***
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 
I wanted to add a qualifier or caveat to my earlier comment here:
I did that in spite of being raised to be a Complementarian (Codependent), certainly not because of it.
But there are other Christian women raised complementarian who would likely automatically cave in to male wishes and male preference at a job (or anywhere else) because being a huge doormat is what being a complementarian woman is all about.
Caveat 2.
There were times or certain places over my life where I did not go by complementarian ideals when I still considered myself a comp, because deep down, I knew there was something wrong with complementarianism…
I knew it would be unfair and sexist to just cave in to male headship or male choice or male leadership just because a man is a man. So I stuck to my guns, especially in career related endeavors.
Any time I acted in a healthy manner over my life time – such as being assertive, defending myself, and having boundaries – it was always in spite of complementarianism not because of it, because complementariansm had me brainwashed to think being assertive, etc, was wrong or un-feminine.
Now that I reflect on it, complementarianism didn’t teach me one single damn helpful thing in life.
Complementarianism only dumped un-healthy, toxic, or mal-adaptive behaviors, coping methods, or relationship patterns into my head, ones I had to un-learn in the last several years.
LikeLike
KAS said
And it’s complementarianism which defines “head” to have some kind of connotation with authority –
Which is false interpretation, because it would contradict what Jesus said in Matthew about followers of his not seeking after authority over each other.
And no, it’s not a purely abstract, intellectual discussion for me, because I have been personally harmed by complementarianism from childhood into adulthood.
LikeLike
KAS, “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.”
Actually, Paul says this in response: “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.”
But, you continue to avoid the consequence of what you are saying. You are claiming that headship implies authority, and that authority means that the husband takes more responsibility for the marriage and the wife takes less. In exchange for the increased responsibility, the husband gets God-ordained permission to accept or reject his wife’s input. So, yes, if the wife is a better accountant, he ought to let her do the accounting, but he is not required to let her do the accounting. That is his God-ordained choice.
The problem, KAS, is that you continue to say half-truths and evade the consequences of what you’re saying. Daisy and I were both complementarian, so we both know precisely where “headship” and “submission” end up in the mind of a complementarian, so we simply aren’t going to concede YOUR definition of headship and submission.
You still continue to ignore or evade your conclusions.
1) Spousal discipline and abuse. If the husband has “authority” over the wife, and she refuses to submit to that authority, then… Biblically speaking, the person with authority has God-given tools to discipline those who reject that authority (jail, excommunication, parent-imposed consequences). So, you claim that husbands have “authority”, but then try to hide the consequences of making that statement.
2) Final decision. If the husband is the “federal representative” of the family, then he is solely responsible for the success or failure of the family (at least until the wife refuses to do dishes) at which point it’s all her fault… but seriously, just because a wife is smarter, stronger, wiser, whatever doesn’t mean that a comp. husband must let her think, do, plan, etc. That is his choice because of his responsibility. Now, this has real-world consequences. When a woman marries an irresponsible husband, the comp. church refuses to allow her to take any steps to protect the family that dare interfere with her husband’s authority (cough, Abigail and Nabal) and refuses to allow her to divorce. And, yes, I know of situations where husbands made financially catastrophic family decisions either without their wife’s input, or rejecting it, that put their families in jeopardy.
3) Trapped in a non-marriage. Despite what the Evangelical church claims are the marriage vows, the church refuses to hold husbands to those vows, and the church refuses to allow wives to divorce when the marriage vows are broken, even when the vows are broken for adultery. One case I know, the church did not give her permission to divorce until her husband was excommunicated (for lack of repentance/reconciliation). I presume that if he had repented of adultery, the church would have pushed her to forgive and ‘move on’.
Yes, all of the issues with comp. theology are avoided when the husband is smarter, stronger, wiser and more holy than his wife, but the Bible makes no such guarantee, and when it’s the opposite, the church still tries to force them into a mold where the wife defers to her husband as smarter, stronger, wiser and more holy. Why do you think brilliant or godly women have such a hard time finding husbands? Why do you think women are culturally encouraged to act dumb and talk up all the men’s gifts? Why would someone smart like James Damore fully believe that women are not as capable as men when it comes to math and engineering?
LikeLiked by 1 person
(part 1)
KAS said
You know, your complementarianism is so very creepy and wrong.
When someone asks you something like, as Christianity Hurts did, like (paraphrase of her question),
The moral, correct answer that should instantly spring from your key board, is an unequivocal, “Hell Yes, she has a right to say No!”
The fact you think every reply (particularly to CH’s questions) has to be nuanced out the ying-yang for moral questions like that is disturbing, and shows how messed up complementarianism is, that you comp guys will defend it no matter what, even at the expense of women’s safety or rights.
If your answer looks anything like this, it’s wrong:
You sound like a lawyer.
Jesus made it simple.
He said, “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.”
So, if you are a married man and feel too depressed, tired, or physically sick to have sex, and your wife was asking you for sex, you’d want to be able to say ‘No’ to her request, have your request respected – and without fear of guilt trips, retribution, shaming, or abuse.
As Roger Olson said in the post I quoted before (paraphrase),
“Complementarianism dies the death of a thousand qualifications.”
Complementarians, and believers in “Male Headship,” nuance their responses to straight forward questions to the point they either are unclear, or, they come off as semi- Egalitarian when it helps them wiggle out of moral dilemmas.
LikeLike
(part 2) KAS said (to Avid Reader),
Unless of course in the specific contexts of marital disagreements, if a husband disagrees with his wife about a financial dispute or about having sex,
In which case, you want to either appeal to a small number of “man is head of house” verses to say the husband’s choice matters above all, and he should ultimately always get his way (if the couple still disagrees), or,
You want to nuance the crud out of your answer and reference 34,543 different Bible verses to make a meandering point that doesn’t ever really get to the heart of the matter but sound as though you are vaguely defending your view never the less.
Jesus said his followers are not to seek to have authority over others, but you keep mentioning authority.
Not all men who prescribe to complementarianism keep their temper and urges in check – they don’t all practice self control.
Women are not allowed, under complementarianism, to defend their consciences, stick to their convictions, and they are heavily shamed and discouraged from maintaining their boundaries with men, and especially with a husband, if they are married – which is very un-biblical, as Avid Reader was getting at.
Complementarianism (and this includes Male Headship) negates many other biblical teachings and concepts and sacrifices them to keep the circus and charade that Complementarianism is in place.
LikeLike
(part 3)
KAS said,
From what I have read in articles on the subject, the word “submission” appears only in Eph 5.21 (it applies to husbands as well, they are not excluded), and does not appear in the original Greek in the Eph 5.22 verse that Male Headship advocates like to quote.
Does the Bible Teach Patriarchy? 11 Alleged Biblical Teachings by Philip Payne _Source (PDF)_
There are plenty of other sites out there that refute your interpretations, KAS, if you would go look for them.
You have claimed before you’ve read egalitarian material, but I still have my doubts of that. If you read them, you don’t seem to be reading with an open mind.
LikeLike
KAS said,
Having harmony between two people – that is language descriptive of a non-hierarchal relationship where one person does not have authority over another.
Authority is not necessary in personal relationships, but one party feeling entitled to having authority over the other, for whatever the reason, can lead to disharmony, abuse, and exploitation.
In the book The Verbally Abusive Relationship (and many others like it), it’s noted by the author that there are basically two groups of outlooks people have about relationships:
1.) those who see relationships as mutually beneficial and who want to be inter-dependent,
and
2. those who believe in what the author calls a “Power Over” dynamic, where they get to control and have final say so over their partner and strive to have that control over.
She describes group 2 as being abusive. Not group 1.
And you KAS, are defending the Group 2 (abusive) approach, while pay lip service, in some posts on this blog, to believing in Group 1 (non abusive, mutual / egalitarian).
LikeLike
I’m not sure if Carmen was referring specifically to this blog post or not, but here’s the link:
(And KAS should totally read this blog post):
_Wisdom Versus Theonomy: An Example From My Experience_ – “Diary of An Autodidact” blog
It’s similar to this one (another one which KAS should read):
_Identity Mapping_
quotes from
“Wisdom Versus Theonomy: An Example From My Experience”:
The rest of the blog post is excellent.
LikeLike
Mark said to KAS,
Yes. Very much so.
KAS kind of waffles and weasel words things at some points to sound less obnoxious (more egalitarian), where he makes a quasi concession to the “husband should listen to the wife if she’s smarter” or “the husband should take the wife’s feelings into consideration,” but,
At the end of the day, he admitted up thread that “head” (in his interpretation) has a “note of authority to it” (or however he phrased it).
He’s promoting a Benevolent Male Headship, which is still Male Hierarchy, which is still wrong and patronizing. It’s a view that is still insisting on unilateral submission, female subordination, but it should be done nicely.
Mark said to KAS,
Yep. And the mean, abusive complementarian men (sorry to be a broken record) believe just as KAS does.
Abusive complementarian men quote the same Bible verses at their wives to justify their control and abuse of their wives that KAS uses to defend male headship. That KAS is not taking comp to its logical consequences doesn’t mean comp is good for women or it’s not sexist.
Mark said to KAS,
Mmm-hmm, I wrote a post addressing some of this here:
_Gender Complementarianism Does Not Adequately Address, or Address At All, Incompetent, Loser, Or Incapacitated Men_
I was engaged to a guy for a few years – a guy (who said he was a Christian, by the way) who was dumb as a box of rocks, irresponsible, always paid bills late, exploited me financially, etc.
Had I married that doofus, there is NO WAY I could’ve sat back and allowed him full control or choice making. He would’ve had us evicted, without electricity, etc.
LikeLike
Also by Roger Olson and shows how faulty complementarianism is:
_Truth, Authority and Roles_
In other words, to put it bluntly, hierarchy is the manner of organization of a social unit (especially the family) so that assigned (or assumed) roles matter more than truth.
…Christians claim to be concerned with and committed to truth. And yet we betray that concern and commitment when we insist on hierarchy. Hierarchical Christians, like all hierarchical people, show by their organizational theory and behavior a preference for power and control over truth.
…This is why I am adamantly opposed to so-called “complementarianism.” No matter how much they say that the husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church, they (the leading complementarian preachers and scholars) are handing husbands the right to ignore truth when it is his wife who has it and he doesn’t—that is, when his wife is right and he is wrong.
I am waiting to read or hear a complementarian say to Christian husbands: “When your wife is right, she is right and you must obey the truth.” (I don’t expect them to say “You must obey her;” that would be expecting too much!)
And Olson responds to complementarian arguments in the comments box on that page.
LikeLike
@KAS
“So Paul here would say no to the question as put.”
It sounds like your God and his men are pro-sex slavery. I was subject to a man who had authority over me as a child who believed women and children should keep their mouths shut and be the sex subjects God created them to be. Men get all the say and the final say while women and children have no say. That is how authority, hierarchy, and patriarchy works. Men who want to have sex with women and children against their will puts a biblical spin on their selfishness and voilà, he gets what he wants and children and women need to stop being unsubmissive and trying to fight men’s God-given right to authority.
“God places a burden on the husband and takes it off the wife! ”
This is a stupid lie selfish men try to peddle in an attempt to pretend they have it hard while they arrange for themselves a trapped @ss kissing slave. Having to be submissive to a man, have sex against your will, and forced to be married against your will is the biggest burden. My comp father had no burdens and my comp mother had all the same burdens as a child sex slave. Why? Because her pervert misogynistic parents were comp and so was the bottom of the barrel man she married.
Being a slave is a much bigger burden than owning a slave.
“Husbands are not free agents in a marriage, they are themselves under authority, namely of Christ”
Interesting how Christ NEVER shows up to tell men to stop beating their wives, to stop raping their daughters, and to stop degrading and using women. But his comp men like Paige Patterson and Doug Wilson always show up to protect wife beaters, sexual abusers of underage girls, and pedophiles. See how Christian men have everything rigged in their favor while having everything rigged against women and little girls. In Christianity, there are always many men running their mouths against women and little girls and no Jesus ever showing up to help women and little girls.
LikeLike
@KAS
“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.”
KAS you have an issue with telling women and people who were raped as children their business.
Slavery feels very much like a curse. If I told a black woman you have to be submissive to me and it certainly isn’t a curse she would think I was stupid, sadistic, selfish, and arrogant. To her, it is a curse. It is hurtful, demeaning, and scary. And it is simply wrong. There was no good reason for my mother to be submissive to my father. All these entitlements comp men have created for themselves and all they have to do is be born with a penis, meanwhile, the woman who actually did something like suffer through the pain and sickness of pregnancy and childbirth gets to be HIS trapped @SS kissing slave. My father did nothing but he should get everything and my mother did everything but she should get nothing. That is comp and it is obvious it was created by stupid horrible men.
Women want respect also. As a prissy girly little girl I was often demeaned, degraded, used, insulted, and disrespected and it hurt. All human beings want respect. Comp men peddle the idea that somehow because they have a penis (they had to do nothing whatsoever to have this penis) they are special and deserving of more respect than women. Often Christian fathers and Christians husbands lose their right to respect when they do and say vile, childish, abusive, and stupid things. My father should have been given no respect. He was nothing more than a mother beating, vulgar, bible quoting, misogynist. My mother who actually suffered through the pain and sickness of pregnancy and childbirth deserved much more respect than my pompous father did.
“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.”
Complementarian is abusive to women and little girls. It turns them into trapped, degraded, slaves for men. Yes, men who need the ego boost and safety of comp want to tell women and girls who have actually suffered greatly because of comp that what we know has hurt us did not hurt us.
How are you going to oppose abuse in church tell abuse victims you know people who were hurt more than them and handled it better?
“There really is unnecessary polarisation here,”
KAS do you have it in you to go somewhere and think critically about what abuse victims say?
Do you have it anywhere in you to have a drop of compassion for people who have been extremely hurt and damaged in their lives and childhoods?
To tell women who have posted many posts about how comp/Christian misogyny has very much hurt them that there is unnecessary polarisation makes you look like a dumb horrible human being. It is like you cant think or care.
LikeLike
“Of course the word submission sounds strange to modern ears where personal autonomy and worship of self are the order of the day.”
As someone born and raised in comp the word submission sounds like perverted demeaning slavery to me.
It is the favorite word of men who have sex slaves chained in their basements and it is a word dog trainers use. There is a comp man that post here and he uses the word train when he talks about wives. Comp men are always thinking up new ways to demean women to make themselves feel better.
Comp is about the worship of males. Comp men promote themselves as gods and all they care about is themselves and making sure they get their @sses kissed by females. Comp is idolatry. Comp men have the spirit of the Antichrist.
“personal autonomy” Comp men are always trying to condemn and shame people (mostly women) for wanting personal autonomy. It is comp men that should be shamed and condemned for hating women’s right to have ownership and veto power of their own bodies.
“personal autonomy” You know who hates for people to have personal autonomy? Rapist and slave owners.
LikeLike
KAS wrote,
“Self control is keeping your emotions, drive, temper, ambitions, appetites under control so you do not act unlovingly towards others.”
Not so fast. Self-control is ownership over your whole self. The Bible never limited self-control to only involve emotions.
Jesus gave us the definition of self-control in John 10:18 (NLT):
“No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded.”
In that verse, the Greek word for power is “exousia.” Think about that for a moment. Jesus is teaching us ladies to have “power” over our own lives. Power to decide when to sacrifice. Power to decide when to take our lives back (i.e. stop sacrificing). That’s God’s command.
Let me repeat. Jesus emphasized that this is God’s command. Yet this is the one thing that Comp theology will never allow women to have.
Mothers understand this better than anyone else. Some mothers make the decision to lay down their career to raise a family. Others want to stay home and take care of their children—but they sacrifice that desire to go to work to take care of the family.
The point is that Jesus was teaching women to have the “power” authority, liberty, right, strength, etc. to decide when to say yes and when to say no. That’s Jesus’ definition of self-control. Don’t let anyone talk you out of that.
LikeLike
By the way,
Daisy, I really enjoyed reading all your rebuttals to KAS. That link by Olsen was great too. That’s exactly what’s been on my heart for years. Comp theology is basically demanding that God clean up whatever mess it makes. Whenever they tell women to just submit to someone else’s bad choices and just trust God to fix everything—that sounds so much like the devil tempting Christ to jump from a tall building and trust angels to catch him. Same type of faulty reasoning.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Daisy wrote: “Does a wife ever have the right to say ‘No’ to having sex with her husband when the husband wants sex but she does not?”
The moral, correct answer that should instantly spring from your key board, is an unequivocal, “Hell Yes, she has a right to say No!”
What about 1 Cor 7 : 5 “Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer …” ?
You want me to answer a question, and you are now telling what the answer I ought to have given is!
Daisy wrote: 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.
Move up in rank??? !!!!! So you do believe in a hierarchy then.
I have already told you why I am limiting replies to your long posts, and this one will have to be short. I have indeed read egalitarian literature with an open mind, find some of its criticism of complementarianism fair comment, but more often than not question begging and blatantly fallacious in its reasoning, sometimes sloppy or even fraudulent scholarship/ideas. Dogmatism not justified by the evidence. Doesn’t do the egalitarian case much good. Kephale is a good example of this, with claims made about translation issues of this word from people who clearly have no idea how translation works. Not terribly convincing.
LikeLike
KAS, “God places a burden on the husband and takes it off the wife!”
That’s why so few people want to be managers and CEOs, I assume?
KAS, “What about 1 Cor 7 : 5 “Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer …” ?”
I think what Daisy said about Theonomy is very applicable here. There is a question, “can a wife refuse sex” and you go searching for a prooftext. 1 Cor. 7:5 fits the bill nicely. But… the Bible is never so cut and dried.
You see, it was unlawful (SINFUL) for any non-Priest to eat the showbread.
Yet, David ate the showbread and fed it to his men, and Jesus used that as an example for why his own disciples were justified in feeding themselves grain on the Sabbath.
So, that is why the Theonomy hermeneutic fails, as Daisy pointed out. If the question was asked “is it lawful for David to eat the showbread”, the answer, according to Lev 24:9, is “NO!”. Now, here is the important part. Jesus uses that situation to show the Pharisees (you know, the people that interpret the Bible like you do) that they are dead wrong. He says “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.”
There are, then, many ways to understand 1 Cor. 7:5. One way is “under normal circumstances” spouses should not refuse each other. That would mean that refusing sex in the first six weeks after childbirth, or recovering from surgery, or even suffering from depression or recovering from PTSD from child sexual abuse, could all qualify as those sorts of reasons. Remember also, that this is a specific letter to a specific congregation, and that congregation is winning converts from pagan religion, and the pagan religions had many odd practices. In fact, the very section you are quoting begins with: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote”. So, as I said, it is quite likely that Paul is responding to a specific issue with specific instructions (as far as I know, no one has followed Samuel’s instructions to Saul for how to become the king, but I guess we could get “the way of Saul” ala “The Prayer of Jabez”). Perhaps, the Corinthians, out of the same sort of legalistic religious zeal that the pagan gods commanded, thought that celibacy was the teaching of the church, and it was causing marital strife.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems pretty clear from context that it means some element of sacrificial love. ❤️
How anyone can get to ‘tell my wife what to do and if she disagrees bulldoze over her’ from that is pretty crazy.
LikeLike
KAS, “So you do believe in a hierarchy then.”
I don’t think the existence of ANY hierarchy is a problem. We are specifically calling out:
1) The complementarian belief that EVERY relationship must have a hierarchy
2) The complementarian belief that husbands are hierarchically above wives
3) The complementarian belief (in varying degrees) that women are restricted from any relationship where they may have hierarchy over a man.
4) The complementarian belief that God has somehow built women to be genetically and spiritually inferior such that it would be foolish to ever put a woman, no matter how seemingly capable, into a position of authority.
5) The complementarian belief that a person in a hierarchical position over another is somehow less likely to be involved in sin that the “authority’s” word ought to be believed, unless incontrovertible evidence is produced, over that of the “subordinate”.
(Keep in mind that these are the same positions that were held against blacks and slaves by Southern churches)
It is intriguing that the U.S. Founding Fathers recognized the problems with traditional hierarchy and decided to implement a system where each chain of command hierarchy was severely limited in its ability to function despotically by being grouped into three essentially egalitarian branches.
I think that system worked quite well, until, not surprisingly, the government in its infinite wisdom decided that certain functions within the government ought to be given executive, legislative and judicial powers. So, the FCC, EPA, FDA, IRS, SEC and other government agencies that were established for efficiency, have instead collected and maintained despotic power over citizens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS said,
Right.
So when a wife says, “Not tonight dear, I have menstrual cramps,” the husband is to back off.
Because she is only “denying him for a season.”
If the complementarian husband pressures her or coerces her into sex after her clear refusal, he is then guilty of rape.
Additionally, a husband pressuring a non-willing wife into sex is not loving the wife as Christ loves the church. Would Jesus Christ force or pressure a woman into having sex with him if she did not? You’re the one who keeps quoting the Male Headship passages at me, saying it’s all well and good if the husband is loving to the wife.
Well, a husband shaming, forcing, or guilt tripping a non-willing partner into sex is not loving, KAS.
That you are still trying to split hairs and nit-pick Bible verses over an issue so serious is quite disturbing.
Again, a woman always has the right to turn down sex when or if her husband wants it.
You are using the Bible in the same way the Pharisees did – too legalistic, wanting to pay attention to the letter of the law while ignoring the needs, boundaries, and feelings of human beings it was meant to serve.
This is how Jesus boiled down all these ethical dilemmas:
Jesus said:
So, KAS, if you had the flu and were running a high temperature, and your wife was randy, you’d want to be able to tell her “No”
-And you’d want her to respect that “No,” and not force you into having sex, or not verbally abuse you until you cave in, or you’d not want her to guilt trip you into sex after you’ve said no you don’t feel like it- by doing things like quoting 1 Cor 7 : 5 at her.
KAS said
That’s distorting what I meant.
Women should have equal opportunity in and out of churches but complementarians will not give that to them, not based on a lack of skill or talent, but on gender alone. Which is sexist and it’s discrimination.
So long as complementarians want a rank system in places in churches, though, it’s only fair to permit women into the same ranks as men, provided they possess the skill and talent for whatever said position is.
That is the point. You are playing obtuse.
KAS said,
I find that to be true of complementarian literature, reasoning, and articles.
The complementarian understanding of words such as “Kephale” is flawed and incorrect – and it’s not terribly convincing.
You didn’t attempt to refute the egalitarian content I provided above but just dismiss it with insult – e.g., as being ‘dogmatic, sloppy, fallacious,’ etc.
I can tell despite your claim to the contrary that you’ve not really read much (if any) egalitarian writing on some of these issues.
I really, really wish you would got put on moderated status on this blog, or blocked from posting here altogether.
I think you’ve made your intent here pretty clear in the weeks or months you’ve been posting, and it’s never been showing concern for victims of sexual / physical / spiritual abuse, or for anyone who’s been wounded by doctrines such as complementarianism.
LikeLike
‘Head’ does not mean ‘leader’ in 1 Cor 11.3
by Ian Paul
To read the supporting details for that information, visit:
_‘Head’ does not mean ‘leader’ in 1 Cor 11.3_
Looks like straight forward facts there, no “question begging,” “blatantly fallacious reasoning,” “sloppy” or “fraudulent scholarship/ideas.”
(I don’t need the Bible to show how false complementarianism is, by the by. I have several blog posts on my “Daisy” blog enumerating the many inconsistencies of complementarianism on its face – and how its real-life out-working in women’s lives hurts women.
The Bible does not even have to be brought up in these discussions.)
LikeLike
LEA My [KAS] main concern with the Eph 5 passage in recent years is what does ‘head’ mean regarding a husband
It seems pretty clear from context that it means some element of sacrificial love.
How anyone can get to ‘tell my wife what to do and if she disagrees bulldoze over her’ from that is pretty crazy.
Who on earth is arguing for ‘tell my wife what to do and if she disagrees bulldoze over her’?
LikeLike
Everyone who gives man some sort of final decision making authority is effectively taking all decision making from his wife. Which is all comps. Saying ‘I let her make decisions sometimes’ doesn’t change that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Piper:
(Interestingly, although Piper calls the husband out it’s what he doesn’t say here that is critical. He doesn’t say that the wife can go to the bathroom without her husband’s permission.)
Doug Wilson:
So, Wilson is here making the argument that egalitarians’ “bondage and submission games” are a distorted mockery of complementarian marriages.
Paige Patterson:
So, Paige Patterson goes a step further. The wife’s duty in an abusive marriage is to pray and submit more even knowing that it will bring further and more aggressive violence. Interesting note, if the husband did not repent, wouldn’t Patterson have used the “No True Scotsman” fallacy and say she did not submit enough?
Joel Beeke:
Beeke is here proclaiming the benefits of boundaryless marriages and, apparently, this is the summary of his published book on marriage.
These are not fringe complementarians who run anti-women blogs. Piper is the founder of CBMW and a well-respected pastor and author. Wilson has published many books and was a well-respected Reformed theologian, until his Federal Vision theology got him in hot water in the Reformed crowd, but his views on marriage have not been contested. Beeke is the President of a significant Reformed seminary (Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary), and Paige Patterson was a hero of the SBC for returning it to conservatism and the President of one of their seminaries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Focus on the Family:
“not as a tyrant or superior being”… those are pretty empty words when the husband IS a tyrant. So… she still submits, but only to his leadership, not his tyranny?
“he is not to use it as a ‘trump card'”… again empty words, because the church will support his authority whether he makes choices to get his own way or to serve his family.
“he must ultimately answer to God”… again empty words, FotF is saying that the church will not (should not?) intervene in matters like this, and that when a husband is being tyrannical and superior, only God will give the wife justice.
So, in essence, for wives the answer is submit and obey and trust that your husband will get what’s coming to him in the final judgment. For husbands, it’s yes, you get an obedient and submissive wife, and yes you can evilly mistreat her, but you’ll pay for it later.
So, when we pray “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”, complementarians say it is okay for the church to enforce that will when it comes to pretty much every human relationship (e.g. rebellious wives and children), but somehow when it comes to the marital relationship, the church throws up her hands and says, “God will judge”. That rings true with what Piper says. Shame on you for being a tyrannical husband. God will judge you, but to the wife… silence probably “sorry you got such an evil man for your husband, but you’re stuck with him now.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
KAS said: “Who on earth is arguing for ‘tell my wife what to do and if she disagrees bulldoze over her’?”
Tell me this – have you ever heard of any church leader reprimanding a husband for being cruel to his wife?
LikeLike
They all get there eventually and it is a deal breaker. Period.
LikeLike
Julie Anne
You asked “Tell me this – have you ever heard of any church leader reprimanding a husband for being cruel to his wife?”
Yes I have,
LikeLike
Sorry to juxtapose my knowledge based on personal experience here, Julie Anne, to your July 8, 2018, @ 9:11 AM’s question, “- have you ever heard of any church leader reprimanding a husband for being cruel to his wife?,” but actually my answer would be a resounding “No!” A rather highly emotional one at that!
Even in attending a “Family Life Marriage Conference” from the underlings of Dennis Rainey, not once did they address the topic of husbands being abusive to their wives or visa versa, however they did pound us over the heads with sledge hammer of “complementarianism.” Unfortunately at that particular time in me life, I did not know what exactly it was called, but the fruits of it were hierarchal, authoritarian, oppressive towards women, promoted wifely bondage, and was just plain poisonous towards the wife……….it was like a male fest on steroids and all of us wives were supposed to be the cheerleaders.
I would NEVER recommend a couple struggling in their marriage, attend such anti-Biblical garbage, especially if the wife is desperately in need of a strong, healthy, encouraging support system to assist her back to health and well being.
Why would pastors give a sermon on male spousal abuse when most of their “income” is derived from such a lot?
Crickets.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – Your words come at a timely moment for me. I’m working on a Desiring God post where I’m focusing on Piper’s response to dv. The trouble is, there’s plenty out there where he says abuse is bad. But, we all know the precedent that is set by the structure of comp doctrine. The words are there and they sounds good, but when it comes to practice there is still hierarchy and authority preached and practiced.
I’m struggling finishing it up because I know that when it’s published the first thing someone will say is that I don’t understand the intent behind Piper and they can point to the articles where he says abuse is bad. Thing is, I do understand the intent behind Piper. First and foremost it’s comp doctrine because that is God’s order. It matters so much that there are children’s books written on the topic.
LikeLike
Kathi,
The abuse that my wife and I endured was strictly based on our inability to embrace the most aggressive form of Stealth or Covert (purposely keeping their doctrine a mystery) 5 Point Calvinism/Reformed/New Calvinism/Hyper-Calvinism.
I know not all Calvinist are abusive or are aggressive with their doctrine.
Piper is a Calvinist. Most of the abuse I’ve seen contributors to this thread were at the hands of Calvinist. Many of those who have endured abuse don’t even know the Doctrine of the abuser until it is too late.
I even did a google search of “Complementarianism Churches and Calvinism” and a lot of hits came up,,, same thing when I google searched “Complementarianism Churches and Calvinism and Piper”
I don’t see too many 5 Point TULIP contributors on this thread who have endured spiritual abuse. In fact I haven’t seen any.
What I do see is the lasting effects the TULIP gang has had on the abused.
LikeLike
Kathi, “The words are there and they sounds good, but when it comes to practice there is still hierarchy and authority preached and practiced.”
I feel like skilled comps like Piper have honed the message so that it conveys what they want to convey without actually saying the words. So, as I mentioned, he can, in an article called, “What Submission is Not”, talk about all these great “outs” for women, yet by specific areas of silence convey a completely different message. For example, it’s okay for a wife not to obey her husband when he tells her to SIN, but crickets when the husband tells the wife to do something embarrassing or stupid that is not sinful.
When they do get caught with their proverbial pants down, e.g. Piper and submitting to abuse, they have to backpedal to something more socially palatable, but you can be sure that within their comp circles their statements are clarified and qualified to the point that they are meaningless (what really qualifies as abuse, and while a normal wife might only be expected to submit to that abuse for a night, what about a truly godly wife? wouldn’t she persevere through many nights before she throws in the towel?)
LikeLike
D, I’m a Calvinist.
I think much of the problem with Calvinists is that they either take Calvin too far (e.g. hypercalvinism, where we just sit around and let God to all the work) or they weasel around what Calvin said.
For example, Total Depravity. I heard a Calvinist give a sermon on a passage that was about how the priesthood had failed the people. Somehow it started there and then became a sermon about how we need to obey our leaders because the Holy Spirit somehow gifts them with flawless ability to see our sin and to righteously help us deal with it. SO, his apparent position on “T” is that it only applies to ordinary members, and somehow the church leaders are exempt.
That said, I have said that there is too much of a pining for the good ole’ Reformation days. The big problem with Calvin, Westminster and their ilk is not “Calvinism” per se, but the extreme authoritarianism prevalent at that time in history. We’re talking “Divine Right of Kings” era where serious theologians were arguing over whether an authority could command someone to sin. Some believed (and this still exists in some comp. circles) that a person was required to obey a command to sin from an authority, and the authority was solely responsible before God. Calvin was somewhat avant-garde at the time arguing that people were not required to obey “unlawful” commands by church or state authorities.
So, yes, that fight is long dead, but now we have churches using Calvin and Reformation-era theologians to try and defend why we have to obey commands from authorities, that are lawful in the sense of not requiring us to sin, yet “unlawful” in the sense that they do not have the authority to make the request in the first place.
As a pertinent example, I know a church that told a wife she could not divorce her husband because of his porn addiction. She probably would have been excommunicated had she not left the church BEFORE divorcing him.
If it weren’t Calvin, there would be some other Reformation-era character used as a litmus test for orthodoxy. Astonishingly enough, I’ve had debates with “Calvinist” pastors and found that they often projected their own erroneous beliefs as what Calvin taught.
LikeLike
JA, “Tell me this – have you ever heard of any church leader reprimanding a husband for being cruel to his wife?”
Interestingly enough, I heard of a situation where the father and mother had worked out their own discipline system, because the father lacked self-control when it came to his anger in disciplinary situations. The father would make comments at church that the mother did not discipline the kids to his liking and that she was preventing him from doing anything. So, this ended up coming to the attention of the church leadership, who, among other things tried to push the father to be more of a “leader” towards his wife, and “more involved” in the lives of his children, not knowing and perhaps not caring WHY he was less involved. So, in a sense, this father was reprimanded for not being cruel enough towards his children.
LikeLike
Hi Mark,
I have people in my family that were indoctrinated into believing some forms of Calvinism, but does have a gentle spirit. So they wouldn’t do to good in a Fred Phelps Church.
Maybe you are one of few Calvinist on this thread that have endure, heavy handed spiritual abuse, maybe from another Calvinist or a different doctrine.
As you know there are many combinations within the Calvinist School. Could be 1, 2 , 3 or 4 Points but not in any order, but also the way it is being preached and taught, some of it is very aggressive and heavy handed.
Much of it being taught behind the pulpit surrounding a predestination theology whereas if you don’t follow the teachings of Hyper-Calvinist suggest your salvation is in question, but even you do follow it is in question,, sort of like how Catholics preach of uncertainty, though Catholic Priest aren’t questioning the salvation of their Congregation every Sunday behind the pulpit.
One thing I don’t understand is how can someone be part Calvinist and other be a full blown Calvinist? It seems a believer is 100% Calvinist or 0% Calvinist, no in between.
Kind of like a woman being pregnant, she either is or isn’t as she can’t be partly pregnant?
LikeLike
Christianity Hurts quote, “Comp is about the worship of males. Comp men promote themselves as gods and all they care about it themselves and making sure they get their @sses kissed by females. Comp is idolatry. Comp men have the spirit of the Antichrist.”
This is a most brilliant series of sentences in illustrating the truth about what man has labeled “complementarianism.” Amen to everything you stated CH because you have “experienced” first hand, the wickedness and evil that surrounds this false religious system, disguised as Jesus’ ekklesia/called out ones. Reminds me of Psalm 1:1 “Blessed is the man (or woman) who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of the scoffers.”
What is defined as “comp theology” does not offer up much Hope in our LORD Jesus Christ as our Savior now, does it? It is most difficult to put hope in a comp theology that desires to destroy the spirit of a woman/women in our world, for Jesus never taught, preached, promoted, or lived Himself, such a system of lording it over. I find it odd how religious folks have come to the conclusion, that our hope is in leadership and lordship of men who desire to be “first, preeminent, important, more distinguished, the greatest” amongst us, when if fact, Jesus taught the exact opposite. Even more importantly, He “LIVED” it….and then men of self proclaimed great “wisdom (?)” come along and distort everything that Jesus said, and the life HE LIVED.
KAS, I never heard of comp theology growing up in “the c’hurch” system, because it didn’t exist. We were a poorer rural church, and if jobs were to be done, both men and women, and at times, we children all pitched in to get the jobs done….you know….the “work for the Lord.” Never, ever, ever and ever, did I hear the pastor man state that a “woman’s place was in the home” or that “the husband has the final word of authority in any decision made within the family unit.” Nor, did I hear the topical sermons of the modern popular version of “women’s roles” or “men’s roles” because living in less wealth, actually means that if one is going to survive the hardships of this earth, both women and men, or men and women have to pitch in to support your family in providing the necessities to just plain survive. I believe it is when more wealth is accumulated, man then has the ability to twist the Scriptures/believe and promote the lie, that women are designed for certain “roles” and men gain the ability for the “headship role,” thus, divisiveness occurs and with that, abuse in every area of life.
Case in point…….the farmer tends to his fields while the “little wife” attends to the “household, including children, yard and garden.” When the farmer man loses his father to brain cancer, there are not enough hands to do the dirt work/farm work. Thus, the farmer becomes emotional (and you have no idea KAS, the emotion involved here, much of it is NOT self controlled nor exhibits the fruits of the Holy Spirit) and is literally brought to his knees in begging God to supply more labor, because the farmer knows he cannot possibly get the crop out in addition to all of the other farm labor that needs to be done throughout the year. So then, the wife now is “required” to leave the household and go and work in the fields to fill in the gap of the lost male labor. She is now doing what is considered the “man’s role” within the context of comp theology….the theology I have heard preached in these more modern, rather wealthy c’hurches that pretend to know a jesus of their own understanding, for Jesus never preached “comp.”
Now, what in the world is this “little woman” supposed to think and do with regards to a theology she never heard as a child, as a teenager, and as a young woman out in the world on her own, and now, as a married believer in Christ Jesus? Hmmmmmm?
When this “little woman” hears men, who have the softest of hands, and the hardest of hearts, expounding great words of wisdom-less jibberish, often abusing our Holy Scriptures to prove their worldly idealogy (yes, I know now how worldly comp theology is and it stinks to high heaven!), I find it difficult to even remotely respect their “self proclaimed authority.”
Comp theology is a lie from the pit of hell, with satan its number one author. And I have yet (and I’m waiting patiently to witness this in our modern era) to see a man bend down, as our LORD did, and wash the feet of His sheep, comprised of women, men, and children. So who amongst us then, is actually “the grestest servant?”
LikeLike
Oops…..should read “the greatest servant.” Guess I’m too “emotionally” quick in desiring to get the post mailed before effectively proofreading it. Apologies.
LikeLike
Mark stated per July 7, 2018 @ 6:02 PM,
“I think that system worked quite well, until, not surprisingly, the government in its infinite wisdom decided that certain functions within the government ought to be given executive, legislative, and judicial powers. So, the FCC, EPA, FDA, IRS, SEC, and other government agencies that were established for efficiency, have instead collected and maintained despotic power over citizens.”
Brilliant analogy here Mark. Like I stated above, “never heard of comp theology during my formative years within the c’hurch, concerning “men and women’s “roles”.”
When I first began being educated concerning the comp myth, like the governmental sub-agencies listed above, comp theology has wielded a sword against the spirit/soul of women and has done great damage to the Body of Jesus Christ. Perhaps this is precisely why, when I am in the presence of churched men, their tempers flair (highly emotional temper tantrums exhibited) when the “me too” movement is discussed, or truthfully, when any “women’s rights” issues are spoken of in conversation.
Lately, I am reminded of the “good Samaritan” and the “least of these” as Jesus spoke of. When one is actually the “least of these,” and it happens to all of us during various stages in this life, do we really care if the individual helping us get back on our feet is a man or a woman, used of our LORD, or do we have to use satan’s theological system (comp doctrines), or a “man’s authority” in deciding exactly “who” should be the one to help the least of these. Seems to me, we don’t give the Holy Spirit working in the hearts, minds, hands and feet of individual believers, whether woman, man or child, enough credit to get the LORD”S work done!
And when there is comp theology/confusion, the “least of these” does not get taken care of in the way that Jesus taught. Many of us live this.
LikeLike
Daisy,
Great Bible lessons here and I so appreciate the truths you are putting forth regarding the context of the languages. I have learned so much from your posts that the words of Jesus, “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” per Matthew 11:30, actually becomes “living” within me.
You have made my whole day here Daisy! Blessings to you and the rest of my friends here…..it’s going to be a good, productive day doing the work of the Lord in my every day life!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katy, I think this is a tell. It shows you how they really feel about women. I wish better for you then to have to deal with that.
I’ve been reading stuff about incels and I see some similarities here, in that they have brainwashed themselves to think women are less, or deceitful, or unworthy of respect. The truth is we are all just people. But they feed on misogyny and only talk to each other and just get worse. And some truly evil men come in and feed these attitudes, possibly grooming them not to believe women when they report the truth.
The only way out of this is equality and respect. That is why I will never accept comp as a theology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lea,
Precisely, this is why I believe misogyny will never be absent within the institutional c’hurch system. And the work of the ministry to women of comp men will continue until Jesus’ Second coming.
Also, in building upon the comment of attending Dennis Rainey’s underling “marriage conference,” it was pounded into all of us that “men NEED respect and women NEED love.” I heard that phrase constantly in EVERY “breakout” session. Even while “desperately trying to be that perfect, holy comp wife,” I wondered as I sat there, “so I am not worthy of both respect and love” as a born again believer in Jesus Christ? What a big waste of money and resources on our part…..will NEVER sit through a Dennis Rainey or a Focus on the Comp Family conference, seminar, sermon, or so called “holy c’hurch conversation.” The men get way too caught up in unrighteous anger, which incidentally, would be called a “sin.”
Perhaps this is why I hear preacher men say, and I am utterly ashamed of and for these men that say this by the way, “MEN DREAM OF BEING RAPISTS.” What a depravity of the mind.
LikeLike
Mark has already given you several pertinent examples, KAS. All of them well-known and well-paid gurus in the gender comp promotion industry.
And let’s not forget Driscoll the Despicable. He once bragged about counselling a married woman, who was uncomfortable with certain sex acts, to force herself to do them with her husband. Why? Because refusing to do acts her husband wants is “sin”, and forcing herself to do them is “repentance”.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianpiatt/2013/04/mark-driscolls-oral-fixation/
So much for women being allowed to say “no”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
KAS said,
But when asked,
“Is is okay for a wife to ever say “No” to her husband if he wants to have sex and she does not,”
KAS replied as such in another post:
So, KAS is saying No, a woman cannot unequivocally say No to her husband,
Or, if pressed on this issue,
KAS (like many complementarians do, when the negative, nasty, or abusive ramifications of their doctrine is shown clearly), would want to diminish it and weasel word his way out of it by trying to qualify it to death by saying that a woman can say ‘No’ to a spouse’s request for sex, but only in a highly narrow set of circumstances (and probably one that favors the husband’s – or some man’s – view point, who cares what the woman wants or needs?).
But really, per KAS’ highly legalistic use of the Bible at 1 Cor 7.5, he’s saying, No, a wife may not deny her spouse sex.
Complementarians make marriage look totally unappealing.
I’d rather stay single, and take a lover boy, or live-in lover boy. Much more preferable and safer for a woman than being married if she attends a complementarian church or is brainwashed to live out comp.
Re: KAS remark,
I addressed this a couple of days ago, but I wanted to remind all that KAS was distorting my commentary or perspective.
Complementarians use false analogies to defend their view, and I’ve addressed some of those on my blog –
Such as the one about “Privates in the Army being equal in worth to a General, they are only different in rank”:
_Gender Complementarian Trinitarian Analogies Do Not Work_
Mark per your post of JULY 8, 2018 @ 6:30 AM…
KAS’ form of complementarianism is really no different or no better than that of John Piper’s, Mark Driscoll’s, et al, though he claims his type of comp (which is European?) is not as wacko or severe as Piper’s and etc.
LikeLike
Sorry, I meant to give this link not the one on the Trinity:
_Christian Gender Complementarian Analogies Do Not Work_
LikeLike
D said,
Great. Now how about the other 99.9% of Christian churches, Christian leaders, etc?
Many Christian laypersons, pastors, Church leaders, and Christian-penned blogs and books, typically side with the husband, they will victim-blame the wife, and put the burden on the wife to fix whatever abusive or sinful behaviors the husband is engaging in.
You can find many examples of that sort of thing on _this blog,_ in the comments section.
LikeLike
Mark said (to Kathi),
Yes, this, a million times over. Complementarians do this sort of thing a lot.
I think KAS has been doing this a bit as well.
Too, often, complementarians will not even address some of these topics, (of say, what should an abused Christian wife do if her complementarian Christian husband is abusing her), until they are heavily pressed on the matter by non-complementarians to give an account for their teachings.
Complementarians like to deny or ignore that their sexist teachings have real-life, painful, harmful, abusive, or damaging out-comes on people who try to live them out.
LikeLike
I just came across this. It’s related to our conversations with or about KAS:
_The No True Scotsman and Christians’ Version of Atheism_ – on Patheos blog
I think No True Complementarian / Scotsman may be more damaging to complementarians than it is to atheists.
(KAS was trying to tell me earlier it can be damaging to Christianity… a lot of Christians use it when talking to atheists, though).
A bit from that blog post:
LikeLike
SKIJ,
I still have not learned how to maneuver the “like” button, so will verbalize “like” to your comment thread. Your “let’s not forget Driscoll the Despicable” is spot on as “The Despicable” continues to “consexualize” the gospel/bible, rather than properly “contextualizing” the true Gospel and its Biblical applications.
I personally, cannot stomach to even look at MD, let alone listen to this immature individual….have a difficult time calling him “a man” for I know toddlers that are more mature than he.
LikeLike
Daisy,
Thanks for sharing the link.
I have only been in one church where I noticed aggressive Complementarian where the Pastor minimize the value of women. And that only occurred because the Pastor purposely kept much of his Doctrine a mystery. If we dare pry a little to figure out where he believed, you were severely rebuked. “Severely” is an understatement.
I have a hunch that there are few other contributors who endured abuse that didn’t know the Hyper-Calvinistic Doctrine of their Pastors either.
Heck (like me) I’m sure many on this site didn’t know what Hyper-Calvinism is. But if any of you were severely Spiritually Abused for struggling to embrace the heavy handed Doctrine, I hope you actually review the doctrine/mission statement of the church you are attending, or if you are looking for a church to review the doctrine of the church.
I realized there are other Doctrines besides Hyper-Calvinism that practice a form of Complementarian or misogyny. I do notice however most of the write ups in this thread regarding Complementarian is centered around Calvinist Preachers and Leaders.
The first thing I did, when I found this site, based on the abuse endured by Julie Anne was look up the Doctrine former Pastor. I’m not even sure she realized after she left that church that he may have been borderline Hyper-Calvinistic.
LikeLike
D – I did not fully understand Calvinism. My husband slowly got into it, and then went head first into it after being at the cult church and also meeting with a men’s group (separately) where it was taught. I was blindsided. I had a brand new baby (#7) and was also homeschooling, managing everything in the home when much of this was taking place.
LikeLike
Imagine having that much on your plate and STILL figuring out – eventually – that the whole thing was a crock. 😦
* JA rocks *
LikeLike
And note, to Daisy’s point about Theonomy, that Driscoll searched high, far and wide for a verse, regardless of the context, that “justified oral sex”, and having found that verse proceeded to make it a litmus test of a woman’s level of faith. If the woman didn’t give her husband oral, she was “sinning” and if she did give her husband oral, she was “repenting”. It is so disgusting and abusive and wrong on so many levels.
Who knows how many Driscolite wives were abused THAT VERY NIGHT by husbands taken in and empowered by Driscoll’s gutter mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
D, I think there is higher correlation with “conservatism” than Calvinism. I found a common theme among the abusive pastors that the church essentially reached a spiritual and theological apex sometime in the 1600’s and has been in decline ever since.
Problem is that in the 1600’s, there was a horrible understanding of authority (no child abuse laws, women as property, slaves as property) that was rampant in the theological writings of the time. That means that many of the modern conservative pastors and theologians who read guys like Calvin or subscribe to the Westminster Confession are not discerning enough to understand that in the past 400 years we’ve come to a much better understanding of authority and submission and the limits to each. Because these people are unable to discern the truth and error, they end up falling into the “obedience unless commanded to sin” or worse… prevalent in that era.
Then, seemingly, they double down on this idea of old = good/new = bad concept, so when someone tries to provide more recent scholarship on authority and/or gender issues, then it is dismissed out of pocket because it must be bad.
I think part of this is that in the 1600’s (like what the Pharisees struggled with) there was an assumption that righteousness equalled station, so the most righteous people were most likely to be elevated to positions of authority and responsibility, and were the most worthy of respect and obedience. For a pastor, that is a very tempting proposition, that they are somehow “above” those around them simply because they are in an authoritative position. Obviously, to them, anyone who would try to dissuade them from that view is trying to disrespect their authority and cannot be trusted, especially since those people are more typically liberals.
LikeLike
I attend a Calvinistic church that is egalitarian, but they are few and far between.
LikeLike
It took some time to understand the full impact of the doctrine. It also took me even more years to understand complementarianism/Patriarchy/egalitarianism. My older kids definitely know I am not the same mom who raised them. 🙂
LikeLike
Daisy wrote But really, per KAS’ highly legalistic use of the Bible at 1 Cor 7.5, he’s saying, No, a wife may not deny her spouse sex.
I don’t think I am obligated to answer a question when such an answer would be misleading, or involve disregarding a NT instruction. The NT tells wives to ‘submit to their own husbands’ – by what authority do you set that aside?
Now I went on to say I suspect what was meant was ‘does a husband have a right to force his wife to have sex with him’, in which case I would say unequivocally no he doesn’t. A husband doesn’t have a ‘right’ to force his wife to do anything. On the contrary …..
Now if the husband is doing something wrong, you sort out the husband, you do not tell the wife to disobey scripture unless some other scripture overrides a particular instruction.
I’ve answered the original question quite clearly.
I was going to clarify something about Kephale you misunderstood, but I don’t think there would be much point, so I shall desist.
LikeLike
KAS, “A husband doesn’t have a ‘right’ to force his wife to do anything. On the contrary …..”
Maybe it needs to be asked a different way. If a wife refused her husband sex for “no compelling reason” and you were asked to judge whether she was “submissive” would you say, “yes” or “no”.
“by what authority do you set that aside”
We don’t need “authority” to set it aside since there was no authority that put it there in the first place. By what authority do you define “submission” to mean obedience to every command where one is not being told to sin? What authority did Luther need to tell the church that they had perverted salvation? The very fact that you would make that statement suggests very strongly that you are replacing the one true authority (Jesus, the WORD) with the authority of men and men’s traditions you have put in his place.
As we have pointed out over and over, you interpret 30 of 31 instances of “to one another” https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NASB&quicksearch=%22to+one+another%22&begin=47&end=73 as not implying any sort of hierarchy, but that 31st one you choose to interpret in a way that forces hierarchy. By whose authority?
LikeLike
Also, http://biblehub.com/str/greek/5293.htm for occurrences of the Greek word translated subject in Eph. 5:21.
LikeLike
KAS said (with emphasis added by me),
Especially this portion by KAS:
And there it is.
Christianity Hurts, if you are reading this, KAS has just said that when or if a wife turns down her spouse for sex, if he requests sex, she is “not submitting to her husband” is thereby “disregarding NT authority,” so he’s fine with marital rape, only with how the husband goes about it (more on this below).
KAS said
So if a wife for, whatever reason, does not want to have sex with her spouse, even if her spouse wants sex, you are saying he cannot use physical force, but
…she is “in sin” because she is supposedly disobeying some NT passage or another….
Which is actually not what the Bible is teaching, and even some complementaria (it would depend on the brand of complementarian) teaching on these cherry-picked complementarian verses (the ones you like to quote) are usually marketed as,
“If a husband loves his wife as Christ loves the church, he won’t force her, or ask her, or expect her, to have sex if she does not want to.”
But you, KAS, are all for telling your wife and/or other married Christian women that if they turn down a spouse’s request for whatever the reason, they are violating (your interpretation) of the Bible.
You, KAS, are proposing the use of emotional manipulation and spiritual abuse to guilt trip, pressure, or shame women into having sex, which is really no better than a man who would use his physical strength to physically force a woman into sex.
KAS said,
I easily set it aside… I set aside your interpretation and your understanding and your mis-application of such passages.
You wield the Bible the way the Pharisees did, and Jesus of Nazareth corrected them on this quite often.
I’ve already mentioned this a hundred times in this thread.
LikeLike
KAS, “Now if the husband is doing something wrong, you sort out the husband, you do not tell the wife to disobey scripture unless some other scripture overrides a particular instruction.”
Behind this, I assume what you are saying is that, if the husband tells his wife to do something embarrassing, creepy or otherwise demeaning, but not “sinful” scripturally, that you tell the husband he is creepy, but the wife still has to submit. Surprising, for all your hatred of Piper, that’s exactly what he was doing in the quote above. He ignored the wife (she still has to ask permission to use the bathroom), and “dealt” with the creepiness of the husband.
Since the Bible commands you to likewise “submit to governing authorities”, would you obey the government, as the Bible commands, if they commanded you to deed your house over to a poor family?
By what “authority” do you say that you are not required to submit to the government when they command you to do something not “sinful”, yet would tell a wife that she must submit to her husband whenever she is commanded to do something that is not “sinful”? If a police officer commands you to let him search your house without a search warrant are you required to submit to his authority?
This is one of the arguments that demonstrated to me that complementarians were simply hypocritical about their definition of “submit”.
LikeLike
Portions of this page are very pertinent to some of the discussions going on in this thread:
_How Marriage Became a Cult in Toxic Christianity_
(The entire page is right on point, so it’s hard for me to determine which parts to quote below…)
Some snippets:
LikeLike
I was just re-reading KAS’ comment to me above.
I marvel, and am totally creeped out.
There is just something wrong with KAS or with how a complementarian such as him processes a simple, straight forward question.
When someone asks,
…Any person with a normal set of morals, and even an ounce of empathy and compassion would immediately blurt out, “Of course a wife has a right to say not to a husband’s request for sex.”
There should be no hesitation.
That KAS feels he has to nuance every response he gives, or read 456,334 different scenarios into such a straight forward question, is so gag- inducing and indicative of how poorly Christians think of and treat women.
It also gets into criticisms I’ve read of how conservative Christians, evangelicals, and other Christians mis-use and abuse the Bible, and I’ve posted some links in this thread of those criticisms.
Some Christians do wield the Bible like a weapon.
Instead of caring about people, they care more about up-holding a pet doctrine of theirs…
They try to make people, and people’s lives, fit their interpretation of a Bible verse, rather than using the Bible as a compassionate tool to help people. (The Pharisees were bad about this as well.)
They get it totally backwards.
LikeLike
Mark said,
I wish I could remember where I saw this, but I was reading a woman on another site who said she had a Christian woman friend who had to divorce her Christian husband after a decade or so…
She said her friend married a complementarian guy who emotionally abused her, guilt tripped her, and manipulated her.
One example she cited: the guy said he expected his wife to clean one of their bathrooms quite thoroughly with a tooth-brush ever night before bed.
(I think he also expected sex afterwards, even though the wife was absolutely physically drained.)
The wife objected, she said it left her exhausted and feeling as though her husband didn’t really care about her. But her husband didn’t care. He still insisted she clean the bathroom in that specific manner and service him after.
The husband fed her all this shaming complementarian drivel about how if she REALLY loved him and was committed to their marriage and being a good little submissive wife, she’d do it.
This went on for a period of years and the wife just broke, she could not take it any longer. She filed for divorce and left the guy.
The thing is, there is no clear-cut Bible verse saying a husband cannot or should not ask his wife to do something like scrub a bathroom to an exacting degree with a tooth-brush nightly, and then perform sex acts on/with her spouse.
(Note: I think a “biblical” case can be made against something like that by appealing to other Bible verses or motiffs.)
I can tell you, after reading many blog posts, articles, and books about abuse over the past several years, what that husband did to the wife in that example I read about, would be considered abusive by many Christian and Non-Christian psychiatrists, counselors, and psychologists.
The only types who would defend that sick garbage would be people who have an insanely vested interest in defending Male Hierarchy, Male Headship, and Complementarianism, and in convincing Christian women they have to stay and put up with trash like that. (Divorce is in fact an option, Bible or no.)
If a man really, truly loves and cherishes his wife, he’s not going to play these sick games with her, games of dominance…
If a man really truly loves and values his wife, he’s not going to he browbeat her or shame her into giving her sex when she does not want to have sex (by doing things like, but not limited to, quoting Bible verses at her about submission and so on, or ones about not depriving a spouse of sex “for a season”).
He’s not going to demand she scrub a whole bathroom out with a toothbrush and demand sex from her afterwards. That is just sick, control-freak garbage.
By the way, there are lots of marriages, Christian and no, where the wife wants sex, but the husband does not for whatever the reason, and I don’t think a Christian wife should use guilt tripping to get her spouse to have sex if he doesn’t want to.
If you’re stuck in a sexless marriage, there are other options out there, like get marital counseling, compromise on the matter, or, if one or the other partner won’t change for a long period of time, and it bugs one partner that much, file for divorce and move on. Stay single, or find someone who is more compatible with you.
LikeLike
Same. I have seen no signs of abuse. I think the authoritarian/comp part is what leads to abuse, not calvinism. If your church is well run and the people are decent, you will likely not have those problems.
LikeLike
Mark,
What makes me curious about Calvinism, is there are many Point variations that are being embraced and other Points not embrace. One might embrace Point 2 and 4, others might embrace Point 1 and 5, some embrace 1,2 and 3,, while other all 5 Points.
I mean if they all want to call themselves Calvinist, that is fine. But it seems to me there shouldn’t be any middle ground, you are either a full blown 5 Point Calvinist or bust.
Now what I think you are saying is you are egalitarian and there are others that are complementarian.
So even within the Calvinist School they are unable to agree on what Points some embrace and others don’t. Whether they are egalitarian or complementarian.
The more aggressive ones however are the ones that seem to embrace or force feed their Doctrine on their congregation and heavily rebuke ones that don’t.
Mark, there seems to be a calculated movement by the heavy handed 5 Pointers who have been mentored to preach an aggressive methodology and yes, misogyny in some of those churches.
LikeLike
Julie Anne, I know the feeling of being blind sided.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JA asked me Tell me this – have you ever heard of any church leader reprimanding a husband for being cruel to his wife?
The short answer is no. But then I have not been party to confidential ministry matters by the pastor in most of the churches I have been except a brief spell on a diaconate.
I think all the pastors I have ever known would deal with this as a problem with the husband rather than the wife, unless there was some contributory negligence of some sort on her part (e.g. her moodiness, his temper).
I don’t think a husband’s cruelty would be ignored, although I have to admit too often sinning in the congregation has been overlooked.
The Eph 5 issue/complementarianism has never been forced down people’s throats, and is not seen as an issue to defend. I have almost never heard it preached from the pulpit.
The outfit I was in that was most keen on no women elders and Eph 5 being for today would almost certainly have come down on any abusive husband like a ton of bricks. They believed in the elders having spiritual authority to do this, would see it as their job. I do remember at a leaders’ meeting once the speaker saying he has one of his members come to him complaining of problems in his marriage, to which the speaker replied ‘Your problem, brother, is that you are bone idle’! I doubt if that was expected, and he was not allowed to shift the blame anywhere else.
I also remember in a bible week with this church grouping a man being called out by word of knowledge for abusing his own daughter. This was years before this all started coming to light by more natural means.
As a generalisation and in my personal experience, the more actively a church has been of an egalitarian bent, particularly in leadership, the less willing it has been to deal with things like sexual immorality in the church. I think the reason is that if you overdo the ‘we are all equal’ line, no-one seems to think it is their job to deal with problems in the church, or members do not see the need to accept admonishing from those who supposedly lead. Baptist churches in particular have a problem with this! The pastor has very diluted authority.
The most militant out and out egalitarian church I ever attended was extremely weak in dealing with sin, and there was immorality amongst the congregation that was simply ignored. It was this issue, coupled with wholesale deception being accepted and something rather weird about the pastor, that in the end forced us out of it, and only years later did we discover what had gone on with my middle one.
The comp/egal debate is not, therefore, a decisive factor in whether abuse is going on in a church or not.
LikeLike
D, I think the five points of Calvinism came well after Calvin. I’ve heard they’re more associated with the Canons of Dort.
The thing that is intriguing to me is how many of the points are just facets of the same concept. So, for example, many Arminians would disagree with Perseverance of the Saints (can’t lose your salvation) but, then what about Irresistible Grace?
And I wonder if 2/3/4 point Calvinism isn’t just some sort of code language for “I love Calvin but I’m not willing to take every word of his as gospel”
As I said above, I think Calvin was a very powerful theologian, and there is much that he was really right on, although I more appreciate that he explains the reasoning behind his conclusions and points out errors in other conclusions. When people don’t also discern the areas (specifically authority and abuse) that Calvin and his fellow reformers completely missed, then we’re stuck in a Feudal Era concept of church and family authority.
LikeLike
KAS, another thing that struck me in my transition out of complementarianism was how blind I was to what Jesus was doing. Because of “exegetical” sermons I didn’t have a bigger picture. Jesus consistently opposed the religious leaders of the day. He opposed them because they were abusive. He listened to and protected their victims while he loudly rejected them. He rejected them for misinterpreting scripture in a way that allowed them to abuse people outside of their leadership club, while maintaining their public holiness.
Now, when my eyes were opened, I started seeing these patterns in my comp/authoritarian church. There was an exegetical slicing and dicing of passages minimizing calling leaders to account, ignoring certain verses (submit to one another) while allowing the full force of passages like “submit” and “obey” (the very thing I see in your writing!!) There were general platitudes about the church having the structure to take care of wayward elders, but lots of preaching and emphasis on how such and such sins always morphed into “insubordination” (i.e. failure to submit to the authority of the leaders) and how that was pretty much the cardinal sin.
I want to leave you with this. You don’t get that you’re being inconsistent. I see that. I was inconsistent, not for lack of knowledge or intellect, but because I couldn’t even read scripture without seeing it through the lens of what was preached. For example, anger. Why is it that it’s okay for pastor and church leaders to get “angry” at perceived injustice towards them, but when an ordinary member gets “angry” at perceived injustice, the prooftexts come out. So, I couldn’t read a passage on anger and defending the powerless, etc., without that authoritarian framework. Not surprisingly, when I started asking those questions, like why is leader anger defined as righteous and member anger defined as unrighteous, I started finding very strong opposition. No Biblical answers, just straight “we are the authorities and this is what you must believe”. Open your eyes to the effects of the teaching (i.e. reject the “No True Scotsman” bias). If people are leaving the church, why are they leaving? Is it because they “couldn’t handle the doctrine”? Really? Or is it that they’re being mistreated by the authorities? Ask yourself, if God’s Law is built into the fabric of the universe, why would obeying it lead to unhappiness? Why do men who are the pinnacle of complementarian theology have churches full of strife-filled marriages and a constant cloud of abuse allegations follow them? Do you really know that non-comp churches are not dealing with sexual sin, or is that only what you’ve heard from pastors? If you reject us pointing out Tullian, Piper, Wilson and others as “Not True Complementarians”, are you also rejecting sermons pointing out one or two examples of egalitarian churches not confronting sexual sin in their midst?
So, consider the inconsistencies we’ve pointed out. Dig into them rather than ignore and evade. Ask yourself why you chose to redefine “one another” to suit your definition of submit rather than redefining submit in a way that allows us to submit to “one another”.
I think we are all here if you actually want to work through the answers, but we are just firing cannonballs back and forth and it’s going nowhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great comment, Mark. This is a group setting and it seems that most in the group are repeating the same things to KAS. At some point, hopefully KAS will ask himself what is it that everyone else is noticing about him that he is not noticing – which, then, will hopefully lead to more introspection and study.
If this doesn’t happen, then there’s really no more that can be said – KAS is being willfully blind to inconsistency, and at that point, what’s the use of continuing this conversation?
Group dynamics can be a powerful way of getting feedback on the way others see you. If the group is being genuine and thoughtful, and the recipient is receptive, this can lead to positive change and growth in the blind spots we so often have.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’m keeping my fingers crossed.”
As long as you don’t hold your breath. . . 🙂
LikeLike
KAS said
But it sure matters in if abuse is even acknowledged at all, and if it is noticed, how is it dealt with, or is it brushed under the carpet, ignored?
Most complementarian churches side with male abusers, when they aren’t busy ignoring the abuse going on, or ignoring how their complementarian teachings and attitudes are enabling abuse.
I don’t think egalitarianism would prevent all abuse, but it would be more difficult for abusers to find refuge in egal doctrines or an egal church, as compared to comp doctrine and a comp church.
LikeLike
Mark wrote: Surprising, for all your hatred of Piper, …
Where on earth do you get the idea that I hate Piper? Have never remotely said or indicated that. I don’t hate anybody. I said I disagreed with him on the notion of husbands being ‘servant-leaders’, but that despite that he may be right with the use of this term.
I therefore take your claim of my being inconsistent on the comp/egal debate with a pinch of salt. I think you are seeing things that aren’t there.
I’ll try and clear on thing up. A Christian wife is instructed to submit to her husband. Everyone agrees on that across the board. It is not unconditional, she does not have to submit to sinning. Everyone agrees on that. She does not have to submit to being abused by a husband. I don’t think that is Paul’s intention at all. Submission is not obedience, it is something a wife voluntarily accepts as part of her following Christ.
Talking of which, you wrote By what authority do you define “submission” to mean obedience to every command where one is not being told to sin? I don’t think I have ever given a definition of what submit means, let alone claiming it is obedience to commands.
But where a wife has a husband who is not fulfilling his half of the bargain that Paul or Peter lists, I don’t see this as letting her off the hook as recognising him as ‘head’ and at least maintaining a submissive attitude. Similarly for the husband with a bolshy wife. He still has to care for her.
In short, obedience to apostolic doctrine for both wives and husbands is not contingent on the other party to the marriage perfectly carrying out their obligations placed on them by God. Wisdom is needed to discern when ‘imperfections’ start shading into abuse.
Regarding ‘one another’, in the examples you cite it could mean ‘everyone to everyone’ or ‘one or some to others’, or sometimes the first and on other occasions the second meaning. You have to decide by the context. We are told to ‘teach one another’, yet James said ‘let not many of you become teachers’. And we all know what Paul said on this!!
There are many reasons why in Eph 5 the reciprocal meaning isn’t tenable. In this instance there is, whether we like it or not, a difference in authority, submit (with the idea of coming into rank) to head (meaning at least some measure of authority). All of this under Christ’s authority.
Regarding the other cases where we are told to submit, such as govt or church elders, God has the highest authority and we are to submit to these lesser, though God ordained authorities, until this means disobeying God himself (‘we must obey God rather than man’) or they exceed their authority meaning interfere where they have no right to. It’s not that difficult, but in my case particularly important to understand in the days of the old heavy shepherding error. If the elders march in telling you where to take your vacation, tell them to get lost!! Politely of course.
LikeLike
Kas reply to Mark: Re: Hating Piper.
He was just saying that up thread you were trying to differentiate your variety of complementarianism from Pipers. Neither Mark nor I see much of a difference between your and Piper’s comp.
You said to Mark
I’m not sure we’re all on the same page in regards to submission and what it means and what it encompasses or “should” encompass.
You would see “submission” as more like a woman really has no choice but to obey her husband they way a subordinate employee would have to obey a supervisor at a job.
So, no, I would not agree that is what the Bible means when it asks wives to submit to their husbands.
It would not mean allowing a husband to have “final say so” in marital disputes, or having sex with him if he’s in the mood and she is not and being told she is in error or sin for refusing.
Also, I recognize that the Bible asks husbands to submit to wives, too (Ephesians 5.21), that marital submission is not unilateral on a wife’s part.
LikeLike
KAS said,
I don’t agree with this understanding of submission.
Christ was not consumed with authority.
KAS said, “There are many reasons why in Eph 5 the reciprocal meaning isn’t tenable.”
Eph 5.21 says what it says, that all are to submit to all – submit to one another, it does not make an exception for married men.
‘Head’ in koine Greek used in the New Testament does not have anything to do with “authority,” but has other connotations in that time period, it is our modern day English language that conflates the word “head” with some kind of leader or authority role.
LikeLike
KAS said,
Women are not dogs that they should “obey” a husband the way a person may expect a pet dog to obey them.
Your view again strips women of their boundaries and agency, when the Bible says each woman is responsible for her own life, her own choices, and God encourages women to have boundaries – the Bible does not teach that human men are intermediaries or priests for women (only Jesus Christ himself is the high priest for women).
As a never married, 40 something woman, I do not have to submit to any man (not in the sense comps teach), so if this submitting nonsense is non-applicable to a SINGLE (un-married) woman, there is nothing to make it applicable to a married one. Should I marry next week, I am not going to change.
I will still be the same person. It doesn’t make any sense to teach that only married women must submit to a husband, but single women don’t have to submit to anyone (in the sense comps teach).
LikeLike
KAS:
You waffled all over this and spoke out of both sides of your mouth even in your one post to Mark.
KAS, what is the point in someone having some kind of authority over someone else, if those supposedly under that authority figure, the one who is submitting to that authority, should not have to obey that person?
Because that is what you just said to Mark.
You said women should submit to a husband, but that submitting does not mean “obeying.”
On the one hand, you say in the same post that a wife is not expected to “obey” her husband, and in earlier posts on here, you were denying that husband-ly headship has anything to do with authority…
But on this very thread, later on, you have said at least once, maybe twice, that male headship does in fact connote authority….
You’ve said husband-headship denotes authority but that wives don’t have to obey their husbands.
Why does the husband supposedly have authority over the wife if she does not have to “obey” him?
KAS said
So, a Christian wife has to submit to her husband, but this does not mean she has to obey him.
KAS said,
So, you are saying that part of submission is being obedient.
KAS said,
So you are saying there that Male Headship = Authority and so a wife must therefore submit (obey) her spouse.
KAS said,
There you conflate submission with obeying.
But here you said in the same post:
KAS said,
KAS you are simultaneously defining ‘submission’ to mean the same thing as “obey” (or “obedience”) but also saying that “submission” is NOT obedience.
You believe in male hierarchy and female subordination but don’t want to come right out and just say so. But it’s obvious to most of the rest of us reading.
LikeLike
KAS said,
I have a few scenarios to run by you.
1. Suppose you have a married couple who are sitting on the couch, and the husband says to the wife, “Bring me a beer,” and she says, “No.”
She says “No” to this, for whatever reason.
Maybe she’s not in the mood to go to the fridge at that moment, or she’s sick, or she’s had a long, exhausting day at her job.
What then?
2. Suppose when deciding to eat out for dinner that the wife wants to eat out at a Tex Mex restaurant, and the husband wants to go Chinese.
What next, KAS?
3. Suppose the wife wants to have Zero children, but the husband wants tw children. What then?
4. Suppose the wife is offered a great, exciting promotion by her company, and they want her to move from City Z, where she is living now with her husband, to City X, and the wife really wants the promotion even if it means moving to a new area, but the husband does not want to move, he insists they stay put in City Z.
What then?
5. A real life example:
A complementarian husband insists his wife thoroughly clean their bath-room every night before bed and service him sexually afterwards, even though she’s told him cleaning the bathroom with a toothbrush is totally physically draining and she finds it humiliating, especially that he demands sex right after.
What then KAS?
LikeLike
KAS, “Where on earth do you get the idea that I hate Piper? Have never remotely said or indicated that. I don’t hate anybody. I said I disagreed with him on the notion of husbands being ‘servant-leaders’, but that despite that he may be right with the use of this term.”
Maybe this quote:
or this one:
It IS possible that you don’t understand what “for example” means. Because in the English language, if I say, pets are sometimes a nuisance, for example cats… then I am including cats as an example of what I’ve mentioned earlier “pets”. So, if you say “arrogant bullies” for example “Piper” then it would be quite surprising, to me, that you DON’T consider Piper to be an arrogant bully. But, that is the place on earth I got that idea, FYI.
Uneasy != Unhappy, and you don’t seem to be that uneasy about it since you are already in a position of thinking that you might be wrong. But, you go further and describe what you mean by the “authority” of the husband and the “submission” of the wife, and it is actually MORE than submission to a boss, slave owner or government, so it seems that you are simply uneasy with the WORD “lead”, not the concept.
I say this to my children. Words have meanings and they convey understanding. If you don’t want to be precise in your words, then you also can’t expect that people understand what you are trying to say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS,
This is called moving the goalposts. You set up a premise of a husband not fulfilling his obligation in marriage, then you change the premise to “perfectly carrying out”. Why do you even need perfectly, since you have already said that divorce can only be for reason of adultery or desertion.
“submit … to head” and you say you are uneasy with the idea of head=leader when you’ve stated it right here.
This is just another weaselly misdirection. You say “submit — to head” and you say this is a duty of wives. Yet, you play the game that submit is not obey it’s a game. Because, when a wife is told she is not being submissive… guess what. The evidence is lack of obedience. Just as lack of submissiveness (insubordination) to church leaders is lack of obedience. They tell you to do X and you do not do it, you’re insubordinate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daisy, “they way a subordinate employee would have to obey a supervisor at a job.”
Except a subordinate employee can choose to quit or threaten to quit.
“There you conflate submission with obeying.”
That was really well done and used his own words to prove your point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
FYI, Daisy, the comp definition of submission is stronger than obedience. Obedience can be actions without motive. That is, if I’m asked to get a beer from the fridge and I slam it down on the table, that is obedience submission is obedience plus a desire to have the right attitude.
That is why comp. children are forced to obey with a smile on their faces that’s the comp understanding of submission. Willful obedience. Authoritarian parents are taught that they must save their children’s souls by beating them for both the action and the attitude. That is what submission is to a complementarian. That’s why, I think, willing sex is so central to the comp. view of wives, because if a wife is truly submissive (both obedient and willing), then there would NEVER be an issue with a wife refusing sex.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daisy said,
“Christianity Hurts, if you are reading this, KAS has just said that when or if a wife turns down her spouse for sex, if he requests sex, she is “not submitting to her husband” is thereby “disregarding NT authority,” so he’s fine with marital rape, only with how the husband goes about it”
I noticed a long time ago that a Christian marriage legitimizes rape, slavery, and wife beating. Comp men are, none of these things will happen if you kiss my butt (be submissive to me), but if they do happen it is always your fault because if they do happen it is because you were not being submissive to me.
Doesn’t comp sound like something an incel would dream up? All men no matter how evil, for example, Doug Wilson’s beloved pedo, are deserving of at least one trapped female slave. The trapped female slave cannot refuse her husband sex and if her husband beats her she can not divorce him.
First questions to ask comps to get everything out of the way and establish that they are pro-slavery of women and pro-sex slavery of women.
Can a wife say no to her husband? If she can not then she is nothing more than a child slave.
Can a wife say no to sex? If she can not then she is a sex slave.
Can a wife divorce her husband for hitting her? If she can not then she is a trapped slave.
These are all arrangements Ariel Castro and other men like him arrange for themselves. And they are toxic for little girls who are hearing their selfish pervert fathers doing and saying them.
Comps want to say she can say not but if she does she will be condemned. Or she can not say no and it is not bad that she can not say no.
After growing up with comp men I knew as a young teenager that they were the loser men of society. They are just so selfish, perverted, insecure, vile, sexually sadistic, bratty, embarrassing, though to inexperienced and in denial to know they should be embarrassed, and evil.
LikeLike
@ Katy
“I personally, cannot stomach to even look at MD, let alone listen to this immature individual….have a difficult time calling him “a man” for I know toddlers that are more mature than he.”
Same here. I have been saying Mark Driscoll and his entire ilk act like babies for years.
Mark Driscoll and Doug Wilson both remind me of my father. And have you noticed this hyper misogynistic group of men is always going on about their faux manhoods? Begging people to acknowledge that they are men, real men, manly men.
Girls who want to be considered cool have started calling themselves cool girls the same way boys who want to be thought of as bad @sses call themselves bad @sses. There is a saying, “real bad @sses would never call themselves that.”
A real cool girl would never say I am a cool girl. She would just be cool and it would be obvious. Same for real men and real bad @sses. If they really are cool girls, bad @sses, and real men they would never have to say it and by saying it they are proving they are insecure-posers and very ninth grade.
When a man starts going on about his or other men’s manhoods red flags start going up. Insecure childish misogynist alert.
LikeLike
Mark – regarding hatred. I said
It’s no good complaining about an evangelical elite who are unloving or are arrogant bullies or in other ways unrighteous in a way that is itself unrighteous.
Unloving – the attitude of Team Pyro, and especially Johnson’s sidekicks and the commenting community there. Alternatively, the lack of awareness or concern by big name evangelicals as to what is actually going on in their midst at a local level.
Bullying – James White claims personal experience of Paige Patterson being a bully, for example. Fortunately it is not my job to have to worry about this, but I have no reason on the face of it to doubt White.
I went on to say To make judgement on Piper’s views, … His views, his doctrine, not his behaviour. I don’t know how he treats women in real life, nor how his doctrine is lived out in his former church. But from what I have read of him, his teaching would in no way justify abuse, nor does he treat women as second class.
None of that has anything to do with hating anyone.
Submit is not obey, notwithstanding traditional wedding vows. You can play games with the English saying they are simply synonyms, or that ‘head’ should be understood to mean ‘source’, but it doesn’t work if you read it in German (‘Haupt’, ‘sich unterordnen’), which supports the traditional understanding of these words used in English. Children and slaves/servants obey, but wives submit. The submission is a decision on the part of the wife as a mature adult as part of her following Christ. A husband could sinfully enforce obedience (doing what he says), but submission (an attitude of respect) could only come from the wife herself.
No-one has yet said how you settle disputes in a marriage under a mutual submission arrangement if you reject the casting vote idea. I don’t find the latter all that convincing myself at times, but what is the alternative?
I didn’t learn all this from pastors, I learned much of it from charismatics who, having been filled with the Holy Spirit, started taking the bible more seriously, and believing what the NT contains is for today, not just the first century.
If through reading and thinking I ever conclude my understanding of this is wrong or needs amending, I’ll change it. I have read enough egalitarian argument that simply isn’t convincing or raises more problems than it solves. If you want an example of this, I’ll tell you, but if not, then it doesn’t matter.
Finally for now, I noticed how you marry (sorry!) complementarianism with authoritarianism, which I don’t. I actually think this is a dangerous combination, because it can lead to head meaning absolute authority and submit meaning abject subjection, which is not what the apostle meant at all. A kind of marital heavy shepherding. This tendency to go to extremes is imo an American cultural phenomenon, and I think the source of some of the disagreement over this.
LikeLike
Daisy – I was going to bring this up earlier, and now see it has been quoted:
KAS has just said ….. so he’s fine with marital rape
I should appreciate it if you would apologise for that remark. To make the accusation that I am happy with rape, marital or otherwise, is unloving, uncalled for, unnecessary, insensitive, and blatantly untrue.
LikeLike
Christianity Hurts,
“Like” to everything you stated in your comment thread. This is precisely why I just have to laugh at those “great and wonderful” theologians who decided one day, there is such a “need” for documents on “manhood and womanhood.” And then to add further insults to our intelligence and personhood, and especially those who put their faith only in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they add the word “Biblical” to their titled documents. And if a believer, say a woman child of God, does not subscribe to their penned words, philosophies of man, and vain interpretations……
well then, we are rebellious, troublemakers, wayward – I was called this by a Baptist man who holds the title “church board member,” backslidden, “lost or unsaved in the first place,” and ultimately, that ever so popular word that is used and abused by lord it over leadership of the worst kind…….”Jezebels.”
I still believe that “taking the Name of the Lord, your God, in vain” means using His Name for personal gain…….fame, money, influence/importance. I believe we are witnessing the outcome of using God’s Name in vain, on a daily basis as we see “the institutional c’hurch” crashing and burning around us because the teachings of Jesus have been cast aside for an aggressive, abusive religious system posing as c’hristianity.
Those who worship comp, which in truth, has nothing to do with “complimenting one another,” and everything to do with bondage and oppression (the exact opposite of Jesus’ teachings), struggle with folks like meself for we do not want to be sheltered under their wings…..thank-you very much. And it bothers comps (they must not sleep at night) when we don’t ooooh and ahhhhh over their vast greatness and overwhelming worldly wisdom. Its the Diotrephes complex over and over again. And I find it rather entertaining to watch videos of these self professed “important” comp theologians, boasting and bragging each other up in their “love fests,” and Jesus is standing outside of the door of their hearts, waiting to come in and teach them. I often wonder, who has to clean up the floor when all of these men leave the premises…..probably a woman, who exhibits more humility and servanthood that all of those comp men put together.
We make decisions every day on who to follow, some are life saving/preserving while others are the way of destruction (comp theology). As for me, when the thought of possible having cancer consumed my soul for a time, it was life saving to me in filling my mind with encouraging verses, and this one comes to mind:
“Be merciful to me, O God, Be merciful to me, for in You my soul takes refuge; in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge, till the storms of destruction pass by.” Psalm 57:1. Brings such comfort to me soul, this one.
Comps replace our LORD, with man…….another form of replacement theology if you will. Comp theology, which has infiltrated the c’hurch system as a whole, has swooped in and sabotaged the Gospel of Jesus Christ, thus rendering it ineffective to both genders. The end result is comps stepping up their game and resorting every kind of evil in demanding our worship of them, thus making a lie of God’s first and greatest command.
LikeLike
“No-one has yet said how you settle disputes in a marriage under a mutual submission arrangement if you reject the casting vote idea.”
KAS many many gays, lesbians, and heterosexual couples work it out since they don’t have a selfish petty comp man having to play very important master.
Two of my great-grandfathers died young leaving behind many children and young wives. My grandparents and their brothers and sisters continued to live with my great-grandmothers for years after they graduated high school to help with money, the younger children, and protection of the family.
This was four or five adults collaborating on what is the best decisions for large poor families. It was not the oldest brother deciding, or the oldest sister, or just my great grandmothers. It was a handful of adults deciding together.
After my great-grandfather died a fire burnt down the family home. My great-grandmother and three of her oldest sons had to decide where to move and what to do.
“I should appreciate it if you would apologise for that remark. To make the accusation that I am happy with rape, marital or otherwise, is unloving, uncalled for, unnecessary, insensitive”
KAS you should apologize for all the unloving, misogynistic, insulting, hateful things you have said to and about women and people who were sexually abused as toddlers.
Insensitive! You have the same self-awareness as American comp men do. It is insensitive to tell people who were sexually abused as babies that you know people who have had it worse than them and handled it better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS,
Your belief regarding Piper’s views concerning women may be somewhat misguided and you may desire to go back and review some of his verbal communications. I “worshiped” this individual when I bolted out of my last abusive Baptist c’hurch (which in truth, is still an abusive comp c’hurch system), listening to many a podcast via the internet for “all truth” regarding the Holy Scriptures.
Miraculously, one day the light bulb was turned on by the Gospels I was reading, and I no longer required Piper’s philosophies any longer. No longer was I guilty of giving a man directions when he was lost in the outback here and needed to find his way to his destination. No longer was I a slave to the verbal abuse by neighboring male farmer’s sinful/unrighteous anger regarding agricultural issues, I was now confident in my LORD Jesus Christ, that He gave me a voice/a personhood to stand up against the abuse…..and just to let you know KAS, the men yelling at me and talking down to me regarding ag issues are in fact, “leaders” in their perspective religious systems. Recently, another angry farmer called our home and I told him point blank, “I am done being yelled at a and abused by angry neighbors, so get a pen and take down my husbands cell number and you can discuss the issues with him. And for the record, I find it amusing how they do not YELL and exhibit SINFUL ANGER with my husband……only the wife. Psalm 1:1 is appropriate here.
Also KAS, part of my work deals with men on an agricultural level. When driving semi trucks, farm equipment, etc., I don’t have the time, energy, and the awareness to determine how I should interact with “men” verses “women.” It’s just not there because I see equals, not genders, in this line of work. My main goal is working hard, working efficiently, and staying safe in addition to regarding the safety and well being of my family. None of the equipment I operate cares about the gender, for goodness sake, nor does the side business I operate from our home, which I call my own, care about the gender of my work.
Piper’s voice is but a loud gong in the middle of the Sahara Desert, which is no longer applicable in me life, Praise our LORD! And his myths regarding what is required of genders, is illogical in my line of work, thus rendering the Gospel ineffective. It is my hope that some day, he would go out an get a real job alongside of real women and men, and not be such a burden to Christ’s sheep. And after years of working hard, sweating up a storm, and being worn out/exhausted physically and mentally……..only then, perhaps he would have a platform to stand on.
No, Piper isn’t the individual to worship. This I know to be true.
LikeLike
@Katy
“I was called this by a Baptist man who holds the title “church board member,” backslidden,”
Katy, I sincerely believe most of these men do not care if Jesus ever existed or care if the bible is true or not. They are just scared misogynistic con men who do not want to work real jobs for a living. Look at other scared misogynists. The Taliban, ISIS, Ariel Castro. These men are in the most embarrassing, grossest, evil group they could be in. And they are all on self-serving power trips. They deserve no respect.
I have seen my whole life how much it pleasures comp men to demean, and physically, emotionally and sexually cause pain to women, little girls, and little boys.
Comp men are sadomasochistic towards women and children, but they put a self-serving spin on it in an attempt to make it sound biblical.
I hope you can get a happy good situation for yourself. You deserve so much better. You are one of the few who actually thinks, listens, and cares. Thet is very impressive traits. My mother spent too many years in misery. I would hate for someone as sweet as you to do that.
“Comp theology, which has infiltrated the c’hurch system as a whole, has swooped in and sabotaged the Gospel of Jesus Christ,”
They are so drunk in their own selfishness and ignorance they cant think or see. I believe it is going to get very bad for them. They are putting themselves in categories with the evilest men on the planet. They are about to make even more people lose respect for Christians.
There are many more survivors of the conservative comp homeschooling movement out there and we are going to tell the world how selfish, sadistic, hateful, evil, and totally stupid our parents were.
After September 11 I was reading online and someone had compiled a list of quotes from conservative Muslim men and conservative Christian men and they really believe much of the same toxic primitive evil slop. Rape is always the woman or child’s fault, a woman can not deny her husband sex, a woman can not divorce her husband for beating her, there is no such thing as rape in marriage, submission, submission, submission.
LikeLike
Quote.
Nope.
You have in fact defended marital rape in this thread.
You weasel word things, too, or you back-track and flip-flop when one of your views is criticized, as you are doing now.
When asked if a woman can say no to a request of sex from her husband, you said no she cannot, and you did this by appealing to a Bible verse about (paraphrase here) ‘two not depriving each other except by agreement for a season.’
You clearly are indicating that a wife may not turn down sex, because if she turns down sex with her husband, you think she is in sex and not being submissive. That is a justification for marital rape.
You are fine with husbands using spiritually abusive / emotionally manipulative tactics to pressure a wife into having sex, which is tantamount to rape.
You have only said you do not agree with a husband using (physical) force to make a wife have sex with him.
(A husband should not “force” his wife to have sex, is how you put it. That would seem to infer you do not agree with physical force.)
You have indicated in this thread you are fine and dandy with marital rape so long as you approve of HOW the husband forces the wife to have sex – you are “anti physical force” but approve of guilt tripping, spiritual abuse, shaming, emotional manipulation – and by appealing to certain Bible verses – to achieve the end results.
You, KAS, need to apologize for teaching and thinking that a wife cannot or should not be able to say no to a husband for sex whatever the timing or the reason.
KAS should apologize for the disgusting view that should a wife turn down sex, she is in some kind of violation of some kind of biblical rule or code. Your application of biblical verses is legalistic and is identical to the false type that the Pharisees used which Jesus had to correct numerous times.
And don’t ask me yet again, KAS, to explain my position on this, or how it’s not in violation of the Bible, or wifely submission, and so on, because I already spelled it out 3 to 4 times already up-thread.
Scroll up the page and look at my posts for my reasoning.
LikeLike
Correction.
Previous post I wrote,
“you (KAS) think she is in sex and not being submissive”
I meant, KAS is saying a wife who turns down a sex request from her husband is IN SIN.
Sorry about the typing error.
LikeLike
KAS said to Mark
I’ve already answered this one once or twice.
You settle a marital dispute the same way you would a secular work-place dispute: compromise, or defer to whomever has more experience on topic X.
I have never in my life caved in to the decision of a male boss or male co-worker just because he is a male.
And prey tell, why can’t it be flipped?
What is the rationale that in a dispute the p3nis- (male genitals)- wielder gets final say – why not the one with the vagina?
Saying, “because the Bible says so!” is not sufficient enough reason, KAS.
— KAS the Flip Flopper —
And yet again, you flip flop all over the place on these words and issues.
You say in that post to Mark, and in another one higher up the page, that submission is not obedience, but later on, you say, yes it is.
You’re saying submission is not about obedience, but you’re saying if a husband and wife have an argument, the wife must be obedient and give in to whatever the husband’s choice is.
You’ve denied in one post that Headship has anything to do with Authority, but later on, you said that headship denotes authority.
You cannot even keep your own complementarian beliefs straight.
LikeLike
KAS said to Mark:
KAS your attitudes and views about women and marriage are no less un-loving.
Your posting style and language may not be as condescending as are the guys at Team Pyro (a site I used to visit years ago), but your views are still unloving.
You can talk really nice and genteel on this blog but still be insensitive to the pain or considerations of others.
You’ve had at least two women on this thread – Christianity Hurts and myself – repeatedly give you first hand, eye witness testimony of how complementarianism has personally negatively impacted both of us (it played a role in CH becoming an atheist, I think she said on the last page, and it plays a role in pushing me into agnosticism), and you still remain un-moved.
Also visit the blog “A Cry For Justice” where you can see testimonies by other Christian women who will tell you how complementarianism ruined their marriages.
You do not care how your complementarian beliefs impact real, honest- to- God human beings who have been negatively influenced by it.
You have demonstrated now, for the last two or whatever weeks in the comments section on this blog, that you care more about defending this sexist swill called complementarian doctrine than you do in the safety, happiness, and well-being of real people, people the Bible says Jesus Christ loved enough to die for on the cross.
You wield the Bible in the same legalistic manner to nit pick over issues to the point you use the Bible as a weapon, and you put doctrine above people, which Jesus never did do. Jesus did the opposite: he broke the Pharisee’s interpretation of biblical rules to meet the needs of hurting people around him.
KAS said (about Piper),
KAS said
Piper told women in abusive marriages to “endure the abuse for a season.”
Here is how Piper’s complementarianism justifies abuse:
I also explain on my Daisy blog in several posts how complementarianism is deterimental to women:
_Even Warm and Fuzzy, True, Correctly-Implemented Gender Complementarianism is Harmful to Women, and It’s Still Sexism – Yes All Comps (Refuting “Not All Comps”)_
LikeLike
KAS said to Mark
You yourself, KAS, believe that complementarianism is authoritarian in nature, only that it should be done using less-violent looking means (no physical force), just lots of emotional manipulation of women, spiritual abuse, etc.
You believe that Christian men should be dictators – BENEVOLENT dictators, but a “nice” dictator is still a dictator,
And Jesus Christ said you should not seek to rule over another: and that applies to husbands, too. Husbands are not excluded from that teaching.
-Which should in turn tell you that your interpretation of Pauline passages about marriage, headship, submission, etc, are INCORRECT.
See, here you are in a previous comment page on this thread saying that complementarianism is authoritarian:
KAS quote from last page:
You yourself have indicated in the past page or two of comments that a wife must unilaterally defer to her husband (be obedient), especially in cases where there is a marital dispute.
Reminder:
KAS said,
You also said on the last page that part of Male Headship of Husbands is invested with authority (and see quotes I pasted in above).
I refer you to this post I made on the last page of comments in this thread, where I directly pasted from YOUR comment:
_KAS’ Quotes about Complementarianism_
You are not clear or consistent on your own beliefs.
One moment, you are defend the notion that Complementarianism is about a wife being obedient and a man having authority over a wife, and in a next post or even the same one, you deny those very claims you just made.
Do you even know what comp is? Are you just trolling?
LikeLike
@KAS
“his teaching would in no way justify abuse, nor does he treat women as second class.”
John Piper does treat women like second class. Maybe you and John Piper need to stop acting like 14-year-old boys who hate women and grow up. Get over yourselves and think about women’s feelings and what women say instead of selfishly ignoring them and promoting your preferred misogyny.
You and John Piper are not the ones who are being degraded, subjugated, and hurt so it is very easy for two selfish misogynist to think John Piper is not doing anything wrong when he promotes his selfish insecure feeble man preferences.
John Piper is an extream misogynist. He thinks a woman should take wife beating for a night, not divorce her husband for beating her, and coddle and protect the wife beater’s manhood and feelings as she is dealing with being abused. He also giggled about wife abuse.
You have consistently proved yourself to be a mean-spirited, heartless, misogynist. Of course, you would defend John Piper’s misogyny.
LikeLiked by 1 person
CH to KAS:
This is also inconsistent of KAS.
A few days ago, KAS was assuring Mark and myself that his brand of complementarianism is nothing like the horrible, wacky, abusive, type as promoted by Piper.
No sir, KAS follows the saner, kinder, type of European complementarianism.
Now KAS is defending Piper and saying he sees nothing wrong with Piper’s complementarianism. (Mark! are you paying attention?)
KAS previously (_Source_):
Now, KAS is all protective and down with Piper:
Example 1
(KAS to Mark, at JULY 10, 2018 @ 4:16 PM):
Example 2
(KAS to Mark, JULY 11, 2018 @ 5:45 AM): _Source_)
As Mark and I said on the last page or so of this comment thread, your views on complementarianism,KAS, are really are not so different from Piper’s, though you tried to paint it as such earlier.
Now you’re even defending Piper and Piper’s complementarianism.
LikeLike
Had another thought about this:
KAS to Mark,
Yes, Piper’s complementarianism provides the grounds for justifying abuse, and he treats women as second class citizens.
I mentioned one example or aspect of this on a previous page in this comment thread here:
_Daisy’s Comment About How Piper’s Complementarianism is Abusive and Sexist (one aspect there-of)_
I also discussed this further up-thread or the bottom of the last comment page on this thread.
LikeLike
(Part 1)
I almost forgot to comment on this:
KAS said,
That’s a distinction without a difference, because what do you do when your wife REFUSES to voluntarily “submit” to your choice or your preference, KAS?
What is the practical out-working of your gender theology?
Should I ever marry, I refuse to “voluntary submit” to whomever my husband is (in the way comps teach this). What now, KAS?
KAS said,
Here’s what the Bible says (1 Peter 2:18-3:7 New International Version (NIV):
KAS said,
The New Testament of the Bible was mainly written in koine Greek, not in German.
Trying to understand what the original biblical writers meant by parsing German or English translations is not terribly helpful or accurate.
Of course, when I gave you a link or two and pasted in comments that did deal with the koine Greek and how the translators of the Septuagint (Greek NT) translated words such as “Kephalē” you pooh-poohed actual scholarship by dismissing it by simply tossing insults at it.
From _“God’s Design” Blog_:
LikeLike
KAS said,
What?
You just said that only slaves are to obey (be obedient), not wives, but here you are equating obedience with submission. Please make up your mind.
I can respect a person without being “submissive” to that person.
And you are here again yourself conflating “submitting” to obedience.
You want to have it both ways – argue that biblical submission as you understand it is not about obedience, but then framing it as being that very thing, when you say that if a husband forces his supposed justly deserved obedience from his wife, he is doing so “sinfully.”
BTW, Prior to the Fall, as mentioned in the book of Genesis, God said both the man and woman were totally made in His image and both were to rule over the planet.
The Bible says back in Genesis that one outcome of the Fall – sin entering the world – would be for men to “rule over” women.
Men ruling over women was never God’s design or intent.
Men seeking to control over women and argue for their unilateral submission, even if they are doing so very nicely without use of physical force, as you and other comps do, is an outcome of the Fall. It is a sin.
You, KAS, are perpetuating the very sin God warned Eve would befall all women after her.
LikeLike
_“Wives, Submit To Your Husbands.” Why We Mistakenly Assume This is God’s Word For Us Today_
LikeLike