***
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)
Spiritual Sounding Board 
(part 2)
I do wish the sexist or naive single men out there who are frustrated about not being able to get dates would grasp this
(this = “But none of the reasons women end up with jerks are because women enjoy being treated like trash or find jerks attractive!!!”),
and the ones in the Red Pill groups or whatever they are called would accept that too.
Also: dating is NOT easier for women than it is for men, as the Incel- type, Red Pill, PUA, sexist men believe.
It is actually more difficult in some ways for women to date, because it would be easier for most men to physically over-power most women and kill or rape them if on a date.
Also, single women do not have an easy time getting dates – the Incel / Red Pill men think that it is. This is a myth they promote.
Sometimes, men will just not approach you, a woman, for a date, and the ones that do, you just are not interested in dating.
But the sexist men on the Red Pill / Incel groups don’t think women should have criteria and should be obligated to date any man who asks.
If the tables were flipped, I’m sure the Incel / Red Pill men would NOT want to date each and every women who would express interest in them.
I read one article where a woman was friends with a 30- something, nerdy, chubby man who worked in tech.
According to her-
Even though other chubby, 30- something women would flirt with her male geeky chubby tech friend at the tech conventions, he would turn them down – because he wanted and felt entitled to the stick thin, ultra sexy, 20- something, “booth babes” at the tech conventions he went to.
(This guy felt entitled to the sexy girls out of his league and kept ignoring or turning down women more suitable for him. Then he would complain about women being too picky, not giving him a chance, and how lonely he is, according to the woman friend.)
I suspect this is a problem with a lot of single men who complain about women and not being able to get dates – you have nerdy, socially inept, weird, and/or chubby or unattractive men all feeling entitled to a bubbly, 20- year old, well-adjusted, super- model type of woman.
If you’re a single man who wants a girl friend, and that is your un-movable standard in girl-friend material, and you’re a schulby, chubby, balding, socially clueless, and/or weird man age 30 or up, your chances of getting your Fantasy Girlfriend are about zero.
Yet you complain about women being “too picky,” or dating jerks and by-passing “nice guys” like yourself.
To those men I would point out:
Concerning dating, you are your problem. -Not the women who won’t date you.
But the guys in the Incel / PUA (whatever) communities (where the men are all highly sexist and entitled with unrealistic dating criteria) will never accept this.
They would rather complain about women than improve their personalities, looks, etc.
These guys are very bitter. They are not being realistic.
LikeLike
Also Re: Lea’s post right above.
Here’s a small snap shot of a single man who is his own worst enemy (bold added for emphasis by me):
_Dear Abby: Retired teacher is pessimistic about finding a new romance_
LikeLike
Every guy I’ve ever heard complain that women are too superficial was doing exactly this. I could write a long time about dating and stuff, but eh. I just thought the point about porn was interesting.
LikeLike
Back to the original question, what can men do to help remove misogyny from churches, this is at least somewhat applicable:
_After Willow Creek: How Can Churches Make Women Feel Safe Again?_ by Kelly Ladd Bishop
Just a few quotes from the page:
LikeLike
This seemed relevant to this thread:
_Christian Conferences and the Danger of a Single Story_
Also very interesting in that post is a discussion about Proverbs 31 and the phrase “Eshet chayil”
LikeLike
Interesting, our BFF’s at the gospel coalition just posted an article referencing Aimee Byrds points about men and women being friends and getting all irritated about it.
They are particularly upset that she thinks riding in cars together and having lunch aren’t off limits, and in response to Aimee’s mention of a time some dude, rather than giving her a ride, sent her off to wander around in the dark in a strange city, offers ‘so many alternatives that make total sense and are not at all ridiculously overcomplicated’.
Or…he could have just given her a ride like a decent grown person. Idiots.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/why-cant-friends/
LikeLike
(part 1)
Lea said
I saw someone share that link the other day.
I haven’t stopped to read it or I’m sure my blood pressure would go up. I’m guessing it has to do with the BGR, Billy Graham Rule / Mike Pence Rule.
I hate to pull the “As A Father” argument (because it has sexist under-tones), but it seems to be the only one most (complementarian or patriarchal) men grasp:
What if your daughter (or wife, sister, aunt, or granny) was stranded and needed a man to give her a drive home?
You would still insist:
-???
I find it really hard to believe that had the Gospel Coalition’s author’s daughter been the one road-side, in need of a ride, that he would’ve told her if a BGR- following Christian guy refused to help her, “respect his conscience, sweetie!”
No, he probably would’ve taken the guy aside and chewed him out for not helping his daughter. But it’s peachy dandy with him if another man’s daughter is left alone road side.
I thought Christians are supposed to be trusting on, and relying on, the Holy Spirit to guide them, as well as going by Jesus’ teaching of “Do Unto Others.”
To a point, I’m fine with people following their conscience, but the BGR is going into Pharisee-territory, making a rule more important than helping another person, and Jesus was against that.
The BGR really rests on a few faulty, sexist, and insulting ideas – like all men cannot control their libidos, all women are sleazy sex crazed strumpets.
(continued in part 2)
LikeLike
(part 2)
It’s sad to see that even anti-complementarian Christians defend the Billy Graham Rule, though.
When I’ve spoken out against the BGR at the other blog that you and I post to at times, a few of the anti-complementarian women over there actually defend it because men/women eating lunch together looks bad and “but what about lawsuits.”
Well, what about lawsuits? Almost everything in life comes with a risk.
Living your life based on fear is limiting and paralyzing (I really know about this, as someone who suffers from anxiety. It keeps you from doing a lot of things).
Going by the BGR can also have adverse affects on others, such as the woman in your example who needed a lift home, but the man in the example was reluctant to give her one.
The BGR is doubly ostracizing for single adult women b/c not only do men perceive us as sexual threats, but the church, by way of the BGR has convinced married Christain women to buy into this, so the married women don’t want to befriend single adult women but rather treat us like threats, so they avoid us too.
I also find the Billy Graham Rule (aka Mike Pence Rule) horribly obnoxious as it assumes that I’m (an unmarried woman) a sleaze-oid with an uncontrollable lust with no morals who thinks it’s okay to seduce married men – so very wrong. I’m not like that. It’s so insulting.
There’s also a woman who periodically posts here, on this very blog, who believes strongly in the BGR.
When I mentioned in passing on my Daisy blog how sexist and wrong the BGR is, she left me a grumpy post in my comment box at that blog about it, saying she lives by the BGR and thinks it’s great.
She then stomped off my blog in anger saying she’d never, ever follow my blog again.
I was like, OK, you and I never got along well at JA’s site or this one anyway, so no big loss, I guess.
But some Christians are irrationally in love with the BGR.
They are very much opposed to mixed- gender friendships.
How do pro-BGR Christians expect men and women to marry if they are teaching them to stay apart?
Part of getting married is spending some one- on- one time with another person on dates. You kind of have to be friends with and be alone with (or in public, in restaurants) with another person to get married.
Lastly. To throw into relief how stupid the BGR rule is.
To repeat Lea:
Your average Non-Christian man is not going to hesitate to give a woman a ride if her car breaks down.
An atheist guy, for instance, is not going to freak out over the idea and not hesitate to give a woman a lift in an emergency.
I know a lot of Christians equate being “not of this world” with something good and godly, but there are times when “the world” gets morality correct and intuitively does the right thing and make Christians, generally, look like doofi (plural of “doofus”-?).
LikeLike
I would love to see a thread on this book and the responses since I think it might be interesting. I think ditching some of the more nonsensical of this stuff is definitely something men could do to combat misogyny so I think it does fit here, but it would probably go off in a lot of directions.
My main issue with this when you discuss with people is that they are not willing to take situations within context and realize that there are different ways of dealing with different people. To put all men or women into one group, and make one rule for all situations, leads to stupid heartless actions like leaving a friend stranded because zomg we can’t be in a car alone together.
Now, I will not get in cars with a man I don’t know on a first date. But that’s not the same thing as getting a ride from a coworker to pick up my car. It’s silly to act like these are the same thing which his what such broad rules do.
LikeLike
Lea’s AUGUST 10, 2018 @ 9:54 AM.
I just remembered I had a chance to practice the Billy Graham Rule myself years ago. This was back before I had rejected complementarianism, too.
I had a male coworker who I shared an office space with for a year or more, so I knew him pretty well. He asked me for a lift one day after work, because his car was at the mechanic’s, so I drove him over.
I could’ve pulled a BGR and said, “No, I can’t, what will everyone think, it will look inappropriate.”
But it didn’t occur to me that it may look bad to anyone. I was in the mindframe of helping a coworker out. So I drove him to the mechanic’s, where I waited in my car for about 30 minutes until he got a status update on his car.
But I could’ve dumped a coworker in need per the BGR, but I did not.
Lea said,
Yes, I agree.
Having a rule in place like the BGR, those who follow it do tend to follow it too narrowly.
Not that I think they should follow it in the first place, but if they are, they should take situations on a case by case basis. But they don’t.
The church could help to get rid of misogyny by getting away from such black and white thinking about men and women, including reevaluating things such as The Billy Graham Rule, which perpetuates sexist stereotypes about men and women.
LikeLike
SKIJ – 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. They pit one scripture against another, and in some cases are the result of sloppy if not outright fraudulent scholarship.
Complementarian doctrine as I have consistently defined it cannot be abusive – it is an application of NT teaching, specifically that instructions to husbands are for husbands, and similarly for wives. It’s not rocket science. I have never been shown just how Eph 5 or 1 Pet 3 or even 1 Tim 2 can lead to abuse.
Problems may start if husbands think – wrongly in my view – that they need to try to make their wives obey their half of the bargain, what the NT writes address to wives.
Those who are already minded to be violent or verbal abusers cannot justify this from the bible. It might be easier for them to hide behind complementarianism rather than egalitarianism, but the latter is absolutely no guarantee that abuse cannot happen. Willow Creek is proof of that. The false doctrines and practices of that ‘church’ and organisation have been exported round the world, and imo enable a culture of abuse. God’s unconditional love, the love yourself/self-esteem cult, downplaying of sin, boundaries psychobabble, and in some cases practices bordering on the occult. ‘Eve’ has been deceived yet again, and making her a teaching elder hasn’t solved the problem.
As to wives having a right to say no to sex, saying no is not the problem as far as I am concerned, but a right to say no. The apostle denies this to both husband and wife. 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.
Depends a bit on your background I suppose, which in my case is one where however irresponsible or outright abusive you are, you will always have the right for the State to house, feed, clothe and entertain you. This isn’t ‘lecturing’ anyone, but each one comes at this from a different perspective.
There are two disturbing things that come to mind in this long thread. One is that outsiders who chance upon it could be forgiven for thinking it contains far too much talk bordering on perversion. At the very least an obsession with sex. 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.
LikeLike
KAS, “They pit one scripture against another, and in some cases are the result of sloppy if not outright fraudulent scholarship.”
It’s the pot calling the kettle black. Ignaz Semmelweis came up with a new theory that washing hands between autopsies on cadavers and delivering babies would prevent the spread of disease. It worked, yet the medical community of his day called him a quack and drove him to a mental breakdown. Just because something is “historically accepted” as the correct theology does not de facto make it sound. Jesus opposed the religious leaders who had millennia of tradition, yet Jesus poked holes in their tradition left and right.
“Problems may start if husbands think – wrongly in my view – that they need to try to make their wives obey their half of the bargain, what the NT writes address to wives.”
And therein lies the problem of your interpretation of “Eph 5 or 1 Pet 3 or even 1 Tim 2”. You see everywhere in the Bible where one person is given authority that person is also given the ability to punish evildoers. So, when head is conflated with authority as you and other complementarians have done, the logical conclusion is that the husband has every right to “make their wives obey their half of the bargain.” That is consistent theology. It is you being inconsistent saying that the husband is the authority yet is not authorized to carry out that authority. It’s like telling the police that they have the responsibility to eradicate crime, but it’s the responsibility of the citizens to submit to the law. What, then, do the police do? If they do nothing, they are ineffective, if they do anything they are abusive. So, that’s exactly what’s happening with complementarian husbands. If they feel responsible for the family’s adherence to the law then they are going to be abusive, which is the typical lesson they receive. If they feel more that they are cheerleaders of righteousness, then the church calls them pansies and ineffective.
“saying no is not the problem as far as I am concerned, but a right to say no.”
Complete nonsense. If I don’t have a right to say no, then saying no IS A PROBLEM. So, you’re just full of crap.
“Are there no normal people in America, who cannot relate to one another without everything having to be codified as an issue of rights?”
Of course, but when bad things happen, then it becomes a matter of who is right and who is wrong. So, in complementarian marital counseling, a wife who says no is vilified. Because it’s the husband’s RIGHT to have sex. So, again, it’s the practicality that drives the need to discern what the truth is. We don’t sit around trying to invent circumstances. This happens all the time. And, your response is the exact sort of response that gets played to victimized wives. It’s not your RIGHT to say no, but it is your husband’s right to have sex.
“Willow Creek is proof of that.”
Interestingly, when the truth came out, Willow Creek chose to restore trust rather than stick to their guns. CJ Mahaney still preaches on the complementarian circuit. So, what exactly are you trying to make Willow Creek the poster child for? A church that did the wrong thing at first, then decided to do the right thing, or a church that did the wrong thing, got busted for it multiple times, and still is digging in their heels? Or Bill Gothard, or Mark Driscoll, or Tullian Tchvidijian or …?
LikeLike
Lea said:
Lea, which book are you referring to? I saw Aimee Byrd mentioned, but I’m not sure.
LikeLike
I’m guessing “Why Can’t We Be Friends” by Aimee Byrd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The logical conclusion of the “anti” view (that unmarried men and women cannot be alone together) the TGC holds ends up in this sort of Duggar realm where they think that by separating the boys and girls they can prevent sexual contact. Instead, Josh was able to molest his female relatives simply by not following the rules.
In the same way, the church needs to figure out a balance between good policies that reduce the likelihood that such molestation could occur, but balance that with the knowledge that wolves simply aren’t going to abide by those policies.
When I was “courting” there were strict rules. We drove separately to a public place and then drove separately home. I would sometimes stay at her parents’ house. We had rules about no physical touch, etc., that we agreed to, but had we not followed those rules, it’s not as if we couldn’t have done pretty much whatever we wanted to. So, I think the key is teaching both sons and daughters about respect and boundaries. If they understand that the guy or girl that is trying to push their buttons and get them do do something they don’t want to is a person who sees them as a sex toy and not a person with value who is worth waiting for, then hopefully they’re not going to be tempted to do something stupid.
Which is also why we need to teach them to expect respect from parents, teachers, other adults, peers and even siblings. If what is modeled to them is that they don’t matter, that they must obey, that they don’t have “rights”, then suddenly we expect them to know when they are being groomed or disrespected by boy/girlfriend, it’s completely ridiculous. It’s so frustrating to read school (even public school) handbooks where it’s “obey obey obey” or get punished, and no real way for students to defend themselves against unreasonable requests.
LikeLike
I think that it is more important to be led by the Spirit and use wisdom, rather than relying on “rules,” such as the Billy Graham Rule. Following “rules” doesn’t change anyone’s desires, motives, or heart. The Pharisees were meticulous rule-keepers, but their hearts were far from God.
I was taught, as a child, never to talk to strangers, and this is a good rule. But, if a passerby asks me for directions, I will not necessarily ignore him. The same is true about Jesus’ command: “Give to all that ask.” This does not mean that I will give a hand-out to every single homeless person who requests one from me while I’m walking down the street; nor will I necessarily deny him. Again, balance and wisdom are key.
Believe me, co-workers who want to cavort can do so even while implementing the Billy Graham rule. My (married) boss and his (married) female assistant have never been alone, but they joke together; he sends her on personal errands; he raves about how she helped him when his daughter was ill in the hospital; she shares with the staff how she has told him details about her suffered childhood abuse; plus, she calls him “brother,” in a very endearing way, right in front of everyone. (There are more clues betraying their emotional attachment; you kind of have to see it to believe it.)
Definitely, NOT professional.
Also, in a pizzeria where I used to work, the owner’s wife (in her 40s) would blatantly carry on with, engage, and humor the delivery drivers, who were teenage boys. All of this disguised flirting took place right in front of everyone’s noses. Her husband, finally got a wind of it and shut the place down.
LikeLike
Mark – So, in complementarian marital counseling, a wife who says no is vilified. Because it’s the husband’s RIGHT to have sex….. It’s not your RIGHT to say no, but it is your husband’s right to have sex.
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.
Anyone teaching otherwise is guilty of false teaching.
LikeLike
Thanks Mark, yes. Julie Anne this is the one I mentioned. I haven’t read it, just saw the gospel coalition article referencing it.
LikeLike
See, KAS, we’re talking about real problems, in real relationships, in the real world. Not scholarship.
LikeLike
Yep. They’re called egalitarians.
LikeLike
I’m reading a publication as we speak, entitled, “Untwisting the Scriptures..That Were Used to Tie You Up, Gag You, and Tangle Your Mind,” by Rebecca Davis; the forward by Jeff Crippen. It truly is a brilliant piece of work in identifying the meaning of the word “rights,” while exposing the blatant distortions of our Holy Scriptures to appease the wolves in sheep’s clothing who practice their authority/love fests of “lording it over,” which Jesus Himself condemned. And He didn’t use any gender language when He spoke those powerful Words.
And it seems to me, there were some pretty powerful, logical, and life saving reasons that folks sailed away from Europe, those many, many years ago. I find it amusing how some folks compare the “c’hristianity” of various countries, pitting countries against one another.
Many of us have attended c’hurches, where the authority figures spoke “down” to us commoners, the “worms” so to speak, and yet they themselves, were quite privileged and powerful in twisting our Holy Scriptures for their own “complementarian” benefits; and yet, living in sin, sin, and a whole multitude of sins themselves, with absolutely no remorse nor visible repentance needed on their behalf. As Zoe pointed out on another comment thread, “pot calling the kettle black.”
Pray tell, if the complementarian theology that John Piper preached, taught, and practiced in “his c’hurch” was so great, then why did his son get divorced, for we believe this was taught, practiced, and living within their home as well? Should not their complementarian worldview have been the perfect utopian marriage…..as in “practicing what they preach?”
Or is comp teachings based on the “do as I say, not as I do” philosophies of man…..which are pretty vain as called out by Christ.
I want to Thank Rebecca Davis, for shedding some “light and salt” on the topic of being created as a “unique individual,” made in the image of Christ, and living in His freedom and liberty, of which no man could ever steal or destroy. So incredibly grateful for these truths.
LikeLike
Lea quoting KAS, I think…
Complementarian interpretations of the Bible create problems and don’t solve any.
They pit one scripture against another, and in some cases are the result of sloppy if not outright fraudulent scholarship.
Complementarians are guilty of eisegesis, too.
(They do things like read male hierarchy into the text where it’s not there, like in the Creation narrative in the book of Genesis, where it says God put both the man and the woman to rule over the earth.)
The Bible has examples of women leading and teaching men (such as Deborah and Junia), but complementarians say that women cannot lead and teach men.
Comps say women cannot speak up in front of men especially not in church, though Paul mentioning women speaking in church contexts, and the Bible saying God says “your daughters will prophecy.”
Then comps cannot agree on how their gender theology should be applied, so they end up contradicting each other and their own beliefs.
Further, complementarianism cannot always be carried out consistently.
Here are just a few examples of what I mean:
_Gender Complementarianism Does Not Adequately Address, or Address At All, Incompetent, Loser, Or Incapacitated Men_
_The Shifting Goal Posts of Complementarianism Show How Bankrupt It Is_
(continued in next post)
LikeLike
I made a few weird types in my post above. Sorry about that.
Continuing with links to a few more examples of how complementarians are inconsistent on their beliefs and teachings, or how their teachings are impractical or ineffective in real life, or just do not work…
_The Changing Jesus of Complementarians – A Pink Jesus for Women and a Blue Jesus For Men Makes for a Jesus with Multiple Personality Disorder_
_Gender Complementarianism Contributes to Gender Confusion_
(continued in next post)
LikeLike
dang it, I meant “typeOs” (mistakes) in my post above, not “types”
Anyway…….
Continuing with links to a few more examples of how complementarians are inconsistent on their beliefs and teachings, or how their teachings are impractical or ineffective in real life, or just do not work…
_Christian Gender Complementarian Analogies Do Not Work_
_The Hole in Our Complementarianism_ – from “Hope Fully Known” blog
LikeLike
Katy said,
Yes, the proof is in the pudding. Or, in Christian terms, Jesus said you can tell a bad tree because it gives bad fruit.
But KAS, like so many other complementarians, does not like the Bad Fruit Test.
He (like many complementarians) will never really fully grapple with how complementarianism has real-life (negative) impact on people, no matter how often several of the people on this blog have told him how damaging complementarianism was to them personallyl.
All KAS will do is pull the _“No True Complementarian” fallacy_.
(If that web page is not available, please see this similar one…
_Will the real complementarian please stand up?_)
KAS’ loyalty is to defending this doctrine (complementarianism), even when it’s been shown to hurt the people who used to believe in it, or who were mistreated by those who called themselves complementarian.
Did Jesus of Nazareth set that as an example? No, he did not.
KAS, like all complementarians, wants women to stay in bondage under the Yoke of complementarianism.
LikeLike
Amen, Daisy.
I have never witnessed a remorseful nor repentant “comp man.” What exactly does that look like in the natural, for the mentality of the comp is that of “one-up-manship,” whether blatant or deceitful in methodology.
And I stand in amazement at the double standards/as Christ call it, “double-mindedness” practiced in the comp camp…the comps can do and say as they please using twisted Scripture contexts as their platform, yet bind up Jesus’ sheep with rules, regulations, laws they “complimentarily proclaim” in the name of another jesus. And when all hell breaks loose, as in the “sin” of their own households, they are quick to blame “egalitarians” as the primal cause of the “sin.”
I have not seen, nor witnessed a “complementarian man” name and claim their own sins, however, are quick tempered in pointing out the sins of the “egalitarian” group, so to speak. Some call is camels and gnats…..I see comp as just plain “wicked and evil.” And I choose not to walk in the counsel of the wicked nor sit in the seat with the mockers of Jesus Word…..which has been a tremendously blessing to my soul…..in addition to worshiping Christ in spirit and true with great freedom and liberty. There is such joy in the LORD, apart from the Nicolaitan system, and me soul rejoices!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katy said
And look at how utterly obsessed so many complementarian men are with trying to convince women to be submissive to men, trying to prove that comp is biblical, etc.
Shouldn’t complementarian guys, like KAS, be investing their time more wisely in preaching at complementarian men to “love their wives as Christ loves the church”?
But nope, they don’t do that, because the real agenda of comp is to keep a male hierarchy intact.
Don’t want the women still trapped in comp to catch on to that.
LikeLike
I was moseying along on twitter and some dude said the following, which honestly sounds like the end result of every discussion about this comp topic:
If men (regardless of whether they are more or less educated, knowledgeable and intelligent on any particular topic than the woman, or whether they are kind and thoughtful, or selfish and hard hearted) don’t listen to our ‘influence’ we are up a creek, basically. And they don’t get how that could be a problem.
LikeLike
Lea quoting KAS, I think…
_Biblical Scholars and Women in Ministry_
This is just a snippet from the page, not the whole page:
LikeLike
KAS, if a woman doesn’t have a right to say “no” when her husband wants sex, then isn’t the converse true that a husband, who can innocently ask for sex whenever has a right to his wife not saying “no”?
Compare to a court. The witness does not have a right to remain silent unless being asked to self-incriminate. The attorneys have a right to ask questions. So, the attorneys have a right to question a witness expecting an answer. A witness who does not answer a question can be held in contempt of court.
So, saying something is not a “right” drives conclusions. If a wife does not have a “right” to say no to sex, then her husband has a right to sex.
You haven’t, though, answered the line of reasoning that bequeathing husbands with “headship = authority” over their wives does, in fact give them the right to discipline and coerce obedience. As with many beliefs, the “fundamentalists” are the ones that have the more consistent view and the “moderates” are the ones who illogically pick and choose what they accept. So, if, as you say, headship implies authority, then you must join your fellow comps to the logical conclusion. If Christ’s headship over the church as a picture of marriage is a full analogy, as complementarians claim, then you must also accept that Christ’s discipline of the church is a pattern for discipline. If you say, Christ is X to the church therefore husband is X to the wife, without other scriptural support, which is what comps do all the time, (e.g. the father is the prophet, priest and king of his household) then you cannot arbitrarily pick what not to apply (e.g. discipline). If the husband is the authority of his wife, then he is responsible to correct her, just as he is required to correct children. There is no example in scripture of an authority relationship where the authority did not have responsibility to discipline and correct those under his rule.
So follow up to Lea’s line. Headship = authority creates more scriptural and practical problems than it solves. Those who follow the line of reasoning to the conclusion end up in the CDD camp.
LikeLike
_Is the Gospel the Antidote to Misogyny?_
I usually do not see complementarians, certainly not the ones who post to these threads (such as KAS), acknowledging how complementarianism has damaged women, even the women who have repeatedly shared their testimonies to this blog.
I just read _a page (“The Problem With ‘Facts Not Feelings'”)_ the other day that mentions that empathizing first with the person you are trying to persuade works wonders – rather than just throwing facts at them (or quoting Bible verses at them).
You can start by saying, “I hear you. I hear what you’re saying, and I acknowledge you have been hurt by X.”
But I don’t see that from comps.
All I see is complementarians wanting Non-comps to explain away the same set of “wifely submit / woman no preach” Bible verses over and over and over.
I only see them arguing, “But not all comps!”
Such a method doesn’t address any of the underlying emotions and pain Non-comps endured while being comp (or living under comp rule), so you’ll not experience Non-comps wanting to hear you out.
You have to concede that complementariansm (and don’t bring up “but not all comps”) has flaws, and that it’s hurt people, if you want to be heard.
The closest I’ve seen to this are soft complementarians Aimee Byrd, and the other comps associated with her blog, who were horrified to see some of the garbage other comps were teaching women, and they’ve blogged about it, condemning it.
And I have to say posts like this one are about how Christians can remove sexism from the church – (and comp is a form of sexism) – it’s not a thread to get Non-comps to defend their Non-comp views.
I find it a complete perversion that Comps (such as KAS) invade threads that discuss how Comp hurts women to only want to needle the Non-Comps to answer Comp interpretations of the Bible, to defend gender egalitarianism, and to respond to “no woman preacher” verses. That is not the purpose of most of this blog, and certainly not specific threads such as this one.
KAS, in the future, you should remain quiet on any of these types of threads. If you want to argue Comp, defend comp, promote comp, or argue against egalitarianism…
You should find a new blog or forum that is for that purpose, where the people posting at such sites are not in spiritual abuse recovery mode, as so many (but not all, hello Lea) here on this blog are.
If you care about people at all, KAS, and don’t want to leave them with a bad view of Christianity, you’ll voluntarily stop jumping into threads like this.
Otherwise, it looks to me as though you are only concerned with winning arguments, trolling people here, and promoting your sexist gender doctrine… you don’t care about helping people.
LikeLike
Above I said,
An example of what I mean: this complementarian guy (see link below) who completely pulverizes nutty complementarian teaching that does stuff like tell women they cannot or should not be employed as police officers:
_An Accidental Feminist?_
– written by complementarian Carl Trueman
I don’t agree with even Trueman’s version of complementarianism, but he at least recognizes and acknowledges how insane and stupid so much of comp is.
LikeLike
Mark – You haven’t, though, answered the line of reasoning that bequeathing husbands with “headship = authority” over their wives does, in fact give them the right to discipline and coerce obedience.
How on earth can you still keep saying this? The instruction for wives to submit is for wives to obey, there is no instruction for husbands to enforce this. Submission cannot be enforced, obedience can. The reason a wife submits is because the husband is head – these collacate together. So there is a differential in authority, whether we like it or not.
Any notion of husbands subjugating wives who refuse in their opinion to submit is heretical – though I have not doubt you could find numpties who teach or even do this. It’s false.
Being ‘head’ is what the husband is, not something he does, and there is no verse that even hints at a husband ‘disciplining’ his wife. That is more like a father and his children, and I hope you are not too dense to disambiguate these two sets of relationships (as many are), let alone the master/servant relationship.
The verbs used of the husband are love, cherish and nourish. That is his half of the bargain. If you want to argue that submission, however you understand that to be, is not for today, is culturally conditioned, then neither are the instructions for the husband for today either.
The mapping or analogy of Christ and church mean a) Christian marriage is not based on the Roman-Greek culture, and b) is not between two equals. There is a differentiation of responsibility, even if though it is vital not to push the analogy of Christ and church too far. There is an element of disanalogy, husband may be head, but not lord over his wife. Christ himself is head of the husband, the husband is under authority.
Is it beyond your imagination to conceive of a wife submitting voluntarily ‘as to the Lord’, and a husband being head in a way that is benign? I am sure this is the intent of Paul’s teaching on marriage. Better to aim at this than try to subvert it.
Elders to whom we should submit (no equality or mutuality here) have a moral authority for church discipline, but very little actual power to do much apart from eventually disfellowship believers in blatant sin and error who refuse to mend their ways. In practice this virtually never happens.
Criminal cases require the govt for which God set up ‘authority’ in the Rom 13 sense – to which we must submit; and no equality or mutuality here either.
We live in a hierarchical universe, and if we rebel against it, it will be to our hurt.
LikeLike
KAS, “Any notion of husbands subjugating wives who refuse in their opinion to submit is heretical”
Perhaps, but you haven’t demonstrated why submission to the government is different than submission to a husband. You are the one claiming that the words are clear. The government has every right to “subjugate” disobedient citizens who refuse to submit, yet you are claiming that a husband does not. So, you are the one who has to Biblically explain why submission does not mean submission. My claim is that submission does not imply authority (which you assert it does), and therefore a wife can submit without authority to her husband, and we can submit in the same way without authority to a state, yet also obey the lawful commands of a state. This is yet another contradiction that comps must explain, and sticking your head in the sand doesn’t make it go away.
“If you want to argue that submission, however you understand that to be, is not for today, is culturally conditioned, then neither are the instructions for the husband for today either.”
Why? If I argue that the Ceremonial Law is not for today, do I have to argue that the Ten Commandments aren’t either? You can’t arbitrarily parse scripture that way and decide what I can and can’t say. I am arguing that submission is not obedience, and it does not imply authority. I’m saying that it is fine for Paul to say “submit to one another” and not mean it hierarchically. You are the one asserting hierarchy. So, submission is fine and love is fine. I submit to my wife and she loves me. I love my wife and she submits to me.
“Being ‘head’ is what the husband is, not something he does, and there is no verse that even hints at a husband ‘disciplining’ his wife.”
More distraction. You equate head and authority. Authority is more than just a state of being. It involves fulfilling responsibility. A general is not “authorized” so that he can twiddle his thumbs in a corner with a nice-looking uniform. Again, you are the one who has to demonstrate that a husband is given authority that is like a nice shiny “Junior Ranger” badge that means nothing. If the husband has authority over his wife, then that authority has a purpose. Which is why your more consistent comps (the ones you call numpties) realize that authority = power to discipline.
“The verbs used of the husband are love, cherish and nourish. That is his half of the bargain.”
So the wife doesn’t have to love, cherish and nourish her husband also? If that is reciprocal then why are you arguing that submission is not?
“The mapping or analogy of Christ and church … though it is vital not to push the analogy of Christ and church too far.”
Why do you assume that forcing authority into an analogy of sacrificial love is not pushing the analogy too far?
“Is it beyond your imagination to conceive of a wife submitting voluntarily ‘as to the Lord’,”
Reference please? Isn’t it slaves who submit “as to the Lord”?
“We live in a hierarchical universe, and if we rebel against it, it will be to our hurt.”
Yes, Adam sinned and the result is a hierarchical universe, but Jesus demonstrated a new covenant which is a reversal of the fall. In this new covenant, we are adopted as his siblings, joint heirs, united with him in the spirit. Yet, you seem to want to reject Jesus’s plan and go back to the Old Covenant. Jesus rebelled against the hierarchy and was hurt. But, he said, there’s a different way. The one who wants to be great among you must be the servant. So, the hierarchy is flipped. The creator of the universe didn’t come to earth to remind wives to put out whenever their husbands asked. Jesus came so that the husbands would wash the dishes instead of sitting on the sofa while the wife does all the work.
But somehow comp. is trying to say, no, no we don’t want to flip the hierarchy. We want to remind women that they are still inferior to men. We want to make sure that we bestow honor on the most presentable parts. We want to make obedience and submission to authority the touchstone of Christianity.
LikeLike
I don’t get it.
Why is KAS still posting to threads such as this one, after the comments I left directed at him under the long excerpt in _this post_ (time stamp of AUGUST 15, 2018 @ 11:00 AM) on this thread, right above?
KAS said to Mark,
This is so nonsensical I’m not even sure how to address it. God bless Mark for wading in and trying.
KAS, if it’s up to women to voluntarily submit, just drop it already.
It’s not your place to convince or force any woman here (or any man) or anywhere else to buy into Male Headship (which is Male Rule) or Female Submission.
It’s not your place to come on to any blog, especially not one in a thread about how to eradicate sexism from the church, to try to argue with Mark, or with women, into agreeing with these concepts.
I’ve already rejected comp years ago.
If I do marry, I would like to avoid marrying a self professing complementarian.
Regardless of who I marry, I will not be “submitting” to that person, in part, (and among other reasons), because I don’t share your interpretation of the Bible on this matter.
KAS said, “So there is a differential in authority, whether we like it or not.”
No. Incorrect.
Jesus said (and husbands are not exempt from this teaching),
You continue to argue for one of the very things (male rule of women) which is perpetuating misogyny in the church.
This thread is meant to find out what steps can Christians take to remove misogyny, not perpetuate it.
LikeLike
BTW (or “Part 2”)
Mark quoting KAS,
So, one day I marry.
I marry a dude, and let’s say he’s a complementarian (or not. I guess the guy in this example doesn’t necessarily have to be comp. Maybe he’s an atheist. Who knows?), and so I refuse to submit to my spouse in a complementarian manner.
And what happens?
Why, the husband, if he is non-abusive, just has to accept my non-submission to his Male Headship, Male Rule and… put up with it.
If the hubs and I get into a disagreement, he does not get a “final tie breaker vote” to settle the matter.
Instead, the hubs will have to treat me like another adult and compromise with me, or defer to me (if I have more experience or knowledge about the topic we are debating about).
And the marriage proceeds smoothly, egalitarian in nature.
No need for Male Headship.
The marriage putters along just fine without complementarian- prescribed gender roles and without “Female Submission” and “Male Headship.”
Complementarianism is so unnecessary for a functioning and healthy marriage. (Or for any other area of life.)
LikeLike
Wait, Mark, did KAS say this?
(I don’t have the stomach to read through his last post word for word):
Hierarchy (at least in the sense of personal relationships as comps promote) is a result of the Fall, of sin.
Hierarchy in that fashion is not meant to be strived for or admired.
Jesus actually taught that his followers should avoid it.
Also, that is a very _Jordan Peterson like thing_ to say.
KAS must be listening to Peterson videos on You Tube.
LikeLike
Daisy wrote Jesus said (and husbands are not exempt from this teaching),
But Jesus called them aside and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them.
It shall not be this way among you.
KAS had already written There is an element of disanalogy [in the Christ and church metaphor], husband may be head, but not lord over his wife. Christ himself is head of the husband, the husband is under authority. Emphasis added for any who might need new bi-focals.
Talk about banging your head against a brick wall.
LikeLike
LOL, Didn’t you try to say the opposite somewhere upthread?
And marriage is not between two equals. Lovely thing, this marriage.
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?
He doesn’t really believe that, or maybe he does and is happy with a wife who doesn’t love him, so long as she obeys. I suspect many men are. Of course, the type of man who actually is loving cherishing nourishing their spouse is probably not barking out orders either – unless he’s been told that’s the only godly way to have a marriage. Which is full circle the problem with comp.
LikeLike
You’re forgetting the part where, if he has really bought into this whole comp deal, he resents you for it, whines constantly to the church and tries to guilt trip you into obeying him. Which I’m sure would not make for a happy relationship!
Whereas if you dump all that comp thought, you just deal together with each other as equals. Which is a terrifying thought to some apparently.
LikeLike
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):
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Oh, and this is the view of English common law as well. Dickens wrote this in Oliver Twist:
That is the traditional or hierarchical view, and presumably what complementarian theology hopes to restore.
LikeLike
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_
_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>
LikeLike
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?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Julie Anne said,
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_
LikeLike
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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).
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:
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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,
SKIJ said,
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,
SKIJ said,
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,
SKIJ 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,
SKIJ said,
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.
LikeLike
Yes – Authority over Her Own Damn Head is the one I was referring to, Daisy. It’s sooooo good!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes I had the same concern.
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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).
LikeLiked by 2 people
People opposed to ‘rights’ seem to only be opposed to those other people having rights, not themselves.
Which is deeply weird to me. Especially now that I’m a Presbyterian and that’s not how we treat it at all.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Mark said,
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.
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
Lea said,
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.
LikeLike
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.)
LikeLike
🙂 I think I’m pretty safe quoting a title. But I happen to like that title and think every woman should have authority over her own damn head! haha
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Makes sense. Boundaries are a defense against someone trying to take control, control freaks would hate them.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
@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?
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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”?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
KAS: “It isn’t any more complicated than that. The response that ‘I am endorsing marital rape’ is assinine stupidity.”
just to remind you:
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.]
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
@ 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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike