am so glad to be out of that
hot mess. It really messes with peoples’ minds. They live under the old Covenant, not the new one we have in Christ.
It occurred to me, after hearing from the NeoCal/Comp camp that women were 2nd class and couldn’t teach/preach/lead that was their “version” and simply not true for other denominations. My Presbyterian grandmother (a university graduate in science, a college dean, who died at 102 yrs old) had many medical missionary friends – women doctors – who practiced medicine and carried the Gospel in remote places, like African villages. Before these NeoCal pups were even born, those women and thousands like them were doing all of the very things the Comps insist women can’t do.
The spread of Comp has set women in churches back by hundreds of years. It’s insufferable. No wonder people are fleeing Comp.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irene said,
It’s disturbing to a degree that she felt it necessary at all, whether it was book 1, or book 5, or what have you.
As Lea has pointed out before (and as others on other sites have pointed out before)…
If Gender Roles are so incredibly obvious (as gender comps teach it is), if it is so plain and obvious that…
God created men to…
Be good at math; enjoy football; be unable to exercise sexual self control,
And God created women to…
Be maternal, nurturing, home bodies who like to knit tea cozies, bake brownies, find satisfaction in mopping dirty kitchen floors…
It would not be necessary for ‘Belinda P. Fuddpucker’ gender complementarian author to write books with titles like,
“How To Teach Kids That God Designed Men to Like Football and Women to Like Mopping Floors and Wear the Color Pink.”
LikeLike
Persephone said,
Just riffing off what you said here (I’m not discounting your experience, or that is not my intent.)
Neither of my parents were feminists. They are both actually mildly sexist. They both held very traditional values and traditional roles about gender. They were conservative Christians (well, my father is still alive. My mother is deceased.)
My mother would tell me she did not believe women should be in political office. My mother told me she got the idea from my father (or he straight up told her? – not sure how she knows he feels this,) that women are not as smart and capable as men.
I’ve never asked my father this, but I suspect that he probably did not want to have kids. At least not me. I don’t think he wanted me.
I am the youngest – there is a several year gap between myself and the middle kid in my family (the middle kid would be my big brother).
I suspect what happened is that my mother getting pregnant with me was an “oops”. I think I was unplanned (which my mother later sort of confirmed when I asked her about it when I was in my 20s).
I notice my father never seemed too interested in parenting. My mother did most of the parenting.
The vibe I got from him from the time I was a kid is that my father did not want kids. I think maybe it was one of those marriages where the wife wanted kids but the husband did not, but the husband agrees to go along with it if it will keep the wife happy.
So, there are ‘traditional values,’ Christian people who raise kids and seem to resent having kids. It’s not just an outcome of feminist parents.
LikeLike
Irene said,
I think it depends on the context and motives involved. Are you saying Jesus was wrong to refer to the Pharisees as hypocrites and white washed tombs?
Complementarian pastor Mark Driscoll likes to refer to women as “penis homes” and hurls insults and put-downs at men who he thinks are not sufficiently manly. Is it okay when Driscoll does that?
Irene said,
Yep. Absolutely. It’s America, and complementarians can have their comp marriages if they wish, but I can also state I disagree with complementarianism.
Complementariasm is not only codependency for women, but it also teaches that God established a male hierarchy over women – when Jesus Christ taught his followers they were not to construct such authority-based hierarchies. Comps are contradicting the Bible and God’s character in regards to teachings on the genders and marriage.
I’ve written about all this beffore on my blog, like here:
Christian Gender Complementarianism is Christian-Endorsed Codependency for Women (And That’s Not A Good Thing)
LikeLike
Lydia, That is Kathi’s dog. He is on loan to SSB when the need arises 🙂
LikeLike
@ Velour.
True. Complementarians are not very open-minded, or do not have a a “live and let live” about these topics, especially not in regards to marriage.
I think I quoted from an article over at TWW a few weeks ago where an egalitarian woman, in an article, was very gracious in her comments about complementarianism in some regard or another, but complementarian Owen Strachan straight up said that he believes that egalitarianism is a sin.
The more and more I think about it, since complementarianism is nothing but secular sexism with a varnish of Christianity applied to it which acts as a bondage or obstacle for a lot of girls and women, I think complementarianism (or facets or underlying assumptions of it) is sin.
I do not think a person will go to Hell when they die for being complementarian or believing in it or for having a comp marriage, though, but I think some complementarians may question the salvation of non-complementarians (it wouldn’t surprise me if they did).
Yes, I found the article again:
_The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women_, on The Atlantic‘s site
Here are the quotes I was referring to:
About the egalitarian woman’s views:
About the complementarian man’s views (Owen Strachan):
Notice the egalitarian does not refer to the complementarian ideal (SAHMism) as sinful, but Strachan refers to the egalitarian view (it’s OK for women not to be SAHMs) as being sinful.
LikeLike
Irene said,
But all complementarians define “head” as meaning that the husband has a right, duty, and obligation to lord authority over his wife.
LikeLike
Velour said,
Let’s all keep on hoping Mr. Right finds his way across my path! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
elastigirl said,
Very true, especially in regards to domestic violence and complementarianism.
When Ruth Tucker released her book about the impact of complementarian male head teachings and the abuse she received at the hands of her former husband, most complementarians dismissed her book, her views, and her experience out of hand.
Challies even told his review readers not to bother reading her book (I’m fairly certain it was Challies – it was some pretty well known complementarian blogger).
Aimee Byrd is one of the few complementarians who understood. Here is Byrd’s post taking her fellow complementarians to task over their easy dismissal of Tucker’s book:
_Black and White Reviews, Black and Blue Complementarianism_
You said,
Yep, yep, yep. All the complementarian blathering about women being “equal in value just not in role” does not mean didley squat in the practical day- to- day outworking of life.
Comps tell you that you are equal but proceed to treat you as though you are NOT an equal.
The Bait & Switch of Complementarians by Mimi Haddad
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia said,
I was just saying in a few posts over at TWW a week or so ago, that depending on which aspect of gender complementarianism we are discussing, at times complementarianism resembles Hinduism (with its caste systems), or it looks like Islam or Mormonism (with a belief women will be subordinate to men in the afterlife and there will be marriage in the afterlife), and the emphasis on female submission to women.
I still marvel at why any Christian would want to follow a belief that even looks remotely like something you’d find in Hinduism, Mormonism, or Islam.
But that is what complementarians do. Complementarians are Hindu- Mormon- Muslims with a thin coating of Jesus paint on top.
LikeLike
In my last post I said, ” and the emphasis on female submission to women.”
I meant, “submisision to MEN”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I recently asked my ex-church to give me a full and complete refund, since they pastors/elders lied to me and about me. (Authoritarianism, Comp, excommunication & shunning.) I said I would have never financed it. I also asked for a full and complete refund for the godly doctor (and his wife) and he was excommunicated for having an iota of critical thinking skills. He’s in his 70’s. And I asked for a full and complete refund for a C.P.A. who fled my abusive church for a saner church
& she too was maligned by the pastors/elders before hundreds of church members for not “obeying” and “submitting” to her husband. Middle-aged woman, professional, voter, tax payer, and American. And she’s not supposed to practice her constitutional rights because they “said so”. Tooooo baaaadddd.
I asked for the refunds from the Seventh Day Adventist pastor, and for him to please communicate the message to my ex-church since he rents the SDA
church space to them on Sundays and office space to them.
LikeLike
Daisy, no way do you get to decide that someone else is doing marriage in a nonbiblical way just because they are complementarians.In fact, some who have studied marriage and divorce in the Bible believe it teaches patriarchy–yet they would not endorse any form of abuse or neglect. Jesus taught us to work toward and pray for unity and love. Judging on matters that are nonessential is division.
LikeLike
Lydia said,
I hope what I write here isn’t misconstrued. I do partly agree with what you’re saying here.
People are adults and can decide how to run their lives or marriages for themselves. I support that.
On the other hand, I was raised in complementarianism, and I was never given an alternative.
Not really. I just heard the complementarian preachers in churches my parents took me to, or saw in the complementarian views I read in books my Mom bought, that the only alternative to being complementarian was being a left wing, man- hating, bra- burning, Democrat- voting, feminist. I didn’t want to be any of those things, not even when I was a kid or teen (no offense to any Democrats or left wingers here; it just wasn’t for me) 🙂
During my teen years, I began having small, nagging doubts in my mind about complementarianism. Those doubts grew and grew as I got older.
(Though I did spend a lot of time, from about my teen years to my late 20s, trying to repress those suspicions. There were stretches of time in my teens and 20s I didn’t give comp much thought.)
I’m not a Duggar family expert. I’ve only seen a little bit about the Duggars in TV or internet news reports the last several years. It looks to me as though the Duggar girls are indoctrinated in complementarianism. They are not presented with other choices.
I guess if a girl or woman is presented with opposing views and ways of looking at life, marriage, the genders, etc, and still chooses to be in a complementarian marriage, I can reluctantly find that acceptable, but I bet you anything that the vast majority of women end up in complementarian marriages because they honestly don’t know any better.
Many of them were probably raised in complementarian families or churches (as I was) and never heard egalitarian / mutualist views or refutations of complementarianism.
Someone on this page above (if I’m remembering her post correctly) was saying she sort of fell into complementarianism later in life as a reaction against having been brought up by a fairly militant (secular?) feminist mother, and she didn’t want to repeat what her mother did or believed.
So, you will sometimes see women end up in complementarianism not because they have thought it through, but maybe due to other reasons, or they were never presented with other viewpoints. I find that concerning.
LikeLike
Irene: I just did a post about this to Lydia.
I recognize people are adults, and we live in America, and so people can have just about any marriage they like, that they choose to have – but I don’t have to agree with how they do marriage or like it.
Some of the underlying assumptions of complementarianism are based on sexism – and sexism, like racism, is a sin.
So I cannot give a stamp of approval to complementarianism or to complementarian marriages.
LikeLiked by 1 person