Discuss: What Can Men Do to Help Remove Misogyny from the Church? Inquiring Elder Wants to Know.

delete

***

I received a private message on Twitter a week or so ago from an elder at a church. He reached out to me after reading Beth Moore’s letter to Christian men. You may recall that Beth Moore, in her letter, asked men to put away misogyny and act Christ-like towards women. Here are a few key paragraphs from Beth Moore’s letter:

As a woman leader in the conservative Evangelical world, I learned early to show constant pronounced deference – not just proper respect which I was glad to show – to male leaders and, when placed in situations to serve alongside them, to do so apologetically. I issued disclaimers ad nauseam. I wore flats instead of heels when I knew I’d be serving alongside a man of shorter stature so I wouldn’t be taller than he. I’ve ridden elevators in hotels packed with fellow leaders who were serving at the same event and not been spoken to and, even more awkwardly, in the same vehicles where I was never acknowledged. I’ve been in team meetings where I was either ignored or made fun of, the latter of which I was expected to understand was all in good fun. I am a laugher. I can take jokes and make jokes. I know good fun when I’m having it and I also know when I’m being dismissed and ridiculed. I was the elephant in the room with a skirt on. I’ve been talked down to by male seminary students and held my tongue when I wanted to say, “Brother, I was getting up before dawn to pray and to pore over the Scriptures when you were still in your pull ups.”

I’m asking for your increased awareness of some of the skewed attitudes many of your sisters encounter. Many churches quick to teach submission are often slow to point out that women were also among the followers of Christ (Luke 8), that the first recorded word out of His resurrected mouth was “woman” (John 20:15) and that same woman was the first evangelist. Many churches wholly devoted to teaching the household codes are slow to also point out the numerous women with whom the Apostle Paul served and for whom he possessed obvious esteem. We are fully capable of grappling with the tension the two spectrums create and we must if we’re truly devoted to the whole counsel of God’s Word.

Finally, I’m asking that you would simply have no tolerance for misogyny and dismissiveness toward women in your spheres of influence. I’m asking for your deliberate and clearly conveyed influence toward the imitation of Christ in His attitude and actions toward women. I’m also asking for forgiveness both from my sisters and my brothers. My acquiescence and silence made me complicit in perpetuating an atmosphere in which a damaging relational dynamic has flourished. I want to be a good sister to both genders. Every paragraph in this letter is toward that goal.

The man who contacted me told me that Beth Moore’s letter was read at their elders’ meeting. He asked me how men could practically put into place what Beth Moore was talking about. Yes!!! I will include his questions and expand them with some of my own. This is the kind of conversations we need to be having in churches.

  • There’s a challenge – especially with some cultures within church that the issue stops at the question of sexual immorality and understanding that there were other issues about how men and women relate – especially how male leaders relate were maybe not so easy to grasp for some. How can male leaders engage in healthy relationships with sisters in Christ? How can men uphold integrity for themselves and women in their day-to-day dealings with women both inside and outside the church?
  • That whole fear culture – how do we get beyond that?Is there a way to move beyond that in a healthy way?
  • How can we talk helpfully and appropriately and honestly as churches in dealing with misogyny?

photo credit: SMBCollege SMBC graduates serve as cross-cultural missionaries and ‘tent makers’ in locations around the world via photopin(license)

1,183 comments on “Discuss: What Can Men Do to Help Remove Misogyny from the Church? Inquiring Elder Wants to Know.

  1. KAS, “husband may be head, but not lord over his wife. Christ himself is head of the husband, the husband is under authority”

    You need to study authority before you come in and tell us how it works. Under the law of the state, I am the authority of my children. So, when the state writes a truancy law it creates a responsibility upon that authority. For example (PA):

    Every parent, guardian, or person in parental relation, having control or charge of any child or children of compulsory school age, who shall fail to comply with the provisions of this act regarding compulsory attendance, shall on summary conviction thereof, be sentenced…

    So, it is MY responsibility for my child to attend school. If my child does not attend school, I am held accountable. That is authority. Under the law, I also am given the means (i.e. disciplinary rights) to coerce my children into conformity with the law. THAT IS HOW AUTHORITY WORKS. My children are not fined for skipping school. I am.

    You saying a husband has authority over his wife is nonsensical unless you subsequently define what his responsibility is before God, and what means he has been given to carry out that responsibility. A military officer has authority, and his authority – what he is responsible for and how he can discipline those under his charge who do not carry out his orders – is clearly spelled out. That’s why the consistent comps end up in some sort of discussion about the responsibility and the means, and why the conclusion for millennia has been that the wife is a subordinate, just like the children. You can call it heretical, but you are at odds with many historical scholars – the same sorts of scholars that comps use to justify their similarly misogynistic positions.

    Like

  2. If soft comp is just about the husband getting to wear the “Junior God / Authority” shiny silver badge and nothing else, then I’m not sure what you’re arguing, but if that badge then entitles the husband to one thing and obligates the wife to another, that’s where we disagree.

    And that is where you are being a weasel. You say that there is some entitlement and some obligation, yet you refuse to actually define it. But, when we try to ask probing questions, you immediately become defensive. You say it’s “obvious” you say our conclusions are “nonsensical” you say only “numpties” would say that a husband is entitled to discipline rights, but that is in conflict, again, with millennia of traditional/hierarchical scholars. Oh yeah, and you say that hierarchy is a necessary part of the universe.

    I think, honestly, you’re already there, you just refuse to admit it because it’s clearly as wrong as it sounds.

    Like

  3. Oh, and this is the view of English common law as well. Dickens wrote this in Oliver Twist:

    ‘It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it,’ urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round to ascertain that his partner had left the room.

    ‘That is no excuse,’ replied Mr. Brownlow. ‘You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and indeed are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.’

    That is the traditional or hierarchical view, and presumably what complementarian theology hopes to restore.

    Like

  4. I have so far only listened to pod cast #34.

    Julie Anne actually tweeted that one first. I looked up a few others and am in the process of listening to those.

    Here are links to some of their other podcasts:

    _32: Husbands and slave masters_

    Part 3 in a series on Christianity and gender. Nate and Tim discuss two more key passages related to gender, trying to understand why Paul grouped husbands & wives, children & fathers, and slaves & masters. (Ephesians 5:22-6:9, Colossians 3:18-4:1)

    What do wives, children and slaves have in common?

    And what does Paul say to them? And how does he address husbands, fathers and slave masters?

    Listen to see how Paul’s theology of power makes surprising sense of it all and shows how these passages mean the exact opposite of what many claim they mean.

    _30: Jesus ended hierarchy_

    <

    blockquote>Part 1 in a series on Jesus and gender: Nate and Tim discuss some prerequisites to looking at New Testament texts pertaining to gender.

    Jesus explicitly taught that his disciples were to follow his example and abandon all sense of status, power and hierarchy.

    This was Christianity 101 to the apostles and early church and therefore any interpretation of the gender passages that today seem so offensive to women must acknowledge this overarching Christian ethic.

    If Jesus said there weren’t even supposed to be positions of status in the church, and Paul believed every Christian was to lay down their power over others, how could the New Testament possibly “teach” that men are supposed to have authority and women are supposed to submit?

    <

    blockquote>

    Like

  5. Daisy, the one on women and veils is so good! That one blew my mind because it made such good sense. All of the confusing pieces are coming together for me. Paul is not and never was about hierarchy. He’s about making everyone on the same level: humbling those in authority and raising up the lowly. Doesn’t that make sense with how Jesus dealt with people?

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Julie Anne said,

    Daisy, the one on women and veils is so good! That one blew my mind because it made such good sense.

    All of the confusing pieces are coming together for me. Paul is not and never was about hierarchy.

    He’s about making everyone on the same level: humbling those in authority and raising up the lowly. Doesn’t that make sense with how Jesus dealt with people?

    Yep. I was just saying on another, more recent thread on your blog that I think a lot of complementarians make a mistake of interpreting Jesus through Paul, when they should be doing the opposite.

    Complementarians also take a lot of temporary, culturally-bound rules and try to apply them to everyone today, which is also a mistake.

    I hear the guys on these podcasts making similar points.

    Is this the veil one you meant:
    _31: Authority over her own d_mn head_

    I’d like to listen to more of their podcasts.

    I’m on this one right now:
    “32: Husbands and slave masters”

    Here is the “gender” tag on their podcast list:

    _Gender Related Topics on the “Almost Heretical” Pod Cast_

    Like

  7. Hi, KAS. I’ve been visiting with family for the past week or so, and that’s why it’s taken me a while to respond. Although I see the others here have been answering you admirably.

    You could hardly have read any discussions of egalitarian interpretations of scripture without coming away with the impression these interpretations create more problems than they solve.

    No, I haven’t come away with that impression. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you (as well as most of the commenters here). I find nothing wrong with mutualistic interpretations of Scripture as regards marriage. Women (and children, and men for that matter) being made miserable for the sake of enforcing a “traditional” view of marriage? Now, that’s what I find problematic.

    I have never been shown just how Eph 5 or 1 Pet 3 or even 1 Tim 2 can lead to abuse.

    On their own, they probably can’t. But the woodenly literal interpretation of these verses doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It’s typically accompanied by a “boys’ club” mentality among husbands and pastors — a mentality that infantilizes and despises women while puffing up men. Sometimes subtly, sometimes brazenly. It’s that mentality that leads to abuse, and that mentality is called gender comp.

    It might be easier for [abusers] to hide behind complementarianism rather than egalitarianism, but the latter is absolutely no guarantee that abuse cannot happen. Willow Creek is proof of that.

    Sure. Bill Hybels had to be sneakier about his contempt for his wife and other women, because his public image depended on feigning respect for the opposite sex. But his mentality of entitlement and grandiosity might not be so different from that of many complementarian and patriarchal teachers. Hybels’ rationale (and that of the enablers who shielded him) for his entitlement was that he was the founder and head honcho. The rationale for gender comp gurus and abusers is simply, “Because we’re men.”

    …boundaries psychobabble…

    Whoa. Did you just dismiss the concept of having boundaries as “psychobabble”? Are you aware that for Daisy, and possibly others here, the establishment of healthy boundaries with people has been enormously helpful in preserving their sanity and well-being? I would really like you to explain what you wrote here. This is might be going on my list of disturbing things you’ve said.

    Are there no normal people in America, who cannot relate to one another without everything having to be codified as an issue of rights? What about normal communication? Give and take. Common sense.

    Well, according to you, “normal communication” and “give and take” are all overshadowed by a husband’s authority. If a deciding vote for men only is so acceptable to you, then why should the right to say no be so unhealthy? At least that gives the wife agency over her own body (and the husband agency over his, as well).

    There are two disturbing things that come to mind in this long thread. …. The other is to my mind the confirmation that care for the abused is not everyone’s highest priority, if at all. Judge for yourself.

    Thank you, I will. And in my judgement, you show very, very little concern for those who’ve suffered abuse. Case in point: The paragraph of yours from which I quoted at the start of this comment. I questioned how egalitarian thinking causes more problems than it solves, and your response was:

    They pit one scripture against another, and in some cases are the result of sloppy if not outright fraudulent scholarship.

    So the problems you see with mutualism are purely academic and theological. Not people suffering real hurt and anguish. And yet, those academic problems seem to be more important to you than the actual pain of those, like Christianity Hurts and Daisy, who have suffered under the burden of gender comp, and the misogyny that it enables.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I am looking over SKIJ (Serving Kids in Japan’s) reply to KAS.

    I sometimes try to scroll past KAS’ posts for several reasons, but then I see someone else quoting him, and I get sucked back in…

    Here are some parts from SKIJ’s post to KAS:

    KAS said,

    I have never been shown just how Eph 5 or 1 Pet 3 or even 1 Tim 2 can lead to abuse.

    SKIJ said,

    On their own, they probably can’t. But the woodenly literal interpretation of these verses doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It’s typically accompanied by a “boys’ club” mentality among husbands and pastors — a mentality that infantilizes and despises women while puffing up men. Sometimes subtly, sometimes brazenly. It’s that mentality that leads to abuse, and that mentality is called gender comp.

    Daisy says:
    I agree with SKIJ here, but…

    My lord, I guess KAS doesn’t read anything I write or link him to, not even my own blog posts where I explain (again) how I was damaged by comp.

    Not only does or can complementarian interpretations of the Bible lead to abuse, but it can perpeatuate abuse, and, looking at it from the victims of the abuser’s vantage:.

    Complementarianism as taught to girls and women makes females become EASY PREY for abusers.

    I can go into other reasons comp was harmful to me, but I will leave it there.

    (KAS has in fact been shown many times how comp biblical interpretations can lead to abuse, he just does not agree with, or like, those explanations and examples.)

    KAS said,

    It might be easier for [abusers] to hide behind complementarianism rather than egalitarianism, but the latter is absolutely no guarantee that abuse cannot happen. Willow Creek is proof of that.

    SKIJ said,

    Sure. Bill Hybels had to be sneakier about his contempt for his wife and other women, because his public image depended on feigning respect for the opposite sex.

    But his mentality of entitlement and grandiosity might not be so different from that of many complementarian and patriarchal teachers.

    Hybels’ rationale (and that of the enablers who shielded him) for his entitlement was that he was the founder and head honcho. The rationale for gender comp gurus and abusers is simply, “Because we’re men.”

    Daisy says:
    Agree with SKIJ here.

    Abusers will hide in any system or venue they are in, whether complementarianism, egalitarianism, schools, or churches.

    But it’s harder for an abuser to use the bible to justify his abuse of his wife under egal interpretations, and it’s harder for churches to bludgeon abused wives to stay and submit to more abuse from a spouse under egal interpretations.

    KAS said,

    …boundaries psychobabble…

    SKIJ said,

    Whoa. Did you just dismiss the concept of having boundaries as “psychobabble”? Are you aware that for Daisy, and possibly others here, the establishment of healthy boundaries with people has been enormously helpful in preserving their sanity and well-being? I would really like you to explain what you wrote here. This is might be going on my list of disturbing things you’ve said.

    KAS, part of the reason I am so damaged into adulthood due to complementarianism is because complementarianism is nothing but CODEPENDENCY FOR WOMEN with a smattering of Bible verses tossed out to convince earnest women that such behavior is “godly” and “biblical.”

    And a very large component of codependent behaviors, assumptions, and views of relationships is LACKING BOUNDARIES.

    Complementarians teach females that lacking boundaries is godly, feminine, and biblical, but it leaves girls and women horribly vulnerable to being taken physically abused, manipulated, and exploited sexually, financially, and/or emotionally.

    That you are so ignorant about that, KAS, and so dismissive, shows that you truly do not give care about hurting people.

    You are more invested in defending your pet doctrine.

    I did not begin to find healing, or develop even a small amount of self esteem, until I learned about boundaries,
    and along with that, learning that it’s acceptable for me to have them, to be assertive, to stand up for myself, and to learn I do NOT have to tolerate abuse off anyone.

    I explain all that on my ‘Daisy’ blog, which I have linked KAS to a million times by now, but he apparently never reads hardly anything I write or link him too.

    Here’s a link to my blog where I explain some of this
    (this has to be the 4th or 5th time I have linked KAS to this post or ones like it on my blog):

    _Christian Gender Complementarianism is Christian-Endorsed Codependency for Women (And That’s Not A Good Thing)_
    – post on Daisy blog

    KAS said,

    Are there no normal people in America, who cannot relate to one another without everything having to be codified as an issue of rights?

    What about normal communication? Give and take. Common sense.

    SKIJ said,

    Well, according to you, “normal communication” and “give and take” are all overshadowed by a husband’s authority.

    If a deciding vote for men only is so acceptable to you, then why should the right to say no be so unhealthy?

    At least that gives the wife agency over her own body (and the husband agency over his, as well).

    Daisy says:

    Wow, KAS is basically repeating what I’ve been saying across the last two or three gender related posts on at least one point.

    He’s the one who sniffs he just does not understand how a marriage can work if one partner does not have the final say-so.

    And I’ve told him 566 times in response that it works by compromise, or “give and take,” if that is the term KAS understands.

    Like on secular jobs I had where male co-workers disagreed with me, we either compromised, or, if I had more experience on “topic X,” those men would defer to me on “topic X.”

    (I even occasionally had a male boss who would seek me out for topics I knew more about than he did, and that boss would go by my input.)

    There was no unilateral submission at my professional, full time job based on who had what genitals in work place disputes and disagreements.

    It’s absurd that Christian complementarians go by this criteria in male-female relationships.

    If that approach can work (“give and take,” compromise) on jobs, KAS, (and if often does), it can work in a marriage as well.

    When I was earlier proposing the ‘give and take’ method in a dispute in a relationship scenario when KAS was quibbling about, “but who gets the final say so, how can a marriage work,” and he didn’t respond then.

    But now, he’s running with my earlier solution???

    I don’t think KAS cares about the hurting or the wounded – or that he’s an honest debater.

    He shifts the goal posts often, dodges, weaves, and weasel words things quite often. (Mark has noticed this behavior too.)

    He’s clearly not learned a frikkin’ thing that myself, Lea, Christianity Hurts, or several others have been posting to him for the last few months.

    Like

  9. SKIJ:So the problems you see with mutualism are purely academic and theological. Not people suffering real hurt and anguish.

    Yes I had the same concern.

    Complementarianism as taught to girls and women makes females become EASY PREY for abusers.

    As does the attitude of ‘boundaries schmounderies’, as you and SKIJ mention. Boundaries are healthy and good and will save people a lot of pain both big and little. Even just realizing that it is ok to say no to an extra obligation that you don’t have time for is a skill some people have to learn.

    Julie Anne, I saw the podcast the other day you linked and it does look interesting! Will have to check it out.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. “boundaries schmounderies” goes along with the Evangelical hatred for self-esteem. Which is an equivocation of Total Depravity. Total Depravity means that, from a sin/righteousness perspective there is no area of our being that has not been tainted by sin. However, Evangelicals turn Total Depravity into a war on self-esteem. They assume that people (not pastors and elders, of course) need to be constantly reminded of their failings and faults lest they think themselves worthy and not in need of being saved. They think that God can only be found at the end of one’s rope, and that somehow beating someone over the head with their own faults is a way to push them towards righteousness.

    So, for example, my church growing up said that Christians don’t have “rights” whatever rights we may have must be given to Jesus. That was the answer to many situations where people might otherwise get offended, because, of course, offense is against someones sense of “rights”. (Interesting that KAS seems so opposed to rights)

    In the same way “Boundaries” are an expression of those same rights. Having the “right” to say no was not really taught at home or in church, especially dealing with the authority figures. We attended church pretty much whenever the doors were open and did pretty much whatever the leaders requested. Even though that occasionally meant that our own personal schedules were squashed. Families with a strong sense of self/boundaries were looked down on because they missed events here and there for not good enough reasons (e.g. soccer practice or baseball).

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Interesting that KAS seems so opposed to rights

    People opposed to ‘rights’ seem to only be opposed to those other people having rights, not themselves.

    Evangelicals turn Total Depravity into a war on self-esteem

    Which is deeply weird to me. Especially now that I’m a Presbyterian and that’s not how we treat it at all.

    Like


  12. These Are The Signs You’re Dating A Narcissist

    Dr. Ramani explains narcissist. If anyone acts narcissist it is comp men. It is obvious that comp was dreamed up by a misogynistic narcissist.

    Dr. Ramani basically says narcissist has no empathy, are selfish, shallow, and insecure.

    I have thought misogyny comes from insecurity since I was a young teenager.

    Like

  13. What KAS is too narcissistic to let his self-centered mind comprehend is this website was created for victims of abuse.

    Once someone has been a victim he or she often start wondering about their rights to never to be a victim again.

    KAS is so wicked and sick he consistently says stupid crap that a selfish abuser would say. Now KAS is dissing boundaries and human rights.

    Boko Haram, ISIS, and the Taliban hate human rights, especially women and children’s rights.

    Harvey Weinstein would probably mock boundaries.

    Boko Haram, ISIS, and the Taliban are all pro hierarchy and who do they think belongs at the top? MEN.

    Like

  14. this website was created for victims of abuse. Once someone has been a victim he or she often start wondering about their rights to never to be a victim again.

    Hi CH! I think part of this is that when you have experience with a thing, you tend to see it more. So when people start drawing those boundaries (which I think is really more of what this is even then rights, although that’s part of it) it’s because they know what it means for them to be violated.

    I saw Daisy upthread mention that I made the point previously that not all users of this site are victims of abuse, although certainly many have had that experience. I wanted to clarify that I said this not because I particularly care if people are mistaken on my personal experience, but more because it is often used to shut down people’s opinions as not worthy, or ’emotional’ – as if those opinions are not worth as much because people actually have experience with an issue. I strongly disagree with that stance and wanted to make the distinction that many people can recognize and call out wrongs without having been wronged themselves. And one way we can become more educated on this is by listening to those with experience. And I thank you and all the others who have shared theirs for helping (some of) us learn more.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. “wanted to make the distinction that many people can recognize and call out wrongs without having been wronged themselves. ”

    Oh, this is so true. I have met men and women online that say they have never been sexually abused but I can tell by the things they say about sexual abuse that they hate it with a bloody passion and believe it is one of the most painful and evil things one can do to another person.

    This sounds unbelievable and weird. I have women in my family who have been sexually abused but protect and coddle sexual abusers and are cruel to rape victims. So, it goes the opposite direction too. Just because someone has been raped doesn’t mean they really care and can not be on a rapist side.

    My great grandmother who was in and out of mental homes her whole life because she was repeatedly sexually abused as a little girl cussed out her own granddaughter for not going to the funeral of an uncle who raped her and every other little girl in the family.

    This same grandmother also concluded that maybe rape victims should marry their rapist and she spent a fortune helping one of her poor pedophile nephews when he got out of prison for molesting a twelve-year-old girl.

    Like

  16. Oh wow, LOL, you just spelled out the word “Damn.”
    I tried to censor it a bit in my last post because I know some of the readers of this blog are a little sensitive to less than G-rated language.

    But you go! 🙂

    I’m surprised we didn’t see some of the other posters here complaining about that word being present.

    Like

  17. Mark said,

    So, for example, my church growing up said that Christians don’t have “rights” whatever rights we may have must be given to Jesus. That was the answer to many situations where people might otherwise get offended, because, of course, offense is against someones sense of “rights”. (Interesting that KAS seems so opposed to rights)

    But KAS and guys like him sure expect women to respect his supposed “rights” under male headship.

    One big ironic thing about Complementarianism is how it reveres and insists upon Male Headship (notice that guys like KAS are not constantly preaching that men should love their wives, they emphasize male control and female submission to it), is that the New Testament instructs people who have power and privilege in a culture to willingly lay it down and act as a servant to those society relegates to a “lower caste.”

    We don’t see that in complementarianism.

    Sure, you may occasionally see a complementarian pay lip service to men loving women or husbands loving wives, but most of it is enamored and consumed with arguing and beating women (literally or figuratively) into acceptable male control.

    The Bible instructs these men to give up their power, authority, and control, but instead, comps hold on to it all the more tightly and argue it’s “biblical” for them to be in authority over women, to hold the “final tie breaker” vote in a marriage, etc.

    Like

  18. Correction
    I said,
    “arguing and beating women (literally or figuratively) into acceptable male control.”

    I meant:
    “Into ACCEPTING male control…”

    Have no idea why I typed it out so wrong.
    I do sometimes actually proof read my posts before publishing them, believe it or not. At other times, I’m only somewhat awake when I’m posting here (insomnia).

    Like

  19. Lea said,

    I wanted to clarify that I said this not because I particularly care if people are mistaken on my personal experience, but more because it is often used to shut down people’s opinions as not worthy, or ’emotional’ – as if those opinions are not worth as much because people actually have experience with an issue.

    I strongly disagree with that stance and wanted to make the distinction that many people can recognize and call out wrongs without having been wronged themselves. And one way we can become more educated on this is by listening to those with experience. And I thank you and all the others who have shared theirs for helping (some of) us learn more.

    I did a post on my Daisy blog just a few days ago that pertains to this.

    While on the one hand, I do think some people on some subjects can be ‘too emotional’ to the point they are overlooking things (and this is every bit as applicable to men as it is to women),

    I sometimes get annoyed by the other, 180 degree take on this, which is to laud logic and reason as being superior to emotion, or to dismiss emotion completely, or to argue that one cannot be both logical AND emotional about a topic at the same time.

    Logic / Reason and Emotion are pitted against either other by some people and presented as being mutually exclusive, which bothers me.

    Anyway, the guy’s post was called:
    (or did I post this to this blog already? Sorry if this is a repeat):

    The Problem with ‘Facts Not Feelings’ by J. R. Wood Jr.
    (hosted on the original source, “Quillette” site)

    The Problem with ‘Facts Not Feelings’ by J. R. Wood Jr.
    – snippets on my Daisy blog
    (in case the first URL goes M.I.A. or dead at some stage)

    I don’t know if I agree with 100% of the content in the embedded video on the page (which I think I also put in my page), but – both the guy’s essay and the video address the notion that it’s faulty to totally dismiss people’s feelings and emotional investment on a given subject.

    The gist of it is that you will never, ever persuade someone to your view point if you argue purely from reason and logic and quoting endless facts at them (and also shame them for having emotions and mock their emotions).

    You do need to deal with people’s emotional investment in a concern or topic as well as with the facts, etc, and do so respectfully, the author’s page was arguing.

    Like

  20. This may be somewhat related to the topic of this thread:

    _Assessing Jordan Peterson’s “12 Rules for Life” by Greg Boyd_
    -on the ReNew site

    Some of Peterson’s assumptions about women, marriage, etc, are quite similar, IMO, to what complementarians teach.

    I’m not sure at this stage how popular Peterson is among Christian complementarians, or if they’re familiar with his work at all to start with, but Peterson is popular among disenfranchised, dateless men who are bitter about women not wanting to date them,
    and his work is also popular with some conservatives who are fed up with liberal Identity Politics, etc etc etc. That sort of thing.

    If Christian complementarians don’t already know who Peterson is, they’ll eventually find out about him, and i can see them finding his work appealing.

    Or not. I have actually seen several editorials by Christians in the last few months who are critical of Peterson’s views. (Not sure if those Christians are comps or not.)

    Like

  21. Mark said (Interesting that KAS seems so opposed to rights)

    Daisy then said But KAS and guys like him sure expect women to respect his supposed “rights” under male headship.

    But KAS had already said A husband doesn’t have a ‘right’ to force his wife to do anything

    and

    Where does this right ot have sex come from? ‘Husbands live considerately with your wives, bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex/vessel’ undoes any ‘right’ of a husband to demand sex. It is inconsiderate, let alone not being loving.

    I’m much happier talking about responsibilities rather than rights. If you do want to talk about rights, then this should always be done with the corresponding responsibility in mind. The greater the level of irresponsibility, the greater the diminution of any claim to have a right.

    Like

  22. The greater the level of irresponsibility, the greater the diminution of any claim to have a right.

    In general, KAS, that makes sense.

    So, in your view, how has Christianity Hurts been so “irresponsible” that she cannot claim a right to say “no” to her husband, if she ever decides to marry?

    Like

  23. Japan,

    Sorry that I haven’t been following the “right to say no” when it comes to intimacy between spouses.

    There are over a 1000 responses here so it is hard to follow what everyone is really talking about.saying no?
    I mean the intimacy between spouses in my view needs to be consensual, so if the woman or man simply isn’t in the mood or if one is ill then I can see why saying “no” is acceptable as intimacy on demand is a foolish.
    Also if for some reason low libido is affecting desire, which can happen to either a man or a woman, which can intimately frustrate their spouse with a much higher libido.

    Either way, if there is intimacy issues, in my view, seeing a therapist might be the best alternative if an understanding can’t be discovered.

    Now if one or the other is withholding intimacy and purposely not meeting the needs of the other that is a big problem which in my view involves an “emotional love” problem.

    An example would be if a man is addicted to porn and isn’t being emotionally sensitive to his wife’s feelings, which could effect the woman’s desire to be intimate with her husband. (or not being in the mood) I also think porn in the end, could over-stimulate and numb up the mind and cause a man’s desire to deteriorate.

    Making love is the most personal way where a man and a woman are mentally and physically surrendering themselves to one another and if they aren’t “all in” emotionally with one another, then there is a problem much deeper than sex, as it is a love problem, otherwise couples would be sensitive enough to discover the timing when intimacy is consensual while anticipation builds at a very high level for both.

    It is unfortunate that much of what we are talking about with abuse or sex on demand, is that couples are getting married prematurely, without really being in love in the first place which to me would be an emotional drain. Which in most cases, it is the woman that pays a higher price when their isn’t love. I know my mom payed a much higher price than most women, as she never really experienced or understood what it meant to be truly in love.

    As parents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts or friends, we can only emphasize to our ones, to emphasize that the man or woman they choose to marry, that they actually knows what it means to be truly in love and be sensitive to each other’s feelings.

    Cherry picking or Isolating a couple of biblical passages to back up a “sex on-demand philosophy” is a reckless interpretation of the bible.

    Like

  24. D,

    I understand that the conversation is a little hard to follow. I’ll try to sum it up.

    For some time, fellow commenter Christianity Hurts had been asking KAS to answer a few questions regarding his opinions on marriage. One of them was, “Does a wife have the right to say ‘no’ to her own husband?”

    Eventually, KAS replied that (according to his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7) neither spouse has the right to refuse sex to the other. He tried to convince us that such a right is unnecessary, since a truly loving husband would never physically force his wife to have sex. Christianity Hurts was unimpressed. The same goes for me, and many other participants here.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Thanks Japan,

    I think each individual circumstance is unique but if we are talking about expecting intimacy from a spouse not desiring intimacy, it is a no brainer.

    There are times when I’m exhausted and my spouse is desiring a certain “closeness” where I feel her needs “should” be met, the same thing has happened to her. But even so it still needs to be consensual, otherwise isn’t fulfilling for either spouse. At least that is how I see it.

    But because I’m rather late in this topic, it seems as if you aren’t talking about it in the circumstance I’m referring.

    I do think, it can become very complicated when one spouse’s libido is stronger than the other or if spouses are in a loveless marriage and practicing “sex on demand”.

    I haven’t researched the 1000+ responses to see where KAS embraces a “sex on demand” philosophy, regardless of circumstances, which is why I asked.

    Like

  26. D – I haven’t researched the 1000+ responses to see where KAS embraces a “sex on demand” philosophy, regardless of circumstances, which is why I asked.

    I’ll save you a long search. I have denied a wife’s right to refuse sex (and a husband for that matter) on the basis of 1 Cor 7 : 5 since the apostle denies this as a right, but at the same time denied the ‘right’ of a husband to demand sex, or indeed coerce his wife in any shape or form at all. ‘No, I’d rather not’ ought to be sufficient.

    Normal people, as far as I am concerned, do not lead their lives based on codes and rules, excepting the very basic framework the bible gives us. They communicate. A man who really lives ‘considerately’ with his wife, who knows her, probably won’t even need verbal communication.

    SKIJ – get back to you later!

    Like

  27. KAS,

    What does “Sex on Demand” and “Deny the right to refuse Sex” mean to you?

    What if one spouse has some serious hygiene problems that they refuse to address?

    Maybe a spouse who showers every day and flat out refuses sex because the other eats a ton of garlic and beans but showers once every 3 days, but is demanding sex 3 days after his/her last shower and smelling pretty ripe? What if one smokes or drinks and wants sex and isn’t brushing their teeth and the other refuses sex because of that, then what?

    I’ve known men that shower once a week whether they need a shower or not.

    I find this kind of odd, because typically with a married couple, intimacy is suppose to be emotionally and physically fulfilling, whereas wanting straight sex on demand isn’t so much. I think most women (and some men) don’t always want straight sex, but instead they want to be intimate with their spouse, with exception when both are feeling extremely spontaneous and a little raw with each having 10 minutes to spare, which adds up to 20 minutes. (well actually its 10 minutes)

    It seems the word “Deny” can mean permanent or temporary,

    “Deny” can also have various reasons why a spouse is “denying or refusing Sex”, like if the spouse experiences pain when having sex or if the spouse is sinning against the other, or if they are experiencing some emotional pain.

    There are cases where non-consensual intimacy exist. I mean who wants sex with someone not wanting intimacy at that very moment, with them?

    But also when a man and a woman’s libido doesn’t match. If these things aren’t talked about or discovered before a couple is married then they aren’t always going to be very happy lovers, if sex is more important to one and not the other. Which a couple should be seeing a professional therapist to develop a caring understanding to how the other is mentally and physically wired.

    But also with so many couples getting married prematurely and never pursuing “real” emotional connection they may have personal selfishness issues outside and inside the bedroom.
    I’ve heard of men strictly doing the “one and done in 5 minutes or less” every time they are intimate, causing the women to stare into the ceiling while their husband is snoring. Why would a wife want to be intimate as he is treating her like a prostitute?

    It is kind of hard for a man to practice “deny the right to refuse Sex”, if his desire deteriorates, either with age or health problems. But worse if he has sinfully over-stimulated and damaging his intimate mind with porn which can seriously affect libido while degrading the act of making love with his own spouse, if he can actually can experience “arousal” again.

    If a spouse is too overwhelmed with life and the other wants him/her to drop everything that the other is doing and have sex right now. Or wakes up at 3 am and wants sex even if the other is too tired or feeling unclean. Which is way different than both wanting a raw spontaneous intimate moment at the same time, no matter the time of day or circumstance.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “Deny the right to refuse Sex”. Are you talking about either or both spouses who are capable of desiring consensual intimacy but refusing sex with the spouse they are married to because of trivial shallow reasons, like if “gravity” effecting body image or “hey” I’m done having sex with you or deny sex as a tool to either manipulate or retaliate against one another? Are you talking about if one spouse or both find other means of gratification and thereby denying that intimate energy to their spouse?

    Then we have a break down in a marriage where counseling is needed from an actual marriage counselor, not from someone that doesn’t understand how to emotionally connect or how to make love.

    But if the man or woman pouts or feels overly deprived for not getting “sex on demand” right then and there because their partner simply isn’t in the mood for various reasons (including abuse) or if the romantic ambiance doesn’t exist enough at that very moment for her (or him), and then run to the bible and proclaim 1 Cor 7 : 5 and then expect their spouse to “put out”, then they are practicing a serious misinterpretation scriptures.

    If a husband (or sometimes a wife) is mentally or physically abusing and saying mean things to their spouse, what gives his/her the right to expect “sex on demand”? I’m not so sure they can embrace 1 Cor 7 : 5 as a viable reason.

    In fact, in the husband’s case he might consider meditating and praying about trying to understand Colossians 3:19 19 “Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.” (NIV) otherwise he is breaking his spiritual obligation to his wife and could be considered breaking his vow to her.

    Like

  28. or indeed coerce his wife in any shape or form at all.

    Telling a woman (or man) that they have no ‘right’ to refuse sex, or they are in sin, IS coercion! Whether it is you or the pastor or the husband or society saying so. This is the problem.

    Furthermore you can’t have this wonderful communcation if you tell people they are not allowed to communicate that they are too sick, tired, hurt from an argument or what have you to want sex right now.

    Like

  29. What exactly is “boundary pschobabble?” Like the word “feminism,” the definitions are as abundant as the stars in the sky.

    So the words, “Guard your heart with all diligence, for from it flow springs of life,” (Proverbs 4:23) bear no witness to “guarding thyself with discerning boundaries against wickedness and evil?” Seriously?

    Or when our LORD Jesus Christ was tempted by satan, He choose not to draw “healthy, guarded boundaries” against His adversary……Our LORD perfected boundaries, if that is what we choose to call it.

    I believe the word “boundaries” is now being vilified by the hierarchal/authoritative/lording it over community as a way and means of justifying their desire to have more power and control over Jesus’ sheep.

    And also, are we not commanded to have “discernment” as followers and believers in Jesus Christ, alone for salvation……which requires developing healthy “boundaries” in choosing truth over lies regarding our faith?

    It’s like the power hungry pastor man berating “his” pew sitters for “believing in boundaries” all the while he is grooming his next victims to satisfy his monetary, sexual, and entitled power status over the lower laity, appetite.

    Complementarians really don’t “like” the concept of good, healthy boundaries, because it makes their “lifelong work” in lording it over others, a wee bit more complicated…..for they desire to be that “go too religious individual” in place of Christ. Funny how this replacement theology works within the “misogynistic religious system.”

    Side note…..just heard a religious leader speak of Solomon’s folly as the result of all of those pagan women he married. His folly was blamed “on the women” instead of placing the “responsibility” of his own fall, on himself (Solomon.) Guess Solomon was not “responsible” for his own foolish ways……it was those pagan women’s fault.

    Comp theology’s core belief focuses on the “women at fault syndrome,” never the “man’s.” Perhaps Jesus’ writing in the sand/dirt would be more appropriate in this day and age, in His judgement over comp theology….hmmmm.

    Like

  30. I believe the word “boundaries” is now being vilified by the hierarchal/authoritative/lording it over community as a way and means of justifying their desire to have more power and control over Jesus’ sheep.

    Makes sense. Boundaries are a defense against someone trying to take control, control freaks would hate them.

    Like

  31. Lea said Furthermore you can’t have this wonderful communcation if you tell people they are not allowed to communicate that they are too sick, tired, hurt from an argument or what have you to want sex right now.

    KAS had said ‘No, I’d rather not’ ought to be sufficient.

    Briefly regarding an earlier post of yours, I have consistently differentiated ‘submit’ from ‘obey’, the former being enjoined on wives, and the latter (in Eph 5) being a different Greek word and really meaning ‘listen and do what you are told’. It’s Mark who likes to claim I conflate the two, because I take it he wants to paint a picture of complementarianism as believing a wife is treated like a child and like a slave/servant. The latter two are not a one flesh relationship based on the OT, especially the beginning of Genesis. I wonder just how many times this will need repeating until it finally goes in.

    So when you say Apparently women don’t have to do anything for their husbands but obey, that is ‘their half’ I suppose? But we’re crazy for seeing that as slavery? then a) I don’t see a wife having to obey all the time, and b) therefore you are crazy to see Eph 5 as teaching female slavery. Nice to agree on something!

    When the younger are enjoined to ‘submit’ to the elders, this is nothing to do with slavery, but rather a recognition that elders have a particular responsibility for the welfare of a local congregation, an authority to serve, and this should not be undermined but supported.

    Like

  32. Side note…..just heard a religious leader speak of Solomon’s folly as the result of all of those pagan women he married. His folly was blamed “on the women” instead of placing the “responsibility” of his own fall, on himself (Solomon.) Guess Solomon was not “responsible” for his own foolish ways……it was those pagan women’s fault.

    Wow, Katy what a contrast! This must be in the lectionary or whatever because my pastor preached on Solomon Sunday and the theme was that he started out with wonderful intentions, seeking only wisdom, and then he messed everything up in a variety of ways, and that we should never be too certain of ourselves in our righteousness.

    Like

  33. @Lea,

    Yep! Good and godly “boundaries,” as defined by Christ Himself, are the best defensive and offensive mechanism against the usage of licorice (twisted) Scriptures used to enslave and captivate (make captives) the sheep of Jesus. If indeed, Jesus IS the Good Shepherd, what must He think of all of those “shepherds/leaders/those who profess their own “worldly” wisdom” who believe and practice a “Gentile hierarchal system?”

    Am I too submit to a church leader, woman or man, who says that we believers are not to eat pork…..and are in “sin” if we choose to do so? Likewise, when the misogynistic pastor (ye shall know them by their fruits), tells me that I am sinning when I “work” on a Sunday and should quit doing so…..am I to trust and follow Him…..or look to Christ and His disciples when they collected food for sustenance on the Sabbath day? Hmmmm.

    Seems to me Jesus drew pretty great and wonderful “boundaries, schmoundaries, or any other derogatory adjective used to describe discernment,” when He encountered the Scribes and Pharisees (you know, the religious folks of our day who love to “lord it over” without Christlike love).

    And precisely “who” was it that enabled Jesus to be crucified? The lower laity caste system, or the hierarchy?

    Like

  34. As stated before on another comment thread, “if I am to err in this life that our LORD has breathed into me, I would rather err on the side/believe/and following of my LORD Jesus Christ and His Word/Ways than to err on the side of mankind.”

    I can about imagine the shock and awe of His disciples when He/the Master bent over/knelt and washed all of their dirty/gross feet in that upper room before He was crucified……a great showing of what it’s like to serve Him…..and yet, in this day of great swelling words of the c’hurched folks, I have never seen nor experienced this greatness of servitude, of humility, and “dying to self” of any important religious person……oh no!……for in churches we hear how important it is to be “under someone else’s covering so to speak and one must strive to become a “leader” for the purpose of “lording it over another individual/group.”

    Truthfully, when Jesus sheep turn to Him for leadership, guidance, truth, wisdom, and the “Bread of life,” our modern day religious folks get pretty upset/hateful against that particular believer, and the fangs, claws, verbal insults, and the dealings conducted in secret to destroy your life will become more and more apparent as you deal with false Christianity that appears “christ-like.”

    Like

  35. KAS, “Briefly regarding an earlier post of yours, I have consistently differentiated ‘submit’ from ‘obey’, the former being enjoined on wives, and the latter (in Eph 5) being a different Greek word and really meaning ‘listen and do what you are told’. ”

    Differentiated how? You consistently use them in the same way. And when we try to pin you down, you start weaseling, like you are doing right now. You consistently REFUSE to define submission, but when you say anything (e.g. “no ‘right’ to say ‘no’) it drips with the same sort of misogynistic beliefs that your hard comp peers have.

    Here’s an interesting thing I read yesterday: “Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.”

    Paul is instructing Timothy, the big honcho in the church at Ephesus how to engage the congregation. And how is that? Fire and brimstone? Emotional and spiritual abuse? No, he takes instructs Timothy to take a position of inferior (son) or peer (brother/sister).

    So, this completely destroys your argument that “submit” can only mean “to authority”. Here the AUTHORITY is told to treat his charge like he is treating an authority.

    Like

  36. Hi KAS

    I gave you a response yesterday at D AUGUST 19, 2018 @ 11:53 AM about situational circumstances and I shared a passage in Colossians about our discussion “deny the right to refuse sex” as I’m trying to understand a little of what you are writing.

    Like

  37. Mark, this ‘weaseling’ is a tell. If some people said what they really think regarding what women ‘submitting’ means, they know they would be slammed. I think that Authority/Influence thing some idiot on twitter said lays it out. Women can influence, but they cannot decide. And whether or not their influence is effectual is left to the man, always. Crap system.

    BTW, Julie Anne, I had mentioned that Aimee Byrd book about men and women as friends…I ran across a review that says doug Wilson is reviewing it chapter by chapter? I haven’t gone to his blog to double check because I’m not giving him clicks, but I’m sure it’s a wreck like always. Why anyone listens to that man on anything is beyond me considering his behavior!

    Like

  38. Mark – The men praying, the women and their good works and all submission, the character qualifications of overseers, deacons, being how you behave in the household of God, these are the instructions from Paul to Timothy on making a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed.

    Command and teach these things.

    Then the enrolment of widows – Command this, so that they may be without reproach.

    This is followed by:

    ‘Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching; …

    Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, …’.

    So yes, Timothy was told to relate to the church in terms of it being a family. But you can hardly deny the element of authority he was given by Paul as an apostle, words like command, teach, urge, rule, duties, and which carry on down through the ages for minsters and elders. Not local, not temporary.

    If the instructions for men and women earlier in the epistle are not for today, then neither is the treatment of church as family for today either.

    You can also not pit Paul against Jesus (as some do, ‘Jesus never told anyone to submit’) as the duties Paul lays down agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Like

  39. Hi D, hope you are well.

    This discussion, in short, has been my unwillingness to give a wife a right to refuse sex, because the apostle Paul says this in 1 Cor 7, for both husbands and wives, and to avoid unnecessary temptation. I have simultaneously denied the right of a husband to demand sex. The verse you quoted Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them would be, like the word Peter says to husbands in 1 Peter about being considerate, the antidote to the mistreatment of wives in this area. Agape love does not insist on its own way.

    It isn’t any more complicated than that. The response that ‘I am endorsing marital rape’ is assinine stupidity. You can grant a wife the right to refuse if you want, but if a husband is a bully or in any other way thinks he has privileged entitlements, he will ignore this right anyway, asserting his own.

    Much better to teach a husband, as the apostles do, what God requires of them. Responsibilities rather than rights.

    Egalitarians undermine this when they oppose wifely submission in any shape or form, making is seem as though instructions to wives – and therefore husbands – are something you can choose to accept or not depending on whether you like or agree with them. The misuse of this doctrine is another matter.

    Like

  40. KAS,

    I’m still trying to identify your interpretation to the verse you are referring in 1 Cor 7. I didn’t suggest or think you condone marital rape.

    This subject is very delicate in a thread like this, where there are contributors that have been mentally or physically abused and have endured nightmare marriages or nightmare upbringings, who was expected to “put out” in any circumstance.

    Where there has been serious break downs in that marriage that goes beyond sex, where their spouse has sinned against the other spouse and against God and he/she still expects the other to honor his/her interpretation of that verse in 1 Cor 7.

    I have a hunch that there are some here that think you are taking a hardline approach of manipulating that verse in a way that makes it OK (biblically speaking) to expect sex or for their wife to “put out” and not deny their husband sex in any circumstance including abusiveness.

    But even if she has indicated she doesn’t want to engage in sex because she is mentally and physically drained like waking up after being in a coma for a week or if she was still in a coma.

    Or even if she says “no, not tonight” isn’t an acceptable reason for some husbands, as he still expects her to lay on her back and endure unwanted sex. Or in some circumstances where the sex is painful to her but she concedes to endure the pain in order to honor that verse, which I’m sure happens.

    Are you instead suggesting that if the wife is physically and mentally able to have sex with their husband but flat out refuses or chooses to permanently deny sex with him because she simply doesn’t want it (at least with him) then they are in violation of that verse?
    But what about uneven libidos? When the wife has a stronger libido than the husband and he isn’t keeping up with her needs?
    Or if her libido is weaker than his and she doesn’t want sex as much as he does?

    It is a little harder for the wife with a higher libido than her husband’s to experience sex from him, does that mean he is denying her if he says “no”? What if her libido isn’t as strong as her husband’s? Is it considered denying him if she says “no”?

    Like

  41. D – my apologies if I misled you, the endorsing marital rape comment was from someone else upstream. Such nonsense does get a bit wearing!

    Sex is a bit like having a delicious meal in your favourite restaurant. If either hubby or wife are not hungry or already podged, then saying ‘no, I don’t want to go out tonight for a meal’ is sufficient, you don’t need to encode this as a right, or go for counselling about it. There is, of course, also a very considerable amount of disanalogy between a meal and sex!

    As far as 1 Cor 7 ís concerned, to avoid temptation to immorality Paul says no to sex before marriage, but yes once married, except temporarily and by mutual agreement.

    The idea of men having a right to demand sex doesn’t come from the NT (or OT for that matter), but imo stems from an atheistic worldview where alpha males evolved to dominate, and that’s that. Tough. The sexual free for all that has so increased over the last 50 years or so, with all the damage and hurt it has caused, did not have its origin in the church, but rather the decline in even a nominal adherence to Christian teaching and ethics. No loving God and your neighbour, but love yourself. Self-esteem rather than esteeming others more highly than yourself. If you want to covet your neighbour’s wife, fine, the old religious taboo about this was repression of personal autonomy suitable for bronze age goat herders, but we have moved on from that nonsense in an ancient book.

    Like

  42. KAS,

    It was a bit confusing trying to navigate the many responses on this thread regarding this particular topic.

    I can see how someone who has been physically abused see a connection of forcible sex and “deny the right to refuse sex”. But also there are men that manipulate women into forcible sex regardless of intense pain to the woman, like what happen to my niece who left her idiot husband, for her safety.

    There is a lot of needling in this thread and even though I have been “needled” a couple of times on this thread, I try to not antagonize because my wife and I have endured spiritual abuse from a stealth hyper-Calvinist who was purposely keeping his heavy handed doctrine a mystery. SSB has been a good resource raising my awareness that Spiritual Abuse is real and not isolated.

    Speaking of me being needled, I may have hit a nerve when I suggested that abortion rights on demand might be considered rebellion against God to those in this thread that embrace abortion as birth control insurance where intimacy is mutually consensual (by choice), because the unborn child is interfering with personal freedoms. (I’m more sensitive in the case of rape or health of the woman)

    Somehow I think my interpretation about abortion on demand being rebellion against God as a result of consensual intimacy, might be considered by some on this thread as “Misogyny” even in the Church, which is far from the truth.

    Like

  43. KAS, “Egalitarians undermine this when they oppose wifely submission in any shape or form, making is seem as though instructions to wives – and therefore husbands – are something you can choose to accept or not depending on whether you like or agree with them.”

    That’s blatantly false. Egalitarians define submission in a way that allows peers to submit. You are the one saying that submission can only be ‘to authority’. Yet, it’s an argument from silence (and your supposed authority). Yes, we ‘submit’ to authorities, but nowhere does the Bible say that we must not submit to non-authorities. So, the existence of the word submit does not prove authority.

    “The idea of men having a right to demand sex doesn’t come from the NT (or OT for that matter), but imo stems from an atheistic worldview where alpha males evolved to dominate, and that’s that.”

    Sure, it stemmed from the line of Cain, but it didn’t take long to infiltrate the line of Seth. Abraham had a ‘right’ to a seed whether it be by Sarah or Hagar. Jacob got ‘stuck’ with the wrong bride because of deceit, then got to marry the bride he wanted. Having multiple concubines (sex slaves) and wives was regulated in the law to the point that even David, a man after God’s own heart, was blind to God’s pattern of marriage. But now, it seems deeply entrenched in the leadership of Evangelical churches, and even in the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps even more so than in the secular culture.

    “Somehow I think my interpretation about abortion on demand being rebellion against God as a result of consensual intimacy, might be considered by some on this thread as “Misogyny” even in the Church, which is far from the truth.”

    There’s a bigger picture. How do you deal with the girl who was told she could not participate in graduation while the boyfriend who impregnated her was allowed to? The primary difference between a pro-life and pro-abortion Evangelical is whose daughter is pregnant. While I oppose abortion, I find it far more wicked how the church treats women carrying babies out of wedlock. Perhaps that is not that much different from how the Pharisees vs. Jesus treated the woman ‘found in the very act’ of adultery.

    Like

  44. KAS: “It isn’t any more complicated than that. The response that ‘I am endorsing marital rape’ is assinine stupidity.”

    just to remind you:

    In this instance [submit to one another] there is, whether we like it or not, a difference in authority, submit (with the idea of coming into rank) to head (meaning at least some measure of authority). All of this under Christ’s authority.

    Regarding the other cases where we are told to submit, such as govt or church elders, God has the highest authority and we are to submit to these lesser, though God ordained authorities, until this means disobeying God himself (‘we must obey God rather than man’) or they exceed their authority meaning interfere where they have no right to.

    So, you define the husband as head = authority
    You say that wives must submit “where [they] are told to submit” … until this means disobeying God himself (‘we must obey God rather than man’)
    You say that a wife does not have a ‘right’ to deny sex. (i.e. the husband is not exceeding his authority by requesting sex)

    Put those three statements together and the wife, by “submitting” to the “authority” of her husband in a specific are of his authority “sex” must not refuse, unless she is refusing for the purpose of obeying a higher power (her husband is requesting her to sin).

    I don’t see why you choose to weasel around this. Actually, my guess is that you believe all of that and what you are weaseling around is the fact that you choose an alternate definition of “marital rape” meaning “use of physical force to coerce unwanted sex”.

    D, you have to understand that KAS is purposefully moving the goalposts and equivocating on words. KAS has not specifically said it is wrong for a husband to use emotional, guilt, shame or economic manipulation, or even going to the church to coerce a wife to have sex. Yet he has repeatedly said that a wife cannot ‘refuse’ – that refusing sex can only be by mutual agreement.

    If you actually try to understand what KAS is really saying, be prepared for an onslaught of name-calling (e.g. asinine stupidity), although if you dare name-call back the KAS tone police army will be at your door.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Mark,

    I’m not sure the point you are trying make, first you appear to defend abortion when there is consensual sex where the unborn child isn’t wanted and then you actually say you don’t.

    As for the church who is judging her like Pharisees, she needs to run as far as she can and find a church that is more nurturing.

    I was a love child, didn’t meet my father until I was 32, so I know exactly what you are talking about, with exception I was conceived when my mom was slightly older than the girl you mentioned. In 1960, was frowned upon far greater than today and suffered and was judged died a poor woman and my father who didn’t chip in a dime died a multi-millionaire not giving a cent to her or any of his kids. I know it isn’t easy in this generation for women raising a child by herself.

    But to answer your question, the boy that impregnated the girl, is equally responsible and by law he has to pony up and pay child support, ideally he and the girl hopefully are in love and will raise the child up in a loving environment, while the ladies of the church throw a baby shower for her and the church needs to nurture and rally around the young couple and welcome the baby is born.

    Like

  46. KAS, “we are to submit to these lesser, though God ordained authorities, until this means disobeying God himself”

    How can submit here be defined as anything less than obedience?

    Like

  47. While I oppose abortion, I find it far more wicked how the church treats women carrying babies out of wedlock

    Mark, I knew a girl who got pregnant and her church made her stand up in front of them and apologize or confess or something. How they think this stuff is helpful is beyond me. Furthermore, good sex ed, access to birth control, etc, has been shown to reduce abortions, so let’s do that. Not even getting into the expenses of health care related to pregnancy and child rearing. If we truly want to reduce abortion that’s what we should concentrate on, not trying to shame women who get pregnant. [not to mention that there are a ton of things that could go wrong that require a d&c that get lumped into with abortion – witness the pharmacist who wouldn’t sell a woman a pill recently who had had a miscarriage! A lot of education and minding ones own business could be helpful here. No one is required to explain themselves to everyone about personal medical challenges.]

    Yet he has repeatedly said that a wife cannot ‘refuse’ – that refusing sex can only be by mutual agreement.

    He says a wife cannot refuse sex, and then he says she can say ‘not tonight dear’ and a husband should respect it – which is pretty much what refusing sex is in a healthy relationship. So which is it? I guess the answer if he says ‘no I do not respect your ‘not tonight dear’ she has to go on with it, which is why people are talking about rape. Because that is non-consensual. Your yes and your no’s should be respected, as they are for men. Period.

    Like

  48. D – I’ll leave it to you to decide what my views are on the forcing sex issue. To repeat:

    But KAS had already said A husband doesn’t have a ‘right’ to force his wife to do anything

    and

    Where does this right to have sex come from? ‘Husbands live considerately with your wives, bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex/vessel’ undoes any ‘right’ of a husband to demand sex. It is inconsiderate, let alone not being loving.

    This is now the third time of saying this.

    Do I really need to specifically say ‘it is wrong for a husband to use emotional, guilt, shame or economic manipulation, or even going to the church to coerce a wife to have sex’ as Mark maintains?

    You know, D, after the wives submit verse in Eph 5, Paul immediately goes on to address husbands with the words husbands love your wives. But because I hold to a complementarian view (which I will continue to do unless persuaded otherwise) that what Pauls say to wives is for wives, and to husbands for husbands, I somehow endorse misogyny. Strange that!

    Like

  49. @ Lea

    A teen wrote in at ExChristian.net years ago and said his Christian school informed the parents of the students that they would force any girl who got pregnant from rape to stay pregnant but they would not allow her to go to school there anymore. They would not have an unmarried pregnant teen walking around their school. It made the boy reject Christianity because he had a little sister.

    I knew a girl whose pregnancy went wrong and she died on the way to the emergency room. She was eighteen and had been sexually exploited her whole life.

    My mother and me both wish we had been aborted. My cousin who is the oldest of nine children has always said his sibling that died at birth got the best deal out of all of his mother’s children.

    It is very easy for a man to lounge about his butt and be pro-forced birth when he will never have to suffer the sickness of pregnancy for nine months or the excruciating pain of giving birth.

    My father got a thrill out of the pain women and girls have when giving birth.

    The man who sexually abused me as a little girl his two biggest obsessions was wifely submission and forced birth.

    As someone who grew up with men who had a fetish with women and girls being pregnant and giving birth against their will, I really believe that many men in the forced birth movement see forced birth as a form of sexual torture. The men I knew who were obsessed with forced birth were sexually sadistic serial perverts.

    The reason they don’t want girls having birth control or knowing how not to get pregnant is because they are in love with the subjugation of all females. They use motherhood and pregnancy to put women and girls in bondage. I know this because that is how my father put my mother in bondage. My father created a life to ruin two lives.

    Like

  50. KAS,

    I have emphasized Eph 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” many times on this thread.

    If we consider that Christ served us, gave his life for us, would that mean we are to serve and nurture our wives? yes

    Like

  51. D – If we consider that Christ served us, gave his life for us, would that mean we are to serve and nurture our wives? yes

    Absolutely correct. And you don’t need to know Greek to understand this, but you do need to be filled with the Holy Spirit to do it! It also helps if you fall in love with the loveliest girl in all the world.

    Like

  52. KAS

    Much of the abuse that women are enduring in churches is because churches aren’t instilling these 3 verses in their teachings enough:

    Eph 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”
    Colossians 3:19 19 “Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.”
    1 Corinthians 13:13 “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

    All these verses matter as it is a reminder of how we are to conduct ourselves with our spouses but also how we treat others, that is why I kind of struggle with some of the snarky rhetoric that occurs among self professed Christians. If we are saying mean things, we aren’t exactly making it easy for others to identify love that is suppose to be inside our heart, but instead exposing a hateful spirit.

    Much of the Spiritual and Spousal abuse wouldn’t exist in churches, is if husbands honor these verses. But also wives wouldn’t have to seek refuge or escape abuse or verbally collide with leaders who fail to embrace those verses, who instead embrace reckless and sometimes vicious interpretation of scriptures.

    Like

  53. CH, there have been times when I wish I had been aborted especially when I have been inside a deep hole filled with anxiety, trying to make sense of the chaos or circumstances or the hand I have been dealt with and how bad my mom was treated by my father, who I didn’t meet until the age of 32. (aomeone I now wish I had never met)

    In the end, I’m glad I wasn’t aborted because I wouldn’t have been able to appreciate the sacrifices my mom made for me, or have the spouse, kids and grandchildren I have. To tell you the truth, I’m glad you weren’t aborted either.

    When I brought up the topic of abortion, I wasn’t referencing it with rape or health of the mother, but consensual intimacy by choice as there was a question raised about rebellion toward God, which to those who proclaim to be Christian most abortions probably is rebellion toward God, but maybe not to all.

    Like

  54. D, “I’m not sure the point you are trying make, first you appear to defend abortion when there is consensual sex where the unborn child isn’t wanted and then you actually say you don’t.”

    As I said, this is a very complex issue. Do I think abortion is wrong, yes. Do I think the government ought to outlaw abortion yes*. And therein lies the problem. The Evangelical solution is to simply outlaw abortion, declare the baby a person and then pounce on women. That is strongly evidenced by church after church and C’hristian school after C’hristian school that shames the girl who got pregnant and offers grace to the boy who got her pregnant. This again smells of the same sort of anti-woman stance that the church has taken throughout history.

    So, I think Evangelicals should be bottom-up instead of top-down. For some reason Evangelicals (Rushdoony, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and their ilk) think the way to transform culture is to take it over politically. So, they try to establish themselves as a voting bloc and get that bloc to vote for their candidates and their platforms. To appease the Christians, candidates brought in by the Religious Right-styled blocs pass laws like the Oklahoma ‘no abortion without a vaginal ultrasound’, which essentially re-rape rape victims. They fight against things like non-profits giving girls free condoms and sex education, where the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions went down significantly. Also, the parents of the mother and the parents of the father would be required to pay child support in this case: https://familylaws.uslegal.com/parent-liability-childs-act/civil-responsibility/teenage-parents/

    So, while I believe abortion is morally wrong, I think the solution is to make it as easy as possible for women to choose life – crisis pregnancy centers are a good start, I think, but there is not a lot of support once the baby is born. I think the church needs to offer grace to women who make mistakes, not just men.

    Jesus didn’t stone the adulteress, as the law seemingly required. That strongly suggests we don’t really understand the law, and especially how it relates to women (and minorities) who are being victimized.

    Like

  55. Mark

    You wrote: “Do I think abortion is wrong, yes. Do I think the government ought to outlaw abortion yes. And therein lies the problem. The Evangelical solution is to simply outlaw abortion, declare the baby a person and then pounce on women.”

    I get where you are coming from as I take issue with Evangelicals pouncing on women as well. It seems as if the ones that pounce the hardest are the meanest.

    When it comes to the Gov’t I couldn’t support a candidate who’s primary platform is unconditional abortion with no boundaries.

    Like

  56. KAS, “‘Husbands live considerately with your wives, bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex/vessel’ undoes any ‘right’ of a husband to demand sex”

    Just means you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You simultaneously say a husband does not have the right to demand sex, and that the wife does not have the right to refuse sex, and that the wife must submit (=obey) her husband/head/authority.

    This is exactly what the “hard” comps are saying. It’s just how they deal with a husband demanding / wife refusing situation that matters (where you refuse to tread). Evangelicals are much more concerned about “submission” than “love” – it’s hard to prosecute “love” and easy to prosecute “obedience”. So, the wife gets told not to refuse, simple as that. There are many, many reasons for that, most likely of which is that it is much easier to tell the wife to obey than to come alongside the couple and work to improve their relationship. It’s also been shown that authority figures choose to punish those who seem more compliant. In my area, the police essentially refuse to ticket motorcycles. That’s because they are generally non-compliant – they are much faster than the police cars and they are too hard to catch. They’re more likely to pull over a speeding BMW than an old clunker. So, if the church can easily “solve” marital issues by blaming and shaming the compliant wife… why not?

    As Daisy mentioned, Mark Driscoll told wives to go home and give their husbands oral sex as an act of repentance for disrespecting them in the bedroom.

    Like

  57. D, “When it comes to the Gov’t I couldn’t support a candidate who’s primary platform is unconditional abortion with no boundaries.”

    I haven’t found a candidate like that yet, and honestly, neither have I found a candidate whose primary platform is no abortion allowed except for the life of the mother.

    Like

  58. Serving Kids: But the woodenly literal interpretation of these verses [Eph 5 or 1 Pet 3 or even 1 Tim 2] doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It’s typically accompanied by a “boys’ club” mentality among husbands and pastors — a mentality that infantilizes and despises women while puffing up men. Sometimes subtly, sometimes brazenly. It’s that mentality that leads to abuse, and that mentality is called gender comp.

    I’m glad you said this, it illustrates the difference in thinking. You agree the NT itself does not cause abuse, but then go on to say the comp interpretation leads to the boy’s club, infantalising etc. In my experience there is no such accompaniment. It doesn’t lead to these things. It is not some kind of inevitable result. But when you go on to define gender comp as an abusive mentality, then you illustrate the difference with me: I do not define it that way, moreover it cannot be abusive if based on the bible. I have been quoting Paul and Peter addressing husbands ad nauseum on this!

    What you are talking about is a structure built on these passages that they do not support, or that is in reality a denial of them. Ignorant men torturing scripture to their eventual destruction.

    There is room for legitimate debate between egalitarian and complementarian interpretations, and if we get the interpretation wrong, wrong behaviour will be the result. But if you define complementarianism as intrinsically abusive, egalitarians can basically ignore it. (I actually think this is being manipulative.) Not having women elders is not abuse.

    If egalitarians have got it wrong, then in turn their behaviour based on their view will entail disobedience to the revealed will of God. The discussion might appear to be academic (and it can be no more than that) but its outworking is important for the health of families and the church.

    Believers differ on infant baptism and believers’ baptism. This ought not to prevent them uniting against things like abuse if it occurs in the church. The same should be possible for egal and comp; there is unnecessary polarisation going on all too often, and a united front condemning abuse ought to be possible without anyone feeling they have to ditch their understanding of scripture first.

    Like

  59. Serving Kids: the other point you raise is my apparent indifference to the hurt of others.

    My duty of care is first to my family, then wider family, friends or acquaintances as church or work colleagues. People I actually know. This is true of everybody.

    Anything much beyond that is too distant. The terrible things going on in the world might elicit a feeling of sympathy but are too remote for much else. There is nothing you can do about them except donate for charitable relief. We all would mourn a relative dying, but for example the Italian bridge collapsing recently, terrible as it was, is remote unless I actually know someone involved. I wouldn’t expect anyone in the States to have wept over the London or Madrid bombings.

    I feel the same way about anonymous posting on the internet. It is remote. Just exactly how do you show you care? Gushing sympathy just isn’t me, and if I tried it I have a sneaky feeling I would garner a response about ‘weasel words’. I have, and still would, point to Christ himself as the ultimate answer to the damage of abuse.

    Your criticism would bear more weight if Daisy’s complete indifference to what my middle one has gone through in the recent past, based on her feeling I don’t care for the suffering and the fact she doesn’t read every post had been countered by anyone. No-one called her out on this.

    Smith says you should always believe the victim. So far so good. An assumption that someone claiming to have been abused is ‘innocent’ of making it up. However, there are those, and I’m not going to name them, where I have over time found it increasingly difficult to disentangle fact from fantasy. I have sound reasons for believing this needs to be done. And when I say fantasy, I don’t necessarily mean a calculated, deliberate attempt to make things up. With such I have tried not to get bogged down in commenting, which perhaps might be interpreted as indifference. I could of course get this wrong, and I don’t want to make a bad situation worse.

    Like

  60. “In my experience there is no such accompaniment.”

    I believe that is because you are a typical spoiled misogynistic comp. Of course, you do not consider your male elevating woman enslaving club abusive towards women.

    Actual women here have told you they were abused or caused pain because of your comp ideology.

    Like a selfish comp misogynist, you have ignored them. You prove you do not care anything about women. Ignoring Daisy, Katy, and my testimonies about the pain comp have caused us is you disrespecting the actual victims of your comp ideas.

    “But if you define complementarianism as intrinsically abusive, ”

    I was born and raised in complementarianism and I know it is abusive, enslaving, and degrading towards women, little girls, abused mothers, and raped little girls.

    My comp father told me, “rape is not that big of a deal”. The comp man who sexually abused me said, “feminist have blown rape out of proportion”.

    KAS, why do you not care that your ideology hurt a sexually abused little girl? And hurt Daisy and Katy? Is it because the misogyny of it makes you feel good and you don’t care if it hurts women and raped little girls?

    Complementarianism caused me great pain and misery the whole time I was a little girl and it lead me to atheism.

    Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson, Josh Duggar, Mark Driscoll, C.J. Mahaney, Matt Chandler, Jack Schaap, and Paige Patterson all complementarian. I have never known a comp man that showed women or little girls respect. I have never known a comp man that hated rape and was on the side of an abused wife.

    Four things dominate comp. Child rape, wife beating, misogyny, and slavery. Comp men deny this because they are not the victims and they want the power.

    Complementarianism is bad for women, abused wives, and raped little girls.

    Like

  61. @D

    “rebellion toward God”

    How is it rebellion against God? Is it because a woman or girl is escaping God’s wrath for her being born female?

    Genesis 3:16

    “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.”

    My mother was a trapped naive married teen when she got pregnant with me and she should not have had to be pregnant and give birth against her will to make my father or any other man feel good. My father and any other man was not the one who had to be pregnant for nine months or suffer the pain of giving birth. A unloved trapped brainwashed teen girl did. I wish my mother had aborted me and saved her self; I ruined her life. My mother has told me this year she wishes her mother had aborted her.

    It is embarrassing that my father and grandfather forced and manipulated my mother to breed against her will when they were not the one who had to do it. My father did not feel the sickness and pain of pregnancy and childbirth. He was not the one who had to be scared and dread the pain of birth.

    I have talked with pregnant cousins who were sick with fear and pain. Of course, the men who got them pregnant did not have to be scared, sick, or feel pain. The whole time my scared cousins were pregnant the men who got them pregnant were parting it up feeling fine. Many women who are married with children desperately want abortions. They know better than me if they can physically and emotionally handle another pregnancy and child. I know from talking to these women how much forced birth hurts. I do consider forced birth to be just more misogyny people unleash on women and little girls.

    Like

  62. “Anything much beyond that is too distant. The terrible things going on in the world might elicit a feeling of sympathy but are too remote for much else. There is nothing you can do about them except donate for charitable relief. We all would mourn a relative dying, but for example the Italian bridge collapsing recently, terrible as it was, is remote unless I actually know someone involved. ”

    Wow, there is nothing Jesus Christ about you KAS. Many people can be sick and devested about people’s pain; people they don’t know. Just because you can’t have empathy for people on the other side of the world doesn’t mean other people can’t. I read stories all the time about people not being able to sleep for weeks because they read about little boy soldiers in Africa or little girl sex slaves in Thailand. The things you say here are proof comp men are not good people.

    “her feeling I don’t care for the suffering”

    You proved you don’t care for the suffering by the hateful way you talked to Dash. You had not a drip of empathy for someone who was sexually abused by his own mother when he was a baby. You never apologized to Dash for being such a mean-spirited creep to him. You have never said one empathetic loving thing to anyone here. I thought Christians were supposed to act like Jesus?

    There are people all over the world that can literally cry when they here about other people’s despair and pain. I read stories about the Grenfell Tower fire and cried. I read about a German man who hated America but after hearing what happened to the people in the twin towers he broke down crying. You are really uninformed about worldwide empathy. Being heartless is a comp specialty.

    Liked by 1 person

  63. Mark,

    You may have to look a little closer when it comes to abortion and political platforms in America. Typically you can see it when comes to selecting a Supreme Court Justice and who is President and party line and also the way the media covers it, reporting whether or not Roe v Wade stays in tact or not.

    Unless you don’t watch ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC or FOX then maybe you don’t see it. That is what pretty much defies the difference between Liberals and Conservatives.

    Like

  64. CH,

    I believe you are talking about rape where the woman has no-choice, where a man should go to jail for this crime. He will more than likely discover for himself what it is like to be raped.

    I isolated the fact the a woman who has been raped should be able to decide whether she carries the unborn child who is also a victim.

    I’m torn by this one, but I wasn’t referring to rape victims as rebelling against God.

    Like

  65. Much of the Spiritual and Spousal abuse wouldn’t exist in churches, is if husbands honor these verses. But also wives wouldn’t have to seek refuge or escape abuse or verbally collide with leaders who fail to embrace those verses, who instead embrace reckless and sometimes vicious interpretation of scriptures.

    If if’s and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a merry Christmas. Many men are going to treat their wives, their parishioners, women in general, terribly. The question is, what do when it happens? Even if they have been ‘told’ they are supposed to love people. All Christians have heard that. It’s just cancelled out by the authoritative, dismissive stuff towards wives and women in general. I have heard ZERO good answers from the comp side of things for how to fix things when they persist in going wrong.

    You agree the NT itself does not cause abuse, but then go on to say the comp interpretation leads to the boy’s club, infantalising etc. In my experience there is no such accompaniment.

    Your experience…as a man? What makes you think you would even see it? You don’t even see it when you do it! Nonsense, KAS.

    Liked by 1 person

  66. Your criticism would bear more weight if Daisy’s complete indifference to what my middle one has gone through in the recent past, …. No-one called her out on this.

    Didn’t you just write a whole spiel about how it’s ok not to care about people on the internet and that excuses you being rude to people who have trauma? But you’re mad nobody called Daisy out on her opinions? Daisy is her own person, talk to her. The rest of us will speak for ourselves.

    Let me say something. People on here who talk about their personal experience are real, in the same sense that people I talk to in life are real. When they start talking about relatives or acquaintances we don’t get nearly as much information, which is fine. But if someone brings up something to make a point, I will take that point and consider it. When someone brings up something to say their arguments that hurt women in real ways should be accepted because something bad happened to someone in their family/and that person is a woman? I’m not really accepting that as a data point. It sounds more like a dodge.

    So share about yourself and your family and your struggles and you will have sympathy. But it won’t make me accept your arguments if I do not think them sound. Thanks.

    Like

  67. There is room for legitimate debate between egalitarian and complementarian interpretations, and if we get the interpretation wrong, wrong behaviour will be the result.

    If egalitarians have got it wrong, then in turn their behaviour based on their view will entail disobedience to the revealed will of God.

    KAS, KAS, KAS. Look at the above that you wrote.

    People tell you constantly about the bad fruit of complementation interpretations. that is your ‘wrong behavior’. Then you say if egals have got it wrong that is disobedience? What if comp has got it wrong?

    I don’t think God expects us to get everything correct in interpretation but he does expect us to treat people well. This is where patriarchal and complementarian thinking is falling down over and over again. If you have to stand before god and defend your actions on earth, I’d rather be standing on the ‘I treated all people with love and equality’ rather than the ‘I think I got my interpretation right but abused everyone around and caused pain’.

    Liked by 1 person

  68. KAS, “There is room for legitimate debate between egalitarian and complementarian interpretations, and if we get the interpretation wrong, wrong behaviour will be the result.”

    I believe that’s true, but debating you is convincing me otherwise. What I’ve read of complementarians is trying to woodenly interpret the Bible, redefine terms with a twist and then when pressured on the interpretation and twisting they act as if the Bible is obviously on their side.

    It isn’t.

    Take the picture of Jesus as head of the church. The comps want to say, if Jesus is X in relation to the church, then the husband is X in relation to his wife. That works really well for “loving” and “sacrificial”, but when we get to “sanctifying” and “disciplining” then all the sudden the analogy doesn’t work.

    When faced with that, in a “legitimate debate” the complementarians would say, “okay, I see your point” and then either come up with a defense for how the analogy still holds (hard comps) or come up with reasons why certain pieces are shown to not be part of the analogy in scripture.

    In a legitimate debate, there is a desire for greater understanding and openness. You’ve drawn a box around what you are willing to define and debate, which is mostly the implications of the core. You want to take the high ground and say that marital rape is evil, but then you hint that rape isn’t what we think it is (e.g. ‘force’) and when we try to push into that definition, you go silent.

    So, here you go, you have this view that you believe to be 100% conformant to the Bible, but when pressured you resort to silence or changing the subject. It makes me wonder whether you really believe it’s the truth, or whether you know it’s wrong because just having to write it down makes you realize how stupid it is.

    re: wrong behavior. CBMW loves to say that egalitarian marriages are more abusive than comp marriages, but they are playing the ‘no true scotsman’ card. The evidence of study after study is that traditional/hierarchical marriages are far more unhappy and abusive than egalitarian marriages. https://godswordtowomen.org/Preato3.htm (skip to “empirical data” section to avoid legal indoctrination)

    So, if 80% of complementarian marriages are unhappy and only 20% of egalitarian marriages are unhappy, which is the wrong behavior? Is it okay then to say, “maybe my interpretation of the Bible is wrong if 80% of marriages following my interpretation are unhappy.” That’s part of what it took for me. If my doctrinally superior Reformed church was such an unhappy place for me to be, then is it possible that they were NOT doctrinally superior?

    I find that three things have to agree – each provides a lens through which to interpret the other two:
    1) What the Bible says
    2) What Jesus did
    3) What happens in society when people follow 1 and 2

    So, in my case, comp failed #3 and when I took my experiences back to scripture, I realized that scripture was saying something different that I originally was taught. What CH and others are saying is that since you refuse to accept the experiences of others, and you’re part of the men’s club, you will never have a need to question 1 and 2. My former church, when pressed, always reinterpreted the experiences of others. People left the church because they “couldn’t handle the truth” or “suppressed the truth in unrighteousness” not because the church treated them poorly. Our church remained small even after having many visitors, and our leadership was convinced that they were just looking for the “wrong things”, not that we were unwelcoming or abusive.

    Like

  69. Lea,

    I wrote:
    “Much of the Spiritual and Spousal abuse wouldn’t exist in churches, is if husbands honor these verses. But also wives wouldn’t have to seek refuge or escape abuse or verbally collide with leaders who fail to embrace those verses, who instead embrace reckless and sometimes vicious interpretation of scriptures.”

    You wrote:

    “If if’s and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a merry Christmas. Many men are going to treat their wives, their parishioners, women in general, terribly. The question is, what do when it happens?”

    With the amount of divorce going on in churches, there is a cleansing going on.

    I have had several debates with Pastors’ and leaders of churches who suggested that if a couple is having sex, they are being quilted into getting married. My response back is “if a couple isn’t in love, regardless if they are or aren’t having sex, they need to be in love with each other before they get married”

    In fact I would suggest talking them out of getting married if they aren’t in love,,, eventually they will split up or actually fall in love and get married.

    Too many times, people equate sex, infatuation, attraction the same as love, but of course we know it’s not.

    Lea, I’m a firm believer that a man who loves his wife, isn’t going to abuse her. The abuse you are talking about, these husbands (and probably the wife as well) aren’t in love with their spouse.

    Like

  70. Lea – Didn’t you just write a whole spiel about how it’s ok not to care about people on the internet and that excuses you being rude to people who have trauma? But you’re mad nobody called Daisy out on her opinions?

    No, I did not say it’s OK not to care about people on the internet, but rather who is our responsibility to care for, and the internet is remote.

    Where did I mention being rude to people who have trauma? There’s a certain irony here.

    I’m not mad at anyone for not calling out Daisy.

    You spectacularly miss the point. I have been criticised for apparantly not caring for the abused. When someone actually says they do not care about someone who has experienced abuse in their family, this is fine, or at least no-one appears to notice. Why the double standard?

    I do actually know what it is like to witness the effects of abuse, with American pseudo-christianity in the background, this miserable Willow Creek thing. So this is not academic, and that is the only reason for mentioning it. That is as much as I want to share that is personal, as I am not prepared to let this descend into cheap debating points.

    I did appreciate this sentence of yours: So share about yourself and your family and your struggles and you will have sympathy. That is kind, but the prejudice against complementarianism as intrinsically abusive is so great here I wouldn’t feel free to. Not safe!

    But it won’t make me accept your arguments if I do not think them sound. That’s a healthy attitude, and I wouldn’t expect you to. Putting forth an argument is fine, but emotional blackmail or manipulation is not, regardless of who is doing it.

    Like

  71. Even complmentarianism interpreted and practiced the “KAS-approved” way still damages women:

    The KAS-sanctioned form of Gender Complementarianism creates women who are codependent, which creates a whole other set or problems for girls and women.

    (I refer you to my “Daisy” blog for posts I’ve done about that subject.)

    That I recall, KAS has never, ever grappled with that or the many times I linked him to the posts on my blog about it.

    KAS chooses instead to ignore my points on that to argue against the “Christianity Hurts” variety of objections to complementarianism (eg, the ones based on marital rape, etc.)

    That right there is very telling.

    Like

  72. Daisy – Was this the thread where KAS was arguing that women can never say no to sex with their husbands, no matter what?

    i) I have never said that. You don’t read what people say, and then project your own prejudices in their place.

    ii) There seems to be a preoccupation with women being ‘forced’ to have sex that is unhealthy to say the least of it. It’s getting a bit weird.

    Like

  73. (part 1)
    Mark said,

    I find that three things have to agree – each provides a lens through which to interpret the other two:
    1) What the Bible says
    2) What Jesus did
    3) What happens in society when people follow 1 and 2

    So, in my case, comp failed #3 and when I took my experiences back to scripture, I realized that scripture was saying something different that I originally was taught.

    What CH and others are saying is that since you refuse to accept the experiences of others, and you’re part of the men’s club, you will never have a need to question 1 and 2.

    Nobody infallibly interprets the Bible on every single topic, and that includes complementarians, and including KAS.

    Jesus said you could test a tree by its fruit, and if it gives bad fruit, it’s coming from a bad tree.

    Complementarianism has produced an awful lot of bad fruit for a lot of men and women.

    Comp certainly produced a lot of bad fruit in my life, and it was the sort of complementarianism that KAS approves of.

    Thank you, Mark, for really listening to myself and other women on these threads when we have discussed our experienced.

    Like

  74. KAS said,

    ii) There seems to be a preoccupation with women being ‘forced’ to have sex that is unhealthy to say the least of it. It’s getting a bit weird.

    If you’re finding it so un-enjoyable here, by all means, get lost.

    Stop visiting.

    Weeks ago, I gave you links to other, more suitable Christian forums that would be more appropriate for your horrid manner of discussion, which is to debate, not commiserate, with the wounded.

    I’ve told you ten times across three threads that I believe you should have been blocked ages ago, but for whatever the reason, JA allows you to keep posting.

    KAS said,


    –Daisy said –
    Was this the thread where KAS was arguing that women can never say no to sex with their husbands, no matter what?–

    KAS replied,
    i) I have never said that. You don’t read what people say, and then project your own prejudices in their place.

    Yep, that is your position. You just don’t like it clearly spelled out.

    When asked about it weeks before, you simply quoted a Bible verse about women not being able to say no to sex for a season, which implies you don’t think women ever have a right to say no to sex for any reason.

    I said, you only exclude physical use of force by a husband against his wife, but you never did eliminate spiritual abuse or emotional manipulation (such as quoting “not for a season” verses) at a wife.

    It’s not my fault you are a highly dishonest debate opponent who weasel- words 95% of his posts and, just like a politician, tries to build in plausible deniability so that you cannot be held responsible for where your rotten, sexist complementarian beliefs lead.

    Like

  75. KAS to Lea:

    I did appreciate this sentence of yours:

    (Lea apparently said),
    “So share about yourself and your family and your struggles and you will have sympathy.”

    That is kind, but the prejudice against complementarianism as intrinsically abusive is so great here I wouldn’t feel free to. Not safe!

    WTF does that even mean, and what does complementarianism have to do with whatever personal problem your family is in?

    You drop a bunch of vague comments in weeks ago about some personal issue your daughter(s) was/is having, but you refuse to be more specific, and get a little bent out of shape that I wasn’t all warm and fuzzy about it.

    Did she stub her toe? I may or may not have empathy for that, dunno.

    Kind of hard to say if I all I have to go on is some super vague hints about something.

    But in the end scheme of things, I’ve not seen you show empathy for anyone here, Dash, or CH, or myself who have spoken of our trials and tribulations, so no, I’m not going to ooze sympathy for you.

    Then you now drop a few odd hints that your personal family problems may or may not be related to complementarianism(?)

    I think the whole thing is a sympathy ploy because you tire of facing heat over complementarianism.

    Participant “Christianity Hurts” and I have been pretty specific about the very personal pain and problems that complementarianism have caused us.

    I’ve not even posted to this blog until today, with that link above refuting YOUR position that a wife can never say no to marital sex, and that a wife should never say no to marital sex.

    You’re the one, KAS, with the weird views about sex, women, and marriage.

    Nobody else here is only offering vague affirmations that wives can turn down sex if they don’t want to have sex.

    The rest of us here have unequivocally said if one partner in a marriage does not want to have sex for a night or to a stretch of time, that is fine; it is okay for them to say “no” to sex.

    Sometimes couples CANNOT have sex.
    My father was in the United States military for many years – he was sent overseas as part of his job, so he and my Mom were physically separated for a year or more on some occasions, and both of them remained CELIBATE while apart.
    You never grappled with situations like that, KAS.

    You, KAS, even mocked the concept of boundaries last I was on this thread.

    Part of having personal boundaries is knowing that one can say “no” to behavior that one does not want to participate in, such as a married woman knowing it’s perfectly okay for her to tell her husband, “Not tonight dear, I’m having menstural cramps” and not feel all guilty over it, as though she’s breaking a biblical rule or biblical verse.

    Like

  76. (part 2)
    Mark said,

    I find that three things have to agree – each provides a lens through which to interpret the other two:
    1) What the Bible says
    2) What Jesus did
    3) What happens in society when people follow 1 and 2

    So, in my case, comp failed #3 and when I took my experiences back to scripture, I realized that scripture was saying something different that I originally was taught.

    What CH and others are saying is that since you refuse to accept the experiences of others, and you’re part of the men’s club, you will never have a need to question 1 and 2.

    This page discusses some of what you were telling KAS ….

    (Please note:
    I am not in agreement with all views discussed on this page or web site I am linking you to –

    I have to provide that disclaimer because in my experience when chatting among conservative or fundy Christians online for the past 15+ years, they usually and wrongly assume that just because you quote PART of a web page it must mean you ALSO must totally agree with all other views of the same author or site):

    (The intro summary for the page below:

    this woman with tattoos was asked to participate on a radio show explaining how a lot of men use her visible tats to “cat call” her on streets, and how she found this experience unsettling, offensive, etc);

    _4 Things Men Are Really Doing When They ‘Play Devil’s Advocate’ Against Feminism_

    <

    blockquote>… This gentleman claimed, essentially, that this “new wave” of feminism is too sensitive in its insistence that our “personal lives” and experiences have sociopolitical significance.

    His argument was that not every situation can be tied back to structural oppression, and that my point about how so-called “harmless compliments” are actually indicative of just how much women’s bodies are not respected in public spaces was absurd.

    Then he called me “entitled” – which is funny because he’s the one who took “Tattooed women, call in and share your experiences” to mean, “Random men, let us know your thoughts!”

    He [the male caller to the radio show she was on] just wanted to oh-so-importantly give us “the other side of the story,” since my stance was “one-sided” and “slanted.” He just wanted to “intelligently, rationally debate” this topic that he has zero experience with – by letting me know that I’m wrong.

    You’re Regurgitating (And Reinforcing) the Common Status Quo

    What’s amusing about the aforementioned man calling into that radio show to make his case is this:
    The bulk of the interview thus far had been the host telling me what men tend to think about women’s discomfort with street harassment.

    That means that I spent a lot of time offering my rebuttal, backed up by both feminist analysis and lived experience – neither of which most men who refute the notion of street harassment as offensive have.

    And then this fellow called in to… repeat… all of those positions.

    This man – who I think thought he was acting as some kind of hero to mankind – called in to regurgitate the stances that I had already rebuked.

    And those stances – the popularly accepted viewpoints on any given topic – are known as “the status quo.”

    …..Oftentimes, what makes this even more frustrating is that the suggestion is because we’re of the identities to which we’re speaking (like women talking about women’s experiences), our stances are inherently slanted.

    You withhold trust in our ability to rationalize because you assume that our points of view are influenced by our experiences – as if your perspectives aren’t equally slanted by yours.

    Here’s a frustrating news flash for devil’s advocates: There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. It can’t exist because we all bring values to the table when we try to solve a problem “objectively.”

    So are feminists biased? Women? People of color? Yes. We (and they) are.

    But what makes you assume that the perspective of, for example, a white man isn’t biased, isn’t affected by your social positionality?

    I’ll tell you why: It’s because you’re so used to living in a world that affirms and validates your experience as “the way things are” that you’ve never been asked to consider those biases.

    It’s because, again, you’re repeating the status quo, which by virtue of its existence goes unquestioned.

    And when you assume that our conclusions fell from the sky or came to us magically through the lens of bitter experience, you’re assuming that you’re past falling victim to subjectivity and are therefore the only ones in the conversation who can think critically for yourselves.

    3. You’re Positioning Your Thoughts As More Valuable Than Our Lived Experiences

    I wish that I was exaggerating here, but in all honesty, a typical Facebook conversation between a feminist and a layperson (especially one who is a straight, cis man) goes like this:

    —Street harassment is offensive.

    —No it isn’t. It’s a compliment.

    —I think that’s up to me to decide. And I don’t take it as a compliment.

    —But you should. It’s harmless.

    —It’s not harmless. It’s embarrassing, violating, and sometimes even threatening.

    —That’s ridiculous. You should be flattered.

    —But I’m not. It frustrates and offends me.

    —Please. Women love it when men tell them that they’re beautiful.

    At which point, up to a dozen other women will comment, explaining why street harassment hurts them, even going so far as to link to more stories and research to support their stances.

    Even some feminist-minded dudes will jump in to try and talk some sense into the offending asshole. But the latter will continue to stand by his opinion, despite the mounting proof that he’s entirely wrong.

    I’ve seen this happen – yes, even just around the topic of street harassment, let alone a million other issues – over and over and over again.

    What this kind of devil’s advocate doesn’t understand is that his (often unsolicited) opinion on an issue does not trump the lived experiences and valid emotions of the marginalized person’s story – especially when that narrative is a near-universal one.

    The truth is, you can’t rationalize your way out of how people experience their existence. Trust me: Sometimes I wish I could change my perspective on something and therefore experience this world in a less terrible way, but I can’t.

    Because no matter how many men tell us that their intent in catcalling is harmless, it’s still going to be offensive.

    Because your thoughts – no matter how well-intentioned, well-thought-out, or well-researched they are – simply pale in comparison to living in a marginalized body that experiences the trauma of oppression.

    It must be glorious to be in such a position of power that you have the privilege to pontificate on the idea of oppression.

    But when you interrupt a conversation built on years of experience and synthesizing to add your “devil’s advocate” “two cents” on what you think about it, you’re positioning your five seconds of contemplation as equal to or more valuable than someone’s actual life.

    <

    blockquote>

    Like

  77. (part 3)
    Mark said,

    I find that three things have to agree – each provides a lens through which to interpret the other two:
    1) What the Bible says
    2) What Jesus did
    3) What happens in society when people follow 1 and 2

    So, in my case, comp failed #3 and when I took my experiences back to scripture, I realized that scripture was saying something different that I originally was taught.

    What CH and others are saying is that since you refuse to accept the experiences of others, and you’re part of the men’s club, you will never have a need to question 1 and 2.

    This page discusses some of what you were telling KAS ….

    (Please note:
    I am not in agreement with all views discussed on this page or web site I am linking you to –

    I have to provide that disclaimer because in my experience when chatting among conservative or fundy Christians online for the past 15+ years, they usually and wrongly assume that just because you quote PART of a web page it must mean you ALSO must totally agree with all other views of the same author or site):

    On my own blog, I wrote a little bit about some of these topics, such as:

    _Doctrines, Theological Views, and Biblical Hermeneutics Have Real-Life Consequences – Personal Experience Vs. Sola Scriptura_

    Like

  78. Serving Kids said:

    Eventually, KAS replied that (according to his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7) neither spouse has the right to refuse sex to the other.

    He tried to convince us that such a right is unnecessary, since a truly loving husband would never physically force his wife to have sex.

    Lea would be good at addressing this.

    Complementarians never want to address real-life scenarios.
    They will only address real-life problems when forced to on blogs like this.

    And even then, you see complementarians trying to dodge and avoid real life thorny situations altogether, or denying they happen, or even could happen, in a complementarian marriage (see KAS for examples of that up and down this comment box).

    I’ve mentioned before that the sort of Complementarianism that KAS prefers only works under very certain, specific conditions-

    Such as – middle class, (where the husband earns enough money so the wife can be a SHAM), the wife is likely very codependent and won’t resist male control of her and her choices in the first place, their relationship would have to be functionally egalitarian, etc.

    But what do complementarians do in a comp marriage where the comp husband is emotionally, verbally, financially, or physically abusing the wife?

    What do complementarians suggest a wife do when she’s married to a comp man who demands sex of her, even when she does not want to have sex (because she is under stress, is tired, is sick, etc.)?

    The only suggestions I ever see comps issue is to put all blame and responsibility on to the wife, and tell her to submit more and pray for her spouse.

    KAS just dodges this altogether by saying a “true” complementairan man would never abuse his wife, and a true comp man would NEVER abuse comp interpretations of the Bible to abuse his wife.

    That’s it. They don’t give such women an honest to God working solution to the problem.

    By the way, in a book I have by a pair of Christian authors (book title: “No More Christian Nice Girl”), one is a psychiatrists who counsels abused Christian wives.

    And in that book, the psychiatrists has a chapter at the back of their book where she says in most every Christian domestic violence counseling session she has had over a course of years…

    Most every single complementarian Christian husband has demanded his way with his wife, and sex when he wants it and whatever else, by screaming the bit from Ephesians at the wife about a “wife submitting to her husband.”

    There are indeed complementarian Christian men who do in fact quote “wifely submission” verses at their wives to cow and scare the wives into compliance.

    -THAT IS REALITY, KAS, there are real life examples of it taking place, and it is done by “true” and “actual” complementarian husbands who quote Bible verses at the wives to demand their way.

    Like

  79. D said,

    I think each individual circumstance is unique but if we are talking about expecting intimacy from a spouse not desiring intimacy, it is a no brainer.

    One would think so, yes.

    But see all the posts on this thread (and other marriage- or complementarian- related ones) by KAS.

    For KAS, this is NOT a “no-brainer.”

    KAS, who wants to suggest Christian wives cannot or should not ever say “No” to sex (and he cites the “don’t deny sex for a season” verse), but then gets all bent out of shape when this is pointed out as being forced / marital rape / immoral.

    Then we’re told by KAS we’re weird for being opposed to marital rape, or for pointing out this is, and can be, complementairanism carried out to its logical conclusion….

    KAS said up thread:

    ii) There seems to be a preoccupation with women being ‘forced’ to have sex that is unhealthy to say the least of it. It’s getting a bit weird.

    Spend time on Christian domestic violence blogs such as “Crying Out For Justice,” and other such blogs (which I told KAS to lurk at before to LEARN),

    blogs where Christian wives have said they were raped by their Christian complementarian husbands,

    and I would bet that the women being raped (or who were raped) by their Bible-verse (“wife submit!”) quoting husbands don’t find our discussion of this “weird.”

    They would maybe say, “This is a serious topic and needs to be addressed.”

    Like

  80. Lea said

    Telling a woman (or man) that they have no ‘right’ to refuse sex, or they are in sin, IS coercion! Whether it is you or the pastor or the husband or society saying so. This is the problem.

    Furthermore you can’t have this wonderful communcation if you tell people they are not allowed to communicate that they are too sick, tired, hurt from an argument or what have you to want sex right now.

    The amount of qualifiers and weasel wording and denials by KAS is just sickening,

    And it reminds me of the men (and some women) who refuse to have empathy for a rape victim unless she’s the “perfect victim” – usually meaning, a virgin who was skipping down the street on her way to help orphans and attend Sunday School when the rapist (some guy she never met before) jumps out from behind a bush to drag her into an alley.

    If, however, you work as a prostitute and are raped, guys with KAS’ mentality will victim- blame that woman.

    If a woman is wearing a mini-skirt when raped, it was supposedly her fault, according to the KAS mentality.

    If a woman is raped while out alone running some errand at 2 in the morning, she’s supposedly at fault.

    If a woman goes into a man’s apartment alone (or invites a man into her dorm room), and the guy rapes her, why, she’s at fault.

    Did KAS ever provide us with an outline of specific, concrete situations in which he would say when it’s okay for a wife to say no?

    Such as,
    “If a husband wants to have sex with his wife one night, but she has a temperature of 102 F and has the flu, yes, it’s perfectly fine for her to tell the guy ‘no’ that night”

    The only time that I saw that sort of thing even barely touched upon in this thread, KAS only expressed concern for husbands who are randy and horny but their wife may try to turn down sex by using an excuse…

    KAS only cares about a husband getting sexual satisfaction, he doesn’t give a crud about the woman’s needs or preferences. In his thinking, in a marriage, it only matters what the husband wants and needs.

    Typical complementarian reasoning.

    Like

  81. Katy said,

    ,i>Complementarians really don’t “like” the concept of good, healthy boundaries, because it makes their “lifelong work” in lording it over others, a wee bit more complicated…..for they desire to be that “go too religious individual” in place of Christ.

    Funny how this replacement theology works within the “misogynistic religious system.”

    Yep, I think that’s one reason so many complementarians (and authoritarian Christians generally) sneer at the concepts of Boundaries – it makes it more difficult for them to get their way all the time if people are standing up for themselves and not being doormats.

    When this topic (of boundaries) came up months ago at another blog, a guy there said his (spiritually abusive) church actually did a sermon or two demonizing the concept of boundaries, saying they are satanic and evil, and they supposedly keep Christians from forming relationships, etc.

    No, boundaries can help keep a Christian (or anyone) from being controlled, pushed around, taken advantage of, or used.

    Katy said,

    Comp theology’s core belief focuses on the “women at fault syndrome,” never the “man’s.”

    Yes – when they’re not concerned about the man’s pleasure, the man’s needs, the man’s desires.

    Like

  82. Lea said

    Mark, this ‘weaseling’ is a tell. If some people said what they really think regarding what women ‘submitting’ means, they know they would be slammed.

    KAS keeps trying to sell us all something here we’re never going to buy.

    One wonders why.

    I used to be a complementarian but complementarianism itself caused me to reject it (not feminism).

    Christianity Hurts has made it clear she’s never going to be a comp or agree with it.

    KAS has indicated he doesn’t find this blog a comfortable place for him to post.

    Taking all that into consideration, I do really wonder why he keeps posting here and does not avail himself of the many other (more suitable) blogs and forums out there he could be posting to.

    Doug Wilson would just adore KAS over at his Blog And Mablog blog (or whatever it’s called). Lori Alexander would enjoy KAS posting to her “Transformed Wife” blog or group.

    What are we doing to deserve (being punished with) his recurrent presence here?

    Like

  83. (part 1)
    KAS said,

    ((–Daisy said –
    Was this the thread where KAS was arguing that women can never say no to sex with their husbands, no matter what?–))

    KAS replied,
    i) I have never said that. You don’t read what people say, and then project your own prejudices in their place.

    And yes, you did say that:

    KAS to D:

    This discussion, in short, has been my unwillingness to give a wife a right to refuse sex, because the apostle Paul says this in 1 Cor 7, for both husbands and wives, and to avoid unnecessary temptation.

    And there you go. Just as I have summarized it on other posts….

    But whenever I summarize KAS’ position like so:

    This discussion, in short, has been about KAS’ unwillingness to give a wife a right to refuse sex, because the apostle Paul says this in 1 Cor 7, for both husbands and wives, and to avoid unnecessary temptation.

    KAS accuses me of putting words into his mouth or twisting his perspective.

    Right there, KAS your “unwillingness give a wife a right to refuse sex” is saying the wife can never ever say no to sex for any reason, if she does say no, you are maintaining she is in scriptural violation, is in sin, etc.

    You, KAS, are trying to strip wives of their agency and boundaries (and you mock boundaries higher up in the thread, to boot).

    (Of course, any woman out there reading this:
    You have every right to live your marriage out the way you see fit, even if it does not meet KAS’ approval or his shoddy interpretation of the Bible!)

    There are some complementarian abusive Christian husbands who do in fact demand sex from their wives, and some quote Bible verses at the women about “wifely submission” and other related passages to coerce the wife into caving in.

    Happens quite frequently, see ACFJ blog and books about domestic violence for testimonies and case studies.

    You just keep insisting such a thing does not happen because a “true” complementarian husband would never ever be all non-agape and take advantage of his wife, abuse, or pressure her. But it does happen, even in comp Christian marriages.

    KAS lives in denial about real-life problems people have as I wrote about in this thread _here_

    Complementarianism is a man-made doctrine and way of viewing women and marriage; it is not God’s way or God’s plan. It does not work well in real life in many situations.

    Like

  84. (part 2)
    KAS said,

    The response that ‘I am endorsing marital rape’ is assinine stupidity.

    That is from the same guy who said:
    KAS said:

    This discussion, in short, has been my unwillingness to give a wife a right to refuse sex, because the apostle Paul says this in 1 Cor 7, for both husbands and wives

    That was an endorsement of marital rape right there.

    KAS, when you say:

    This discussion, in short, has been my unwillingness to give a wife a right to refuse sex, because the apostle Paul says this in 1 Cor 7, for both husbands and wives

    …That is the same thing as writing something like this:

    “I endorse marital rape!

    “Women cannot and should never say no to sex with their husbands!”

    “Why, if a woman turns down sex with her husband, it may lead to temptation!”

    “Wives having boundaries, being able to say no by their own choice, is nothing but psycho-babble!”

    “Anyone who pushes back against any of this is being weird, and quite frankly, I find this an unhealthy concern.”

    KAS said,

    You can grant a wife the right to refuse if you want, but if a husband is a bully or in any other way thinks he has privileged entitlements, he will ignore this right anyway, asserting his own.

    Women already have a right to say no to sex, by the way.

    Women don’t need your approval to say no, KAS.

    (It’s only complementarians such as yourself who confuse the more trusting, naive women into thinking otherwise.)

    Your argument is non-sensical.

    You’re saying even if a woman can say no to sex, it does not matter, because a man may rape her anyway, so women should not say not to sex when they’re not in the mood or are feeling too sick for sex. -??

    The fact that some men rape women who say “no” does not mean it’s wrong or un-biblical for women to have boundaries and be able to say “no” in the first place.

    Your argument is very dumb.

    There are other situations, where a woman wants to say no but may cave in and have sex she does not want to have, because she’s afraid if she says “no” the man (if its a boyfriend or a date) may think she’s a prude, or he may become physically violent with her.

    Many women are conditioned to be people-pleasers since child-hood and will often put the needs and desires of the man they are with ahead of their own.

    Women will put themselves into danger, or allow men to cop a feel or sex them up, even though they’d rather not.

    You’ve not been socially conditioned as a woman, so you’d have no clue about any of this.

    You have no idea how many women feel an internal pressure to go along and comply with all sorts of stuff we’d rather not do (whether it’s sex we don’t want to have or whatever), but we’ve been taught by churches, culture, and parents to set our own safety or needs aside to please someone else.

    A male doctor my mother dragged me to when I was about 15 years old tried to grope me during the exam.
    And my complementarian mother and our complementarian churches put me into a position where I felt it would be “mean” or “wrong” of me to speak up and protest in such a situation.

    If I am a married woman, and I have menstrual cramps, and my spouse wants sex, I am going to tell him “Hell no, back off, not in the mood.”

    You’re saying I should just cave in and have sex anyway… because my spouse may go ahead and decide to take sex by force.

    So I should just always go along and have sex with my man even though I really don’t want to have it… as though my needs, health, and preferences do not matter.

    Like

  85. (part 3)
    KAS said,

    You can grant a wife the right to refuse if you want, but if a husband is a bully or in any other way thinks he has privileged entitlements, he will ignore this right anyway, asserting his own.

    By the way, as a recovering codependent, let me clue you in on something, KAS:

    Even loving, nice people (including Christians) will take advantage of a person who lacks boundaries, who is passive, who lacks self confidence.

    Even nice, sweet, Christian biblical people exploited me financially and emotionally during all my years I was very codependent.

    They knew I had an un-easiness or reluctance saying “No” to their requests, and they’d play on that, and exploit me to the hilt.

    I would imagine in some marriages, the husband figures out early on he can guilt trip or shame the wife quite eaisly into having sex she does not want to have…

    The wife will never say “No” to the spouse when he approaches her for sex, even though she badly wants to say “No.”

    The man does not have to physically beat the woman before, after, or during sex to get the lady to comply.

    People (including Bible-believing Christians) will not hesitate to take advantage of a person who they know from experience has poor boundaries and a fear of saying “No.”

    KAS said,

    Much better to teach a husband, as the apostles do, what God requires of them. Responsibilities rather than rights.

    Distinction without a difference.

    It’s a husband’s responsibility (and common decency) to back off when his wife says “No” to sex.

    It’s a husband’s responsibility to comply with his wife’s wishes, needs, and feelings, even in cases involving a disagreement about sex.

    Every time you wife says “No” to sex, you are then open to what the New Testament calls practicing self-control.

    Go practice some self-control, KAS.

    There, I used your language – but it conveys the same concept.

    Like

  86. (part 4)
    KAS said,

    Egalitarians undermine this when they oppose wifely submission in any shape or form, making is seem as though instructions to wives – and therefore husbands – are something you can choose to accept or not depending on whether you like or agree with them. The misuse of this doctrine is another matter.

    Complementarianism creates and endorses a power differential in a marital relationship, where the man wields all the power and control, which leaves women quite vulnerable to being abused by a husband. You remain blind to this.

    Egalitarianism does not endorse or attempt to justify a power differential so abusing someone under an egal view of biblical passages is more difficult.

    Read the book “Why Does He Do That” by Lundy Bancroft, “The Verbally Abusive Relationship” by P. Evans, and the resources at “A Cry For Justice” blog.

    Educate yourself on abuse dynamics (from NON- complementarian) sources, then get back to us, KAS.

    Until then, shut your extremely ignorant pie hole about things you obviously know nothing about.

    Like

  87. D said,

    This subject is very delicate in a thread like this, where there are contributors that have been mentally or physically abused and have endured nightmare marriages or nightmare upbringings, who was expected to “put out” in any circumstance.

    I’ve disagreed with you on other threads regarding other subject matter, but so far, D, you really seem to understand this… good luck trying to get KAS to understand how and why his comments and views are awful or hurtful to anyone who isn’t complementarian.

    Like

  88. KAS said,

    Sex is a bit like having a delicious meal in your favourite restaurant. If either hubby or wife are not hungry or already podged, then saying ‘no, I don’t want to go out tonight for a meal’ is sufficient, you don’t need to encode this as a right, or go for counselling about it.

    Having boundaries is in fact a “right,” KAS.

    People have a RIGHT to refuse to do X, Y, or Z in a friendship or marriage, whether it’s have sex one night (or for a few weeks, if in physical pain or under stress), or, if they don’t want to go out and eat.

    Nobody is suggesting that counseling is necessarily needed if a husband wants to go out and eat at Taco Bell but the wife wants to stay in and eat a sandwich. My god, and you accuse ME of distorting YOUR views? That is what you are doing here.

    I said if there is a sustained, on-going sexual dispute in a marriage, where, for example, one partner is consistently turning down sex for no apparent reason, then, in such a context, counseling should be considered.

    Otherwise, your solution has been in these threads to guilt trip and shame the “I don’t want sex” spouse into having sex they don’t want to have, in order to obey your interpretation of some Bible verse.

    KAS said,

    The idea of men having a right to demand sex doesn’t come from the NT (or OT for that matter), but imo stems from an atheistic worldview where alpha males evolved to dominate, and that’s that. Tough.

    The sexual free for all that has so increased over the last 50 years or so, with all the damage and hurt it has caused, did not have its origin in the church, but rather the decline in even a nominal adherence to Christian teaching and ethics.

    No loving God and your neighbour, but love yourself. Self-esteem rather than esteeming others more highly than yourself. If you want to covet your neighbour’s wife, fine, the old religious taboo about this was repression of personal autonomy suitable for bronze age goat herders, but we have moved on from that nonsense in an ancient book.

    This is at least the second to third time you’ve said this.

    Men treating women like sex objects and/or raping them has been going on since the creation of the world. It did not suddenly start in the “last 50 years.”

    (You’ve had that pointed out to you a few times before but you still keep bringing it up).

    Your own Bible has examples of men 5,000 years ago of men raping women. David raped Bathsheba.
    Some guy raped his half-sister (also in the Bible).

    The 1960s “free love” stuff, or secular feminism, did not invent rape or sexism… rape and sexism has been with us since about the start of time.

    And complementarianism only makes sexism worse.
    Sure hasn’t made sexism or rape decline.

    Even many (to most) Christians don’t live by “Christian teachings and ethics,” have you not been paying attention to all the sex scandals that have been exposed among all the Protestant churches lately (most complementarian, at least one was egalitarian)?

    Have you not looked up the “Church Too” hash trend on Twitter, which has many many testimonies, mostly by Christian women, of how they were molested by Christian preachers and Sunday School teachers?

    Sometimes, some atheists are more morally up-right than a lot of self-professing Christians, KAS.

    You sound like the Pharisees in the Bible.

    The Pharisees also thought they were godly and righteous until Jesus pointed out all the ways they fell short, which usually involved how they mistreated people and put doctrines above people, just as you do.

    KAS said,

    No loving God and your neighbour, but love yourself. Self-esteem rather than esteeming others more highly than yourself. .

    Sounds like you are endorsing Codependency, there, KAS.

    I didn’t find inner peace and a semblance of happiness in life until I realized I can put me first, if I need to or want to.

    I don’t have to shove my needs down and deny them, and not at the expense of meeting everyone’s needs but my own.

    I spent years putting Neighbor before myself and so on and so forth, and all it got me was resentful, exhausted, and taken advantage of, even by Christians.

    Like

  89. Mark said

    There’s a bigger picture. How do you deal with the girl who was told she could not participate in graduation while the boyfriend who impregnated her was allowed to? The primary difference between a pro-life and pro-abortion Evangelical is whose daughter is pregnant.

    While I oppose abortion, I find it far more wicked how the church treats women carrying babies out of wedlock. Perhaps that is not that much different from how the Pharisees vs. Jesus treated the woman ‘found in the very act’ of adultery.

    Very good points.
    (I am pro-life, btw.)

    Like

  90. Mark said (to D),

    (Mark to KAS):
    I don’t see why you choose to weasel around this.

    Actually, my guess is that you believe all of that and what you are weaseling around is the fact that you choose an alternate definition of “marital rape” meaning “use of physical force to coerce unwanted sex”.

    (Mark to D):
    D, you have to understand that KAS is purposefully moving the goalposts and equivocating on words.

    KAS has not specifically said it is wrong for a husband to use emotional, guilt, shame or economic manipulation, or even going to the church to coerce a wife to have sex.

    Yet he has repeatedly said that a wife cannot ‘refuse’ – that refusing sex can only be by mutual agreement.

    If you actually try to understand what KAS is really saying, be prepared for an onslaught of name-calling (e.g. asinine stupidity), although if you dare name-call back the KAS tone police army will be at your door.

    If I could up-vote that a trillion times, I so would. You hit it out of the park.

    KAS is perfectly fine and dandy with a husband using any and all manner of coercion (minus physical force) to get an unwilling sexual partner to have sex she doesn’t want to really have.

    KAS also has this strange, stupid opinion that all this is irrelevant because a truly loving, caring husband would in no way “force” (or expect?) his wife to have sex she doesn’t want to have.

    Well NO DUH, Einstein.

    I don’t think any on this thread has a problem with a loving, sensitive husband, who, when he finds out his wife doesn’t want to do the Horizontal Mambo, saying,

    “Oh, okay, I’ll just go watch television instead, O Wife O Mine. Can I bring you an aspirin? Hope you feel better tomorrow dear.”

    KAS – excelling at answering arguments nobody has even raised, answering questions nobody has asked.

    Like

  91. KAS said,

    Do I really need to specifically say ‘it is wrong for a husband to use emotional, guilt, shame or economic manipulation, or even going to the church to coerce a wife to have sex’ as Mark maintains?

    Yes KAS, you really do have to specifically say so, because out the other side of your mouth, you have been indicating on this blog that…

    Husbands can get sex whenever they want, even from an un-willing wife – you only specified weeks ago you are against a husband using physical force to get sex.

    And you went on to quote a Bible verse about “abstaining for a season by agreement” – you have no clue how that looks in the context of the conversation we’ve been having here?

    Also, I notice you did NOT specifically condemn the use of spiritual abuse, emotional manipulation and etc regarding a wife turning down sex in a marriage, in that post to D.

    Like

  92. KAS said,

    Your criticism would bear more weight if Daisy’s complete indifference to what my middle one has gone through in the recent past, based on her feeling I don’t care for the suffering and the fact she doesn’t read every post had been countered by anyone. No-one called her out on this.

    This is laughable.

    You’ve shown nothing but indifference to the pain and struggles to everyone on this blog for months now.

    You’ve treated our heart-aches as nothing but abstract, intellectual material to debate and analyze.

    I’ve told you ten times this isn’t the appropriate blog for that. I gave you links to other Christian themed blogs where you would feel at home, but you do not avail yourself of them. That’s not my fault.

    When Dash, –I think his name was–, was discussing the spiritual and physical abuse he got at the hands of his Christian parents, you shamed him or lectured him at how you think he “should have” handled his pain.

    With myself and poster Christianity Hurts, you’ve never addressed our personal, negative experiences with complementarianism.

    (Now you are also accusing one or both of us of living in fantasy – nice, KAS. Very sensitive.)

    You told me months ago you don’t read every one of my posts (due to your busy work schedule or whatever)…

    Now you’re upset because I told you I sometimes skim past some of yours and don’t read them all?

    KAS said,

    Smith says you should always believe the victim. So far so good. An assumption that someone claiming to have been abused is ‘innocent’ of making it up.

    However, there are those, and I’m not going to name them, where I have over time found it increasingly difficult to disentangle fact from fantasy. I have sound reasons for believing this needs to be done.

    And when I say fantasy, I don’t necessarily mean a calculated, deliberate attempt to make things up. With such I have tried not to get bogged down in commenting, which perhaps might be interpreted as indifference. I could of course get this wrong, and I don’t want to make a bad situation worse.

    You’re referring there to either myself or “Christianity Hurts,” there.

    You do not do a thing to help anyone at this blog who has been hurt… all you do is inflame.

    And then you have the audacity to go on and act the victim of me or whomever else on this site.

    And no, I don’t care one iota about whatever you or your kid are going through.

    You’ve not given me a reason to care, on several reasons:
    You’ve behaved like an insensitive jerk since day one, and all you do is make very vague references to your daughter but don’t go into detail or specifics,

    so what am I supposed to be reacting to or showing concern about?

    That she got a paper cut six months ago? That she failed a chemistry test three weeks ago?

    Like

  93. Christianity Hurts said

    Actual women here have told you they were abused or caused pain because of your comp ideology.

    Did you see this comment he left for Serving Kids In Japan?

    In this reply, KAS is not naming you or me, but he has one of us in mind: KAS said to SKIJ:

    Smith says you should always believe the victim. So far so good. An assumption that someone claiming to have been abused is ‘innocent’ of making it up. However, there are those, and I’m not going to name them, where I have over time found it increasingly difficult to disentangle fact from fantasy. I have sound reasons for believing this needs to be done. And when I say fantasy, I don’t necessarily mean a calculated, deliberate attempt to make things up. With such I have tried not to get bogged down in commenting, which perhaps might be interpreted as indifference. I could of course get this wrong, and I don’t want to make a bad situation worse.

    Christianity Hurts, KAS is saying either you or me are making things up, because we are crazy or crack-pots.

    So he’s choosing to not engage with you (or me?) on the blog, or not that much. It’s a very patronizing attitude. It’s his way of dismissing views he does not want to be confronted with.

    KAS wants to keep living in his little Complementarian bubble where he does not want to learn about the real-life affects his Complementarian beliefs have had on women.

    By the way,
    I used to have clinical depression and anxiety, and for years, I had to visit different psychiatrists for medication, and none of them, ever found me to have another mental illness. They all found me sane.

    I wrote about it on my blog:
    _My Mental Health: I Am Sane; Even Doctors Say So_

    The more I read down this thread (this is my first time at this blog, reading comments, since about, five or so days ago), the more appalled I am by KAS’ comments.

    KAS, you are truly a sack of s–t. Why you’re allowed to continue posting here, I cannot grasp.

    Like

  94. Christianity Hurts said

    KAS, why do you not care that your ideology hurt a sexually abused little girl? And hurt Daisy and Katy? Is it because the misogyny of it makes you feel good and you don’t care if it hurts women and raped little girls?

    KAS’ adherence to Complementarianism means more to him than real-life people.

    KAS lives in a world where Complementarianism can never be falsified, no matter what examples you give him, no matter what argument you present, no matter what rebuttals to complementarian you point him to.

    It’s especially sick KAS insists on continuing posting to a blog (and is permitted to keep posting) where it seems to me that…

    the majority of regular posters don’t want him present (I’ve sure made that pretty clear), and
    where KAS keeps making the same arguments in support of complementariasm, even after<//i> hearing from women on these threads they were emotionally or sexually abused due to comp teachings, or have shared testimonies by other such women.

    You said,

    Complementarianism caused me great pain and misery the whole time I was a little girl and it lead me to atheism.

    KAS’ allegiance is to the man-made doctrine of complementarianism.

    It’s not to actual living, breathing people.

    …And he wants me to feel pity for him or his family?

    Like

  95. I don’t mean to spam, but, I really came on to this blog earlier this evening to share this, but I don’t want it to get lost:

    As this is the thread where KAS has been endorsing marital rape
    (sample KAS quote on that score):

    (comment by KAS):
    This discussion, in short, has been my unwillingness to give a wife a right to refuse sex, because the apostle Paul says this in 1 Cor 7, for both husbands and wives

    _Saying No To Sex With One’s Spouse_ – (via ACFJ blog)

    Like

  96. KAS said

    You spectacularly miss the point. I have been criticised for apparantly not caring for the abused. When someone actually says they do not care about someone who has experienced abuse in their family, this is fine, or at least no-one appears to notice. Why the double standard?

    You argue at times that you care about abused people – but you treat those of us who have been abused like trash.

    You can say all day you care about the abused or the hurting, but your actions and attitudes on this blog since day one have not backed that claim up.

    You can say all day you care about the abused or the hurting,
    but your actions and attitudes on this blog don’t back that up,
    and you expect those of us here who have been on the receiving end of this lousy behavior to express oodles of caring about your daughter.

    Who’s the one with the double standards? That would be you KAS.

    Who’s the one who is inconsistent on his views? You.
    Who flip flops on topics and weasel words to avoid the implications of his views? You.

    But then you accuse us of distorting your words or views. LOL.

    Like

  97. KAS said,

    That’s a healthy attitude, and I wouldn’t expect you to.

    Putting forth an argument is fine, but emotional blackmail or manipulation is not, regardless of who is doing it.

    So when Katy, Christianity Hurts, or myself share our testimonies on how we have been personally negatively impacted by complementarianism, we are not only crazy crack pots into deluded fantasy worlds (according to your earlier post),

    but,

    We are also engaging in “emotional black mail” and “emotional manipulation”

    … (so you do know what emotional manipulation, but only when it suits your argument, I see)…

    But you want us to be highly empathetic to your family woes?

    I sense that your very vague “my daughter is in trouble, oh noes!” posts starting a week or more back was a ploy – an emotional manipulation to gain sympathy or sway some of us to your side or to get them to oppose myself and/or CH.

    I do wonder if off-line you’re abusive.
    One thing abusers do is try to make themselves look like victims and the wounded look like the abusers. You’ve been doing that in spades on various threads, such as this one.

    Like

  98. Another thought about this KAS quote (to Lea, I believe):

    You spectacularly miss the point. I have been criticised for apparantly not caring for the abused.

    When someone actually says they do not care about someone who has experienced abuse in their family, this is fine, or at least no-one appears to notice. Why the double standard?

    I haven’t even posted to this thread, and not to any other thread here (that I can recall), in about four – five days in a row.

    I have not even been on this blog, have not posted, for about a solid week.

    I thought I was going to log in to leave my one link above, and maybe glance down to see people discussing this or that topic, but I saw my screen name quoted a few times (by KAS).

    I just found that a little odd.

    Like

  99. “Christianity Hurts, KAS is saying either you or me are making things up, because we are crazy or crack-pots.”

    This is what misogynist, wife beaters, child abusers, perverts, and rapist do. They are too selfish and self-centered to care about other people’s pain, or if the self-serving slop they are promoting is hurting people.

    My comp father was a pro at mocking, belittling, and dismissing ALL sexual abuse victims. I wonder what dismissive jerk thing KAS would say to the people who have posted their horrific childhood stories at https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/

    It is infuriating the way people act about my childhood story. As if it is shocking, rare, or I grew up in a cult. I just grew up in the plain ol Southern Baptist Convention. My cousins had much worse childhoods than me and that is the reason one killed himself and another is in prison. Children growing up in this movement are being sexually terrorized starting when they are basically babies and savagely beaten every day. They also have to grow up listening to the perverted creepy crap their fathers declare as biblical.

    And here comes the perverts that get pleasure out of hurting and subjugating women and children saying everybody pretend it isn’t true.

    “My duty of care is first to my family, then wider family, friends or acquaintances as church or work colleagues. People I actually know. This is true of everybody.

    Anything much beyond that is too distant. ” Can you imagine Jesus saying this?

    Comp is obviously a bible-themed cult. There is no Jesus anywhere in it. It is all about making sure selfish immature men have a trapped @ss kissing woman under their thumbs.

    “but,

    We are also engaging in “emotional black mail” and “emotional manipulation””

    KAS has proven himself to have the emotional maturity of the affluenza teen. He can’t be bothered to care about anyone else’s pain. Even if that person was sexually abused by his own mother when he was a baby.

    The first post I read of KAS was him being a pointless jerk to a man who grew up in the Bill Gothard cult and who had been sexually abused by his mother. I have not had any respect for KAS since then. And he has not since said anything mature, loving, informed, or anything Jerry Falwell wouldn’t say.

    Liked by 1 person

  100. Christianity Hurts quoting KAS:

    My duty of care is first to my family, then wider family, friends or acquaintances as church or work colleagues.

    People I actually know. This is true of everybody.

    Anything much beyond that is too distant.

    KAS’ only (and this is minimal) “duty” to people on a blog is to show empathy and stop being such an obvious d-bag to the ladies (and men) on this blog who have shared their personal (painful) experiences.

    All KAS had to do was type to one or more of us something like,

    “I hear you. I am sorry you were hurt by complementarians or by complementarianism.
    “Complementarians really do need to double check that their teachings about women are not contributing to domestic violence and sexism.”

    Instead, KAS, from day one on this site, chooses to

    -ignore our personal experiences,
    -gloss over or minimize it,
    -keep attacking egalitarianism,
    -condescendingly lecture us on HOW he thinks we should handle our pain in life,
    -imply that you or I are crazy nuts who are living in deluded fantasy,
    -argue against our personal experiences brought about by comp by saying,
    “that cannot possibly have happened, because No True Complementarian…”
    etc.

    I have never asked KAS to mail me money, scrub my shower clean, paint my house, cook me chicken soup when I have a cold, or come to my house and mow my grass.

    But KAS is acting as though showing common decency on a blog to hurting or wounded people is just too much to ask.

    Common decency or showing concern is only for people he personally knows, dang it!

    KAS claims to care about people and their pain, but,
    KAS has refused to show Dash, Katy, you, or myself (and whoever else) empathy, concern, or compassion, but he demands I show him or his family empathy and keeps asking people on this thread, “But what about Daisy telling me to go take my family problems and get stuffed, what about her?”(*)

    How absolutely entitled and hypocritical.

    (*)And KAS, you may want to ask yourself why it is you bring this out in me and some of the others posting on here.

    You don’t seem to ever think about what it is YOU are doing or saying that causes others to have a negative reaction TO YOU.
    (And it’s not because we’re all crazy loony-pants living in a fantasy world.)

    Like

  101. @ Daisy

    KAS has implied his daughter was sexually abused and that she is suicidal. Both are very sad and I believe him. It is also sad that the girl has had such a toxic life experience and she has a misogynist in her life on top of it. KAS did not have any empathy for Dash so I do not believe he really cares about sexual abuse victims no matter who they are.

    KAS said,

    “this miserable Willow Creek thing. ”

    KAS keeps bringing up Willow Creek. I have never heard of Bill Hybels.

    KAS has never mentioned Sovereign Grace Church’s multiple Complementarian pastors obstructing justice for dozens of raped children proving to the world that comp men do not believe child rape should be against the law.

    “By the way,
    I used to have clinical depression and anxiety, and for years, I had to visit different psychiatrists for medication, and none of them, ever found me to have another mental illness. They all found me sane.”

    I did have a mental breakdown when I was fifteen and my mother tried to commit me. I have been suicidal since age eleven but I am sane enough to know KAS is a horrible human being. I don’t agree with some of the things people say here but I still see them as empathetic good human beings. I see nothing good in KAS at all.

    KAS said,

    “There seems to be a preoccupation with women being ‘forced’ to have sex that is unhealthy to say the least of it. It’s getting a bit weird.”

    Because it is a comp thing. I was born and raised in comp and taught that a wife can never refuse her husband sex, and if her husband rapes her it is not rape, and she can not divorce him for raping her.

    The topic of this post is what can men do to remove misogyny from church. So talking about a wife’s right to not be f****d against their will is not weird.

    I read a story about a woman who received a phone call that her mother had died and the moment she hung up the phone her husband walked in and demanded sex. She did it because of comp.

    KAS seems to have a grudge against rights and boundaries but is on board with hierarchy.

    Liked by 1 person

  102. (part 1)
    Christianity Hurts said,

    KAS has implied his daughter was sexually abused and that she is suicidal. Both are very sad and I believe him.

    It is also sad that the girl has had such a toxic life experience and she has a misogynist in her life on top of it.

    KAS did not have any empathy for Dash so I do not believe he really cares about sexual abuse victims no matter who they are.

    I would want KAS to confirm that in plain language, no beating around the bush, or merely hinting at what occurred (that his daughter is suicidal, etc).

    KAS is so very vague in how he words things, I have no idea.
    Maybe his daughter is upset because he ate the last slice of left-over pizza in the fridge that she was wanting to eat for dinnner, who is to say, with how he chooses to dance around subject matter?

    BTW. If it’s true his daughter was sexually assaulted… maybe he doesn’t want to go into detail because complementarianism contributed to her (what you assume to be) sexual assault in some fashion, or he fears we will use her ordeal to bash complementarianism some more.

    He seemed to allude to the fact that comp has something to do with it in a post up thread.

    Complementarianism did in fact leave me more vulnerable to being sexually abused (or taken advantage of in other ways) by both men and women over my life, because comps teach you things like having boundaries and healthy self-esteem is selfish, un-godly, and nothing but ‘psycho-babble.’

    Under comp, Girls and women are taught they are supposed to be all-giving, nurturing, sweet little door-mats, who only care about meeting the needs of others, never care about themselves.

    And that is one ingredient in a recipe of turning girls and women into easy prey for rapists and manipulators.

    That is one possible product of this garbage you’ve been promoting and defending on this blog, KAS, and that fact doesn’t change if your daughter was a victim of assault (or whatever she went through).

    Also, KAS has been so incredibly insensitive to people on this site, that regardless of what his daughter is going through, I’d have a difficult time being empathetic.

    I’d have to work hard at separating her from her insensitive father and his behavior towards all of us on this blog to get to that point.

    It’s very annoying to me that someone (KAS) demands empathy from me for his family member, while all the time on this blog, he’s shown none to any of us here (even those who have been sexually abused, for the love of god!), but has actually minimized or denied our experiences.

    Like

  103. (part 2)
    Christianity Hurts said:

    I did have a mental breakdown when I was fifteen and my mother tried to commit me.

    I have been suicidal since age eleven but I am sane enough to know KAS is a horrible human being.

    I don’t agree with some of the things people say here but I still see them as empathetic good human beings. I see nothing good in KAS at all.

    I’m sorry to hear that. I hope one day you can find healing.

    I’ve mentioned before on the other blog (TWW) that I have had suicidal ideation since around age 11.

    That was one of the big things that prompted my mother to start taking me to see mental health professionals, when I told her I was suicidal.

    I did not find the Christian faith or secular medicine to be helpful with that, or with the depression or anxiety.

    If secular medicine was helpful to me, it was only much later, and after the fact.

    None of the psychiatrists ever pegged me with codependency, which, if they had, and treated me for it, would have been helpful.

    Instead, I had to do my own detective work later in life to figure out that was at the root of m problem, and it was instilled in large measure by Gender Complementarian teachings I got as a kid from churches and my parents, etc.

    By the way, me mentioning that secular medicine did not help me personally really angers some people out there.

    I’ve gotten some very vitriolic or argumentative commentary from the truly nutty and wacko online (KAS thinks I’m a nut) who seem to think I am “anti psychology” (no, I’m not. I’m not like Scientologists).

    I’ve just said that not everyone finds the same solutions helpful but have to try other approaches.

    What worked for you may not work for someone else, is all I’ve conveyed, but boy, does it ever hack off some people.

    Like

  104. (part 3)
    Christianity Hurts said,

    <

    blockquote>KAS keeps bringing up Willow Creek. I have never heard of Bill Hybels.

    <

    blockquote> Bill Hybels was pastor of Willow Creek, which was a very large and successful mega-church around the 1990s or a bit into the 2000s.

    The reason why KAS delights in bringing up the Clergy Sex Abuse of pastor Bill Hybels is that…

    Willow Creek Church is the one, lone egalitarian church that had an abuse problem that KAS can point to.

    Meanwhile, TWW and ACFJ blog (and this one, SSB) is chock full of a billion complementarian– based churches or complementarian pastors who have spiritually or sexually abused women and girls (or sometimes teen boys), or who have covered-up such abuse by members.

    Abusers and sexual predators can be found in ANY type of church or belief set.

    It doesn’t matter if a church or group is egalitarian or complementarian or atheist or Buddhist or whatever-
    But the point is that, (regarding Egalitarianism Vs. Complementarianism),
    Much of this abuse is more common-place among Complementarianism based churches.

    Further, it’s more common to find complementarian pastors pointing to favorite Comp verses (about wifely submission and so on) to keep women stuck in abusive marriages,
    and,
    Complementarian literature brain-washes girls and women to think enduring abuse, lacking boundaries, and putting up with second-class status is normal, godly, and they should endure it in silence, which they often do.

    It would be much more difficult in an egalitarian-based church for an abuser to point to the Bible to continually justify such abuse.

    CH said,

    KAS has never mentioned Sovereign Grace Church’s multiple Complementarian pastors obstructing justice for dozens of raped children proving to the world that comp men do not believe child rape should be against the law.

    That’s because the billion examples of complementarian men or complementarian churches who either bungle their handling of abuse or who abuse themselves are impediments to his defense of Complementarianism.

    KAS just brushes it away as such:
    “No True Complementarian would ever abuse a woman or cover up abuse…”

    And, real-life pain caused or prolonged due to his doctrine does not matter!
    It’s defending the doctrine itself that matters to him.

    One could give many examples but here is just one more:
    _Complementarian Church Tries to Force Wife to Stay Married to Pedo Husband or Else Face Church Discipline_
    – via Daily Beast site

    Christianity Hurts said to KAS,

    Because it is a comp thing. I was born and raised in comp and taught that a wife can never refuse her husband sex, and if her husband rapes her it is not rape, and she can not divorce him for raping her.

    …I read a story about a woman who received a phone call that her mother had died and the moment she hung up the phone her husband walked in and demanded sex. She did it because of comp.

    Oh yeah, it is VERY common in certain strains of complementarianism for comps to teach women they must always dole out sex to their spouse even if they do not want to have sex

    It seems to be a popular subject among complementarian women bloggers and writers: you can find comp women lecturing Christian wives to always dole out sex,even when they are sick or tired. Debi Pearl and Lori Alexander are examples of this.

    Among the male comps, Mark Driscoll and probably Douglas Wilson are probably supporters.

    Anyone who wants examples can probably find them on the Patheos Blog entitled “Love, Joy, and Feminsm” by a lady who is a former patriarchal / complementarian Christian.

    Like

  105. (part 3)
    Christianity Hurts said to KAS,

    …I read a story about a woman who received a phone call that her mother had died and the moment she hung up the phone her husband walked in and demanded sex. She did it because of comp.

    Am continually mystified why such selfish louts don’t just grab the box of tissue, a bottle of lotion, go take care of their desire on their own back in their bedroom.

    They get their itch scratched, and the spouse who isn’t in the mood gets left alone for the evening, it’s a win-win.

    Like

  106. (part 4)
    Christianity Hurts said

    The topic of this post is what can men do to remove misogyny from church. So talking about a wife’s right to not be f****d against their will is not weird.

    ….KAS seems to have a grudge against rights and boundaries but is on board with hierarchy.

    I agree.

    As to this,

    “The topic of this post is what can men do to remove misogyny from church. “

    But KAS turns this whole thread into:

    -Egalitarianism is awful,

    -But What About Willow Creek and Bill Hybels?!

    -Daisy is deluded, nuts, living in a fantasy word, cannot tell fact from fantasy

    (Daisy response:
    Er, you are at times vague or you weasel word and flip flop your views every post, KAS – if you believe I’m misunderstanding you, I’m not a crazy – you are a terrible, unclear writer)

    -Daisy is being a meanie to me because she won’t give me the empathy I demand of her though I’ve not shown CH, Katy, or her any!

    -Complementarianism is great and wonderful

    I tried to get this thread back on to topic several times in weeks past, by posting links to articles with headings like, “How men can stop abuse in church in this ‘ChurchToo’ Era” to no avail.

    Like

  107. Willow Creek Church is the one, lone egalitarian church that had an abuse problem that KAS can point to.

    And this illustrates why authority cannot be relied upon…that pastor failed. The elders could not be relied upon to correct him. The church was as far as I can tell non-denominational created by one man, which I happen to think is a terrible church model to began with. So, lot of problems.

    Like

  108. KAS,

    I know from personal experience living under comp, attending an abusive Baptist c’hurch that promotes/practices/and lives religious comp (and yet the spiritual climate of that institutional religious system revolves around the lordship of the pastor man, his “yes” men and women, and the promotion of certain “highly spiritual” folks, who all love, adore, and relish the fact they act as “god’s police force” here on this earth, to tell us how to live our lives……and yet their own households are a mess, filled with filthy lucre….including the spiritual state of their own hearts……..the camel and gnat syndrome), having in-laws that lived out the comp life, and living in a highly charged “male have more nature wisdom and insight – patriarchal” community.

    And the first persons to cut women down on a regular basis……are “c’hurched” men, as if they are “lords of all.” It is extremely difficult, as a woman, to live in an environment where women have valued skills, and yet are treated as secondary citizens. And frankly, KAS, I grow tired of hearing from c’hurched men, the blatant and subtly insults spoken/utilized against women to “keep them in their place” so to speak. The state of the visible religious/apostate system is deeply troubling…..I often wonder what Jesus must think about the state of affairs regarding His sheep…….keeping them corralled and locked up waiting for the slaughter by mankind.

    And yet, some religious men desire to keep those precious little sheep, bound up and put away as if Christ Himself, never cared for those of us who love Him and love our neighbor as ourselves.

    Dear KAS, in keeping with the gifts of God, the Holy Spirit, it is so incredibly easy to pray for your daughter, and precious soul whom I have never met, nor will ever meet on this earth. Perhaps in the Glorious Presence of our LORD Jesus Christ, shall we meet, but not now in the natural. Born again Christians are literally filled with the Presence of Jesus Christ, through the power of His Holy Spirit, this is not because of what we have done, oh no! God forbid; this is because of what Jesus, our Savior has done for us. We are a new creation in Christ alone, for salvation, and when His Spirit comes into our souls, we grow into individuals who desire empathy, compassion, and love for the souls of mankind, whether saved or unsaved……and we, the Body of Christ, long for the well being of others.

    In our old man/old woman bodies, before we met Jesus……we did not care for the plight of individuals……we were more concerned about ourselves, and especially about being “right” all of the time. C’hurched folks are plagued with the deadly fungus of “being right” at all costs, and watering down and twisting the Scriptures to “prove and reprove” those of us who take Jesus’ words literally, His yoke is easy and His burden is light. And this is where the literal version/definitions of the original Scriptural texts are of spiritual importance……not those additional words and concepts to put His sheep under the bondage of religious men and women who don’t give a rip about your life.

    To beat someone over the head with Scriptures, and not care, genuinely care about that individual, is precisely the religion of the Pharisees…..and they are among us today….the tares and the wheat….still desiring to lord it over men and women in contending for their own interpretations of Scripture. We must take heed that Jesus hated the Nicolaitan religious system (Nicolaitan means “to conquer/to lord it over”). Jesus hates that. Those are pretty strong emotions from our LORD, is it not.

    I, personally, stand amazed with great sadness, that some religious comp men, are devoid of Christlike love towards other believers, across this great world of ours…..we are called to be a peculiar people…..and yet…..is there really anything “peculiar” about comp folks? No, not really…….for they do as the “gentiles” do…..nothing remotely looking like Jesus in comp land.

    Again, I will reiterate the concept of “yes and no”….tell a comp man or woman the word “no” and there will be hell to pay, as the individual is always supposed to comply with their comp view of the Scriptures in every day living. This is NOT Christ, but the ways of the enemy.

    KAS, I cannot control nor manipulate you….nor do I have the desire to do so, for I respect you as an individual; for you were created in His image as much meself. So let me ask you this…..do you have any feelings of compassion/empathy/the hopeful/loving well being, for those who have endured the pain/sin from religious evil doers? Do you really love your neighbor as yourself (the Body of the Living Christ)?

    Do you desire the well being of Christianity Hurts, Daisy, Lea, DASH, Serving Kids in Japan, Mark, D, Julie Anne, Kathi, Carmen, Zoe, Avid Reader, or any other soul here that posts on comment threads, or stops by for a quick visit? Do you really honestly and truly care about any of us “strangers” to you?” Do you ever pray (after all, God calls His House a “house of prayer,” for any of us, even though you do not know us personally, and yet we have crossed paths via Julie Anne’s conversational venue…..which has helped me heal in so many ways, due to the “ministry” of those who post here. The conversations are real, some are very difficult to read and literally make me cry with tears and I have to just walk away and pray, and cry some more over the abuse experienced to their innocent souls. KAS, do you cry tears of hurt over reading the truths of people’s lives posted here? Daisy, Christianity Hurts, Lea, and Mark have posted some thought provoking responses to you, and we need to wrestle with these in understanding the Scriptures through the lens of Christ. All Scriptures point to Christ, and any deviation away from Him, should prompt us to be Bereans in seeking out the true meanings from the original language……not the add on words placed there by man’s lying heart.

    Jesus’ Kingdom does not resemble any kingdom here on this earth set up by man, it is a different world KAS, one that comps do not understand.

    Like

  109. Am continually mystified why such selfish louts…

    Daisy, you have the answer right there. They are selfish. Some are deeply evil too and take pleasure in someone else’s pain or humiliation. Both of them get a boost from this idea that women have no right to say no. Neither would actually comply if a woman had a higher sex drive and wanted sex when they didn’t.

    Like

  110. Daisy

    You wrote: “I’ve disagreed with you on other threads regarding other subject matter, but so far, D, you really seem to understand this… good luck trying to get KAS to understand how and why his comments and views are awful or hurtful to anyone who isn’t complementarian.”

    As you know much of what I take issue is the language content and some of the mean spirited exchanges, words my mom use to wash my mouth out with soap growing up.

    Words matter, but also I didn’t know having exchanges with non-Christians or a Christian when certain faith based topics were posted on this thread.

    It was the way my mom taught me to be.

    I know and have endured abuse and I witnessed my own mom, endure a lot of garbage I wouldn’t want any human being to go through, I was a love child, so both my mom and I were rejected by my father, whom I didn’t meet until I was 32.
    She also endured shame and also economic hardships throughout her adult life, dying poor while my father died as a multi-millionaire never giving her support or to the other kids he sired.

    The question I addressed KAS extensively with, was regarding sex on demand and scenarios when a woman was mentally unable to have sex or wasn’t in the mood to have sex, which he wrote back to me that he didn’t condone “sex on demand”, rape or to manipulate a woman into engaging in unwanted sex.

    My church background in my childhood was Catholic and converted to my wife’s Baptist faith which I now know is loaded with colliding doctrines and methodologies, some of which are toxic.

    I’ll be honest, I’m not familiar with Complementarianism or Egalitarianism. Personally there are too many ‘isms for me to follow, the worse in my view is Hyper-Calvinism.

    It is easier for me to detect abuse by the way people treat and communicate to one another with who I’m surrounded. The abuse my wife and I endured caused us to be cautious but also more aware of doctrine. But also being abused myself, I have to make a conscious effort to avoid being a new abuser by spreading negative energy and foul language onto others and be more Christ-like. Is that wrong?

    Like

  111. However, there are those, and I’m not going to name them, where I have over time found it increasingly difficult to disentangle fact from fantasy. I have sound reasons for believing this needs to be done. And when I say fantasy, I don’t necessarily mean a calculated, deliberate attempt to make things up.

    And this is just the latest in a long list of bewildering, disturbing things that you’ve said, KAS. You’re accusing commenters here of being crazy or delusional? On what basis, exactly?

    I don’t want to make a bad situation worse.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, KAS: You already have.

    Like

  112. Long ago, in a church I attended, there was a comp homeschooled daughter. When she turned 18, she talked to a newly-minted church elder about how her father was controlling and abusive and that she wanted to elope with her boyfriend. The elder said, “You’re 18. You can legally do what you want.” So, that’s what she did. The father, of course, was horribly upset and it became a huge issue in the church for which the elder ultimately resigned.

    Point being, if that father had come on a blog to complain about what happened to his daughter, it wouldn’t have started with, “Well, I abused my daughter and then she ran off to marry some guy.”

    I think that is what Daisy is saying. We hear bits and pieces and it could be that the daughter is simply walking away from what she perceives as an abusive situation. I’ve heard enough accounts from parents and pastors about “wayward children” that are along the lines of “we were great parents and… look what happened!” I’ve met a few of those people on the other side and discovered that the “great parents/elders” thing is more fantasy than reality. I have documentation from disciplinary proceedings where the leadership was completely overstepping their bounds, and then punishing members for not bending to their will. I have documents from pastors saying that we as Christians should not be “helping” non-Christians – that we should let their marriages and lives crumble because that’s how God was going to bring them to himself.

    So, KAS, I don’t know whether to be sad for you or your daughter or happy. I don’t know whether she is wayward or finding her way. We see only bits of the story through a distorted lens.

    There are those I wish would escape from their abusive churches and families, and I’m sure their church leaders and parents would tell a sob story about whatever situation unfolded.

    Like

  113. Daisy,

    I would want KAS to confirm that in plain language, no beating around the bush, or merely hinting at what occurred (that his daughter is suicidal, etc).

    He did. It was waaaaaay back in May, but he went into some detail as to his daughter’s sufferings. Since it’s hard to remember that far back, and you might not have noticed KAS’ initial comment, I went looking for it:

    https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2018/05/15/discuss-what-can-men-do-to-help-remove-misogyny-from-the-church-inquiring-elder-wants-to-know/comment-page-3/#comment-388616

    Since then, KAS has mentioned that things have improved somewhat. After a crisis of faith, his daughter started attending church again, and was recently baptized. For myself, I’m not convinced this means she’s completely out of the woods, but hopefully it’s a good sign.

    I realize his words and attitude can be hard to put up with, Daisy. But I’d like to ask that you try to be gracious to him, at least in regards to what his family has been through. From what KAS says, it’s not trivial by any stretch.

    Like

  114. Katy – to answer your questions.

    I do want the best for the regulars here you listed. Not sure why you would think otherwise. The most loving thing you can ever do is to point someone to Christ. Born again, new start, forgiven, new creation where the past can lose its grip to dominate the present. And I agree with you – religion cannot give you this, in fact it can be the greatest enemy of the new birth.

    I have prayed for some on the list, but only once. And I did not put in a quick word after your post just so I could say I had prayed for them. I’ve prayed for you a couple of times! And SKIJ.

    Regarding Willow Creek, I have read round this church more than I should in my time. It may have started out with the noblest of intentions (evangelism v inward-looking churches), but has morphed into an institution riddled with doctrinal error and practice. The trouble is it has spread this around the globe, and in my opinion creates the kind of church that is soft on sin, strong on self-love (‘you are special, say yes to yourself’), and is no barrier to abuse. Weak sermons downloaded and parrotted from the pulpit.

    It’s theology doesn’t produce Christians but religious persons with a partly Christianised lifestyle. It has replaced sanctification by psychological counselling. It has to for those who are not truly converted.

    It unintentionally can enable abuse by weakening those aspects of Christianity that militate against it. Just one example. Jesus said if we are to follow him we are ‘to deny ourselves and take up our cross’ – yet this is wholly absent from a Willow Creek influenced church. You cannot deny yourself and say yes to yourself at the same time!

    WC is deceptive because it is not all bad, it does highlight some aspects of Christian truth. This hides the mixture of false doctrine so not everybody sees it for what it is.

    SKIJ – will get back to you later. Chores to do!

    Like

  115. KAS, having lived in a church on the other side of the coin, I need a church where I am affirmed. “Deny yourself and take up your cross” meant treat yourself as garbage and do whatever we tell you.

    I think this is why you and my former pastors misinterpret Paul’s writings. I think Corinthians and Galatians are written to two polar opposite churches. The Corinthian church may or may not be what you think of Willow Creek. It was a church that reveled in the grace of Christ, but, they were essentially denying individual piety. In fact, they were seemingly condemning of people who wanted the church to maintain some sort of purity. On the other hand there was the Galatian church. They were doing well, but got infiltrated by the Pharisees who were pushing a legalistic and pietistic gospel. I don’t think it was just their insistence on circumcision that got Paul angry, but that was probably the most egregious example of their burdening the saints – requiring them to be circumcised as a means of salvation. It’s interesting to me which church Paul is more angry at… he is SO ANGRY with the Galatian church that he doesn’t even follow the typical letter form to offer a greeting. Contrast that with 1st Corinthians,

    I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

    I don’t know Willow Creek well enough, but the leadership stepping down over not holding Bill Hybels accountable makes me think there is more truth there than I’ve seen at, for example, Sovereign Grace Ministries, where CJ Mahaney continues to avoid accountability.

    Like

  116. Mark: When she turned 18, she talked to a newly-minted church elder about how her father was controlling and abusive and that she wanted to elope with her boyfriend. The elder said, “You’re 18. You can legally do what you want.” So, that’s what she did. The father, of course, was horribly upset and it became a huge issue in the church for which the elder ultimately resigned.

    Good for that elder, though. And a shame for what the church did to him. I agree with you that sometimes we have an unreliable narrator situation that goes on in churches (not commenting on particular people). I’m convinced this is why so many men think all rape reports and abuse reports are lies, because they believe their unreliable buddy who told them this was a lie.

    To bring it way on back to the original topic, getting men in churches to simply realize the possibility that their male friends might be lying would be hugely helpful. As it is they default to women being the liars. [That’s certainly not the only problem, even when women are believed they are devalued enough compared to either men or the church itself that their needs are often discounted. But it would be a start]

    Like

  117. KAS, having lived in a church on the other side of the coin, I need a church where I am affirmed. “Deny yourself and take up your cross” meant treat yourself as garbage and do whatever we tell you.

    Mark, I think there absolutely has to be balance in these things. Some people have a tendency to take it to extremes one way or the other, on one side you have the controlling legalistic church that lets abusers stay because they ‘act’ repentant or put on a good show, and on the other you have people like Tullian, who are banging on about grace to excuse their own sins. BOTH sides are wrong. There is a happy middle somewhere in there, where you respect yourself and have agency, but are still giving and loving.

    Like

  118. Mark – So, KAS, I don’t know whether to be sad for you or your daughter or happy. I don’t know whether she is wayward or finding her way. We see only bits of the story through a distorted lens.

    There are those I wish would escape from their abusive churches and families, and I’m sure their church leaders and parents would tell a sob story about whatever situation unfolded

    That is more than out of order. Hopefully SKIJ having linked to the original post should put you right on this – and saved you getting a mouthful from me to boot.

    Such speculation is wrong – in fact, going by a post you wrote recently elsewhere you are projecting your own experience on to me. You do this a lot – I think this is why you and my former pastors misinterpret Paul’s writings – from what I can remember of what you have said about your former church experience I am not remotely like your church pastors.

    Like

  119. SKIJ – thank you for taking the trouble to wade through so many posts to link to my post above. I had already forgotten the details of it myself. My only reason for mentioning this at all was I was getting fed up with accusations that this is all academic and I don’t care about abuse. An overly blunt posting style (although I don’t think I am!) ought not to be confused with a lack of concern.

    My eldest was baptised not long ago. I have a picture of her emerging from the river, and by common consent she looks radiant. She is quietly spoken, but with an inner strength (meek?) and a lot of wisdom and discernment. Oh and she gets a bit moody sometimes as well ……

    The middle one is the one suffering, and as her latest attempt on her life was just before this thread started, you are right that we are not out of the woods yet. I have no doubt that but for answered prayer we wouldn’t still have her. The underfunded shambles of a healthcare system in Britian is worse than useless, about which I had better not wax lyrical.

    That as far as I am concerned draws a line under the personal stuff. I don’t think I have been unnecessarily argumentative, for its own sake, but I have needed a distraction from time to time.

    The thread is meant to be giving answers to our poor elder (remember him?!), who must have a lot of patience waiting for suggestions!

    Like

  120. KAS said,

    The thread is meant to be giving answers to our poor elder (remember him?!), who must have a lot of patience waiting for suggestions!

    Says the guy, who like the other one on other threads (D), who manages to derail about every thread he’s on, especially if it’s over gender related subjects, or about abuse victims.

    Said,

    That as far as I am concerned draws a line under the personal stuff. I don’t think I have been unnecessarily argumentative, for its own sake, but I have needed a distraction from time to time.

    So other people sharing their pain and painful past experiences on this blog is being used by you for “personal distraction” because you want to be amused, you get bored?

    There’s this great invention called “Television.” Instead of using hurt people to amuse yourself, do like what a sensitive, normal person does and turn on your TV set and watch sit com re-runs, sports, the news, or movies

    Said,

    My only reason for mentioning this at all was I was getting fed up with accusations that this is all academic and I don’t care about abuse.

    You’ve shown zero compassion or concern for others here…
    Even on a newer, more recent thread, you are still lecturing people on what sort of language you feel they should be using.

    Not only is this an intellectual exercise for you, but you just said in the very same post you’re using this blog as a personal distraction.

    How many times must I tell you this is not the blog for that?
    Go post to any number of other Christian debate forums. There are dozens of them.

    Said,

    An overly blunt posting style (although I don’t think I am!) ought not to be confused with a lack of concern.

    You’re not usually blunt. Just the opposite usually.

    You are condescending, play obtuse, weasel word things, shift the goal posts any time you are pressed on a point you’ve previously made, and you’re passive-aggressive (indirect) about it.

    You and the other guy who like to hang on this blog, D, like to insult other people here but using genteel language.

    Insulting people minus profanity is still insulting. The absence of profanity does nothing to change that.

    Like

  121. KAS said,

    The thread is meant to be giving answers to our poor elder (remember him?!), who must have a lot of patience waiting for suggestions!

    You are huge hypocrite.

    (One who really should have been banned from this site months ago, or put on slow moderation)

    I’m the one who has been giving link after link in this thread to essays, research, and articles that explain how to combat sexism against women in churches.

    You, however, have been derailing the entire thread.

    For Christian men out there, if you want to fight misogyny in the church, examine your assumptions about girls, women and marriage.

    -Examine what doctrines you are being taught to believe about girls, women, and marriage.

    -Consider they may be wrong (most of them are), and stop teaching things that hurt women.

    -Such as (but not limited to), teaching women that they can or should never say “no” to sex if their husband comes to them asking, demanding, wanting, or expecting sex.

    -Stop mis-using, mis-applying and /or cherry picking Bible verses about topics such as sex to guilt trip, pressure, or shame women into having sex they don’t want to have.

    Read more content such as this:

    _The Good News About Sex After Marriage: You Can Still Say “No”_, by L. Bartelt

    I would encourage any here to read the ENTIRE essay.
    I am just providing a few excerpts from it here:

    By L. Bartelt, Sept 2018

    Since then, we’ve [she and her spouse] learned— and are still learning— how to communicate with each other, and to seek the other’s permission and consent before engaging in sexual activity.

    I never thought about consent in marriage before I was married.

    I assumed I had to have sex even if I didn’t want to [because she was taught in evangelical Sunday School classes that a wife can or should never say “no” to a husband’s demand for sex], and my husband entered marriage thinking he could have sex whenever he wanted it [because he was taught in evangelical circles that a wife can or should never say “no” to a husband’s demand for sex].

    …Telling my husband “no” on nights when I’m seriously just too tired or not feeling well has felt like I’m rejecting him, but he has the same right to say “not tonight.”

    This is good and right in a marriage, a form of mutual respect that is far more biblical— “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21)— than the idea that a husband has a right to his wife’s body whenever he wants.

    [Common Christian message the author heard while growing up, including from a former Sunday School teacher of hers]: “If you don’t have sex with your husband anytime he wants, he’ll find it somewhere else.”

    When I recall my old Sunday school teacher’s words, I feel sad.

    Her message hangs on women’s fears and insecurities—that they aren’t enough; that their husbands will be unfaithful if they don’t perform to a specific standard; that marriage itself is a twisted game with unknown rules and never-ending demands.

    It places an impossible burden on women, one that none of us are able to bear.

    Women have needs and desires of our own and we don’t exist to fulfill our husbands’ fantasies.

    Like

  122. (part 1)
    If you are a (Christian) parent who mocks the concept of Boundaries – referring to them as being “psycho-babble” and such –
    ~cough~ KAS ~cough~

    -And you are teaching any daughter(s) you may have to be a Gender Complementarian and encouraging your daughter(s) to live by Complementarian ideals of “womanhood”…
    ~cough~ KAS ~cough~

    You are raising your daughter(s) as my Christian parents raised me, and that is going to create problems for you daughter.

    If your daughter was abused or victimized in some manner, I can about guarantee the gender roles nonsense you instilled in her whether through role-modeling or via direct communication (lectures, conversations, etc) likely played a very large role in it.

    By teaching your daughter this garbage, by encouraging her to lack boundaries and behave like a Submissive Sweet Christian Girl (no matter in what situation she finds herself), you are leaving her vulnerable to being abused or singled out by unsavory, dishonest people.

    Complementarianism is identical to Codependency.
    (_Link for More Info on That_)

    My parents not only taught me those concepts – (they did not believe women and girls should have boundaries, and they taught that girls and women should be codependent) – in words but they also conveyed those beliefs to me via their behavior.

    I saw my mother role-modeling complementarian (codependent) behavior with others.

    My mother assumed having Boundaries, being assertive, and refusing to be treated rudely or abusively by other people would make her mean, selfish, or “un-Godly” and unfeminine.

    She indoctrinated me to be and think the same way, which I was for many years.

    That sort of parenting – discouraging your children from having boundaries, shaming them for having needs and trying to get them met,

    Telling girls that it is “selfish” or “Un- Christ- Like” to ever show anger, be assertive…

    Makes your child ten times more likely to be targeted by sexual abusers, bullies, con artists and manipulators.

    Is that what you want for your daughter(s)?

    This may come as a shock to some reading this, but not everyone in the world has other people’s best interests at heart.

    There are many bad people in the world who want to use and abuse other people.

    And their preferred targets usually happen to be girls and women who will not resist, who will not put up a fight, because such targetes are easier to abuse and exploit.

    Do you really want to raise any daughter(s) you have to be more frequently targeted by rapists, liars, users and manipulators?

    No? Then stop teaching her / them to abide by so-called “Biblical Gender Roles.”

    Like

  123. (part 2)
    Refresher:
    If you are a (Christian) parent who mocks the concept of Boundaries – referring to them as being “psycho-babble” and such –
    ~cough~ KAS ~cough~

    -And you are teaching any daughter(s) you may have to be a Gender Complementarian and encouraging your daughter(s) to live by Complementarian ideals of “womanhood”…
    ~cough~ KAS ~cough~
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ – – – – – ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    Continuing…

    My mother and father’s Christian parenting – the gender role teaching which taught me I should be submissive, compliant, never show anger, which was combined with the discouragement of having boundaries –

    Made me vulnerable to bullies and abusers over the course of my life, from my childhood and into adult years by adult co-workers and bosses.

    If you actually care about any daughters you have, you will stop…

    -Living in denial about how damaging Christian gender complementarianism is,
    – and how harmful secular, cultural biological sex stereotypes are in how they set girls and women up to be more easily emotionally, sexually or physically abused, manipulated and coerced.

    If you have a daughter, you are doing her a huge dis-service by telling her to go about life clinging to gender roles Christians teach are biblical, because those values are setting your daughter up to be more easily raped, groped, taken advantage of emotionally and/or financially by boyfriends, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and bosses.

    At a certain stage in your daughter’s life, by the way, she will more than likely eventually figure out through hard-earned life experience, and/or by going into therapy or reading online psychological materials, that Gender Complementarianism is harmful to her.

    That is what happened to me.
    I rejected complementarianism in part due to those reasons, as well as seeing that Complementarianism is not biblical.

    I have been in a process of un-learning Complementarian mindsets and behaviors ever since.

    If you discourage your daughter from having boundaries and expect her to be a Gender Complementarian, you are setting her up to be fondled, raped, groped, or exploited (financially, sexually and/or emotionally), by selfish and abusive men and women that she will in fact encounter as she goes through life.

    God is not going to magically, supernaturally, or automatically protect any of your daughters from being sexually, financially, or verbally abused or used as she goes through life – no matter how good, sweet, Godly, or Christian they are.</b

    It is highly naive to assume otherwise.

    Even if your daughter(s) lives a clean, godly, biblical lifestyle (as defined by many conservative Christians), even if your daughter does not use profane language and does not engage in pre-marital sex…

    God is not going to hear all her prayers or respond to them all, nor is God going to save, rescue, or protect your daughter(s) from being mistreated by selfish or cruel men and women.

    I was a goody- two- shoes, highly sweet and submissive Christian girl and woman over the course of my life, and God did not intervene and stop predatory or selfish men and women from being cruel, mean, rude, and abusive to me.

    That is why you must teach your daughter to defend herself, which means, among other things, dropping many to all of the behaviors Gender Complementarians teach girls and women they “should” have.

    Complementarianism encourages girls to go into adulthood with highly dysfunctional relationship habits and ways of dealing with men and those in authority.

    Complementarianism asks Christian women to carry into adulthood “Little Girl” ways of dealing with conflict and relating to men, methods and behaviors which will not work for them as adults but will hurt them.

    Gender Comp does a huge dis-service to girls and handicaps them as they go into adulthood, unless and until those girls realize how awful it is and learn to distance themselves from it.

    Like

  124. I just skimmed over that one post by KAS above.

    He’s saying his daughter attempted suicide?
    Is that correct, or did I misunderstand?

    For years I had clinical depression, still deal with suicidal ideation to this day, and I still have generalized anxiety and the occasional panic attack.

    If one person could possibly shed insight into what KAS’ daughter is going through, and what might be contributing to her suicidal impulses and/or other behavior, and what may be able to help ease some of it…

    It might be me.
    But does KAS want to listen to me?
    Nope.

    When I have mentioned concepts such as “boundaries,” (which helped me a lot in my own struggle with depression and anxiety), he’s mocked or out-right dismissed concepts and hard-won life lessons I’ve been through that helped me cope.

    If you need emotional support, because a family member is under psychological duress, I think there are better forums and blogs out there for that than this one, especially considering how you are going about it here.

    You’re going about wanting support in a very strange way, by repeatedly diminishing the harm of things like childhood physical abuse or gender complementarianism on people who have said on this very blog they were hurt by those things.

    You’re not going to get much, if any, empathy from the very people you have been consistently insulting over the pain in their lives, but still demanding those very people treat you and your concerns with kid gloves.

    If you are needing emotional support, I think there are more suitable online avenues for it.

    There are probably blogs and forums out there specifically for family members who have family members who have committed suicide or who have depression.

    As long as you do not scold or lecture those people on those forums for how they discuss their feelings and experiences, you will probably find those better places to post.

    Like

  125. I just skimmed over that one post by KAS above.

    He’s saying his daughter attempted suicide?
    Is that correct, or did I misunderstand?

    Yes, Daisy. Apparently she’s tried to take her own life twice now. That can’t be easy for him or his family to go through.

    And, while I’m not a moderator here and I don’t want to fall into the habit of tone policing, I hope that you’ll try to be a little kinder to KAS. I realize it’s a lot to ask, given his attitude towards you and CH on this thread. But I beg you not to heap guilt on him for how his daughter has suffered. Parents and relatives tend to blame themselves in these cases, as it is. As much as KAS tends to annoy most of us here, I don’t see the value in exacerbating any guilt he feels. If there are any shortcomings in the way he’s raised his children, it would probably be better for him to recognize those on his own.

    Like

  126. SKIJ
    – my browser is not working quite correctly today, otherwise I’d copy and paste your comments here that I’m replying to.
    This is in regards to your post right above, Re: Sept 28, 8.54 AM.

    About me going easier on KAS and so on.

    It’s not just been this one thread, btw. KAS has been acting like a jerk towards most everyone here on other threads for months now, it’s not just this one thread for the past month.

    He’s not gone easy on myself, CH, or Dash, in regards to our struggles, and he shows a complete lack of understanding of abusive dynamics and what people go through.

    Nor does he care to learn – he basically “blows off” most any commentary, links, or explanations by those of us who have been there who have tried to educate him on this stuff.

    I abhor double standards like this, where someone has been on this blog for at least a year or more (as he has), has constantly kicked the rest of us when we are down, when we have been vulnerable, but then suddenly, when getting push back on this thread, all the sudden he starts divulging his daughter’s issue.

    I’m sorry to be a cynic or suspicious, but I think KAS is using his daughter’s situation to cover for his own awful behavior to the rest of us here, as a shield to deflect from his obvious coldness and indifference to the impact of abuse on other people, after I began pointing out repeatedly in months past that he shows no compassion or empathy for what other people are going through.

    If KAS is telling the truth about his daughter, and if he treats her the same way he has treated us on this blog – he’s compounding her issues and not helping.

    I don’t know more details of his daughter’s situation, but, if her family is anything like mine, his forbidding her or discouraging her from having boundaries and encouraging her to live by Gender Complementarian ideals for women can be contributing to her depression and/or suicide attempts – it sure did for me.

    In order for me to find healing from clinical depression and to lessen my anxiety, I had to un-learn and reject Gender Complementarianism. I had to read books and learn about Boundaries, and accept that Boundaries are perfectly acceptable to have.

    The way you go about helping someone who has depression or suicidal ideation (or who has been abused in the past or whatever ordeal they have undergone) is to listen, mirror back their comments, empathasize, and validate their experience.

    Unless you are a trained, certified, educated mental health professional who someone is seeing because of their trauma, abuse, depression (or whatever else)…

    You do not and should not tell a person “how” you think they should handle their pain and abuse (which KAS has done repeatedly).

    You should not scold a hurting person who is sharing their pain and anger over what they went through and lecture them that they should refrain from having anger, showing anger, or using profanity when expressing their anger (as KAS has done repeatedly to different people on this blog for months now, and he’s been told off on this many times yet keeps doing it).

    Further, you should not (as KAS has done to DASH on previous threads in the past), shame the person or judge the person by comparing how they are coping with pain, by comparing how they dealt with it to other people you knew in the past who, in your view, went through something ten times more horrific yet who have handled that pain “better” (in your opinion) than the person you are talking to now.

    KAS has shown no willingness to learn from others here, to change his posting habits. It’s almost as though he enjoys riling people up and inflicting additional damage, but he turns around after months of this and wants myself and others to treat him and his with the utmost tenderness.

    By the way, the Christian faith and all it involves (Bible reading, prayer, church attendance, volunteering at soup kitchens, etc) did NOT stop or put a dent in my depression, anxiety or suicidal ideation.

    I don’t know if KAS is one of those religious types who is vehemently anti- secular psychology, who insists his daughter just sit around praying about her suicidal impulses – but I can tell yo that “faith only” approaches will not work.

    Nor will sending her to a “Biblical Counselor” who thinks that if she just prays more, gets to the root of any of her personal sins, or reads her Bible daily, that that sort of thing will take care of it – it won’t.

    Like

  127. Serving Kids in Japan – I appreciate your concern and attempt to discuss with Daisy.

    I’m afraid I don’t expect Daisy to care, i.e. I’m not looking for this, and I try to avoid getting into pointless posting with her (once sentence of mine you also didn’t like garnered 3580 words in 129 paragraphs of reply!).

    There are reasons for this, including a word of knowledge, I am not going into, but suffice it to say if you read her reply to you above this post it contains 8 or 9 assumptions that are simply not true in my case. A lot of opinion based on no information.

    I try not to be offensive in anything I write. My supposed attitude problem does seem to be taking a life of its own. No doubt I have put my foot in it from time to time, but some of this is in the eye of the beholder, especially when views are attributed to me or assumed that I do not actually hold. This is a serious weakness in a setting supposedly exposing the evil being perpetrated amongst churchgoers.

    When people do make personal attacks, I ignore them – I can’t imagine you would like me to start replying in kind. Apart from this being wrong in its own right, I don’t have time or inclination. It’s just possible that this has been misunderstood as ‘not caring’ about others.

    Like

  128. KAS said,

    I’m afraid I don’t expect Daisy to care, i.e. I’m not looking for this, and I try to avoid getting into pointless posting with her (once sentence of mine you also didn’t like garnered 3580 words in 129 paragraphs of reply!).

    Point 1.
    All you do is complain about the length of my posts

    Do you ever actually read my posts?

    You too occasionally write super long posts and/or you write a million short ones on the same thread.

    Point 2.
    Sure you expect me to care. You scolded me for saying I do not care – but I don’t care because you are only playing that to get a pity play.

    From day one on this blog, you’ve not shown empathy for people who have been hurt by churches or women who have been hurt by men or by complementarianism.

    You instead lecture and scold myself and others for how we express our thoughts, anger, or pain.

    Point 3.
    I can about guarantee you if your daughter is suicidal, your teaching her to be a complementarian plays a role in that.

    Like

  129. This was on my Twitter; it is from BBC News:

    _How cooking and cleaning transformed a violent man – A Program in Rwanda is Aiming to Reduce Domestic Violence by Challenging Gender Roles_ – Reporting from BBC News.

    In all my reading about male-on-female domestic abuse, the experts say there is a high correlation between men who believe in traditional (“Christian gender complementarian”) gender roles and abuse of wives.

    A grassroots intervention programme is trying to reduce domestic violence in Rwanda by teaching men how to do household chores, and a recent study has suggested it is having a positive effect on communities.

    More snippets from that page:

    However, making the changes were not easy as Jean Pierre’s friends discouraged him from doing household tasks, telling him: ‘No real man should cook’.

    “My family and friends started saying that my wife must have given me some drugs…[they] would tell me that no genuine man should carry a bundle of firewood in the street – that is for henpecked men,” he said.

    But Jean Pierre continued when he saw the benefits to his family.

    He says his children feel closer to him and his wife now runs a banana business that has allowed them to improve their home.

    “The way my wife treats me now is different from the way she used to treat me,” he said.

    “She used to treat me badly because I was mistreating her too, but now we discuss and agree on things to do.

    “I have set her free, now she is working and I am working too; whereas before I was convinced she had to stay home and be available whenever I would need her.”

    —Fear and freedom—

    Jean Pierre’s wife Musabyimana Delphine says she used to have little freedom and lived in fear.

    …”Now I have enough freedom in the house, I go out and work for money like everybody else.”

    …A study looking at couples taking part in the project found that two years after taking childcare lessons in Rwanda, men were less likely to use violence against their female partners that those who did not attend the classes.

    But the study also suggested about one in three women whose partners took part in the programme still reported experiencing intimate partner violence.

    According to the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, released in 2015, around 52% of men in the country said they had ever been violent towards their partner.
    The Rwanda Men’s Resource Centre, which delivered the programme in the country, now wants ‘Bandebereho’ to be more widely adopted by communities and the country’s government.

    Fidele Rutayisire, the chairman of the centre, said: “We still have negative social norms, negative masculinity perceptions, cultural barriers – those are the main factors of high violence against women in Rwanda.

    “Traditionally men don’t take care of children here. Men still have control on sex, on resources, on decision-making.

    “When men are actively involved in childcare their attitude on gender changes positively, they understand the value of gender equality.”

    Like

  130. There was an article from CBE from last month or this one with helpful suggestions on how Christians can end male-on-female abuse.

    I’m not sure if this is the article I was thinking of or not, but it contains some helpful advice:

    _What I Wish the Church Had Told My Husband and Me About Sex and Consent_

    Snippet from that page:

    I want to hear marriage discussed as a partnership between equals that requires free and mature consent at its outset.

    I want to send the message loud and clear that no one is entitled to sex and that the marital relationship confers a right to approach one’s spouse for consent, but not a right to expect, require, or demand consent.

    Of course, these conversations should happen alongside other discussions about inequality, purity culture, and abuse dynamics too.

    I want believers who are struggling with similar issues to know that sex in marriage doesn’t have to be a burden. It can mean joy, play, growth, imagination, and exploration. But only when it’s consensual. Only when it’s a mutual exchange of vulnerability, trust, and adoration. This is what the church needs to say about sex.

    _The Good News About Sex After Marriage: You Can Still Say “No”_

    Snippets:

    Three years into our marriage, my husband committed adultery. I fought the need to blame myself and the maybes continued.

    I’d been pregnant twice and we had two children under the age of three. Maybe I should have taken better care of my body. Maybe we should have had more sex.

    As we sought healing and recovery from this wound in our marriage, I still thought this was the answer: more frequent and more exciting sex.

    As my husband battled his addiction, I read books on the topic.

    Some that suggested I make myself more available to him so that he wouldn’t seek out pornography.

    The responsibility was still on me to meet my husband’s sexual needs—whenever and wherever.

    It took us years of counseling with different therapists to undo the damage of these toxic messages.

    One therapist encouraged us to not have sex for a period of six weeks as a way to break my husband’s thought patterns on sex-equals-love. It was a difficult but valuable span of our relationship, and neither of us regret it.

    Since then, we’ve learned—and are still learning— how to communicate with each other, and to seek the other’s permission and consent before engaging in sexual activity.

    I never thought about consent in marriage before I was married. I assumed I had to have sex even if I didn’t want to, and my husband entered marriage thinking he could have sex whenever he wanted it.

    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