New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
Friday, September 03, 2010
| Christians demand apology for anti-women teaching |
|
|
| By Bob Allen | |||||
| Monday, July 26, 2010 | |||||
|
ORLANDO, Fla. (ABP) -- A group of women and men calling themselves the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition has demanded an apology for religious teaching they say is harmful to women. Shirley Taylor, founder of Baptist Women for Equality, presented the Demand for an Apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood at a July 24 meeting in Orlando, Fla.
"At a time in our church history that the main focus should be on winning lost souls and spreading the gospel to a hurting world, we fear for the future because the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has placed a greater priority on women's submissive role rather than on the gospel of Jesus Christ," the statement read in part. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is an organization with offices on the campus of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. It was formed in 1987 to oppose "the growing movement of feminist egalitarianism" in churches. The council countered with a "complementarian" interpretation of the Bible that affirms that men and women are equally in the image of God but assigns them "complementary differences" in role and function.
The view became enshrined as the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1998, when an article on the family was added to the denomination's Baptist Faith and Message confession. The statement assigns husbands the responsibility to "provide for, to protect and to lead the family," while the "wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ." The Freedom for Christian Women Coalition claimed that wifely submission "is more about power and control than about love or obeying the Word of God." It called on the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to denounce the "Danvers Statement"-- the group's statement of core beliefs -- and to acknowledge the harm it has done to churches and "confess it as sin." The coalition said the theology behind the Danvers Statement assigns a "god-like" status to males, while relegating women to a lower class that opens the door to abuse. "We are concerned about wife abuse, girlfriend abuse and abuse to female children that takes place in many homes where evangelical men are taught that they have earthly and spiritual authority over women," the statement said.
Complementarians deny their views on gender roles promote abuse. But Cindy Kunsman, a blogger who writes about spiritual abuse and one of the speakers at Saturday's conference, said that is naïve. "Many women suffer as a result of the 'evil woman theology' perpetuated by CBMW because their sub-Christian view of the nature of women scapegoats women as the root cause of all problems within both marriage and the family," Kunsman said. "Therefore, daughters raised within such systems suffer as well, because they are seen as merely objects of use to men of all ages." "I believe that young men who have been raised to believe that women are objects -- beings who are lesser then men -- and who are also taught to blame women as the ultimate cause of sinfulness have been given tacit permission to resort to mistreatment of women," Kunsman added. Another speaker, Jocelyn Andersen, said no one is claiming that all complementarian men are physically abusive, but studies abound connecting rigid gender roles with abuse and physical violence. Andersen described her own experience as a former battered wife in a 2007 book titled Woman Submit! Christians and Domestic Violence. Randy Stinson, the president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The coalition's statement also condemned "mistranslation of the Scriptures by complementarian translation committees."
Andersen said she dedicates an entire chapter in her new book, Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System, to what she called "mistakes" in the English Standard Version Bible translation due to "androcentricity" when she wrote the book. She said she now believes they weren't mistakes, but were the result of "deliberate mistranslation" in the ESV Study Bible released in 2008, hailed by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as "unapologetically complementarian." Andersen said one example of "misogynistic influence" in the ESV is Genesis 5:2, which reads, "Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created." Wayne Grudem, a member of the translation committee, used the verse in a book to make the point that "God named the human race 'man'" and not some gender-neutral term, suggesting a leadership role belonged to man before the Fall. Andersen, however, said God did not name the couple ish, the Hebrew word for man -- ishshah is Hebrew for woman -- but rather adam, the name given to the first man but also applied to the whole human race. Along with calling on the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to denounce the Danvers Statement, the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition demanded that "denominational leaders and all churches and seminaries" that have endorsed the statement to do the same. Trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, voted last fall to add the Danvers Statement to the seminary's policy manual under "Guiding Documents and Statements." The Freedom for Christian Women Coalition promoted the Orlando meeting as Seneca Falls 2. The name is borrowed from the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, the first women's-rights meeting in American history. Organizers of Seneca Falls 2 pointed out that four of the five organizers of the original Seneca Falls Conference were Christians and it was held at a Methodist church. That is significant, coalition leaders said, because people who promote an "egalitarian" view that males and females are equally gifted for all roles in the church and home are often accused of being influenced by secular feminism. -30- This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.
                Comments (91)
 Get over it.
written by Ken, July 26, 2010
I know this is going to be a great shock to these feminists, but some of us don't feel we have to apologize for doing what is right.
...
written by SDGiese, July 26, 2010
Build with straw, then strike a match and enjoy the fire. It's about that easy to build a straw-man argument, and this article, along with the first respondent, do this with the skill that pervades egalitarianism. The real shame is that it is dishonest and immoral. And what is at the heart of it? The heart of the problem is women who have taken their eyes off the cross in favor of whining for positions within the church that God has forbidden.
Caveat emptor, Steve Giese ...
written by KT2005, July 26, 2010
There have always been people who love traditional family and this will never change. If anything, this is a feather in Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's cap. Such criticism only shows how successful they have truly been in shaping minds and churches. Liberals cannot win the argument theologically with the scriptures. As a result, they must use sad stories which are straw men. No Bible believing Christian supports abuse. To say otherwise is a lie.
equality of result is impossible
written by Xenophon, July 26, 2010
Anytime two humans (or even animals) interact, one person dominates the other in some sense. While equality of moral worth is possible to realize, even though this principle is difficult to observe given our fallen nature, actual equality of status and influence is impossible to reach or maintain. In order to have any social structure at all, inequality of condition and status is necessary and desirable.
When we remove formal hierarchies, informal ones re-emerge. The only difference is that the process of sorting out who will take the lead becomes more conflictual. I am doubtful that the hope of a "natural aristocracy" arising to replace a hereditary aristocracy has improved our social structures. What we have substituted is an aristocracy with extensive education, a sense of noblesse oblige, and personal and class responsibility in favor of an "aristocracy" of self-appointed social engineers who are determined to destroy the social fabric that has been built on sound principles and social evolution for centuries aligned with a set of moral degenerates who use mass media to subvert moral principles and traditional ways of life. This latter group attains power largely by force of will coupled with, in many cases, mediocre ability. For some reason these up and coming elites do not have the same commitment to conserve the culture that has benefited them. In the case of women, most females naturally and voluntarily look for men to whom they can submit. A sociological study at the University of Virginia confirms the biblical role of women as well as the common sense that has developed over centuries in all human cultures. W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven L.Nock found that the women, even feminists, are more happily married if the man and woman take up traditional roles as long as the man brings in at least 65% of the family income and the husband is attentive and emotionally supportive. This finding is also consistent with economic theory and practice that has found that when people specialize in what they have a comparative advantage in, everyone involved in a trade can improve their position. Other research into sex differences has found that women and men are typically endowed with different aptitudes and abilities. Economist Gary Becker has applied this logic to the family and has found, to no one's surprise except egalitarians, that the basic structure of the traditional family is more productive and stable for every member of the family and for society. http://www.virginia.edu/sociology/peopleofsociology/wilcoxpapers/Wilcox Nock marriage.pdf Echoing TMarsh's comment...
written by Big Daddy Weave, July 26, 2010
I noticed that this coalition was described as a "movement" in the Christian Newswire press release. I haven't seen anything though that indicates how many people attended this event. Also, what is Baptist Women for Equality? Is it more than a one-person organization?
quibbling here . . .
written by jbird, July 26, 2010
Xeno, I'm no sociologist and can't counter the scholars you quote. It's my observation that in many households where the traditional economic roles are observed, the wife still makes many (if not most) of the crucial decisions. And, of course, "most females" doesn't equal "all females." Is your observation of most church families that the husband is the really spiritual leader? And there have been some disatrous results of the tradional patriarchy over the centuries and around the world.
What is "traditional family"?
written by brucegourley, July 26, 2010
So, what is "traditional family"?
Traditional biblical family values include: * arranged marriages * women as property with no rights * polygamy * brothers required to marry deceased brother's widows * women working to support the family * children working to support the family * fathers selling their daughters as maidservants * the death penalty for a child who smites or curses a parent Does anyone wish to support biblical family values? And lest we forget, "liberals" in the modern Western world led the way in bringing about reform in family values, including: * abolishing slavery * the temperance movement * enacting anti-child labor laws * the legal viewing of women as persons apart from their husbands * legal reforms in regards to spousal abuse Incidentally, there are plenty of "bible-believing Christian" homes today in which the husband is abusing his wife, and justifying it from the Bible because their pastor teaches that men should dominate women. ...
written by KT2005, July 26, 2010
Bruce,
I appreciate your honesty in telling us your disdain for what the Bible says about family. Please give us verses from the Bible that support your words. ...
written by javadave61, July 27, 2010
It's been suggested in this thread that equality between men and women (thus women serving in leadership positions in the church) is without theological/biblical basis. I beg to differ. I am as conservative as they come, and believe the Bible is God's word without error. Yet, when I read the Bible, I do not see where women are excluded from leadership in the church. One may point to Paul's prohibition to women teaching, but anyone who studies the context will see that he's prohibiting uneducated women (brought into the church for the first time by Paul himself!) from teaching positions so as to protect the church from false teaching. Paul so much as tells the women to go get educated, implying that once they are educated, they can lead equally in the church. Beyond that, Paul himself violates the SBC viewpoint on women in ministry by affirming Phoebe as a deacon, Priscilla as teacher of Apollos, Lydia as a co-founder of the Philippians church, and, possibly, Junias as an apostle. Paul's words about there being "neither male nor female" are right alongside "neither Jew nor Greek." And we know Paul's entire mission was to give gentiles the same standing before God as Jews (through Christ). He gives that same weight to women and men.
Even John R. W. Stott, the stalwart conservative theologian, who holds to a complementarian view argues that women leading in today's pastoral context (where the entire congregation acts as a check and balance) does NOT violate the biblical roles of men and women. In Southern Baptist life, the issue of women in ministry is a "liberal" / "conservative" issue. However, if you step outside the Baptist bubble, you'll find that just about every conservative stream outside of Baptist life is very flexible and open on this issue. I had the privilege of meeting a devout conservative professor from Gordon Conwell who says that when Southern Baptist students come into the classroom and find the seminary has a flexible policy about women and their calling, it's the Southern Baptist students who begin labeling professors and the seminary "liberal," when it's anything but that. It's caused this professor much sadness and personal pain. As Mr. Gourley suggested, we don't follow most of what the Bible teaches about family, because our culture has changed. Some of you didn't like that. But check out whether or not Southern Baptists are really practicing what they say Paul teaches about women. Would we really have women singing in church(theological song often written by women)? Women teaching Sunday School? Women as youth ministers. We pick and choose and draw our own lines at the area where we feel comfortable. I think it's time we began to see that our view of women has more to do with the culture wars and our own comfort than it does what the Bible actually says and teaches. And by the way, I say this with all the kindness I can muster, but it's only on these Baptist threads that I see Christians treating each other with such high levels of condescension. I just wonder if we've gone so far in insisting on theological purity that we feel we can act less Christianly in the process. And I'm the first to admit that I've been a big part of that problem. Some varied Comments
written by ConcernedAmerican, July 27, 2010
Javadave61 says: I just wonder if we've gone so far in insisting on theological purity that we feel we can act less Christianly in the process. And I'm the first to admit that I've been a big part of that problem.
Reply: Thanks for the comment. We are all guilty of that at times. Javedave61 says: Beyond that, Paul himself violates the SBC viewpoint on women in ministry by affirming Phoebe as a deacon, Priscilla as teacher of Apollos, Lydia as a co-founder of the Philippians church, and, possibly, Junias as an apostle. Paul's words about there being "neither male nor female" are right alongside "neither Jew nor Greek." reply: Phoebe as a deacon. That word is the word for servant. Like the servants at the wedding in Cana. It doesn't always refer to the office of a deacon. The context should determine how it is used. It is hard to make a case for Phoebe either way. However, from the original seven they were men. Question: Why are these women fighting with a Christian goup? They have nothing to fear from them. We have a bigger threat in Islam. Women in the West have a lot to fear with this invasion from the East. Let them stand up and speak out against the Islamic values and how women are treated in the Middle East and what they want to do to the West. If they really want to be prophetic, go after this group. reply to jbird
written by Xenophon, July 27, 2010
The study from UVA is not restricted to Evangelical families. If you take a look at the summary of the study you will find that these findings apply across various temperaments and political/social perspectives.
Next, if there is a division of labor in the household, then naturally the wife will make most of the decisions in her primary sphere of responsibility. The woman is the central figure in a home. As philosopher Emmanuel Levinas observed, there can be no home without a woman at its center. Levinas seemed to hold a traditional view of the family with his ethics being focused on a concern for and in relationship to the other. Again, traditional roles for the sexes does not entail or even suggest a lack of regard for one's mate. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/#WilBeiTwoHisStaFam By the way, the vast majority of cases of abuse are among non-married couples. A bit more info
written by Cindy K, July 27, 2010
Hello everyone,
I'm Cindy Kunsman, one of the women mentioned in this article. If anyone is interested, I happen to follow male headship in marriage and the local church, though I believe strongly that the gender debate is an intramural one. In Chapter 13 of Jocelyn Andersen's book, "Woman this is War" (derived from John MacArthur's statement about marriage), she describes the beliefs of C.S. Cowels who teaches that women "voluntarily subordinate themselves to men for the sake of congregational order." My beliefs actually conform somewhat to his own. I don't believe that women should submit to all men, but I do embrace male governance in the local church (though for reasons other than Cowels does, deriving his concept from 1 Cor 11:3). I do not share his interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3. (I have a throrough review on Amazon if anyone wants to read more.) In the absence of qualified men and conservatively interpreting 1Tim 3 and Titus 1, I believe that the senior role of governance within the LOCAL BODY should fall to men because the female governance argument is made from silence. But because there are no prohibitive statements excluding women, I believe it is an intramural argument. CBMW defines gender issues as essential doctrine which is applicable to all Believers, and upon that point, I disagree. I also follow male headship within my marriage, and my sole vow to my husband 20 years ago was to submit unto him as unto the Lord, approaching that vow with the same sober reverence that I do my vow to serve my Savior and Lord. I have only ONE Lord. And I am blessed because my husband has honored his vow to love me as Christ loves the Church by treating me as well as he treats his own body. In twenty years, he's never had to "pull rank." ...
written by Cindy K, July 27, 2010
I should also state that I believe (based on my own study of the original Greek texts) that women are NOT prohibited from teaching men, from any teaching role, from ministry in the church or society, from governance roles outside of the LOCAL church (as this is all that Paul refers to in the key passages), or from formal ordination for ministry, though I myself am not formally ordained. I believe that all Believers are ordained to minister the Gospel, a statement that my husband makes often (a man who says I'm far too polite and gracious when discussing these vital issues). Even children are anointed to preach the Gospel, ordained with strength, perfecting praise.
...
written by singer2, July 27, 2010
With apologies to Dee at Wartburg Watch, I'd like to repeat my story of the time that my lovely wife saw her opportunity and took it. We were at a pre-revival service meal with a big-name, conservative (if not political) evangelist (I was leading the music). The subject of women’s service to the church came up, and the evangelist boldly and loudly declared that his was the only Biblical view allowable, and therefore, he never allowed a woman near "his" pulpit, ever, to pray, read scripture, testify, etc. Dear wife looked him in the eye and said, “So you really are one of those male chauvinist pigs??” The silence was fabulous, the preacher and evangelist sputtered, and I roared with laughter—Oh, well, I didn’t want a career in evangelistic music anyway.
I fear that Mohler, Patterson, et al are desperate to make scripture work for their convulted theology, so now we have questions of women teaching men and manly men----In earlier years, we worked through these issues with Biblical interpretation. Now, we seem to be creating theological principles, and because a seminary president says so, young preachers flock to the call. There was once another young preacher who issued a different call--wonder why we are so hesitant to deal with these matters in terms of Christ's Beatitudes? ...
written by Big Daddy Weave, July 27, 2010
So, what is this Coalition for Freedom? How many people are involved? Cindy K represents something other than egalitarianism with her views about male headship and male church governance. Are there those within this coalition that are actually egalitarians who don't insist on male headship and male church governance?
Concerned American,
written by tmarsh0307, July 27, 2010
Read Acts 6 carefully. The Seven chosen by the apostles were never called deacons.
What is an elder? What is a deacon? The Bible actually says very little to establish these as offices, although 1 Timothy hints that these titles name some kind of official capacity. establishing rulership
written by Suzanne, July 27, 2010
The issue here is that there is a vast discrepancy between volunatary submission and being under someone else's "rulership." CBMW teaches the latter.
Bruce Ware writes on the CBMW website the following. (Please see my website for links.) "Most complementarians hold, then, that sin produced a disruption in God's order of male headship and female submission, in which a) the woman would be inclined now to usurp the man's rightful place of authority over her, and man may be required, in response, to reestablish his God-given rulership over the woman, and b) the man would be inclined to misuse his rights of rulership, either by sinful abdication of his God-given authority, acquiescing to the woman's desire to rule over him (and so fail to lead as he should), or by abusing his rights to rule through harsh, cruel and exploitative domination of the woman." This says that if women do not offer submission to the husband's authority over her, then he may have to "establish rulership." A further implication is that cruel behaviour on the part of the husband may be a response to the wife's insubordination. This is used against women who experience spousal abuse. This actually puts women in physical danger as they are not easily able to get help to escape violence. Women are counseled to be more submissive in cases of violence and this reinforces the violence and increases it. We are talking about physical assault as well as psychological abuse. In the case cited by John Piper, a husband, under the impression that he had "rulership" over his wife, made her ask permission to go from one room to another, including the bathroom, I understand. Whatever bizarre types of abuse go on, it is far too prevalent. ...
written by KT2005, July 27, 2010
Paul roots male headship in creation not humanities sinful fall.
2 Timothy 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. Controversial to say the least! Yet we must remember that this is God's word to guide our lives. From this passage Southwestern says women are not to be pastors. A poll of all Christians for the past 2000 years would show that over 98% of believers are in agreement with Southwestern. Truett argues that this passage is cultural. In other words, this reflects the culture of the time but since culture has changed this command is no longer relevant. Southwestern (conservatives) argue that Paul, who wrote scripture under the inspiration of God, did not root his argument about women not teaching men in culture. Rather Paul argues that women are not allowed to teach men because Adam was made first. So Paul says women cannot teach men because of the creation order, not culture. One might argue that just because man was made first means nothing, yet if we agree that Paul was inspired by God when he wrote his part of the Bible, then he is right. (Adam names Eve in Genisis which some argue means he had authority over her from the very beginning. . . he is able to name her in part because he was created first) Paul goes on and strengthens his argument by the fall or when mankind first sinned. Satin choose to go after the woman first, not the man. Why? She was an easier target. Men are to lead their homes (Ephesians 5:23) and men are to lead religious activities (1 Timothy 3:1-10 and Old Testament priest). There is a natural strength in men to lead and therefore God entrust them with certain leadership positions, and there is a natural tenderness in women that makes them vulnerable (1 Peter 3:7). Before sin/satin entered the world this tenderness was not a weakness, but since we do live in an imperfect world such tenderness is a weakness. God protects women from such vulnerablity by placing male leadership over their lives, through fathers, husbands, and pastors. Did I mention this is controversial? (saved by child bearing. . . women would be saved because a woman would give birth to the Christ, the savior of the world. There is more, but I will not chase that rabbit unless you ask me to.) Truett points out another scipture: Galations 3 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. This passage does say that we are all, both men and women, saved the same way. . . faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore men and women are equal in value to God. . . Christ died for all. . . paid the same price for each person. But if we interpret this passage as saying male and female can all do the same type of ministry, then we are saying the Bible contradics itself. Since we believe the Bible to be without error this is impossible, therefore the Truett/liberal interpretation is false. ...
written by Suzanne, July 27, 2010
The primary focus of the demand for an apology does not have to do with church governance, or about wifely submission, but it is about "male rulership," and whether the male has a duty to "exert leadership" and whether spousal abuse is the victim's fault. These are very serious matters, and in my view, have legal consequences.
However, in case you are wondering what wifely submission is like in CBMW's view, let me provide this, "The level of Jesus' submission to the Father, then, is complete, comprehensive, all-inclusive an absolute. There are no exceptions to his submission and obedience, for he never once sins at any point throughout all his life." Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles & Relevance (Crossway). If this measure of submission is applied to a wife by a husband whenever he wants to have his way, the wife becomes a groveling scrap of non-human material plastered to the floor. This is what this is about. It is about providing those men who wish physical domination and mind control in their marriage, and use instruction from CBMW to destroy another human being. bWe Baptist Women for Equality
written by bwebaptist, July 27, 2010
Not one of you have addressed the factors in the 10 concerns and the 11 demands we have issued to the CBMW. You have all gone off on your own soapboxes and completely ignored the question at hand.
...
written by SDGiese, July 27, 2010
“Complementarians deny their views on gender roles promote abuse. But Cindy Kunsman, a blogger who writes about spiritual abuse and one of the speakers at Saturday's conference, said that is naïve.”
SDG: Cindy, surely you see and understand that this is extremely inflammatory toward those, like myself, who hold to the complementarian view. Furthermore, the above is the fallacious argument known as the fallacy of the slippery slope. If “A,” then B. Even if you argue that if “A,” then then “B” is likely, you cannot show or demonstrate this to be the case, indeed, from my experience of living in the complementarian camp for over 30 years, you conclusion couldn’t be farther from the truth. It’s always been my experience that when people have difficulty arguing from the Scriptures in a clear and coherent manner, they default to arguments that are less than honest and thus, entirely inappropriate from the pen of professing Christians.I would ask you to think about this the next time you enter into the conversation. CK: "Many women suffer as a result of the 'evil woman theology' perpetuated by CBMW because their sub-Christian view of the nature of women scapegoats women as the root cause of all problems within both marriage and the family," Kunsman said. "Therefore, daughters raised within such systems suffer as well, because they are seen as merely objects of use to men of all ages." SDG: Here again, you rev up the inflammatory rhetoric, but there is absolutely no sustenance to your claims. I’m inclined to think someone called you and asked if you would join in on some mud-slinging, and to not fret about biblical insight, persuasive statistical facts or anything else that would give your comments warrant. As for you allegation that the CBMW perpetuates “evil woman theology,” I would simply ask that you give one example wherein CBMW argues that “women are evil” and the “root cause of all problems within both marriage and the family.” If you cannot produce the evidence, then you owe the folks at CBMW an enormous and apology. CK: "I believe that young men who have been raised to believe that women are objects -- beings who are lesser then men -- and who are also taught to blame women as the ultimate cause of sinfulness have been given tacit permission to resort to mistreatment of women," Kunsman added. SDG: You might be right, but I have never known a complimentarian who believes that “women are objects -- beings who are lesser then men.” Have you read that which you describe in the literature from CBMW? If so, would you provide the documentation? If not, I would encourage you to publically apologize to the good men and women at CBMW. SDGiese Reading Scripture Outside a First Century Context and It's Narrative Context
written by tmarsh0307, July 27, 2010
In many cases of complementarian exegesis (or should I call it eisegesis?) arguments are founded on the basis of reading their own social location into the text.
When Bruce Gourley writes, what is the traditional family and poses examples of how scriptures regarding "family values" have been interpreted over the years, his respondants want to argue that the "innerrant word of God" would never promote such horrors. The truth is that interpreting scripture as propositional truth divorced from its narrative context as well as historical context has led to many atrocities, including those that Gourley has highlighted. I will concede that many egalitarians refuse to wrestle with scripture as well. They would rather declare the Bible "fallible" and move on. However, I firmly believe that by reading scripture in its narrative context, as well as its historical context, with confidence in its "inspiration" as well as Christ as its criterion for interpretation will only buttress the egalitarian position and call into question many of the assumptions of complementarians who read scripture as propositional truth divorced from context. Starting points would be: 1. The whole New Testament is progressive with its role toward women in community vis-a-vis that of its historical context. Should the church not at least be on par with society, if not more so progressive with the freedom and rights of women on the other side of the cross? 2. Jesus broke rank with social customs regarding his contact with women in public settings. 3. Paul's admonition to men in Ephesians 5 is sacrificial love for the wife that parallels Christ's love for the church. If the male is to lead, he is to lead with a wash basin and a towel around his waste (concession to complementarians for argument sake). 4. Paul's "veiled" reply in 1 Corinthians 11 regarding women wearing veils in worship and when praying. His conclusion is that her hair is a sufficient enough veil. (His conclusion is that it is really not that important). 5. In First Timothy 2, don't you think that the "I do not permit" is a clue? Paul calls for women to learn. Not all women were uneducated in that time period. But the truth is that many women were uneducated and second-class citizens as a result. Paul admonishes them to "learn." 6. Passages in Paul that limit the role of women in the congregation (a First Century one) could be an effort to fulfil his own admonitions of Romans 14, and that is to grace to the "weak" in a disputable matter. Usually, the "weak" are those who have scruples about permitting a practice that at one time was forbidden but more light has been shed. An example would be that many First Century Jewish Christians continued to practice their Jewish heritage even though they came to Christ and no longer needed to do so. New light had been shed on the issue of religion and faith (i.e., the New Covenant). Finally, in response to Steve Giese's insensitive comments (that could be down-right immoral as well), conservatives need to know that there is a problem with Domestic Violence and the practice of submission in patriarchal families and communities of faith. I serve on my community's Domestic Violence Resource Center Board of Directors. The research on this is shocking and horrifying. God does not condone any family structure or structure in the community of faith that leads to abuse of women or children. To turn your eyes to abuse for the sake of winning a theological argument is, in and of itself, immoral. Galatians 3:26-29
written by tmarsh0307, July 27, 2010
It is interesting that Paul radically declares that there are no longer customary social statuses in this passage. Race/nationality, socio-economic status, and gender no longer determine one's status for those who are "in Christ."
With apologies to women, all Christians, whose story is located in the death, resurrection and ascension narrative of Christ, are declared to be "sons" and "heirs" in Gal. 3:29. The emphasis is own our heirs to the lineage of Abraham, who would be the one through whom God would bless the world. In Romans 8, all creation is groaning, awaiting for the "sons" or "heirs" (regardless of status) to be revealed. Male and female, regardless of nationality or economic class, will rule in God's renewed heaven and earth. How this played out in the first century community of faith was determined by context. However, Galatians 3:28 was radical. Paul's vision was to see a Spirit-led people unfold the truth of that verse (Gal. 5:22-23). ...
written by KT2005, July 27, 2010
Ephesians 5:22
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. Suzanne, In all honesty, your problem is not with CBMW. . . your problem is with the Bible. ...
written by Big Daddy Weave, July 27, 2010 I'll try again: Are there any actual egalitarians involved in Freedom for Christian Woman Coalition? How many people comprise this new coalition? How many attended the convention in Orlando? What is the purpose of this coalition? To simply speak out against the extreme complementarianism of Ware, Grudem & Company? Or does your coalition have a broader mission? Is the mission egalitarian or simply anti-patriarchy? What is the purpose of Baptist Women for Equality? For a number of years, Baptist egalitarians have been represented in part through the work of Baptist Women in Ministry (www.bwim.info). Does BwE have a different mission that BWIM? A different intended audience? Just trying to figure out what role Taylor & whoever else sees for BwE when moderate and progressive Baptists already have BWIM - an organization that deserves more support from we Baptist egalitarians. The title of your group - Freedom for Christian Women Coalition - gives the impression to the reader that this is a egalitarian group. After reading Cindy Kunsman's comments, I'm unclear as to whether this group has egalitarian aims. What word could you possibly offer to the young woman called pastoral ministry when on the one hand you believe that the Bible prohibits male rulership while on the other hand you believe that the Bible requires male headship in marriage and male church governance? Just asking... BDW www.thebigdaddyweave.com ...
written by Suzanne, July 27, 2010
I am not associated with the coalition, and have only read about it on the internet. However, I was in many congregations influenced by the CBMW. I have noted the following,
1. Women who have been raped and beaten have been instructed to be gentle, submissive and bake pies. I am not kidding. 2. Women are taught to be submissive as a symbol that they believe in the inerrant word of God, and will through this gain eternal life. Submission is taught as a prerequisite to salvation. 3. There has been no mention of support or resources for abused wives. There is outright in your face denial that any wives are being abused made right to an woman who had been hit many times, but was at that moment afraid to reveal her circumstances. One should always assume that in a congregation of 1000 people there is at least one victim of violence. This is wrong. 4. CBMW regulary misquotes academic articles on words like authenteo, kephale, Junia episemos to the apostles and so on. They do this routinely. ...
written by sepherim, July 27, 2010
I find it interesting that all the conservative voices on here continue to use the traditional Western translations/interpretations to support their position, primarily with proof texts. Remembering that until very recently all Western translators/interpretors were men or more specifically, white men, it is no mystery that all of those translations support a male dominant view of scripture. For all who subscribe to an inerrant view of scripture remember that it is not the Western translations that are inerrant. But whenever someone has offered an alternative interpretation/translation you accuse them of not believing the Bible. I find it very amusing that southern baptists who are supposedly strong biblicists, base their church structure on their male dominated tradition not on biblical teachings, i.e. compare the various versions of the BF&M on the officers of the church. Did the Bible change? Or did the SBC change?
bWe Baptist Women for Equality
written by bwebaptist, July 27, 2010
This is to Big Daddy Weave. Check your email. I have answered your questions.
tmarsh
written by ConcernedAmerican, July 27, 2010
Tmarsh says: Read Acts 6 carefully. The Seven chosen by the apostles were never called deacons.
reply: the word deacon does not appear in Acts 6. However, most believe this is the origin of the office of the deacon. In the NT it is used frequently and most times does not refer to the office of the deacon. In fact very few times when the word diakonos appears does it refer to the office of a deacon. Romans 16:1 which most liberals like to point to can not be proven one way or other. Most likely it is used in its common use as simply a servant. tmarsh says: What is an elder? What is a deacon? The Bible actually says very little to establish these as offices, although 1 Timothy hints that these titles name some kind of official capacity reply: What is an elder? In my opinion the early churches had several pastors. The word elder refers to them. They were not necessarily the one who would preach but did many times. The deacon was a servant in the church. That is important. They were not a ruling body but men who served. Some times they preached as well. I believe the 7 of Acts 6 were deacons even though the word diakonos is not used. Stephen served and he preached. I think this office was developed more in the late first and early second centuries. tmarsh Galations 3:26-29
written by ConcernedAmerican, July 27, 2010
Tmarsh you speak alot about context in your post. The context of these verses is about salvation not offices of the church. Best to leave it at that.
...
written by sepherim, July 27, 2010
ConcernedAm, I am truly sorry you want to limit the rich, full message of Galatians to salvation alone. Galatians is about being "in Christ" which includes much more than just salvation. Whatever we do as believers is done "in Christ," including the way we do church. And in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. The subordination of women was a result of sin, in Christ we are all new creations and should be throwing off the burdens that sin brought to society. If the freedom that Christ brings cannot be experienced by all in the church, where else can it be experienced. The subordination that the complementarians cling to is no different in kind than the subordination that the slave holders wanted to hold on to.
@ KT2005 re brucegourley's "traditional family" and request for Bible references
written by dlhunt, July 27, 2010
Here is a list of eight types of "Biblical marriage" with references. For an expanded view of each of these here is my source.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm 1. The standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24 describes how a man leaves his family of origin, joins with a woman 2. Polygynous marriage: A man would leave his family of origin and join with his first wife. * Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives. * Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included: o Esau with 3 wives; o Jacob: 2; o Ashur: 2; o Gideon: many; o Elkanah: 2; o David: many; o Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth; o Rehaboam: 3; o Abijah: 14. o Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives. * From the historical record, it is known that Herod the Great (73 to 4 BCE) had nine wives. 3. Levirate Marriage: Genesis 38:6-10, 4. A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: As described in Genesis 16 5. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300!; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1. 6. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31:1-18 7. A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 8. A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4 More Biblical Family Values
written by brucegourley, July 28, 2010
Here is a pretty good listing of scriptural references to biblical family values. It seems the skeptic who put this together is more familiar with the Bible than some conservatives herein. ;-)
For those who want an abbreviated version, just start with Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 21 (which while constituting just a glimpse of the references above, these two chapters provides a good overall snapshot). And let me ask this of those who claim to be upholding traditional biblical marriage and family values: can you identify a biblical family that exemplifies "traditional marriage" and "family values?" sepherim
written by ConcernedAmerican, July 28, 2010
sepherim says: I am truly sorry you want to limit the rich, full message of Galatians to salvation alone.
Reply: It is not what I want to do that is the issue. The context of this passage in Galations is addressing the issue of salvation. To make it say something else is not being true to the word. When you read anything into a passage of scripture that you want you will have confussion. Question: Can you give me a passage in the NT that teaches the subordination of women? Concerned American,
written by tmarsh0307, July 28, 2010
You are right...this is salvation. For Paul, salvation means becoming a part of God's project of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:16-21) of all creation (Rom. 8:18-39) in which God will establish his reign over all things (Eph. 1:9-10). Salvation means that regardless of death, all of God's people will participate in his eternal kingdom because he has the power to raise the dead. He revealed that in the death of his son, whose sacrifice atones for sin, but whose resurrection is but the firstfruits of what would happen to all people (1 Cor. 15). We are baptized into this story, mapped onto Christ's prototypical trajectory by His Spirit, guaranteeing salvation. Many things will happen after Christ's return, but there is also a present element:
1. We are transformed into the image of Christ (Romans 12:1-2) 2. We form a universal kingdom of priests (Rev. 5) with all who are "in Christ" as well as local communities. 3. In those local communities, to which Paul was addressing in Galatians - those who refused to eat beside Gentiles, that this community of those who are (in the present) New Creations in Christ, there are to be no markers of status - period! 4. What will be true of the kingdom come will be true in the communities of faith in the present. That is Galatians 3:26-29, in context! For Paul's comments that limit the role of women, read them in context as well. Someone, (KT2005) wrote that scripture, because of inerrancy, cannot contradict itself. Well, instead of reading Gal. 3:26-29 in light of 1 Tim 2:11ff, try it vice versa. Did Paul intend this to be an instruction for the church to follow for all times? I think not because Paul, though appealing to the created order, says "I do not permit." We are not in "Old Creation" We are in "New Creation" if we are led by the Spirit. So, I believe that this passage addressed a particular issue of which we do not have the details, but my guess is that for all of these texts, Paul is concerned, out of Romans 14, that active leadership of women could be offensive, if not scandalous, to the communities that they were trying to win. Just like meat sacrificed to idols or speaking in tongues, Paul "limits" their freedom for the sake of the others the church is trying to win, while, at the same time, emphasizing the equality of women. However, we live in a day in which it is scandalous to force women to a second-class role. Should the church, seizing the opportunity afforded to it by Jesus' example, call women and men to work together as New Creations to lead the home, the church and the community? As for my hermeneutics, I read Paul's admonition through the lens of the reality of New Creation in the present, whereas you are reading the reality of New Creation through a rule. Which is better? Read Galatians again. We are not under law or rules but under the Spirit who produces virtues or character traits that fulfill the thing which the law points to. Finally, no one has addressed domestic violence and the subjugatiuon of women. I suspect it is pride and callousness. And, for family values in scripture, please read Bruce Gourley's comments. That is scripture in context! seraphim,
written by tmarsh0307, July 28, 2010
I agree with the point you make, but maybe it is because you limit salvation, along with others, to having your sins forgiven so that you can go to heaven when you die.
That is not the message of salvation in the New Testament. goal and purpose
written by SaberTruth, July 28, 2010
IMHO, the purpose of this Demand is not an unrealistic expectation that CBMW or any other group will give up what they're doing, but simply to bring the awful consequences of such teachings to light.
The Body of Christ is exactly that: a body-- not a chain, a club, a business, or a military complex. Scripture tells us that when one part suffers, all the parts suffer. And the suffering of women must not be allowed to continue, nor the stunting of spiritual and emotional growth of men who are always given their way. The egalitarian voice has, to this point, been polite and quiet-- just the way organizations such as CBMW like it. But as in politics, those in power only laugh at "talk" and diplomacy; they only understand raw power. So power is what is needed to begin the healing of the Body. The time for diplomacy has long passed, because the longer we continue to just talk, more women are reduced to afterthoughts and men to spoiled tyrants. The Body has been torn in half, and continuing to take aspirin is a futile effort. Jesus came to free the imprisoned and lift the heavy burdens from the backs of the oppressed, and the Christian community needs to admit that women are not excluded from these truths. But when women are instead told that they carry the heaviest burden-- that their behavior can make a man forfeit his "proper role" and cause him to sin-- these promises from Jesus seem a cruel hoax. When women are told that they cannot trust their own thoughts, being a "Jezebel" waiting to pounce and so needing a man to constrain them, they are in the deepest prison of all. No cult could do worse. It is time for us all to ask ourselves whether we will believe Jesus' command, "Not so among you". WOW!
written by Slick, July 28, 2010
What a great discussion! Thanks everyone. You've all provided great food for thought. Now to digest it.
Sabertruth,
written by tmarsh0307, July 28, 2010
I agree with your point.
However, I do not think that women's groups and moderate Baptists will be effective until we stop saying "to heck with whatever the Bible says". I firmly believe that scripture understood as the inspired written Word of God will yield the exegetical fruits to provide theological foundations for their pursuits. The battle against these conservative groups must be to show them that their exegesis is misguided. When conservatives hear things like "the Bible is fallible" or that it is self-contradictive, then you have lost the table at which to talk with them. I think that work needs to be done in the area of scriptural exegesis to undergird the work of egalitarians. Egalitarians must affirm confidence in scripture as the written Word of God and proceed to argue by means of exegesis and hermeneutics their case. Plus they must market it to the masses who only desire to be faithful to the Bible. Only then will it succeed. Winter's Bone and Fleming Rutledge
written by Hebrews 11:13, July 28, 2010
These are some interesting exchanges.
I have a couple random thoughts that a few of you may want to consider as you come to conclusions aftern meditation on any new light that might have emerged thus far in these comments. One, while the UVA study above was pretty interesting, and most of us know the story of the Feminist of the 70's who was swept off her feet by a rich man who "took care of her"; I remain convinced that two of the greatest preachers on the planet are women: Fleming Rutledge and Barbara Brown Taylor. 2) In the book on fundamentalist churches by Ault, the srong point about the Neck that turns the Head was the way women go along with the submissive thing but control most conservatives congregations. They are the Neck and their Deacon and elder Head Husbands are deceived into thinking they are doing things while the women move the congregational chess pieces around. 3) Would be interesting for ABP to have a followup to get Susan Shaw of Jerry Vines church to evaluate and review this new Women's group in light of her experience. 4)All, the Women Complainants as well as their BiblicalManhood Detractors and their wives should make a way to go see the the Sundance Winner for this year, and NY Times and New Yorker applauded movie Winter's Bone, about how women get things done in Ronnie Floyd's backyard in NW Arkansas. Great Gospel Song in the credits that shines light on everyone involved in this discussion to Date. And when you see it, don't overlook the fact the actor who plays Thump Milton in real life is nicknamed "Stray Dog." Before it gets off the newstsnd at Barnes and Noble read the cover story of Film Magazine interview of the director, Deb Granik and her Theology of AND. ...
written by KT2005, July 28, 2010
To Bruce's list.
* arranged marriages A father is to be the gatekeeper for young women until their first marriage (1 Cor. 7:36-38 man = father). This is why the father gives away the bride. A widow can marry who she wishes in the New Covenant (1 Cor. 7:39-40). Are we better off with less input from parents? Last time I checked Americans don't do marriage so well. * women as property with no rights Not true. Women had the right to own land and do business as well as live without abuse (Proverbs 31:16&24, Exodus 21:26-27). A husband does possess his wife just as Christ possesses us his bride through the purchase of his blood (1 Cor. 6:19-20). A woman truly in love takes pride in being her husband's wife. If you do not believe me write a letter to a widow who was happily married and address it to Mrs. Tom Knuckles or whatever her husband's name is. She will come to you thankful. . . thankful you remembered her husband and thankful you recalled her belonging to him. How odd it is that feminists have no concept of femininity. As Xeno said, the traditional family works. Academic nonsense cooked up by some professor in a classroom simply looks good on paper. The private lives of all too many academics is a disaster, which shows the ridiculous nature of their values. There is a reason the Bible says preachers/teachers must have good families. To understand and obey God's word is to have a healthy home. * polygamy Polygamy is allowed but not recommended. After all, in the beginning Adam had only one wife. * brothers required to marry deceased brother's widows In the old covenant this is certainly true. Such an arrangement kept the land allotments equalized by producing an heir. Keep in mind that an older women without virginity was anything but desirable in the ancient world. Such commands protected the woman by giving her a man to look after her interest (Boaz and Ruth). There is no need to make that which is intended to protect into something that oppresses. Historical context matters. Marriage has not always been about love alone, sometimes simple survival was more important than emotions. Rich Americans find this hard to fathom. * women working to support the family I don't understand why this is a problem. * children working to support the family Same here, is it wrong to have a son mow the family's yard or work a job to help out? Most families create chores to build character and teach selfless giving. . . schools give children homework. * fathers selling their daughters as maidservants A dowry is not as bad as it first appears. The point is not to make money off your daughter, though no doubt some looked at it this way (Most fathers love their daughters). Rather, the point was to make a young man prove he is responsible and able to take care of a wife and children to come. A man cannot give his daughter to just any man. If a man does not provide for his own household he is worse than an unbeliever. . . you will remember this quote from 1 Timothy 5:8. Dowries make a man prove he can provide, work, and save money responsibly. Only a fool gives his daughter to a bum. * the death penalty for a child who smites or curses a parent I don't know why you put smite in there, but on cursing you are correct (Lev. 20:9). Now I cannot imagine many parents bringing such a charge knowing the consequences, yet in God's justice such a sin justifies the death penalty. My advise, honor your parents! Also, it is important to note that not everything in the OT that commanded the death penalty always resulted in death. Judges were given some discretion in applying the death penalty. This discretion is assumed and shown by some crimes being so bad that no discretion or mercy was allowed by judges (Deu. 19:18-21, 19:13). To your last question Bruce, Adam and Eve are good examples of what God intended. Just because Bible characters do something does not make it right. Are we to commit adultery because David did? Just because men had polygamous marriages in the Bible does not mean this is God's best. Yet in a fallen world where people die without a husband polygamy becomes a necessity. ...
written by KT2005, July 28, 2010
dlhunt,
Most of the verses you post are not trying to set norms for living. As I told Bruce, just because David commits adultery does not mean we are suppose to do the same. History is what happened, not what should have happened. Your examples of sinners lives do not counter Adam and Eve, one man and one woman, to be God's best. "7. A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29" To call this rape is not necessarily air tight. Realize that a young virgin was viewed as her father's property. In a sense stealing is seizing someone elses property. So this could be fornication. The Hebrew words for force (22:25) and seize (25:28) are different. A father could veto the marriage and no doubt would in a case of rape (Ex. 22:17). Lastly, the "THEY are found out" seems to point toward a mutual tango. These points seem to be your stronger objections. I hope this helps. been there, done that
written by SaberTruth, July 28, 2010
tmarsh0307,
I don't think Christian egal groups are saying "to heck with whatever the Bible says". Many of us take great care to distance ourselves from anyone who would. We do emphasize the gaping holes in comp exegesis. I'd be interested in seeing the sources for what you say the comps are hearing. Also, there has been a lot of quality research and analysis on the egal side, but trying to get a toe in the comp-dominated market is the same battle young-earth creationists have with getting peer review: the game is rigged against us. We have presented, and continue to present, much material showing the flaws in comp exegesis and logic. But it is summarily dismissed and marginalized. Many of us have also learned through our experiences in blogs and message boards that trying to reason with many comps is like nailing jello to a wall. They delete or edit our comments, mock our scholars, try to assign guilt by association, flood the market with male-supremacist books and videos, and stack seminary faculty with "good ole boys". We have tried to talk to them, and they will not have it. KT2005
written by brucegourley, July 28, 2010
Your response to OT traditional family values is a mix of acknowledgment (do you really believe God requires your daughter be put to death for cursing you?), downplaying of certain scriptural statements (polygamy among God's people is actually very common in the OT, never spoken against, and in Ex 21:10 God views it as an accepted institution), and selective use of scripture in other cases to reinforce your own beliefs. Overall, it is a curious response, and I'll just leave that there.
But I have to remind you that I asked for one example of a family that exemplifies the traditional family values you cherish. Do you really wish to argue that a husband and wife (well, at some point Adam and Eve formally got married, one would presume) who sinned greatly against God, were punished greatly by God, and had a child who murdered another of their children ... exemplifies traditional family values? Can you think of a better biblical example of family values than that ... or is the best you can point to? Sabertruth,
written by tmarsh0307, July 28, 2010
I commend you for commitment to winning the exegetical and hermeneutical battle ground.
At the very least you are communicating through blogs, pamplets and other media to women and children who are lost and trying to find another way. As for the Complementarians that refuse to listen, eventually God will remove their lampstand. God has been patient. Finally, I would cite Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (of Harvard) as an example of one whose feminist hermeneutical agenda leads to picking and choosing which texts may be authoritative. Her methods go beyond what I would be comfortable, as I affirm divine inspiration for the whole of scripture. My prayers are with you and your work. ...
written by KT2005, July 28, 2010
Bruce,
If you want an example of a perfect family sinners need not apply. Yet to argue that God has no plan for family is also clearly false. You act as if there is no basis for a healthy family in scripture. To argue that there is no standard because perfection is missing in sinful man is odd. As for non-polygamous marriages in the Old Testament: Noah and his wife, Isaac and Rebekah, Ruth and Boaz, to name a few. I believe the Bible Bruce. I know that comes as a shock, but I really do believe the good book. . . as should you. KT2005
written by dlhunt, July 28, 2010 I wasn't positing anything in particular when I posted the list of references. I remembered seeing the references and thought it might be useful to anyone's research. tmarsh0307
written by SaberTruth, July 28, 2010
Thank you. :-)
Yes, comps do love to cite liberal academia as proof that all egals are radical, drooling femininazis. But I would counter them with the observation that we could as easily cite the historical tendency of patriarchal societies to condone slavery and homosexuality. If it's a mud-slinging contest they want, we can oblige. ;-) I would like to think that we can rise above this and recognize that an intramural Christian debate should begin with the Bible as the "given", the authority to which both sides appeal. We can hardly debate what Christians should do, if we can't even define what Christians are. If, however, the comps want to resort to the equivalent of "Communists are egalitarians too", then they can expect egals to retort with "The KKK is male supremacist too". We have to define the limits of the debate if there is to be any hope of having one. Thank you also for your prayers... if CBMW chooses to respond, it won't be pretty. KT2005
written by brucegourley, July 28, 2010
KT, you and I both know that I did not ask you to name a perfect family in the Bible. I asked you to identify a family that represents the "traditional" family values that you espouse. And you seem unable to name even one such biblical family.
As to believing the Bible ... you believe your interpretation of the Bible ... and routinely reject biblical interpretations that are at odd with your personal views. Did not receive
written by Big Daddy Weave, July 28, 2010
BwE,
I did not receive your e-mail. My e-mail address is This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ...
written by KT2005, July 28, 2010
Bruce,
Did this not answer your question: As for non-polygamous marriages in the Old Testament: Noah and his wife, Isaac and Rebekah, Ruth and Boaz, to name a few. This whole article is funny....
written by Ken, July 28, 2010
Those who defend the ordination of women crow a great deal about "diversity" and "freedom." Yet when someone takes issue with their opinions, they demand an apology. Like most liberals, these women seem to think freedom applies to no one but them.
Model familes?
written by brucegourley, July 28, 2010
Are you identifying the families of Noah, Issac and Ruth as embodiment of traditional family values that you advocate?
Noah was a drunkard. Isaac passed his wife off as his sister (Gen 26); Isaac's son Esau was polygamous (Gen 36). Ruth slept with a drunk Boaz before they were married Are drunkeness, adultery, polygamy and passing your wife off as your sister, your traditional family values? ...
written by KT2005, July 28, 2010
??? Noah got drunk, but he was not a drunkard. What does Isaac lying about his wife to protect his life have to do with anything? Lastly, Ruth did not have sex with Boaz before they were married. Just because some liberal with a foot fetish thinks grabbing feet means sex does not make it so. lol The Bible is very careful to paint people as sinners in need of grace. Not only is this true, but it keeps people from believing they can have righteousness apart from Christ and His power. You do seem to be asking me for a sinless couple. Sorry, there are none.
KT2005
written by brucegourley, July 28, 2010
KT2005: Now you seem to be saying that being drunk can be incorporated into family values. And to "uncover one's feet" in Hebrew is an idiom that means to expose one's genitals; this was a case of drunkenness and sex. Finally, if you don't think that passing your wife off to strange men as your sister in order to save your own bacon is a lack of family values ... ask your wife.
We both know I'm not asking you to identify sinless people in the Bible, but instead am asking you to identity a family in the Bible that embodies your traditional family values. There is obviously no need to pursue this any further, as you unable to identify a biblical family that models your concept of traditional family values. So I leave you with this last question, and leave you with the last word if you wish to answer it: why are there no biblical models of your Westernized, "traditional family values?" ...
written by KT2005, July 28, 2010
Just a comment on Ruth Bruce.
No idiom is present. I am always amazed at how sex obsessed some scholars are. Ruth grabs Boaz feet because she is asking him to fill her dead husband's shoes. . . as a kinsman redeemer. Shoes or sandals were a part of the process. Read Deu. 25:5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 But if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal removed.’ Why remove the sandal. . . because the brother refuses to fill shoes. So when Ruth grabs feet she is saying fill my husband's shoes. There is nothing sexual here. bruce
written by Ken, July 28, 2010
So how do YOU define "family values"? You criticize conservatives for their beliefs, so what model do you consider the ideal? Do you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, then on what basis can you criticize polygamy? For that matter, do you think pedophilia should be legalized?
"And to 'uncover one's feet' in Hebrew is an idiom that means to expose one's genitals" Says who? ...
written by doktor, July 28, 2010
As a person who goes to a SBC church where we ordain women ministers, have women deacons and women elders... to me the issue is about spiritual arrogance. If a woman tells us that she has been called by God to become a minister of the faith, it is the height of spiritual arrogance to tell her that she misunderstood the voice of God. And then suggest that maybe she should be a Sunday School teacher or may an minister instead.
Our church runs better when there is a mix of genders, ages, races, etc. in the governing of the church. doktor
written by ConcernedAmerican, July 28, 2010
Your comments go beyond the disagreement. To disagree with you makes someone arrogant. I wonder where the real spiritual arrogance it? Discussion is over if one disagrees with you.
You have a right to your opinion about women in ministry. You have the right to say you think someone who holds a diffent opinion is wrong. But to call them arrogant is absolutely wrong. BWE Baptist,
written by tmarsh0307, July 29, 2010
I read your document and printed it out for my wife. Before my wife met me, someone she dated briefly gave her a copy of the Piper and Grudem book. My wife is pretty conservative, but she immediately gave it back.
I am on my community's Domestic Violence Resouce Center Board of Directors. Recently, our Executive Director handed me a thick unpublished manuscript about connections between religious beliefs about the roles of women and domestic violence. Furthermore, our Caring Hearts Pregancy Center assists many women who have become pregnant by boyfriends, who are in these ultra conservative churches. I think all your points are valid. However, I don't think that this group will apologize. They are convinced that they are right and are ignoring, as many theologically conservative religious traditions have for centuries, the harm that comes to women and children who fail to submit to the father in the family. The problem comes when pastors attend seminaries that "indoctrinate" them into their denomination's particular set of beliefs. These seminaries fail to engage at a critical level other literature that opposes their own beliefs. Pastors who attend SBC seminaries probably have never critically engaged egalitarian materials. They are passed off as "liberal" as a pejorative term. This is speculation, but they all know what they are doing in SBC seminaries. I appreciate the work that you are doing. However, I believe that serious exegetical and theological work needs to be done to counter the Biblical Manhood and Womanhood group. The only way to counter these folks is through exegesis. However, I would continue to explore and promote your message by making connections with domestic violence. Many people who are older pretend that things like this do not happen. They turn a blind eye. I hope that we have generations coming up that will work for the good of the innocent and educate faith communities on the dangers of such views. Thank you for your hard work. Ronnie Floyd and Ree Dolly
written by Hebrews 11:13, July 29, 2010
Jot of you are gettin tangled up in Scripture when a Chapter of the NOW Testament is on Screen if you aren't too proud to drive a few miles for Divine Revelation, and a great rubric to confront Ronnie Floyd on these matters.
The Movie Winter's Bone has showings here and there sprinkled across the nation. I saw it last week. Get a theatre in your community to bring it near you. You Know the Now, don't you, as in The Old, the New and the Now Testament. Women in this film are testifying to their own experience. Hope ABP has a review soon with room for comments. ...
written by SDGiese, July 29, 2010
TMarsh0307 writes, "Finally, in response to Steve Giese's insensitive comments (that could be down-right immoral as well),
SDGiese: Could you be more specific, or is this more of the warrantless accusations that started this whole thread? Please, let me know what I said that was insensitive? All I am asking for is for the liberals/feminist to quit misrepresenting conservatives/complementarians or to provide legitimate evidence to some of the wild claims that have been made. Such evidence has not been produced, which is quite telling and condemning. I don’t expect to see any evidence because it simply doesn’t exist. My desire is to make some of those who are being deceptive to become uncomfortable with their lies, who knows, they may repent – to the glory of God. TMarsh0307 – “conservatives need to know that there is a problem with Domestic Violence and the practice of submission in patriarchal families and communities of faith.” SDGiese – there is no correlation, conservatism/complementarianism nurtures peace and creates a safe environment for women and their children, which is by God’s design. The continued misrepresentation of the facts is a symptom of the egalitarian’s inability to deal honestly, from the biblical text. This makes me wonder about the veracity of their salvation, because their actions and words fail miserably to reflect the intellectual moral virtue that should come from the pen of Christians. I find this to be disgusting and terribly disappointing, but I have seen it for 30 years, and there is no end in sight. TMarsh0307 - I serve on my community's Domestic Violence Resource Center Board of Directors. The research on this is shocking and horrifying. SDGiese – put forth your evidence and the manner in which the research was conducted, because until you do, you demonstrate that you have no credible evidence to support your attack on the Bible and complementarians who treasure those things which God has clearly revealed. TMarsh0307 - God does not condone any family structure or structure in the community of faith that leads to abuse of women or children. SDGiese – I can agree with this statement, but that you are suggesting that complementarianism fits this description is 100% fallacious and an indictment on God and His revealed Word. Your argument isn’t with me or other complementarians, it is with God. Once you realize this, perhaps you will stand down. TMarsh - To turn your eyes to abuse for the sake of winning a theological argument is, in and of itself, immoral. SDGiese – complementarians win the argument because our view is explicitly taught in the Word of God. I can understand someone choosing to disagree with the complementarian view, but to do so in such dishonest and inflammatory ways suggests to me a lack of spiritual regeneration. As such, I would encourage you to depart from this conversation and immerse yourselves in in the gospel of Jesus Christ. His grace to you, SDGiese www.theologicalperspectives.org Steve Giese
written by tmarsh0307, July 29, 2010
Steve,
My problem is not with the Bible. I have spent ten years learning to read it in school as well as the last twenty reading it over and over, and the last 14 years teaching it in a congregational context. To quote Isaiah, "Come now, let us reason together..." Let us read the text together. I guarantee you it will not support a complementarian position. I have no problem with God, and His Son's vision for the kingdom, of which Galatians 3:26-29 plays a pivotal part. As for immoral comments, you wrote these words: "The real shame is that it is dishonest and immoral. And what is at the heart of it? The heart of the problem is women who have taken their eyes off the cross in favor of whining for positions within the church that God has forbidden." I am sure that there are both men and women that desired leadership positions in the church who were not called. I am also certain that women who feel the call to ministry are burdened by it, especially if they are from more "conservative" backgrounds. Ministry is a burdensome joy. It is a joy to serve the Lord and share him with others. It is a burden because it is hard, especially if you minister with integrity and make a commitment to love those who you minister to. It is not easy and I am sure that many women feel like Jeremiah or Moses and would rather have the Lord send someone else. But they go, out of faithfulness to the call. Patriarchy is about status and power for those who are insecure in their character, motives and the intentions of the people whom they serve. Submit to me because of authority, not character, is their mantra. Immoral is the word that you used. Then you say: "It’s always been my experience that when people have difficulty arguing from the Scriptures in a clear and coherent manner, they default to arguments that are less than honest and thus, entirely inappropriate from the pen of professing Christians." We have a problem. The call for women to submit can lead to violence in the home when they fail to do so. Have you ever read the blog Quivering Daughters? Have you not read the accounts of women who come out of these extreme fundamentalist ideologies. I conceded that Piper and Grudem's work is a more moderate version of complimentarianism. However, it goes without its own evidence. It has exegetical flaws. And, one book by Piper titled "What's the Difference" is totally off base in his definitions of feminine character. Too, he even argues (on pg. 60) that women need to give men driving directions in a certain way as to not coming across as teaching men. (You can download Piper's Books in PDF form from his Desiring God website for free) Read them for yourself. I am a man. I am not threatened when a woman knows more than me. I learn from them as well as teach them. I have sat under their preaching as well as preached to them. Only an over-inflated ego can be offended by being taught by someone of the opposite sex. And, as for exegesis. It is interesting that in another of Piper's books "Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood" the authors of the exegetical essays are all men. That is scandalous! The exegesis you use to support your conclusions is done by men only (probably all white men) and done by reading those who were raised according to that world view. I have given exegetical comments on this forum above. Whether you want to admit it or not, complimentarianism has a flawed exegetical foundation. It will crumble. And it will for the good of women and children, as well as men who will serve alongside women, who will work together for the expansion of God's Kingdom and the good of the world. tmarsh0307
written by SaberTruth, July 29, 2010
I replied earlier but it is held up in moderation due to containing links.
But I would add that I believe comp theology fails at the most basic levels of the faith, contradicting foundational principles of the Spirit. "Not so among you", "the first shall be last", " love does not demand its own way", "esteem others as better than yourself", and the examples of Jesus and the apostles in laying privilege aside to take the place of the lowest servant, are all over-arching principles that no individual scripture can overturn. If we encounter a verse that seems to do so, we must conclude that our interpretation of such a verse is flawed, for God cannot contradict Himself. The many "one anothers" of the NT, the Body model of the church (as opposed to the military, industrial, or club models), the "new creation"... if we understand these principles at all, we can never accept any doctrine which grates against them. These foundational issues must be addressed before any debate on particular controversial scriptures can begin. Christians for Biblical Equality
written by AlexJW, July 29, 2010
tmarsh and others: there is a group that does have a well thought out, exegetical argument that is counter to complementarianism. Christians for Biblical Equality: http://www.cbeinternational.org/ . They have a multitude of resources on egalitarianism. It is a broader organization than Baptist Women in Ministry, which while very strong, is still limited in that it focuses on ministry, so there are fewer resources for lay women as well as other spiritual arguments.
It seems to me that this group Baptist Women for Equality is not so much for equality as it is requesting that complementarian organizations apologize for abuse in any form that arises from complementarian practices and not really equality. At least, that is the impression I get from the article and comments by the founders. BWIM and CBE are both organizations which strive to look at the biblical basis for equality. ...
written by marisol, July 29, 2010
After reading the comments, I am amazed that any woman, anywhere would even want to be a part of the Baptist Church (or most other ones, for that matter). Why do you want a leadership role in an organization whose sole purpose is to denigrate and subjugate you? Wake up, ladies! Get.Out.Now! You want leadership roles in a church? Form your own! Leave all these narrow minded bigots to wallow in their own filth. Don't give them the satisfaction of controlling you. Women wanting leadership roles in the Church makes about as much sense as African-Americans wanting leadership roles in the KKK!
Marisol
written by SaberTruth, July 29, 2010
I stopped attending "The Institution" about five years ago, after 47 years of faithful, active attendance. Though not all egals share my view on this, I see the egal cause as applying also to the contrived clergy/laity class distinction as well. The "church" as tradition has had it, bears no resemblance to anything Jesus or the apostles taught. In fact, I wrote a book about it: http://books.fether.net/index.php?theBook=1 .
So personally, my goal in this debate is not just to challenge the teaching that women cannot be leaders with authority, but that such authority is foreign to NT teachings; that is, I don't think either men or women should "have authority", because it all belongs to God. Some will jump on that and bat me in the face with Heb. 10:25, but I would swing back with Heb. 10:26. We are to come together for the purpose of building each other up-- not tearing each other down. Little "building up" happens in churches. So to follow Christ as I see Him in the pages of scripture, I left "the church", picked up my "cross", and followed Him alone. So why get into it with the likes of CBMW at all? To help others see what I see, to show them that Jesus unlocked their chains, to show them the way out. I'm not in this fight for myself but for them. SD Giese,
written by tmarsh0307, July 29, 2010
Just read some stuff from your website, the article on Haiti and the will of God interested me. However, I could get nowhere after you referred to Isaiah 14:14 as referring to the devil or Satan when IN CONTEXT, it is the King of Babylon who is being addressed.
How can you claim that you read scripture closely? As for your Reformed perspective, we will agree to disagree. As for your call to me to immerse myself in the gospel I have. It is not about people having their sins forgiven and going to heaven when they die. It is not about God controling all events in history so that others will recognize his arbitrary rule and give "glory" to Him. It is about God breaking into the world to answer the prayer that the Lord taught his disciples to pray. That is the gospel. ...
written by marisol, July 29, 2010
Thanks for your reply. I clicked on the link to your book, and it seems to be rather long, (I'm making myself late for work already) so I will read it later today.
"The "church" as tradition has had it, bears no resemblance to anything Jesus or the apostles taught." THIS! I have been an agnostic/pagan/borderline atheist for several years now, driven here by the religious experiences I have had in "churches" throughout my life. I eagerly look forward to reading your book. Rspectfully. Marisol Marisol
written by SaberTruth, July 29, 2010
I sincerely hope that my book will help answer some questions.
Your experiences with religion are the exact object lesson we egals are trying to convey to comps. If any teaching drives people from Jesus, not because of the Cross but the traditions of men, it is a tragedy of cosmic proportions. My heart bleeds for such as yourself who were presented with a fake Jesus who, like the ancient gods of Greece and Rome, is only a "superman" with the same agenda as any other fallen human beings. I am absolutely ashamed of what many have taught in His Name. The real Jesus will never turn away anyone who seeks Him. ...
written by SDGiese, July 29, 2010
written by tmarsh0307, July 29, 2010
Just read some stuff from your website, the article on Haiti and the will of God interested me. However, I could get nowhere after you referred to Isaiah 14:14 as referring to the devil or Satan when IN CONTEXT, it is the King of Babylon who is being addressed. SDG: TM – this sort of comment tells me how clueless you truly are and how further dialogue will be futile. If you will do your homework, you will find that scholars are uncertain with regard to who Isaiah 14:14 is referring to. Yes, it absolutely could be the King of Babylon, and frankly, I have no problem with that view. But many scholars also note that the language in Isaiah 14:14 is so strong that it is more likely referencing Satan (I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God; I will set my throne on high; I will make myself like the Most High.) The fact of the matter, this is likely a case of double entendre. Double entendres tend to rely more on multiple meanings of words, or different interpretations of the same primary meaning; as such they often exploit ambiguity. This may very possibly be what we have in Isaiah 14:14, hence, the text is in reference to both the King of Babylon and/or Satan. So, that you could not continue to read my article because I didn’t mention the King of Babylon simply demonstrates the shallow naivete on your part, and that is what one would expect from someone in the egalitarian camp. Enough said, SDGiese www.theologicalperspectives.org Double Entendre, Doubt It
written by tmarsh0307, July 29, 2010
When Isaiah prophesied there was not even a developed doctrine of Satan. All references to Satan in scripture are post-exilic. The only ones who are arguing that Isaiah 14:12-14 is referencing Satan are those defending a viewpoint promoted by those who did not know the context and did not read scripture in its context.
They cannot make a case for it. It is clearly the King of Babylon who is addressed, and the literary and historical evidence makes its own case. Eisegesis at its best. ...
written by SDGiese, July 29, 2010
OK One last comment. I had responded to some of TMarsh's previous comments, and I think I demonstrate fairly conclusively that he/she probably isn't worth dialoging with, indeed, even I was surprised to see TMarsh use the race card to support his shallow views. Regardless, my response was apparently too long or there was a technical glitch when I tried to past it in from Microsoft Word. I'd be happy to email it to anyone interested in reading it (submit requests to
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
).
In the spirit of Proverbs23:9, "Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words," I am extricating myself from continued discussion. His grace to you, SDGiese www.theologicalperspectives.org Steve Giese,
written by tmarsh0307, July 29, 2010
You are going to have to do more than attack my character with words like "shallow" and "clueless" to make your point. Attacking character is also a logical fallacy. Pointing out the race and gender of the authors of the foundational arguments for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are not. This is stating the facts.
Let the readers interpret the facts as they will. Alex JW,
written by tmarsh0307, July 29, 2010
Thank you for the link to Christians For Biblical Equality. I skimmed its contents and look forward to further reading!
The Demand for an Apology Document
written by Cindy K, July 29, 2010
I am saddened to see that nearly all of the discussion here completely bypasses (for the most part) the actual content contained in the Apology Demand itself. I would like to jump in here and try to redirect the discussion back toward the primary subject of this article.
One of the most troubling things about the teachings promoted by complementarianism is this vaguely stated yet understood idea that husbands will answer for the sins of their wives or that they somehow govern her sanctification process. That flesh that has not been sanctified can somehow sanctify someone else. Dorothy Patterson stated in an interview with Christianity Today some years ago that even though she does not agree with something her husband thought was right, it was her duty to just accept it and that God would essentially absolve her of fault and responsibility because she chose to silence her own voice of influence with her husband. Somehow her submission absolves her and saves her through her husband. I am almost 44. I've attended a Baptist church and I studied a Baptist curriculum in a private Christian high school. I never heard anything like this until I became involved with a Bill Gothard influenced church in the early '90s. Can anyone my age or older honestly tell me that their mothers, fathers, Sunday School Teachers, and Pastors taught them this idea was true -- that submission to a husband was more important than personal conviction and required silent submission from a wife? That husbands will answer and intercede for the sins of their wives before God in the Judgment? From the Apology Demand as it pertains to the idea that men intercede for their wives before God as a mediator that comes between a woman and Christ
written by Cindy K, July 29, 2010
Concerns from the Apology Demand that apply to this CBMW teaching:
5. we are concerned that the children who attend churches that subscribe to the principles of The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood will grow up not knowing the full redemptive power of the blood of Jesus for both men and women; 6. we are concerned for the mental and emotional development of girls and boys who attend churches that teach males have superiority over females; 7. we are concerned that men who are taught that they have Male Headship over a home and church do not feel that they are accountable for abusive attitudes and actions towards women; 8. we are concerned about the mistranslation of the scriptures by complementarian translation committees and by the false teachings propagated by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood; 9. we are concerned that pastors who teach and preach male domination/female subordination cannot relate in a loving, Christ-like manner to female members of their congregations because they have already judged them and found them lacking; 10. we are concerned that the issue of wifely submission, promoted so heavily by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is more about power and control than about love or obeying the Word of God. Demands that I believe relate to the idea of a male intercessor taught by CBMW: 5. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood begin to speak out against pastors who continue to demean women and oppress Christians by the use of The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood; 6. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood chastise pastors who claim that abuse of women is acceptable and justified because the wife is not submitting to the husband; (Cindy's notation: Men have been given god-like status by the position of mediator/priest which makes the woman a convenient scapegoat and is this is expected to tolerate abuse under the "better judgment" of her husband which includes abuse through the "reclaiming of his authority") 7. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood make known to every boy and every girl who attend an evangelical church, that God is their head, and that authority over another human being can come only from God; (Cindy's notation: The power to sanctify, to make holy, can only come from God and a man (other than the Risen Son of Man) is not an intercessor or mediator because of an authoritative role supported in Scripture.) ...
written by Cindy K, July 29, 2010
Under Demand # 6 above.
My cat interrupted me! My notation should read: (Cindy's notation: Men have been given god-like status by the position of mediator/priest which makes the woman a convenient scapegoat and is thus expected to tolerate abuse under the "better judgment" of her husband which includes abuse through the "reclaiming of his authority") link between traditional marriage and abuse not documented
written by Xenophon, July 29, 2010
There is no evidence that couples who take a complementary view of sex roles are more likely to experience abuse as a result of these views. The vast majority of abusers show signs of psychopathology. In 40% of cases documented in one study, drunkenness precedes wife abuse. Most abusers come from homes where they witnessed or experienced abuse in their families of origin. Couples living together who are not married are much more likely to experience abuse. All of these factors are more prevalent reasons leading to abuse than religious belief. As I have supplied evidence for above, the vast majority of couples who live in what amounts to a complementarian home are happily married.
clarification
written by Xenophon, July 29, 2010
Let me clarify my concluding remark just above. The UVA study that I cited earlier in this discussion shows that the most happily married women are in complementary marriages where they are taken care of financially and physically as well as emotionally as husbands express love and emotional support for their wives. These couples studied seem to bear out the standard for marriage laid out by Paul in Ephesians 5:22-33.
Domestic Abuse and Complementarianism
written by Cindy K, July 30, 2010
I suspect that accurate statistics on domestic abuse in complementarian homes will never really be available because they are grossly under reported . Many women go to their churches for help, and then are revictimized by their churches and are told that the problem starts with them because they have not submitted to their husbands. We heard as much from Bruce Ware at Denton Bible Church in 2008.
I never knew a soul who was abused physically until I attended a church that embraced the principles of the Danvers Statement. I then met far too many, and churches (as many left and went to similar ones) perpetuated the abuse. They were told to "let love cover a multitude of sins." Women were locked in rooms in their homes, and my pastor brushed this off as insignificant and the right of husbands to do this. I've sat in Emergency Rooms with women. I've gone with them to face false reports to CPS, as some churches will use this as a tactic to "soften" their women. I agree that there is a lack of data on this topic, but there are countless anecdotal reports of domestic abuse in the name of submission. I'm currently working with two physically abused complementarian women, helping them to develop action plans and exit strategies because they already know that their church will blame them. They've both been to the church for counsel, and this was their complementarian churches' message. Churches that teach that women are to blame for physical abuse revictimize those women. I am saddened that Christians minimize the problem. Cindy K,
written by tmarsh0307, July 30, 2010
Cindy,
What do you make of the facts that all of the authors of Piper's CBMW essays that tackle exegesis of the texts are caucasion males? I repeat that I think it is scandalous that when I went to the CBMW website and Piper's website that those who are promoting this complimentarian theology are white males. Authors, members of the CBMW, their board of directors, and other affiliated individuals were all white and overwhelmingly male. There were 2-3 women total out of all of these groups. Another issue to me is this: if you are a husband, as I am, why would you want your wife to keep her opinions to herself? Why would you ever, if you love her, tell her to follow your lead unconditionally? That is not love. That is control. Maybe is it because your idea of God's greatest attribute is his CONTROL, rather than his LOVE. The final two lines above
written by tmarsh0307, July 30, 2010
What I wrote above is not directed at any of Cindy's views. I should have started a new comment for those thoughts.
Roles and relationships
written by dlhunt, July 30, 2010
Instead of acting out these "roles" of male ruler and female subordinate, why not let people who are coupled be who they naturally are? Each person is unique and has a unique set of gifts, talents and abilities to offer to a relationship. It does not make a woman's husband any less of a human being if she has a natural ability to lead, is strong, confident and in command. He would not have married her if he didn't like that in a partner.
I can think of several stay-at-home dads who by circumstance and preference have negotiated this arrangement with their partners. For some reason, society frowns on it or thinks the man must be extra special to do this for his wife when all he is doing is being a good father and husband. A woman gets no extra kudos if she stays home with the children. Why fight it if it works? An old bibliography
written by dlhunt, July 30, 2010
These books present a case for women in leadership from a variety of angles using scripture. It is not an exhaustive list of all my readings by any stretch, but the place I started. You will note the publication years are rather dated. Most of this was good biblical scholarship. I guess having "been there done that" it is time for me to pass these on to someone who is new to the discussion of women in leadership.
Women at the Crossroads - A path beyond Feminisim and Traditionalism. Kari Torjesen Malcolm. InterVarsity Press. 1982. ISBN 0-87784-379-1. What Paul Really Said About Women. John Temple Bristow. Harper and Row Publishers. 1988. ISBN 0-06-061059-X. Woman in the Bible - An overview of all the crucial passages on women's roles. Mary J. Evans. InterVarsity Press. 1983. ISBN 0-0877784-978-1. Women in Ministry - A Historical and Biblical Look at the Role of Women in Christian Leadership. L.E. Maxwell with Ruth C. Dearing. Victor Books. 1987. ISBN 0-89693-337-7 CBMW
written by Essie, July 30, 2010
I agree with Cindy K that a lot of the discussion on this thread has diverged away from the issues raised in the Coalition's original demand for an apology. For those who wish to explore these issues further, may I suggest you check out the Critique of CBMW's Statement on Abuse, a just-published document written by a married couple who are both survivors of domestic abuse from former marriages. You can find it a notunderbondage.com, on the Resources page, and there is also a link to it from the Home page.
another book to consider
written by Xenophon, July 30, 2010
Political scientist Andrew Hacker has looked at these issues in his 2003 book, *Mismatch.* Contrary to feminist egalitarian claims, he finds that as men and women become more equal in terms of income and opportunity, violence against women increases. He also finds that as women are less willing to provide a supportive role for their husbands, they are less happily married and more likely to file for divorce. Conflict and competition has replaced cooperation and harmony in contemporary marriages.
The problem here is not a lack of evidence. The problem is a complete lack of understanding of fixed human nature due to ideological presuppositions that are still clung to despite of the evidence that we have. Again, we have a proven track record that shows if women voluntarily act as help-mates to their husbands and the husband, out of his heart, provides, protects, and is attentive and loving with his wife, then this basic formula provides the basis for a happy marriage. I would agree that we should not countenance abuse. We should also emphasize the man's responsibility for provision, protection, and emotional support for his wife. We should also prepare young people better to select mates and to live together with someone of the opposite sex in marriage. We should also involve parents more in mate selection to accent the importance of character and the importance of similarity in fostering a harmonious home. We should also diminish the focus on sexual attraction. There are two reasons for this proposal. Sexual attraction emphasizes biological difference. Women are viscerally attracted to men who are the most biologically different from them. There are studies that shows this to be true. The reason for this tendency is that sex leads to conceiving children, and so if the parents are biologically diverse, the genetic flaws of each parent will be minimized if the parents are as different as possible. But differences lead to parental conflict, so there is a trade-off here. Temperament, which has been ignored by most modern psychology, is rooted in biology and is impervious to change throughout the course of a person's lifetime. The biological differences that are physically healthy for the children whom the couple conceive simultaneously can prove to be toxic for the marriage. So, while sexual attraction should be part of the mix in selecting a mate, maximizing sexual attraction leads to conflict and alienation later in the marriage. This fall-off in romantic feeling is also expedited by the focus on sex since intense sexual desire not only cannot be sustained over time as one lives with the object of one's desire leading to "diminishing marginal utility" as economists put it, but can lead to disgust and revulsion. Living with one's best friend in marriage is a more viable arrangement. This dynamic might also account for the much higher rate of physical abuse among couples who live together without being married. Marriages based on compatibility rather than attraction have proven to be more satisfying and more stable over time. The practice of dating also contributes to these problems. In courtship or arranged marriages, the focus is on marriage as the final goal as opposed to the short-term, non-committal nature of dating. Dating also contributes to the focus on sexual excitement rather than partnership and friendship. These issues are where we need to focus to improve the state of marriages in the church as well as in society at large. Equality of result is not the answer. In fact, it is the source of many of the problems we are discussing. Essie written by SaberTruth, July 30, 2010
Great link, thanks. Cindy's blog has similar material and many more links as well. It's past time for CBMW et al to take responsibility for those who take their teachings to their logical conclusions. It is those teachings that give teeth to abusers.
Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
|
|||||
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Baptists
- Al Mohler’s pastor recommended as new NAMB president
- Update: N.C. pastor facing deportation released on bond
- N.C. pastor facing deportation to have bond hearing Sept. 2 in Atlanta
- New Orleans church marks Katrina anniversary by moving beyond lament
- Englishman follows his dream to Mercer, brings King’s dream to stage
Nation
- Conservative, moderate Baptist thinkers criticize Glenn Beck rally
- Baptist, other religious leaders challenge anti-Muslim rhetoric
- Religious leaders say questioning Obama's faith is out of bounds
- Growing number confuse Obama’s faith, oppose church politicking
- Analysis: Legal status of mosque project clear; pluralism’s status not
World
- Baptist groups: Donations not keeping pace with Pakistan relief needs
- Christian group questions Iraq future as Obama announces end to war
- Baptists give money for flood relief in Pakistan
- Baylor student-athletes’ mission to Africa bears fruit
- Georgians learn German from Austrians thanks to Virginia Baptists
| |
2. They should not expect an apology from the Biblical Manhoond and Womanhood group. Instead, they should focus through blogs, internet resources, as well as publishing tracts and pamphlets to educate young women, youth and even children on the dangers of this view. They need to know that complemetarianism is not the "biblical" reading of scripture and need to be educated on how these theological views play out in the home.
3. Work with Domestic Violence Resource Centers and secular counselors to educate them on the worldview of this view point so that they will know how to counsel victims of this view point.
Great article! I am thankful that they have taken this initiative!