Vaccinating Children with Complementarian: Series Introduction – Review of “God’s Design” Gender Role Book for Children

Complementarian, Egalitarian, Teaching Children, Children Desiring God, John Piper


Series Introduction

Vaccinating Children with Complementarianism

by Kathi

Owen God's Design

The SSB Watch Dog  gives “4 Paws Down” for this book.

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:

Screenshot 2016-08-05 at 9.30.02 PM

 

***

***

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.

428 comments on “Vaccinating Children with Complementarian: Series Introduction – Review of “God’s Design” Gender Role Book for Children

  1. Irene said,

    But what of William Luck who wrote Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View? He unashamedly says he believes in patriarchy, and yet he names situations that allow for divorce and remarriage

    Most of us who disagree with complementarianism recognize that there is a continuum among complementarians. Not all complementarians agree with other comps on subjects.

    Some comps are more hard core than others. Some comps are “soft complementarians” while others are so hard core, they should probably wear the “patriarchalist” label.

    Preacher Mark Driscoll is a complementarian – however, he teaches that a woman only has to submit to her husband, but not to all other men.
    This is different from other comps – such as JMac, who teaches that all women must submit to all men (this is according to a John MacArthur quote someone provided at TWW blog from one of his articles or books).

    The very core of complementarianism is sexism and should therefore be rejected – even the nice, warm, tender, comp that allows women to divorce an abusive husband is sexism and should be rejected.

    I was brought up under the nice, warm, loving type of complementarianism, and it created problems for me (which I get into on my ‘Miss Daisy Flower’ Blog, so I’ll skip my story here).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Daisy said, “Most complementarians who have marriages that work okay are only nominally complementarian: functionally, they live their marriages out as though they are egalitarians or mutualists.”

    I’ve noticed this, too. By the time they have explained how they “really” define comp, they are pretty much describing the same lifestyle of egalitarians or mutualists. Yet they will not let go of teaching others that comp is necessary. It makes me think of this passage from Galatians 2:

    But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

    Switch the words Jew and Gentile with comp and egalitarian, and there you have it. And the reason they compel the believers to live like comps? The same reason as the above: to bring them under bondage so they can establish a hierarchy in the kingdom of God in which some can be above others. This is in opposition to Christ, who said, “it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.” (Luke 22:26)

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Lydia said,

    The same [Christians interpret the Bible differently] was said by pro slavery Christians as they sought to marginalize a group of people from the body because if skin color. And they made a case from scripture, too. Do you honestly believe there is a place for those beliefs in the body of Christ today?

    To a point, I’m fine with being charitable with others over a difference of opinion on how to understand a Bible text, but if it’s an interpretation that is keeping an entire group of people in bondage, no.

    I’m pretty laid back about Christians who think the Bible does NOT teach a pre-mil, pre-trib Rapture. I knew a Christian woman who believed in a mid-Trib Rapture. I disagree with her, but I respect her difference of opinion.

    But when it comes to a doctrine like gender comp, which only amounts to oppressing the entire female gender, I can’t be as tolerant.

    Many comps often use gender comp to perpetuate domestic violence – they are incompetent or unwilling to help abused women get out of abusive marriages, for example.

    Some guy wrote a good, two page article about the topic you were mentioning:

    _Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Slavery_ (from CBE’s site)

    _Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Apartheid_ (from CBE’s site)

    Like

  4. Lydia said,

    Irene, Are you not familiar with the difference between disagreement and censoring? Where has anyone here demanded censorship of Sally Michaels. Wouldnt that be a bit silly?.

    If Kathi or Julie Anne were into pure censorship, they would not have even done a blog post about this kid’s book by Sally Michael, I wouldn’t think.

    Ironically, had it not been for this post, I likely would never have heard of the “God’s Design” book. I had never heard of Sally Michael before this post.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Serving Kids said,

    That’s what I keep saying, Shy. It’s the CBMW and other self-styled gender gurus who are picking this fight. And when we push back, they turn around and insist that we need to be “irenic” and make room for them under Jesus’ tent. Room which they have no intention of giving us.

    This is funny. About a week or two ago, some complementarian guy – one of the big names (was it Mohler??) – did a blog post insisting that gender complementarianism has a “big tent,” so he was imploring that gender comps be generous to all other gender comps.

    Hard-core complementarian Bayly did a blog post saying that Gender Comp should NOT have a “big tent” view, but be very narrow. His post is here:
    _The seduction of big-tent compromises…_ (on Bayly blog)

    All this was after the blow up at MOS blog, where Aimee Byrd and that other MOS blogger there did a series of posts critical about ESS-Complementarianism (as supported by guys such as Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem).

    Had I been drinking soda pop while reading that one complementarian post, where the comp was imploring other comps to be kind, accepting of, and gentle with other comps, I probably would have spurt soda on to my computer monitor from laughing hysterically.

    Comps don’t show that level of generosity and inclusion to non-complementarians. Comps do not want a “big tent” for non-comps.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. By the time they have explained how they “really” define comp, they are pretty much describing the same lifestyle of egalitarians or mutualists. Yet they will not let go of teaching others that comp is necessary.

    Indeed. And I think these types of marriages probably do work fine. They are checking off a box, but in reality deal with each other as equals.

    The problem comes when women and men in these types of marriages try to advise those with domineering husbands, because comp really has NO answer to what to do when things are going wrong. Most of them default to saying women are stuck in abusive marriages or marriages with men who don’t respect them, or saying they should pray harder, or suffer for a season, and so and on so forth.

    Their system only works when things are going well, it has no way of fixing things that are going wrong.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. “So are the people here egalitarian snobs who wouldn’t associate with people from other backgrounds or who read their children this book?

    Irene, I have no idea where you’re getting this from.”

    There have been several strawmen (implying censoring was one) and the above is a another strawman implying we are discriminating against people we don’t agree with. We are meant to get defensive? Not sure.

    I am not sure what she wants us to do with comps? Agree with them? :o)

    Liked by 1 person

  8. “Their system only works when things are going well, it has no way of fixing things that are going wrong.”

    A comp church limits the development of spiritual gifts for women and their functioning as full co heirs in what is supposed to be the Body. Faithful women went to the empty tomb and our Lord revealed Himself and told them to take the Good News to the men. For that Patriarchal society, that was huge.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Katy said,

    Personally, I see no difference between their views and Sharia (researching what Islam teaches at the current moment), in that complementarians use a false jesus and blame shifting for their legalism….as well as quite a few Scriptures taken out of context.

    There are similarities between complementarianism and Islam, as well as Mormonism and Hinduism.

    Several months ago, Julie Anne did a blog post where she quoted a complementarian guy as saying it was a pity that more Christians didn’t take lessons from Muslims on how to regard and treat women.

    I find it terrible that so many Christians don’t see a problem with emulating other religions – when they’re supposed to be emulating Jesus Christ, and Jesus was not fine with oppressing women.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Lea said,

    (quoting someone else):
    Several years back the wife of Patriarchal Pastor Paul Washer was going around teaching a session on Esther concerning how to beautify yourself for your husband.

    (Lea replied):
    Gross. Way to miss the point by a very wide margin! It’s a wonder these people can sleep at night.

    A lot of complementarians like to say they are “counter cultural,” but they’re not.

    The obsessive focus on a woman’s physical appearance that you see among complementarians (where comps tell women their only or primary value is looking pretty for men) is exactly what you can find in any secular magazine, movie, or TV show.

    BTW, I find that hypocritical: comps teach girls and women they are obligated to look pretty and hotty-totty for men, but if you do so, they will then scold you for “causing a brother in Christ to stumble.”

    So, comps send this conflicting message to females: it is your duty to look sexy for men, but do NOT look sexy because you will cause men to lust.

    Like

  11. Lydia said,

    And yes, they are very concerned. The internet changed everything. For all those years since Danvers, the information flow was one way unless you had access to lots of scholars and niche academic journals. Now we do. The comp world is desperately trying to rebrand. We have seen this with CBMW just recently.

    I wish the internet had been around when I was a teenager. It wasn’t, so I only had my own instincts and observation to go by.

    I noticed that some parts of the Bible did not mesh with what comps taught about by women.

    I had to go by that method for years (just reading the Bible and seeing that it did not line up with what comps taught), until the web came along, and I was able to look up non-comp books on internet books stores and buy those, and read egalitarian blogs and sites.

    Like

  12. “Several months ago, Julie Anne did a blog post where she quoted a complementarian guy as saying it was a pity that more Christians didn’t take lessons from Muslims on how to regard and treat women.

    I find it terrible that so many Christians don’t see a problem with emulating other religions – when they’re supposed to be emulating Jesus Christ, and Jesus was not fine with oppressing women.” – Daisy

    There are two new words that have been posted on blogs describing the
    hyper-subordination of women in the Comp camp.

    *”Shehad” (She+had, sounds like jihad) for the NeoCalvinists’ “war on women”.
    Invented by Brad/FuturistGuy

    *Chrislam. I think I saw this word used in a post over at The Wartburg Watch.
    I can’t remember who used it first. (Lydia?)

    Like

  13. @Lea:

    The problem comes when women and men in these types of marriages try to advise those with domineering husbands, because comp really has NO answer to what to do when things are going wrong. Most of them default to saying women are stuck in abusive marriages or marriages with men who don’t respect them, or saying they should pray harder, or suffer for a season, and so and on so forth.

    And all the wife-beaters chorus “AAAAAAAAMEN!”

    Like

  14. @ServingKidsInJapan:

    That’s what I keep saying, Shy. It’s the CBMW and other self-styled gender gurus who are picking this fight. And when we push back, they turn around and insist that we need to be “irenic” and make room for them under Jesus’ tent. Room which they have no intention of giving us.

    i.e. “WHAT’S YOURS IS MINE AND WHAT’S MINE IS MINE.”

    Like

  15. “Irene on August 11, 2016 at 9:06 AM
    So are the people here egalitarian snobs who wouldn’t associate with people from other backgrounds or who read their children this book?”

    Why would you think this about people here? Seems an odd thing to say.

    I can say that I have personally experienced snobbery and shunning in a comp church when women realized I didn’t toe the comp party line.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. This is written by a complementarian, Byrd, who disagrees with other complementarians concerning ESS and its application to gender roels:

    Furthermore, Owen Strachan [who is a complementarian] pushed the matter in his conference talk, stating, “The gospel has a complementarian structure.”

    The implication is that anyone who does not subscribe to his teaching on complementarity, the one that directly connects ESS to “biblical” manhood and womanhood, is denying the gospel.

    There were many respected leaders at this conference who could have expressed their concern on some of the teaching going on next to their own. But they didn’t, rather they stood by silently while the entire paying audience absorbed it, sanctified testosterone and all.

    Source-
    _What Denny Burk Could Do_
    (Burk is now the Head Phoo-Ba at CBMW)

    Like

  17. Bridget–

    Yes, I have been on the end of people not talking to me–and talking about me. There was the complementarian in a group we met with who said I stole from my children the opportunity to look to their father by homeschooling them (seems like he quoted a proverb about a child’s glory being his father). He didn’t bother to ask why I was the one homeschooling. I would have loved help, but the kids’ dad is autistic.

    There were women in another group who told me my problems were solely related to lack of submission. Too bad they weren’t right because if I could have fixed things in my marriage and family I would have done literally any ethical thing–including deferring to a man in exchange for love.

    There was my son-in-law, an avid Douglas Wilson supporter who called me a feminist within a couple days of meeting me. I gave him a blank stare because I certainly didn’t consider myself a feminist and I had no idea what he implied by calling me that. I understand since he has spelled it out for me–I am not saved in his estimation.

    I have felt really hurt by complementarians who presumed to know all about my situation without asking and claim to have all the biblical answers. But I wonder if egalitarians can throw stones too when they are in a group, and I hate the idea of being on the other side–throwing stones at others the way some have at me.

    Like

  18. “But I wonder if egalitarians can throw stones too when they are in a group, and I hate the idea of being on the other side–throwing stones at others the way some have at me.” – Irene

    No one, however, is ‘throwing stones’. We are discussing the validity of ideas and specifically of Comp teachings.

    Like

  19. Suggestion: Go to Amazon and read the preface on this book. I am surprised that all the discussion seems to be about the word “egalitarianism” listed among homosexuality and discussing gender with children.

    Like

  20. Irene, no one has questioned your salvation.

    It sounds like you’ve been abused by uncaring Christians, just like many of us have. I’m not saying that your experience is in any way less hurtful because we’ve experienced that, too.

    Just because we see so much abuse from comps directed at egals, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t the same thing happening in reverse.

    My “comp” marriage was non-abusive because I NEVER played the authority card. There was never any situation where we couldn’t work out a solution, or agree to have different approaches. However, we would probably have gotten some bad label because we weren’t “UNITED” in everything. We had different theology and different practices, and we even argued about it sometimes in front of the kids. We didn’t hide that there was conflict, but we tried to model how to have boundaries, how to state differences and how to work through them constructively.

    So, that worked. If I was “comp” and we came to a fundamental disagreement that we couldn’t resolve, then that would be the deciding factor whether it was truly comp or egal, and I think that is where we see that comp really doesn’t offer a great way to resolve conflict.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. “Suggestion: Go to Amazon and read the preface on this book. I am surprised that all the discussion seems to be about the word “egalitarianism” listed among homosexuality and discussing gender with children.” – Irene

    OK, I read the book’s pages that were posted on amazon — lots of them — and the reviews. The authors mangled Scripture and put the whole Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood language in to everything.

    *boys and girls were made to become moms and dads and become parents [ok how about all of those people that don’t fit that criteria?]

    *boys and girls are different [girls like to play with tea sets and dolls; boys like to play with guns and trucks; how about all of the females like me and Daisy who
    like tom-boy stuff; how about all of the boys who like to do girl stuff?]

    On and on it went.

    I read the reviews too. Positive and negative. I thought the negative reviews offered insightful remarks.

    The highlight of my experience on Amazon came while I searched for this book.
    It came back with the book and a t-shirt that I really liked:
    “Cinnamon rolls not gender roles.” And a pic of cinnamon rolls.

    Like

  22. Thanks for the peek ahead, Velour. Looks like this book will supply grist for the post & comment mill for a looooooooong time.

    You might be busy for a while, Kathi. 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Mark said, “We had different theology and different practices, and we even argued about it sometimes in front of the kids. We didn’t hide that there was conflict, but we tried to model how to have boundaries, how to state differences and how to work through them constructively.”

    You gave your children a great gift. If parents do not disagree and work out problems in front of their children, how are the kids supposed to learn these things? Conflict is part of life and developing skills to work it out is one of the most important things there is to learn. Parents who hide conflict don’t do their kids any favors.

    Like

  24. Irene said, “I have felt really hurt by complementarians who presumed to know all about my situation without asking and claim to have all the biblical answers. But I wonder if egalitarians can throw stones too when they are in a group, and I hate the idea of being on the other side–throwing stones at others the way some have at me.”

    I’ve been on the receiving end of black & white thinking, too, it’s painful and unfair. Disapproval, shunning, giving someone ‘the cold shoulder’ cuts the heart – we all need and deserve to feel attached and accepted and valued, regardless of differences. I certainly hope I would never cast stones. But I would discuss reasons and ask questions- would you consider that casting stones? I think you are saying that if a person sincerely believes in comp teaching and they hear others disapproving it, it feels like disapproval?

    What is the answer? The truth has to be told, people are suffering under this bondage, it isn’t scriptural and the purveyors of it are pushing their agenda very hard. Having to walk on eggshells cuts off connection, too. How does one speak the truth on this subject in love? Do you have any ideas?

    Like

  25. Daisy said, “A lot of complementarians like to think they are “counter cultural”, but they’re not.”

    Thank-you for that comment Daisy. Complementarianism to me, is no different than other religions those within Christianity label as “pagan” and “heathen.” I personally, see no difference, hear no difference, nor experience any difference.

    Complementarianism is all about “lordship;” those individuals, who in their own minds/hearts, have this insatiable desire to be above Christ in every facet of life. It’s as if women cannot enter Heaven without the male being the overseer of their salvation. And oh, what an ego trip this provides to those who claim to be the more “mature” Christ followers among us.

    Irene, I love you dear sister. Disagreeing is not disapproval from this believer or anyone here, please know that. I came out of a very abusive Baptist church where the males and FEMALES, both lorded over people, yet still complementarian in nature. The arrogant pastor (who was finally caught in sexual sins of his own) did the typical submission sermon where God is first, Jesus is second, man is third, and woman is to submit to all of the above……completing it with Sara called Abraham ‘her lord.’ Something about that sermon made me sicker than a dog, so I ran to the Scriptures and studied for myself, not understanding Jesus the same way in which this pastor man did. And the women who were on “the board,” preached complementarianism to me saying, “You must submit, submit, and when you are done doing that, submit some more!” And yet, as I watched the witnesses of their marriages in and out of the church environment, I saw these women (who spoke out against “FEMINISM” by the way, as being bossy, cunning and manipulative, treating their own husbands with such disrespect, and as “leaders,” preaching it down to us lower laity know-nothings, and yet not living it themselves. I saw the double standards, the double mindedness, and the just plain hypocrisy of it all.

    And I wanted none of that complementarianism, for to me, it is all HYPOCRISY. If those who profess Jesus, and Him crucified and risen for the remission of our sins, yes, that glorious Gospel Message, has boiled down to the teachings of complementarianism, I dare say, this is another gospel and another jesus. In my opinion, this is all anti-Christ with a dark agenda attached to it…..perhaps the convergence of all religions towards that one world beast system as spoken of in Revelation….Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, you name it, they will all grow together as one.

    I may be wrong and that is fine. I just know that the Gospel is for all of humanity, and Jesus never indicated that Christianity was to be monopolized by the males amongst us. Was not our Savior hated for the way in which He treated females? Surely.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. I also believe that this false concept of complementarianism goes hand in hand with jealousy and envy. Experienced that in that Baptist church with an Assembly of God p’astor.’ For you see, it’s all about “who” receives the praise and glory that is supposed to be reserved for Christ in His Ekklesia. This is what I have experienced in comp churches:

    “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.” James 3:14-16

    The comp church that I was a part of for many many years exhibited no meekness, no humility, nor submission to the teachings of Christ; in fact, the fruits clearly displayed for all to see, were jealousy, envy, reviling, bitterness, self seeking (control, power, manipulation and destruction over our families), lusts, desiring ‘to be first’, and frankly, being ‘little gods of their own kingdoms’ – Joyce Meyer/Kenneth Copeland/prosperity preacher garbage.

    I just don’t see Jesus in comp preaching, nor do I see Jesus and His Ways in those who live out their comp ways. And to associate words like egalitarianism with homosexuality, transgender, etc., to me, sounds exactly like something the evil one would do in keeping the captives under his demonic oppression. That would totally obliterate our freedom in Jesus, would it not. “Where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is freedom” was given to all believers, both male and female.

    And I haven’t seen any comp women wearing skirts out to the barn…..oh, my, would that make them “feminists?”

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Irene,

    I mean this in the most understanding way possible so I hope you will recieve it that way. Your comments, overall, sounds like they come from someone who has been around patriarchy….a lot Those people will nitpick you to death and steal your brain. Many times people come out of patriarchy or they have 1 foot in and 1 foot out and think they have found a softer gentler version of what they believe is truth about genders, submission, etc. Piper is the same Patriarchy with a different color lipstick. And as I know from personal experience, one does not work with or for Piper without becoming something of an indoctrinated zombie. It is simply the normal. And the person would not last, anyway if they challenged in that world.. Piper was not long ago singing the praises of Doug Wilson of conquer and penetrate fame, not to mention Black and Tan. Piper is the king. His DNA reigns forever at DG.

    You are so very defensive about differing opinions. If you don’t want to debate the differences then why comment just to accuse of discriminating against comps and censoring for disagreeing. Your comments are straw men. Debate the issue. Why do I need to tell a 5 year old girl she is a girl and her brother is a boy? (See, I do know the Piper world) let’s start there

    I recognize the symptoms. It has patriarchal thinking all over it. Especially where women are concerned. They don’t want you to be theologically educated outside their bubble. If you knew anything about the world of piper and desiring God you would know Sally Michaels is not one bit independent. She is a product of indoctrination.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. And to associate words like egalitarianism with homosexuality, transgender, etc., to me, sounds exactly like something the evil one would do in keeping the captives under his demonic oppression.

    This just seem so so illogical to me. I can’t get past it.

    Like

  29. Lea – the kind of egalitarianism represented by Rachel Held Evans on her blog soon establishes the link between considering everyone as ‘equal’ and going on to accept things God has revealed as wrong and missing the mark in terms of behaviour.

    And yes, I do know not everyone agrees with her on this!

    Like

  30. Lea – the kind of egalitarianism represented by Rachel Held Evans on her blog soon establishes the link between considering everyone as ‘equal’ and going on to accept things God has revealed as wrong and missing the mark in terms of behaviour.

    I don’t know much about that particular person, I just find it an odd argument with respect to relationships between the sexes.

    This is why labels are stupid, actually. I don’t want to be in a ‘camp’. I just want to meet people as individuals.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. KAS, you said, “the kind of egalitarianism represented by Rachel Held Evans on her blog soon establishes the link between considering everyone as ‘equal’ and going on to accept things God has revealed as wrong and missing the mark in terms of behaviour.”

    So, what’s the answer? NOT seeing everyone as equal?

    are people equal only if they look like “me”?

    ————————-only if they act and speak like “me”?

    ————————-only if they think like “me”?

    ————————-as long as they don’t make “me” uncomfortable?

    Maybe the question is what is your version of ‘egalitarianism’?

    Liked by 2 people

  32. I am late to this post, and clearly at the (current) bottom of many commenters. I have not read the ‘book’ but have one initial observation to make: the cover design looks like it was published by the Watchtower Society.

    Of course, given the CBMW’s wholesale endorsement of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) heresy, that may be ironically accurate.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. “the kind of egalitarianism represented by Rachel Held Evans on her blog soon establishes the link between considering everyone as ‘equal’ and going on to accept things God has revealed as wrong and missing the mark in terms of behaviour.

    And yes, I do know not everyone agrees with her on this!”

    RHE does not practice what she preaches. We saw that with the Tony Jones scandal. She was more interested in fame and income than truth. IOW, another celebrity Christian making bank off her views like so many others do.

    But I am curious. If I believe something is not Gods intention that others are doing or embracing as free citizens, exactly what do you think should be done about it?

    Liked by 1 person

  34. KAS, Rachel Held Evans seems to have a backstory of being gifted and having so many in the church tell her that she can’t use those gifts. http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/accidental-feminist

    That said, she is a brilliant writer. To me, she seems to make some logical jumps and also is somewhat sensationalist (e.g. Year of Biblical Womanhood). I think Christianity does need people like her, who can eloquently and satirically shove the elephants in the room in our faces.

    Personally, I find that she writes in two general ways – there is the honest, experiential writing, which I really appreciate, and, although I don’t always agree, I see that she is seriously working out all these issues through prayer and Biblical understanding. There is also the snarky satire, which seems a bit cynical to me. I’m not saying I wouldn’t write the same snarky satire. I probably have done that talking about how my former church operates. It just seems to come from the pain of being a woman in a complementarian church world.

    Doesn’t that betray our perspective on spiritual gifts. When Peter preaches to Cornelius’s household, the Spirit comes upon them and they start speaking in tongues. Peter then says, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” I think it’s interesting that we have the opposite logic today. We say, “these women are amazingly gifted by the Spirit, but we still need to keep them from exercising those gifts.”

    Like

  35. “Lea – the kind of egalitarianism represented by Rachel Held Evans on her blog soon establishes the link between considering everyone as ‘equal’ and going on to accept things God has revealed as wrong and missing the mark in terms of behaviour.

    I don’t know much about that particular person, I just find it an odd argument with respect to relationships between the sexes”

    There was a big push in the 1990s by the comp groups to conflate homosexuality with women being equal. Lots of warnings to churches that if they allowed women to operate in their spiritual gifting as full coheirs then the next thing you know they would be doing the same for homosexuality. It was the slippery slope argument using women as the catalyst for sin.

    It fell under the “women are more easily deceived” meme.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Irene said, “Lea – the kind of egalitarianism represented by Rachel Held Evans on her blog soon establishes the link between considering everyone as ‘equal’ and going on to accept things God has revealed as wrong and missing the mark in terms of behaviour.”

    Irene, I’ve read an article or two of Rachel Held Evans, not enough to comment with any knowledge, but what does she have to do with anything? We are told to fix our eyes on Jesus, not on one another. We are all imperfect in our knowledge but as we seek Him, we find our way. Remember in John 21 when Peter wanted to know what God’s path for John was going to be? And Jesus said to him,

    “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”

    I think we are called to a process of learning about God and growing in him, as opposed to finding our identity in an ideology. I don’t see Rachel Held Evans establishing any ‘links,’ I see her as a person following her own walk with God.

    The question is, how does Jesus see the sexes? How did Jesus treat women? How would Jesus have us live?

    We become like the One we focus on. Too often we spend our time looking at one another.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Kas said,

    Lea – the kind of egalitarianism represented by Rachel Held Evans on her blog soon establishes the link between considering everyone as ‘equal’ and going on to accept things God has revealed as wrong and missing the mark in terms of behaviour.

    And yes, I do know not everyone agrees with her on this!

    If you know that not everyone who rejects complementarianism is like RHE across the board on other subjects, then why bring it up?

    I rejected complementarianism several years ago but remain pro-life on abortion, disagree with homosexual behavior, transgederism, etc.

    I’m right wing, socially conservative, am still a Republican, (though I am so fed up with the GOP I may become an Independent).

    Rejecting complementarianism does not automatically or necessarily equate to accepting all causes left wing, whether political, theological, or social.

    And, by the way, this is the false dichotomy that complementarians frequently use to keep women (and men) brainwashed into thinking they have to stay comp.

    From the time I was a kid, complementarians have set up this false position:

    1. Be a complementarian – which means, loving God, believing in the Bible, holding Judeo-Christina values (don’t support abortion, vote Republican, and/or opposing homosexuality and homosexual marriage)

    ~or~

    2. Reject complementarianism, which complementarians define and equate to…
    Rejecting God, disrespecting and disbelieving the Bible, rejecting Judeo-Christian values, supporting abortion, becoming a Democrat, happily baking wedding cakes for homosexual marriage celebrations.

    I used to believe in that nonsense myself, that I had only two choices: be a comp and be a conservative or reject comp and be a flaming Liberal, until I realized it’s possible to see complementarianism for the false view it is and still remain a conservative.

    I think that Held-Evans is wrong on many a topic, but she is quite effective at poking holes in complementarianism, by the way.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Lydia said,

    There was a big push in the 1990s by the comp groups to conflate homosexuality with women being equal. Lots of warnings to churches that if they allowed women to operate in their spiritual gifting as full coheirs then the next thing you know they would be doing the same for homosexuality. It was the slippery slope argument using women as the catalyst for sin.

    It fell under the “women are more easily deceived” meme.

    I remember that. It was also pretty big in complementarian circles on the internet around the late 1990s and early 2000s. I would see them bring it up on their web sites.

    What I find funny (or sad) about it – they argue that granting women equality in roles is the camel nose in the tent for practicing homosexuals to get in on the deal…

    But they are that (mis)using the Bible to keep women down in the same way that Christians decades ago (mis)used the Bible to oppress black people, to argue it was morally acceptable for white people to own black people.

    Apparently, in Complementarian Logic, it’s okay (and not slippery- slope territory) to use the Bible to oppress people, but not to liberate people.

    I see examples in the Bible of women leading and teaching men, but none where sexually active homosexual people are in leadership roles in the church.

    (I know there are left wing Christians who swear up and down the Bible is dandy and peachy with homosexual behavior, or even with hetero extra-martial behavior, but I honestly don’t see it in there.)

    I do see the Bible accepting (non-homosexual) women leading and teaching men, however (e.g, Deborah and Junia, etc), so I have no idea why complementarians kept trying to make this argument that granting women more rights, or whatever you want to call it, would also implicitly give the stamp of approval to homosexuality.

    I also find it off-putting that such Christians are in a round-about way comparing women as people to homosexual behavior.

    I don’t mean to start any flame wars here, but from my view, the Bible does not support homosexual behavior but categorizes it as sinful… so complementarians were basically equating being female to being sinful, when they would bring up the homosexual behavior slippery slope stuff.

    Being a girl or woman in and of itself is NOT sinful, but the complementarian method of argument made it appear so.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Lydia’s quote, “It fell under the “women are more easily deceived meme.”

    You speak truth here for I heard that very same ‘sermon’ from the pulpit stage, used in conjunction with “that is why you need a man as your covering.” In fact, I still hear the ‘who is your covering theme’ in the more charismatic/Pentecostal oriented circles.

    Do I really need a covering by another human being, when finished work of Jesus was done on that tree at Calvary? In fact, from what I have experienced with these comp and covering folks, they still seem to be struggling with the fact that Jesus loves them so much that He gave His life freely for them. And He did all of this willingly. Have to keep reminding these folks over and over again because they keep adding all of this extra religious mumbo jumbo to the Word of God that is not in there in the first place…….complementarians just don’t seem to feel loved by our Father, well, that is what I have experienced anyway.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Shy1, I think you meant Kas, not Irene? Someone named Kas above mentioned RHE.

    Or are Kas and Irene the same person (I know that sometimes the same person will visit this blog, and due to technical problems or what have you, use different names)?

    Anyway, where you said,

    I’ve read an article or two of Rachel Held Evans, not enough to comment with any knowledge, but what does she have to do with anything? We are told to fix our eyes on Jesus, not on one another.

    A lot of people who promote traditional gender roles (complementarianism) tend to assume that if someone disagrees with complementarianism, he or she must be a very progressive / liberal / left winger who is also a radical, militant, bra-burning, man-hating feminist who never shaves her arm pits or legs.

    As Lydia was saying above, it’s a well- worn, fear- mongering argument employed by complementarians that rejecting complementarianism supposedly leaves you with only one alternative, which goes something like this:
    Reject Jesus, reject God, reject the Bible (or take the Bible as one big allegory), and become a left winger who votes Democrat and is a S.J.W. type (Social Justice Warrior).

    As it so happens, some who do reject complementarianism and write against it, such as Rachel Held Evans, ARE in fact theologically or politically liberal, but that is not true of everyone who rejects comp.

    Becoming a mutualist or egalitarian, or whatever label, does not necessitate that a person must reject traditional values or a conservative view of the Bible or politics. I’m case in point on that.

    It drives me nuts when complementarians accuse any and all who reject complementarianism of being Obama- and Hillary- Clinton- supporting, NRA- hating, abortion- loving, women’s studies majors who hate all men who embrace all abortion and the legalization of homosexual marriage. And comps do in fact paint their opposition like this quite often.

    I’m right wing, but I don’t agree with complementarianism. I resent being lumped in with liberals all the time by complementarians merely for having jettisoned complementarianism.

    Like

  41. so complementarians were basically equating being female to being sinful, when they would bring up the homosexual behavior slippery slope stuff.

    This is how I see their logic as well, which seems bizarre.

    And not to get too into it, but it’s not a bad idea to simply love your friend/family/neighbors who are homosexual, regardless. That’s actually biblical too. I feel like this focus on all these other topics (pushing women down, getting angry about politics and worrying about what other people do – like homosexual/trans/etc) takes the focus on all the stuff they should be focused on.

    There are other sins ya’ll. And you’re guilty of a lot of them. Like pride. Arrogance. It’s like all this comp stuff is waving a wand like a magician trying to distract from their own issues, or maybe the fact that the emperor has no clothes.

    They need to stop doing that.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Katy said,

    You speak truth here for I heard that very same ‘sermon’ from the pulpit stage, used in conjunction with “that is why you need a man as your covering.” In fact, I still hear the ‘who is your covering theme’ in the more charismatic/Pentecostal oriented circles.

    Do I really need a covering by another human being, when finished work of Jesus was done on that tree at Calvary?

    It’s as though complementarians never heard of the Holy Spirit.

    Since women believers have the Holy Spirit who lives inside them – who can lead and guide them – women do not need a man to direct them.

    If comps argue otherwise, they are essentially saying that the Holy Spirit is an incompetent clown.

    Like

  43. Thank-you Daisy. Yes, we do have the Holy Spirit living inside of us as well, (temples not made with human hands) and we also have that assurance we are saved eternally through Jesus Christ, our LORD. So simple and yet, made so difficult by people adding so much extra to our Holy Scriptures.

    Your timing was perfect!

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Daisy,

    It’s as though complementarians never heard of the Holy Spirit.

    That is right on the money. I came up with a term, “spiritual socialism”. My pastor calls it the fishbowl. The idea is that church leaders are stuck in the OT, where the Holy Spirit might gift a few people here and there to know God, and others who wanted to know God had to listen and learn from the prophets, who had a direct line to God.

    However, in the new economy, it is “spiritual capitalism” – each person knows God through the Holy Spirit’s indwelling. But, that is, let’s say, not comfortable for leaders who want people swooning over their wisdom instead of saying, “well, when I read the Bible, I get a different impression” or something like that. So, I think authoritarianism of all sorts, be it elder/member, husband/wife or parent/child is designed to convince people that, really, their understanding of spiritual things is secondary to the person “gifted” to understand it. It looks a lot like what Daisy said – since they don’t understand the work of the Holy Spirit, it becomes a matter of using fear and intimidation to accomplish change. They act like the Holy Spirit doesn’t exist.

    In my old church, there were countless times where my views were dismissed simply because I wasn’t an elder. When I tried to join in “adult” conversations (i.e. pastors hanging out, even guys 10+ years younger than me), I was reminded of my place in the hierarchy. I know a woman who know theology way better than I do, and she was told by guys at her church that women really shouldn’t be learning theology. There’s much more to it, but that is at least a summary and some symptoms.

    Liked by 2 people

  45. I think the “women will be deceived more easily than men” is also mean to strike at the heart of the perception that women tend to be more empathetic than men. As in, “we can’t have the females empathizing with the gays.”

    So not only does it marginalize gay Christians, it devalues a typically female trait.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Persephone, so true. And ironically, those churches who boast they know Jesus better than other churches, never ever have “the gay community” under their prayer request lists printed in their bulletins. They only seem to care about the nickels – translated money, money, money!

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Hey all, I promise – I have not abandoned the blog. We’ve had a big kitchen flooding issues and I’m in the middle of dealing with demolition, construction noises, and now the process of finding replacement flooring, counters, tile, carpeting and all the extras for two rooms. Yikes, I never knew how difficult this is with so many options and trying to remain within allotted insurance funds. Carry on 🙂 Great conversation going on, btw!

    Liked by 1 person

  48. “As Lydia was saying above, it’s a well- worn, fear- mongering argument employed by complementarians that rejecting complementarianism supposedly leaves you with only one alternative, which goes something like this:
    Reject Jesus, reject God, reject the Bible (or take the Bible as one big allegory), and become a left winger who votes Democrat and is a S.J.W. type (Social Justice Warrior).”

    The other side does the same with the opposite label if you dare disagree with any of their declarations.

    I neither want to promote homosexuality or shut down their churches. I take them, like all people, as individuals. Both sides play fear mongering and the hate card. It is so old!

    Like

  49. Sorry to be a little off topic here, but I was not sure where to put this.

    I was thinking a good and productive topic to discuss on this blog eventually, or at TWW, would be something about not confusing forgiveness with full-on acceptance of certain people.

    I see this constantly online at Christian sites, but it comes up at TWW blog every so often, and lately, with the same 2 or 3 people there.

    A lot of Christians behave as though because God is willing to forgive our sins or to forgive any sin, this means that Christians should extend instant trust to sinners (especially to sinners who mouth the right-sounding Christianese platitudes and jargon about how they have repented).

    This even comes up in the context of child molesting threads and conversations. You have people who think forgiving child molesters means allowing them access to kids (allowing them to come to normal church services).

    It means (to those people) sort of forgetting or glossing over what they did, as though maybe it never happened. As if there should be no penalties or consequences in this life-time for whatever sin they did (even child molesting).

    You have Christians who think something like child molesting can be instantly cured if only the pedo believes in Jesus, or reads his Bible every week, etc.

    It’s a very naive, dangerous view to hold.

    I have people in my family who are (or were) alcoholics, drug addicts, and verbal abusers.

    I’ve had to learn over the years that forgiving these people does not also entail allowing them access to my life, because all they will do if granted access is to steal my material possessions to sell to a pawn shop to get money to buy drugs, or so they can yell and scream at me some more.

    But there are some Christians who hold such naive, maudlin views of sinners it’s like they are not living in reality and cannot grasp that some people can never, ever be trusted.

    If you have an alcoholic in your family, forgiving them does not mean leaving the house with your alcohol cabinet unlocked while the alcoholic is there and you are out.

    I remember when TWW did different blog posts about various churches allowing a known pedo to come to their church weekly (where there were kids!!) that the members of that church took offense.
    They came on to TWW screaming and yelling at us (who objected to the pedo being allowed on church grounds) that we must deny that Jesus can and does heal people, we don’t believe in grace.
    -Etc etc etc. It is absolutely nauseating.

    I have a hard time wrapping my head around people who are so very naive about how child molesters (or drug addicts, etc) operate.

    I don’t know how to get them to grasp that forgiving someone (whether it’s you or God that is extending grace and forgiveness) does not mean that person magically transforms into a paragon of virtue who you can trust around kids, or trust with your wallet, around your possessions, or your liquor cabinet, or whatever.

    Some of the people who are apparently equating forgiveness to not holding sinners accountable for their sin in the “here and now” get very syrupy in prose about it, too.
    Supposedly if you think a sinner should face the law, etc, this means you are denying that the person is in “God’s image,” you are ‘denying them their humanity,’ and so on. It makes me want to go bang my head against a wall.

    Maybe someone here could do a guest post pointing out the gullibility and harm in being so obtuse or naive about how one deals with a known problem maker (e.g., child molester, thief, drug addict, etc)?

    Liked by 1 person

  50. I’m not particularly bothered by what Rachel Held Evans says – I don’t have to read her if I don’t want to. But she is the archtype egalitarian who moves on to accept the legitimacy of homosexuals and transgender in the church. Her blog has an article on transgender Christians at the moment.

    She simply doesn’t seem to realise that there is such a thing as spiritual deception. At the very least, it is not up to us to redefine the will of God and make such ways of life acceptable if he has said no to them.

    This doesn’t mean such cannot be ‘washed, sanctified and justified’ if they repent and believe on the same basis as everyone else, but Evans seems to miss the ‘and such were some of you’ – past tense with regard to these particular sins.

    It is hardly any wonder that some evangelicals will react against this with a very stringent form of complementarianism. Like anything that is a reaction to something else, there is the danger of going to the opposite extreme.

    Like

  51. KAS, Not sure why you keep bringing up RHE. She is part of the Christian Industrial Complex left wing. Along with Nadia Bolz Weber, Tony Jones, etc. That is her market niche for income.

    She most certainly not define mutualism for me.

    Again, you seem to be skating around the edges of merging women who are operating in their spiritual gifting with homosexuality. Its a non sequitur.

    It would be like me suggesting comp doctrine is bad because it leads to wife spanking.

    Liked by 1 person

  52. Daisy, I am starting to think some people need a verse that is much more detailed and explicit than the millstone verse– in order to get it.

    Liked by 1 person

  53. It is hardly any wonder that some evangelicals will react against this with a very stringent form of complementarianism.

    IT is to me. Because being a woman who wants to be considered human doesn’t really seem to be the same thing.

    Of course, gay people are human too. Maybe that’s the tie in.

    Like

  54. Lydia – I’m not interested in RHE except as an illustration of how egalitarianism can lead some down the slippery slope. Something someone brought up earlier.

    Like

  55. KAS, when you look at life as a bunch of slippery slopes that need to be avoided, you end up imprisoned by fear. The slippery slope itself is a logical fallacy, not legitimate reasoning. I reject the idea that there are “Christian archetypes.” As long as I’m following Jesus I don’t need to worry about slippery slopes. Although I’ll bet some people would still be afraid you could follow him ‘too much’ or something.

    Right, Lea, if we start thinking of ourselves as human beings, next thing you know we’ll be thinking of everyone as human beings! Imagine that!

    Liked by 1 person

  56. I drive a semi-truck, hauling grain to the elevator and to our home grain bin complex. I lost my father in law due to a brain tumor and my presence was desperately needed to continue working ‘the farm.’ Does that make me a feminist? Truckers are traditionally considered to be of the male gender.

    A friend’s wife was sent off to Iraq; her mission was truck driving/transporting soldiers and supplies. In her deep sorrow, she had to drive over stubborn men who refused to move themselves from the middle of the road in the midst of gunfire. In her experience, it was either be killed by gunfire herself along with her human cargo, or eliminate the foolish souls trying to block the road.

    Would that make her a feminist? Should this woman not have been a nurse or a secretary in the military instead of a soldier/truck driver? Never mind the fact that in the geopolitical land of Israel, both genders are required to enlist in their military, and how many within the evangelical genre, actually worship the land of Israel? I know, another topic at hand.

    After farming for many, many years, yes, I can testify to the fact that men and women are created by our LORD differently. I do not have the strength nor the stamina that our farm guys have around here. I get that. I live that daily here and it is not easy most of the time, physically or mentally (it is very difficult dealing with the put-downs.) However, by the grace, mercy and love of our LORD, it is because of Him and when I am weak, He is made stronger, which gives me the endurance, courage, and fortitude that I need to keep going. The learning process/leadership has not been patient, has not been kind, and has not been peaceful/nor (fun), but my faith in Jesus, the Christ, is what give me hope. He is my Hope, my Encourager, and my Counselor.

    During a very troubling and depressing time in my life, I sought the counsel of a Covenant church women, only to have her verbally slap me in the face with, and I quote, “Oh, when my husband and I got married, I made it clear that I was NOT going to help him with farm duties.” She got a job in town…….but she preaches complementarianism. And I sought out counsel from another Pentecostal/charismatic neighbor, who holds leadership positions in her church, for I thought she would be a good and godly listener, but to no avail, her response to me was, “When I married my husband, I told him under no circumstances was I going to be HIS farmhand.” She teaches “patriarchy is the best way to raise a family and is outspoken against feminism.”

    They sure put their husbands in their places, did they not? Complementarianism? Patriarchy? Seriously? To this day, their ‘religious speak’ down to me is like a shallow gong in the middle of the Sahara where no one can hear them. When they are ‘witnessing’ to me, their words are just plain foolishness to me, considering the nature of their own self importance; I consider it rubbish.

    So, as stated in another comment thread on another post here at SSB, I have a difficult time understanding what ‘FEMINISM’ is. Another ‘deaconess’ within the abusive church I previously attended, who says we “need to support our husbands as they are ‘in charge’ of the wives and family” also ‘told her husband’ she was NOT going to drive truck or be his ‘doormat,’ in transporting their income to the local grain elevator, and yet preaches against ‘feminism’ within the church arena.

    Can someone fully explain exactly what FEMINISM is to me, in plain language (not legal terms) please. I grew up on a small farm, and it was everyone’s job to get the work done….all of our britches had the same denim, same flat felled seams, metal zippers, and back pockets, accented with reinforced patches. Was my mother a ‘feminist’ for making me work on the farm and my dad a legalist because he needed the help? I have a wonderful dad and mom and no, he is not a legalist/patriarchal ‘lord,’ and she is not a feminist in the way that I define it.

    As with my faith in Jesus, alone, for my soul’s salvation, I truly don’t believe Jesus cares about the gender in the fact that we are ALL here, as believers and followers, to share the Gospel to unbelievers as well as one another in building up His Kingdom, and to also LIVE the Gospel in our every day lives.

    Call me a ‘simpleton’, but I have never believed the Gospel is to be genderized nor given a ‘complementarian’ or ‘egalitarian’ label. And during all of my growing up years into middle aged adulthood, I never heard this preached nor taught in our congregation/assembly, for it cheapens Jesus’ work on the cross, as well as His Resurrection. I have just heard of this false religion within the last few years. so where in the world did this come from and what is the purpose of all of this controversy? What in the world are religious folks afraid of?

    LORD, have mercy, please.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. Right, Lea, if we start thinking of ourselves as human beings, next thing you know we’ll be thinking of everyone as human beings! Imagine that!

    I honestly sometimes wonder if the slippery slope they are so worried about is simply loving others. They think it will make things too sappy, all that loving people who are imperfect.

    That’s why we can’t interpret through Jesus anymore – too much love for people. I guess they’re afraid it will make us too soft?

    Like

  58. Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God

    That is the kind of slippery slope we all should fear. Calvinism tends to make this a hypothetical possibility, but I have long since ceased to use this a a means of false assurance. Calvinism has to give way on this, and on the other warning passages!

    The warning is designed to ensure none of us goes back to the life God saved us from in the first place, back to a place of disobedience and unrighteousness.

    I’ve stopped believing in a God who ignores rank sin when committed by erstwhile believers as a long-term way of life. Child abusing ‘pastors’ very badly need to heed this warning, as do those who start to fall in love with the world around them and its culture and morality again.

    It’s something for me too, so it doesn’t just apply to others.

    By taking care, this does not need to happen.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. KAS, I think there is a middle ground. I was one of those horrible Calvinists who beat people over the head with “perseverance of the saints” on blogs. That is, people who were converted, were leaders and then fell away were never saved in the first place.

    Whether the doctrine is true or not, that is definitely not a gracious use of the doctrine. I think it is meant more as a comfort for people like Martin Luther who were terrified of dying without confessing every last sin, or people who are constantly in fear that they committed the ‘unforgivable sin’ by mistake at some point.

    For the slippery slope, it is interesting that the Conservatives of today are the Liberals of yesteryear. That is, people like John Locke and Adam Smith were arguing for more individual freedom, but at some point, they had to put on the brakes because people were advocating for ‘too much freedom’, at which point, they became Conservatives. But, really there were two distinct groups – the liberals and the libertines. The liberals had a goal, which was a government that was not oppressively controlling behavior, and the libertines had a goal as well, which was doing whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted.

    Liked by 1 person

  60. KAS, Not sure what all you are calling evil. There is evil we must fight to protect potential victims. But what power do you have over people who are not harming others?

    Liked by 1 person

  61. Katy,

    I don’t know whether you or your friend’s wife would, or should, be called “feminists”. But I know that you are both brave and hard-working, and probably much more so than I am. What are all those men thinking, putting you down?

    I took Irene’s advice a few days ago, and perused the preview for the book we’re discussing. In the table of contents, I noticed a chapter entitled: “Mary and Sarah, Examples of Womanhood”. And, sure, those are two amazing women, but why focus only on them? For example, why not a chapter on “Deborah and Jael, Examples of Womanhood”? Or do they not count as women, somehow?

    Should this woman have been a nurse or a secretary in the military instead of a soldier/truck driver?

    The Pied Piper would likely say so. But don’t worry — no one with a lick of sense takes him seriously any more. 😉

    So where in the world did this come from and what is the purpose of all of this controversy? What in the world are religious folks afraid of?

    I can think of one possibility: Losing their status as The Favoured Ones in The Promised Land of the U.S.A.

    It’s probably more complex than that, but it’s already way past my bedtime over here. 🙂

    Like

  62. Mark – I was one of those horrible Calvinists who beat people over the head with “perseverance of the saints” on blogs. That is, people who were converted, were leaders and then fell away were never saved in the first place.

    I was taught it under the title ‘the eternal security of the believer’. I believed any attempt to discredit it was a doctrine of demons, and that if you didn’t accept it you had to import justification by works in through the back door.

    I’m now far less dogmatic about this in regard to the believer turned unbeliever. There are passages in the NT that warn us to be careful, and I am minded to take them seriously rather than make them fit a system of theology.

    The calvinist says the apostate was never saved in the first place (not unreasonable in itself) and the arminian says he has lost his salvation. The end result though is the same. In both systems you have to overcome and keep the faith to the end.

    It seems to me the danger of calvinism is it can give a false assurance of salvation quite apart from how a believer lives it out, so enabling some appalling activities amongst church leaders – and members too – and letting them think they will still be saved despite their gross sin. The doctrine of ‘God’s unconditional love’ is a variant on this theme.

    Billy Graham’s quip he will be ‘relieved’ once he gets to heaven is a much healthier attitude.

    Like

  63. KAS–I think you start to wade into deep water when you decide that some sin is too gross to be saved in spite of. What is too “gross”? Gossip, child abuse, fornication, thinking too highly or yourself, trying to hard to gain money (greed, which is idolatry), or rebellion (which is as the sin of witchcraft)? None of us is going to be perfect when we die. Are we saved by Jesus and us trying or Jesus alone?

    Like

  64. Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God

    “That is the kind of slippery slope we all should fear. ”

    Kas, what is “an evil, unbelieving heart”? A heart that has stopped defining and categorizing the sins its neighbors are committing? Or a heart that has stopped trusting in Christ alone?

    Liked by 1 person

  65. 1 John 5:4
    For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

    Do you remember the old hymn, “Faith is the Victory”?

    Trusting in Christ, despite all of the discouragements and trials we go through, is the victory. Continuing to believe that God is good, despite the bad things that happen, despite the things we don’t understand, despite loss and sorrow.

    Let me tell you, you can lose your faith in Christ just as easily while following boatloads of rules and worrying about sin as you can while living as a libertine; there is no protection there. The storms of life will hit you either place. I see the Christian life as just trying to know who Jesus is and be more like him. He is everything.

    Like

  66. Serving Kids in Japan, Irene, and others. God’s Blessings to all. You have been an encouragement to me today in regards to my faith in Christ.

    Not sure who works harder nor longer in this life, but there is one thing that I have learned, the hard way as a matter of fact, and that is this;

    This life that we have been given here on earth is lived but a short time, and it is a genuine miracle, a true blessing from our LORD, and am finally realizing after leaving an abusive church, that we are so loved by Jesus and there is absolutely nothing that I/we could possibly do to earn that Great Love. Absolutely nothing. Jesus gave His life for us so that we could have eternal life with Him. Alleluia.

    Reminded constantly of the dung heap of sin that Christ delivered me from, and when I see that heap, with teary eyes and an oh, so grateful heart/countenance , it is there at the foot of the cross, that I can freely worship Him. Learned several years ago that the word “worship” literally means ‘to bow.’

    Encouraged this day….”And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the LORD and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ.” (Colossians 3: 23-24)

    Thank-you for serving Christ in love!

    Liked by 1 person

  67. Irene – ‘The vilest offender who truly believes that moment from Jesus a pardon receives’.

    The question is not about some sins being so bad they cannot be forgiven. It’s about what happens when a professed Christian, 18 years down the road, turns out to be indulging in all sorts of appalling sin – like adultery or domestic violence or massive financial fraud? Are they still ‘saved’, or is this a false assurance? God condems sin in the unbeliever, but does he ignore in in the believer? Is faith a ticket to heaven, and once you have got it, you’re safe?

    I’m not talking about our imperfections and moments when we fall into something we though we were free from. It’s a return to a former way of life, or a life incompatible with genuine Christian faith.

    This returning to a former way of life is what an evil, unbelieving heart looks like. I think it can also be manifested in going with the flow of the secular culture around us. The caving in on sexual morality is a case in point. Being tempted to get off the straight and narrow, and go down the broad, tolerant, diverse and inclusive road that leads to destruction. To start loving what God says he hates.

    Like

  68. I think it’s a “mystery” like Free Will and Predestination. Both are in play, but we tend to want to stick on one side or the other. Each side can poke holes in making assumptions on the other side.

    For example, someone who believes in perseverance might think that a prayer years ago is a golden ticket to Heaven, no matter what happens afterwards, and those who believe in falling away might point to that case. However, if this person’s desire in prayer was a “get out of jail free” card, was this person really repentant in the first place and desiring God?

    In the same way, someone who believes in falling away might be caught in a trap of legalism – they are so aware of their sin and so mired in the gravity of it that they never experience God’s love and grace. They become so paralyzed that they are afraid to step into that freedom.

    Like Free Will / Predestination, the answer is yes to both. Yes, for those who are truly saved, they can have assurance that they will never fall away, but there is false assurance. So, there are those who can be falsely assured that they are saved and yet are not. Yes to those who believe they could fall away because their faith may never have been real in the first place. So, we need to be constantly aware of our need for grace, yet also constantly aware of God’s love and grace for his children.

    Perhaps that is the root of Paul’s statement here: “So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” (Phillipians 2:12-13)

    Like

  69. “God condems sin in the unbeliever, but does he ignore in in the believer? Is faith a ticket to heaven, and once you have got it, you’re safe?”

    I think, on the contrary, the scripture teaches God disciplines his own children-

    Hebrews 12:7-8
    It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

    The book of 1John deals with this question. I think the Amplified Bible does a good job of bringing out the full meaning from the Greek:

    1:10
    If we say (claim) we have not sinned, we contradict His Word and make Him out to be false and a liar, and His Word is not in us [the divine message of the Gospel is not in our hearts].

    3:6
    No one who abides in Him [who lives and remains in communion with and in obedience to Him—deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] commits (practices) sin. No one who [habitually] sins has either seen or known Him [recognized, perceived, or understood Him, or has had an experiential acquaintance with Him].

    5:18
    We know [absolutely] that anyone born of God does not [deliberately and knowingly] practice committing sin, but the One Who was begotten of God carefully watches over and protects him [Christ’s divine presence within him preserves him against the evil], and the wicked one does not lay hold (get a grip) on him or touch [him].

    So we see that while we all fail and commit sins as we learn and grow in this Christian life, those who have been born of God do not continue on deliberately, habitually committing sin. When you are born again, God gives you a new heart, a new desire. The one who deliberately, knowingly and habitually sins may have gone forward in a meeting or joined a church or decided to take on the label of “Christian” at some point, but John says bluntly, that person has not seen or known Him.

    Can a person who was truly born of the Spirit turn into a person who has not seen or known Him? I think not.

    Can a person who wills himself to follow the rules and say the right things make himself into one who has seen and knows Him? No- faith comes through the heart, not through the outward behavior.

    But I think it is more on target to think in terms of loving what God loves rather than ‘hating what God hates’ and I think we have a lot more information given to us in the scriptures on what God loves. 1John, again, is a good place to see this.

    This is a great resource, the book of 1John in the classic Amplified version: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+1&version=AMPC

    Like

  70. Kathi said: 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 I am free to use that kind of sexist garbage to line my cats’ litter box. I have, & I will do it again as soon as I come across 2nd-hand copies. (I might even do so after feeding the girls canned tuna…. 🙂 It goes through ’em like a dose of epsom salts).

    Liked by 2 people

  71. By the way, Barb O. (above) posted these books/resources about patriarchy awhile ago and I saved them on The Wartburg Watch under the Interesting tab, Books/Movies, etc. tab at the top of the page.

    Commenter/poster/author/researcher Barb Orlowski, Canada, (blog is Church Exiters) posted these books on 8/25/15 on another Wartburg Watch article regarding the whole comp discussion as recommended reading.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I would like to recommend three books by Susanna Krizo which attempt to expose the Complementarian agenda.
    *“Recovering From Un-Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Patriarchy”
    “Recovering From Un-Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Patriarchy” examines the main arguments in an easy-to-read dialogue format that allows the reader to reach his/her own conclusions while enjoying a deep, yet lighthearted, theological discussion.
    Here is an excerpt from one book review:
    “Thank God for Susanna Krizo! She makes complicated theology easy and fun to read. This is one of the most entertaining books we’ve ever read. At times it is so funny that you find yourself laughing and having a good time, and totally forget that theology is usually a dull topic to read! What we love most about her writing is that she works so hard to develop a full logical argument, address both sides of an issue, and really thinks things through to reasonable conclusions, all the while staying faithful to the Bible. Many theologians don’t like answering questions because they don’t really want to think things through because then their conclusions fall apart. But the Bible says “come let us reason together” because we need to really test all doctrine before accepting it. That’s what this book does so well.”
    *“When Dogmas Die: The Return of Biblical Equality”
    “When Dogmas Die” begins with a comprehensive look at Genesis 3:16 and the view that women are born inferior.
    Book Quote: “Always ask why—not who, but why—for if you ask who gave the man authority over the woman, you may not find out why the man was given the authority, but if you ask why the man was given authority over the woman, you will find that it was the man’s idea.
    Book Review Excerpt:
    “When Dogmas Die” is a stunning critique of one of the great handbooks of Patriarchy in the Church: “Restoring Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” the collection of essays on gender roles compiled by John Piper and Wayne Grudem.
    Grudem is considered a scholar by many in the church, so it comes as quite a surprise to find his work so tainted with errors and omissions, as this book aptly demonstrates and documents.
    The subjection of women by men began as a result of the fall in the garden, and Krizo begins the book with a Chapter entitled “Genesis 3:16” to prove that point, and to show why Piper and Grudem’s attempt to teach a God-ordained hierarchy prior to the fall is in error.
    *“Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles”
    Book Review Excerpts:
    “Witty and insightful, Susanna Krizo’s new book joins an ever-growing body of literature calling for the full recognition of women’s equality in all corners of the Christian faith. Challenging patriarchal assumptions carried over from ancient cultures, Krizo paints a picture of women and men sharing authority and celebrating what it means to be created in the image of God.”
    “If the creation account doesn’t mention the man’s authority, and if Ephesians 5 instructs husbands to love their wives the way they love themselves instead of exercising authority over them, why do our theologians nevertheless insist that Ephesians 5 confirms that the man was given authority over the woman as part of creation” (from Chapter 7)
    “The answer is simple: because men desire to rule women as a consequence of sin and no longer love their wives the way humans were created to love — unselfishly.” (from Chapter 7)
    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_13/185-3355441-8987659?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=susanna+krizo&sprefix=susanna+krizo%2Cstripbooks%2C277

    Like

  72. Katy, someone posted a link to a video of a biola professor talking about gender. He had a chart that describes feminism as matriarchy.

    Like

  73. “Katy, someone posted a link to a video of a biola professor talking about gender. He had a chart that describes feminism as matriarchy.”

    Lol! Did he have a chart showing masculinity as Patriarchy?

    People are so fixated on plumbing and the obvious instead of spiritual maturity which is genderless.

    Like

  74. Velour Susanna Krizo’s new book joins an ever-growing body of literature calling for the full recognition of women’s equality in all corners of the Christian faith.

    Providing we get rid of women doormats and male feudal lords, does it really matter that much? That may initially seem a silly question, but I can’t help wondering why this is so desperately important to the current generation, when it wasn’t for previous generations.

    Like

  75. Hi Barb,

    There is a huge dangling thread in your article. You mentioned that cultural patriarchy is abusive to women, but also to men who are not in the inner circle. I’ve experienced this my entire life, and I wonder if this is a foot in the door at breaking apart the patriarchal empire.

    In other words, the power brokers can always hide behind certain Bible verses in their explanation about why women should be treated as inferiors, but it is much harder to justify the way “inferior” men are being treated as inferiors under the same regime.

    Like

  76. Wow KAS.

    If I had a fresh baked pie in my hand, I think I’d like to share it with your face. 🙂

    In love, of course.

    In answer to your Q, it only matters if you love the truth.

    And your wife.

    And women in general.

    And men also.

    Oh, and God.

    Like

  77. KAS,

    Providing we get rid of women doormats and male feudal lords, does it really matter that much? That may initially seem a silly question, but I can’t help wondering why this is so desperately important to the current generation, when it wasn’t for previous generations.

    Please take that query to the CBMW, and to their friends in The Gospel Corp™, 9Marx, and all the rest. As I keep on saying (and I might have on this comment thread), they’re the ones picking this fight.

    From what I’ve heard, when the Danvers Statement was being crafted, there were churches allowing all members to minister and use their gifts in whatever way best suited them, and those congregations were doing just fine. So why did Grudem and his buddies find it so necessary to make this An Issue Of Utmost Importance, and insist that if gender comp falls, the whole gospel falls along with it?

    It’s the CBMW who are obsessed with gender — and what they push and promote leads to “women doormats and male feudal lords”. That’s what the big dogs want. It becomes clearer with everything they publish. What you’re seeing here is pushback against that nonsense. And for good reason… it’s for freedom that Christ set men and women free.

    Like

  78. That may initially seem a silly question, but I can’t help wondering why this is so desperately important to the current generation, when it wasn’t for previous generations.

    Cause 30 years ago women were actually treated with respect in most bible corners. Now they aren’t.

    No complicated.

    Liked by 1 person

  79. Lea, do you think that’s true? My mom grew up with essentially a complementarian mindset. In my digging, I can trace it back to things like the Westminster Confession of Faith teaching on the 5th commandment. Barb’s link showed that this was well in place throughout most of history.

    I think in the last 30 years or so, we’ve just been awakened to equality and mainstream Christianity has used that as an excuse to hunker down on patriarchy.

    Liked by 1 person

  80. I think in the last 30 years or so, we’ve just been awakened to equality and mainstream Christianity has used that as an excuse to hunker down on patriarchy.

    I think women are currently being told they shouldn’t do things like work and teach sunday school, when they were once considered fine and dandy. And they’re being told to have a million kids and school them at home, which is also new.

    In the past, maybe Women couldn’t be pastors and there was some sort of ’50/50 tie breaker’ vote expected to go to the husband. The patriarchy types are way, way worse than that now and they seem to have filtered into mainstream churches rather than just cults. So yeah, I think it’s worse now.

    Liked by 1 person

  81. Salty – be warned. I am highly experienced in throwing custard pies in the Spirit. 🙂

    Two things triggered my thought. One was a preacher dealing with Genesis 1 and you can guess: ‘how long is day’ etc. asking the same question at the end: does it really matter. We can major on minors.

    The other was talking on Sunday to a missionary to Chad, a lady who had had to learn French, then one of the local languages, to go on to translate the NT into this local language. 30 years of service.

    I felt a sense of shame at just how many English versions I own, some of which hardly get used, when others don’t have the word of God in their own language at all. How easy to take it all for granted.

    I also felt a sense of shame at how we westerners, who have so much, will spend hours nitpicking over the text, and all too often being so bad at putting it into practice. More than this, the number of women who spend years arguing about why (for example) complementarians have got it all wrong, (which is not in itself wrong since we should discern), but can give you 900 often extra-biblical and frequently fallacious reasons why ‘wives submit to your own husband as to the Lord’ no longer applies to them. They are fine with ‘husbands love your wives’! They have God’s word and won’t do what it says. Others don’t yet have it at all.

    Many in this world don’t have this luxury. So I wonder what Christ thinks of this. Instead of intelligently asking how this worked out back then and how it works out in the here and now, for both husbands and wives, either excuses are made for ignoring it or it is buried in pointing out the failures of others – the John Pipers of this world.

    It was quite sobering, and a healthy experience for that.

    Like

  82. So I wonder what Christ thinks of this.

    I think Christ thinks we are supposed to love each other, instead of constantly trying to ‘lord it over’ others.

    I think he was pretty clear on that one. Let’s practice it.

    Liked by 1 person

  83. KAS,

    I’m at a place right now where I feel safe in believing the basics.

    That is, God made me and loves me. Jesus IS the Savior of the world. He wants me to love Him and others. I have peace, despite all my questions about the NT texts.

    I don’t believe God makes things hard. We do. haha

    I question everything now.

    Does Genesis 1 matter?

    I believe it does. Let’s fight to the death about it?

    (Not really. That was a joke) 😊

    I’m currently going through Genesis with my kids.

    If it isn’t important then I wouldn’t bother.

    God IS creator. If he isn’t the creator then I have little basis to later introduce him as the Judge and Redeemer, in Christ.

    My thoughts 😊

    Also… I heard that Africa is churning out more missionaries than South Korea.

    Maybe you could tell your friend to go to the USA first? Focus on the religious 🤔🤖😬

    Liked by 1 person

  84. KAS, I think it’s reasonable to question whether it’s major or minor. I think for most Christians, it is indeed a minor thing. I held complementarianism and my wife was egalitarian. Practically it made no difference because we loved and respected each other and we sought consensus when making decisions. When we didn’t agree, we either maintained the status quo, or we figured out how to major on the majors and allow for disagreement on the minors.

    I think for a significant number of men and women, it is a huge deal. “Patriarchy” was what allowed my father to be emotionally distant, yet cruel and domineering. I knew then that I was in a no-win situation and that was confirmed even when I was an adult when I talked to fellow Christians and was told I must not have been submissive enough.

    “Patriarchy” was what allowed my former church leaders to be openly dismissive of my concerns and ideas in front of the congregation, and then tell me that their abuse was warranted because I was too negative.

    “Patriarchy” is what similarly traps women in abusive relationship because they know they will have to stand completely and utterly alone if they dare to publicly call out the abuse.

    When calling out the Pharisees, Jesus said: “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.” He also said: “For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness;”

    I don’t think Jesus was nitpicking the Pharisees. I don’t think Jesus was majoring on minor things. I think he was calling out the patriarchal system of the time that ensured the Pharisees got the respect and obedience they thought their righteousness deserved, while those they should have served and freed were abused and neglected.

    Liked by 1 person

  85. So I wonder what Christ thinks of this.

    Do you mean, the way the CBMW and all their buddies pile extra and unnecessary rules on the backs of women (and, to a lesser extent, men)? All for the sake of their own enrichment and self-importance? I think Mark answered that quite nicely above when he quoted Jesus’ words to the Pharisees.

    Instead of intelligently asking how this worked out back then and how it works out in the here and now, for both husbands and wives…

    Simple. Let each pair of adults work out for themselves what their marriage should be. As long as they care for each other and neither is abused or otherwise betrayed, butt out. And especially, butt out with a bunch of rules that they don’t need.

    Liked by 2 people

  86. “….but can give you 900 often extra-biblical and frequently fallacious reasons why ‘wives submit to your own husband as to the Lord’ no longer applies to them. They are fine with ‘husbands love your wives’! They have God’s word and won’t do what it says.” -KAS

    The English word and concept of “submit” doesn’t appear in the Greek texts and it doesn’t mean what you think it means. The Bible says that we are to submit to one another.

    As to love, I’ve heard that men and women have pointed out that men need to be loved too and that women also need respect (not just love).

    “They have God’s word and won’t do what it says.” May I have pictures of you greeting your brothers in the Lord with a “Holy kiss”. You must do that every time you see the brothers at church or somewhere else. When you eat bread, you have to be sweating because God’s Word says so. You also have to toil for your own food, because God’s word “says so”.

    Like

  87. Other conservative Christians on The Wartburg Watch have pointed out that the Complementarians’ game plan was to get Comp into the seminaries, then have seminarians teach it in churches, as part of the whole NeoCalvinist stealth take over
    of churches. It’s been going on since the 1990’s.

    Like

  88. Kas, I tried to make the point that it didn’t matter–that we should all accept each other–and it didn’t go over very well here.

    But remember David Instone-Brewer, the Tyndale House researcher who studied and wrote Divorce and Remarriage in the Church? He says it doesn’t matter. He notes that women should think carefully before they include the word “obey” in their marriage vows because it isn’t biblical, while the remainder of the traditional vows are extracted from Exodus 21. Then he says that complementarianism and egalitarianism should be talked about and agreed upon before the wedding–either way is acceptable.

    Like

  89. “He [David Instone-Brewer] says it doesn’t matter. He notes that women should think carefully before they include the word “obey” in their marriage vows because it isn’t biblical, while the remainder of the traditional vows are extracted from Exodus 21.” – Irene

    He’s correct. It’s not Biblical. The “obey” part of the marriage that so many conservative Christians insist upon, and decry that others aren’t using,
    is from PAGAN Roman marriage contract law. It has nothing to do with Christianity.
    It’s not a vow that is used in many Christian countries, only those influence by Rome.

    Like

  90. “Providing we get rid of women doormats and male feudal lords, does it really matter that much? That may initially seem a silly question, but I can’t help wondering why this is so desperately important to the current generation, when it wasn’t for previous generations.” – KAS

    The Complementarians have set women and men, and even children, back by years and years with their Dark Ages beliefs.

    My grandmother, a Presbyterian and a scientist who died at 102 years old, knew many women missionaries, women missionary doctors, women teachers, and others who carried The Gospel and bettered peoples’ lives in nations around the world. I got to meet them and see their slide shows as a child.

    They were a far better crop of believers than this Dark Ages NeoCalvinist bunch, focused on themselves instead of The Gospel.

    Like

  91. Also while on the topic of marriage, for those that don’t know community property rights in the United States come to us via Spanish law and not feminism.
    Spain settled Texas and brought their laws, including that women could own property in their own names, manage it, sell it, and a variety of other legal rights,
    to the United States. These practices have gone on for hundreds of years in Spain.

    Like

  92. Kas said,

    Providing we get rid of women doormats and male feudal lords, does it really matter that much? That may initially seem a silly question, but I can’t help wondering why this is so desperately important to the current generation, when it wasn’t for previous generations

    I was brought up in this gender complementarian garbage, the nice and warm and fuzzy properly implemented kind that folks like Mary Kassian recommends, and it harmed me.

    I wrote about it in several posts on my own blog, such as:
    _Even Warm and Fuzzy, True, Correctly-Implemented Gender Complementarianism is Harmful to Women, and It’s Still Sexism – Yes All Comps (Refuting “Not All Comps”)_

    _ Christian Gender Complementarianism is Christian-Endorsed Codependency for Women (And That’s Not A Good Thing)_

    Regarding this:
    “Providing we get rid of women doormats…”

    Complementarians will insist their gender theology does not teach women to be doormats, but it does. Women being submissive, secondary to men, little doormats is one central theme, tenet, or underpinning of their entire system.

    You cannot have complementarianism without women being doormats to men in some capacity, whether it’s in marriage, the church, jobs – some comps are just more severe than others in how they insist it be implemented.

    Your far out there wacko comps teach women cannot and should not work as police officers, for example, while more reasonable comps such as Aimee Byrd say, oh yes they can BUT she still argues on her blog that concerning “major” life decisions that a wife should still defer to her husband.

    Complementarianism at its heart – other than being codependency for women – boils down to male hierarchy and female submission and servitude – no matter how nicely it is worded, demanded for, or taught.

    Liked by 1 person

  93. DAISY!

    “Your far out there wacko comps teach women cannot and should not work as police officers, for example,”

    I have friends whose parents only let them work outside the home recently. Girls in their TWENTIES!

    I told these girls they had a free room in my house should they wish to escape and get a life (and an education).

    How terrifying.

    Like

  94. Velour – I have tried to stand back from the usual arguments about this subject, to gain an overview.

    Let me answer you in just one point: submission in marriage is not mutual.
    As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.

    There is no missing submit here – and I do know about Eph 5 : 21 supplying the verb for v 22.

    It means the wife to ‘come into rank’ over against the husband as ‘head’. As church to Christ.

    As the apostle maps Christian marriage to Christ and the church, this alone means it cannot be mutual, and this plus Paul’s basing marriage on the OT in Genesis means he is not accommodating the Roman culture of the day. I could give another 8 or so reasons why submission here isn’t mutual. I’m willing to be persuaded against this, but such arguments are invariably ignored in favour of an assertion that submission is mutual, without supporting argumentation.

    In some instances, there is clear evidence of deception at work.

    But let’s not go there, that is not the point. That misses the wood for the trees.

    That this can be abused by immature men, I do not doubt, although I have become more skeptical of the extent of this more recently. Once we have got rid of this, this is still the word of God, it is still something he expects us to obey. Obedience is not ‘secondary’.

    Why is there such resistance to this? You almost never see this discussed with a view to how to put it into operation, it nearly always revolves around CBWM and how they haven’t got it right. (They do over-egg the pudding sometimes.)

    Previous generations didn’t agonise over this, are we just following the increasingly secular and godless culture around us, and its folly?

    If this arrangement is intended by God as blessing, isn’t it foolish to rebel against it? Who do we think we are dealing with? I’ve been struck by testimony and observation either that God withholds blessing until a wife – sometimes with great reluctance – acknowledges this teaching, or I’ve noticed the absence as far as I can tell of God’s blessing in the lives of those who in effect openly reject this, for example, the absence of answered prayer. (This applies equally to husbands who don’t fulfill their half of the bargain.) This suggests we ought to be more careful.

    There is spiritual attack on this teaching, either in men assuming they may control or dominate their wives, or wives trying to assert they may safely ignore it. In both cases it is the ‘flesh’ refusing to submit to the Spirit.

    Like

  95. I asked a question in my scripture practicum class about why the ESV translations were ranked “slightly lower” on the scale for translations for good exegesis (pulling out the true meaning of scripture). The NIV was also in the “slightly lower” category. The author was Gorman and his book was called Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers.

    My professor said a lot of it had to with complementarian liberties that the translation committees took. In other words where it really meant men and women it inserted men and took the complementarian role approach to the interpretation and translation.

    I am still looking for specific examples but found that interesting. I did find at least one calvinistic liberty taken in the NIV translation in James but it was not regarding complementarainism.

    Liked by 1 person

  96. NRSV and NET bibles were at the top of the list for good biblical exegesis according to Gorman! Let me know if anyone finds the complementarian insertions in the ESV bible. I am interested!

    Like

  97. I’ve been listening to a free lecture series by Professor Ronald Pierce of Biola Univ and he did discuss this and also referenced a verse or two if I recall. This just makes so much sense. I remember when the ESV was just published and was being pushed by church leaders. I remember that Sovereign Grace’s Covenant Life Church was giving them out to their members. Go figure! Gotta have everybody on the same page, so to speak.

    Like

  98. “There is spiritual attack on this teaching, either in men assuming they may control or dominate their wives, or wives trying to assert they may safely ignore it. In both cases it is the ‘flesh’ refusing to submit to the Spirit.” -KAS

    Spiritual attack? Seems a bit dramatic.

    Mature marriages, among men and women who are equals and respect each other, are about loving each other.

    We are to love one another, submit to one another. There is so much more to Scripture than camping out on a few words and verses.

    Jesus said that all of the love and the prophets hinge on loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. It’s not that complicated.

    Liked by 2 people

  99. @Julie Anne,

    I bought a Today’s New International Version (TNIV) from Amazon when I found out that the Comp promoting ESVers tried to quash it.

    Someone else on Wartburg recommended the book The Shack for the same reason. Said I should start at Chp 4. Also said that Wade Burleson had author speak at their church in Enid, OK. Very moving.

    Like

  100. “I’m willing to be persuaded against this, but such arguments are invariably ignored in favour of an assertion that submission is mutual, without supporting argumentation.”

    Nice try. Obviously you are not familiar with the Roman Paterfamilias Household Codes or you would not have written this:

    “As the apostle maps Christian marriage to Christ and the church, this alone means it cannot be mutual, and this plus Paul’s basing marriage on the OT in Genesis means he is not accommodating the Roman culture of the day.”

    You have been indoctrinated by the McArthur crowd. It would be a waste of time to engage any further. You benefit from the caste, it gives you an identity you need. Your twistings of scripture are tortured starting with Genesis. You can’t even see what has been read into it by your teaching gurus.

    Liked by 2 people

  101. Kas said,
    “Previous generations didn’t agonise over this, are we just following the increasingly secular and godless culture around us, and its folly?”

    They didn’t agonize over it because sexism has been widely accepted in most cultures for thousands of years now, and comp is nothing but sexism with some biblical jargon tossed in the mix.

    Further, comp is taking secular cultural norms (which usually limit women and insist they defer to men) and reading those norms back into the Bible.

    Ironically, it’s the Christian mutualists (or egalitarians) who are getting back to what the Bible really teaches about the genders and marriage.

    Kas said,
    “Why is there such resistance to this? ”

    I was raised under complementarianism, and it had real life negative consequences on myself, as it does for other women who are raised to think it is “godly” or “biblical.” I gave you links above to my blog posts which explain this.

    Kas said,
    “As the apostle maps Christian marriage to Christ and the church, this alone means it cannot be mutual,”

    Like it or not, Eph 5.21 does convey that husbands are to submit to their wives, too. Mutual marital submission is also mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:4. Jesus also forbid men in general, or husbands in particular, having authority over their wives in Matthew 20:24-26.

    Kas said,
    “If this arrangement is intended by God as blessing”

    Men ruling over women was mentioned by God in Genesis as being one outcome of the fall – it was not God’s intention for any man to rule over any woman, certainly not in marriage – both husband and wife were granted authority over all creation.

    I have the impression you’ve never actually read Christian gender egalitarian material. You should totally read their material, such as found on sites like…

    _Junia Project_

    _New Life_

    Kas said,
    “… or wives trying to assert they may safely ignore it.”

    The Bible does not frame husbandly headship as being boss over or authority over, that a woman must “obey” as a private in the army must obey a general in the army.

    So yes, Christian women can feel free to completely ignore your, or the complementarian, interpretation of such biblical passages.

    Liked by 1 person

  102. “Let me answer you in just one point: submission in marriage is not mutual.
    As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.”

    KAS, if you want to base marriage on what Paul said in Ephesians, I’m sure you know that love in marriage is not mutual, either ~~~~ neither is respect. If a husband insists on one-way submission, he really shouldn’t care whether his wife loves him or not. Nor does it matter is a husband has any respect for his wife.

    Liked by 1 person

  103. “Let me answer you in just one point: submission in marriage is not mutual.
    As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.”

    Just off the top of my head:


    Matthew 20:25-27
    But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

    Matthew 23:10-12
    Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

    Romans 12:10
    Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor

    Ephesians 4:1-3
    walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

    Ephesians 5:21
    be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

    Philippians 2:3
    Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves

    And this one is especially for those men who think God has granted them some kind of position of authority over women:


    James 3:14
    …if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth.

    Liked by 1 person

  104. I’m quoting from a good article on The Wartburg Watch recently where Complementarian was discussed.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/07/20/tww-commenters-weigh-in-on-complementarianism/

    “ishy on Wed Jul 20, 2016 at 07:44 PM said:

    Lea wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    I had a professor who is a founder and extremely active in CBMW say he made his daughters sign contracts that they would submit to him until marriage and that he would pick their husbands.
    /
    I hope when they turned 18 they skipped town fast as their legs could carry them.

    It was actually a good bit worse than that. His oldest daughter was in her 20s when he said this, and he was saying as if reinforcing that this was the process they were currently going through.

    Furthermore, he said he had to choose her husband for her because he had to make sure he was a “good Christian”. He defined “good Christian” as “someone from a well-known Christian family”. This is someone who taught pastors, and his idea of being a Christian had nothing to do with Christ.

    Apparently, people who professed Christ from non-Christian families like me, or those who weren’t “famous” in the little evangelical world, did not qualify as “good Christians”.

    A girl stood up and started quoting verses about how to get saved, and basically obliterated him theology-wise. I was so incensed that I could barely see who she was, and I wish I had thanked her.”

    Like

  105. Another quote from a recent Wartburg Watch article on Complementarianism.
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/07/20/tww-commenters-weigh-in-on-complementarianism/

    Finally, we were greatly encouraged by this comment from Victorious.

    Victorious on Mon Jul 18, 2016 at 07:15 PM said:

    I found this list of scriptural behaviors on the web that make absolutely no mention of gender, ethnicity, age, or status. I wonder what foundation (other than one word….head) Piper and other comps have built their entire movement on.

    The 59 “One Anothers” of the New Testament*

    “…Be at peace with each other.” (Mark 9:50)
    “…Wash one another’s feet.” (John 13:14)
    “…Love one another…” (John 13:34)
    “…Love one another…” (John 13:34)
    “…Love one another…” (John 13:35)
    “…Love one another…” (John 15:12)
    “…Love one another” (John 15:17)
    “Be devoted to one another in brotherly love…” (Romans 12:10)
    “…Honor one another above yourselves. (Romans 12:10)
    “Live in harmony with one another…” (Romans 12:16)
    “…Love one another…” (Romans 13:8)
    “…Stop passing judgment on one another.” (Romans 14:13)
    “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you…” (Romans 15:7)
    “…Instruct one another.” (Romans 15:14)
    “Greet one another with a holy kiss…” (Romans 16:16)
    “…When you come together to eat, wait for each other.” (I Cor. 11:33)
    “…Have equal concern for each other.” (I Corinthians 12:25)
    “…Greet one another with a holy kiss.” (I Corinthians 16:20)
    “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” (II Corinthians 13:12)
    “…Serve one another in love.” (Galatians 5:13)
    “If you keep on biting and devouring each other…you will be destroyed by each other.” 
(Galatians 5:15)
    “Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.” (Galatians 5:26)
    “Carry each other’s burdens…” (Galatians 6:2)
    “…Be patient, bearing with one another in love.” (Ephesians 4:2)
    “Be kind and compassionate to one another…” (Ephesians 4:32)
    “…Forgiving each other…” (Ephesians 4:32)
    “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.” (Ephesians 5:19)
    “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21)
    “…In humility consider others better than yourselves.” (Philippians 2:3)
    “Do not lie to each other…” (Colossians 3:9)
    “Bear with each other…” (Colossians 3:13)
    “…Forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another.” (Colossians 3:13)
    “Teach…[one another]” (Colossians 3:16)
    “…Admonish one another (Colossians 3:16)
    “…Make your love increase and overflow for each other.” (I Thessalonians 3:12)
    “…Love each other.” (I Thessalonians 4:9)
    “…Encourage each other…”(I Thessalonians 4:18)
    “…Encourage each other…” I Thessalonians 5:11)
    “…Build each other up…” (I Thessalonians 5:11)
    “Encourage one another daily…” Hebrews 3:13)
    “…Spur one another on toward love and good deeds.” (Hebrews 10:24)
    “…Encourage one another.” (Hebrews 10:25)
    “…Do not slander one another.” (James 4:11)
    “Don’t grumble against each other…” (James 5:9)
    “Confess your sins to each other…” (James 5:16)
    “…Pray for each other.” (James 5:16)
    “…Love one another deeply, from the heart.” (I Peter 3:8)
    “…Live in harmony with one another…” (I Peter 3:8)
    “…Love each other deeply…” (I Peter 4:8)
    “Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.” (I Peter 4:9)
    “Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others…” (I Peter 4:10)
    “…Clothe yourselves with humility toward one another…”(I Peter 5:5)
    “Greet one another with a kiss of love.” (I Peter 5:14)
    “…Love one another.” (I John 3:11)
    “…Love one another.” (I John 3:23)
    “…Love one another.” (I John 4:7)
    “…Love one another.” (I John 4:11)
    “…Love one another.” (I John 4:12)
    “…Love one another.” (II John 5)If we agree these behaviors are not gender-specific, we will have to agree that they result in a relationship of mutuality in the body of Christ at large without exception regardless of one’s status, age, gender, ethnicity, or marital status.

    Liked by 1 person

  106. “The Bible does not frame husbandly headship as being boss over or authority over, that a woman must “obey” as a private in the army must obey a general in the army.” – KAS

    What denomination are you? Where did you learn this? What a fright. (I was raised about senisble Presbyterians, grandmother was university educated/a science degree, and died at 102 years old. She knew and introduced me to many of her women missionary friends, women doctors who practiced medicine and taught the Gospel. Changed lives.) There’s a whole forest out there of Scripture to explore. Quit camping out on one verse or a word here and there.

    We are talking about marriage. Not a private in the US Army with a chain of command and federal laws to back up said general.

    Now a transition based on the Olympics. The Gold Medal for the HIGHEST divorce rate in the nation, when the nation’s divorce rate has been plummeting, goes to:
    the Comp/Patriarchy promoting Southern Baptist denomination. Southern Baptists
    also get a Gold Medal for losing the most living members every single year — a whopping 200,000 — fed up with NeoCalvinism, Authoritarianism, and Complementarianism.

    Like

  107. Kas, here’s the problem with your referencing this analogy:

    Let me answer you in just one point: submission in marriage is not mutual.
    As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands

    Ephesians 5 speaks of Christ’s relationship with the church as one of self-sacrifice; ie. laying down His very life for her. It does not refer to authority or rank but rather the level of love expressed in giving up His very life for her benefit.

    Like

  108. Which is exactly why there are so many women who pay zero attention to what it is written in a 2000-year-old book of myths. It was written BY men FOR men. I’m glad there are women writing on this thread who can think for themselves.

    Like

  109. Velour, you wrote:

    “The Bible does not frame husbandly headship as being boss over or authority over, that a woman must “obey” as a private in the army must obey a general in the army.” – KAS

    I just wanted to clarify that those were my words, not Kas (I’m not clear if you realized that or not).

    That quote is my assumptions as to what Kas (since he/she seems to be a complementarian) probably believes about male headship in marriage.

    The “boss over an employee” or “general over a private in the army” model seem to be how most complementarians view male headship in marriage (and other avenues of life).

    Of course, some of your “soft comps” will argue that the General Husband or Boss Husband should be sweet about it, though, be a benevolent dictator. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator, though.

    Complementarians like to invest the male head model with authority, when even the verses they quote from Ephesians and the rest of the NT describe male headship in marriage in terms of a husband deferring to, and submitting to, his wife, and putting his wife before himself and his own needs.

    Comps get all this stuff backwards, LOL.

    Like

  110. Kas said,

    There is spiritual attack on this teaching, either in men assuming they may control or dominate their wives, or wives trying to assert they may safely ignore it. In both cases it is the ‘flesh’ refusing to submit to the Spirit.

    Funny how you are so very certain of your interpretation of what the Bible says about this stuff.

    Your interpretation happens to be incorrect, but you feel others should defer to your understanding of it, but if they are not or do not, they are supposedly being “fleshly” and “refusing to submit to the Spirit.”

    No, they are just not agreeing with your interpretation of these verses and biblical passages.

    Like

  111. I just posted this over at WW blog as well:

    Black & White Bible, Black & Blue Wife—A Review

    Written by Carolyn Custis James
    on July 26, 2016
    Snippets:
    ——
    Reading this book also requires a willingness to reconsider one’s view of marriage. This is no simple task because her story raises questions regarding deeply held beliefs about marriage roles, male headship, and female submission that many evangelical Christians consider sacred and nonnegotiable.

    Yet the “silent epidemic” of domestic abuse that concerns Tucker is so dangerous and life-threatening within Christian circles, and so easily concealed, we cannot afford to brush her off and refuse to listen.

    …Christian leaders need to educate themselves and seek help from experts in addressing abuse situations.

    As Aimee Byrd describes, some of the most breathtakingly ignorant and dangerous statements in the book come from the lips (or pens) of well-respected Christian leaders—men who, instead of wisely offering safe-haven to abuse victims, make female submission both the problem and the solution, sending desperate women back into harms way to try harder.

    The tragic truth is that this dangerous pastoral counsel comes from the mouths of some of the most influential evangelical leaders.

    ….The problem is in thinking patriarchy (albeit a “kinder-gentler” version) is the Bible’s message for marriage, when patriarchy is the backdrop to the Bible’s message. It is not the Bible’s message.

    Against that patriarchal backdrop, Paul’s teaching regarding marriage is a radical departure from (not a softening of) 1st Century marriage mores. In that culture, a husband had life and death powers over his wife/wives. Dr. Roy Ciampa’s eye-opening article, “Identity Mapping,” is an excellent resource that belongs in this discussion.

    Liked by 1 person

  112. Velour,

    “LOVE” all of the Scriptural “love” verses you posted and will copy them down for reference. It amazed me concerning the ‘mutuality’ of the true definition of the word “love.”

    I do not believe that complementarians nor egalitarians have the ‘market’ on Jesus’ love for our finite minds have a difficult time understanding the Great Love exhibited by Jesus on the cross/tree. Currently around church women who grew up in complementary homes and are in complementarian marriages who have a difficult time understanding just ‘HOW MUCH’ Jesus loves them! They are full to overflowing with anxiety, fear, and working their souls to death trying to please their spouses/families as well as steadfastly seeking to please the ‘religious establishment.’

    How can this be? Especially since Jesus, the Christ, stated that His burdens are light!

    Me thinks we need to take some notes here concerning what we just witnessed with three saints fellowshipping: Julie Anne, Kathi, and Brad. And also in another instance where God made a way for Kathi and Persephone to fellowship together. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in allowing His Ekklesia to meet together in mutual love….no ranks, no authority, no titles, and very “complimentary” to the testimony of Jesus our LORD.

    Seems to me there’s a whole lot of fear out there concerning those who are struggling with “trying to be somebody in god’s eyes, ie., authority.”

    We are so loved today…..check out Velour’s post above…..she nailed it!

    Liked by 1 person

  113. Julie Anne said” “Go figure! Gotta have everybody on the same page, so to speak.”

    One other thing said in my scripture practicum class for good biblical exegesis is to survey the scripture and survey yourself before making conclusions on the meaning of scripture. Understand the then and there of the original writes then understand here and now.

    I believe the harderst part is to survery your own biases, Our biases can be personal biases or theological biases. If you don’t know your own biases then your exegesis will come out biased.

    Like

  114. I did some research on the book you mentioned and from the comments I received in Amazon.com many of them praised the book but a few condemned it as patriarchal drivel by fundamentalists. This doesn’t help me much learn about what it is but I will say I too acknowledge that the Christian Patriarchs do seem to over emphasize the gender differences between the sexes and use these differences to hold on to rigid and restrictive gender stereotypes, putting men and women into boxes with a “one size fits all” mentality and restricting not just women but men in the homes but singling women out and limiting their capabilities in the church. The more extreme kinds int he patriarchy like the fundies, and what is now called Christian Manosphere or red mill movement within Christianity, have the worst kind of chauvinistic and misogynist ideals. Then there is the quiverfull movement,, vissionary daughters etc who just hold on to outdated unnecessary ideas on gender roles that would make some of those in the comp camp cringe. I myself am don’t belong in neither the comp or egal camp or maybe I’m somewhere int he middle complegalitarian or a non-hierarchical complementarian. I have wrote about the gender stereotypes,the true meaning of the headship, submission and gender roles in the marriage on my blog if you care to check it out. However, although I don’t follow the comps idea of male leadership in the home or in the church, I will say that not all comps support sexist or patriarchal views. In fact, I have read blogs and articles from numerous comps and believe the majority of them are what is known as moderate or ultra soft comps. Their views almost resemble an egalitarian position as they reject chauvinism and have a more relaxed view regarding gender duties inside home or whether a woman can work outside the home. They also support equal partnership in marriage but the husband does have headship in which he has primary responsibility to spiritual guidance and growth in the household but encourages husbands to work with their wives as a team rather than make all the major decisions by themselves. Many of them believe that the husband makes the final decision only as a last resort when there is no agreement between the spouses. However, they will be quick to state husbands should never use this duty as a excuse to get their own way all the time but do what’s beneficial for all involved taking his wife’s input into consideration. I’ts all about responsibility, duty and accountability before God rather than power, authority or rulership. In this way this headship is about servant/leader not lordship where the husband serves the needs and wellbeing of his wife not dominate, control or boss her around. In the church,plenty still only men can be ordained ministers and elders while some even believe woman can be deacons may teach an co-ed adult bible class or not, each church varies on this. I will also say these type of comps don’t support their doctrine simply because they want to but because they truly believe their way is the true biblical doctrine and following God’s design. I actually find some of these moderate or soft comps a bit more refreshing since they appear to be more of the norm among the comp camp since the are bit more relaxed, flexible and modern in their views on gender issues in Christianity and are at least are somewhat on the same page with egals on gender equality even if I don’t fully agree with them.

    God Bless.

    Like

  115. Pingback: Julie Anne’s Intruder, Softball, and Issues | Spiritual Sounding Board

  116. Pingback: “God’s Design” – Know Thyself, Creature | Spiritual Sounding Board

  117. Pingback: Wednesday Link List | Thinking Out Loud

  118. Daisy: Funny how you are so very certain of your interpretation of what the Bible says about this stuff.

    Your interpretation happens to be incorrect, …

    Now I had to smile at that! I haven’t claimed certainty in my interpretation of what the bible says, and do not do so. You seem very certain that I have got it wrong; and that you have got it right!

    Unwillingness to obey the NT can indeed be ‘complementarian’. I’m pretty sure you would agree an unloving, inconsiderate husband is not keeping his part of the bargain, and is an example fo the flesh not submitting to the Spirit.

    For my part, I only want to be consistent and say that the wife not keeping to her part of the bargain, which is the submission side (sensibly thought out as to what it entails), is likewise being unspiritual, and, not to put too fine a point on it, sinful.

    Going by both scripture and observation, those who do deliberately reject this teaching (as opposed to make mistakes like we all do) can expect not to experience the presence of God in their lives, specifically experience unanswered prayer. It’s sad when this is the case.

    (There is no need for a lengthy reply, these discussions tend to go round in circles and get rather pointless, and there are other issues being discusssed.)

    Like

  119. Submit to what?

    When complementarians think of authority it is in terms of behavior and consequences. If I’m a manager of employees, I have the authority to set expectations of performance and to assign consequences (demotions/firing) of employees who do not meet those expectations. Employees are expected to submit to those expectations.

    So, what expectations does the husband have the authority to set in marriage? What are the consequences the husband can impose if the wife does not submit?

    In other spheres, there IS an authority/submission perspective. Children submit to parents or face consequences. I submit to the state or face consequences. Even in the church, those who do not submit to godly authority can face consequences. I think the areas where church leaders have authority is less than they probably think, but…

    I don’t think you can go around talking about wives who do not submit unless you are willing to proffer a definition for said submission, and likewise to proffer the actions a godly husband should take when his wife does not offer the submission you command.

    Like

  120. KAS said,

    “Now I had to smile at that! I haven’t claimed certainty in my interpretation of what the bible says, and do not do so. You seem very certain that I have got it wrong; and that you have got it right!”

    That’s because I know I have it right.

    I used to be a gender comp and was brainwashed into believing female submission/ male authority trash.

    I was, however, wiling to question those beliefs. You don’t strike me as someone who is willing to consider he/she may be wrong about something.

    When I did question it for myself, and I started re-reading the Bible without the “male hierarchy” filter in place, I saw that the Bible did not teach complementarianism.

    Like

  121. Even if it does teach that, s/he is entitled to throw that trash out – along with the Noah’s ark myth, the Eve/Adam lineage (debunked completely by the Human Genome Project), the endorsement of slavery, and all other toxic elements contained therein.

    Like

  122. (debunked completely by the Human Genome Project)

    I haven’t seen anything to that effect, and even if I did, I find that most “genetic studies” involve building computer simulations of what some person thinks happened and then feeding bits of DNA evidence into that simulation to see if it generates interesting results.

    It stretches science, which claims that any theory must be “falsifiable” to run simulation upon simulation based on the evidence and then accept the result as somehow scientifically valid when the numbers magically match up.

    That said, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of science to claim that science can or cannot debunk some religious view. Science is based on an agreed-upon set of principles, which cannot be proven, from which scientific knowledge can be derived. One of those principles is that supernatural explanations for phenomenon are never allowed. Another is uniformitarianism – that is that the laws of science as we know them today existed in the same form from the beginning of time.

    As such, science cannot “debunk” Adam and Eve, or falsify Noah’s Ark. That is because one must first apply presuppositions from which uniformitarianism can be derived. If your view of uniformitarianism comes from Atheism, then, of course, you would believe that science would debunk those, but it’s not really science – it’s the presupposition you bring to the table that a priori says that nothing supernatural can ever happen. For a Christian, it’s much more difficult, because science has limitations at the boundary of the ordinary and miraculous from a Christian worldview, and those difficulties must always be weighed against a higher truth.

    Like

  123. Daisy – That’s because I know I have it right.

    Isn’t that a dangerous thing for any believer to claim about any teaching or behaviour? It makes it impossible for you to ever consider you might have been deceived on a matter. If you have, barring a miracle, that is where you will remain.

    Carmen – the [bible’s] endorsement of slavery I’ve just done a study on this theme, and concluded that although superficially I can understand why people say this, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Slavery is a purely human institution, and the bible regulates it to protect as far as possible those who end up in it, and forbids in the OT for Jews as the people of God to treat each other as slaves; it was even a capital offence. That is hardly an endorsement.

    Like

  124. That sounds more like your INTERPRETATION of the words there, KAS. Take a more in-depth look at sex slaves, in particular (you know, virgin women being kept from conquests?) – Yahweh gives specific instructions for this.

    Like

  125. It makes it impossible for you to ever consider you might have been deceived on a matter.

    Do you consider you yourself may have been deceived?

    Like

  126. Carmen – I can only assume you are referring to war brides in Deut 21. In a post conquest context, a Hebrew sees an attractive woman and desires to take her for yourself as wife. He can take her home, let her mourn for a month, and after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. This is the only euphemistic reference to sex, and it is following marriage.

    If grounds arise, he may subsequently let her go where she will implying divorce. …but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her. Slavery here is expressly forbidden, she is free to go. She has suffered enough indignity at being rejected for whatever reason by her husband in a marriage she had little or no say in. (Not ideal, but neither is the context in which this occurred.)

    Hence: there is no sex slavery, the only sex is within marriage, and slavery is specifically not allowed. The quotations in italics are of the text itself, there is hardly any need to try to interpret them. The sex slave idea has been read into the text. The fevered imagination of evilbible.com comes to mind here.

    There is a similar torturing of the text I’ve read in Ex 21 if a man has to sell his daughter into servant hood, where the subsequent legislation is designed to ensure her well-being in marriage, not sex slavery.

    Like

  127. Numbers 31 would be the one for you; start reading at verse 15 I believe. THEN come back and tell me that there was no sex slavery advocated. :(. Some of you believers are woefully ignorant about the Bible.

    Like

  128. Carmen, God created laws for specific people in a specific time. That time was patriarchal, racist and misogynistic. God created laws “because of the hardness of their hearts”. At that time, women were considered property for men to do whatever they wanted with. Conquered nations were the property of the conqueror.

    Perhaps an analogy. Let’s say I have two boys. Every night, they get into a fight and they’re getting bruised and breaking bones. My HEART is for them not to fight, but whatever I’ve tried to prevent them from fighting simply doesn’t work. Finally I go to the sports store and buy them each a pair of boxing gloves. I tell them, when you fight, you need to wear the boxing gloves.

    Now, you as an outside observer, may look at me as a horrible parent. Isn’t buying boxing gloves proof that I support boxing? That isn’t my heart. I want them to love each other and get along, but if they aren’t because their hearts are hard and they’re going to fight, then my heart is to protect them as much as I can from harm.

    In the same way, the existence of slavery laws, including female slavery, is not a testament to an evil God who wanted slavery, but a testament to a loving God who, because he knew Israel was not in a place to turn away from racism and misogyny, created laws to protect, as much as possible, the victims of that system.

    Like

  129. Mark, it makes me grimace to read the mental gymnastics believer go through to make sure their god can do no wrong. NOW, try reading that passage and try to envision a conquered people, whose 12-yr-old girls were ‘inspected’ to make sure they hadn’t been with a man. That’s AFTER all the men and boys had been slaughtered. Loving god my foot.

    Like

  130. Carmen – I have read Numbers 31. There is still no mention of sex or slavery. Nor marriage. The subsequent treatment of these girls may or may not have been in accordance with what is required in Deut 21. Any argument is one from silence.

    And you would agree, would you not, on the absence of sex slavery in the other passages as well?

    Like

  131. What do you think would have happened if those laws didn’t exist?

    Would women be treated better or worse if men were allowed to send them away without divorcing them?

    Would women be treated better or worse if there weren’t laws requiring men not to reduce food or conjugal rights for the first wife when they took a second?

    Like

  132. I believe what you are doing is called being willfully blind. Or perhaps you have a problem with comprehension.
    Both you and Mark are doing the dance around the fact that the god you worship is anything but a loving god. In fact, I’d suggest that both of you are more moral than than the war god, Yahweh, you worship. I know WHY you do it, of course, but it doesn’t make it any more acceptable.

    Like

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

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s