Complementarian, Egalitarian, Teaching Children, Children Desiring God, John Piper
Series Introduction
Vaccinating Children with Complementarianism
by Kathi
I spent many years reading books to my children. Homeschooling families know all too well the importance of reading. However, I can say that I never read a book like this to my kids.
God’s Design is a children’s books which teaches about the importance of gender roles.
Oh, yes. You read that correctly.
About the Organization and Authors
God’s Design is written by Sally Michael and Gary Steward. It is published by P & R Publishing and sponsored through Children Desiring God. I purchased my copy through Amazon. Research and benefiting my charity of choice made this purchase a little bit easier to swallow. Here is some information about the authors from the back cover:
Sally Michaels is the cofounder, curriculum author, and publishing consultant of Children Desiring God. She is also an author, speaker, and former Minister for Children at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis.
Gary Steward is an assistant professor of history at Colorado Christian University. Previously he served as pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.
***
A couple of things stand out in these bios. First is the name, Children Desiring God. Does that sound familiar in any way? A simple Google search brought this up:
***
***
Yes, Children Desiring God is linked to Desiring God website. Desiring God’s year end 2014 statement has them listed as a ministry partner (or is it an extension of Desiring God? Either way, they are linked together.). Children Desiring God offers Sunday School curriculum, homeschool curriculum, books, seminars and an annual conference. Sounds like Children Desiring God runs about the same as Desiring God, only it’s solely geared toward children.
This leads me to my second stand out in the bios….who do you immediately think of when you hear Desiring God? It is no wonder that Sally Michaels is writing for Children Desiring God when she served at Bethlehem Baptist along side John Piper for 10 years (Sally’s husband, Michael, served for 20 years). What I want to know is how Sally managed to earn and maintain the coveted Minister title while working under John Piper’s leadership. Gary Steward also spent three years under John Piper’s tutelage and has contributed curriculum for Children Desiring God.
About the Book
God’s Design is roughly 100 pages long and consists of 26 short story chapters. Follow-up questions and activities are provided to ensure that children grasp the concepts in the lessons. The main purpose of this book is to build a theological foundation for “biblical manhood and womanhood” in children.
The preface offers more:
Now more than ever parents need to talk with their children in age-appropriate ways about God’s good design for manhood and womanhood. Parents also need to talk with their children concerning how many ideas about manhood and womanhood – egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, gender blending/bending – go against the beautiful design of gender complementarity.
And…
Children need to understand, before their teenage years, how God created men and women to be equal in personhood, dignity, and worth, and yet different regarding the roles He designed them to have.
We find many of the familiar catch phrases here. First there is the idea that egalitarianism and feminism go against the Bible. This is a hill to die on and for the life of me, I really do not understand why. All I can determine is that the last great stand for men to retain total power is in the home and in the church. I can understand why some Christians struggle with accepting homosexuality, but the reality is that God loves all people, and we should too. I find it fascinating how the theology of complementarity can be so focused on homosexuality. We must remember, though, that it is the view of biblical marriage which homosexuality threatens.
The other familiar catch phrase that is found in this part of the preface is how God created “men and women to be equal in personhood, dignity, and worth, and yet different regarding the roles he Designed them to have.” Different but equal. When will these folks ever learn that those who are “different” will never feel “equal” as long as this mentality is in place?
Continuing in the preface:
Hopefully this book can serve as a springboard for further interaction between parents and children, not just about manhood and womanhood, but about God and the gospel . May the Lord bless you as you inoculate your children against the Devil’s lies by speaking truth from God’s Word, and may your children grow up to be godly men and women who spread the light of the gospel and live out God’s design for men and women in a dark and needy world.
This book is about God and the gospel. THEIR gospel. That’s the problem with where complementarianism is at this point and time. It has become a primary doctrine issue and has become their gospel. The gospel is merely proclaiming the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and the eternal hope we have in Him alone. I often wonder if God looks down on these churches and leaders and is thinking that they have lost their first love.
But it’s this golden phrase that has me worried the most about this book: “May the Lord bless you as you inoculate your children against the Devil’s lies…” Oh, Lord, may we vaccinate our children against the evil lies of equality and women’s rights! This book may be damaged from being thrown across the room too many times.
About the Series
This series will consist of reviewing 2-3 chapters of God’s Design at a time. The goal is to post at least once a week. Given that summer is winding down quickly, we still have company coming to visit at some point within the next two months, and school will be starting back up, I may have to go a little longer in between. But, I will try to keep pauses short so that we don’t lose track in discussion.
Why am I doing this series? It’s not easy for me to hide my disdain for complementarity. I think that organizations such as Desiring God and CBMW have gone too far in convincing people that this is not one way of looking at marriage, gender roles, and roles in the church. It is the way. The gospel way. I think that their insistence on this issue is damaging and binds the freedom that we have in Christ. I hope you will find it informative to see what people embedded in the complementarian camp are using to vaccinate impressionable young minds.
Spiritual Sounding Board 
“Daisy, no way do you get to decide that someone else is doing marriage in a nonbiblical way just because they are complementarians.In fact, some who have studied marriage and divorce in the Bible believe it teaches patriarchy–yet they would not endorse any form of abuse or neglect. Jesus taught us to work toward and pray for unity and love. Judging on matters that are nonessential”
Irene, your comments confuse me. For example, this is your first comment on the post:
“I thought we believed gender roles are not doctrinal issues. Therefore, we can allow others to have their own perspectives–and we can educate our children on all sides of the issue. That promotes critical thinking.
This is actually a beautiful series–even if this one book has some things we disagree with. Do you really want publishers to only print what you personally agree with?”
I am having a hard time following your points. Comp/pats judge mutualist constantly that they are not following scripture. They made it into an essential doctrine with Danvers. Since then the Christian Industrial Complex has made gazillions off comp conferences, books, literature, websites, etc.
I doubt very seriously if DG is educating anyone on all sides of the issue. I doubt anyone at Bethleham has ever been exposed to a scholarly approach to marriage as a blessed alliance and women as ministers. In fact, I know they have not. Pipers scholarship is shockingly shoddy and even deceptive. Are you familiar with his and Grudems paper on Junia?
I am not sure exactly what is offending you. That we discuss it? That we vehemently disagree and think it is false teaching or bad interpretation that effectively shuts up over half the body of Christ? I don’t get where you are coming from. It is fine to disagree and we all sharpen iron from that. It is a good thing. But eat your Wheaties because some of us have studied this in depth for 15 years .
LikeLiked by 3 people
Lydia said,
Mark Driscoll might take issue with that – he has some kind of weird homo-orientation-fixation going on.
But Piper et al have such weird views about women (they seem to dislike women or femininity), I think they might find it acceptable that two grown men want to share a bed together.
Piper balks at muscular women, women who confidently assert themselves to lost male drivers, women who want to work as police officers, etc.
I’ve read that back in some ancient culture (can’t recall if this was Roman or Greek) that men having sex with men was considered a-OK, acceptable, and normal, because sex with women was viewed only as a means of having heirs (having sex with women was thought to be icky and a chore), while a man having sex with another man was for leisure only.
I can see John Piper falling into that weird ancient way of viewing men and women.
LikeLike
Daisy, when the church sought to go into the bedroom, it has been nothing but a disaster. I think comp is a ruse. It is lipstick on the patriarchy pig. There is nothing complimentary about comp doctrine. It was a ruse from the start. It was conceived in fear. A way to try and beat back the culture they disagreed with: uppity educated women that did not know their place. They positioned them all as bra burners while they were busy asking millionaire single woman Nancy Leigh DeMoss for money. And widows in the churches. Women’s money was perfectly fine to take.
It ran its course and is on life support. Over half of Americans are not married. It did not prevent divorce and some stats show evangelicals divorce more than atheists!
Why don’t we focus on valuing individuals? I recommend Dorothy Sayers, “Are Women Human” to Irene. Dorothy was no bra burning feminist but she sure asks good questions for a gal in the 1930’s
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark said,
Absolutely.
Part of my brain-washing in complementarianism under my complementarian mother and the comp churches we went to consisted of telling me that it is un-godly and un-ladylike for girls or women to feel anger and/or to express it.
(The message I got constantly from complementarians was that Jesus wants girls and women to be sweet, quiet, overly- compliant doormats who smile sweetly, even when they’re being mistreated.)
So, anyway, all that anger I had was bottled up for years and years.
Now that I’ve been realizing what a mistake that was, I’ve been having to deal with a lot of buried anger (against former co-workers, some family members etc) that goes back years.
Some of the books I have on codependency warn you, the reader, that once you start having your eyes opened to how unnecessary all those boundary violations were that you endured over the years, that you will find you are sitting on a mountain of repressed anger – that is so very true.
Average, every day Christians and Churches are really bad about telling Christians (especially women) it’s wrong, sinful, or bad to have anger or to express it.
I was also taught by my father (even now in adulthood) that expressing or having other negative feelings (sadness, fear, etc) is shameful. Though I’m not sure how much of my father’s view comes from any religious reasons.
My mom, however, definitely associated girls and women being doormats with Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia said,
I know I’m a broken record, but I find this story so funny. I’ve told this before at TWW.
I read an interview with a marriage counselor (I can’t remember if the guy was a Christian or not).
The marriage counselor said his atheist clients were more competent / cooperative than his Christian ones, because the atheists would actually do the ‘marital homework’ assignments he gave them, but the Christian clients often refused or forgot. He would ask them why.
The Christian couples would reply they just expected, by holding hands and praying together at home, that God would magically heal their marriages.
I can just imagine that counselor wanting to go pound his head against a wall every time I think of that interview.
And oh yeah, believe you me, I am very aware that over half of the American population is single now – the earliest research I remember seeing about that is dated 2014. But most of the Protestant / Baptist church has yet to notice.
The ones who do notice that our society is over 50% single? Instead of shifting their attitude and effort to start ministering to the needs of singles while they are single, churches and Christian talking heads like Al Mohler have decided to shame and blame singles for being single.
This information about the USA being over half single should put to bed the old (it’s not in the Bible) chest nut that God supposedly wants and wills most people in American to marry, because, look-ie, over 90% of the adults in America are married!
– well, that’s not true anymore.
Something like 51% (one figure I’ve seen) of adults over 18 in the USA are now SINGLE, and a nice size of that 51% are never-married.
I wonder when I can start hearing marriage-obsessed preachers now start saying, “It’s rare that God gifts anyone with marriage! Marriage is such a rare calling and gift! Singleness is clearly God’s will and desire for most adults, since over half our culture is now single…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irene, I think Daisy pretty much nailed it for me. I grew up in a comp. house. I saw my mom verbally abused when she didn’t do things exactly to my dad’s specifications. She tried to argue in a comp. way – always trying to get him to change and not setting boundaries, like, well if you want this to be done right, you do it yourself.
My pastors taught that this sort of thing was the model, but I saw how upset my mom was when my dad nitpicked everything she did. He, on the other hand, controlled the finances, and the house was in complete disrepair. They had money to fix it, but he spent that on neat little gadgets that he hoarded. It was never okay for her to bring that stuff up. He would “get around to it” and that was all the reassurance she would get. Now, if I take your logic. My mom CHOSE to be complementarian, and so the church had no right to get in the middle of their marriage.
I guess, in a way, I was vaccinated against it, but in a way not. I blamed my mom for accepting such horrible treatment from my father and not being strong enough to stand up to him. I suspect now that she knew what would happen if the had gone to the church for help.
So, what responsibility did the church have towards my mother and towards me?
I suspect that two people can choose a complementarian marriage and not sin, provided it’s a free choice, but isn’t it therefore egalitarian? The wife says, I WANT my husband to make the decisions. That could be a fair division of responsibility, but I don’t think women necessarily choose it. More likely, they are convinced it’s God’s design for marriage, and that is the beginning. When things start to sour, they are again convinced that marriage is for holiness not happiness (this is a comp. teaching), and that God is bringing suffering upon them to work through some sort of sin issue. They double down on being boundaryless and put on a happy face because God wants them to have joy.
At this point, I think this is an essential matter for judgment. Comp. teaching has now put the woman in a place where she has a twisted and perverted view of God. Instead of God wanting wives and husbands to resolve differences, she thinks God wants to bring pain and suffering into her life as a result of some sin SHE needs to repent of.
My former church destroyed a marriages with that teaching. Husband and wife came to the church looking for help with conflict, and the “solution” was for the church to tell the wife she was sinning by not submitting. That made matters worse, not better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Daisy, Mark, and Lydia, for the valuable insights about Complementarian marriages. Now that I have had a chance to reflect on it more, it is a nightmare for the wife and for the kids raised in it.
I saw this at my ex-church. I saw my ex-pastor order his college age daughter at his home to get something for him and she did it with eyes downcast, quickly, absolute obedience. There wasn’t any easy-going interchange, “Oh [name of daughter], could you please get me [whatever he needed].” It was an order. He expected obedience and he got it.
There was no respect shown for her.
I think like what Daisy has pointed out, this sets up daughters to be abused by men and frankly by other women too (in the workplace, at church, in life).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irene, you said,
“Daisy, no way do you get to decide that someone else is doing marriage in a nonbiblical way just because they are complementarians.In fact, some who have studied marriage and divorce in the Bible believe it teaches patriarchy–yet they would not endorse any form of abuse or neglect. Jesus taught us to work toward and pray for unity and love. Judging on matters that are nonessential is division.”
+++++++++++++++++++
they would not, as you say, endorse any form of abuse or neglect — because they do not recognize what is abusive. having a blind spot to abusiveness is not ‘a nonessential’.
LikeLike
“In fact, some who have studied marriage and divorce in the Bible believe it teaches patriarchy–yet they would not endorse any form of abuse or neglect. ” – Irene
The ones who support Patriarchy/Comp didn’t really “study” the Bible. They just cherry picked their verses to support their position and ignored all of the Scriptures that contradicted them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia00, in summary my position is just that there are all kinds of people who interpret the Bible differently (even with much studying), and there is a place for all of us!
I hate to admit it but I was a homeschooling mom. The reason I still hate to admit it (and always did) is because it was a community that was sure their way was THE Christian way to live.(If you doubt this just look at the many websites from quivering daughters to homeschoolers anonymous that tell horror stories.) I actually remember being so embarrassed as I listened to leaders in a group we were attending say that the ONLY God-ordained way to educate children was by homeschooling. Others were a little more liberal and allowed for private schooling. I had to de-brief my own children on way home, and I felt badly because the general attitude hurt some families who ended up using public school. It was unkind to treat them that way because the Bible does not say, “You must homeschool.”
I feel the same way about this issue. I have done a fair amount of studying about it and been to all types of groups. I hate it when those in the complementarian camp tell me their marriages are better because they obey their husbands more closely. I would never tell someone that my situation is better because I don’t follow complementarism. In fact, it isn’t! Some in that camp have more loving relationships with their husbands than I do.
So my stand in regards to complementarian doctrine is along the lines of the famous quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Sally Michael has my vote to write what she believes in.
LikeLike
Irene, I realize that you are trying to respond to a lot of different people at once. But I’d like to offer a few more thoughts for your consideration.
You’re wrong. Plenty of “christian” patrio-centrists have no problem winking at abuse towards children or women, or even endorsing for it. There’s Voddie “vipers in diapers” Baucham, for instance, who has advocated the beating of kids who are too shy to say hello their parents’ friends. Then there’s Doug Wilson (whom I like to call “Uncle Backwards” — just for the sake of consistency 😉 ). He okayed the marriage of a convicted pedophile to a young woman, and in court he sat on the side of a man who groomed and raped a teenager. That’s endorsing abuse.
This statement raises two questions in my mind. 1) By what standard do you determine that wives in these complementarian marriages have “more loving” relationships with their husbands than you do? How do you measure that? 2) If their marriages are so much more “loving”, then why did you and your husband give up on gender comp?
Mine, too. But (a) we also have the right to critique it, and (b) she and her co-author Steward also have the responsibility to present their views properly. We’re talking about teaching children, after all. They need learn how to think, not simply what to think.
The preface indicates to me that these authors aren’t interested in doing that. By associating egalitarian and feminist viewpoints with “the Devil’s lies”, they’ve already poisoned the well against any non-comp argument. I don’t know yet whether this attitude continues throughout the book (Kathi has just started this series of posts), but this opening does not inspire much confidence in me.
Even when being taught about God, kids need education. From what I see in the preface, this book offers merely indoctrination. Julie Anne can tell you from her own experience how disastrous that can be to faith of children as they grow up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Holy cow, you guys! This discussion has been great! And, this is only the introduction. I may be setting up a Go Fund Me for wine a dark chocolate in order to get through this book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Recently, I’ve started re-reading the story of Esther for my daily devotions. When Queen Vashti refuses to appear before King Xerxes, the reaction of his nobles is priceless. Their assessment of how other women (in particular, their wives) will respond is pure, unwarranted hyperbole. It reeks of a sense of entitlement, and a kind of panic over the thought of losing it.
It reminded me of the start of Exodus, and the attitude of the Pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites: “We must deal shrewdly with them, or else…”
So yes, very possibly, the same kind of fear was in the hearts of those who dreamed up the Danvers Statement.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Serving Kids in Japan, you are right! The guys you name are disgusting in the abuse they promote. 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. Elisabeth Elliot is one woman who believed in that view and claimed to have a good marriage–I have to go by their claims.
I have changed my beliefs somewhat because of further study, but it has not changed what was never a good marriage. It seems that no camp comes with the guarantee that those who subscribe to its theory will live happily ever after.
LikeLike
Irene, it is possible that Elizabeth Elliot got her camps mixed up. Many conservatives think they’re Comp/Pat but are probably closer to Egal in practise.
Kathi, I’ll support your cause 😊
LikeLiked by 2 people
Irene brought up the idea that complementarianism should be a non-essential belief that doesn’t cause division. I’ve seen statements where the comps have said that the gospel cannot even be understood apart from it. They cast doubt that people can even be saved who do not believe in it! They are the ones insisting it’s essential and causing division.
I am currently watching a series put on by Biola U about the gender debate and I recommend it highly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTzThBTUXq0&list=PLYtrZmQ7NN0CRA-gWcqZOvB5nmUuJ6FNe
Every marriage relationship is unique and has to be worked out between the two people involved. There just aren’t any formulas that guarantee success. Marriage counseling can be so helpful with a skillful counselor with a good track record.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Lydia00, in summary my position is just that there are all kinds of people who interpret the Bible differently (even with much studying), and there is a place for all of us!'”
The same 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?
I just dont subscribe to a black/ white Christianity or a pink/blue one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Serving Kids in Japan, you are right! The guys you name are disgusting in the abuse they promote. 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. Elisabeth Elliot is one woman who believed in that view and claimed to have a good marriage–I have to go by their claims.”
You have to go by their claims in what way? You lost me. I have never heard of luck but my guess is other men must approve the divorce. It’s usually very good talk and sounds good but it never gets to that point or the woman is dead first.
My view is that Elisabeth Elliot is a total hypocrite. I think she is a huge disappointment. She capitalized on her dead husband’s last name and promoted very hard comp Doctrine while she, herself, taught and spoke before men often. She also chose not to take her second husband’s name. So I am a bit confused exactly what she was trying to teach women comp-wise because she certainly was not modeling it. There are women out there who make a living doing this who are technically not modeling what they are preaching. I can name a few and I have met some others. Which is just another good reason not to go by what they say…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irene, you may want to check out David Instone Brewer on divorce and remarriage. He is a scholar at Tyndale House who also wrote a book.
You are aware of God’s divorce?
It is good to check out scholars to learn about differences in interpretations but I find it scary when people rely on them or any pastor for decision making in their own lives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Serving kids,
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. I was flabbergasted that she was “spiritualizing” the demands of a Pagan king. But this is how so many approach scripture. They will say it is “scriptural” because Esther was obeying God.
There is a serious sickness out there and it is a good thing to push back on it. This idea of “anything goes” while we marginalize a group of people so accept it, it is silly. They are free to operate in America and recruit people to think that way but we are also free to blog about it. :o)
I feel the same about ESS that lessens our Lord. Our Lord values his daughters equally. The evil one despises them more because Messiah came through woman. It is very sad to see so many people help evil along thinking it is good and of God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“So my stand in regards to complementarian doctrine is along the lines of the famous quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Sally Michael has my vote to write what she believes in.”
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?. Who has the power to do that? Why are you implying that is what is happening here? Why would Sally needs your vote. She wants your money for her product. It is that simple.
Are you seriously trying to paint those who disagree with you are actually trying to censor literature?
I will encourage people not to confuse their children with Piper’s wrathful -caste- system -god -who -chose -some- for -damnation nor his gender roles silliness. IMO, Piper’s god is quite similar to Greek pagan gods.
How is that censoring? These are opinions and disagreements. Make your case instead of accusations of censoring.
People in this country have forgotten about debate and disagreement which is why we can’t solve any problems. Everything is about indoctrination and accusations.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My comment is written here with the understanding that I have not read any comments on this post other than lydia00’s above, so am unaware concerning the turn’s and twists of this conversation.
Used to listen to Piper faithfully, then decided by God’s Holy Spirit, that he was unhealthy for me spiritually, emotionally/mentally, and even physically as all three are dependent upon one another. That said, I was thinking the other day, “Why is what is portrayed as visible Christianity SO FOCUSED on genders and the ‘duties of each, male and female? What in the world is happening to Jesus’ teaching and where is the Gospel Message in all of this? Seriously, what are the wolves in sheep’s clothing doing to Jesus’ sheep?
Do not men make great nurses in the field of medicine? (I have had a few and they are absolutely wonderful; kind, helpful, informative, and can lift heavy bodies around!) Do not women make remarkable semi truck drivers? (I know quite a few; they too, are inspiring, hard workers, kind, and can lift heavy materials around like nobody’s business! And wearing a skirt in that case wouldn’t cut the mustard!)
I have to give a praise testimony quick here, I am now Piper free all because of reading and studying God’s Word for myself. Alleluia!!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
What’s the Greek word for “stage actor”, again?
LikeLike
Great to hear it, Katy!
LikeLike
Ha, yes. I do think the idea of ‘teaching’ something that is supposed to be innate is deeply stupid. And there is never enough teaching you could do that would make me love mopping floors!!!
Good luck to you, girl! I feel you.
Words don’t matter, actions do. Their actions tell the tale.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, there was a big to-do in my old denomination along these lines, and one of the facts used in the case was that the Bible had to be understood from a “patriarchal” perspective. Apparently no one batted an eye about that one, but that is thumbing the nose at the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. If there is patriarchy in scripture, it must be read FROM the Bible instead of being read INTO the Bible.
LikeLike
Ah, yes, I forgot. It’s not just fear that drives this movement by CBMW and its partners. It’s greed, too. Profits driven by the fear of others.
Thanks for the reminder, Lydia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank-you Serving! Appreciate that the encouragement! Agree with your last comment! Complementarianism is a money making pyramid scheme, using the doctrines of demons, as it’s deteriorating foundation for it’s religious indoctrination. 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.
How many of us have had some AA (Amazing and Awesome) teachers growing up, of BOTH genders during our schooling years. And growing up on the farm, had to watch my mother come along side my father in getting the work done……and she didn’t wear skirts and dresses feeding the pigs; that would have been a sight! Love my pigs, but they don’t consider the ‘religious’ manners of human beings!
It seems to me this whole issue of comp indoctrination and discrimination lies in the fact that the more self proclaimed dominant desire to be god in place of Christ. This is anti-Christ to me…..not trying to be a reviler here……just trying to reason.
And I have been a part of the Baptist c’hurch system where I have actually heard ‘religous men’ proclaim with their mouths (beliefs from their hearts) that women should still not have the right to vote in America, for the woman mostly vote ‘liberal’ and that is the reason our country is spiraling downward. No longer Baptist, Praise Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gross. Way to miss the point by a very wide margin! It’s a wonder these people can sleep at night.
LikeLike
Katy said,
This is so true. My elders should be pointing me to Christ instead of pointing me to themselves as his representatives. Husbands should be pointing their wives to Christ instead of pointing to themselves. In the OT we needed a human priest to represent us before God, and the complementarian/authoritarian theology wants us to give up our ability to have a direct relationship with God through his Spirit in our hearts and replace it with human representatives. Comp. teaches that the husband is the priest of his home. I don’t want that. I want my wife and children to develop their own priesthood and talk to God directly. When we have the real thing, why would we go back to the shadows?
That is why “submitting” should not be seen as submitting to a human authority, but submitting to Christ. In Piper’s example (the wife having to ask for permission from her husband to go to the bathroom), Piper’s approach was wrong. While it is about the husband’s sick view of authority, the question should really have been posed to the wife. Does JESUS tell you that you need permission from your husband to go to the bathroom? Then, why are you listening to your husband. GO! And husband, you will be under discipline until you repent of your domineering.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ligon Duncan wrote not too long ago about the importance of preaching complementarity on a regular basis. Because, yes, that’s what pastors should be preaching on regularly. He also talked about how not to expect the young generation to believe in complementarity and to win them gently toward it.
Again, I get the idea that this is something that the older folks are concerned that their legacy will not carry on through those younger than them.
LikeLike
“That said, I was thinking the other day, “Why is what is portrayed as visible Christianity SO FOCUSED on genders and the ‘duties of each, male and female? What in the world is happening to Jesus’ teaching and where is the Gospel Message in all of this? Seriously, what are the wolves in sheep’s clothing doing to Jesus’ sheep?” – Katy
So true, Katy.
Glad you read God’s Word and freed yourself from the toxic John Piper.
LikeLike
“Again, I get the idea that this is something that the older folks are concerned that their legacy will not carry on through those younger than them.”
This is such an excellent point. When such a position is your basic Christian identity as in you have invested your career, your identity and benefited financially and such from this sort of doctrinal interpretation it is impossible to even consider that other views have scholarly merit. Take guys like Piper. Since Danvers, this has been his life work. Not Jesus Christ. But Calvin and Comp. A lie is his legacy.
When Piper was pastor of Bethleham they would not even allow women to read scripture aloud in the worship service because that would be “women teaching men”. It was that bad. So no, I don’t trust anyone, male or female, who has been mentored by Piper or from that world to have any sort of sane view on this issue. I have just seen how they conflate Comp/pat with the Gospel.
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.
And this is the ONE issue the evangelicals think they can unify around. The Neo Cal resurgence has been a unity disaster and this is one issue most evangelical pastors from different tribes agree on.
LikeLike
Which is scary. And also why I am no longer Baptist.
LikeLike
So are the people here egalitarian snobs who wouldn’t associate with people from other backgrounds or who read their children this book?
LikeLike
“So are the people here egalitarian snobs who wouldn’t associate with people from other backgrounds or who read their children this book?”
My kids are now teens. They are now very familiar with all sides. They have also studied the Reformation and early church. Free Will or Determinism. I felt they really had to understand that what we choose to believe is very important to how we view others and God. And that we should question and seek truth. (In most churches asking uncomfortable questions in youth group is verboten) We have also studied both covenants of scripture. I don’t believe in indoctrination but education and also holding them accountable for their actions.
I have always encouraged them to see “individuals” not groups. If one pays attention, our entire culture is steeped in “groups” and people gaining their identity from a specific group. Evangelicals are just as bad as the secular culture on this score. A democratic form of government cannot long last when that is the focus.
Not sure if that falls into your snob category or not. I prefer to call myself a mutualist.
LikeLike
I think I cracked the code, I figured it out: The reason these guys are so obsessed with authority according to my best bud Brenda is SPIC.
Small penis inferiority complex.
LikeLike
Thanks to everyone, here and at The Wartburg Watch, who has taught me so much about Spiritual Abuse, heavy-Shepherding, Membership Covenants, authoritarianism, and other abuses in the Christian church, especially with the rise of NeoCalvinism, I was able to write a comprehensive review on YELP about my ex-church in Silicon Valley to warn others.
Members inside the church, who want to escape and realize there’s something terribly wrong with it, have thanked me for my YELP review.
Mine is the 1-star review, the only one as Headless Unicorn Guy (H.U.G.) has said was not written in fluent Christianese.
Please vote that my review was “Helpful”, so that others can find it on the internet.
Thank you!
https://www.yelp.com/biz/grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley-sunnyvale
LikeLike
“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 think the people here are much more accepting, loving, and kind of those who are different than most people in conservative, evangelical churches.
I wanted to go to a small church, be known, know others, hear the Word of God faithfully taught, grow as a Christian, and serve (in the church and the community).
I had been at a hip mega church, invited to by a friend, and I knew it was seriously off.
The small church ended up being much worse than I could have imagined, with problems as serious or worse than the mega church. At the small church there was authoritarianism, Comp doctrine, women and girls “obey and submit” nonsense, women not allowed to use their gifts. That NeoCal church taught “another Gospel”.
There were excommunications and shunnings of anyone who wanted to leave, anyone with critical thinking skills. A C.P.A., a doctor, and me. Countless families, couples, and even church staff members and elders — fled for saner churches.
The BEST thing I ever did was take every single NeoCalvinist book and toss them in the recycling bin. I only pray that anyone I gave a NeoCal book to doesn’t read it.
That is gathers dust on a shelf. That they’re too busy to be indoctrinated with it.
So no. I wouldn’t waste money on this woman’s books. I wouldn’t give them as gifts. I’m sure she is a nice lady. But that doesn’t make what she’s teaching any less harmful. She teaches oppression.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irene, I have no idea where you’re getting this from.
One married couple among my relatives subscribes to many of the ideas that are often criticized here: nouthetic counselling, Christian homeschooling, YEC… they might be gender comp as well, but I haven’t asked closely about it, or seen literature in their house regarding it. There is no way that I’m going to shun them simply because I disagree with them. They are family, and my love for them and their children won’t change.
However, if they (or any gender comp folks) tried to shove their doctrines down my throat or guilt trip me into following them, I might keep my distance, purely for my own emotional well-being. When they ask me whether I agree with their stances, I tell them point-blank that I don’t. If their kids ask me my views on such matters, I will share them, without slanging their parents or insisting that they agree with me. The people I love deserve the truth, and the little ones need the information to make their own educated decisions.
So, in my mind, there’s no question of shunning couples simply for using this book to teach their kids (though I will worry very much about those kids). But the leaders who push this nonsense and make bank off of it? I won’t touch them with so much as a cattle prod.
LikeLike
Velour said,
Yes, complementarianism is almost (or maybe entirely) identical to codependency – it discourages women and girls from being assertive and from having boundaries.
When that happens, it does not equip women/girls for dealing with conflict, or standing up for themselves.
In some cases, such a girl/woman may not even recognize for months or years that the treatment she is receiving is abusive.
And yes, all this stuff -that is, complementarianism teaching women to be sweet, loving, doormats, who should lack boundaries and be passive – also makes girls and women vulnerable to being exploited by OTHER WOMEN, not just by men.
You (if you’re a female raised to buy into complementarianism) will not only be at risk under complementarianism of dating and marrying abusive men, but you will find yourself being taken advantage of or verbally abused by women too – by female bosses, female co-workers, female family members.
I for one have been verbally abused by my big sister for years.
But because of my mother’s parenting – which was heavily codependent-promoting (under traditional gender roles teachings) – I did not even recognize that what my sister was doing was abuse. I was talking to some online friends of mine years ago who, after I described how my sister treated me, they used the word “abuse” to describe it. I still did not see it at that time – not until a year or two ago when I read up even more on the issue of verbal and emotional abuse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark said,
Your parent’s marriage sound very similar to mine in some ways. My dad was slightly verbally to emotionally abusive to my mother and to my siblings and myself. He was also very nit picky about things – he never gave praise, only criticism. He would criticize over the most trivial stuff – like if you cleaned up the kitchen but overlooked a single, tiny crumb of toast in the corner of the counter.
I’d have to say my dad though was good with finances and home repair, though. My dad did take good care of all the houses we ever lived in.
But being hyper critical, nit picky, and verbally abusive? Yep, he was all those things.
My dad would sometimes tease my mother until she cried – she’d start off begging him to please knock off the teasing, but he would keep on….
My father would sit there grinning the whole time, as though getting Mom upset was amusing. I found that vile and perverse. The older I got, and he did that to her, and she began crying, I would stand up to him and tell him to back off (which he always did when I called him on it).
My mother grew up in an alcoholic family, where her father, my grandfather, would abuse her. I think that is one reason she grew up being such a passive doormat – it was a coping skill she learned as a kid but did not ditch as an adult.
But she also tied in a lot of that passive, doormat behavior with being a Christian. She felt that Jesus was telling women in the Bible to be doormats and tolerate mistreatment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irene said,
So anyone and everyone who disagrees with you on a topic is a “snob”?
I don’t know if I go by the “egalitarian” label or not myself. Though I will say I disagree with complementarianism.
My parents are/were complementarians, and guess what? I still love them and “associate” with them (though my mother died a few years ago, so obviously I cannot be with her any longer) .
I never did create an “Complementarians Only” water fountain I made them drink out of.
I am right wing, life long Republican, not an atheist (I was a very devout Christian until about 2 or 3 years ago, not so devout now, have been questioning the faith).
My sister’s long time boyfriend was a left wing, life long Democrat and atheist. Guess what? I wasn’t a “snob” towards him, and I “associated” with him.
We got along fine. We just agreed to disagree on religion and politics.
It’s actually complementarians (in particular the “big names” such as Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, John Piper, Owen Strachan, etc.) who are snobs, narrow minded, who are very judgmental and hateful towards anyone who rejects their gender role views, and they constantly misrepresent the beliefs of egalitarians, ‘Jesus feminists,’ and mutualists. Egalitarians are generally a lot more patient and charitable towards comps, than vice versa.
LikeLiked by 1 person
elastigirl said,
That is a good point.
You have the complementarians who believe in the “permanence of marriage view” who dispute that women can divorce a man, even if there is on-going physical abuse.
In abusive marriages, 99% of complementarians will blame the abuse on the woman, will say she is not “being submissive enough” to her spouse, and so on. The husbands are rarely held accountable for their behavior by comps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One thing that frustrates me about the way some people read the Bible is that they seem to think that if the Bible describes a certain thing, it has put its seal of approval on it. No, the Bible is simply telling us what happened. It’s kind of like saying that the newspaper is supporting of murder and rape because you read about it there. No, it’s simply telling you what happened. Just because the Bible describes a situation of patriarchy, polygamy, male dominance, war, etc, in the old testament does not mean this is an ideal situation and the Bible supports it. One of the very interesting things about the Bible to me is that very rarely does it say right out what God thought about situations it describes. It just tells you what happened. It seems that some are taking this as God’s approval. But this forces one to disregard those passages that do tell what us God cares about. Maybe this is why Paul exhorted us to study diligently in order to be able to ‘rightly divide’ or ‘accurately handle’ the word of truth. It takes a lot of reading, comparing scripture with scripture. There’s no quick-list of verses that bypasses that work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Come on, Irene. Stop this overly dramatic nonsense.
This hyper focus on gender roles is damaging and unnecessary and generally unbiblical, at least in the way I’ve seen it taught. Engage with that, if you wish. Don’t throw around things no one has said.
LikeLike
Also, I think this focus on labels is silly. People should handle their marriages in the way that works for them and respects both people in them.
That’s not what the comp/patriarchy leaders are pushing. They are almost entirely self interested and self-seeking in what they do, imo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irene 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.
Even complementarian what’s- his- name (was it Moore? Or Mohler?) recognized that (his quote about it is on the Bayly blog).
It seems to me, after having read years of online testimonies by various Christian women who divorced complementarian Christian husbands, that the marriages that are abusive (emotionally and/or physically, and/or the husband is a serial cheater) are the ones were complementarianism was carried out more consistently:
-the husband bossed the wife around, as though she were his property, and he would cite the usual plucked- out- of -context verses to support his Lordship over the wife to do with her as he pleases.
As I said above, I’m afraid that many women who end up in complementarian marriages did so out of ignorance – they were raised from the time they were kids that comp is the only godly, right way to do a marriage. And they are never presented with contrary views that challenges comp.
Still other Christian women may be happy to turn over all decision making and responsibility to a husband (assuming this is a marriage where there is no abuse taking place), because they are lazy, and/or it’s much less stressful to live life when your husband is doing it all for you – paying the bills, keeping the car in working shape, etc., then doing any of that stuff yourself.
These sorts of Christian women may secretly enjoy the complementarian marital situation, because it absolves them of personal responsibility. They are willing to trade off their adult independence for security. I’m not sure that is something I can applaud.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irene said, “So are the people here egalitarian snobs who wouldn’t associate with people from other backgrounds or who read their children this book?”
What has been said exactly that led you to feel people commenting here are “snobs,” or that they would not associate with others, Irene?
Believing the way I do is not a prerequisite to my friendship. But I have compassion for these women because I’m old enough to have seen how it all works out, how it falls short and is not what it’s cracked up to be, how the claims are a hollow shell of deception. And I’ve come to the point in my study that I’ve realized the Bible does not teach this view. It makes me sad to see women beginning down that road because I know where the road leads and I know the difficulties they’ll face and those difficulties are so unnecessary. We all face plenty of difficulties in life that we can’t avoid, without taking on unnecessary ones.
My criticism is aimed at those who are pushing this teaching. They are the “Judaizers” of the modern church, trying to bring believers under a form of bondage that God does not require.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Irene said,
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).
LikeLiked by 1 person
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)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia said,
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)
LikeLike
Lydia said,
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Serving Kids said,
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“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)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katy said,
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lea said,
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.
LikeLike
Lydia said,
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.
LikeLike
“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?)
LikeLike
@Lea:
And all the wife-beaters chorus “AAAAAAAAMEN!”
LikeLike
@ServingKidsInJapan:
i.e. “WHAT’S YOURS IS MINE AND WHAT’S MINE IS MINE.”
LikeLike
If i judge a book by its cover, i see that God’s good design only applies to people with light skin.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is written by a complementarian, Byrd, who disagrees with other complementarians concerning ESS and its application to gender roels:
Source-
_What Denny Burk Could Do_
(Burk is now the Head Phoo-Ba at CBMW)
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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.
LikeLike
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. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This just seem so so illogical to me. I can’t get past it.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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’?
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.”
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shy1–Irene was not the commenter re: Rachel Held Evans–that was KAS.
LikeLike
Kas said,
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:
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lydia said,
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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,
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katy said,
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daisy,
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oops, sorry, I did mistake Kas for Irene. My apologies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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!
LikeLike
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)?
LikeLiked by 1 person