***
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 
Lea said,
I’m just as lost by his tangents and other comments as you are. May be due to differing cultural backgrounds(?)
Usually when people go on to tangents as a comments thread goes on, you can see how it evolved naturally, but how we got from discussing sexism in churches, male headship, KAS not answering questions to… someone’s daughter won’t pick clothes up off the floor, I don’t know.
There are some posters who I tend to scroll past and don’t engage with, or not consistently or not often, for one reason or another. I find it saves my sanity.
LikeLike
Lea said (to D),
Yes, Lea, thank you. I may occasionally use a cuss word on this site or somewhere else, or show anger, but, I’m not a verbal abuser in people on my own life.
If anything, I was on the receiving end of verbal and emotional abuse from my father and sister from my childhood to the present.
On that job I had, where I was being bullied by one lady boss?
When I finally got over my fear of her, or my anger out weighed my fear, I began standing up to her a little bit.
From that point onward, my normal, natural reaction of her abuse – in the form of anger and standing up to her and practicing healthy boundaries and getting assertive with her – was twisted by her to me being a “problem” employee.
When a hurting person comes out of the pain, being or going through an anger phase is normal and healthy, from what I’ve read by psychiatrists. It seems rather cruel to tell someone who is recovering is the one who is being verbally abusive.
Which is not to say that some victims cannot at times be jerks themselves… there was one recovering person at another blog that you and I were familiar with who began getting very nasty with everyone there.
Sometimes, some victims can turn into bullies, but, I’d be careful about tossing that out there randomly or willy nilly because it can be lobbed at a normal person just starting to heal.
LikeLike
D said,
I’ve been thinking of writing a post on my Daisy blog about this one.
I don’t think Christians realize how much damage they do to their own cause when they run around pearl clutching and tut-tutting about things like vulgarities or obscenities.
It’s been some time since I’ve read JA’s blog rule page, but I do know in months past, she has shown a lot of latitude (good for her!) when people do cuss on here, especially if she knows they’re going through some stuff – painful stuff, like people who come on here to discuss abuse they took in former churches.
The funny thing is, I spent most of my life avoiding cuss words. Until the last few years, that is. I still don’t cuss a lot, but I no longer am so sensitive about it, when and if I see other people use words such as “F–k,” etc.
On my own blog, I’ve been scolded by Christian Scolds because they feel my blog is “too negative” or not “happy clappy” and positive enough.
I come from a largely negative family. I’m not nearly as negative as they are, though.
My family also taught me (based in part on complementarian teachings) that women should not show anger, ever – not even politely. I was taught to repress anger, which is not psychologically healthy.
But this blog and my own are some of the few places I can go to display anger openly.
As for the visitors at my blog who don’t like the negativity when it shows up in my posts, I tell them they are welcome to stop visiting, find another blog to read – and some do.
If you want to find a blog or forum that accepts only cheerful, positive, up-lifting vibes, you may want to Google for a Joel Osteen, Prosperity Gospel type forum or blog.
I don’t know how people who have been physically, emotionally, sexually or spiritually by churches (or by parents) are supposed to always remain calm and positive when discussing their ordeals. That expectation does not seem humane, fair, or charitable.
You said,
Most perps of sexism, rape, and mass shootings are men – and men usually direct this violence and sexism against women.
LikeLike
Correction to my last post:
“I don’t know how people who have been physically, emotionally, sexually or spiritually [ABUSED] by churches (or by parents) are supposed to… ”
Lea said (to D),
Very true.
You know, if KAS doesn’t belirve that Male Headship means “Leader” or “Authority” (as he seemed to be telling Mark), then it should be fairly easy for him to answer Christianity Hurt’s questions.
When CH asks things like,
“KAS, can a wife say ‘No’ to sex with her Christian husband if the husband asks for sex and she doesn’t want to have sex…”
It should be quite simple for KAS to say,
“Yes, absolutely, a wife may say ‘no’ to her Christian husband for sex.”
It can only be a difficult question to answer if you are assuming on some level that a Christian husband has authority, headship, power, and control of his wife….
In other words, KAS’ UK brand of Complementarianism is not all too different from the American complementarianism of John Piper, Paige Patterson, Mark Driscoll, Pat Robertson, etc, and so on.
LikeLike
D said
You keep mentioning swearing.
I don’t remember anyone here swearing at anyone else (though it’s possible someone did up thread and I don’t remember?)
I don’t know why you keep mentioning this.
I grew up in a verbally abusive family, my sister cusses a lot, and she swears at me a lot.
My sister adores the “F” word. She screams the F word at me. F–k, she says repeatedly. I’m actually so used to it I don’t notice the F word as much as I used to.
But I don’t object or get terribly upset at other people using swear words on this blog, if they’re expressing anger over an ex-pastor who hurt them.
I don’t feel as though I am being re-victimized if I see such language.
If anything, KAS and guys like him need to stop Tone Policing others who do express themselves in an angry manner – cuss language or no – in these threads especially in cases if they are just sharing incidents from their past they find painful, such as having been hurt by a family member or church.
You said,
I don’t expect someone who is angry or hurting in the first place to always leave all emotion out of their posts and be Mr. Uber Rational all the time.
But who on here is regularly cussing out another member? I really don’t remember anyone up thread swearing at KAS.
LikeLike
D said
Because the vast majority of sexism in most nations is in fact by men against women.
Most rapes in India are by men against girls and women for example. Almost every week, I see news reports out of India of yet another woman who was raped (and murdered) by a man or by a group of men.
Pointing to one or two counter examples, such as my female boss who harassed me, or some woman who was mean or bullying to your daughter, does not change that fact.
LikeLike
Re: Christianity Hurts post.
_Christianity Hurts’ Questions to KAS post_
So far, I’ve seen KAS evade your (CH’s) questions by either saying he doesn’t have the time, or he’s offended by your previous questions or comments that would suggest that he would agree that rape of women/girls is morally acceptable.
If KAS really does not adhere to an Americanized, authoritarian view of “male headship,” as he was saying above he was not, it should not be a problem for him to quickly respond to your questions.
CH said (to KAS)
That is true. Good point.
CH said,
The correct answer to that one is YES.
Yes, a woman always has a right to say no to her husband’s request for sex.
A wife is never obligated to sexually perform any and every time her husband wants sex if she does not want to have sex for whatever the reason.
That’s the clear-cut moral response, and it’s a fully biblical principle.
It’s creeping me out at this point that KAS won’t just say,
“Why of course a wife may turn her husband down for sex any and every time if she doesn’t want sex!”
This has been going on for what, about a week now, or two weeks (maybe longer)?
LikeLike
Mark said
This kind of goes back to what I said 4 or 5 days ago in these comments.
KAS manages to regularly derail these sorts of threads and take them off course by turning sexism- against- women posts into,
“I will argue about egalitarianism and promote complementarianism, and because I personally do not slap women, no real complementarian has ever slapped a woman due to comp teachings.”
I remember a few years ago, Calvinist promoters were derailing many of the comments sections to the point that JA created two Calvinist Debate Threads, which helped a lot.
Contra KAS:
Complementarianism harms women in and out of the church, it is sexism, and it creates sexism and abuse of women and/or perpetuates it; it does not halt it or safe guard against it.
Comp has been used by real Comps (not fake ones) to hurt women, and I have explained why many times on this thread already, with further links to my blog with even more links and examples.
LikeLike
Thank you Daisy,
I don’t deny sexism exists’ more with men than women.
But that doesn’t change the fact that I think individuals or organizations need to be identified or isolated instead of using of a particular gender as a whole when making an uncomplimentary comment about someone or organization.
Sexism doesn’t happen so much here, but it does happen.
Generalizing is happening all over society now, with race and gender, politics and of course in churches. Stereotyping has become the norm. Even to those of us wanting immigration to be safe, legal and orderly, would be considered as racist and uncaring.
Anybody that didn’t vote for a Democrat might be considered by radicals as greedy racist and white or if one that didn’t vote for a Pub, a radical might consider them as a bunch of big gov’t socialist baby killers. All of which, is a stretch.
As for curse words, I was making an observation that it is occurring on this site. I’m not saying it happens a lot on this thread. but it happens and it is a negative thing.
Those that are abused have been surrounded with negative energy. I have been surrounded by negative energy when my wife and I were spiritually abused.
I grew up with it as my parents swore.
I swore until I married my wife (who never swore) which inspired me to want to stop, though a word will blurt out, but certainly never in a respectable site like this as I don’t want to spread negative energy to anyone here.
In my view, those that have been abused will heal a lot quicker surrounded by positive energy instead of negative energy.
There are many that have been surrounded by negative energy (abuse) and if they can’t escape it, the likelihood is they will deliver some of the negative energy to a new batch of victims. Or the victim becomes a victimizer by taking it out their pain on someone else.
That is what my Pastor did to my church, and so we lacked joy which effected those in our surroundings, who did the same in their surroundings.
Now if you or someone else were going to type in a curse word on this site, please consider that it is done willfully and not by mistake, as we have more than enough opportunity to delete that word.
I won’t bring up again even if I see a curse word willfully included in a comment. But then Julie Anne is putting a stop to it, if she sees it anyway.
LikeLike
_Phil’s Lectures At The BEAcon (Biblical Equity Africa Conference) In Kenya_
From that page, specifically (this is a link to a PDF document):
_What About Headship? 1 Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 5_
LikeLike
D,
D, please do not worry if you see a curse word or not. Just ignore it. Sometimes people cuss to let out a steam of anger. We are not here to judge people, but to offer grace and a safe place for people who have been harmed.
I’m not sure where you saw me “putting a stop to it.” In general, this place doesn’t usually have people cussing. I have removed a few F-bombs, but there may be a time or two where I may have left them (either intentionally or not) in the comments or in a post written by someone else. I really can’t keep track, because frankly, there are far more important things to worry about than whether someone used a cuss word.
The discussion about whether this site is Christian or whether I allow curse words is not staying on topic, btw.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
I read it on a rules and guidelines segment, from a recent post you wrote.
I’m sorry if I come across as judgmental, I’m no saint. I know when I let off some “steam” in front of others, I’m passing on some of the abuse I have endured onto others and making them victims and then I have to deal with the guilt of making others feel as bad as I do.
My kids jump me if I say the initials B.S.
I’m sympathetic to those that endure abuse and don’t belittle them for using curse words on a sight like this. But sometimes I wonder if those that use that language are realizing they have an audience that are trying to self improve their negative vocabulary and escape negative energy.
We can get that anywhere ordinary. This site isn’t ordinary to me.
LikeLike
D –
“I know when I let off some “steam” in front of others, I’m passing on some of the abuse I have endured onto others and making them victims and then I have to deal with the guilt of making others feel as bad as I do.”
You are really making a mountain out of a molehill. I will not approve any more comments about cursing.
LikeLike
@ Daisy
“he’s offended by your previous questions or comments that would suggest that he would agree that rape of women/girls is morally acceptable.”
I have never said KAS agrees rape is morally acceptable. I said I have comp in the same category as ISIS, the Taliban, Ariel Castro, and other men and groups of men who do not want women having the right to say no to them, having the right not to have sex with them, and having the right to escape them.
I did read an article years ago about the Taliban calling Afghan women who wanted marital rape made against the law dogs. I read somewhere an American comp man saying making wife rape against the law is anti-family. Yes, in these men’s minds wife rape is pro-family.
I also said KAS has many of the same opinions and attitude as the man who sexually abused me.
KAS has been saying misogynistic offensive towards women things here for months and like American comp men when a woman starts telling him what she thinks about him and his selfish misogynistic preferences he acts like a baby. Comp men can dish it out but can’t take it. They really think they should be able to trash talk women and women should kiss their b*tts in return.
If he gets the nerve to answer the questions and defend his assertion that comp is not abusive he probably wants to write a long post saying a woman can deny her husband sex but if she does she will be condemned, or he might want to say she can’t deny her husband sex but it isn’t bad she cant. I knew he would be too afraid to answer the question after he has gone on about how comp isn’t abusive.
Now after all the vile things he has said he wants to pretend he is a nice comp and British comps are not like American comps.
We have a woman posting here from Brazil and she said comp hurt her. Comp is toxic everywhere it is promoted.
Comp men believe they can sprinkle sugar on poop/comp and all women will be stupid, or perverted, or self-hating enough to eat it. They are flabbergasted when we tell them it is still gross poop. I have wondered why comp men do not just go get a blow-up doll that way no woman or little girl gets hurt and that is the answer. It gives them pleasure to demean, degrade, insult, use, trap, and physically hurt women and little girls. A blow-up doll would not feel it.
Quote from a Woman who went to a comp School in England.
“Former pupil Cheryl Povey who attended an ACE school in Bath, said: “I came across a lot of sexism. I remember as a girl finding it quite shocking. We were taught that if you’re a woman, you should be subservient to men; your husband, your pastor and other male figures.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/accelerated-christian-education-christian-fundamentalist-schools-are-teaching-girls-they-must-obey-a7066751.html
British comps are every bit as abusive, selfish, and misogynistic as American comps.
Here is a School in a Mormon state telling girls they cant refuse boys a dance. It is so dangerous teaching girls they cant tell males no. Misogynistic men do not want women or little girls having the right to tell them no or having the right to cut them out of their lives.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/health/utah-school-children-dance-trnd/index.html
LikeLike
One comment not published.
LikeLike
I want to comment more broadly on “negative” emotions. “Boundaries” by Cloud and Townsend is a great read for understanding some of these powerful negative emotions. Some excerpts:
Also, part of the healing process of decades of boundary violations – manipulation, control, abuse – is finding an outlet for that anger. Deep down, our bodies KNEW that they should be angry, but we suppressed that anger because we were afraid of what our abusers might do. The result is that there is a lot of anger that needs to get out, and if that is true for me who suffered perhaps more typical evangelical emotional and physical abuse, what about those who suffered much much more intensely and even more personal abuse?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Part of the Evangelical “grooming” process, then, is an evil caricature of “anger”. If anger is an unforgivable sin for children, wives, women and lay members (it’s okay for the authority to demonstrate “righteous” anger), then the church is short-circuiting our God-given defenses against manipulation and control, like disabling the alarm before robbing a house.
This opens up a larger can of worms – that anger is a response to perceived injustice, and, by default, the church only responds to perceived injustice against authorities. When children, wives, women and lay members get angry, the church’s response is to assume that there is no injustice, but when leaders get angry, the church’s response is to assume that the leaders are right, odd when Jesus says domineering leadership is the default.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anger equals “negative energy?” Now that sounds a bit new – agey to me, but then I have a self righteous sister in law that says my “Yanni CD” is new age music, and a niece who is now a teacher in a “c’hristian school” that says, “Hamburger Helper has demons in it.” Wow! Just WOW!
Wow…..and then the “joy card” is being played in a game of comment thread poker where the topic at the “head” of the article is “What Can Men Do to Help Remove Misogyny from the Church? Inquiring Elders Want to Know.” Even the title indicates a particular gender inclusive conversation here in which I have learned much……even the “push” concerning the manipulating the language.
I would find it interesting here, if the men would find this language offensive concerning the opposite gender; so please bear with me in offering a truthful testimony from one of my personal experiences.
“I sat in the doctor’s office with my infant to receive a well care check-up for my baby as well as myself. During the question and answer session, my “male” doctor looked at his questionnaire and asked (and I quote verbatim), “Do you have an orgasm every time you have sex with your husband?”
True story. Interestingly, this question was NEVER asked during the well care check-ups with my other children. So what in the world was happening in the sick mind of this male, conservative and highly “religious and active church member (big money giver to-boot)” doctor, that he so boldly asked me a question that I believe was a twisted perversion of his “doctoral authority? Pray tell, exactly what topic is this man’s mind obsessed with…..perhaps “sex?” Hmmm. Never set foot on his “clinical doorstep” EVER again…..for my own personal protection which is not a sin.
Do I as a woman, tell this sicko the word “NO, that is none of your business?” Or do I give this doctor/c’hurch-religious-honored man in our community, an answer to his twisted/perverted probing question? And, do I have the Biblical position to be angry, concerned and disgusted with this doctor’s verbal/mental perversion? And do I want my daughter/mother/girl friends having this man as their personal/family doctor?
At what point has the Gospel of Jesus Christ been so “consexualized” that men, disquised as c’hristians on Sunday morn, can use and abuse their positions of authority even in the doctor’s office, to satisfy the perversions of their sick hearts?
I will repeat an earlier comment: “Complementarianism is Misogyny,” plain and simple. It gives the man “the right” to hate women, to treat women as the weaker, less intelligent, and subservient gender, and it places heavy burdens and yokes upon them in every area of life, of which has absolutely nothing to do with the likeness of Jesus Christ.
And also, I’m just plain sick and tired of the comp camp rhetoric, “men engage in righteous anger and women are plagued with un-righteous anger.” There’s manure in that back forty that’s far more “pure” than these lies put forth by the religious zealots of our day, and frankly, our Holy Scriptures even say, “a double minded man is unstable in all of his ways.” I have dealt with enough of comp man’s so called “righteous anger” to last me a thousand lifetimes……all disguised as c’hristianity.
And so yes, I am standing with Christianity Hurts, Daisy, Lea, Serving, and others, in “politely” asking KAS, if a Christ following woman, has the authority given unto her by Jesus Himself, in saying the word “No” to her husband? Also, do I have the authority to say the word “No” to a pastor man, an elder, a deacon or deaconess, the ladies’ aid president, the Sunday School Superintendent, the church board member, the worship band leader, or any other individual who deems themselves as “important” within the visible church institutional complex?
Is any woman on this planet allowed to say the word “No?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katy, definitely would never go back to that doctor, and it might be worth filing a formal complaint. Even if nothing happens, it’s on the record, and an infraction later that might have seemed accidental might be recategorized.
It’s like my area with cyclists. If a driver hits a cyclist, it’s typically an “accident”, but if cyclists have reported the driver for close calls and aggressive behavior there’s a good chance that the city will criminally prosecute.
LikeLike
Katy’s Doctor
An excellent reply to this, without missing a beat and with a matter-of-fact voice, ask him: “Do you have an orgasm every time you have sex with your wife?”
LikeLike
Actually, Zoe, I was thinking that the question, “Do you have an orgasm every time you have sex with your husband?” would have shut him up even quicker. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
HAHA, Carmen!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Carmen. Well, I was going to put that, but I’m trying to behave Carmen. 😀
LikeLiked by 2 people
Great comebacks Zoe and Carmen. My first thoughts were to cuss and swear at him, in love, of course, then do the farm girl thing and kick him where it counts…..
BUT….since I am a born again Christian, and at that particular time in me life I was being indoctrinated/brainwashed into the “complementarian gospel ‘coal-itchin’ ” , I chose to not give him an answer and to shut me mouth like a good little comp wife, leaving his office feeling pretty “angry” and “dirty” about myself. In this particular instance, I believe the term “righteous anger” is applicable here for those that are accessing the “anger issue thing.”
Since bolting out of a complementarian, conservative, abusive Baptist church, my eyes have been opened, my ears now hear the clear, concise Gospel Message, and my mouth…..well, me mouth now defends the injustices done to women all in the name of a false jesus and an apostate false religious system that masquerades itself as the Body of Jesus Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A guy or two above were talking about anger or swear language, which kind of started to drag this topic’s OP a bit off topic.
An observation or two I wanted to make that is actually maybe helping it to get back on topic, is that, if you are trying to eliminate sexism in the church, start by recognizing how men and women are socialized differently and make allowances or change course.
For example, often times in both secular and Christian culture, girls and women are discouraged from expressing negative emotions or thoughts, especially (in the context of Christianity) under gender complementarianism.
Stop expecting or demanding to see women always remain calm or non-emotional if they are discussing or ranting about having been abused, or about how much they detest complementarianism.
Also, stop assuming that showing any and all emotion is bad, or…
Stop assuming that because society permits women to show emotion openly, that women are “too” emotional and are therefore incapable of being rational, and therefore, their points, arguments, or complaints can be ignored or easily dismissed.
In years past, I have lurked at pro – gender complementarian forums and blogs that are moderated and heavily populated by pro- complementarian men.
What I have noticed is that the complementarian men won’t allow women to fully express themselves however they wish.
(The men are free on such forums to rant, make bawdy jokes, or show anger however and whenever, but not the women, nope.)
Women who reject complementarianism are held to higher behavioral standards (in general terms but especially by complementarians).
If a non-comp woman shows even a tiny amount of hostility or anger towards comp itself or towards any other (pro comp) forum members (even if said members are being very condescending or sexist towards her and other women)…
The moderators of such blogs and forums will not hold the (usually male) pro-comp sexists and rude guys accountable, but they will Tone Police the women posters all over the place, sideways, and up and down, and any way they can.
Women on pro- comp blogs and forums often have to come across and state their position super, super carefully, with kid gloves, with much “tip toeing” around the male egos present, the women must act “super sweet” and very genteel at all times, or they will be shut down by the mods.
I was raised under complementarianism, and part and parcel of it was that I was brainwashed into thinking it would be ungodly, unfeminine, un-biblical, rude, or “not nice” for me (as a female) to show annoyance, anger, or any other such emotions.
I was taught to always repress all anger, no matter what. I was taught that it’s acceptable for men to express anger and annoyance, but never for a woman.
I’m not saying I support a “free for all” blog or forum culture where anyone (whether women or men) can or should just run around blogs and forums being totally hateful and rude towards others, but on the other hand…
Depending on the context, I think Christians (especially male complementarians) should give women much more freedom to express anger, disgust, or annoyance at complementarianism or at male members who are being sexist or patronizing.
A woman should not have to self-censor or Tone Police herself in forums or blogs, or else the males present will ban or delete her, or disregard her arguments, but I’ve seen this happen quite a bit on many Christian forums / blogs, especially ones that are pro-comp and mostly populated by men.
To post successfully and really be listened to on certain Christian blogs and forums as a woman (especially on pro- complementarian sites or in debates about comp), one must have to have the patience and self-control of 434,543 saints…
One cannot show any hint of anger or upset at comp itself, or at any men being “snotty.” It’s a sexist double standard that I’ve seen often in these discussions, usually on other sites.
LikeLike
Daisy, this is one of my big pet peeves, that anger (or other emotions) and rationality cannot co-exist. You can be rationally angry. You can be rationally sad. Anyone who has no emotions in response to truly poor treatment (of themselves or others) is either trying desperately to stuff them down, or a sociopath.
If I see someone who has been unjustly hurt, I will be angry and if I argue that something that led to that is unjust, that can very well be a perfectly rational argument!
Ha! I’m not really a farmgirl, Katy: I have no idea how I would have responded to your terrible doctor except with shock, and maybe a cold question as to how it could possibly be medically relevant. Disgusting.
LikeLike
Daisy, I see people do that all the time. I’m happy to have a discussion with anyone who seems to be reasonable and truly interested in learning something or engaging in a real way. But some people just want to state the stuff they believe. And sometimes there is no real argument to be made except to say ‘nope’. I’m not going to get into an argument about the merits of treating people as inferior based on race and I’m not going to get into arguments about the merits of treating them as inferior based on gender either. I might call someone out, or disagree, but often it’s not for that person but for others who might wonder along – simply to point out that it is not an acceptable view.
LikeLike
Daisy,
I tend to agree with you, in that passions or emotions shouldn’t be stiffed based on gender.
Also if any “Comp dude” considers a woman as being emotional for being upset, he may need to look into the mirror if he has ever elevated his voice (yelling) because he can be just as loud and produce fear while not making any sense.
Some of us may have remembered being the recipients of verbal abuse (yelling) and sometimes we aren’t able to absorb what is being said, as the negative environment over-shadows it.
Yelling is one of the grossest forms of communicating because in a sense those individuals are force feeding their will on the other.
With exception of a few men and women where their spirit is either dead or gentle, all of us are emotional. But when anger is involved that is when it becomes toxic.
After being surrounded by an enormous amount of yelling by both men and women most of my life and even in the work place, I have often wondered why people yell at one another out of anger?
I prayed and meditated when I was overwhelmed with stress,, and concluded that I don’t have to be that way and I don’t have to put up with it either. Communicating in a civilized manner with everyone I come into contact with, truly soothes the mind. And when things get testy,, it wouldn’t be hard to say “oops, we can get through this”
Maybe some are trapped, but when they are able to turn their backs on abuse, that leaves the opportunity to exercise emotions in a more positive way with our spouses or cheering or booing at a function or sporting event watching our kids.
It is the “calm” that can help us navigate to solutions that truly soothes our heart.
So yeah, what comes out of our mouths should matter.
LikeLike
Just occurred to me – not only are women discouraged by secular culture and Christian complementarians to repress any signs of anger openly, but, women are discouraged from being direct and blunt when talking or writing.
Complementarian John Piper even wrote an essay about two years ago talking about how women should _only communicate passively and indirectly_ especially if there are men present, because in his view, that is the “feminine” or “godly” way for women to talk, and they won’t offend or intimidate men.
As I’ve learned to leave codependency (a.k.a. Complementarianism) behind and to become more direct in my communication style, I’ve had people (sometimes men, sometimes it’s been women) who have mistaken my direct style as being emotional, and they rebuke me for it, and/or –
Or, they throw hissy fits on my “Daisy” blog (and other sites I’ve written for or on), telling me I’m too mean, too negative, and not nice-sounding or happy-clappy enough, and dang it if they don’t lecture me big time on how they insist that I start writing more happy and up-lifting, even on my own blog.
At times, on other blogs, or my own, I’ve been perfectly calm while stating an opinion, only for another Christian to tell me I sound too angry, too negative, or too emotional, even though I was not the least bit angry or emotional when I typed whatever it was they were responding to!
The reality is, my direct writing style – (I refused to beat around the bush in all cases) – has been misconstrued by some people as me showing anger, or as me being angry, when I was not even angry at the time (but so what if I was? It’s not necessarily always wrong for anyone, man or woman, to express anger).
I think culture at large is just really uncomfortable with women who are blunt, bold, or direct.
They want us to “sugar coat” and dance around every thing that comes out of our mouth or key board, and the older I get, I simply cannot do that as much. I find it exhausting.
LikeLike
Correction: I said right above:
I meant, society and comps ENCOURAGE women to repress and hide anger.
“Discouraged” is not the right word there, should have been “encouraged”
LikeLike
And, I’m assuming because of the nature of this blog, men and women who take the anti abuse and anti patriarchy positions are commonly assumed to be coming from a place of abuse – as if that is the only way one might come to that conclusion or be genuinely concerned about these things! I find that fascinating.
LikeLike
(part 1)
I looked around and found an article or two that addresses my comments above, about how men (occasionally women, but it usually seems to be men in discussions about sexism and complementarianism they’re having with women) tone police the women:
(If you’re a man who wants to halt sexism in churches or in Christianity, one step to arrive at that goal is to stop tone policing women for not being “nice” or “cordial” enough when they are talking about the sexism they’ve experienced or been eye-witnesses of):
_Love Island shows how men tone-police women to dismiss their legitimate grievances_
This is discussing verbal communication but is applicable to online communication:
LikeLike
(part 2)
_Why Are the Tone Police Only Called on Women?_
Snippet:
LikeLike
(part 3)
If you want to help eradicate sexism in Christianity, please stop doing this, including women on blogs, who are trying to discuss… sexism in Christianity:
_Three Everyday Ways That Men Tone Police Women_
I think the following text appears if you click on the “Transcript” link that is below the video on the page:
Snippets:
Also discussed on that page:
“2. Claiming That ‘Being Emotional’ Detracts from Their Argument”
And (snippets from section 3):
3. Conditional Support
The rest of the page has other very good points, such as Section 5, “Reverse Tone Policing” etc.
I’d like to reiterate I’m for civility in communication, but in some instances, people should be given some latitude to express anger without the discussion shifting from the subject to the style (what the person is saying vs. how they’re saying it).
I think calling someone out for “how” they say stuff should be dependent on the context, timing, other considerations.
And IMHO, I don’t think a spiritual abuse blog such as this one (and on threads where women are discussing sexism they’ve endured) is necessarily the place or time for monitoring civility, unless you have someone who is way, way out of line with being nasty with other commentators for no good reason.
(Related issue):
On The Atlantic:
“The Sexism of Telling Women to Smile: Your Stories”
On The Guardian:
(there is some vulgar language on this page, but it has some good suggestions which may be applicable to church settings as well):
_“Men, you want to treat women better? Here’s a list to start with”
Snippets from The Guardian page:
LikeLike
D said,
It would depend on the time and place.
Please see the list of links I left above.
It’s often only women who are told to “be calm” or who are pressured from showing anger when they are talking or writing, even in discussing issues like male- on- female sexism.
I grew up in a family (father, siblings) who were very negative and critical towards me and towards others, and my father and sister were verbally abusive to me (they still are to this day).
However, you don’t see me on this blog or others scolding people who have been hurt or frustrated from expressing their hurt and anger over their pain or whatever infuriates them.
I don’t expect all people, in all cases, at all times, to be cordial and circumspect when discussing something that they found upsetting. Doing that can have the consequence of shutting them down, censoring them.
Feeling anger or expressing anger is not always toxic – it would depend on how, when, etc, it is expressed.
I would argue that people getting angry at this blog, and writing about it, regarding sexism they’ve endured, or showing anger at KAS for repeatedly acting obtuse on this issue for many months now, are justifiable instances of anger, and that it is not “toxic” in these particular cases.
By the way, I used to lurk at other blogs, forums, and groups where the people were too negative, hateful, and cynical on a repeated basis, but I simply left those sites.
I stopped visiting those sites or posting to them.
I did not try to convert or pressure the people at such sites to bend to my way of posting or to my attitude.
I did not usually lecture them on their sites to be more civil or polite – if I ever did so in the past, I brought it up maybe one time and then left whatever site that was. I normally just stopped reading or visiting those sites.
I didn’t try to convince them that their negativity was bad and wrong, and I didn’t waste my energy trying to debate them to be more kind and civil.
Some blogs and forums come with a culture all their own already in place, and you cannot change it – and I don’t know if it’s always one person’s place to change it.
LikeLike
Christianity Hurts said,
I was saying that I think that is how KAS was perceiving your questions, based on some indignation he was showing in replies to Mark about your questions to him.
LikeLike
Lea said,
Yes. True. A person can be both emotional and logical / rational at the same time; they’re not mutually exclusive.
I’ve been thinking about doing a blog post on my Daisy blog about a person I’ve known on these blogs for a few years now, who tends to behave in an oddly “excessively” logical manner…
Who acts as though showing any emotion on an issue at all, or asking her to “drop it” (if she keeps picking and poking at a particular subject I’ve told her repeatedly was a painful one for me that I don’t care to debate with her), is wrong or a sign of stupidity.
This particular person (who is a Christian) seems to think if you have emotion, or show any emotional investment at all on a topic, that this is irrational and it’s a dishonest or under-handed way of trying to silence her, censor her, or shut her down.
I tried telling her no, you can hold “opinion X” all day and night and Tweet about it all you like, but I personally do not want you starting arguments with me about “Topic X,” as I find it a disturbing topic that affects me personally.
Did she care? No. She sent me a response that appeared to be mocking in tone instead. And this is a person who claims to be a Christian who is appalled at Christian spiritual abuse, go figure.
This person seems to think all of us should always and only write or respond like robots (i.e., show no emotion), and if we do show emotion, that automatically invalidates any arguments we’re making, or it’s supposedly a trick to shut her down or shut her up.
I’ve been thinking of blogging about her and this issue – how emotions are shunned by Christians, or are used to silence people – for months now.
LikeLike
Daisy,
Thank you for sharing the links with me.
It sounds as if we have similar childhoods, where there was excessive verbal and mental abuse. Mine mainly came from my mom. (whom I loved) I’m sure much of her communication problems was a result of bad mentoring (I dearly loved my grandparents) on how to communicate without flipping out, but also my mom dealt with rejection resulting in her being a single mom.
In Comp Churches, some of the same stuff is happening, either bad theology, toppled with bad mentoring and spreading abuse and sometimes toxic communicating directed at victims.
I was pretty messed up myself, as I didn’t know how to navigate through a conversations, then verbal and spiritual abuse caused my self esteem to further diminish.
So I realized I had to stop getting angry at all cost, stop blaming my past and catch myself to realize that I had to let it go.
We may not be able to verbally handle our circumstances to perfection, but when we allow soothing words to pass through our mouths to one another, it is like poetry in motion. At least that is how I collide with the abuse head on. But it took me 58 years to get to this point.
LikeLike
Daisy, re: comp tone policing. It’s an abusive mechanism to assert control over the conversation. It’s an ad hominem attack like pointing out spelling and grammar errors [sic].
This happened to me quite a bit in a former church. The leaders took a stance against women that was allowed, but not what the denomination taught. I held the view that the denomination taught. I was initially seen as a potential leader, but when they found out that I held that position, they decided that I could never be a leader in that church. From then on, they were waiting to jump on anything I said in class or in a congregational meeting that they could use to make me look naive or wrong – because I could probably press charges against them if they taught against that position.
So, the same thing is happening in the blogs. They assume that they can argue against anyone who holds a different position, but out of fear, they nitpick and tone police to try and change the discussion. The typical anti-egal. argument is either proof-texting or ad hominem. I haven’t run into much else.
LikeLike
Daisy and Mark,
Excellent points in your comment threads, and you both speak truth to a “T” regarding comp theology. And when all of the sly works of those who profess comp theology fail in indoctrinating the religious folks, next come those labels meant to insult and degrade the intelligence/the integrity/the personhood/the faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
I have heard these labels/name tags before within the c’hurch and amongst the religious sects of our day……those folks are called the jezebels/jezebel sympathizers, the feminists, the leftists, the liberals, the “kooks”, the rebels, the divisive ones, the troublemakers, the “unsaved”……all in the name of a jesus of their own making. Was the Jesus of our Bibles a complementarian? Did the religious folks of His day, appreciate the fact that he loved the souls of women and treated them with utmost respect? Did He treat women the same as the religious leaders of His day?
And another question for pondering within the context of the complementarian man……Can a man learn anything from a woman….period? Or do men have the patent on all truth? Seems in my neck of the woods, religious men that surround me, are not teachable at all….from women-folk.
LikeLike
Just wanted to go off topic for a moment and wish you all an early Happy 4th of July!!! Have fun! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Same to you, AR 🙂
LikeLike
I’ll have a go.
Can a wife in comp tell her husband “no” to sex?
The apostle Paul in 1 Cor 7 v 1 – 6 says Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. In the context of avoiding temptation to immorality, Paul instructs wives not to refuse sex with their husbands, and husbands not to refuse sex with their wives. They have a right of access to each other’s body, but nobody else’s, that would be immoral. So Paul here would say no to the question as put.
However, I suspect what was meant was ‘does a husband have a right to force his wife to have sex with him’, in which case I would say unequivocally no he doesn’t. A husband doesn’t have a ‘right’ to force his wife to do anything. On the contrary Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered. Any form of abuse is not being considerate, nor bestowing honour. I don’t know how many times I have alluded to this verse, but it alone answers the question.
Can a wife in comp divorce her husband for beating her?
Jesus himself reinstituted the original concept of marriage from Gen 2, namely one man and woman for life, and forbade his followers from divorcing What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder, where asunder means to separate by divorce. All remarriage following such a divorce is adultery in God’s sight.
He gave one exception to this: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery. This has traditionally been understood to mean divorce could be permitted (but is not mandatory) where immorality has occurred. There is huge discussion as to what unchastity here means and whether the exception also covers remarriage, but regardless of your view on this there has been significant disobedience to Jesus’ teaching here in evangelical circles for decades.
The apostle Paul, following on from Jesus himself also permitted believers who were married to unbelievers to divorce where the unbeliever refused to continue the marriage. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him followed by But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound meaning is not bound to continue the marriage. See 1 Cor 7 for the context.
Again, traditionally amongst Protestants ‘desertion’ as described here allows divorce. This and Jesus’ exception above are the only grounds for divorce in the NT, so again the question as asked has no for an answer. I have read very widely around this particular subject, and in all the discussion, abuse of itself was never cited as grounds for divorce, let alone giving a right to remarriage.
That said, Denny Burk recently did an article where he argued that abuse was tantamount to desertion, and that divorce would be permitted by the apostle here. It is a line of reasoning I had never considered, and is worth considering. In practice, if a wife is being abused by a husband, she should be physically separated from the violence, and I suspect that once his punchbag had been removed from him he would either mend his ways (if supposedly a Christian), or in effect desert the marriage, which would allow for divorce. The rule on remarriage imo remains, however – this is the really tricky question. God views divorce much more seriously than many modern evangelicals do who rail at abortion and homosexuality but then disobey God themselves over divorce and remarriage.
This issue of divorce has already been discussed here.
So both these questions above do not admit of a simplistic yes or no answer if you want to be faithful to the gospel and apostolic teaching.
Can a wife say no to her husband? Yes or no.
Of course she can. She has no obligation to agree with everything he says or does. She absolutely must not agree if he wants her to do anything that is sinful, including violating her conscience. In the give and take of normal people in a normal marriage this question simply doesn’t arise. Control-freaks, however, aren’t normal …
Again, I assume that some complementarian men have run off with the verse wives submit to your husbands and let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands to mean submission means always saying yes to their husbands in everything. Of course the word submission sounds strange to modern ears where personal autonomy and worship of self are the order of the day. (The old shephering error did mean the word has arguably become debased coinage).
I take this (submission teaching) to mean that the husband being ‘head’ of the wife, meaning he is accountable to God for the marriage in a way that the wife is not, that he ultimately is responsible for his wife and children, extends to every aspect of the marriage, and in no area of it should he abdicate this responsibility. A wife should respect that in every area. God places a burden on the husband and takes it off the wife! That is why part of me wishes the notion of being ‘head’ wasn’t in the NT, but it is and has to be faced and dealt with.
Husbands are not free agents in a marriage, they are themselves under authority, namely of Christ himself and the apostolic teaching he gave.
Again, Paul goes on to spell this out with the loving, nourishing and cherishing instructed of the husband. I am sure there are male complementarian idiots who never get beyond ‘wives submit’ when they should be confronted with what Paul tells husbands to do.
Paul further instructs wives to get their doctrine and practice on submission and other aspects of family life from the older women in the church. No doormats there. This is a huge safety factor against the teaching being abused, which might not be the case if the subject is only ever taught by a single male preacher who graduated from say the Master’s Seminary with a bit too much ‘head’ knowledge, as it were.
LikeLike
Daisy – I would be careful about appealing to the no true Scotsman fallacy. Atheists use it to establish that a) Adolf Hilter was a card-carrying Roman Catholic or b) Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer, really was a Christian believer.
LikeLike
KAS, do you realize that your positions on Jesus not permitting divorce, and Paul allowing divorce for desertion contradict each other?
LikeLike
Also, trying to understand this: “I take this (submission teaching) to mean that the husband being ‘head’ of the wife…”
How can you simultaneously claim that ‘head’ does not mean ‘leader’, yet use it in the exact same sense – the one having “authority”.
Sarcastically, perhaps you should look at your definition #2 of “one another” when you talk about “not depriving one another” because here you assume the definition implies equality, yet because you do not assume equality everywhere (c.f. submit to one another) you then have to demonstrate that this isn’t saying, as you say, that there are “some groups” of husbands within the church that ought not to deprive their wives, and “some groups” of wives that ought not to deprive their husbands.
(This is why comp. prooftexters hate to argue with me, BTW, because hermeneutics is not a per-verse application of principles)
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS,
a) Hitler was a card-carrying Roman Catholic. He was baptized and confirmed. However, most historians agree that his later denoucement of Christianity, and the beliefs and practices of his Third Reich would lead one to believe that Hitler would not consider himself Roman Catholic.
b) Anders Brevik considered himself to be a Christian. While mass murder is antithetical to Christian principles, and one may honestly doubt his salvation based on his fruit and further statements of his beliefs, I don’t think we get to call him non-Christian.
But consider:
John Piper was instrumental in founding CBMW, the leading complementarian organization, and from their website:
“Under Piper’s leadership, the group drafted a statement outlining what would become the definitive theological articulation of “complementarianism,” the biblically derived view that men and women are complementary, possessing equal dignity and worth as the image of God, and called to different roles that each glorify him.”
So, trying to claim that Piper’s publicly expressed views on gender roles, and those of his CBMW peers, are not ‘complementarian’ is fallacious, at best. Perhaps it would be a better approach to claim some other word for your views, because complementarian is already taken. However, for all you complain about Piper, you have yet to demonstrate any theological difference from his view on gender roles.
LikeLiked by 2 people
KAS said
Hitler.
I don’t consider Roman Catholicism to be Christianity, as they reject sola fide, for one thing.
Was Hitler a Roman Catholic?
Was Breivik in fact a mass murderer? I don’t know the guy. Never read about him. Did he claim to be a Christ-follower? (more on point 2 below)
The older I get, by the way, I am arriving at the conclusion that even “true” believers in Jesus Christ, and people who profess belief in Christ, can and do commit horrible sins.
Even the Bible says so (_see link – Acts 5_, Hebrews 12:6, 1 Corinthians 5:11)
The No True Scotsman Fallacy (No True Complementarian) is listed as a Fallacy for a reason.
This is what you and other complementarians do all the time any non-complementarian points to sexist or abusive behavior by a complementarian or complementarian teaching:
It’s a way of deflecting responsibility for the real- life consequences of your gender theology.
You cannot expect me to believe any and every self-professing complementarian man who rapes or beats women or is sexist is not a “true” complementarian.
The following are self professing complementarian men, who have at one time or another, made sexist remarks, excused the rape of Christian women, or have downplayed child sex abuse or downplayed domestic violence of women –
Are you going to have me to believe that every last one of these men below (and this is not an exhaustive list) is not a “real” complementarian
(these men would disagree with you – they would argue up and down that they are in fact “true” complementarians):
Your argument above seems to be that UK complementarian men are all true complementarians, but American comps are not “true” complementarians.
I can tell you that many American complementarian men would be very offended by your view on that and insist they have complementarianism correct, and the UK comps have it wrong, or are not the only “real” complementarians.
Speaking of which, KAS:
_Will The Real Complementarian Please Stand Up?_ – via “That Mom” blog
2. Who is a Real Christian?
Many Christians cannot even agree among themselves on who a “real” Christian is, or at one point, or even “if” a person can cease being “saved” or being a Christian.
Some Calvinists teach that a person can sincerely think they are “saved” but find out in the after-life they were fooled and were not really saved at all and will be spending eternity in Hell. There is no assurance of salvation in this teaching.
Some Christians teach “conditional security,” which means one can lose his or her salvation and go to Hell, even if one previously accepted Jesus as one’s Savior, if one sins and does not repent for that sin.
Some Christians debate how one is saved:
is it via grace alone and saying the sinner’s prayer, or, is it via “Lordship Salvation,” which states that belief in Jesus is not enough, and one must live a life of holiness?
LikeLiked by 1 person
~(My post directly above to KAS, part 1 of this reply, is sitting in moderation)~
Part 2 to KAS
The No True Scotsman Fallacy (No True Complementarian Fallacy) is entirely applicable to complementarianism.
Complementarianism is itself sexist at its base.
Some “real” complementarian men have and do say sexist things to or about women, or they abuse women, or they cover up the abuse of women.
And you wish to brush that away by saying, “But those men are not “real” comps!,” but they are in fact real complementarians.
The men you are saying that about would disagree with you, too. They would assure you they are every bit a “true” complementarian as you are.
And, as I said above, Complementarians cannot even agree on what “true” Complementarianism is.
Another link on that issue:
_Will The Real Complementarian Please Stand Up?_ – via RHE blog
LikeLike
Wow, whoever the mod was who got my post above out of mod was quick like a bunny! Very impressed – and thank you, Julie Anne, or which ever guest mod approved my post.
I wanted to add… I said above:
I’m sorry if that came across as very hostile or rude to any Catholics reading this, because that was not my intent.
I’ve had Roman Catholic friends and acquaintances over my life, and they were wonderful people.
I do believe if a Catholic person puts their faith in Christ alone as to salvation, they are a “real” Christian, but I disagree with a lot of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
But I’m not here to debate Roman Catholicism. If a person is happy to be RC, I am not out to de-convert them. I just agree to disagree with their church’s positions.
As to Mark’s comment to KAS above, I agree.
Mark said to KAS:
KAS wants to make a distinction without a difference – claim that “his brand” or the UK style of complementarianism is some how more gentle or more biblical than the American brand, but like Mark, I’ve not seen a huge distinction between KAS’ complementarianism and the sort I see from the Americans.
KAS wants to distance himself from the actions or beliefs of other (actual) complementarians we cite.
And I’ve noted many times up thread that I was raised under the more refined, genteel, “sane” form of complementarianism KAS espouses, and it still led to all sorts of problems for me in my life,
And even the “kinder” form of comp KAS espouses is sexist.
It’s just _a nicer form of sexism_ than the blatant type.
Complementarians cannot even agree among themselves as to what complementarianism is, or how it should be applied in daily life.
And they fault us Non-Comps for pointing out their own inconsistencies or for pointing out the sexist actions or comments of self-professing complementarians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Part 1.
Christianity Hurts,
if you are still reading this thread, KAS answered some of your questions on the last page of this thread _here_
I don’t want to spend time dissecting all of KAS’ reply and will leave that to someone else. I’ll just comment on a few parts of it that stuck out to me.
KAS said,
That’s all well and good, but it remains there are a lot of complementarian men out there who do rape their wives – they force or coerce their wife into having sex, they consider it a RIGHT they are entitled to – and yet other complementarians argue there is “no such thing “as marital rape – even though there is and even the secular law in the USA recognizes it and prohibits it.
You may be a “nice” complementarian man, KAS, but there are others out there who use the Bible to justify and excuse their abuse or selfishness towards their wives or of other men’s wives (see Paige Patterson of the American Southern Baptists as but one example).
KAS said,
There are some conservative Christians out there who would disagree with you on this, as well as some of your other views on divorce.
And they’ve written about it in books, articles, and some have videos on You Tube, explaining how contemporary conservative Christians have greatly misunderstood Jesus’ teachings on marriage and divorce.
Regarding KAS’ reference to a Bible verse that mentions women as being a “weaker vessel”-
_A “WEAKER VESSEL” AND GENDER JUSTICE (1 PETER 3:7)_
(also check out the “related articles” set of links at the bottom of that page)
(continued in Part 2)
LikeLike
I messed up my link above. Correction:
_A “WEAKER VESSEL” AND GENDER JUSTICE (1 PETER 3:7)_
(also check out the “related articles” set of links at the bottom of that page)
LikeLike
Part 2.
(Some of this is related a bit to complementarianism. I, a woman, am asked to live my life and make choices based upon MALE interpretation of the Bible.
My post here veers a bit off topic, but is kind of related, I hope that is okay.)
(Re: KAS answers to some of Christianity Hurts’ questions _here_)
Generally speaking, KAS’ very long, nuanced, and detailed set of answers to Christianity Hurts’ questions (above divorce and so forth) is actually an example of one of the things that has been driving me away from the Christian faith the last several years.
If Carmen is here and reading (hello, Carmen!) she might appreciate what I’m trying to say here, but it’s hard to explain, especially to Christians who’ve never been through a faith crisis.
I became a Christian at a young age. However.
I’m at this stage in life where I finally realize I can and should make choices for me based on what I know, and what I believe is right for me, and not appeal to a highly contested book (even among its own believers), such as the Bible, to form my decisions or all my values.
Couple this with the Christian disagreement over what the Bible says and means – Christians cannot agree on when, if, or how a person may divorce, for example (I refer all here to KAS’ comments in this thread again) –
And I sit here and think, I may as well just go ahead and make decisions for myself and my life based on what I think is right and best for me.
I am done with other Christians thinking they have a right to dictate to me how they think I “ought” to live, whether I can or should divorce (should I marry) for whatever the reason, and so on.
It does not make any sense to me, as I grow older, as to why I’d want to base all life choices on a book that is 2,000 years old (New Testament – obviously older for the Old Testament) whose adherents nit pick, over-analyze verses, and cannot come to an agreement with each other on subjects.
On top of this, many Christians are incredibly ignorant about how to read the Bible and they mis-apply it and therefore ruin the lives of other people, the ones who listen to them and take their “biblical” advice to heart.
I am not saying I am an expert on biblical interpretation myself (nobody is), but I at least know enough to know that I don’t know everything and cannot interpret all the Bible correctly all the time, in every case – any more than KAS, or any other Christian can, either.
Should I marry a jerk or abuser of a man, for instance, KAS’ biblical interpretation would basically have me stay and endure the lousy marriage, or only separate (but remain marry), and not permit me to re-marry.
I’m supposed to base a major life choice on KAS’ interpretation, which is in all likelihood, or at least possibly, very wrong?
KAS is probably convinced KAS’ biblical interpretation on these serious life matters is 100% correct, but …. what if he’s not?
And has he considered he may be wrong about this stuff, and if some woman takes HIS interpretation and follows it, she may be hurt in some fashion or another… and would he even care?
I’m supposed to gamble decades of my life away, frittering my time away on a jerk- face husband (should I marry one), because KAS, or John Piper, or Douglas Wilson, or Owen Strachan, or CBWM (-or insert name of whatever other complementarian here-) thinks I should?
Easy for you to say a woman should stay married to a jerk face herself when you’re not the one actually trapped or stuck in the marriage to the jerk face. You’re not having to life out your own “biblical” advice (which may not be biblical at all, but a faulty interpretation).
No, you would just expect ME to tolerate and waste me time on said jerk-face… all based on your dubious interpretation of the Bible. No thank you.
Pastor Charles Stanley of a huge Baptist church in the U.S.A. was vehemently insistent that divorced pastors should NOT remain as active pastors, until his wife divorced him!
Then Stanley changed his tune and began arguing that the Bible says it’s fine for a divorced man to be behind the pulpit. (And he also refused to step down as pastor from his church.)
See how “biblical” some Christians are, until they themselves have to live under their own interpretation of said Bible?
Then they are very keen to cry and beg for grace and mercy and to chuck their understanding of biblical morals and biblical rules out the window.
Anyway, many Christians have this shallow, wooden understanding of the Bible, they will regularly overlook or discount that much of the Bible’s teaching was time- and culture-specific, so they end up damaging people due to their ignorant interpretation and application of the text
(Many of the “rules” in the Bible, such as forbidding a woman to teach in a church, for example, were not intended to be implemented to the present day; they were written in ancient cultures that were into paganism).
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS said (_here_)
The Bible does not teach that anyone is responsible for someone else’s sin or spiritual life, not in this sense you are advocating. You’re adding to the Bible.
The Bible does not teach that a husband is somehow “more” responsible to God for a marriage, or for the wife’s spiritual growth or life, or whatever it is you’re alluding to.
The Bible says there is only ONE mediator between God and humanity, and that is Jesus Christ: a wife does not need a husband-mediator to intercede for her to God, nor does a woman need to go through a human man to have access to God.
I also find your view so bizarre on another level, because it is applicable only to married women.
I’m over age of 45, never married woman. I’m doing just fine on my own spiritually. I don’t need a man acting as a “head” or as a representative of me before God. I alone am responsible for me before God.
If un-married women don’t need a rep before God – and we do not, we make due fine without one – I have no idea how complementarian logic dictates a married women must have one. It makes no sense.
Your current wife was doing just fine on her own, with regards to God, prior to marrying you. Your marriage didn’t magically change her soul, or change her inner being, or negate her salvation.
KAS said,
Nope.
But at least you unwittingly, correctly referred to this view as “burden.”
Jesus said he came to remove yokes and make burdens light, but you’re here to… add yokes on to men and make their burdens heavier. Hmm.
KAS’ view here not only turns the husband into a “Mini-Christ” (a savior figure) – it’s making a false idol out of the husband – but it adds stress to the husband, as nobody can be Christ to a woman but Christ himself, and, it infantilizes grown women.
From another site:
_Complementarian Doctrine Damages Men Too_
This view treats adults women as though they are perpetual toddlers.
Some women like it and seek it, though, because it’s easier and less scary to chuck responsibility and all major life choices on to a man than to live life for themselves.
God predicted this would be the case, back in Genesis, when God told women generally, through Eve specifically, that, “your desire will be for your husband (but he will abuse this tendency of yours) to rule over you.”
That’s not a good thing (it’s a form of codependency). God warned against it. God did not advocate for this in human relationships, marriage or no.
LikeLike
I’m here, Daisy – even if I sometimes skim some comments. 🙂
The points you’ve raised are points that many people think seriously about and apply logical reasoning to; many decide what I and others have decided. Julie Anne doesn’t like me to speak about that so I will honour her wishes. 🙂
One of the reasons I hold JA in such high esteem is that she encourages, supports, and empathizes with those who have been hurt in the church — they are most often women. For those who might be tiring of Daisy’s many comments about complementarianism (a.k.a slave/master relationship), I hope you’ve been able to see the connection. If you haven’t been able to see that it’s a dirty word, it’s because you’re thoroughly indoctrinated and that’s really too bad. Too bad for you and most certainly too bad for any children you are attempting to indoctrinate as well. I mean that sincerely — patriarchal systems are detrimental to women and rampant in the church (just in case you haven’t figured that out under Daisy’s tutelage). That’s not to say that every denomination follows a patriarchal pyramid, but most evangelical ones certainly do. If you’re a member of a church where the only ‘place’ for you is in the Nursery/Sunday School or kitchen, you’re in a patriarchal church. There’s no reason you cannot be on any committee in your church, from being an Elder, being on the Finance Committee, to being the Clerk of Session (my church experience was in the United Church of Canada, so I’m only familiar with their pastoral organization). The real power in the church is wielded by those who control finances — there’s no reason you should not have access to that information.
Since it’s Independence Day in your country, I am making this comment in hopes that the women who are reading are inspired by JA – she’s an example of someone who fought back against the ‘powers that be’ and triumphed. I’m betting she’d tell you that independence is hard fought for but ultimately liberating and empowering! Happy 4th!
LikeLiked by 2 people
KAS said (_here_)
And what if she does not?
What if a woman chooses to disregard all this male headship / woman submission / complementarian nonsense, rejects it and refuses to live by it, especially in the context of a marriage, what then?
Related to that:
_Control: The Reason The Gospel Coalition and CBMW Cannot Actually Condemn Spousal Abuse_
KAS said
If you’d be willing to concede that your interpretation of “head” is incorrect and if you would actually read (not claim to read, but you know, actually read and study) Non-complementarian commentary on what “head” means, you’d likely feel a sense of relief knowing you don’t have to follow what complementarian interpretation of such words.
The Non-Comp interpretation of the word “head” should at least be an indication to you that the comp interpretation is not the only possible or reasonable way of looking at the same words or texts.
Maybe there are other equally valid ways of reading the Bible than the complementarian one.
The Bible actually says your wife is to be your corresponding partner in life.
The woman in the Bible is referred to as Ezer, which does not mean subordinate, weaker, constant damsel in distress in need of male protection.
One of the few other individuals in the Bible referred to as “Ezer” besides Eve, or women in general, is the God of Israel, especially when God is said to run to help and defend the Israelites.
Your wife (or women generally) is there, according to THE BIBLE, to walk along side you and fight dragons with you.
You are the Bat Man to her Wonder Woman.
She is not Robin the side-kick to your Bat Man (which is what complementarians teach).
She is not the perpetual damsel in distress to your hero rescuer Bat Man, in all cases at all times (which is what complementarians teach).
The Bible calls men and women to act inter-dependently, with neither one having authority or some special power or leading over the other. (1 Corinthians 11: 11-12).
KAS said,
That sounds very pretty, but.
It’s not biblical, and secondly, and more importantly, a lot of the abusive Christian husbands mentioned by women at the Christian blog “A Cry For Justice” would agree with you that they are under Christ’s authority, but that does not stop them from never the less exploiting male headship and “woman submit!” teachings of complementarians to treat their wives like dogs or abuse them, or treat women as being lesser than men, or to unfairly limit what women may or may not do in churches.
LikeLike
KAS said (_here_ in his reply to Christianity Hurts):
Yes, there are such complementarian idiots… and they are not bogus or fake complementarians.
They are real complementarians.
So please not’s not apply the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy (“No True Complementarian” fallacy).
Let’s also not forget that your loving, sweet, highly parsed and nuanced complementarianism is pretty much the sort I was raised under by my parents, and it still created problems for me, it lowered my self esteem, had me thinking God doesn’t love me – but he loves others (especially men. God loves men more than women), made it difficult for me to get or hold jobs, get dates with men, defend myself from abuse or run of the mill mistreatment, etc.
I could go on and on with all the negative ramifications that the KAS variety of benevolent “male- sexism- against- women” views (aka “soft complementarianism) had on me over the duration of my life, but I’ve been over it many times before and on my Daisy blog.
LikeLike
KAS said (_here_)
I’m not sure what you mean by any of that. I can only make educated guesses.
Complementarianism absolutely endorses doormat behavior for women. It encourages women to eliminate behaviors, thought processes, and attitudes that are vital to be a healthy, independent adults, such as having boundaries and being assertive.
Many of the biblical passages you refer to were written to specific churches in a particular time frame and not meant for readers of the Bible today.
Most of us don’t practice slavery today, so all those nifty New Testament passages by Paul instructing masters how to treat their slaves or how slaves should regard their masters are largely moot now-a-days.
You probably accept and recognize that in regards to slavery, but yet you insist on making the NT passages about women, submission, marriage, etc, applicable to churches or all American or European women in the year 2018.
By the way, some of the most awful and staunch enforcers of Christian gender complementarianism, whether it’s the “nice” and sweet variety you endorse or the more hostile toward women variety, are complementarian women.
There are complementarian women such as Mary Kassian, Debi Pearl, and Lori Alexander, who spread complementarian propaganda to other women via their blogs…
And some of these complementarian women writers tell women readers it’s wrong for them to ever divorce a husband, even in the case of abuse, and they can never refuse to have sex with a husband, etc.
So I’d not make any appeals to, “but there’s a Bible verse that says women are to instruct other women to be submissive, so how can you say any of this teaching endorses doormat behavior in women.”
Doormat teachings become no less doormat-y when taught by female complementarians than when taught by male complementarians, KAS.
I also can never figure out why Christian MEN are always cramming this female submission garbage down the throats of women, when, in many of the Bible verses where it is mentioned, women are asked by the text’s author to voluntarily participate, and in yet other passages, the Bible author asks women to teach other women…
According to the Bible, it is not a man’s place to dictate to women, or to insist they behave, in a certain way or in a submissive manner to other men, or to husbands… yet Christian men keep wanting to step in and play a ROLE that is NOT THEIRS (irony).
Where KAS writes,
By the way, and unless I am confusing my Biblical passages, I _just listened to a podcast or saw a pdf_ two days ago that mentioned that one reason the text asked women to not speak up during church meetings but wait until they got home to ask a husband or another woman(?) is because they were interrupting church services, which was distracting other patrons…
In other words, that “women only ask questions at home” stuff was not intended to say women cannot or should not teach or talk in church, but that they should learn first, get educated, stop interrupting services.
But such verses are frequently used wrongly by complementarians to say women cannot or should not teach men, or should not preach in churches – but that was not the point of those verses at all.
Comps totally got such passages backwards in meaning.
LikeLike
KAS said (_here_)
It sounds here as though you’re advocating a similar thing as many American complementarian pastors.
Which is-
“Ladies, if you just realize that LOVING SERVANT LEADERSHIP is what Male Headship is all about, you would not object to a second to being submissive to a husband.”
First of all, there are plenty of men who are NOT loving in how they dole out their “leadership,” and complementarians do not aid these women.
They simply tell them to go back to the abusive or cheating scum and submit to him even more, and pray for him. (BARF).
Secondly.
“Nice, benevolent” control is still control.
No, I don’t want to unilaterally submit to all things, or even only major life choices, to even a super, duper nice guy who golly gee, really only his my best interests at heart.
It’s insulting, patronizing, and infantilizing.
A married man and woman, should a difference arise, can compromise like two adults, the way I did with male co-workers in secular careers I held.
The Bible in Eph 5.21 and through-out the rest, in other biblical books, calls for believers to practice MUTUAL submission and warns Christ followers from wanting to have authority, power, or control over another.
The book of Genesis warns that men will seek to control and have power over women, that this would be one out-come of the Fall, of sin entering the world, and here you are promoting this very sin and as on being a God-ordained virtue.
That is taking God’s name in vain, and I bet he doesn’t appreciate it.
God does not approve of men controlling women or women submitting to men, even if the whole thing is done “nicely” and “sweetly.”
Jesus did not say,
“Hey, husbands, it’s acceptable to me for you to try to control your wives, so long as you’re gentle, tender, and really, really nice about it.”
To quote KAS again:
“Personal autonomy” is healthy and normal, KAS.
It’s a quality that loving, caring parents should want to instill in any children they have.
You seem to be demonizing and vilifying people being adults, being able or allowed to make choices, for themselves.
It’s not sinful, evil, or wrong for an adult to be assertive and _to have boundaries_.
The Bible actually encourages Christians to practice boundaries, even married women.
Also… sounds like you are equating having normal, healthy self interest, self esteem, and boundaries with being a case of “self worship.”
It is not.
Why, KAS, would you say that “submission” sounds strange to modern ears?
Is it because you recognize, despite your denials on previous posts on this thread, that Complementarianism – even the nice, warm and fuzzy type you are promoting – does in fact have a controlling, un-godly, selfish, authoritarian bent to it?
If Complementariansm was not sexist and its adherents were not seeking to justify power and control of women, which causes them to play the “all women or at least wives must submit” card, why would you find it necessary to re-define submission as a good, godly thing, and any objection to it must necessarily be due to self absorption or some other negative trait?
I don’t think “submission” means what you and other complementarians think it means.
For starters, you believe submission is for women- to- men only (that it’s gender based, and unilateral), and, you think it should be done because the one submitting must submit to another person’s (man’s or a husband’s) supposed authority and power over her. Your notion of submission does have an authoritarian assumption attached to it, and the Bible discourages Christ followers from seeking to have authority over others in inter-personal relationships, such as marriage.
By Roger Olson:
LikeLike
Daisy,
I responded to your comment but it must have fallen prey to the WP gremlins. . . . 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll go searchin’. Ugh!
LikeLike
Who’s got time for that, JA? Don’t worry about it!
LikeLike
Haha. I have to delete the spam anyway. Legitimate comments usually stand out because they don’t contain all kinds of porn words 🤦♀️
LikeLike
I found your post very quickly.
LikeLike
Mark – KAS, do you realize that your positions on Jesus not permitting divorce, and Paul allowing divorce for desertion contradict each other?
Hardly. Jesus did give the exception clause for immorality as a ground for divorce, but when he taught this the church didn’t yet exist.
Once the church came into existence, post resurrection and post Pentecost, you then had the problem of believers being married to unbelievers – one converted and one not.
There is a reason why I said read 1 Cor 7 for the context. In v 10 – 11 Paul alludes directly to the teaching of the Lord himself concerning the married and divorce/remarriage. In the very next four verses he addresses the mixed marriage. I don’t think Paul lost his way here in two sections directly adjacent to each other, but that are intended for different recipients.
LikeLike
Carmen, oddly enough, while I don’t see it on JA’s blog, your reply to me did show up in my personal notification Word Press thing. Odd!
Thank you for replying. Part of your reply to me (that is showing up for me in my personal area):
I’ve not totally rejected the Christian faith myself, at least not the “Jesus is my Savior” part of things, but as I outlined above, I see far too much confusion in regards to the Bible and how Christians “over-rely” on it:
Christians often disagree with one another on if, when, or how some Bible passage or another is applicable to different issues or to types of people today, and if so, how some directive or another should be carried out.
I am at a point where I cannot fathom turning to the Bible for how to guide every single aspect of my life, nor does doing so seem to be helping other Christians, but it only creates many more problems.
This means if I ever find myself in an abusive marriage, let’s say, I am going to decide for myself whether to divorce or not.
I’m not going to waste time Googling for stuff like, “What does the Bible say about divorce?,” or ask various pastors what THEIR opinion on the subject is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS said (_here_)
Someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but when slavery was still a thing in 19th century United States, didn’t some of the whites who thought slavery (white people owning black people) was moral and wonderful, go about saying quite often that being paternalistic to, and responsible for, those poor, simplistic, child-like black people was the “white man’s burden.” -?
Gosh dang it all, those pro-slavery whites felt, it was such a huge, but God-given BURDEN!! to have to look after those helpless, child-like, ignorant black slaves.
But it was their godly, moral, and biblical duty.
One they did not want to have, but they had it none- the- less, dang it, because God placed it upon them, woe for them.
_The White Man’s Burden_
Really, KAS, complementarianism is like slavery and racism.
The American complementarian motto of, “women, equal in worth but not in role” even has an echo in the racist Americanism of Jim Crow “separate but equal” speak (blacks are equal to whites but must be kept separate).
Most complementarians see that racism and slavery is wrong today, but they keep using the same justifications and biblical interpretations to put women in second class citizenship status that white Christians used to use to justify slavery of and racism against black people.
LikeLike
KAS said (_here_ in his reply to Christianity Hurts):,
Isn’t Denny Burk an American complementarian?
I’m fairly sure he is.
Why would you show objection to American complementarians and their papers, books, and arguments, in previous posts (suggesting that your U.K. brand of complementarians is better, or more biblical than the U.S. variety, put forth by John Piper and CBMW, etc), but then later, make an appeal to an article by an American complementarian?
I don’t think all of European complementarianism is as different to the degree from the American variety, that you seem to think it is, especially not if or when you are now citing American complementarians to make some point or another.
Aspects of the American sort may be more “far out there” and wacko, but there appear to be many commonalities. Some American Complementarians are soft-spoken or polite.
Not all of them are loud-mouthed and wacko, as is Mark Driscoll. We have different flavors of complementarianism here in the States.
LikeLike
Another observation I wanted to make about this quote:
KASsaid (_here_):
I just saw somewhere, can’t remember where (it was in a blog post or a pod cast), that complementarians miss this…
When the Bible talks about Jesus being “head” of the church, the sense and importance of it is that Jesus loves the church.
Where the Bible may mention Jesus being “head” of the church, it’s not about Jesus being “boss over,” and being in charge, control, authority, or power over, the church.
So, a complementarian should not be drawing out this analogy that Jesus is Boss over the church to say “and likewise, husbands are Boss over their wives.”
I find it interesting that at one point in the NT, Jesus makes a comment along the lines of, “If you love me, you will obey / follow my teachings.”
Jesus does not DEMAND that his followers obey his teachings, in that he does not make an appeal to be an authoritarian head, but he says if you LOVE HIM you will do what he says.
Jesus does not say, “I am your boss and in charge of you, so you therefore better follow my teachings.”
Yet this is how complementarians frame this discussion when prattling on about marriage, women, and so forth, though they will pepper the discussion with euphemistic words,
or with words meant to soften the blow, e.g., “servant-hood leadership,” and so on.
It still all boils down to complementarians defending male hierarchy, men being over control of women.
This is so warped. Complementarians are not interested in defending the equal value, role, and worth of women and promoting women and women accomplishing things but they are interested in defending a sexist status quo where men get to make any decisions, and have final say so over women.
LikeLike
KAS said (_here_):
I think maybe it can and should be simplistic.
It’s only convoluted because of how you choose to interpret the Bible, and that you insist on so scrupulously following it, instead of just using (as Carmen said) logic or life experience to make a choice or draw a conclusion about a topic.
If I get married to an abusive man, I don’t need to consult with the Bible to realize, yes, I can and may divorce an abuser.
And I can re-marry, if I find another guy who I want to marry. I don’t have to base that choice on what KAS thinks the Bible says.
Also, probably the greatest and most helpful biblical hermeneutic is Jesus’ Golden Rule of, ‘Do Unto Others As You’d Have Them Do Unto You.’
KAS, if you were 5 foot 4 inches tall, weighed 110 pounds, and were married to a person with a temper problem, who was 6 foot 4 inches tall and weighed 230 pounds, would you want to be told you could never, ever divorce that person?,
And, would you also like to be told that you must stay married to that person and put up with threats of violence, or actual violence?
And would you further want to be told that if you DO divorce that person, you must forever remain alone, because remarriage would be a “sin”?
Use ‘CTRL + F’ buttons on your computer key board to open the “search” feature on your browser to find the name “Charles Stanley” in a post I made above for more on this topic.
You want to apply rules to other people (based on your interpretation of texts, one that may be incorrect) that you’d most likely not want applied to you if you found yourself in the same position.
LikeLike
I think this may do it for me this evening.
I don’t know if I’ll be back to post more tonight. Thank you for indulging me.
The neighbors will start shooting fireworks off tonight in a couple of hours, I may watch some of that, or watch the “Captain America” movie marathon that’s running on F/X channel today.
I may also do a blog post or two on my Daisy blog in the meantime.
KAS may want to try to answer Roger Olson’s question to complementarians that is presented on his blog page here:
_<a href=”http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/01/a-challenge-to-evangelical-complementarians/”>Roger Olson’s Question for Complementarians_
Visit his page to see the question.
LikeLike
Correction of link above:
_Roger Olson’s Question for Complementarians_
LikeLike
@Carmen, per July 4, 2018 @ 11:51 AM,
I love everything you posted in your comment thread. It was very respectful and logical and I find you to be a very reasonable/interesting person. I also learn much from you and am glad you keep posting other views that many of us, including myself, have never considered before.
Thank-you for commenting here Carmen.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Olsen gets it. He has true empathy and compassion for others to combine with his head knowledge.
The faults in comp tend to show best when something goes wrong. KAS says it’s not true comp if men don’t treat their wives well. However…what happens when they don’t? Not a dang thing. They might be allowed to separate, but not divorce or remarry. That is no real answer. Women in these systems are constantly told they are in sin for asserting themselves, or for not being a doormat.
And yes, for saying no to sex apparently. Even to a cruel, evil man who hates them. I figured that would be the answer.
LikeLike
KAS, “Hardly. Jesus did give the exception clause for immorality as a ground for divorce, but when he taught this the church didn’t yet exist.”
Okay, you are full of crap today. Jesus says, except for “porneia” – it’s the word we get “porn” from and it means SEXUAL immorality. That is not an exception for desertion. Go look it up for yourself. Here is a link: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/19-9.htm So, you’re now back to your argument making Jesus contradict Paul.
“Once the church came into existence, post resurrection and post Pentecost, you then had the problem of believers being married to unbelievers – one converted and one not.”
The church existed once there was a promise of a savior (Gen 3:15) who would crush the head of the serpent. In fact, Paul spends Romans 4 showing that Abraham was not saved through the law, but through faith (Rom 4:3)
Again, if you think that there were no conversions and no believers before Pentecost, then did everyone in the Old Testament go straight to Hell? In fact, the Old Testament has the same prohibitions on being unequally yoked.
Jesus knew that Jews intermarried with Gentiles, and yet, when he prohibited divorce, he did so only (your words) allowing divorce for “porneia”. Regardless of your claim to context. Paul’s prohibition goes above and beyond “porneia” and includes desertion, which, contradicts what you claim Jesus taught (minus reinterpreting “porneia” so broadly as to drive your “desertion” bus through).
LikeLike
Daisy – thank you for the Olson link. I enjoyed mulling that over.
Part 1.
Unlike Olson, both Paul and Peter instruct wives to submit to their husbands and I don’t believe they intended unquestioning, docile obedience. It is certainly not a curse. A wife’s submission to Christ entails respecting her husband in this way, it is as to the Lord.
The pastor in the situation given should deal with the husband rather the wife. He might need to explain that being ‘head’ of the wife is not threatened by agreeing with her where she has more competence than him. God created women to complement man in marriage, to be a help-meet. Financial problems are not ‘loving, cherishing and nourishing’ by a husband as God instructs.
The apostle Peter told wives to submit (even if the husband is not a believer!), and gave the example of Sarah and Abraham to illustrate what he meant by a submissive attitude. Yet in Genesis, there was an occasion where God (the highest authority) specifically told Abraham to ‘listen to the voice of his wife Sarah and do as she says’. (Isn’t the bible wonderfully balanced.) Peter must have known this, and I wonder if this is where he got the idea of husbands ‘living considerately’ with their wives from. It is perfectly right and proper for a husband to take into account his wife’s wishes and abilities.
The apostle Paul taught that a woman should not teach or have authority over a man in church etc. in 1 Tim 2, yet later on in the same epistle when talking of widows he says So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us. ESV has ‘manage’ for ‘rule’ here. Paul had no problem with the submission of a wife because her husband is her head, and the similar arrangement in church, with a wife playing her full role in running the household. The two ideas are compatible. They should not be set against each other.
In effect the couple, having reached an impasse, have gone to the pastor for advice, which is a good idea, the younger or less mature in faith ‘submitting to the elders’. There is wisdom in many counsels. He ought to help the husband grow up a bit, but of course if this always happened when there is disagreement, in effect the pastor would become a kind of head of the family, which God does not intend.
LikeLike
Olson – part 2.
Olson’s conundrum is not solved by the egalitarian doctrine of mutual submission in marriage. This doctrine is based on the partial quotation of one verse (Eph 5 : 21 submitting to one another) and ignoring its context.
I take this to mean that as the wife submits to her husband ‘in the Lord’, he must do likewise to her, as in to one another.
Similarly, to be consistent wives also be subject in everything to their husbands is reciprocal. (Assuming Olson himself believes this of husbands, submission is hardly reciprocal docile unquestioning obedience.)
The is an unspoken assumption in the egalitarian position here that the wife is head of the husband in the same way as he is her head. The apostle Paul explicitly denies this.
Enter Olson’s couple with the money problem. She must submit to her husband, and he is obligated to submit to her – all of the time (‘in everything’). So this doesn’t solve the dilemma. The impasse remains. They have to defer to each other. You have the same problem as to who is responsible in the final analysis for the well-being of the family. Pragmatically, it doesn’t work.
In the end, I believe God holds the husband responsible and accountable for making the final decision or he would not be head, which does have an element of authority in it in what it means, and the wife might really have to submit and trust God to deal with the consequences.
Olson would be wrong to teach the wife ‘not to submit’ in plain disregard of scripture, but he also ignores the possibility that through prayer by the wife the husband can be freed of his hang-ups by the Holy Spirit, or through the pastor’s advice which ought to be imo that the husband should avoid financial problems by insisting on his own way.
LikeLike
On unanswered questions: Thread 2: Daisy: What are KAS’ suggestions on how to eliminate sexism against women and girls in Christianity? Has he cited any ideas so far?
So, has KAS given any ideas on how churches can combat sexism?
I said, way up thread, that complementarians and egalitarians should lay aside the arguments and differences on this and combine to oppose abuse in the church. I repeated the same later. This is now the third time of asking.
There really is unnecessary polarisation here, and my suggestion above is hardly expressive of a desire to argue the ins and outs of the usual biblical passages all of the time.
That will have to do for now.
LikeLike
Olsen is, rather, reading the bible as a whole – not simply one or two verses dealing with marriage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a lot more to sexism than abuse in marriage. That suggestion does little to solve any of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YES! Exactly right, as well they should.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS,
That’s disobeying the words of Christ. Sometimes we forget that Jesus was speaking to women too when He warned them to let our yes be yes and our no be no.
Why would Jesus need to say that? Because there will always be people who try to turn our yes into no and our no into yes. Let that sink in for a moment, Jesus specifically warned women not to give that veto power of yes and no to someone else because anything other than that “comes from the evil one.”
Don’t get me started on how the Bible teaches the concept of autonomy. What do you think all those verses on self-control are saying? Self-control (not being controlled is the fruit of the spirit). You can’t function in self-control if someone else gets to make most/all of your decisions for you—that’s other-control.
There’s a reason the Bible says to BOTH men and women “submit to one another.” Funny how Comps never want to mention all the verses that tell men to submit too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I rarely put links on in comments, but this one was too good to pass up. I like and have great respect for this fellow – he and his wife are homeschoolers, he’s a lawyer, and they are Christians. (He’s uber-smart!) The article is long, but only because he gives such a thorough examination of topics. It’s his latest post and one that is quite pertinent to this (already) long thread. But if you’ve got the time, it’s a sensible and thought-provoking read. (You’ll see that he shares my disdain for fundamentalists)
http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carmen, I read a number of articles on his blog before. I believe Daisy may have linked the one above (or elsewhere) about how comp is all about control?
Haven’t been on in a while, but will read. He has a much more fundamentalist background than I do, so it’s always pretty interesting to see the crazy other side of things!
LikeLike
I had a feeling the other day when I posted that quote from ROGER Olson (note: male name), that KAS would likely reply to it.
And that is what happened.
Unless I overlooked it –
I don’t see where KAS really deals with any of the many points and rebuttals I raised to him, but,
The moment I quote a MALE name (Roger Olson), KAS replies to THAT, to HIM.
Not to me, with a feminine-looking screen name, but to a dude.
KAS said,
Had I quoted a SUSAN or MARY Olson, you would’ve ignored it, but you saw ROGER and felt it was worth replying to.
LikeLike
Olson said,
Lea said,
Olson’s observation there is the very same thing I’ve been saying for eons now, in regards to dismantling the false complementarian argument that “equal in worth just not in role” is bogus, with their analogies of “a private in the army is not of less value than a General” –
I addressed such fallacious, stupid complementarian analogies here:
_Christian Gender Complementarian Analogies Do Not Work_
It’s not consistent, fair, or wholly logical for complementarians to argue that not permitting women equal power, control, not to preach or teach men, etc, is is acceptable because they’re equal in worth, when the limitation put upon them by complementarians is PERMANENT and based on an in-born trait that cannot be changed (biological sex).
All the examples comps cite – such as a private in the army – falls flat, because that Private can one day be promoted to General.
Privates in the army do not always remain Privates. They can move on up in ranks.
Not so women in complementarian churches.
No matter how competent, skilled, or talented or qualified a woman is, complementarians will never even CONSIDER allowing said women to change roles or move up in rank.
Lea said
_Control: The Reason The Gospel Coalition and CBMW Cannot Actually Condemn Spousal Abuse_
LikeLike
KAS said,
Nope.
Olson was presenting how complementarians frame such disagreements.
And he’s accurate.
Note that in most of the complementarian replies he got to the hypothetical below his post, in the comments section, all the complementarians presented EGALITARIAN solutions.
Which is what made Olson ask many of the complementarian men replying to his post:
“Why do you bother with male headship and complementarianism, when you are thinking in an egal manner and putting forth egal solutions?”
The question cannot be replied to in a complementarian manner, lest the real issues with complementarianism be brought to light: men have power and control over a woman, and it’s abusive, controlling.
Comp is not about loving and respecting women, it’s about controlling women and maintaining a sexist status quo.
Where you say
This is basically an egalitarian solution.
The man, as put forth in your “solution” does not get final say-so over the wife, the marriage, the finances, or the choice.
The Bible does not teach that man is somehow more responsible for a woman. I addressed this to you above, and you ignored it.
The Bible says there is only one representative between God and man and that is Christ Jesus.
The Bible does not teach that human men are a mediator or rep for women to God.
I am never married female, over age 45 – I don’t need a male head to rep me before God.
I am totally responsible as I am on my own.
If I do not need a “male head” to be responsible for me, my spiritual life or my choices, neither does a married woman.
There is nothing about the state of marriage that changes a woman or her soul that suddenly makes her “need” a “male head”.
You’re reading 2,000 year old cultural mores and 2,000 year old answers into contemporary times, and trying to apply it to modern times and modern situations.
It’s wrong to mis-apply 2,000 year old notions meant for ANE cultures on to 2018 British or American women.
(continued in part 2, 3 and however many posts)
LikeLike
KAS said
How you are defining male headship on this blog is in fact a curse – you are taking God said was a curse in the Book of Genesis and saying it is good and right – which is revolting and taking God’s name in vain.
Yes, it is a curse to tell a woman she must always and forever be under the “headship” and control of a man, that she “needs” a man to be responsible on her behalf before God (that is spiritual abuse as well as sexism),
that the man gets to make all choices, no matter that she may be more smart and qualified than the man is, and that this is all based on her biological sex alone, not her I.Q. or skill set.
It’s like the White Man’s Burden (you ignored the posts I made for you on that as well).
Your brand of complementarianism is benevolent sexism, like the benevolent racism of whites who ran around years ago thinking it was their burden and heavy duty to save and control and make choices for black people,
Because they viewed all black people as being child-like, idiotic simpletons who needed the adult, mature, parental guidance of White Man.
And that was done on the basis of skin color, a trait those people (black people) were born with and could not change. It was permanent.
Your complementarianism is identical to that thinking.
Your brand of complementarianism is patronizing to women, thinks of them as perpetual toddlers in need of a Daddy Figure to protect them and answer for them.
It’s also similar to the Hindu Caste system which says once a person is born into X caste, they are stuck that way for life.
LikeLike
KAS said
That much of your response is egalitarian.
What would be complementarian is for the typical complementarian man to respond by saying (and this is in fact the complemenetarian position):
“A husband should take his wife’s wishes into account, but (BUT), at the end of the day, the husbands gets the _Final Tie Breaker Vote_ in any disagreements in a marriage.”
LikeLike
KAS said
The apostle Paul taught that a woman should not teach or have authority over a man in church etc. in 1 Tim 2, yet later on in the same epistle when talking of widows he says So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us. ESV has ‘manage’ for ‘rule’ here. Paul had no problem with the submission of a wife because her husband is her head, and the similar arrangement in church, with a wife playing her full role in running the household. The two ideas are compatible. They should not be set against each other.
The Bible does not teach that all women cannot or should not have authority over a man or teach in church:
5 Reasons to Stop Using 1 Timothy 2:12 Against Women
The Handmaidens Conspiracy: How Erroneous Bible Translations Obscured the Women’s Empowerment Movement STARTED by JESUS CHRIST by D. L. Howell
LikeLike
KAS said,
Going to a pastor is a big waste of time. People are adults and need to use their own life experience and brains to come to a decision, maybe do some research.
Not all pastors agree with other pastors on how disputes should be solved. That’s another problem.
Though I understand Olson was using the “couple goes to a complementarian pastor” as an example to demonstrate how faulty complementarianism is.
KAS said,
The complementarian solution – the man gets to make the final choice – is not going to solve things.
After years and years of the husband getting his way on all choices (or only “major” life choices)in a marriage, the wife will be filled with resentment and eventually file for divorce.
LikeLike
KAS said,
That is not an egalitarian assumption.
Egals do not conflate “head” with concepts of “authority” or “boss of” or “the one who gets to make final decisions in marital fights.” That would be the complementarian position (your side).
The NT is saying that the husband is the head of the wife as in a source or comfort, love, and nurturing.
“Head” in Ephesians of the New Testament has nothing to do with choice-making, with someone being responsible for someone else before God, or final authority, or who gets to make a choice in a marital dispute if such a dispute arises.
Complementarians wrongly understand “head” in the Ephesians passage as directed at husbands to mean, “the husband has final authority or decision making powers over the wife”.
KAS said,
You are missing the point of the hypothetical.
It’s not necessarily to say that egalitarians have a definitive solution for the problem, only that the complementarian position is not truly about “women equal in worth just not in role.”
It’s about defending and justifying male authority over women. It’s about defending and advocating a male hierarchy of women. And every time a comp man told Roger in the comments,
“Well, if it were me, and I’m a comp, I’d compromise with my wife and blah blah blah”
Roger would rightly shoot back, “that’s an egal solution, not a comp position.”
By the way, when I had disagreements with men at jobs I’ve held, we dealt with it like mature adults: we deferred to which ever side had more experience on the topic, who had a better solution, or we’d compromise.
At no time did I ever cave in and automatically go along with a man’s decision at any job I’ve had just because he’s a man.
If male headship, as you and other complementarians define it, is not necessary in male- female professional / career scenarios, why do you keep putting it forward as being necessary for marriages?
A husband and wife can hammer out a resolution to a disagreement the same way male and female co-workers on a job can do.
KAS said,
Deferring to each other does actually work… it’s how adult men and women who have careers deal with differences of opinions during staff meetings or when working on projects, KAS.
Happens all the time with a lot of people, and… it works.
LikeLike
Avid Reader – if you are referring to CH’s questions, they do not admit of a yes or not answer without this being very misleading, and I know from experience would have led to another trip to Afghanistan. So I opted to try to make things clearer – even if too long and wordy!
I will take a risk with you. The old clichee ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet’ as a supposed gotcha question. In my case, the honest answer to that is No. How would you interpret that reply?
Self control is keeping your emotions, drive, temper, ambitions, appetites under control so you do not act unlovingly towards others. It is precisely what abusers don’t have. It doesn’t mean you are free from ‘other control’ if by this you mean that Christians do not have to take into account others have responsibilities and if I may use the word authority within the structures of the church or marriage, and indeed civil society. I think I know where this comes from, and best not to go there!
I don’t know of any verses in the NT that explicitly tell husbands to submit to wives, being one of reasons I don’t believe it is a requirement. I don’t count Eph 5 : 21 as it is at best ambiguous and begs the question if you insist ‘one another’ means ‘everyone to everyone’.
If I am really honest, I think both sides on this can blow things out of proportion when it comes to ‘submit’ and ‘head’ in Eph 5. It’s a basic framework on how to keep things harmonious between two people who love each other and are committed to each other for life.
LikeLike
KAS said
That may be your belief, but the Bible does not teach that a husband is responsible or accountable for making a final decision on behalf of a wife, etc.
The Bible does not teach that God endows men with better decision making abilities than women.
(As a matter of fact the Bible contains many examples of men making bad, stupid, or selfish decisions, both regarding marriage as well as non-marital subjects.)
You are assuming all of that to be so, you are assuming that is what “Head” in Ephesians (and rest of NT) means or encompasses.
You cannot, however, provide me with one actual, Biblical quote that says something like,
“God holds husbands accountable to himself for their wife’s choices and sins. Husbands get to make final choices in marriages.”
And again, I’m a never-married 40 something year old woman. Never been married.
If this nonsense does not apply to single women, it doesn’t magically start becoming applicable once a woman marries.
And… you just proved my point and Olson’s point.
You like to speak from both sides of your mouth, KAS.
On the one hand, you imply and suggest earlier up in another post that your view of Biblical Male Headship has nothing to do with authority or control, but it really does, you just said so:
Being “head” _is not about_ being accountable, having final decision making powers, has nothing to do with authority, etc.
At the end of the day, your only “solution” for this, when this hypothetical couple visits their preacher over their financial disagreement, is for the pastor man to say to husband,
And what do you do or say, KAS, when the wife sits there still objecting, upset, angry, and/or crying because her husband is steamrolling right over her opinions, needs, feelings, etc?
Just preach at her some more that “The Bible says you’re to submit to your man’s lead.”
What if she still disagrees and tells you to stick your biblical interpretation where the sun don’t shine? Should she be physically beaten into submission of her husband? How do you force her to go along with all this?
Complementarianism is nothing but Codependency for women, and you are advocating it with your faulty understanding of “headship”.
My mother (a Christian and a complementarian) raised me to be this way, as did the Southern Baptist churches she dragged me to.
I am now a recovering codependent.
I now practice having boundaries, being assertive, I make choices for me, and I do not automatically cave in to anyone, not certainly not just because of their biological sex, or due to someone’s biblical interpretation of a Bible passage.
I used to do all that stuff quite a bit, and it was a recipe for being exploited, treated like a doormat, intensifying depression, and breeding resentment and burn-out.
Should I marry, I am not going to be codependent, which is what you are saying married women should do, when faced with a marital dispute.
Not all husbands are going to “take a wife’s feelings and needs into consideration.”
Some complementarian husbands don’t give a sh_t about their wife’s needs and feelings:
visit the Christian domestic violence abuse blog “A Cry For Justice” for a million examples of that.
(I bet KAS will look at the Philip Payne link I posted above to comment on Payne’s views, because Payne is a man.)
LikeLike
KAS said
I am fairly sure Olson would disagree with your depiction of his views on what “submission” means, or what it entails, or when and how it should be applied, as being a mis-characterization of his views.
And “Plain disregard of Scripture” = (Equals) =
KAS’ interpretation of Scripture, which is liable to being incorrect.
Or are you an Infallible Biblical Interpretation Protestant Pope?
LikeLike
KAS said
Not “plain disregard of Scripture” but, more accurately, “KAS’ wrong interpretation of Scripture”.
You’re basically just advocating that the woman, even though she is smarter and more qualified than the husband in the Olson example, should just cave in to the husband. Because Male Headship, Authority, Decision Making.
Did you, KAS, actually click the link and read the entire page of Olson? Because something tells me you did not, or did not read it closely.
Or the comments. He left replies at the bottom of the page to complementarians just like you who left him replies over there on his site.
Roger Olson said (_Source of Olson quote_),
KAS said,
… Which would mean the husband compromises in this matter, or, gives in to his wife’s leadership, skill, financial expertise, and better know-how in this instance, because she is more suited to analyze financial matters far more so than the husband in the example… which would be more the egalitarian (or mutual or inter-dependent) approach.
You want to toss in some egalitarian approaches but still insist on some kind of male authority, to save the concept of “male headship”.
The Bible does not defend or advocate male hierarchy of women, or that husbands are in some kind of special place of responsibility before God of women.
Let those interpretation go, and it frees you from having to make weird, inconsistent, or, at times, very sexist suggestions, like many of the ones you put forth in your posts above.
There is no “element of authority” in the NT concept of head when discussing husbands,
otherwise, Paul and other NT writers would be contracting Jesus who said:
LikeLike
KAS said,
I am fairly certain you said on an earlier page of this thread that.. (you actually suggested)… that complementarianism would eradicate sexism and abuse of women in the church.
And I then told you several times after that, that more complementarianism would not solve anything.
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again (complementarianism) but expecting different results.
Complementarianism is actually one huge reason why sexism exists in the church, and/or it enables sexism to continue and thrive.
Complementarianism is nothing a big old, disgusting excuse – usually by men, but there are female enforces of this as well – to misapply Bible verses to defend a sexists status quo and male control of women.
Most Protestant churches have been into Male Hierarchy (comp) for hundreds of years now, KAS.
And despite the fact most churches have practiced Complementarianism for centuries (under other names) it has not eradicated sexism from the church.
Most recently, Al Mohler, the Southern Baptist complementarian, admitted that the church’s insistence on complementarianism had played a role in the systemic sexism against women and girls in the church, which came to a head in the complementarian Paige Patterson fiasco…
But, like you, Mohler still thinks male headship and complementarianism should be defended and utilized anyway, in spite of how damaging, un-biblical, sexist, and repulsive it has been demonstrated to be.
LikeLike
KAS said,
And, by the way, complementariarnism contributed to, perpetuated, and was the cause of some of the abuse I endured while growing up Christian.
And complementarianism was the cause of many of the problems I dealt with until recently, when I rejected it at age 35 or 36, and also rejected its accompanying baggage.
And I’d hazard a guess that if poster Christianity Hurts was posting here today, she’d echo this and remind you that she was molested, beaten, and/or raped by professing, honest to God Christian complementarian men – ones who also believe that God invests husbands with authority and control over wives and over women in general.
They read the same Bible you do and use the same Bible verses you do to defend their mistreatment of CH and other women.
And they were actual, real complementarians, KAS, they were not “fake” complementarians. Don’t pull the “No True Complementarian” fallacy yet again.
Complementarianism is not a solution to sexism or the abuse of girls and women in churches or by men – it is part of the problem.
LikeLike
Lea said to KAS,
Yes.
Your comment also got me to thinking.
Even though some of the biblical passages that guys like KAS like to mention are couched in passages about marriage, it does not stop many to most complementarians from trying to argue that God designed all men to rule over all women (not just married ones).
One thing this does is that complementarians start indoctrinating Christian girls from the time they are quite young to start acting in a submissive fashion in general, but maybe especially to boys and men, even when they are just kids.
So, even though you are a single young woman, you are expected to be a “wife in training” while single, so you are taught to defer to all men, not just a husband.
You’re supposed to “practice” acting submissive for a future husband, and practice this on boyfriends, male friends, etc – some complementarian teaching or written material has advised this.
It is so sexist and perverse.
I could easily write 45 pages right here right now on how detrimental this is to women, and how unfair, because it does not prepare girls for adulthood, but rather, sets them up to be taken advantage of by manipulators, sexual harassers, abusers, selfish men, etc, and to also be taken advantage of by selfish or dishonest women friends and women coworkers.
LikeLike
Avid Reader said to KAS,
Yes, all of this.
Complementarian teachings and beliefs end up cancelling out what other Bible passages teach on other topics.
“Male Headship” always wins out with complementarians, even when its pitted against truly biblical concepts, such as individual accountability before God, having boundaries, standing up for yourself in the face of evil, etc.
Complementarianism makes the Bible contradict itself.
Complementarianist interpretation of Apostle Paul and Peter cancel out some stuff Jesus said.
LikeLike
Daisy – I am trying to answer within reason the questions or comments put to me, as JA requested.
I have limited time and energy for this. This is partly due to concern with my younger daughter, and my eldest is going through the Calvinism/predestination battle at the moment. I know how this can get believers really really down, and I want and need to read around and think so I can try to be helpful over this – but without doing all her thinking for her. She has wisdom beyond her years, and a great deal of discernment.
I still need to finish off a piece on Pharoah and God hardening his heart.
I have a duty of care there, responsibility and accountability to God – and to love and cherish my better half with the strain at the moment – which overrides the Internet, even if life has to carry on as normal as possible.
You have the freedom to disagree with me, at length if you choose, but I am keeping control of how much time I can spare to answer you, and that goes for all commenters.
My main concern with the Eph 5 passage in recent years is what does ‘head’ mean regarding a husband, and am I being it or doing it if it requires action. I don’t really care about defending an ‘ism’. It’s not an academic discussion, though it is useful to joust with those who hold a different opinion.
LikeLike