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)

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

  1. KAS said to Mark

    No-one has yet said how you settle disputes in a marriage under a mutual submission arrangement if you reject the casting vote idea. I don’t find the latter all that convincing myself at times, but what is the alternative?

    I’ve already answered this one once or twice.

    You settle a marital dispute the same way you would a secular work-place dispute: compromise, or defer to whomever has more experience on topic X.

    I have never in my life caved in to the decision of a male boss or male co-worker just because he is a male.

    And prey tell, why can’t it be flipped?

    What is the rationale that in a dispute the p3nis- (male genitals)- wielder gets final say – why not the one with the vagina?
    Saying, “because the Bible says so!” is not sufficient enough reason, KAS.

    — KAS the Flip Flopper —

    And yet again, you flip flop all over the place on these words and issues.

    You say in that post to Mark, and in another one higher up the page, that submission is not obedience, but later on, you say, yes it is.

    You’re saying submission is not about obedience, but you’re saying if a husband and wife have an argument, the wife must be obedient and give in to whatever the husband’s choice is.

    You’ve denied in one post that Headship has anything to do with Authority, but later on, you said that headship denotes authority.

    You cannot even keep your own complementarian beliefs straight.

    Like

  2. KAS said to Mark:

    Unloving – the attitude of Team Pyro, and especially Johnson’s sidekicks and the commenting community there. Alternatively, the lack of awareness or concern by big name evangelicals as to what is actually going on in their midst at a local level.

    … His views, his doctrine, not his behaviour. I don’t know how he treats women in real life, nor how his doctrine is lived out in his former church.

    KAS your attitudes and views about women and marriage are no less un-loving.

    Your posting style and language may not be as condescending as are the guys at Team Pyro (a site I used to visit years ago), but your views are still unloving.

    You can talk really nice and genteel on this blog but still be insensitive to the pain or considerations of others.

    You’ve had at least two women on this thread – Christianity Hurts and myself – repeatedly give you first hand, eye witness testimony of how complementarianism has personally negatively impacted both of us (it played a role in CH becoming an atheist, I think she said on the last page, and it plays a role in pushing me into agnosticism), and you still remain un-moved.

    Also visit the blog “A Cry For Justice” where you can see testimonies by other Christian women who will tell you how complementarianism ruined their marriages.

    You do not care how your complementarian beliefs impact real, honest- to- God human beings who have been negatively influenced by it.

    You have demonstrated now, for the last two or whatever weeks in the comments section on this blog, that you care more about defending this sexist swill called complementarian doctrine than you do in the safety, happiness, and well-being of real people, people the Bible says Jesus Christ loved enough to die for on the cross.

    You wield the Bible in the same legalistic manner to nit pick over issues to the point you use the Bible as a weapon, and you put doctrine above people, which Jesus never did do. Jesus did the opposite: he broke the Pharisee’s interpretation of biblical rules to meet the needs of hurting people around him.

    KAS said (about Piper),
    KAS said

    But from what I have read of him, his teaching would in no way justify abuse, nor does he treat women as second class.

    Piper told women in abusive marriages to “endure the abuse for a season.”

    Here is how Piper’s complementarianism justifies abuse:

    By its nature, complementarianism is abusive.

    Complementarianism defends and advocates for a power or control differential in relationships, where men in general (but husbands in particular) are supposedly God ordained to have power and control over an entire group of other people, women generally (and wives especially).

    One generally cannot have healthy, loving relationships where power differentials (especially at the expense or detriment of the other person) are encouraged, practiced, and defended. But that is precisely what Christian gender complementarians promote.

    I also explain on my Daisy blog in several posts how complementarianism is deterimental to women:

    _Even Warm and Fuzzy, True, Correctly-Implemented Gender Complementarianism is Harmful to Women, and It’s Still Sexism – Yes All Comps (Refuting “Not All Comps”)_

    Like

  3. KAS said to Mark

    Finally for now, I noticed how you marry (sorry!) complementarianism with authoritarianism, which I don’t.

    You yourself, KAS, believe that complementarianism is authoritarian in nature, only that it should be done using less-violent looking means (no physical force), just lots of emotional manipulation of women, spiritual abuse, etc.

    You believe that Christian men should be dictators – BENEVOLENT dictators, but a “nice” dictator is still a dictator,

    And Jesus Christ said you should not seek to rule over another: and that applies to husbands, too. Husbands are not excluded from that teaching.

    -Which should in turn tell you that your interpretation of Pauline passages about marriage, headship, submission, etc, are INCORRECT.

    See, here you are in a previous comment page on this thread saying that complementarianism is authoritarian:

    KAS quote from last page:

    …In this instance 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)

    You yourself have indicated in the past page or two of comments that a wife must unilaterally defer to her husband (be obedient), especially in cases where there is a marital dispute.

    Reminder:
    KAS said,

    No-one has yet said how you settle disputes in a marriage under a mutual submission arrangement if you reject the casting vote idea. I don’t find the latter all that convincing myself at times, but what is the alternative?

    You also said on the last page that part of Male Headship of Husbands is invested with authority (and see quotes I pasted in above).

    I refer you to this post I made on the last page of comments in this thread, where I directly pasted from YOUR comment:
    _KAS’ Quotes about Complementarianism_

    You are not clear or consistent on your own beliefs.

    One moment, you are defend the notion that Complementarianism is about a wife being obedient and a man having authority over a wife, and in a next post or even the same one, you deny those very claims you just made.

    Do you even know what comp is? Are you just trolling?

    Like

  4. @KAS

    “his teaching would in no way justify abuse, nor does he treat women as second class.”

    John Piper does treat women like second class. Maybe you and John Piper need to stop acting like 14-year-old boys who hate women and grow up. Get over yourselves and think about women’s feelings and what women say instead of selfishly ignoring them and promoting your preferred misogyny.

    You and John Piper are not the ones who are being degraded, subjugated, and hurt so it is very easy for two selfish misogynist to think John Piper is not doing anything wrong when he promotes his selfish insecure feeble man preferences.

    John Piper is an extream misogynist. He thinks a woman should take wife beating for a night, not divorce her husband for beating her, and coddle and protect the wife beater’s manhood and feelings as she is dealing with being abused. He also giggled about wife abuse.

    You have consistently proved yourself to be a mean-spirited, heartless, misogynist. Of course, you would defend John Piper’s misogyny.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. CH to KAS:

    You have consistently proved yourself to be a mean-spirited, heartless, misogynist. Of course, you would defend John Piper’s misogyny.

    This is also inconsistent of KAS.

    A few days ago, KAS was assuring Mark and myself that his brand of complementarianism is nothing like the horrible, wacky, abusive, type as promoted by Piper.

    No sir, KAS follows the saner, kinder, type of European complementarianism.

    Now KAS is defending Piper and saying he sees nothing wrong with Piper’s complementarianism. (Mark! are you paying attention?)

    KAS previously (_Source_):

    (KAS said):
    There is a huge cultural difference between Britain (and Europe) and the States.

    I’ve derived my views on the complementarian issue from British evangelicals rather than American (Roberts, Andrew Wilson, Pawson), and I have noticed UK evangelicals, whilst agreeing with the basic framework of complementarianism in the States go on to distance themselves from it when manifested in the form of CBWM or Piper.

    I would include myself in this.

    Now, KAS is all protective and down with Piper:

    Example 1
    (KAS to Mark, at JULY 10, 2018 @ 4:16 PM):

    Where on earth do you get the idea that I hate Piper? Have never remotely said or indicated that. I don’t hate anybody.

    I said I disagreed with him on the notion of husbands being ‘servant-leaders’, but that despite that he may be right with the use of this term.

    Example 2
    (KAS to Mark, JULY 11, 2018 @ 5:45 AM): _Source_)

    I went on to say To make judgement on Piper’s views, … His views, his doctrine, not his behaviour.

    I don’t know how he treats women in real life, nor how his doctrine is lived out in his former church.

    But from what I have read of him, his teaching would in no way justify abuse, nor does he treat women as second class.

    As Mark and I said on the last page or so of this comment thread, your views on complementarianism,KAS, are really are not so different from Piper’s, though you tried to paint it as such earlier.

    Now you’re even defending Piper and Piper’s complementarianism.

    Like

  6. Had another thought about this:

    KAS to Mark,

    But from what I have read of him (John Piper), his teaching would in no way justify abuse, nor does he treat women as second class.

    Yes, Piper’s complementarianism provides the grounds for justifying abuse, and he treats women as second class citizens.

    I mentioned one example or aspect of this on a previous page in this comment thread here:
    _Daisy’s Comment About How Piper’s Complementarianism is Abusive and Sexist (one aspect there-of)_

    I also discussed this further up-thread or the bottom of the last comment page on this thread.

    Like

  7. (Part 1)
    I almost forgot to comment on this:

    KAS said,

    “Children and slaves/servants obey, but wives submit.”

    That’s a distinction without a difference, because what do you do when your wife REFUSES to voluntarily “submit” to your choice or your preference, KAS?

    What is the practical out-working of your gender theology?

    Should I ever marry, I refuse to “voluntary submit” to whomever my husband is (in the way comps teach this). What now, KAS?

    KAS said,

    “Children and slaves/servants obey, but wives submit.”

    Here’s what the Bible says (1 Peter 2:18-3:7 New International Version (NIV):

    Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

    KAS said,

    Submit is not obey, notwithstanding traditional wedding vows. You can play games with the English saying they are simply synonyms, or that ‘head’ should be understood to mean ‘source’, but it doesn’t work if you read it in German (‘Haupt’, ‘sich unterordnen’), which supports the traditional understanding of these words used in English.

    Children and slaves/servants obey, but wives submit.

    The submission is a decision on the part of the wife as a mature adult as part of her following Christ.

    A husband could sinfully enforce obedience (doing what he says), but submission (an attitude of respect) could only come from the wife herself.

    The New Testament of the Bible was mainly written in koine Greek, not in German.

    Trying to understand what the original biblical writers meant by parsing German or English translations is not terribly helpful or accurate.

    Of course, when I gave you a link or two and pasted in comments that did deal with the koine Greek and how the translators of the Septuagint (Greek NT) translated words such as “Kephalē” you pooh-poohed actual scholarship by dismissing it by simply tossing insults at it.

    From _“God’s Design” Blog_:

    2: Complementarians try to do things with the text that aren’t possible

    “Head” (kephalē) in Greek doesn’t have the figurative meaning of “authority,” “boss” or leader like in English.

    Complementarian theology relies strongly on insisting that it does mean authority. You can’t do that any more than you could randomly decide that “sausage roll” really means “pink tulip”!

    The early church knew that head meant source (in the sense of “origin”). Several early church fathers say this very directly, including Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 376-444), who wrote: “Because head (kephalē) means source (archē)…man is the head (kephalē) of the woman, for she was taken out of him.”

    No secular Greek lexicon has “authority” or “boss” as a meaning for the Greek word for head – only those who have already decided that these passages of the New Testament are about authority impose that meaning back onto the word.

    It feels so much simpler for us to run on the assumption that “head” in Paul’s writing means “boss” just like in English so we can read it with a meaning that is natural to us. But it just isn’t a valid way to read the text. So do we want easy, or accurate and truthful?

    Like

  8. KAS said,

    A husband could sinfully enforce obedience (doing what he says), but submission (an attitude of respect) could only come from the wife herself.

    What?

    You just said that only slaves are to obey (be obedient), not wives, but here you are equating obedience with submission. Please make up your mind.

    I can respect a person without being “submissive” to that person.

    And you are here again yourself conflating “submitting” to obedience.

    You want to have it both ways – argue that biblical submission as you understand it is not about obedience, but then framing it as being that very thing, when you say that if a husband forces his supposed justly deserved obedience from his wife, he is doing so “sinfully.”

    BTW, Prior to the Fall, as mentioned in the book of Genesis, God said both the man and woman were totally made in His image and both were to rule over the planet.
    The Bible says back in Genesis that one outcome of the Fall – sin entering the world – would be for men to “rule over” women.

    Men ruling over women was never God’s design or intent.

    Men seeking to control over women and argue for their unilateral submission, even if they are doing so very nicely without use of physical force, as you and other comps do, is an outcome of the Fall. It is a sin.

    You, KAS, are perpetuating the very sin God warned Eve would befall all women after her.

    Like

  9. _“Wives, Submit To Your Husbands.” Why We Mistakenly Assume This is God’s Word For Us Today_

    The bible writers are not staking a claim that hierarchical household structures are endorsed by God.
    They’re simply asking how you live Christianly when hierarchical structures are what you live within.

    Indeed, the gospel undermines hierarchical structures by declaring we all stand on the same footing before God (Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 3:11).

    It would take time, but this simple insight contributed to the overthrow of monarchy in favour of liberal democracy, of slavery in favour of freedom, and of patriarchy in favour of the liberty of women.

    Like

  10. If my husband did not want to have sex I would assume he was having emotional problems or having health problems. I would not be mad, selfish, or mean. I would think something sad for him was happening. I would not bully, badger, manipulate, or harras him to have sex when he did not feel like it either physically or emotionally. He would be given all the time he needed.

    I would not want my husband to be submissive to me. I would want him to feel confident and free and not like a dog or child slave. I would want him to feel safe telling me what he really thinks and how he really feels. Demeaning my husband would make me feel sick and lose any self-respect I had.

    Like

  11. Katy – I would like to get back to you on something.

    Have you ever seen A Knight’s Tale with Heath Ledger? It’s about jousting in the 13th century, very funny, and one of the jokes is Heath’s character has a female armourer named Kate. She produced his heavy-duty armour for him. A good joke. Except that it is historically accurate. When Heny V of Agincourt and Crispian’s Day speech fame went to war (1415), he had a few, though not many, female armourers. In those days a woman would normally learn the trade of her husband so she could keep it going in time of war if he were called up. This included blacksmiths. After all, the woman of Proverbs 31 had strong arms!

    It might have been rare, but some women did manage to achieve a decent level of education and/or even run a business.

    This carried on for centuries (a thousand years up to 1800 ish), where men generally did the heavy-duty physical labour, but helped by wives during harvest or war, and women worked more in the home either as servants or producing cloth. The stay at home mother only gradually came in amongst the rich in Victorian times, and the middle-classes in the mid 20th century when there was enough wealth to live on one income.

    Previous generations, therefore, like mine who were farm labourers on the whole didn’t have the time or chance of rigidly differentiating men v women roles, especially the less well off. Long summer school holidays are still a throw-back to when children had to help with the harvest.

    It’s interesting what you can learn from history that is pertinent to the ‘roles’ discussion. Oh, and I learnt some the above from a book written by a woman too!

    Like

  12. KAS, you’re not responding to me. re: Piper, you have not dealt with your use of “for example”

    re: submit/obey, you are deflecting to head/lead.

    “I didn’t learn all this from pastors, I learned much of it from charismatics who, having been filled with the Holy Spirit, started taking the bible more seriously, and believing what the NT contains is for today, not just the first century.”

    Bible says to test the spirits. When you say “taking the bible more seriously” and the sort of legalistic prooftexting it’s led you to do, I wonder if it’s really the “Holy Spirit”.

    “No-one has yet said how you settle disputes in a marriage under a mutual submission arrangement if you reject the casting vote idea.”

    My wife and I have a status quo, and generally to change the status quo, we have to agree. There are times where we have taken two completely different approaches – for example, my wife became convinced that she couldn’t spank our kids, and I was not convinced, so we had different systems for awhile. But, I find it intriguing that your view of marriage is so adversarial. My wife and I have NEVER had a situation where we’ve come to an impasse. There has always been a way to work through it, take a step back and decide later, understand what the sticking points are and resolve them, etc. And I think many of these “comp-proof” situations are like the, “must abuse children and require instant unquestioned obedience because… what if they run into a busy street?”

    “Finally for now, I noticed how you marry (sorry!) complementarianism with authoritarianism, which I don’t. I actually think this is a dangerous combination, because it can lead to head meaning absolute authority and submit meaning abject subjection, which is not what the apostle meant at all. ”

    Exactly, and I can probably find you hundreds of online articles by comps that do just that. One listed all the submit relationships “slaves to masters” “children to parents” “church to Christ” “wives to husbands” and then tried to then backpedal on how it wasn’t obedience.

    And honestly, you have yet to describe how submission is substantially different from obedience, so for all you want to convince us you don’t believe it and you want to distance yourself from it, nothing you have said has suggested a difference.

    “I should appreciate it if you would apologise for that remark.”

    She is taking what you said to its logical conclusion. You quoted “Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” as a prooftext against women saying “no”. And while you want to temper it with your syrupy ‘nice comp’ rhetoric, the point is still made, that spousal refusal is not okay. For a woman, the logical conclusion is that eventually she will have to “not refuse” her husband regardless of her feelings on the matter. That equates to marital rape.

    This exact thing happened in SGM (CJ Mahaney’s church) where a wife caught her husband sexually molesting their daughter. She went to the church who advised her not to go to the police, but instead that she needed to lock her daughter’s door and be “more available” to her husband. When that was not deterring her husband, they placed the blame on her for not being sexually fulfilling enough for her husband so that her husband was “forced” to find pleasure elsewhere. They defended him in court and, I believe, excommunicated her. That is the logical conclusion of your comp doctrine.

    Like

  13. KAS, Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth alludes to this (and she has come under fire from comp pastors for her writing).

    Her argument is that the modern version of comp doctrine came out of the need to justify men having jobs outside the home during the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that, men and women would contribute relatively evenly to the work. Her example is a general store. You might walk into the store and find the wife managing or the husband. Children were educated by the father or mother. Jobs were pretty evenly split.

    However, when the Industrial revolution came along, there was a need to justify a change in this division of labor. They needed strong men to run the machines, and that meant women needed to stay home and manage the households. Not surprisingly, the church took that mantle and decided that it was not only okay, but right that men went out and labored while the women kept home. Now, that theology is so thoroughly ingrained that a stay-at-home-dad is universally regarded as an indication of significant sin.

    As Daisy said, and I concur, we don’t even know what you’re trying to say anymore. You say submit is not obey, you say head is not leader or authority, then you say the opposite. You say you agree with UK theologians who distance themselves from Piper, but then you can’t really find anything you disagree with Piper on. You continue to claim all these distinctions from the “authoritarian” comp, but then refuse to actually demonstrate Biblically or theologically what those differences are. When we point out inconsistencies, you throw red herrings and retreat to safer ground rather than dig into those inconsistencies.

    If your version of comp is so Biblical and consistent, then why can’t you explain what submit means? Why can’t you explain why your interpretation of “do not refuse” does not lead to marital rape? Why can’t you explain how YOUR comp doctrine does not lead to abuse, when CBMW doctrine does. Why are you afraid to dig into the next level and rather try to point us back to the comp one-page glossy pamphlet?

    Daisy and I LIVED complementarianism and authoritarianism. We know what those verses mean in the minds of comps because that’s what we were taught and that’s what we experienced. You can say, “that’s not what it means” until you’re blue in the face, but then when you make a comp conclusion, we know that’s what it means to you. Just like the submit/obey dichotomy. You can argue left and right that they are different, but you use them synonymously. That tells us what you REALLY believe.

    Like

  14. Mark – it will have to be just one comment for now. I asked Daisy to apologise for her remark because it is untrue.

    In the light of 1 Cor 7 : 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season …<7I< I could not with a clear conscience answer the original question with no in the light of that verse. Do you respect conscience? Mine may be being a bit too sensitive on this, but there you go.

    Yet notice the abstinence here is by agreement on both sides.

    Since this is mutual, according to Daisy’s twisted logic I also believe a wife has the right to rape her husband, since he can’t refuse either.

    I went on to say I suspect what was meant was ‘does a husband have a right to force his wife to have sex with him’, in which case I would say unequivocally no he doesn’t. A husband doesn’t have a ‘right’ to force his wife to do anything. On the contrary …

    That rules out absolutely the remotest approval of rape or any other use of force.

    Daisy chooses not to notice this and make a viciously nasty comment. I waited until I had calmed down before saying anything, it was tempting to tell her a couple of home truths. She hasn’t noticed that abuse has hit home in my own family (unlike SKIJ and Katy), she doesn’t seem to notice when I say I cannot answer every question or comment because I have things to do with my own family.

    Like

  15. Mark – it will have to be just one comment for now. I asked Daisy to apologise for her remark because it is untrue.

    In the light of 1 Cor 7 : 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season … I could not with a clear conscience answer the original question with no in the light of that verse. Do you respect conscience? Mine may be being a bit too sensitive on this, but there you go.

    Yet notice the abstinence here is by agreement on both sides.

    Since this is mutual, according to Daisy’s twisted logic I also believe a wife has the right to rape her husband, since he can’t refuse either.

    I went on to say I suspect what was meant was ‘does a husband have a right to force his wife to have sex with him’, in which case I would say unequivocally no he doesn’t. A husband doesn’t have a ‘right’ to force his wife to do anything. On the contrary …

    That rules out absolutely the remotest approval of rape or any other use of force.

    Daisy chooses not to notice this and make a viciously nasty comment. I waited until I had calmed down before saying anything, it was tempting to tell her a couple of home truths. She hasn’t noticed that abuse has hit home in my own family (unlike SKIJ and Katy), she doesn’t seem to notice when I say I cannot answer every question or comment because I have things to do with my own family.

    Hopefully formating cleared up this time. Could somebody please delete the one I loused up. Thanks.

    Like

  16. @ KAS per July 12, 2018 @ 1:06 AM

    I appreciate that bit of historical truth regarding female armourers back in their day. We didn’t learn about this in our History of Costume classes at college, as the material presented was a brief overview of fashion throughout the ages. I find it fascinating and will seek out the movie (no, I haven’t seen that one) and the research as I have always had a fascination with that time period in general. We have attended Renaissance Festivals in the past which are quite entertaining as well as a bit educational; and the actors and actresses seem to be enjoying themselves as well!

    I find it equally fascinating that when my ancestors sailed over here from Germany, they traveled westward through much hardship to settle on a parcel of land they purchased for a small fee through the Homestead Act of 1962. It was a hard, brutal living struggling to farm in the drought-like conditions (this area is now highly irrigated), and the father had to travel northward to get a job building the railroad to obtain a steady pay check while the wife stayed at home and farmed what she could in addition to caring for their children. They were able to spend quality time together during various weekends according to our family historian via letter references. Here again I struggle with definitions of certain words (ie., feminists, gender roles, jezebels) according to our “modern” worldviews, for we know not these kinds of hardships due to the Industrial Revolution. We have life pretty nice in comparison. I have a good notion that Adam and Eve were farmers together after the Fall, in trying survive as well as raising their large family together…..I don’t believe that Eve sat around on luxurious sofa eating Bon Bon’s and having the life of a princess.

    We spend so much of our religious time trying to put people in their “proper places,” according to our own biblical interpretations/worldview with regards to genders and roles , all the while neglecting the greatest commands that our LORD expects from us. And knowing this, I truly grieve. It saddens me greatly because the “corporate religious office” has replaced the individual sinner that Jesus cares about…..the Body of Christ existed in the Old Testament as well as the New, for every page of the written script points to Jesus……and our need for a Savior.

    Apologize for getting so “preachy” at times, for my love for Jesus is still strong, exciting, freeing and liberating to me soul. He is my Rock and Strong Tower!

    Like

  17. I want to also expound on Mark’s comment concerning agriculture from what we label as “pioneer times.” Our neighbors down the road here, farmed a quarter or two together, husband and wife. The husband admittedly loathed horses and had a difficult time getting along with them, while the wife had a wonderful relationship with their work animals, so she did all of the planting with the horses, (I can’t even imagine doing this by the way….I love my tractors!), and it has been said by her husband, “My wife did an amazing job planting our fields.” He “manned up” and gave credit where credit was due and they had a great “equal opportunity” marriage and we loved them to pieces until their passing. What great “role models” to have in our agricultural community. Am truly blessed to have known them personally.

    Like

  18. KAS, I really didn’t want to respond anymore, but I think this needs to be addressed:

    “I could not with a clear conscience answer the original question with no in the light of that verse. Do you respect conscience? Mine may be being a bit too sensitive on this, but there you go.”

    I think conscience Biblically is about not doing something that has been shown to be right because you think it’s sin. For example, meat sacrificed to idols is not wrong to eat, but because of conscience some people are asked not to partake. Same thing with moons and feasts. But, alcohol was a big issue in my last church and there were many who used your definition of conscience (something I believe theologically) to then try and force others into a super-Biblical restriction based on their conscience.

    A corollary about conscience is that it’s about what YOU can’t do, not about what OTHERS can’t do. If my conscience says that I can’t go to an R-rated movie, then I don’t go to R-rated movies, and others who know this and respect me shouldn’t be talking about this or that wonderful R-rated movie that I should see, or inviting me out of respect for my conscience. On the other hand, I don’t then use my conscience as a hammer to say that someone else can’t go to R-rated movies – that is, unless I’m theologically convinced that R-rated movies are sinful and I’m using my “conscience” as an excuse to force my righteousness on others.

    So, when I evaluate that statement, you are clearly using your theology, not you conscience, and you are clearly using “conscience” as a hammer to say that OTHERS cannot refuse sex. If it’s theology, not conscience, then perhaps you ought to understand why your theology puts you into a position where something feels “wrong” (a woman being forced to have sex against her will because of religion) yet your beliefs say it is right. Maybe that prick is the Holy Spirit saying, would God really say this?

    “That rules out absolutely the remotest approval of rape or any other use of force.”

    Piper and his sycophant cloud say he treats women as first class citizens, yet his words, his actions, and the actions of Bethlehem Baptist – admitted by a subsequent pastor that they have not historically handled domestic violence (spousal abuse) situations appropriately – suggest that we ought not to believe the words without the context of actions.

    In the same way, you can say (and you have said) all sorts of wonderful things about respecting women and rejecting abuse, but those need to be taken in the context of all the other things you’ve said that your complementarian peers have used to silence and victimize women. And while you say you distance yourself from that doctrine, you then use the same arguments to prove why the same verses apply. How is that distancing yourself? (As an aside, when I talk about how my father abused me, the authoritarian/comp reaction is “that’s not abuse”, so perhaps we don’t have the same definition)

    If comps say that “do not refuse” means that a wife cannot refuse sex, and when asked whether a woman can refuse sex, you say “no” and use the same prooftext, how are you distancing yourself from American complementarians? Why should I respect your conscience, when you are wielding your conscience like a sword over wives in telling them that the Bible says they cannot refuse sex. And… why when we say you support marital rape, whose definition is coercing sex against a wife’s will, you are deeply offended, even though your logic “do not refuse” means precisely that a wife cannot refuse sex.

    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 )

w

Connecting to %s