Fred Butler, #MeToo and the Worldly Culture

***

 

Who is Fred Butler?

I saw this tweet the other day. Long-time blog readers will recognize the name, Fred Butler, an employee of Grace to You, the radio ministry of Pastor John MacArthur. Butler’s tweet references another tweet from the @9Marks Twitter account which quotes from an article recently posted on their site. The article is about the church’s response to the #MeToo movement.

***

***

The Problems

I have a number of problems with Fred’s tweet.

Firstly, in general, I believe the “worldly culture” has done a better job of addressing the issue of sexual abuse than the Church. Having attended many churches over the years, I don’t recall any that dealt specifically with the topic of sexual abuse in an ongoing fashion. I don’t recall hearing about churches that have a ministry focused on this topic since blogging, either.

In full confession, I have difficulty with 9Marks because of hyper-authoritarian teachings which can lead to spiritual abuse, but I wanted to see what Fred Butler was reading when he tweeted his criticism of the article, What the Church Can and Should Bring to the #MeToo Movement. What problem did Fred find?

The article was written by a woman, so there’s that. Did Butler have difficulty because the author is “teaching” a man as he reads it? I’m not sure, but whatever it is, at the time of this screenshot, 28 people “liked” and 4 people retweeted Fred’s tweet.

Here is the author’s bio:

Whitney Woollard is a writer, speaker, and women’s Bible teacher in Portland, Oregon, where she and her husband Neal attend Hinson Baptist Church. She holds her M.A. in biblical and theological studies from Western Seminary and loves sharing her passion for the Bible and good theology with others.

Back to the Butler’s tweet – the world may hate God, but there are a lot of people in the world who hate abuse as well. God also hates abuse (Ezekiel 34). So, because many in the world hate abuse, we must dismiss #MeToo because it’s now a cultural thing? I can’t buy that logic.

So, what did Ms. Woollard say in her article that Fred Butler would find difficult to stomach? I’ll share some quotes which give the overall gist of the article, which by the way, I found quite good.

Like any movement, #MeToo is imperfect, but that shouldn’t prevent us from appreciating it as an expression of God’s common grace. He restrains evil and pours out graciousness on all people, enabling even those outside of Christ to do good, carry out justice, and promote human flourishing. It’s not salvific, but it is good.  

I agree with this overall thought. Evil is evil, and it is not only Christians who can identify it. I believe that Christians should be leading the way on shining the light on evil, but sadly, this has not happened; and thus, we have the #MeToo movement. This should be a wake-up call for the Church.

Ms. Woollard discusses the following topics:

  1. #MeToo is dragging wickedness into the light.
  2. #MeToo is forcing a conversation everyone would rather not have.
  3. #MeToo is teaching women that abuse and harassment is real and wrong.

***

Once again, I found myself agreeing with Ms. Woollard. I appreciate how Ms. Woollard shared a recent personal experience she had. Women are regularly gawked at sexually, and I do not think men understand how pervasive this is for women. Many women cannot walk anywhere in public without fear of receiving some sort of sexual comment or catcall.

Don’t believe me? Yesterday I left my house for one hour and encountered a man in a semi-isolated spot who told me “if women don’t watch out, white men are going to start fighting back against #MeToo” and we should “fear the force with which their wave would hit us.” Then I was cornered at a crosswalk by a man who yelled sexual obscenities at me, saying, “I’m sorry but I have to because, God, you’re so (bleeping) hot.” (I was wearing a baggy sweatshirt and loose jeans.) I felt uncomfortable and unsafe, yet unsure of how to respond without calling more attention to myself. I grew up thinking you just smiled and laughed that stuff off. But now I rejoice in a new era where that speech and behavior are unacceptable and where women are taught to stop inappropriate comments or “playful” touches and say, “Stop right now. This is making me uncomfortable.” This is common grace at work.

See?  One hour. She got all of that in one hour! Ugh!!

***

 

Healthy Churches

Further, in the article, Ms. Woollard describes what happens in healthy churches. Again, I have yet to see this for myself, but it is my heart’s desire to see this take place:

THE CHURCH HAS ANSWERS THE CULTURE NEEDS

They need hope, healing, and restoration. In other words, they need the church.

Assuming we’re talking about a healthy church with good structures and policies in place, what does the church have to bring to #MeToo

  1. The church has the gospel.
  2. The church has a biblical bias.
  3. The church has member care.
  4. The church has corrective and formative discipline.
  5. The church has a theology of imago Dei.

 

***

Sadly, here’s a tweet I sent out nearly 3 weeks ago before the article was posted. If Twitter had an edit feature, I probably would have added the words “in general.”

***

Rachael Denhollander and Unhealthy Churches

Back to Fred Butler – he is wrong. The world is exposing sexual abuse and harassment. It’s here and it is now in all places/business/industries. The world is ahead of the Church in drawing attention to the problem and forcing a response. The Church now has a responsibility to deal with it, not play theological word games about collecting “action points” from the world. This is not about action points, this is about the hearts of women who need healing, and most likely, their souls do as well if they were harmed by someone in the Church.

The mishandling of sex abuse cases in the Church is not only causing survivors emotional harm, but I strongly suspect it has led to many abandoning their faith. That’s why I would rather survivors seek secular mental health help from trained and licensed professionals who understand the dynamics of sexual abuse. I’m not alone in this thought. Read the words from Rachael Denhollander, the brave woman who took down Dr. Larry Nasser, the pedophile who sexually assaulted hundreds of young girls while “treating” their injuries:


When asked, “How can people trust the church and Christianity?” in the wake of sexual abuse, Denhollander simply said, “Don’t.” ~Rachael Denhollander


***

In case you hadn’t heard, Rachael Denhollander was selected as one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People in the year 2018. She is a conservative Christian. Big names in Christendom talked about Rachael, even wrote blog posts about her and her victim’s impact statement. Because along with sharing how the abuse affected her, she offered her evil perpetrator forgiveness and presented the Gospel to him. But even Rachael cannot recommend that sexual abuse survivors get help from the Church.

Denhollander said that while she is a “very conservative evangelical,” she believes the Church has a long way to go when it comes to dealing with victims of sexual abuse.

“That’s a hard thing to say, because I am a very conservative evangelical, but that is the truth,” she said. “There are very, very few who have ever found true help in the Church.”

Fred Butler and his “liking” buddies need to read this article from Dr. Diane Langberg before spouting off on Twitter about the #MeToo subject. #MeToo is not just a “worldly cultural” issue, it’s an issue prevalent in evangelical churches.

***

***

I will close with part of Dr. Langberg’s letter to the Church:

God calls us to the truth and light of transparency. Transparency protects both alleged victims and alleged predators from the horrific burden of lies. A transparent process protects truth for all. When those in power attempt to dissemble in order to protect an institution they are no longer accomplishing damage control. They are causing damage – damage to God’s precious sheep and damage to the name of our God –this, in the name of protecting the house of the Lord. That is what the Israelites said in Jeremiah – “the Temple of the Lord” – all the while throwing their children, the vulnerable ones, into the fire of Moloch.

 

***


Fred Butler, #MeToo, Rachael Denhollander, Sex Abuse, Worldly Culture

197 comments on “Fred Butler, #MeToo and the Worldly Culture

  1. He is a tough fighter, skilled shooter, phenomenal hunter and he gets emotional over bad things happening to children and over sick seniors.

    Your cousin sounds like a wonderful person.

    You know who doesn’t get emotional over bad things happening to children? Sociopaths. That is nothing to be proud of.

    Like

  2. Thanks for your reply KAS. Appreciate your feedback. My worldview believes that women are not “more” emotional than men, but rather, “emotionalism” depends upon the make-up of the individual, regardless of gender. I don’t buy into the theory that one gender has the patent on “greater or lesser emotions.” Nope, just doesn’t cut the mustard here.

    And your point regarding “righteous anger.” YEP, I truly understand that version of anger, studying the Scriptures meself to show “thyself approved.” Had to even memorize Psalm 4 as a defense against the wicked/evil/unrighteous anger from c’hurched men in my area……to protect andcalm my mind and soul while on the receiving end of “men’s anger.” Believe me, so called “christian men” have some of the most degrading and disgusting anger that I have experienced in my adult life…….so please, let us not even go there, for these evil men would boast, “but, but, but…..it’s my “righteous anger” that I am beating you up with.” Oh, those male emotional tongues can deliver a beating………….and then turn around and make “pseudo religious excuses” for their behavior……and it doesn’t even affect their conscience for they are “entitled.” Unfortunately for them, these emotional men consider the “woman” to be the weaker sex, so they fell entitled pouring out their anger onto me, and barking out this comment before they leave, “Now you tell your husband what I said.” It’s the all too popular “male red faced syndrome” that is alive and well in my neck of the woods……I experience this often.

    And true to life, KAS, I receive phone calls as well as meeting with women in person, to minister (at times we minister each other for I need comfort and healing as well) to share, pray, and assist with healing due to the fact there are many a christian man who is far more “emotional” than his wife. “Yelling in anger” has been turned into a “fruit” in the false christian church with the “righteous anger” quip commonly used against women, with the “women are more emotional then men philosophy”…..so thus men can verbally and emotionally abuse any Christian woman they want because all women are to be submissive unto all men, especially with regards to the leadership, leadership, leadership mentality so blatantly enforced in the Nicolaitan religious system, and with the “woman are the weaker vessel in all areas of life”……thus women are nothing and men are everything……..the gender bender false gospel is a product of all of this nonsense.

    So KAS, my religious worldview says, “The concept of emotionalism depends upon the make-up of the individual regardless of gender.” My belief in this area of my faith cannot be changed due to my worldview and life experiences, but mostly with regards to reading/studying/meditating upon the Scriptures for eternal validation. Jesus’ words and actions are my “go to source” concerning such matters.

    It would love it if you could hunker down in your kickin’ work boots and stand by my side when the “angry man syndrome” graces my doorstep, or calls via the phone to “express himself,” or takes out his anger on me while working in the field…..yes, angry men have yelled and yelled and yelled at me in the field while working, more often than I care to admit (one angry man lives closer to home). It may prove educational to your mind/soul in witnessing the wicked and evil pouring out of yet another christian man……and if our pride, yours and mine, were left outside of the gate, and we approached these situations in honestly and in truth, I truly believe that your “emotional philosophy” may indeed, be altered a bit. At least I would hope so.

    But then again……pride is the key issue of the heart and mind here. And at the end of the day, it is so important to be a Berean, both genders, to test the Scriptures daily as to exactly what is true, and what is not…..philosophies of man aren’t always the truth, for darkness doesn’t always hide at night…..in my daily life on the farm…..there is much darkness lurking around by day as well. Ephesians 6:10-18……committed to memory as well, because of the “red faced angry man syndrome.”

    Blessings to you KAS. May your eyes see and your ears hear the truth of God’s Word.

    Katy Girl!

    Like

  3. Christianity Hurts,

    THANK-YOU for ministering to me, each and every time you post. I am so grateful that you are here to put things into logical and reasonable perspective from your worldview. I literally HATE what happened to you with a righteous anger and am tenderly praying for your soul……not because I believe that I am more spiritually evolved and a Christian elitist, rather, because I truly respect and admire you as a person. You are created in His image as we all are.

    You are a courageous, brave, and good woman. And I value you here. Praise God, that Julie Anne developed a forum where we can be ministered to and encouraged in our every day lives.

    Blessings to you CH.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Thank you, Katy. I am sure you are more spiritual than me. I only feel spiritual when walking in the woods and I don’t get to do that as much as right now.

    Much Love 😉

    Like

  5. Dear Christianity hurts,

    Much love back to you too. 🙂 Just wanted to reassure you that I am not more spiritual than you, as I am not a 501c. church member any longer and will never have my name on an institutional church roster the rest of my days here on earth. Frankly, can’t find any evidence of the early ecclesia/congregations keeping a membership list accompanied with a score care of how much money folks gave for offerings to our LORD. The Scriptures just aren’t there to prove such evidence…..Jesus sure knew what He was/is doing in building up the Body of Christ.

    You mentioned you feel more spiritual when walking in the woods……cannot think of a better place to worship Jesus, talk to Him, or simply just rest in Him all the while enjoying His creation. Best place to clear your mind and arrange your thoughts in order……and to actually be happy and rejoice! Good for you! I rejoice with you in that!
    And a most peaceful place to be yourself and ENJOY yourself.

    May be surprised to know that I “do church” at the local state park, which is a dammed up river turned into one huge slough; the geese, the ducks and the pelicans love it there…..and white tailed deer, as well as the squirrels. Can read/meditate upon the Scriptures in peace and sing aloud me hymns and memorized psalms with my awful singing voice…..and the birds and squirrels don’t even give me the proverbial eye ball rolls or shake their heads “no, no, no” over my rotten voice. I am accepted and loved out in the wild…….sure wish Baptist churches were as loving and as accepting! And there is an old Indian Mission there, where missionaries long ago, ministered to the local Native Americans, even translating our Holy Scriptures into their native language…….it is a special place for me to worship and fellowship with Him.

    I’m just so thankful that you are free to witness, and minister to all of us here…..as well as educating us. Please keep speaking. We need to hear your truths in opening the eyes to our own hearts as I truly believe there is a genuine fellowship of the saints here…..you included CH, because you are making a difference.

    Enjoy your spring!

    Like

  6. Lea even if KAS ignored her point entirely.

    Well, could you in turn not ignore my request for those being crticial of me to explain where you get abuse out of the following, for the third time of asking:

    The kind of language the NT writers use to describe how a husband should do this is: loving your wife, where love means putting her interests first; not hating her, giving, nourishing, cherishing, living considerately with her (knowing her, her needs and aspirations and taking these into consideration), bestowing honour on her as the weaker sex

    The point I am really getting at is you have said a couple of things above along the lines or ‘KAS is one of those who’ … and I read it and think I believe the precise opposíte. It’s prejudice. Identity politics. It is the end of discernment. Because some men who claim a complementarian understanding of scripture turn out to be hypocritical bullies doesn’t mean they all do. And you can never derive abusive behaviour from a study of the bible itself.

    Any effective critique of say the Fred Butlers of this world has got to avoid this kind of prejudice.

    Like

  7. It’s prejudice. Identity politics

    I don’t judge you on anything but what you actually say, KAS.

    “women are more emotional” isn’t prejudice? It isn’t identity politics? Please.

    Like

  8. Lea – I phoned my sister for her opinion on something, and she actually was the one who said ‘women are more emotional’. I suppose she ought to know. It’s part of being created male and female. I don’t intend saying this as a put down of women. A lifetime’s observation shows this in general holds true.

    In a fallen world though, this can be a weakness, a vulnerability, especially in view of abusive men who use this to manipulate in a cold-hearted, unfeeling way. Some men use women appallingly.

    ‘Men play at love to get sex whilst women play at sex to get love’ may be a clichee, but I think there is a lot of truth in it. In this regard, I am very critical of men and their attitude to women.

    You can overdo anything, including male/female differences, but I think today the opposite is increasingly the problem. I’m thinking of feminists whose ideology has blinded them to how men think.

    Like

  9. Well, could you in turn not ignore my request for those being crticial of me to explain where you get abuse out of the following, for the third time of asking:…

    KAS, I responded to this request of yours a few days ago — it’s on the first page of this comment thread. Here’s a link in case you haven’t noticed it:

    https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2018/04/24/fred-butler-metoo-and-the-worldly-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-385046

    No, you don’t seem to be a hypocritical bully, and when you say that the vile and abusive behaviour of such men horrifies you, I take you at your word. However, you do more than simply “claim a complementarian understanding of scripture” — you seem to insist that it is a necessary understanding for all serious Christians to have. And (as I pointed out in the linked comment), the kind of household and worship system that you consider normative for all believers, is one in which domestic abuse and oppression of women can fester very easily.

    I imagine that when Christianity Hurts and others here read some of your words, they hear echoes of just the kind of teachings that once kept them enslaved. And the system of church and home that you propose is very like the environment that trapped them in misery. I think that’s why they look at you with suspicion, KAS. If I’m mistaken, I hope someone will correct me.

    I accept that the Bible doesn’t teach abuse, but the sort of framework for gender relations that you preach can make abuse easy to propagate, and very difficult to escape.

    Like

  10. Serving Kids: thanks for your reply, but I didn’t have you in mind.

    I fully understand the term complementarian raises hackles, which is why I try to define what I mean by it. We agree that scripture doesn’t lead to or justify abuse, and if I or anyone else has a ‘complementarian understanding of scripture’, this cannot mean such complementarian views are abusive in any way.

    It does get frustrating when people clearly do not actually read what you write, but make assumptions. That is what I am objecting to. I certainly wouldn’t lump all egalitarians together, there is a range of opinion. The same is true of complementarianism, although I dislike both words a lot. It’s also not true that both ‘sides’ have nothing in common, although you could sometimes be forgiven for thinking so.

    Complementarian men who only seem to concentrate on a wife’s submission (and they do exist) can create a system of abuse or control-freakery, but if you look at what the NT actually says to husbands, this in and of itself rules this out. No abuser has ever seriously read the bible.

    Egalitarianism can have its besetting sins too.

    Wives should concentrate on what the NT says to them, which isn’t much, and husbands on what it says to them – which is a lot!

    I think egalitarianism is a wrong answer to a real problem. The real answer is to read mark learn and obey the distinctions the NT makes, neither adding nor subtracting to them. It may be hard to live it out, but it’s not rocket science to understand.

    Like

  11. KAS, re: Total Depravity

    I agree with what you say. My concern is that when I listen to your arguments, you seem to be applying a different view of Total Depravity.

    Let me explain. You claim that the #metoo movement is evil and wrong simply because it came from the world. Yet you claim that Total Depravity doesn’t mean that every thought and every action of the world is as bad as it could be. That is a contradiction, and I would say that it questions your definition of Total Depravity.

    If the world is “broken” in Total Depravity, then we would expect that the #metoo movement is “broken”, which I do believe. I believe it’s going to be a pendulum swing in the opposite direction where men get victimized based on whether something is unwanted. That said, I think the movement is really a great challenge to the patriarchal rape culture we’re living in – the kind of rape culture where there is actually a “discussion” in our society about whether Paige Patterson can represent the SBC taking the positions he has taken.

    If the world is “uncontrollably evil” in Total Depravity, then we would expect that the #metoo movement is, at root, a child of this uncontrollable evil. That is essentially the argument you’re making, that we as Christians ought to question and ultimately condemn the #metoo movement simply because the world is its origin. I think you have yet to offer any concrete examples of how the movement is turning the world against God.

    Like

  12. ” this cannot mean such complementarian views are abusive in any way.”

    Obviously, a complementarian “MAN” would say this. Women do not get anything out of complementarian except slavery and drudgery. The man gets a trapped female slave.

    Yes, complementarian is degrading/demeaning and abusive to women and their little girls. I was raised in complementarian.

    Telling a woman she has to be submissive to a man is dangerous and extremely abusive. My wife beating pro-rape father did not think complementarian was abusive either and he hated women who did.

    “Egalitarianism can have its besetting sins too.”

    Egalitarian means equal. Small, misogynistic, sexually sadic men who are insecure with not only their personhoods but also their 14-year-old boy manhoods hate being equal with women. They have decided they deserve more than women.

    KAS, complementarian hurt me as a little girl living in sexual abuse. It contributed to my sexual abuse. A child felt like she had to be submissive to her rapist and kiss his @ss and make sure not to hurt his male feelings. All because complementarian teaches women and little girls that men’s feelings, fears, needs, and wants matter. Women’s feelings, fears, needs, and wants do not. We were put here to kiss male @ss.

    A little girl being raised in the Ariel Castro ideology that is complementarian knew men matter and deserved to have their btts kissed and women were created to be submissive to men and kiss their btts. I was nothing! I was put here for men. That is complementarian. A good man would feel guilt and shame over it. That is yet another reason I know complementarian men are not good men; they do not allow themselves to feel guilt or shame over anything. Even little girl rape.

    As someone who grew up in the misogynist, man worshiping, pervert, complementarian world I have complementarian men in the same category as incels, Ariel Castro, Keith Raniere, Phillip Garrido, ISIS, The Taliban. Selfish, misogynistic men who think the deserve trapped female sex slaves. All of these groups of men want to believe they deserve to have trapped submissive females under their thumbs. How embarrassing and gross of them all.

    In comp world women are not allowed to go to college, have a job, they have to be married against their will, they have to have sex against their will, be pregnant and give birth against their will, be subject to a man. This is the same life Ariel Castro’s victims had. That unattractive putrid selfish man made sure that is what he got out of women. It is the same thing complementarian men make sure they get out of women.

    You have proven you cant slow down and think or care about anything any woman here says. This is a place created for abuse victims. You really think we haven’t heard your insecure selfish misogynistic slop before? You think we are going to say, yes, I want to go back to that?

    Like

  13. CH, even within complementarianism there are multiple camps, from the pure patriarchal types to those who are essentially egalitarians with the “final say” clause. Even within an abusive church, what I heard was more of a pedestal-raising sort of complementarianism where wives follow their husband because they are so honored and cherished and desire to follow their husbands, rather than primarily out of duty and obligation.

    Where the true abuse came out was when some marriage was in trouble and the church picked sides and started imposing the more patriarchal sort of complementarianism.

    I think saying “I was raised in complementarianism” is somewhat akin to saying I was raised in an abusive Christian home. Whatever the theology is in its purest form, people will take that theology and apply it any way they want to. I think point blank, your family was abusive and dysfunctional and NOT Christian. They picked and chose what parts of theology they wanted to apply only to justify their sinful actions. True complementarianism (I was one, but am now egal.) places a lot on the Christ-likeness of husband and father, which your father was not interested in – the sacrifice aspects, that is, not the worship aspects.

    With any theology, there is a tradeoff – there is a benefit and there is a cost. However, in most abusive systems, the authorities want to take all the benefits and they want to reject all the costs. So, for example, in my authoritarian ex-church, the leadership wanted to be responsible for all church teaching, but they didn’t want to take the time and effort required to actually fulfill that responsibility, so they decided that the sermon was the only “valid” church teaching. With authoritarianism, that’s the tradeoff, generally. They want the power, the respect and the, may I say, worship, but they don’t want to expend the time and energy to be as involved in peoples’ lives as they have to in order to truly serve and display that authority, so then it’s simply a dictatorship.

    Like

  14. Bike Bubba,

    There’s a reason that Jesus NEVER told women to submit.

    Jesus gave us the best marriage advice when He taught us to treat others the way that we should be treated.

    Pull your Stong’s Concordance and KJV off the shelf and look at all the words of Christ in red—-Jesus NEVER taught Comp theology. NEVER. NOT ONCE.

    Plus Jesus directly attacked the idea of entitlement mentality when He said “I didn’t come to be served but to serve and to give My life as a ransom for many.”

    Then just in case we missed it the first time Jesus attacked their entitlement mentality again when He healed the woman in the synagogue. Read that passage closely, Jesus put her needs on the same level of value as the Pharisees who prided themselves on being sons of Abraham. Jesus elevated her to having the same rights and privileges as a daughter of Abraham. (Luke 13:10-17)

    in the NT—the Apostle Paul also directly attacked entitlement mentality. He had studied in the best schools where they liked to pray this prayer “Thank you God that you haven’t made me a Gentile, a slave or a woman.”

    That’s why the Apostle Paul ripped that entitlement mentality to shreds when he twice (not once) made the point that

    “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:28 (NLT)

    Obviously those social classes still existed in Roman society. Obviously the barriers and advantages/disadvantages still existed. But Paul was making the point that Christ had ripped apart the entitlement mentality, by putting all of us on the same equal level.

    Like

  15. Comp theology is deeply rooted in entitlement mentality. It says:

    “Because I’m born with different parts that gives me the right to override your decisions whenever I want.”

    Nope. Jesus gave us women the power of “no” in Matt 5:37 (NLT). Jesus warned women NOT to allow anyone to override our “no.”

    Jesus told women “Just say a simple, ‘Yes, I will,’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ Anything beyond this is from the evil one.”

    Let that sink in for a moment. Jesus is saying that allowing someone else to override our ability to make our own decisions—-that doesn’t come from God. That comes from the devil!!

    Like

  16. Avid Reader, I like a lot of what you say. I’m not sure the context of “yes” and “no” supports your argument. Jesus is talking about making vows and how the Pharisees were coming up with “crossed fingers” rules for making vows.

    Other than that, I don’t think we can discount the rest of scripture by focusing only on what Jesus was recorded as saying. I struggle greatly with passages, primarily Corinthians where Paul seems to be enforcing structure and roles on the church. My current conclusion is based on Jesus’s explanation of divorce. Whereas the people of the day saw the Law as a perfect list of “do’s and don’ts”, Jesus said that, in fact, the Law was designed to restrain the sin of people with a hard heart.

    So, I would propose that Paul’s exhortation of the Corinthian church is essentially a “law” written to restrain their hardness of heart, not a perfect reflection of God’s will for all believers everywhere. As such, it is not a message geared to a patriarchal and legalistic church (that’s what Galatians is about), but a message to a church that is so anti-legalistic that they won’t stand for anything. I believe it is possible that Paul’s message about family order is contradicting the pagan religion of the day, which was woman-centric, woman-led worship of a Greek goddess.

    I would make an analogy to a toddler who runs ahead of the parents into a dangerous street. The parents will make a “rule” that the child must hold a hand when crossing the street. The parents might even write down a list of house rules for the children that includes such things as making their bed every night and holding hands while crossing the street. Now, let’s say an adult is reading those house rules. Is the adult required to hold their parents hands while crossing the street? Is the adult required to make their bed every night? No, the adult (hopefully) understands that those instructions were given to deal with a specific situation, and not necessarily universally applicable.

    Like

  17. CH:You have proven you cant slow down and think or care about anything any woman here says. This is a place created for abuse victims. You really think we haven’t heard your insecure selfish misogynistic slop before?

    Man: Comp is great for women, because men will do xYZ.

    All the women: Men don’t do that because the only ones that go crazy headship on you are abusive. the church supports them. This is a problem

    Man: Comp is great for women, because men will do xyz. That ‘wasn’t comp’.

    All the women: This is a problem.

    Man: nope. That’s not comp, so there is no problem. QED.

    Endless frustrating loop.

    KAS says egalitarianism has sins. I disagree. Egalitarians can sin, as do all people. The simple concept of equality of people does not have besetting sins. It is inherently biblical. There is no male or female, we are all one. That is not sin.

    Like

  18. Lea,

    Great points.

    The whole idea of Egal theology is that we yield to truth. We don’t yield to status. We don’t yield to someone because of their place in society.

    There’s a lot of examples of this in the Bible—for example God had to tell Abraham to yield to Sarah because Sarah was right that it was time to get rid of the polygamous situation and let Hagar go free.

    Like

  19. Hi Mark,

    I understand where you’re coming from on this. You like to really think through things. That’s a good thing.

    Now there’s three main groups of thought on this topic:

    Group #1: They say that the Apostle Paul wanted women to sit down and shut up and that still applies to us today.

    Group #2: They think that the Apostle Paul put those limits on women but _________ (insert reason), those verses don’t apply to us today.

    Group #3: They believe the Apostle Paul NEVER put those limits on women in the first place. Paul was actually trying to shatter the glass ceiling for women but that got lost in translation from Greek to English.

    Guess which group of thought—-I’m in 🙂

    Keep in mind that I reached this conclusion after years and years and years of heavy duty research.

    It was a huge lightbulb moment for me to realize that Jesus was speaking to women too in Matt 5:37. Because the KJV translators kept inserting the word “men” whenever the Bible was referring to both women and men, now we often forget that freedom in Christ applies to women too.

    Plus, Jesus was speaking to a culure where any vow made by a woman could be easily overrode by men. So women weren’t allowed to have ownership of their “yes” and their “no.”

    It was a huge thing for Jesus to throw the old rules out the window and announce that women had power in their own lives to decide “yes” or “no.” Think about all the implications of that.

    That’s the one thing that Comp theology refuses to allow women to do. Ask any Comp guy this question—what happens when a wife is led by the Holy Spirit to go a different direction? What should she do?

    Comps always reply that the Holy Spirit only leads through the husband, but that’s actually putting a mediator between us and God. There’s a reason Bible repeatedly tells women (and men) to be directly led by the Holy Spirit. The Bible NEVER tells women to be led by anyone other than the Holy Spirit. Chew on that for a while.

    So as you can see, the issues are really complex. People are quick to deny the words of Christ in Matt 5:37 simply because it doesn’t fit what we’ve been taught for years in church. But if you really take the time to think about it—-we begin to understand there’s a reason that Jesus said, “If you abide in My words and My words abide in you, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

    Like

  20. Mark – I don’t know where I had said or even given the impression I think #metoo is evil. I fear it won’t do much good, time will tell. This is because we live in an increasingly godless society.

    It’s difficult to take Hollywood actresses seriously on this subject when they have been taking their clothes of in front of the cameras for decades. This is the objectification of women, yet if you try suggesting (as I have) that porn is of itself destructive and evil, you will be greeted with the reply ‘we don’t believe in censorship’. Both men and women have colluded in propagating this stuff, but then there is money to be made …

    People have always committted adultery, but it used to be regarded with disapproval despite this. With the decline of Christian influence in the West, I don’t really think you could say in general that is true today. The underlying attitude of wanting a free for all and self-control to be exercised at the same time has got to change.

    You don’t need to tell me that the church needs to get its act together on this as well!

    Like

  21. KAS, you said:

    Fred is right as far as it goes in that the genuine church cannot take a cue from the world around it, because that world is hostile to God and his revelation. It is hostile to the sex ethic of the bible, it doesn’t want it kept to a man and the women to whom he is married and committed. The whole world lies in the power of the evil one. I would include ‘churches’ that systematically cover up abuse that has gone in in their midst in this.

    What I see in the #metoo movement is world and culture that has rejected any kind of biblical morality, now complaining at the effect of what it has sown, at the consequences.

    Just to not put words in your mouth: the #metoo movement comes from a world that is:
    “hostile to God and his revelation” and “has rejected any kind of biblical morality”

    As such I do not think it is a stretch to say you are claiming that #metoo is bad. That is what Fred is saying. 9Marks seems to be saying that #metoo has a right thought but can’t bring about true redemption (which I would agree with), and Fred is saying, no, we can’t even say that #metoo has the right thought.

    You said: “It’s difficult to take Hollywood actresses seriously on this subject when they have been taking their clothes of in front of the cameras for decades.”

    This is pure-and-simple victim blaming. That’s like saying a victim was asking to be raped because she was wearing a skin-tight red dress. We can say that “taking their clothes off in front of cameras” is wrong and also say that being sexually assaulted is wrong, and we can even say that taking clothes off breeds objectification, but rape is, by definition, non-consensual. I think it’s very hard to take this argument seriously, because the ultimate conclusion is either, blame God for rape for making women so attractive, or that women must wear burqas. The problem is not modesty, it’s lust.

    Like

  22. “Ask any Comp guy this question—what happens when a wife is led by the Holy Spirit to go a different direction?”

    A comp would say that a wife would never be led by the Holy Spirit to go a different direction, just like a comp would say that a women would never be given the gift of being an elder or pastor.

    But, I have this same struggle with cessationism. My pastor says that people are still given the gift of prophesy, healing, etc., so what happens if a person, in the Holy Spirit heals me, then tells me God said I should sell all my possessions and move to sub-Saharan Africa.

    I think we have to believe that God is a god of order and not confusion, and that God is not going to screw around with us that way. That’s why some OT passages are sooooo confusing. For example, in some passage God appears to change his mind (e.g. Abraham and Isaac, Hezekiah) but then there is this prophet who is told not to eat in Israel, but then a lying prophet comes out and says, “God told you to eat dinner with me.” Of course, the prophet eats and dies.

    Like

  23. “Egalitarianism can have its besetting sins too.”

    I would say that there can be a tendency towards indecision. My wife and I have, as of late, run into many situations where one of us thought we had made a decision and the other of us thought no decision had been made. So, we can talk about things and assume one way or another that something is going to happen, but they don’t happen. Or one person acts and the other is annoyed because they thought no action was agreed upon.

    Like

  24. “Group #3: They believe the Apostle Paul NEVER put those limits on women in the first place. Paul was actually trying to shatter the glass ceiling for women but that got lost in translation from Greek to English.”

    I would LOVE to be in that group, but I just don’t see that in scripture.

    A great argument for #2 is meat sacrificed to idols. Both Jewish and Muslim ceremonial laws require their meat animals to be killed in a specific manner. Halal meats are (if I understand correctly) killed by slitting their throats facing Mecca and saying Allah’s name over them.

    So, Biblically speaking, we see two things:
    #1 DON’T EAT MEAT SACRIFICED TO IDOLS! (This is commanded multiple times)
    #2 There is nothing inherently evil about eating meat sacrificed to idols.

    So, if we didn’t have #2, Christians today would not be able to eat meat at a middle eastern restaurant, or buy meats from a Muslim butcher. Yet, I have yet to find any Christian who has this sort of issue.

    I think the whole discussion is there to say that this command (and it was a command) was based on the present circumstances of the churches – that is churches where eating meat sacrificed to idols was a BIG DEAL and could cause harm to believers who were still recovering from their pagan rituals.

    Just because we don’t have this level of detail of instruction for every last one of Paul’s commands doesn’t mean that Paul’s commands weren’t just that – meant as temporary crutches for churches in cultures with pagan rituals (such as female cult prostitution).

    There is a significant amount of instruction for Jews coming out of their ceremonial laws – some observe the day, some do not. Some are circumcised, some are not. So, there is a lot of leeway given Jews who might feel they had to observe the Sabbath or observe Kosher laws, while at the same time perhaps acknowledging that those laws are no longer in effect.

    Like

  25. KAS said,

    It’s difficult to take Hollywood actresses seriously on this subject when they have been taking their clothes of in front of the cameras for decades.

    When you say “this subject,” I take it you mean sexual harassment of women generally or of actresses in particular?

    First of all, it does not matter if an actress dresses scantily for a movie role or not – she still deserves to be treated with respect. Directors and her male co-stars do not have a right to sexually harass or abuse her.

    Secondly, Hollywood is largely a male-run enterprise. The men write most of the scripts, direct the pictures, etc, and the women, if they want employment have to put up with this sort of thing if they want work.

    Conservatives and Christians are no better. They look at Xrated sites, movies, and have joined adultery sites such as Ashely Madison.

    Pastors such as Mark Driscoll are obsessed about sex and make every third sermon revolve around the topic of “How to have a hot married sex life.”

    As a celibate, single woman, I tire of conservative Christianity’s obsession with sex.

    The Mark Driscoll type preachers also contribute to the sexualization and objectification of women and girls, as do Christian “Modesty” teachings, which tell men and women that women are sexual objections, so they say, women must dress a certain way to supposedly keep men from stumbling. They make men’s sexual failings into a woman’s responsibility and reduce a girl or woman to nothing but sexual body parts.

    Like

  26. Should be “sexual objects” in last post, not “objections”

    Also, per, KAS said,

    It’s difficult to take Hollywood actresses seriously on this subject when they have been taking their clothes of in front of the cameras for decades.

    Not that I condone prostitution, but, sometimes prostitutes – who get paid to have sex with men – are raped and abused by their clients, which is not moral or acceptable.

    Just because a woman works in the sex trade, whether in the dirty movie biz or as a street walked, does NOT give men a right to take sex from her by force or to hit her or murder her.

    Like

  27. KAS said,

    Fred is right as far as it goes in that the genuine church cannot take a cue from the world around it, because that world is hostile to God and his revelation. It is hostile to the sex ethic of the bible, it doesn’t want it kept to a man and the women to whom he is married and committed. The whole world lies in the power of the evil one. I would include ‘churches’ that systematically cover up abuse that has gone in in their midst in this.

    What I see in the #metoo movement is world and culture that has rejected any kind of biblical morality, now complaining at the effect of what it has sown, at the consequences.

    KAS, let it sink in that I am over 45 years of age and still a virgin. I was engaged but told my finace there would be no pre-marital nooky, and he stuck by that.

    And I’m telling you that your views about women, sex, and the ‘MeToo’ movement are wrong and sexist.

    I’m not some over-sexed harlot who bangs a different dude every other day who has a dog in this race… and you’re still wrong.

    Sometimes the world is in agreement with the Bible, or vice versa, by the way.

    Most Americans – even of the Non-Christian variety – are against mugging, stealing, bank robbing, scamming elderly, and child pr0n.

    I’m pretty sure the God of the Bible is also opposed to mugging, stealing, bank robbing, scamming the elderly, dog abuse, and child pr0n.

    The Bible is against sexism (it says that there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, for example, and God chose women to lead men, such as Deborah), but Christians these says (the complementarians) attempt to say that God endorses sexism, and they slap the “complementarianism” label on to this and try to back it up with cherry picked Bible verses.

    I agree with the aims of the ‘MeToo’ movement (those who use the tag are simply speaking out against the sexual harassment of girls and women, which is entirely compatible with the Bible), ….and…
    I’m not one of them thar nasty liberal, secular, feminists you treat with such suspicion and disdain.
    I’m a conservative, used to vote Republican until a few years ago (am no longer GOP, I also don’t agree with Democrats), and again, I’m a virgin over the age of 45.

    Like

  28. Kas said,

    People have always committted adultery, but it used to be regarded with disapproval despite this. With the decline of Christian influence in the West, I don’t really think you could say in general that is true today. The underlying attitude of wanting a free for all and self-control to be exercised at the same time has got to change.

    Conservative Christians also don’t take hetero sexual sex sins seriously…
    They are either defending sexual sins, ignoring them, or are complicit in them.

    Every other day I see news articles of married male Christian pastors who are “outed” for using prostitutes, using dirty web sites, or having affairs on their wives.

    Why are you so concerned with what Non-Christians are doing?

    Paul says you are not to do that. Here is what Paul said:
    Paul in 1 Cor 5:

    9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

    11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

    12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

    13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

    You’re supposed to be policing your “own” (other Christians), not so fixated on pointing to the sins of the Non-Christians.

    Like

  29. I take it that Mark was quoting KAS here(?)-

    “Egalitarianism can have its besetting sins too.”

    Like what?

    Only complementarianism, with its wrong-headed application and insistence on unilateral female- to- male submission, makes abuse of women much easier than it does under egalitarianism.

    Like

  30. I would say that there can be a tendency towards indecision

    That’s not a ‘sin’ mark!

    That’s just freedom. It’s not as easy as a man just making all the decisions, but it’s so much better.

    Like

  31. Daisy, to add onto that, it’s a hierarchy of submission where each higher tier is given essentially carte blanche to do whatever they want to the tier below and each lower tier is told to bend over, submit, obey, shut up, whatever.

    So, as an 8yo boy, I knew that I would get nowhere talking about how my father physically and emotionally abused me. As a 30+yo, I confirmed that to be the case when I mentioned a single instance of that abuse to a pastor and the response was to tell me that I “must have done something to deserve it”.

    Lea, true, but the indecision does lead to arguments about the results of the indecision.

    Like

  32. A couple of besetting sins of egalitarianism if people insist. Taken from observation of egalitarians over the years.

    The first is, ironically, a sense of entitlement. If some men are allowed to teach and have authority in a mixed group, then women must be as well. This is treated as a kind of right.

    Yet we have no enforceable rights against God, and ministry is a gift from God, and given by grace and not as due. We are all hopelessly in his debt. This is true for men as well. God has appointed in the church first apostles … etc. The sinfulness in this is that it betrays a heart attitude that won’t recognise it is God’s church, not ours. We don’t get to decide what the glass ceiling is or whether there should even be one.

    Secondly, it gradually dawned on me over the years that the objections to Paul in 1 Tim 2 were all too frequently along the lines of this ‘denies my personhood (whatever that means), makes me feel second-class, women have a right to personal fulfillment and the church mustn’t hold them back’ (as opposed to discussing the text).

    The objections are not that if you implement Paul’s restrictions today you are denying women the chance to bless others. This is conspicuous by its absence.

    A ministry is not for the benefit or fulfillment of the person who has it, it is for others. This is true of all spiritual gifts. My objection is to ‘servicing the self in the service of God’. (Willow Creek is chock full of this kind of thinking, and exports it round the world.) The focus is not on God but on man – or usually in this context, woman.

    Now I don’t deny that service in the church can be fulfilling and personally encouraging, but that is not its purpose. Jesus died on the cross to save us from sin, and bring us to God and give us a future hope, not to feel good about ourselves or have our best life now or build our self-esteem, or even have a complementarian marriage! The sinfulness in the kind of thinking I am talking about is that is subtly changes the focus away from loving God and your neighbour to the love of self. It is quite extraordinary how much some egalitarian women I have read are centered on themselves, it all revolves around them and their ministry.

    The dictum “status seekers keep out” applies to everyone who seeks a ministry or aspires to some kind of leadership in the church. Sadly, …

    Finally, as a disclaimer, I believe men and women can exercise and should exercise all the gifts and ministries of the Spirit on an equal basis except were scripture says otherwise. Every member ministry. I’m all for it. There is not much of a limitation in practice. I have massively benefitted from women with gifts in the church.

    So I am very far removed from the John MacArthur version of complementarianism, if we have to use this ghastly word. Unbiblical church structures – e.g. a one-man ministry at the ‘front’ – probably squash more gifts and ministry from both men and women than Paul’s restrictions.

    Like

  33. KAS,

    Seriously? The call of God on someone’s life is not entitlement. It’s called obedience. Let’s see. So you’re saying that Corrie Ten Boom felt entitled to preaching to men? (Bang head here in frustration)

    Nope. God called her to bring a message of hope to people who had deeply suffered in the war. It would have been much easier for her to just retire instead of traveling and ministering around the world. She obeyed the leading of the Holy Spirit and touched many lives.

    “For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!”
    1Cor 9:16 (NIV)

    Like

  34. KAS wrote

    “It is quite extraordinary how much some egalitarian women I have read are centered on themselves, it all revolves around them and their ministry.”

    Question—Are there men that do that too?

    Question—If you’re saying that women doing that must prove Egal is wrong then does the men doing that too prove that Comp theology is wrong?

    Like

  35. A ministry is not for the benefit or fulfillment of the person who has it

    As we see constantly in complementation spaces?

    Greed is a universal sin. Pride. These are not limited to egalitarians.

    If the only egalitarian women you are thinking of are the ones who desire a ministry, and you then judge them for wanting a ministry, then you are going to think this way. Most egalitarian women have no interest in being the ‘preacher’. I certainly don’t. But I still want to be treated as a human being, with god given freedom. And that is why I am egalitarian.

    I see no sins listed here that are not either universal or imagined.

    Like

  36. KAS,

    Wanting to obey the will of God for your life is called “obedience.” It’s called “faith.” Not entitlement. Sheesh. Talk about labeling good as evil and evil as good!

    Who do you think wants to silence the call of God on women’s lives? Not God.

    Like

  37. “With the decline of Christian influence in the West, ”

    KAS, children born and raised in conservative Christianity are getting raped up one side and down the other at church by church going, bible quoting, comp men and boys. Then, they are being mocked and bullied to get over it and not tell anyone it happen, especially the police. These conservative churches are protecting, pitying, and coddling the child rapist and treating the raped children like trash.

    C.J. Mahaney and his conservative comp church friends protected child rapist and saw to it that in their churches child rape was not a crime and was not prison worthy.
    Sovereign Grace Church
    http://time.com/4226444/child-sex-abuse-evangelical-church/

    Conservative comp Doug Wilsons protecting and advocated for two child sexual abusers. A pedophile who was sexually attracted to his newborn baby boy. Steve Sitler. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/09/04/pedophile-supported-by-doug-wilson-molests-a-baby-christians-there-is-no-excuse-this-must-stop/

    And this sicko. https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2015/09/08/the-jamin-c-wight-story-the-other-child-molester-in-doug-wilsons-closet/
    “The child abuse survivor’s pastor, Doug Wilson, sat on her abuser’s side of the courtroom during the trial.” No surprise there.

    Christianity does not seem to be preventing child rape, or protecting and helping women, children, raped women or raped children. So pretending the problem is the decline of Christianity is an obvious (((LIE))).

    Liked by 1 person

  38. KAS, “The first is, ironically, a sense of entitlement. If some men are allowed to teach and have authority in a mixed group, then women must be as well. This is treated as a kind of right.”

    I think you are putting the conclusion ahead of the argument here. You are presupposing that women do not have the gift to teach or have authority to then accuse them of a sense of entitlement when they feel they do.

    If you want to talk about a sense of entitlement, I have a relative who felt he had the gift of eldership. He was at a church in a non-elder leadership role and when there was an elder election, he was not nominated by the elders. So, he left that church and joined another church where they desperately needed elders, and became an elder there. Would you say that he had a “sense of entitlement” as a comp. person, and then it would seem that the sense of entitlement is not unique to egalitarians.

    If I were to argue against 1 Tim 2, I would say that 1 Tim 2 is taken as binding and 1 Tim 3 is taken as aspirational. Meaning that an elder wannabe who has been proven not “able to teach” or not “respectable” is still to be considered for office because “no one truly meets all the qualifications”.

    So, then why do we interpret 1 Tim 2 as being rooted in the fabric of the universe, and then the very next chapter talk about how Paul really could not have meant what he said because our leaders are human and fallible and can’t meet that standard. But, that is the presuppositional argumentation. We pick and choose what instruction we want to listen to because we’ve already closed our ears to the truth. What if it’s the other way around? What if 1 Tim 2 is a temporary fix “I (Paul) do not permit…” and 1 Tim 3 is binding (An overseer MUST)? What would our churches look like if only one in 1000-5000 men were qualified to be elder rather than 1:100 or even 1:20? That’s the way it was in the New Testament. At Pentecost, 12 apostles, 5000 converts. A few days later, 12 apostles, 10000 converts, and it’s probably 2-3x that number because they only considered “men” in their counting. 12:30000 elders to congregants and the church was growing. We have a 1:20 ratio because we deny the work of the Holy Spirit and instead, growing the church is about having enough leaders so that they can micromanage the lives of the congregants to can grow in holiness (act the part).

    Like

  39. KAS,

    The whole point of Egal theology is obedience to God. You can’t obey God if someone else is making your choices for you. That’s why we had to let go of Comp theology in order to obey God’s command, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

    Like

  40. Mark: If I were to argue against 1 Tim 2, I would say that 1 Tim 2 is taken as binding and 1 Tim 3 is taken as aspirational. Meaning that an elder wannabe who has been proven not “able to teach” or not “respectable” is still to be considered for office because “no one truly meets all the qualifications”.

    I think people are misunderstanding Timothy in general on this issue, but yes, there is a whole lot of picking and choosing going on on which qualifications are important.

    Mark: I think you are putting the conclusion ahead of the argument here. You are presupposing that women do not have the gift to teach or have authority to then accuse them of a sense of entitlement when they feel they do.

    What is actually happening is that men are feeling ‘entitled’ to these positions, and then accusing women of ‘entitlement’ when they ask about it. Neat little circle, that.

    Like

  41. Avid Reader, “The whole point of Egal theology is obedience to God. You can’t obey God if someone else is making your choices for you.”

    Yes, when I started considering “reality” as part of understanding scripture, I realized that two egal. women that were trying to change my comp. church were showing more and greater fruit than many of the men (seminary-trained pastors) who were opposing them. As I put more weight on how the theology works in practice, I saw that these man who were teaching comp. theology were also silent about all sorts of abuse, especially when it was the “authority” doing the abusing.

    Like

  42. KAS said:

    Secondly, it gradually dawned on me over the years that the objections to Paul in 1 Tim 2 were all too frequently along the lines of this ‘denies my personhood (whatever that means), makes me feel second-class, women have a right to personal fulfillment and the church mustn’t hold them back’ (as opposed to discussing the text).

    The objections are not that if you implement Paul’s restrictions today you are denying women the chance to bless others. This is conspicuous by its absence.

    I’m struck that you said “whatever that means” to the expression “denies my personhood.” Perhaps you should ask what this means rather than dismiss it. You do not hear men complaining of anyone denying their personhood – that is because they have personhood, meaning, fulfillment, and opportunities to use their gifts. You noted that it is conspicuous that women are not saying that it denies women the chance to bless others. I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but as far as I’ve seen, this is the basis the complaint. I watched a video yesterday in which it was said that Dorothy Patterson is very well-learned. She’s on staff at SWBTS teaching women home-ec classes, but she has the education to teach high level theology classes. What a waste.

    Today, Steve Camp tweeted that his wife was “ordained” for godly ministry teaching women. At the end of the tweet, he said “Amen?” with a question mark and tagged, Dee, me, and another woman. He’s wanting us to “get on board” with the idea that only women should teach women – they should never teach men.

    Like

  43. KAS,

    Personhood 101 is the understanding that we each have ownership of our own lives, thoughts, feelings, resources, behavior, etc.

    The Boundaries book gives the example of let’s say a wife wants to remodel the house. That’s her desire, not necessarily everyone else’s. So the husband can say—I’ll devote ten hours a week to home remodel projects.

    Now hypothetically if she gets upset that he’s not devoting every full weekend to remodel projects, that’s a type of trying to take ownership of his time instead of respecting his boundary.

    Of course real life is much different than hypothetical examples. The point is that God gave us ownership of our lives. We get to decide how much time we volunteer to helping other people fulfill their wishes. That’s something that Comp theology won’t allow.

    According to Comp theology, someone else has ownership of your time. There’s no boundary line between their wants and your needs because Comp theology allows them to cross your boundaries whenever they feel entitled to do so.

    Instead, the Bible teaches the idea of personhood because God holds us accountable for what we do with what we are given by God. Read the Parable of the Three Servants if you still don’t believe that.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Yes, and as I’ve said before, there is a subtle shift in complementarian theology. Comps say that the authorities are “federal” representatives of God, yet when they start taking ownership of others’ time, they are shifting into the god role themselves.

    For example, I was taught to obey my elders. My elders told me to attend a monthly board meeting. I got abused at the meeting month after month, but because I had to obey my elders, I had to not only be away from my family for 3+ hours, but then subject myself to emotional abuse for those 3+ hours.

    In the comp. mindset, I had to obey no matter what because my authority told me to, but in an egal. mindset, even my leaders do not have the right to force me to give up my time, and especially when that time puts me in an abusive situation.

    If I had initially rejected their request, I probably would have gotten the lecture about obeying my elders and God wanting us to give our “gifts” in service to the church. But really, what this is about is these men who want to claim our time for their purposes, because they think that whatever their purposes are, they’re “God’s purposes(TM)” It’s very easy for that to become idolatry.

    But suppose the model of leadership is that a leader cannot tell me to do something that God has not already commanded, then I think the temptation to become mini-Popes is much more restrained.

    Like

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

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s