Are Complementarians Tough on Abuse?

Complementarianism, Desiring God, Domestic Abuse

12017697_10153204847656818_6017274371347814815_o

-by Kathi

Desiring God featured a guest article by Rebecca McLaughlin titled, “Complementarians Should Be Toughest on Abuse.” I appreciate Dr. McLaughlin’s words and I think her intent is honorable. She addresses pastors and men to call out abuse, warns Christians to not be naive about abusers, and emphasizes that abused women need support and assistance.

Because this article is posted by Desiring God, I want to address the author’s thoughts according to how John Piper addresses marriage and focus on dynamics within domestic abuse. Why John Piper? Because Desiring God was founded by Piper and he is considered the lead teacher for the site. Any guest posts should be compared to what Piper has set as precedent for the site.

1. God calls husbands to sacrificial love:

McLaughlin says:

Some summarize complementarian theology as “husbands lead, wives submit,” but this is not what the Bible says. God calls wives to submit (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1). But the primary command to husbands is not lead. It is love (Ephesians 5:25, 28, 33; Colossians 3:19).

Her point does not fit the Desiring God narrative on complementarian relationships. John Piper defines headship and submission as:

Headship is the divine calling of a husband to take primary responsibility for Christ-like, servant leadership, protection, and provision in the home.

Submission is the divine calling of a wife to honor and affirm her husband’s leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts.

Let’s not forget Piper’s, “Should Women Be Police Officers?” :

On the other hand, husband and wife, very personal and, hence, the clear teaching of the New Testament that the man should give, give leadership in the home and she give glad partnership in supporting and helping that leadership uh come, come into its own.

There is no way to work around complementarian’s view of the husband as the leader, especially when the wife’s role is to honor, affirm, and support her husband’s leadership. The “primary command” may be to love, but he is definitely the leader.

2. Strength is for honoring, not control:

Why is McLaughlin solely focusing on physical strength?

From a biblical perspective, the relative physical strength of men is not a tool for power play, but a motivation for empathy and honor.

Physical strength is not the only tool used in abuse.  She neglects addressing how words and manipulation are used in verbal and emotional abuse. A man may never use physical strength against his wife, but is still able to show power and convey his strength through his words, intimidation, and manipulation.

Strength is important in the complementarian view of man. Piper’s definition of headship includes protection. He used the following illustration as a definition of manhood:

Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.

dv3

The article where Piper states this addresses women in combat roles. He opines how men are naturally not able to follow a woman’s direct orders. Why did he even need to address this? Is a complementarian man that afraid that his manhood is being compromised if he has a woman with some type of authority over him?

The driving force behind abuse is power and control. While abuse may happen in any type of marriage, complementarianism provides structure to a marriage which allows power and control to exist. As long as men and women are different in roles and responsibility, there will always be a power differential.

3. Spousal abuse is gospel-denying sin:

For the most part I like what McLaughlin is saying here. I think she could do without the “gospel-denying” bit. The gospel is about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Sin is sin. She does call pastors to hold abusers accountable and support victims.

**Side note: Is she teaching men here? Does McLaughlin writing  this article go against complementarian doctrine of the role of women in the church?

But what about the victim? How should she respond to her abuser? Let’s not forget John Piper’s words in 2009 (from video below):

If it’s not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.

 

**I will never stop referencing this video. I hope he is held accountable one day for his callous remarks about women affected by abuse.

Piper followed up with a post four years later to “clarify” his statement. His clarification only added bringing in civil authorities:

This legitimate recourse to civil protection may be done in a spirit that does not contradict the spirit of love and submission to her husband, for a wife may take this recourse with a heavy and humble heart that longs for her husband’s repentance and the restoration of his nurturing leadership.

While he did state in this clarification post that abuse is wrong, he neglected to state that what he said was wrong. He continued to reiterate the view that women must submit, whether it be to civil or church authorities or to her husband. At what point do complementarians think that it is dangerous for a woman to submit? How many women continued to endure abuse because John Piper says that a wife’s role is to submit to her husband?

4. Jesus teaches vulnerability and protection:

From McLaughlin:

Due to its distortions and misuses, some believe complementarian theology must be abandoned to keep women safe. But imagine Paul and Peter had said nothing about wives. An unthoughtful pastor might use Jesus’s own words to justify sending a woman back into a dangerous situation. “Do not resist the one who is evil,” says our Lord. “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). In Christ, we all enter the world with a posture of vulnerability.

With this I reference back to unthougthful Piper and his words: “she endures perhaps being smacked one night.” Remember, he never said that he provided wrong advice.

5. You’re twice as safe with a Christian man:

In McLaughlin’s final thought she says:

No woman wants to acknowledge spousal abuse. Many will suffer in silence, while their husbands maintain a godly pretense. We need you to work with your wives and sisters in Christ to ensure that no one in your sphere is issuing scars or hiding them. We need you to be like Christ to your wives, and to be like Christ in your church, speaking up with courage, standing up for women, and hating abuse in all its forms. Twice as safe is not enough — let’s make women a hundred times safer with Christian men.

What I struggle with most about this article is that even though I think the author’s intent is to bring awareness about domestic abuse and accountability toward abusers, she holds on to the premise that a complementarian marriage should be the answer for abuse. The words are good, but the fact remains that there is a hierarchy in marriage and the church. Remember Piper’s definition of submission for a wife. The wife’s role is to “honor and affirm her husband’s leadership.” Why does she not have any autonomy on her own? The husband’s headship is to be the leader of the home. Why does the weight of this fall solely on the husband’s shoulders? Why can’t the two work as one?

Are there good, non-abusive complementarian marriages out there? Of course there are. And for those people I say, “I wish you well.” Even though the good exists doesn’t mean the bad marriages do not. It is for this reason that I have a problem with a non-essential gospel doctrine that enables power and control to an abusive spouse.

102 comments on “Are Complementarians Tough on Abuse?

  1. I think non-egalitarians are caught in a quandary. They are told over and over that their “husband leads” model is the Biblical model, but then see it failing in practice. It is a well-known statistic that a strong belief that a husband leads his wife is strongly correlated with wife abuse. The explanation is that those folks were not really practicing the ‘husband leads” model, which is a version of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

    I think a marriage depends greatly on the spiritual maturity of the spouses. So either an egal or non-egal marriage model might result in a loving marriage. But what happens when those who are less spiritually mature marry? These is the rub. The egal model is much preferred in this case, I think, and it will even help both spouses become more spiritually mature.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. No, no, no, complementarians are not “tough on abuse.”

    Complementarians offer lots of rhetoric on this subject, saying they are against abuse, but they are not. Their actions show they do not take abuse seriously. Their actions, when confronted with actual abuse, show they do not take abuse seriously. In actions, they almost always side with the abuser.

    Complementarians will often advise domestic violence victims (usually wives), to remain with their abusive husbands and just endure the abuse, pray and submit to the abuser more (which only enables abuse to continue, it will not stop abuse).

    If comps were truly against abuse, they’d help the abused women get out of these abusive marriage, not teach them to stay and tolerate it, not tell them that divorce is never an option.
    (cont’d in part 2)

    Liked by 2 people

  3. (part 2)
    The only reason Southern Baptists (who are officially complementarian) even began addressing decades of sexual abuse or harassment cover-ups of women by men in Christian churches and schools in recent months is due to the shifting climate brought about by the “Me Too” movement, where organizations are now expected by the public to actually deal with sexual harassment or abuse, and not cover it up or ignore it.

    If not for “Me Too” (and the accompanying “Church Too“) movements, I don’t think the SBC would have given the sexist swine and abuser cover-upper, Paige Patterson, the boot.

    (And even then, they were initially going to kick him out with a huge pay check or some kind of benefits, until they got public blow back for that.)

    I have explained and explained on the _Discuss: What Can Men Do to Help Remove Misogyny from the Church? Inquiring Elder Wants to Know._ thread on THIS blog how it is that complementarianism is itself abusive and sexist, and how it enables and perpetuates sexism and abuse of girls and women.

    By its nature, complementarianism is abusive.

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

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

    Like

  4. Kathi (or Julie Anne?) wrote in the OP:

    Physical strength is not the only tool used in abuse.

    She neglects addressing how words and manipulation are used in verbal and emotional abuse.

    A man may never use physical strength against his wife, but is still able to show power and convey his strength through his words, intimidation, and manipulation.

    Yes. Thank you for mentioning that.

    I was just explaining this in the _Discuss: What Can Men Do to Help Remove Misogyny from the Church? Inquiring Elder Wants to Know._ thread on THIS blog that not all force has to be physical in nature.

    We have a complementarian in that thread, KAS, suggesting that it’s acceptable for Christian husbands to manipulate and emotionally and spiritually abuse their wives into having sex, even if the wives do not want to have sex for whatever the reason, and he thinks this can or should be accomplished by quoting Bible verses at them, meant to suggest that a wife does not have a right to have boundaries, that she is “in sin” if she turns down a husband’s request for sex.
    (Even though the Bible does actually say that each individual, married or no, has a right to have and practice boundaries).

    Sometimes abusers use emotional tactics, psychological tricks / pressure, or verbal abuse or threats of violence (no actual violence needed in some cases), to shame, scare, or intimidate a victim into doing whatever they want to do to them.

    And, the flip side of the coin, complementarians raise girls and women to automatically cave in. I was brought up complementarian, and among other things, I was taught it was wrong for me, as a girl and woman, to be assertive, defend myself, to fight back (even politely) when or if I was mistreated or abused.

    Compementarianism conditions women to tolerate abuse, and in some cases, comps teach women it’s their “godly duty” or a “mark of Jesus” to tolerate abuse (or garden variety mistreatment), and to tolerate it all quietly or cheerfully.

    It’s a bunch of abusive, dangerous, sexist hog-wash.

    Like

  5. Here I am quoting the blogger “Captain Cassidy” who in turn is quoting Shaw (_Source_)
    – I thought this was a nice summary of the situation:

    As Susan Shaw, a feminist and formerly-Baptist minister, writes:
    ~ ~ ~ ~
    “Here, the fundamentalists draw from the rhetoric of feminism even as they oppose it,” she said.

    “While espousing a belief in the equality of women and men, they reinforce patriarchal family structures that disadvantage and control women.

    These statements attempt to appease women’s sense of fairness and need for self-worth, all the while maintaining them in a subordinate position, completely reliant on the benevolent protection of men.”

    And sometimes, the male leadership is not benevolent.

    When that happens, the men throw the women who come to them complaining of abuse or mistreatment, under the bus.

    Complementarians are more concerned with maintaining their complementarian theology and male power (which is dubbed “male headship” or “servant leadership”) than they are in helping people who are being abused, even if the people are being abused because of complementarianism, and/or are being abused by a complementarian person or complementarian church.

    Like

  6. Carmen said,

    I can sense Daisy’s blood boiling from here. . 🙂

    I hope I’ve not disappointed. 🙂
    I’ve not even finished reading all the OP yet, I’ve read about one third or so down the page. I’m actually fairly calm right now.

    The real fun will start if or when 2 or 3 certain male members will hi-jack this thread, as they do, to say that complementarianism is not abusive, it’s quite good and biblical,

    And at least one or two of those three will argue, aren’t women sometimes mean and abusive to other women, so let’s detract from the more common male-on-female abuse and sexism to complain about… women.

    That will set me off.

    Like

  7. Are Complementarians Tough on Abuse?

    Only when it doesn’t conflict with Privilege of Highborn Rank.

    (Even if that Highborn Rank means nothing more than having a Y Chromosome and a penis.)

    Liked by 1 person

  8. @Daisy:

    The real fun will start if or when 2 or 3 certain male members will hi-jack this thread, as they do, to say that complementarianism is not abusive, it’s quite good and biblical,

    Keyword: MALE Members.

    Like

  9. @Daisy:

    Complementarians are more concerned with maintaining their complementarian theology and male power (which is dubbed “male headship” or “servant leadership”)

    i.e.
    “I Know I’m Right!
    I HAVE A PENIS!”

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Regarding this part:

    5. You’re twice as safe with a Christian man:

    I could write volumes here. No, you are not “more safe” with a Christian man.

    I gave up on the “Equally Yoked” dating and marriage rule Christians advocate, for a few different reasons. (This is the rule that says Christians should only marry other Christians.)

    One reason I no long abide by the Equally Yoked rule and would actually rather marry a Non-Christian man at this point is because I’ve seen or read about too many self-professing Christian men who are abusive, perverted, or selfish.

    There are many, many news items from years past of Christian men who have been arrested for domestic violence, seeking to have sex with minors, one story was a Christian guy who was seeking to have sex with a dog, some show up in news stories for being caught in prostitution ring crack-downs, etc. etc.

    There was a news story a few years ago of a Christian preacher who was married to a woman.
    He murdered her (or tried to, I’d have to look up the article again to refresh my memory) because he was dumping his wife to go off to Europe, I think it was, to have an affair with his new male lover.

    I could go on. I could paste a billion links here with these examples.
    (cont’d part two)

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Part 2.
    Kathi quoting McLaughlin:

    No woman wants to acknowledge spousal abuse. Many will suffer in silence, while their husbands maintain a godly pretense. We need you to work with your wives and sisters in Christ to ensure that no one in your sphere is issuing scars or hiding them.

    We need you to be like Christ to your wives, and to be like Christ in your church, speaking up with courage, standing up for women, and hating abuse in all its forms. Twice as safe is not enough — let’s make women a hundred times safer with Christian men.

    That ship has sailed, lady.
    That horse is out of the barn.

    I’ve seen nothing about Christianity to show that Christian men are “safer” for women than Non-Christian men.

    Some Christian men might be ethical, empathetic, and compassionate, but it seems to me that most are lacking in this area, and they’re not much better than the Muslim guys who are into Sharia law (where Islamic women are greatly oppressed), etc.

    OP quote:

    … she holds on to the premise that a complementarian marriage should be the answer for abuse.

    A post on another blog that discusses that same point, and similar things:

    _The Fruits of Complementarianism_

    Complementarianism is not an answer for abuse – complementarianism sets up the dynamics that encourages abuse of women, and the cover up of such abuse, to take place.

    Like

  12. Kathi (or Julie Anne?) asked,

    Why does she not have any autonomy on her own? The husband’s headship is to be the leader of the home. Why does the weight of this fall solely on the husband’s shoulders? Why can’t the two work as one?

    One of the most disgusting things to me about complementarianism is how, when or if, girls and women practice their boundaries, when they know and feel that they are being treated abusively or unfairly,
    if and when they assert themselves, and stand up to the perp (if it happens to be a male),
    complementarians horribly misconstrue this reaction to be a case of a woman supposedly trying to “usurp a man’s authority.”

    How disgusting, reprehensible, and evil it is to teach people that when one person rightly stands up against mistreatment (when they practice having boundaries, as they should be doing!), that they are in error or “in sin” for doing so.

    To characterize healthy and normal self-defense and self-preservation as being some supposed violation of “usurpation” or as some other type of sin is so disgusting. It plays a part in how and why men are able to get away with abusing girls and women in complementarian families and churches.

    Complementarism is evil. It is so vile. It takes behaviors, situations, and attributes that God says are wrong, horrible, or sinful, and depicts them as being wonderful, godly, and virtuous.

    And with that, I need to take a break to go do some stuff and maybe eat lunch.

    Like

  13. I think this is parallel to the “Black Lives Matter” debate. It seems there is a definitional problem with the authority policemen have been given (deadly force), the overwhelming “circle the wagons” response by those in authority when policemen fail to follow department protocols in using deadly force, and the overwhelming denial that being in a certain group of people (black) greatly increases the likelihood that someone is going to get shot by police.

    The authoritarian “Police Lives Matter” are essentially saying that it is okay to sacrifice a few people here and there to maintain strong police protection, and that we ought to “trust the system”.

    I think the overall problem is that “the system” has been giving police more authority (chipping away at our rights) and less responsibility (not being held liable for violating laws or policies). Not surprisingly, the result is less safety and less rights, not less rights and more safety.

    This is the same rhetoric we hear from authoritarian/comp camps. Women are supposed to get “more safety” by not taking karate lessons, not going to college, etc., and let the men “take responsibility”, but when men either abuse their power, or they do not fulfill their calling, “the system” refuses to hold them accountable.

    So, we need to get to the core of this. It’s a definitional problem. Giving men and police more authority and more autonomy has made the problem worse, not better. Taking rights away from women and citizens has made the problem worse, not better. Trusting the “system” to take care of men and police who are abusive and neglectful has made the problem worse, not better.

    Like

  14. Daisy
    JULY 10, 2018 @ 9:51 AM
    Kathi (or Julie Anne?) wrote in the OP:

    Physical strength is not the only tool used in abuse.

    She neglects addressing how words and manipulation are used in verbal and emotional abuse.

    A man may never use physical strength against his wife, but is still able to show power and convey his strength through his words, intimidation, and manipulation.

    Yes. Thank you for mentioning that.

    May I also suggest financial abuse be added to the list? It’s often missed when talking about abuse in general and more so when discussing abuse within a religious context.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. “You’re twice as safe with a Christian man:”

    Perhaps the main reason this is not a true statement is because the church is actively teaching Christian men that they are entitled… entitled to power and control and all the evil that goes with power and control. So while it is great to be in a marriage where 2 people share the same faith and values, there is a lot more involved in that than just slapping the term “Christian” in front of it. Instead of looking for a “Christian” husband, a girl should be looking for a “Christ-like” husband. And Christ did not come to be served, but to serve. He never pressured anyone to submit to his authority. He simply loved people and cared for them. And he also respected their freedom to walk away.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. @ Zoe.
    Oh good point. My ex financially abused me, and I feel for it. He owed me thousands and never re-paid any of it.

    Great post by Mary27.

    Julie Anne, okay, yes, I see Kathi’s name at the top. I was just in such a hurry to start tossing in my opinion I guess I didn’t see it. Great job on the post, Kathi!

    Liked by 2 people

  17. @Daisy

    We have a complementarian in that thread, KAS, suggesting that it’s acceptable for Christian husbands to manipulate and emotionally and spiritually abuse their wives into having sex, even if the wives do not want to have sex for whatever the reason, and he thinks this can or should be accomplished by quoting Bible verses at them, meant to suggest that a wife does not have a right to have boundaries, that she is “in sin” if she turns down a husband’s request for sex.

    That so totally reminded me of Phil Robertson on an episode of Duck Dynasty I saw many moons ago, where he pressures his wife on camera to have sex and throws out a Bible verse at her about not “depriving” one another. On. Camera.

    Sure, I know the entire show is totally fake. It’s not like it isn’t scripted and all that. But here’s the thing. They had to actually write that in the script on purpose. And they think it’s funny/okay. Disgusting mentality. No wooing, no maybe next time, but sheer coercion using Bible verses. Sickening.

    I got sick of that show real fast, I’ll tell ya. Why don’t people pick up on this stuff? Why do they think it’s okay? Between the whole show being fake and highly scripted, and sexist junk like that, and portraying men whose beards make them look homeless and who are hardly in shape being married to smoking hot wives….it was reason #387 why I decided I’d had enough paying a monthly cable bill for lousy TV shows.

    I bet KAS just loves Duck Dynasty.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Clockwork said

    That so totally reminded me of Phil Robertson on an episode of Duck Dynasty I saw many moons ago, where he pressures his wife on camera to have sex and throws out a Bible verse at her about not “depriving” one another. On. Camera.

    I think that is the very same verse KAS was using on the other thread to imply that a married Christian woman cannot turn down sex with her husband, because she would be in violation of the Bible…. at the same time, he was implying he’s against the use of physical force to force a wife to have sex.

    But he seems totally fine with a husband using guilt trips, emotional manipulation, and spiritual abuse, to coerce a Christian wife into sex she doesn’t want to have.

    He’s now on the other thread waffling (my post on that _here_)…

    He’s wanting to soft pedal complementarianism and its implications so it does not look as sexist and abusive as it is, I’m afraid he’s not as slick about it as are famous comps such as John Piper and the rest.

    Like

  19. I think what bothers me, besides the comp thing in general, is that a lot of those sites don’t allow comments, so people will only get one very limited perspective. I suppose it’s all part of the control factor at every level, but I would love to see a comment section that actually allows an honest discussion. And just to make it biblical, proverbs 18:17…
    The one who states his case first seems right,
    until the other comes and examines him.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Here’s the problem I have with the whole argument. We are still looking for external causes of abuse,as if headship causes domestic violence. The problem being it’s not that simple, and victims can be deceived, falsely concluding that an egalitarian or even a feminist marriage will somehow protect them. But abuse is all over the secular world too, and people who have never even heard of complementarians can still use power and control to abuse their spouse. The very nature of abusers is to seek out justification and cover for their own behavior. If it isn’t distortions of the bible, it will be something else. We know there are healthy complementary marriages and we know there are very toxic egalitarian ones. We know domestic violence thrives completely outside of the church, too. So the roots of domestic violence are not a simple matter of “the problem with hierarchies.” Leadership can be a wonderful thing and not exploitative at all.

    Like

  21. insanitybytes22 — I am not suggesting that egalitarian marriages do not encounter abuse. Abuse happens among any type of marriage, in any religion, in any socioeconomic household, by any member of the family, in any…. the list can go on. Abuse happens because of power and control. It’s really that simple (yet very complicated).

    My point here is that the structure of complementarian marriage, with husband as leader and wife support the husband’s leadership, helps enable the abusive husband because of the design of the structure. Comps take it further and say that a woman has no role in leadership of the church and must submit to that leadership.

    I’ve heard too many stories from women from comp backgrounds who have been told by their church leadership that they need to submit to their husbands more, pray more, and trust God more. I do find this article refreshing in that the author calls out pastors to listen to and assist victims. But, she’s a woman telling male church leadership what they must do. Will they listen?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Insanitybytes22 said

    Here’s the problem I have with the whole argument. We are still looking for external causes of abuse,as if headship causes domestic violence. The problem being it’s not that simple, and victims can be deceived, falsely concluding that an egalitarian or even a feminist marriage will somehow protect them.

    But abuse is all over the secular world too, and people who have never even heard of complementarians can still use power and control to abuse their spouse.

    The very nature of abusers is to seek out justification and cover for their own behavior. If it isn’t distortions of the bible, it will be something else. We know there are healthy complementary marriages and we know there are very toxic egalitarian ones. We know domestic violence thrives completely outside of the church, too. So the roots of domestic violence are not a simple matter of “the problem with hierarchies.” Leadership can be a wonderful thing and not exploitative at all.

    Complementarianism is not really about “leadership,” it’s about male control of women and advocating the unilateral submission on the part of women – comps try to convince women this is a good thing, that they should give up their boundaries voluntarily..

    Also, as I was just saying on this thread, or maybe the other one with KAS, I don’t think egalitarianism will necessarily stop all abuse of women, in or out of marriage, but complementarianism makes it easier for abuse to be covered up, ignored, brushed off, or perpetuated in the first place.

    And, as I just said up thread:

    By its nature, complementarianism is abusive.

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

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

    If you’re a Christian, you would likely recognize that sin is ultimately the heart of the problem, and sin can be carried out in or among anyone or any group, whether they profess to be complementarian or egalitarian.

    God predicted in Genesis that men would commit the sin of seeking to have control of women and to dominate women.
    Complementarianism seeks to add a biblical justification to that sin, by saying it’s God’s will or design that men be in charge of women.
    You won’t find that sort of thinking or defense in egalitarianism, which would make it a tad more difficult for anyone to cover up their abuse of women in an egal church or egal marriage.

    Like

  23. “Physical strength is not the only tool used in abuse. ”

    My complementarian father did beat my teenage mother in her face because I was sick and crying as a sick baby. He is the one who FORCED her to get pregnant with me. I was used as the bondage and chains the loser needed to keep a woman in his life.

    I remember laying in bed as a little girl and hearing my father scream and cuss my mother saying that her parents did not love her and would not do anything for her. It is true they did not love her at all, if they did they would have never let their underage daughter get married, especially to my father. He was telling her her parents did not love her to further isolate her. He also went to all her friends and told them to stay away from her. My father was a huge man with a very bad repedation; everyone in our small town was afraid of him. My mother was so hurt not knowing until after my father died why her friends cut her out of their lives.

    The second my mother married my father her life turned to HELL. She was born and raised in comp and her pervert unloving parents did not believe a woman could divorce her husband for anything. I will always consider my mother’s parents to be scum bags for picking my father over their own trapped, used, degraded, abused, very young daughter’s side.

    My comp father did not love my mother at all and her comp parents did not love her at all and like the good little Christian girl she was brainwashed to be she kissed their @sses their whole lives.

    Abusers also try to separate their victims from a loving protective voice and try to make their victims hate themselves and feel hated.

    My father did not want my mother working. If she had a job she would have her own money and have a better chance of leaving him. And his sicko ego needed a stay at home wife. My father told my mother that he would get custody of my sister and me and he would get the house. My mother was trapped with an extremely evil bottom of the barrel man. He was born and raised in the Southern Baptist Convention and his father was a Southern Baptist preacher.

    Watching the toxic hell our comp father put our mother through has made my sister and me terrified of marriage. We probably never will get married. It is not worth it.

    Like

  24. insanitybytes22

    It is rude and selfish when someone is trying to talk about and acknowledging the victims of a system and people try to make up excuses for the system and change the subject to what other people are doing wrong.

    If the topic is the victims of homeschooling pro homeschoolers come on and change the subject to how bad public school is.

    If the topic is priest raping little boys someone comes on and changes the subject to child sexual abuse in Hollywood.

    It looks like people are trying to sweep victims of their selfishness under the rug and silence the victims of their selfishness.

    Emagine how it would look if the topic was all the pain and cruelty Boko Haram has heaped on their little girl wives and someone comes on and tried to change the subject to Hollywood perverts. The victims of Boko Haram would be swept under the rug to Boko Harams benefit and happiness.

    My mother and I were both born and raised in complementarianism and it ruined her whole life and my childhood. When I was sixteen because of comp I told my mother I wish she had aborted me and she said she wished her mother had aborted her too. We were used, degraded, trapped-slaves all because of the selfish, sexually sadistic, demeaning, extremely misogynistic, man-worshipping, evil slop that is complementarianism.

    By the age of sixteen, I still believed in God and I decided I would rather die and go to hell than ever be married to a Christian man. Comp men should be ashamed of themselves for this but I know they are too shallow, selfish, immature, wicked, under a rock dumb, hateful, misogynistic, and heartless to be.

    Having been born in comp it made the sexual abuse of me much easier for an extremely misogynistic pedophile. He was also head over heels in love with husband/father power and wifely submission.

    I was told I had to be amiable, meek, and kiss kiss kiss male @ss at all cost. Women who tell men no and hurt men’s egos are feminist, Jezebel, rebellious, unsubmissive c***s. Men always have ALL the power. Women were created for them.

    As a little girl growing up in comp I never had any good positive feelings towards God. He was just some pro-rape, misogynistic, man-worshipping, terrorist that was glutton to set me on fire forever if I ever told a man no or did not make all men feel good about themselves. Comp god was nothing more than a sadistic misogynistic pimp.

    I am an atheist now and so is my sister. We were both raised in conservative homeschool and in comp. We have very negative feeling towards or parents and all things Christian. If only our father did not have to be such a petty, selfish, spoiled, entitled, misogynist. And our pervert grandparents had not raised our mother to be a brainwashed, self-hating, trapped little girl slave for some loser comp man.

    Like

  25. @Daisy

    I think that is the very same verse KAS was using on the other thread to imply that a married Christian woman cannot turn down sex with her husband, because she would be in violation of the Bible…. at the same time, he was implying he’s against the use of physical force to force a wife to have sex.

    But he seems totally fine with a husband using guilt trips, emotional manipulation, and spiritual abuse, to coerce a Christian wife into sex she doesn’t want to have.

    Yikes! KAS sounds like a medieval church canon lawyer. No, really. “Marital debt” was a thing in Western Europe. It used to be a mortal sin to refuse your spouse, even if your spouse’s “request” conflicted with a Holy day when you were supposed to abstain, or was irrational, etc. At least it was considered a two-way street, i.e, the wife could insist and the husband had to comply, but that’s just cold comfort really.

    Interestingly enough, I found some months ago an academic paper on the Byzantine interpretation of the “marital debt” verse, and how the Byzantine church fathers interpreted that verse differently from their Western counterparts. For example, John Chrysostom thought it had to do with the couple’s finances and marital fidelity, not with sex. The author of the paper concluded that the differences in Western and Eastern interpretation were due to Westerners thinking married sex was at the very least a venial sin, whereas Easterners thought that married sex was not sinful at all. Westerners had to come up with a reason for married people to have sex, hence the marital debt doctrine.

    If anyone is interested, here’s the link to the paper.

    It’s fascinating that that verse can be interpreted so differently. Not interpreting that verse as referring to marital debt is even more compelling since the Byzantine church fathers read Greek natively.

    Anyway, more canon fodder to aim at people like KAS. 😉

    Like

  26. “You’re twice as safe with a Christian man:”

    This is just a lie. A very selfish and heartless one. After growing up in homeschool I have learned how much some Christians lie. If they don’t like something that is true or they want to pretend something is true that isn’t they just lie. I have wondered if my father was just a stupid rube or was he deliberately lying.

    In my thorough experience comp men are always the ones to degrade, use, demean, mock, belittle, be mean-spirited, disrespect, sexually abuse children, rape their wives, and beat their wives. And their selfishness and total lack of self-awareness make them not even have the sense to be ashamed of this.

    I would advise my friends who I am very protective of to date my cousins who do not go to church and stay away from my cousins that do go to church.

    “Strength is important in the complementarian view of man. Piper’s definition of headship includes protection.”

    If comp was about protection of women and children comp men would not be coddling pedophiles, child sexual abusers, or wife beaters. Who gets the protection in comp? Wife beaters and child rapist. There is no protection for women and children in comp at all. In comp women and children have to hurt and live in misery to make the comp father/comp husband feel good about his feeble manhood and childish authority. Just another self-serving lie comp men peddle.

    Comp is about making sure the vilest most unatractive men get their butts kissed by women.

    Men who beat their wives do not deserve to be coddled. Comp says we are going to make sure ick wife beater gets everything he wants.

    Men who sexually abuse children do not deserve to be coddled. Comp says we are going to make sure ick child sexual abuser gets coddle; even coddled by the child he sexually abused.

    Comp was created by insecure, evil, selfish, sadistic, unattractive, childish, pervert, users and abusers of women and children for insecure, evil, selfish, sadistic, unattractive, childish, pervert, users and abusers of women and children.

    Like

  27. “I am an atheist now and so is my sister. We were both raised in conservative homeschool and in comp. We have very negative feeling towards or parents and all things Christian. If only our father did not have to be such a petty, selfish, spoiled, entitled, misogynist.”

    I actually grew up home schooled in a really abusive atheist cult, so perhaps you can understand some of my concerns here. My mother frequently stayed in abusive situations because you don’t want to shame such a good feminist man, a man who is obviously “empowering” women, violently if necessary.

    Later I went on to become a domestic violence/sexual assault counselor, in a very secular area, so I saw major abuse justified in every imaginable way.

    Atheism is NO protection from abuse. I can understand how religious hypocrisy and violence can drive someone away from faith, but I think it’s really important to recognize that it is not necessarily the path to safety. Many people,like my mother, simply go from the fat, right into the fire.

    Like

  28. WHAT is an ‘atheist cult’??
    The definition of atheist: disbelief in god(s) THAT’S IT . . . so explain please.

    Like

  29. Well, you just take your non belief in gods, add some doomsday, end of the world stuff, flee out into the wilderness and set yourself up an atheist cult. Then you use isolation, fear, power, and abuse to control those around you.

    The purpose of my comment wasn’t to confront atheism however, it was to address this idea that often seems to suggest that dismantling religious structures will rid the world of abuse and exploitation. I think that can be a dangerous misconception.

    Like

  30. The ‘doomsday, end of the world stuff’ is a religious concept. And you still haven’t told me what an atheist cult is. . . because there’s no such thing. Which you know.

    Like

  31. Insanity B said,

    Atheism is NO protection from abuse. I can understand how religious hypocrisy and violence can drive someone away from faith, but I think it’s really important to recognize that it is not necessarily the path to safety. Many people,like my mother, simply go from the fat, right into the fire.

    I don’t think anyone here has said that atheism is protection from abuse or has made that claim.

    As someone who’s been drifting away from the Christian faith myself the last few years (but who has not made a total break from it), I’m sympathetic to CH’s attitude here.

    I think the hypocrisy is maybe harder to swallow.

    Religious people (Christians in particular) often make claims about how their belief system makes them more moral and behave better than others.

    But they will either act in opposition to those stated beliefs, or find some Bible verse to justify their bad behavior – like on this thread, for example, sexism is coined by the term “complementarianism,” where Christian men mis-use the Bible to support their control of women.

    They actually make the disgusting claim that their deity supports men having control over women.

    I have read articles that atheists in the U.S.A. have a problem with sexism (I’ve seen atheist women say they’ve quit attending atheist conferences due to this), but at least the sexist atheist men are not necessarily acting in opposition to some higher ideal, one related to a deity.

    I’d expect more, or better behavior, from people who say they believe in a God and that God has told them to treat women with respect and consideration (this is what comps claim).

    Complementarians claim their comp makes them treat women better, and that comp itself protects girls and women from abuse, but there are too, too many stories by complementarian women who testify otherwise (including myself, including CH).

    I do not want any part of comp anymore, and I can understand CH wanting to walk away from the Christian faith altogether.

    But the main topic of this blog post is, “Are complementarians tough on abuse?,” not, “Who treats women worse, Atheists or Christian Complementarians?”

    Like

  32. Carmen said

    The ‘doomsday, end of the world stuff’ is a religious concept. And you still haven’t told me what an atheist cult is. . . because there’s no such thing. Which you know.

    I have read of cults before that don’t seem to have a belief in a deity as part of their teachings…

    For example, there are UFO cults where they think aliens are coming back in spaceships to take all cult members away from Earth.

    Some Christians define any religion or group that does not believe in the standard beliefs about Jesus (such as, Jesus is God, was raised from the dead) as being “atheistic.”

    Some Christians will refer to such religions as being “Satanic,” even if the groups say they don’t believe in Satan.

    For example, Christians often say that Wiccans are “Satan Worshippers,” even though they claim that is not true, or some may say they don’t believe in a Satan person at all.

    (From the perspectives of some Christians though, Wiccans and other similar groups are ultimately worshipping Satan, but unknowingly.)

    Maybe that is what Insanity Bytes was trying to say (??)

    Like

  33. Insanity Bytes said,

    it was to address this idea that often seems to suggest that dismantling religious structures will rid the world of abuse and exploitation. I think that can be a dangerous misconception.

    If Christianity and all religion would vanish tomorrow, yes, there would still be pain and problems in the world, but they may be cut down a bit.

    You wouldn’t have all the people committing honor killings in the name of Allah, and so forth. You wouldn’t see Muslims going on jihads, killing all those who they consider “infidels.” You wouldn’t have Christians covering up the rapes of Christian women students at Christian universities by Christian male students.

    Other than “Jesus as Fire Insurance” concept, I’m not seeing how valuable Christianity is to me in this life.

    There are times I kind of now wish I had not been raised to believe in Christianity – if my mother were alive and knew I felt that way, it would probably grieve her a lot. And I wouldn’t want to upset her or break her heart, but this is a thought that comes to my mind every so often.

    Some of my anxiety, life long struggle with depression, dysfunctional thinking patterns, and other stuff I’ve had to deal with and un-learn, stems quite a bit from the Christianity I was raised in, which would include this sexist complementarianism garbage we’re discussing on this thread.

    I probably would not have even a third of these problems I just mentioned had I been raised in an agnostic or atheistic family, or one that was only “culturally” Christian (meaning a family that did not take the faith as seriously as it did).

    I think my mother meant well raising me to believe in Jesus and in related Christian things, and in taking me to church when I was a kid, etc, but it created so many problems for me, some of which I’m still dealing with now.

    Like

  34. No. I assure you atheist cults are quite real. I assure you that abuse, including child sexual abuse at the hands of atheists is also quite real. I’m not trying to be argumentative here, I just think the truth really matters. That wall you have just put up, that accusation that there is no such thing denies the truth of my experience and demonstrates exactly the point I was trying to make. Victims of atheist abuse hit a very similar wall that victims of churchian abuse do. We can’t speak up in a system that believes it is perfect, that believes we are lying, that perceives us as the enemy. Take away the church you still have abuse. Take away complementarianism, you still have abuse.

    A huge problem victims face is actually tribalism. It is virtually impossible to speak the truth when a variety of people are more loyal to the tribe and the ideology then they are to the well being of an individual.

    Like

  35. Carmen, a cult doesn’t have to have a belief in God or gods. It could be a veneration towards an individual. So an atheist cult could be a group of people who venerate or are devoted to a specific person.

    Like

  36. “I assure you that abuse, including child sexual abuse at the hands of atheists is also quite real.”

    No one said it isn’t.

    “I’m not trying to be argumentative here”

    It sounds like you are angry that people are speaking out on behalf of women and girls who are hurt and destroyed because of complementarian. The subject is not atheism being bad or feminism being bad. It is complementarian.

    We have talked about the misogynistic cult NXIVM, Alison Mack, and Kieth Raniere here. I don’t know if they are atheist, they probably are.

    They have many of the same fetishes and misogynistic preferences as complementarians and Islamist. I read that Kieth Raniere was telling the women that women can not be trusted to make the right decisions and women are evil. He wanted his sex slaves to be underweight but he can be as ugly and out of shape as he wants. Comp men feel the same way.

    If the topic was NXIVM and what sexually sadistic perverts Alison Mack and Keith Raniere are and someone started trying to change the subject to get the heat off of the two perverts by saying but Christian men and Muslim men treat women way worse than Keith; it would be insensitive and rude towards the victims of NXIVM.

    Women have claimed NXIVM has helped them, but I am sure the victims of NXIVM believe that doesn’t excuse the misogyny that was heaped on them.

    ISIS believe they have a good thing going for them, but I am sure the victims of their misogyny doesn’t believe that excuses the misogyny that was heaped on them.

    The Taliban believe they have a good thing going, but I am sure the victims of their misogyny doesn’t believe that excuses the misogyny that was heaped on them.

    The misogynist who is pro Sharia law think it is a very good idea, but I am sure the victims of Sharia law would vehemently disagree.

    Comps adore comp, but that does not excuse the misogyny that is heaped on their victims.

    All of these groups would no doubt say my misogyny is not misogyny and is not as bad as those other groups.

    All of them have trapped hurt women and little girls in them and older pervert women in them that do not care. All of them cater to men’s selfishness, insecurities, and misogynistic fetishes. And none of them want to be scrutinized.

    Like

  37. @insanitybytes22

    “We can’t speak up in a system that believes it is perfect, ”

    I have never heard any atheist say they are perfect or have any system at all. I have read many atheist books and go to atheist websites.

    “Take away complementarianism, you still have abuse.”

    Complementarianism promotes abuse. Just like NXIVM promoted abuse.

    Atheist do not have a misogynistic book they insist everybody live by.

    “Leadership can be a wonderful thing and not exploitative at all.”

    Can women be leaders of men?

    Like

  38. It sounds like you are angry that people are speaking out on behalf of women and girls who are hurt and destroyed because of complementarian. The subject is not atheism being bad or feminism being bad. It is complementarian.

    I am not angry. Why would I be angry? The problem is I don’t trust that the well being of women and girls is your actual motivation. The agenda here seems to be far more about trying to rid the world of religion and trying to dismantle complementarian marriage. This is a thread about an article a woman wrote about bringing DV awareness to the church. I agree with the points she made.

    Women and girls are not destroyed because of complementary marriage, women and girls are destroyed because abusers choose to be abusive.

    Like

  39. “Women and girls are not destroyed because of complementary marriage”

    That is an extremely hateful heartless selfish thing to say to someone who says it hurt her and her mother.

    “The problem is I don’t trust that the well being of women and girls is your actual motivation. ”

    My motive is to make sure no other young woman or little girl ever has the excruciating misery my mother and I had because of the pure misogyny that is complementarian.

    Do you believe my mother should have been submissive to my father?
    Do you believe my mother should have had to have sex against her will?
    Do you believe my mother could tell my father no anytime she wanted to?
    Do you believe my mother should have divorced my father for hitting her?

    The entire ideology that is complementarian hurt me very much as a little girl. It is misogyny.

    “The agenda here seems to be far more about trying to rid the world of religion and trying to dismantle complementarian marriage. ”

    Women talking about how much comp hurt them will dismantle complementarian marriages?

    Women talking about how much complementarian hurt them is trying to rid the world of religion?

    When female survivors talk about how much the Taliban hurt them are they trying to rid the world of religion?

    As a victim of complementarian, I will speak out against it just like I will speak out against the Taliban, ISIS, and Sharia law.

    Do you think the Taliban, ISIS, and Sharia law should be dismantled?

    “women and girls are destroyed because abusers choose to be abusive.”

    Complementarian is abusive, just like the Taliban, ISIS, and Sharia law is abusive.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. CH, I’m doubtful you’ll get anywhere with IB. If you look on her blog, you’ll realize very quickly that she is a big believer in the complementarian way of life. Indeed, she thinks of herself as very much a ‘godly woman’ because of it. She sees it as an antithesis of feminism, which is a filthy ‘f’ word to her. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Here’s my problem with your assertions, IB. You speak of atheism as if it’s an ideology – it isn’t. Religion is . I’ll repeat, as you just don’t seem to be getting it. Atheism is a disbelief in god(s). Period. The only reason you use it in a negative connotation is because you’ve lumped all non-believers into a group and you are opposed to them all, no matter what kind of person they may be. You conveniently forget that most atheists (a good majority of the ones I know) used to be believers. I don’t know how or why you think their personalities have changed dramatically just because they no longer believe in god(s). But then again, a good many believers seem to feel that they are morally superior just because of their belief in the supernatural.

    You wouldn’t be one of those, would you?

    Liked by 1 person

  42. “A huge problem victims face is actually tribalism. It is virtually impossible to speak the truth when a variety of people are more loyal to the tribe and the ideology then they are to the well being of an individual.”

    I agree with you on that point but I can’t help but wonder why you can’t see that it applies to you, as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. I said, “Women and girls are not destroyed because of complementary marriage, women and girls are destroyed because abusers choose to be abusive.”

    That is not hurtful,that is the truth. We need to put the blame and the responsibility fully on abusers who have chosen to be abusive. To blame the church or to blame complementarians or to blame faith itself, is to take responsibility off a specific individual who chose to hurt someone.

    I can also say that as a victim of abuse, the hostility, outrage, and denial that I often encounter from atheists is the same systematic silencing and shaming that I experienced as a child. So when you ask me questions like, “You wouldn’t be one of those, would you?” I wonder what “one of those” is?? Do you mean slutty, defiant, rebellious, a Jezebel, prone to lie, deceptive, immodest, sure to trigger male lust? Incapable of thinking critically, subhuman, slightly stupid, existing only for the benefit of men? It’s the same darn mindset, it’s the same kind of dismissal women sometimes encounter in the church.

    So that is why I wonder if your agenda is about helping women and girls or if it is just about dismantling the church?

    Like

  44. Actually, I’d be quite happy to ‘dismantle’ or at the very least ‘take the wind out of’ fundamentalists – like yourself. That , I think, would help women and girls.

    Like

  45. “That is not hurtful,that is the truth. We need to put the blame and the responsibility fully on abusers who have chosen to be abusive”

    The truth is that complementarian is abusive, it is degrading, demeaning, insulting, enslaving of women and little girls. You are being dismissive and selfish telling victims of abuse their business. But, I have never known a comp that was not selfish and heartless towards the pain they heap on women and little girls.

    Growing up comp I was taught that I had to get married right away after high school.
    I had to stay pregnant.
    I had to be submissive to my husband.
    I could never refuse my husband sex.
    There is no such thing as rape in marriage.
    If my husband raped me it would be my fault for not being submissive enough.
    If my husband beat me it would be my fault for not being submissive enough.
    I could not divorce my husband if he raped or hit me. That is my parents brainwashing me into being a trapped slave for a man.

    Are you confident enough in your complementarian to answer the questions I have asked?

    Can a woman lead a man?
    Can a wife say no to her husband?
    Can a wife say no to sex with her husband?
    Can a wife divorce her husband for hitting her?
    Can a woman get a job if she wants to work even if her husband wants her to stay home?
    Can a woman become a doctor if she wants to even if her father and husband do not want her to?

    Do you believe if a girl speaks out against the Taliban who has hurt her she is trying to destroy Islam?

    Do you believe if a woman speaks out about how Sharia law has hurt her she is trying to destroy Islam?

    Will you please back up your assertion that comp is not abusive by answering these questions?

    Not answering the questions makes it look like you know if you do answer the questions you will confirm that complementarian is abusive.

    I have every right to say complementarian ruined my childhood and hurt me very much.

    A woman or girl who has been hurt by the Taliban has every right to say the Taliban ruined her life and childhood and the Taliban hurt her very much.

    A girl or woman who has been hurt by ISIS has every right to say ISIS has ruined her life or childhood.

    A girl or woman who has been hurt by Sharia law has every right to say Sharia law hurt her and ruined her life or childhood.

    A girl or woman who has been hurt by Boko Haram has every right to say Boko Haram has ruined my life and hurt me.

    Yes, Boko Haram, the Taliban, pro-Sharia law thugs, ISIS, and complementarians will say no we didn’t. But that is just selfish misogynist looking out for their own misogynistic selfish perversion at the expense of women and little girls.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. “Do you mean slutty, defiant, rebellious, a Jezebel, prone to lie, deceptive, immodest, sure to trigger male lust? ”

    No one here has called you any of this. What do you mean by saying this?

    Like

  47. “We need to put the blame and the responsibility fully on abusers who have chosen to be abusive. To blame the church or to blame complementarians or to blame faith itself,”

    I am putting the blame where it goes, on complementarians. Just like I blame all of the Taliban, all of Boko Haram, all of ISIS, and all thugs who promote Sharia law.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. We don’t blame one person when Galileo was forced to recant, or Luther was told to recant, or Semmelweis was driven to a nervous breakdown. We blame the systems that led to a large swath of specific groups having similar arrogant and abusive views.

    For Galileo, it was a religious belief that the Ptolemaic (earth-centered) view of the universe was somehow scriptural, and any other belief (e.g. helicentric) was heretical.

    For Luther, it was a religious belief that salvation was faith + works that led to his condemnation.

    For Semmelweis, it was the theory of the day that disease could not be passed by human contact that led his contemporary peers to reject his scientific conclusions on hand washing.

    We can’t understand why any of these men were victimized until we understand the mistaken beliefs that gave their abusers the “moral high ground” when making them pay for the truth.

    In the same way, we cannot understand why many women are being victimized by their husbands or other men, then re-victimized in front of the church until we understand the mistaken beliefs that are used to justify both.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. “In the same way, we cannot understand why many women are being victimized by their husbands or other men, then re-victimized in front of the church until we understand the mistaken beliefs that are used to justify both.”
    A-women, Mark. 🙂

    Like

  50. If anyone is interested in a real life example of what Julie Anne was describing, remember when CNN aired the documentary Holy Hell. That was one of the most chilling documentaries I’ve ever seen. Its a real eye opener on how manipulation and control happens to smart, strong people.

    The part that really got to me was when several grown men were describing how they were slowly groomed into suffering abuse. Manipulation can be such a subtle thing, esp in a group situation that even brilliant people can be led astray.

    Like

  51. Clockwork wrote:
    KAS sounds like a medieval church canon lawyer.
    Anyway, more canon fodder to aim at people like KAS

    I’m not that old!

    If you want to know what KAS thinks (though or course you may not), best to read KAS. Second-hand reports are not always terribly accurate.

    That’s it for this discussion for a while (let the reader understand).

    Like

  52. _Misinterpreting “Head” Can Perpetuate Abuse by B. C. Miller_

    KAS said

    If you want to know what KAS thinks (though or course you may not), best to read KAS. Second-hand reports are not always terribly accurate.

    I’ve already demonstrated on the
    “Discuss: What Can Men Do to Help Remove Misogyny from the Church? Inquiring Elder Wants to Know” thread that you don’t know what you believe. You’re inconsistent. You shift the goal posts and re-frame the discussion any time your views are shown to be in error, are harmful.

    KAS said,
    I wondered about putting on the other thread where Piper had cropped up, but it seems relevant here.

    You have a lot of nerve posting to ANY thread that discusses abuse in light of complementarianism.

    As shown on other threads, you refuse to acknowledge how harmful comp has been to women such as myself or participant Christianity Hurts, and you’ve shown insensitivity to male abuse victims, (I believe “Dash”) was one such individual by telling them that in your view they are not dealing with their pain as well as others you have known. I don’t know why you are permitted to continue posting here. You’re not empathetic to victims or anyone who has been hurt.

    Like

  53. I know exactly why he’s permitted to post, Daisy. Freedom of speech means that even those we don’t agree with are free to say what they like. I might not like what he has to say, but KAS’ explanations serve to remind all of us just how convoluted believers’ thinking is and gives us a window to others’ – far more influential than KAS – thinking on this subject. One can see exactly how patriarchal men manipulate scripture to suit their agendas and justify their own perceptions.
    Also, keep in mind that fundagelicals are losing the culture war. Their desperate attempts to hang onto power are to be expected — they know very well that society has moved on. (to use one example, I think more people are reading John Pavlovitz than Piper)

    Like

  54. insanitybytes22 said,

    Take away complementarianism, you still have abuse.

    In the context of Christianity, though, abuse of girls and women is easier to carry out and to “biblically” justify under complementarianism or patriarchal interpretations of the Bible than other view points, such as egalitarianism.

    I wasn’t even raised under a physically or sexually abusive variety of comp, but it still harmed me, which I’ve blogged about ten times over on my own Daisy blog, such as _here_ (among other posts).

    I hope you’re not trying to diminish or downplay the negative affects of complementarianism for those of us who lived under it and were hurt by it. Because it sure sounds like that is what you are trying to do.

    Insanity Bytes said,

    I am not angry. Why would I be angry? The problem is I don’t trust that the well being of women and girls is your actual motivation. The agenda here seems to be far more about trying to rid the world of religion and trying to dismantle complementarian marriage.

    Now I am angry.

    As to your line,


    “The problem is I don’t trust that the well being of women and girls is your actual motivation.”

    Oh, eff you ten times over for that. I am not going to be polite or nice to you on that.

    I post about complementarianism on this blog (and elsewhere) because I was personally harmed by it and don’t want to see other girls and women harmed by it.

    (I also post about it to vent, it helps me work through what I went through.)

    I’ve been posting here daily to weekly for how many years now? Like three years? Maybe four or more?
    Other posters here know me far better than you do. They can verify I am the real deal.

    I am a woman who was raised by Christian parents who taught complementarianism, I was raised under it, and harmed by it.

    You have a lot of nerve saying what you just did to me.

    I am not here to de-convert anyone from religion. I have not totally left the Christian faith yet myself, but with attitudes like yours, you’re not giving me reason to stay.

    You, like KAS on this site, play a role in further pushing me away.

    The topic of this blog post is there again, complementarianism and abuse:
    “Is Complementarianism tough on abuse?”

    If the question of the main post was, “Is Atheism Tough on Abuse,” or “Are Non Christian Religions Tough on Abuse,” you’d have a point. But you don’t.

    I guess your agenda is to defend Complementarianism in Marriages. You don’t care about girls or women being abused due to comp.

    As to this comment,

    The agenda here seems to be far more about trying to rid the world of religion and trying to dismantle complementarian marriage.

    Oh absolutely, I am all for Christians eliminating ALL teaching and support of complementarianism, in and out of marriage.

    Comp is sexist garbage, it’s demonic, and is not “biblical.”

    Complementarianism fosters abusive behaviors and entitled attitudes and aids and abets men who are already prone to abusing women.

    Comp churches have shown themselves to be miserable failures at helping abused Christian wives – I rarely, rarely, hear of comp churches or comp pastors who help a woman leave or escape an abusive husband.

    They always advise a woman in such a position to return, stay, and submit more to her abuser.

    You have apparently been living under a rock the last six months and have not been aware of the SBC Paige Patterson bru-ha-ha. His butt just got kicked to the curb because his complementarian (sexist) views caused him to sexually objectify teen girls, cover up the rape of Christian women students on a Christian university campus, and he advised an abused Christian wife to return to get a black eye from her abusive husband.

    I don’t think you care about protecting or helping girls and women. You want them to stay in bondage under complementarianism.

    insanitybytes22 said,

    Women and girls are not destroyed because of complementary marriage, women and girls are destroyed because abusers choose to be abusive.

    I disagree.

    To repeat what I said above:
    It would be more difficult for an abusive man to justify and get away with his abuse of a woman under egalitarianism than complementarianism.

    Complementarianism feeds the entitled mentality which plays a part in why men abuse. Complementarianism justifies and advocates for a power differential in relationships, where it’s said God designed men to control and rule over women – and God help the wife who is married to a Complementarian man who is not a benevolent dictator. If she’s married to an abuser, the church will tell her to stay and put up with the abuse.

    Like

  55. Carmen said,

    I know exactly why he’s permitted to post, Daisy. Freedom of speech means that even those we don’t agree with are free to say what they like.

    I might not like what he has to say, but KAS’ explanations serve to remind all of us just how convoluted believers’ thinking is and gives us a window to others’ – far more influential than KAS – thinking on this subject.

    One can see exactly how patriarchal men manipulate scripture to suit their agendas and justify their own perceptions.

    Also, keep in mind that fundagelicals are losing the culture war. Their desperate attempts to hang onto power are to be expected — they know very well that society has moved on. (to use one example, I think more people are reading John Pavlovitz than Piper)

    I see what you’re saying, but if I want to know what complementarians think, I visit complementarian sites and blogs like CBMW, Doug Wilson, or the Tim Bayly blog, or anything at “Desiring God’s” site.

    (And I do actually read their material from time to time – not all of them. I will look at TGC or the occasional DG or CBMW post, but I despise Wilson and rarely look at his stuff.)

    I was brought up in this complementarian garbage, so I already know what they think and I can usually already figure out why they think what they do.

    The other blog has a good rule in place – concern for victims come first. Anyone who keeps hammering away at defending a doctrine or church that is under criticism in a main blog post topic usually gets put on ice (slow moderation).

    The Christian domestic abuse blog ‘Cry For Justice’ will not permit men to post who are abusive, or who post defending abuse or abusive tactics – for good reason.
    You have women in the comments section who are trying to share their stories of abusive Christian marriages in a climate where they won’t be attacked or side-lined into defending egalitarianism, etc.

    Guys like KAS turn these threads into mere intellectual debates – with no concern for the real-life affects their views have. I don’t think I recall him ever saying “I acknowledge that Daisy and CH have been hurt by complementarianism teachings.” Nope. All he does is play the “The No True Complementarian” card.

    Insanity Bytes is just being plain nasty, which isn’t doing those recovering from religious-based abuse or doctrines that they found damaging any favors.

    I will say that the religious KAS-es and Insanity Bytes-es of the blog world are not good sales people or ambassadors for the religion, God, or doctrines they claim to believe in. I wouldn’t want to belong to any faith or church that teaches as they believe or as they behave.

    But to people like that, defending their interpretation of the Bible, or their version of religious truth, is more important to them than how others are treated or have been treated under those religions. Jesus of Nazareth constantly called out that behavior in the Pharisees, but it remains lost on the KASes and IBes who post to sites like this.

    Like

  56. Christianity Hurts said

    (quote IB):
    “Women and girls are not destroyed because of complementary marriage”

    CH said:
    That is an extremely hateful heartless selfish thing to say to someone who says it hurt her and her mother.

    Insanity Bytes said:
    “The problem is I don’t trust that the well being of women and girls is your actual motivation. ”

    CH said:
    My motive is to make sure no other young woman or little girl ever has the excruciating misery my mother and I had because of the pure misogyny that is complementarian.

    I think Insanity Bytes may have been addressing me in that post(?).
    If it was you she (he?) was addressing, I agree it was a heartless come-back.

    I’m sorry if Insanity Bytes was hurt by an atheistic cult, but the topic of this blog post is not about how atheist (or other Non-Christian) groups or beliefs have hurt people (which I’m sure is a real thing, hey, I’ve watched Leah Remini TV specials too, and I’ve had atheists on other sites be rude and hateful towards me),

    But rather, the topic is, how have, or has?, complementarian (which is a Christian- based teaching) beliefs contributed to the abuse of people (women in particular).

    You (Christianity Hurts) and I have been posting to this blog on a regular to semi-regular basis – you for months (?) and I’ve been here for a few years.
    Any other regular readers on here can vouch for our sincerity and for what our motives are.

    Christianity Hurts to IB (Insanity Bytes)

    IB said:
    “The agenda here seems to be far more about trying to rid the world of religion and trying to dismantle complementarian marriage. ”

    CH replied:
    Women talking about how much comp hurt them will dismantle complementarian marriages?

    Women talking about how much complementarian hurt them is trying to rid the world of religion?

    When female survivors talk about how much the Taliban hurt them are they trying to rid the world of religion?

    As a victim of complementarian, I will speak out against it just like I will speak out against the Taliban, ISIS, and Sharia law.

    Do you think the Taliban, ISIS, and Sharia law should be dismantled?

    This reminds me of this (quotes from a poem by someone named Carmel – _Source_):

    But when I talk of toxic men, others feel maligned.

    So I ask you to consider, when you jump in to defend,

    How did speaking up for women become slandering of men?

    Why is it when I voice my fears you first defend your brothers,

    Instead of listening to your sisters, mothers or your lovers.

    I need you to hear my voice and listen to my fears,

    But you just keep on shouting louder and my voice just disappears

    Like

  57. Carmen said, <blockquote.CH, I’m doubtful you’ll get anywhere with IB.

    If you look on her blog, you’ll realize very quickly that she is a big believer in the complementarian way of life.
    Indeed, she thinks of herself as very much a ‘godly woman’ because of it. She sees it as an antithesis of feminism, which is a filthy ‘f’ word to her.
    That would explain a lot. I’ve not looked at her (his?) blog.

    I’m an ex- complementarian. Lived and believed in that stuff from the time I was a kid into my mid-30s, though I had slight doubts about it as a teen that only grew as time went by.

    So, I’m an Ex-Comp. Good luck to any of the “Insanity Bytes” individuals out there who think they can try to convince me to re-join complementarianism. Been there, done that, won’t go back.

    By the way, one thing of a few that kept me trapped in complementarianism as long as I was is that I’ve always been right- of- center politically and regarding social issues, and most conservative Christians – who are comp – play into that.

    The churches I was raised in, and complementarians generally, present people with a false dichotomy:

    False Dichotomies of Complementarians
    Complementarians teach (they brainwash you into thinking) that either you are a

    1.- Godly, good, Bible-believing, Jesus- loving Complementarianism, who believes in Male Headship and female subordination,

    or, else, they teach,

    2a.- You must be a left wing, liberal, anti-Biblical, God-hating, atheistic, hairy arm-pitted feminist, who hates babies and the Nuclear Family and who only votes Democrat
    (or
    2b.- You are a progressive Christian who doesn’t take the Bible literally or seriously and you are a SJW)

    The truth is, you can reject complementarianism and still remain a conservative – I am proof of that.

    I have a few blog posts on my blog that discusses this issue (and related ones), such as…
    _The Growing Partisan Divide Over Feminism by Peter Beinart – The Republican and Conservative Women Who Want to Remain in Denial About American Sexism
    _

    (I find it easier to link to a thing I wrote over there on my blog than write a 456,435 world long post here. I only blog over at my blog to help others and/or to vent. I don’t make any money off it or anything.)

    Like

  58. Carmen to IB said,

    You conveniently forget that most atheists (a good majority of the ones I know) used to be believers. I don’t know how or why you think their personalities have changed dramatically just because they no longer believe in god(s).

    But then again, a good many believers seem to feel that they are morally superior just because of their belief in the supernatural.
    You wouldn’t be one of those, would you?

    That is very true.

    I’m in a weird twilight spot here. I’m kind of drifting towards agnosticism (or deism, maybe) but I’ve not totally rejected Jesus Christ, either.
    But I have noticed a tendency for many Christians to hold these attitudes you’re mentioning here.

    If you mention you are an ex-Christian to a Christian, especially in the context of a disagreement over a religious topic, they doubt that. They will say you were _never a “real” Christian_ to start with.

    I’ve had practicing Christians on blogs or social media do a 180 degree turn around in how they treat me and discuss stuff with me, the moment I let them know I’m on a raft, adrift at sea, between Christianity and Agnosticism.

    The moment I mention that, they act like I have Cooties, they assume I must be God-hater, and they totally discount anything I say.

    Some of them wave me away with a, “well, you were obviously never a true believer to start with” comment.

    On this thread, IB is like, “you must have an ulterior motive, I don’t trust you.”

    (I’ve been clear on here for the years I’ve participated on what my views are.
    I’ve never hidden them.
    For goodness sake, I’ve linked to my Daisy blog enough so that anyone can see what my opinions or motives are.)

    You also see the Complementarian variety (to get back on topic) to totally disavow, diminish, or else ignore, how Complementarianism has hurt Ex-Complementarian women who were actually raised under it, in complementarian churches, by complementarian parents.

    Practicing Complementarian Christians do not want to admit that _maybe they are wrong, or that some of their beliefs are wrong_.

    Maybe they are afraid that showing that components X, Y, or Z of Christianity (such as complementarianism) will somehow disprove Jesus, his resurrection, or what have you. Some of the disavowal may be fear-based.

    Like

  59. Lots of truths in that last comment of yours, Daisy. As I said earlier, most fundamentalists cling to their outdated dogmas (complementarianism, for example) like they’re clinging to a lifesaving ring.

    Liked by 1 person

  60. Insanity Bytes said (to Carmen?)

    That is not hurtful,that is the truth. We need to put the blame and the responsibility fully on abusers who have chosen to be abusive.

    To blame the church or to blame complementarians or to blame faith itself, is to take responsibility off a specific individual who chose to hurt someone.

    And some abuse can and does take place under complementarianism, by Christian complementarians.

    Such as:
    _List of Complementarian (they’re all IFB) Pastors, guilty of child molesting, affairs, etc._
    I.F.B. = Independent Fundamentalist Baptist

    (I can cite examples from other sources of the same about Reformed Baptist pastors, Southern Baptist pastors, etc., some found guilty of murdering their wives to continue having affairs, etc.)

    By the way, participant “Christianity Hurts” has said either in this thread, or an older one, that Christian Gender Complementarianism specifically is one of the very things that drove her to atheism. (I don’t know if she has other reasons or not.)

    So maybe you could be more sensitive in how complementarianism has played a role in souring some on the Christian faith, rather than being really defensive of it and lashing out at the Non-believers on the thread.

    Bad apples can be found in about every group out there, whether Christian, atheist, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Islam, New Age, or Wiccan.

    No group holds a monopoly on bad (or on good) behavior.
    But the topic of this post is Christian Complementarianism.

    Complementarianism fits with abuse hand-in-glove, in that it actually encourages and defends abusive relationships dynamics, in part by (but not limited to) insisting it is God-ordained that one group or type of person (male) should have control and power over another group or type of person (female).

    -And you will not acknowledge how abusive or selfish people cannot or will not take advantage of such horrid teachings to cover for their mistreatment of others?

    There have actually been complementarian authors and pastors who tell women they, they women, are to blame if they are being abused by a husband, because they are not submitting often enough, or not well enough.

    And you want to claim, what, there is no link at all, ever, between complementarianism and domestic abuse, sexism, and other similar issues? Seriously?

    The abuser is still responsible for his behavior, but look how neatly complementarianism lines up with abusive mind-sets – the entitlement, especially.

    Have you ever read the book,
    _Why Does He Do That_ by Lundy Bancroft.

    You’ll see in that Bancroft book parallels between the mindsets of abusive husbands and what Christian complementarians teach and believe about women and marriage.

    Or my blog post, which explains how Christian Complementarianism left me (and other women) vulnerable to being abused and mistreated:
    _Christian Gender Complementarianism is Christian-Endorsed Codependency for Women (And That’s Not A Good Thing)_

    Like

  61. My post directly above, to Insanity Bytes is sitting in moderation, time stamp of JULY 13, 2018 @ 7:58 AM.
    I’d ask any readers to please scroll back up the page to read it, whenever (if) it’s approved to appear. Thank you.

    IB said,

    I can also say that as a victim of abuse, the hostility, outrage, and denial that I often encounter from atheists is the same systematic silencing and shaming that I experienced as a child.

    I’m sorry, remind me again of what the blog topic heading is – it is, “Are Atheists Tough on Abuse,” or is it, “Are Complementarians Tough on Abuse?”

    IB said to Carmen,

    So that is why I wonder if your agenda is about helping women and girls or if it is just about dismantling the church?

    You’re going to have a harder time explaining away the position of someone such as myself, who has not rejected Jesus.

    And yet, I am still firmly anti- Complementarian. I used to be a complementarian until several years ago.

    I am not an atheist.
    I am not interested in trying to get anyone to leave the Christian faith or stop believing in Jesus. If you want to remain Christian, then fine and dandy by me, remain a Christian.

    Like

  62. Carmen, there was something else in a post you left above that I wanted to comment on, but I forgot what it was!
    If it comes to mind again, I’ll address it later, I guess.

    I apologize to all for the many comments I’m making. I don’t want to discourage anyone else from jumping in. I get passionate about things at times, and I find it difficult to be concise.

    Christianity Hurts said (to Insanity Bytes),

    But, I have never known a comp that was not selfish and heartless towards the pain they heap on women and little girls.

    This may be a case where someone was hurt by secular feminism or Non-Christian belief as they were growing up, they later in life stumble across Christianity, become a Jesus believer, and they also find complementarianism…

    And they derive a sense of safety, peace, or stability from the Christian faith and/or complementarianism.

    Which I can understand. If you grew up in a non-believing, hostile, abusive, confusing home as a kid, I’m sure that Christianity and Complementarianism feels very warm, safe, and cozy to you at first.

    I have seen many of those types of testimonies on Christian television programs.

    That may be one reason why some of these folks on these threads defend the faith or complementarianism as much as they do, even if doing so is at the expense of disregarding the pain that the faith or complementarianism has caused other people.

    I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior when I was a kid.
    I was a complementarian from childhood to my mid-30s.

    I have not rejected Jesus, but – the Christian faith (and Christian gender complementarianism) did not help me or deliver me from years of clinical depression, anxiety, and complementarianism only added more problems to those issues, or made them worse, or prolonged them.

    The Christian faith (and prayer, Bible reading, etc) did not provide me with consistent or sustainable inner peace, joy, etc., as many Christians will claim it will do.
    Christianity is just not an end-all, be-all solution for everyone.

    Those who find Jesus later in life, after having grown up for years in abusive, non-religious homes, may find Jesus, church-going, etc, a comfort – for awhile, at least.

    I’ve noticed in many de-conversion testimonies – people who talk about how they left the Christian faith to become Non-Christian – that many of them became Christians at a young age (childhood or teen years usually), but by their early- or mid- 40s, they started noticing that Christianity just does not “work” the way Christians teach that it should.

    These ex-Christians, who left the faith in their 40s, began re-evaluating the Bible and how Christians misinterpret and misapply it, and how Christians disagree with everything in the Bible, which is strange, since most of them say the Bible is clear and that they believe in sola scriptura. They start noticing things like prayers go unanswered, that many Christians behave in a hypocritical fashion, etc.

    I can see how someone who spent their teens to their 30s or older living in chaos or abuse in a non-religious up-bringing can find solace in Christianity, for awhile.

    But for those of us who became Christians as children, who were raised in church- going Christian families, as I did, had the reverse scenario play out.

    Like

  63. insanitybytes22 said (to Carmen),

    So when you ask me questions like, “You wouldn’t be one of those, would you?”

    I wonder what “one of those” is??

    Carmen, by the way, already defined what “one of those is’ in the very post you are quoting.
    This:
    Carmen said,

    But then again, a good many believers seem to feel that they are morally superior just because of their belief in the supernatural.

    Do you, Insanity Bytes, believe, that you are morally superior to all Non-Christians generally, and/or Carmen specifically, because you believe in “the supernatural.”-?

    That is what Carmen was getting at.
    She was not calling you a ‘Jezebel’ and so on.

    insanitybytes22 said (to Carmen),

    So when you ask me questions like, “You wouldn’t be one of those, would you?”

    I wonder what “one of those” is??

    Do you mean slutty, defiant, rebellious, a Jezebel, prone to lie, deceptive, immodest, sure to trigger male lust?

    Incapable of thinking critically, subhuman, slightly stupid, existing only for the benefit of men?

    It’s the same darn mindset, it’s the same kind of dismissal women sometimes encounter in the church.

    And yet, you’ve been defending complementarianism in this thread, so I’m at a loss to understand this quote of yours.

    This is how many adherents of complementarians believe and teach about women:

    [Women are] mean slutty, defiant, rebellious, a Jezebel, prone to lie, deceptive, immodest, sure to trigger male lust?
    [Also, per the majority of complementarian thinking: women are supposedly more easily deceived than men and not as rational as men, women are too emotional]

    Incapable of thinking critically, subhuman, slightly stupid, existing only for the benefit of men

    Many complemetnarians place all blame and responsibility for policing men’s sexual behavior on women.

    If a woman is raped, the complementarians (depending on what school of complementariaiism we are talking about, but this is sad to say, pretty common among them-), will say she brought it on herself by the choice of clothing attire she was wearing, or because she met the rapist at a bar for drinks (not realizing the guy was going to rape her), etc.

    If a woman dares to practice normal, healthy boundaries, some complementarians will shame or scold her for this, and declare her a Jezebel, rebellious, trying to usurp a man’s authority, etc.

    Like

  64. I was wanting to post this earlier, but now, I don’t remember to whom.
    I think to “Insanity Bytes” for her apparent denial that sometimes, religion or religious beliefs, do hurt some people.

    — Religious Trauma Syndrome —

    _Religious Trauma Syndrome_ – Recovering from Religion site

    _Religious Trauma Syndrome: How some organized religion leads to mental health problems_

    From World Religion News site,
    WHAT IS RELIGIOUS TRAUMA SYNDROME?:

    Those most at risk to developing Religious Trauma Syndrome include people who are raised in their religion, sheltered from the rest of the world, very sincerely and personally involved with their religion, and/or from a very controlling form of religion.

    The symptoms include cognitive, affective, functional, and social or cultural “dysfunctions:” everything from confusion, anxiety, panic attacks, sleep and eating disorders, and substance abuse to difficulty with decision-making and critical thinking, lack of meaning, suicidal ideation and rupture of family and social network.

    If there is a need for something like “Recovery From Religion” programs and web sites, what is feeding that need? Are people just running these organizations and sites for giggles?

    Has “Insanity Bytes” ever watched Leah Remini’s TV series about her former church, Scientology?

    On that program, Remini has interviewed numerous ex- Scientologists about their financial, mental health, and relationship problems they encountered under, and because of, the Church of Scientology.

    Was Remini trying to dismantle all of religion? Were all her interview subjects lying?

    If Remini is trying to dismantle CoS, or at least their abusive practices, is that a bad thing?

    Complementarianism sure did not equip me to stand up to abusive, controlling, hostile, or manipulative people over the course of my life.

    The teachings I was subjected to under Christian complementarianism taught me that God created me (all women) to be doormats, and it would be wrong, evil, feminist, and un-feminine or selfish, for me to assert myself, even politely.

    Carmen said,

    Well, the other flip of the coin is this – they get to have their arses Daisy-kicked. 😉 (metaphorically speaking, of course)

    It’s exhausting. My work here is never done. 🙂

    Like

  65. This seems more applicable here (from a WHO report on sexual violence):

    Sexual violence committed by men is to a large extent rooted in ideologies of male sexual entitlement. These belief systems grant women extremely few legitimate options to refuse sexual advances. Many men thus simply exclude the possibility that their sexual advances towards a woman might be rejected or that a woman has the right to make an autonomous decision about participating in sex. In many cultures women, as well as men, regard marriage as entailing the obligation on women to be sexually available virtually without limit, though sex may be culturally proscribed at certain times, such as after childbirth or during menstruation

    Like

  66. Mark said,

    This seems more applicable here (from a WHO report on sexual violence):

    (Quote):
    Sexual violence committed by men is to a large extent rooted in ideologies of male sexual entitlement. These belief systems grant women extremely few legitimate options to refuse sexual advances.

    Many men thus simply exclude the possibility that their sexual advances towards a woman might be rejected or that a woman has the right to make an autonomous decision about participating in sex.

    In many cultures women, as well as men, regard marriage as entailing the obligation on women to be sexually available virtually without limit, though sex may be culturally proscribed at certain times, such as after childbirth or during menstruation

    There is also a correlation between belief in traditional gender roles (which is what complementarianism encompasses, among other things, but secular culture also pushes many of the same gender norms) and domestic abuse.

    Here are just a couple of links about that (but there are other web pages, with studies quoted, about this):

    _Gender Role Attitudes and Domestic Violence_

    Let’s talk about gender roles.

    From a young age, boys are taught that to be a “man” they cannot cry, show emotion and must be strong protectors. While girls are taught to be kind, giving, understanding and passive.

    Through these gender roles as well as the media, men have been taught to feel entitled to women.

    Traditional gender roles require the woman to cook, clean, care for their children and fulfill a man’s sexual needs. This has created an issue where men view women as subservient to them as the man holds the power and is the decision maker.

    Men with more traditional gender roles including misogynistic gender-role attitudes are more likely to practice domestic violence (O’Neil & Harway, 1997, p. 192; Heise, 1998, p. 278).

    Studies have found that almost all measures of masculine ideology were significantly associated with sexual aggression. This tells us there is a strong relationship between men’s adherence to traditional gender roles and their use of violence against women.

    Additionally, gender roles have a big effect on women’s attitudes towards violence against themselves.

    Women are more likely to blame themselves for the abuse, less likely to report it to authorities and more likely to experience long-term psychological and emotional effects.

    This can all be tied back to the social norms taught to women including placing their partner’s needs above their own and exhibiting a passive or “self-silence” attitude. Women are also less likely to report violence if they express traditional gender role attitudes (Harris, Firestone, & Vega, 2005).

    _Gender Socialization_

    The concept of male entitlement created by gender roles is associated with domestic violence.

    Men have been taught through social roles modeling and the media that they are entitled to the attention and services of women.
    Women are required to listen, be supportive, enhance their partners’ status with other men, fulfill the man’s sexual needs, and care for their children.

    Traditional gender roles maintain the expectation that women are required to cook, clean and maintain the household.

    Gender roles have created a dynamic within intimate relationships that maintain women as subservient and men as power holders and decision makers, which is ultimately detrimental to the health and survival of women.

    Often in an abusive relationship, if a woman does not live up to these unrealistic and strict expectations, it is license for the batterer to be violent.

    These roles are deeply engrained in many men and women so that it is difficult to uncover the extent to which behavior has been influenced by socialization.

    Some men are struggling conscientiously to divest in the benefits offered to them based on their gender. Gender roles are so pervasive and insidious that men (and women) don’t even realize how seriously they affect and inform our behavior.

    Note how those secular sites, discussing secular culture, are similar (if not down right the same in some aspects) to what Christian gender complementarians teach and believe about women, marriage, and gender roles.

    Christian Complementarianism is NOT “counter cultural,” as many complementarians claim it to be, but complementarians are maintaining, defending, and perpetuating the secular culture’s ideas about gender roles, and insidiously claiming that these confining gender roles, which can aid abusive men in oppressing or harassing women, are “God’s design.” It’s sickening.

    Like

  67. Daisy, not sure what you’d expect from someone who made these points to the comp. echo chamber…

    We think we’re creating equality, better lives for women, but we’re a bit myopic, unable to see the bigger picture. We seek to dismantle patriarchy as if patriarchy were the root of all evil and we fail to respect it as an institution that has contributed greatly to the kind of society we now live in. Equality really is a fool’s errand, especially when equality would actually be a step down for women.

    I love women and seek to improve the quality of our lives, but as much as I love women there is one other group that loves us even more, and that is men. There is a huge deception woven into feminism that seeks to deny that, but it is simple and irrefutable biology. Individual men may claim to hate us, some men’s evil actions may lead us to believe we are hated, but biology wins the game every time. Men as a species are tied to us in a kind of symbiosis that forces them to seek us out, to protect us, to strive to create a better world for us.

    Yes, because in the biological world, all the males of any species are incredibly loving and protecting and nurturing of the females.

    Like

  68. Well, Daisy is doing such a great job responding to all the points here, that I’ve been enjoying just listening to the discussion. That’s why I was trying to be helpful by only adding that one brief piece of info. Daisy had about covered all the main points that I didn’t want to be redundant in repeating the same ground already covered.

    However this one comment by IB really ruffled my feathers so I’m going to respond to it

    IB wrote:

    “The problem is I don’t trust that the well being of women and girls is your actual motivation. The agenda here seems to be far more about trying to rid the world of religion and trying to dismantle complementarian marriage.”

    IB, it sounds like you really don’t know us yet. Once you get to know us better then you’ll understand that the whole focus of what we do here is the well being of women and children. And we actually do care about the well being of men as well.

    IB, please really listen to what Daisy has been saying. She has a lot of wisdom to share on this topic. Don’t be afraid to think outside what is familiar. If we take the time to really study what Jesus said on this topic, we realize why Jesus gave women the power of saying “yes” and “no” in their own lives (Matt 5:37). Because that’s how we set boundaries to protect ourselves. There’s no other way to protect the “well being of women and children.”

    There’s a reason that Jesus warned us that it’s the tradition of men that makes Scripture have no effect in our lives. All the Scriptures about setting boundaries with people keep getting ignored because people can’t let go of tradition.

    Like

  69. First time reader. Lifelong naturalist. Just heard about your trial from six years ago. I am proud of your work. I would love to say that you’re doing the Lord’s work, I believe that you are, I just don’t have the authority to say so! 😀 It is my hope that people listen to your interpretations, just as the ancient scribes did ad nauseum in their revisionary transcriptions. If that sounds alien or untrue, please look into it before judging. Julie Anne has at least as much authority to interpret the bible as any pastor for any arbitrary bible church.

    Liked by 1 person

  70. Mark,

    Is that a quote from IB’s website? If so, my response to that quote would be as follows.

    IB—we both care very deeply about the things of God. So I’m going to discuss this from that perspective.

    The problem with that line of reasoning is that it requires us to trust in the flesh. The very thing that God repeatedly warns us NOT to do!!

    Now open the Bible and look at all the Scriptures warning us about trusting people.
    Here’s one:
    Psalm 146:3(CEV)
    “You can’t depend on anyone, not even a great leader.”

    No matter how they try to slice it, Comp theology requires you to disobey God by putting your trust in the flesh. Let me repeat—Comp requires you to do the very thing God warns us NOT to do in Jer 17:5(GNT):

    “This is what the LORD says: Cursed is the person who trusts humans, who makes flesh and blood his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD.”

    Here’s one more:
    “Don’t put your trust in mere humans. They are as frail as breath. What good are they?” Isaiah 2:22 (NLT)

    Like

  71. So here’s how I feel about it all. This is a thread about an article a woman wrote, Dr Rebecca McLaughlin. You all proceed to slam her, an actual woman with some wisdom and experience. Than you proceed to slam me. Somewhere in the midst being told to eff off and accused of not caring about women and girls,as well as having it implied I were actually LYING about my own abuse, I got the distinct impression you ladies really don’t care about women and girls at all! You certainly care nothing about us an individuals, nor are you motived by a desire to see healing in the world. Your entire attitude, blog, everything you do, revolves around getting revenge against the church and hating on complementarians. It is now quite clear to me what your real agenda is and I think you all need a major heart check. I find your behavior vile, self absorbed, and hurtful to actual women and girls. In case any of you have forgotten, we are actually “people” too.

    I will not bother you again,but I sure will be telling everyone what your actual agenda is and how you have treated me.

    Like

  72. Quit playing the victim card, IB. (I’ve seen it before)

    All women have to do is go read your blog articles under “Anti-feminism” to see that you are the one with an agenda. You might want to examine your own heart. It’s also very obvious you’ve never read too much of JA’s blog. You’ve missed all the articles about her work with real victims and her unceasing, passionate support of women who’ve been – and continue to be – hurt by the patriarchal system of fundamentalist churches. I suggest you do some more reading and reflecting; your ongoing support of the same is disconcerting.

    Like

  73. IB,

    It sounds like you have a lot of built up anger fermenting deep inside at what Comp theology has done to you. But Comp theology won’t allow you to verbalize those feelings. So instead you’re directing your anger towards people who have been kind and respectful to you.

    The cause of your anger is the suffocating energy of Comp theology not us.

    Like

  74. I’m fine with the debate, but not fine with personal attacks. Even if you despise what someone is saying, you don’t get to say F-off here. That’s a personal attack. That’s a warning.

    Like

  75. I believe disregarding the voice of the abused is in effect, abusive in and of itself. I don’t profess to use fancy language, although I may try, but I married a comp man and trying to justify that comp is the “biblical truth” regarding marriage is absolutely a lie from the pit of hell. If we are Christians and follow Jesus Christ as our LORD and Savior, to justify the belief that complementarianism is of our LORD, is simply a lie, and those who defend comp theology, claiming they are victims, is simply jocular in and of itself. I just can’t find any words from my Master (JESUS) here to defend the theology of men lording over women, perhaps I missed something.

    When an individual, whether it be a woman or a men, tries to justify that complementarianism is the Way of Jesus Christ, then I know from studying the Gospels for meself, that is an outright lie used to kill the spirit of a gender that our LORD created, in this case, women.

    Many who profess that comp theology is true, and those of us who believe it is a lie from satan “himself,” all believe that we are being victimized in some way when others don’t subscribe to our belief system. I get that. Please allow me to share a story with you, that is absolutely true and is another reason to precisely why I do not believe that complementarianism is from our LORD, but in fact, satanic:

    The old farmhouse that I moved into following my marriage had an attic on the side of one our rooms on the second level. In this attic was an opening (that I didn’t know about) in which the bats entered the house seeking shelter against the elements……and they were there long before I married, mind you. They squeaked and squealed at night, and I didn’t feel that it was my job to get them out of my home, so nothing was done about the situation. The man of the house did not address the situation and so it went on. Somehow, the bat entered our living space late one evening, flying around the living room and kitchen, and someone had to get that bat out of our home for safety reasons as they are known to carry rabies and a host of other diseases that are fatal. So first, the comp blamed the wife for allowing that bat into our home……what logical, reasonable wife would allow a bat into our home fully knowing they would harm our children in addition to ourselves? Pure craziness! As the bat was making its rounds in our kitchen, the comp dove for cover under the table, hiding, while the un-comp wife (that’s meself) went and found a broom in which to either kill the bat or better yet, guide it out the open front door. It was dealt with by the un-comp wife and the comp husband and children were safe and protected, due to the actions, and the quick thinking of the wife/woman/protector of the family.

    So, the moral of the story is……in order to protect your children (and yourself), someone has to take a risk, which requires action in the form of protection, based on logic and reasoning, with a prayer added unto our LORD for His protection. And when the un-comp wife asked the comp husband point blank, “Why on earth didn’t you get that bat out of our home?”, the response was, “Those things carry rabies and I didn’t want to get infected.”

    To this day, when I think of those defending comp religion/cults, I live this real live situation in me head, over and over again, and then tell meself, “Jesus, only YOU are me Shepherd, and me Strong Tower.” And then I go out into farmland, searching for a man to give directions too, so he can make his way back to civilization to relieve his lost anxiety and anger…..aka…..Piperism belief system :).

    I know to the best of understanding Piperism, that I would have been condemned for doing an act of bravery, because frankly, he is a weak individual who knows not the true ways of our LORD, but actually loves the gonging of his own “worldly wisdom.” It is not my job to make “a man feel like a man” nor is it my job to “worry about insulting a man’s “manhood.” Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah says the Pipers of this world. It is, however, to follow my LORD JESUS, and His teachings and His Ways, and to not depart from them. And when I do, it is my job as a believer, to repent of my sins, and believe on Him, not the Pipers, or the Wilsons, or the Driscolls, or the MacArthurs, or the Driscolls, or any other man or woman who believes they know my Savior better that us lower laity sheep.

    I associate “complementarianism” with the “pride of this life” per our Holy Scriptures, and at the end of the day, if I err, well then, I choose to err on the side of Jesus Christ, and on the errors of the ways of this world, of which comp theology precisely is……worldly and of the ways of the world and not of Christ.

    Thank-you Daisy, for being an advocate for women such as meself. I pray that our LORD will bless you and make His face shine upon you, for you have ministered greatly to me in times of triumph and in times of trouble, here, via Julie Anne’s blog. And this is exactly what the Body of Jesus Christ is all about…….building up and encouraging His sheep.

    Like

  76. AR, “It sounds like you have a lot of built up anger fermenting deep inside at what Comp theology has done to you.”

    That happened to me and I’ve seen it in my comp relatives. They get hurt by people who have way more power, but instead of confronting those who hurt them, they find other targets that they can use to be superior to who might be mildly related to the situation.

    Honestly, someone who comes into a blog (ahem KAS, IB,…) with a completely different philosophy pretty much has to expect to get strong opposition. I joined the Flying Spaghetti Monster blog to try and defend Christians against certain caricatures, and try to explain some of the scientific philosophical difference. No surprise, I got attacked. The FSM admin even gave me moderator privileges because he thought I was being pretty fair.

    IB, maybe you don’t really know what you’re saying and you come in here innocently and start throwing flaming darts around, or maybe you are more of a troll. I don’t know, but many of us, probably most of us have pretty deep experience with comp beliefs, which includes the sort of incendiary comp talking points you’re bringing in here.

    Like

  77. Although I think I’ve mentioned this before(I’m not sure), I’m not completely in the comp or egal branch and want to go beyond that debate, however, I appreciate Ms. McLaughlin’s verbally taking a stand against abuse not justifying the husband’s so-called role as the spiritual leader in the home as a free pass to mistreat his wife in anyway. Although it’s true abuse is always physical, it doesn’t negate the fact that men on average are physically stronger and in the past has used that to physically abuse, dominate and oppress their wives and Ms. McLaughlin was making note of that.

    As for John Piper, I don’t agree with him on several things but I also respect the fact he doesn’t condone abuse or any violence on women either. In fact he believes the husband’s role to protect his wife is out laying down his life for her in love as Jesus died for the church as he used in that example you mentioned. I will say despite rejecting some of the comps arguments not all of them believe that the husband’s role as headship justifies ruling over his wife with an iron hand. In fact, it seems the majority of them are what you call soft or moderate comps who share the view with egals of equality between the sexes and that the husband’s husband headship is not abut power or rulership but about responsibility and accountability in which although the marital partners are equal, the husband’s has the primary responsibility of the spiritual direction of the home in a Christ-like manner but will encourage spouses to work together as a team for the most part. But another great article. God Bless.

    Like

  78. Curious Thinker,

    Sounds like you haven’t had a chance to watch the video where John Piper giggles while he’s telling women to submit to violence. Look at the top of the thread. The video is right there.

    Like

  79. Avid Reader just watched the video. Although I disagree on plenty of John Piper’s views including on wife’s submission, he never says wives are to submit to violence. In fact, he advises that wives seek help from the church if they are physically abused, so the members can step in and correct the husband’s behavior. I don’t agree on a wife enduring verbal abuse for a season, any type of abuse physical or verbal is damaging in a marriage and needs to be dealt with. God Bless

    Like

  80. Curious Thinker – He says, “If it’s not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.”

    So, Piper’s okay with the simple hurting as long as she’s not sinning. Enduring verbal abuse for a season and enduring being smacked one night is submitting to abuse. How do you get around that advice?

    Like

  81. I’ve been trying to figure out how best to say this, but there have been a lot of comments about someone being “against abuse” with the assumption that someone who says abuse is wrong is somehow trustworthy.

    In the worst case, wolves dress themselves up as sheep. I’m convinced that the primary way they dress themselves up as sheep is that they talk like sheep. They know the right things to say at the right time. I know this personally. People who had the right talk, yet the organizations they managed were political and corrupt. So, how do we figure this out? Actions. The right talk must be combined with the right actions.

    So, for example, Piper says that complementarians are less likely to abuse, but is that the case? Why is Piper’s pastoral successor at Bethlehem Baptist preaching about how they brought in a professional to open their eyes about domestic violence? If complementarians are the most aware about the dangers of un-Christ-like authority, wouldn’t they be the most watchful and aware of DV in their midst? Yet, apparently, they were blind.

    The second thing that wolves do is that they call good ‘evil’ and evil ‘good’. They create a system where they and their fellow wolves can feed on the sheep with the appearance of righteousness. This is what I’m most concerned with. I don’t believe my parents were wolves, but they were steeped in an abusive theology of authority. My father was continually abused in that system, and in turn he was taught to misuse his authority towards his wife and children. So, Piper and Patterson and other CBMW-ites create a theological system where submission to abuse is a price that must be paid for holiness. In fact, it is a system where the so-called subordinates are responsible for the sins of the authorities. The sexually unwilling wife is to blame for emotional and physical abuse and even porn and adultery. The rebellious children are to blame for spiritual and physical abuse of the parents. Modesty is to blame for all sorts of sexual sin.

    So, please excuse me for taking “against abuse” with a grain of salt when it is said by someone (whether wolf or sheep) completely steeped and indoctrinated in an abusive system.

    Like

  82. Dear Curious Thinker,

    In fact, he advises that wives seek help from the church if they are physically abused, so the members can step in and correct the husband’s behavior.

    What Piper fails to advise is, in my view, much more important. He doesn’t advise abused spouses to seek help from law enforcement. What point is there in a wife getting help from her congregation if her husband is violent? They can’t arrest him, or put him in jail. What effective measures could a bunch of pastors and elders take against a man who’s committing criminal acts?

    Like

  83. As for John Piper, I don’t agree with him on several things but I also respect the fact he doesn’t condone abuse or any violence on women either. In fact he believes the husband’s role to protect his wife is out laying down his life for her in love as Jesus died for the church as he used in that example you mentioned.

    And yet, Piper is content to sit on the CBMW board with C.J. Mahaney (who is credibly accused of covering up abuse), and has never to offered the least public criticism about Mark Driscoll (one of the worst misogynists ever to sully a pulpit). And I can’t help but wonder why.

    Like

  84. Serving Kids – Piper did offer his clarification post to involve police — 4 years after the video! 4 years later?! Too late in my opinion. Plus, the fact that he never once has stated that he was wrong in saying that wives should endure verbal and physical abuse speaks more than him finally saying that the police should get involved.

    If I was in an abusive relationship I would never go to any church leadership that aligns with DG, CBMW, TGC, or any other organization that endorses Piper. I am concerned that they think that it’s appropriate for the church to handle domestic abuse when most pastors are not trained to deal with it. Pastors should not be in the business of investigating any type of abuse. That should be up to the authorities to handle.

    Like

  85. Jesus of Nazareth constantly called out that behavior in the Pharisees, but it remains lost on the KASes

    Having a dry sense of humour, this appeal to criticism of the Pharisees has often made me smile. Now of course you could adapt the following as a critique of anyone, indeed equally to the opposite point of view, but this thought has gone through my mind, half tongue-in-cheek and half seriously:

    `God, I thank thee that I am not like other persons, legalists, Johns Piper and MacArthur, or even like this KAS commenter.

    I read Christians for Biblical Equality twice a week, I give tithes of my time to the Internet’ ….

    The truth is that absolutely anyone can be pharisaical, because there is a Pharisee lurking in each one of us somewhere.

    Like

  86. I think John Piper used bad choices of words when he said “endure”. I don’t know what he is trying to say whether that wives shouldn’t try to retaliate out of bitterness which could make things worse or don’t leave their husbands Just deal with it but then go seek help from the church the next day? I don’t just don’t understand. I think endure is the wrong thing to say. Plus I agree that if anyone is in physical danger by a spouse they have the right to call the police. The church can intervene and counsel the abuser but that doesn’t change the fact the law might be needed when necessary. I don’t know what Mr. Piper’s views are on Pat Patterson or C.J. Mahaney so I can’t speculate but he should change is words a little when addressing abuse.

    Like

  87. JA I’m fine with the debate, but not fine with personal attacks. Even if you despise what someone is saying, you don’t get to say F-off here.

    I really don’t envy you the task of trying to moderate comments here, and I mean ‘moderate’ in both senses of the word. It has been an interesting experience to notice the change in attitude to me once commenters get it into their head that I am one of the ‘enemy’ (more canon fodder to aim at people like KAS – but which I don’t take very seriously except as a demonstration of prejudice). I get it that if someone is convinced complementarianism is by definition abusive, if that is your view of marriage and church you are likely to be thought of as condoning abuse; but it is in reality difficult to make a judgement on what someone is really like on an anonymous forum, that is, that they may be abusive in real life.

    Feelings run high with those who have been abused or know someone who has been abused, but in dismantling Piper’s ideas here feelings must be put to one side, lest the critique simply end up being or appearing to be a personal attack.

    I’ve only ever listened to one Piper sermon, and something about him really really grates with me, but that is irrelevant in assessing his ideas or theology.

    I had wondered about slightly reformulating Kathi’s sentence Are there good, non-abusive complementarian marriages out there? Of course there are. And for those people I say, “I wish you well.” as though it were simply my opinion, and then see what the response would be because it was coming from me. Interesting, isn’t it, that when Kathi says this our good friend the true Scotsman suddenly appears to have gone on vacation! Is is what is said or who is saying it that counts.

    If I wanted to deflect criticism of Piper by attacking the credibility of his critics (which I don’t), all I would need to do is to go to the most prolific poster on this theme here who supplies a veritable goldmine of quotations showing the critic is in no position to judge Piper whatsoever. Quite the reverse, something his fans would no doubt see in an instant, and would carry on unthinkingly following his advice even when it is bad.

    Like

  88. CT, “I don’t know what Mr. Piper’s views are on Pat Patterson or C.J. Mahaney so I can’t speculate but he should change is words a little when addressing abuse.”

    Jesus said: “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.”

    Maybe Piper needs to change his heart more than just choosing better words.

    Like

  89. KAS quoting Kathi, “Are there good, non-abusive complementarian marriages out there? Of course there are. And for those people I say, “I wish you well.” ”

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/debatable-is-complementarianism-another-word-for-patriarchy/

    Quoting Russell Moore: What I fear is that we have many people in evangelicalism who can check off “complementarian” on a box but who really aren’t living out complementarian lives. Sometimes I fear we have marriages that are functionally egalitarian, because they are within the structure of the larger society.

    Quoting Denny Burk: Even to use the word “patriarchy” in an evangelical context is uncomfortable since the word is deemed “negative” even by most complementarians. But evangelicals should ask why patriarchy seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—-the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

    So, at least in the eyes of TGC, many who would “check off complementarian” have marriages that are functionally egalitarian. Perhaps I was one of those. Now, I’m wondering what they think I could have done to make my marriage more complementarian. Probably I would have had to turn the dial up on being domineering – instead of deferring decisions where we did not agree, or accepting the status quo, I should have manned up and forced my wife to take the approach she had just argued against?

    And… why would we think patriarchy negative when we serve the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Well, because the instances where Abraham and Isaac clearly sinned were… patriarchal. They commanded their wives to pretend that they were not married in order to win favor with the local chieftain. For Jacob, patriarchy led him to mistreat one wife and her children while favoring the other. In fact, Leah prayed to God to intervene on her behalf against the mistreatment of her husband, and that is probably why God gave her so many children and Rachel so few. If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the examples of godly patriarchal marriages, I’d say complementarians have a tough road ahead convincing women that is their lot in life.

    To KAS, TGC is playing the “No True Scotsman” card, too, and they are probably saying that the “good complementarian” marriages that Kathi is alluding to are functionally egalitarian.

    Like

  90. KAS, “all I would need to do is to go to the most prolific poster on this theme here who supplies a veritable goldmine of quotations showing the critic is in no position to judge Piper whatsoever”

    You mean you would just resort to ad hominem attacks. How mature of you!

    And… what do you mean by “no position to judge”? Are you saying that someone who uses profanity when they are angry is in no position to judge someone who calmly and coolly tells women that God commands them to submit to abuse? Someone whose church, after 20+ years of his complementarian ministry of teaching husbands how to love their wives and being a RECOGNIZED EXPERT in the area of marriage, had to bring in an outside person to teach them how to handle domestic violence in the church. I think Piper judges himself in that regard, and I think his church judged him unable to handle the consequences of his teaching.

    That argument is straight from the pit of Hell. You are, by logical conclusion, saying that one must be perfect to judge sin. Then how do YOU come here and accuse us? Are you perfect? What standard must we attain to, oh holy judge, to meet your bar of ability to judge sin? Have you met your own standard, or is that just a standard you hypocritically impose on others to shut them up?

    I like to say when the argument gets vicious…. “when logic and rationality fail…. time to ad hominem

    Like

  91. KAS, “dismantling Piper’s ideas here feelings must be put to one side, lest the critique simply end up being or appearing to be a personal attack.”

    You don’t get to come here and decide what the debate rules are. YOU ARE BEING ABUSIVE. Do you get that? You are coming here to a blog for those who have been badly hurt by complementarian abuse and then telling them that their feelings must be shoved in a box in order for them to be able to judge whether complementarianism is okay or not. That is the very same thing my abusers did. That is the very same thing that the people that supported my abusers did. They told me my pain didn’t matter, and that being angry was a sign that I was wrong and my abusers were right. They told me that they would not listen to me when I was emotional.

    YOU are enough evidence that complementarianism is wrong because all you can do when logic and rationality are shoved in your face is to start tone policing. You’ve lost the argument.

    “personal attack”… You don’t understand your own words. You accuse Daisy of engaging in personal attack… yet… your accusation OF Daisy is a personal attack. So your very statement is self-contradictory and hypocritical. You are saying that others cannot resort to personal attack in the very same paragraph where you are doing that very thing.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s