In Wayne’s last post, he asked what it would take to achieve a truce in the gender debates. In the comments on that post, it quickly became evident why such a truce has been so difficult to achieve. A complementarian (henceforth known as “C”) commented that such a truce would be more likely to happen if egalitarians would stop implying that complementarians are akin to those who justified slavery or that we are all advocating spousal abuse. An egalitarian (henceforth known as “E”) then commented to the effect that such characterizations are not without some basis in reality, and the battle was on. C then responded that E was misunderstanding the complementarian position, and then E protested that C was resorting to “ad hominem” attacks!
This is what I call an “endless regression of blame.” I’m not sure if I came up with that expression on my own or if I subconsciously stole it from someone else, but what I mean by it is the tendency in any human conflict to justify our own aggression by pointing to some previous injury we’ve received from someone else. As a father, I see this endless regression of blame every day. Caleb complains that David hit him. David complains that Caleb took some piece off of one of his LEGO creations and used it for something else. Caleb then protests that David does the same thing sometimes. And on it goes.
Since Adam and Eve’s first sin, we’ve all been trying to cover our own sins by laying blame at the feet of another. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?” (NLT). As sinners, our hearts have an incredible capacity for self-justification and self-deception. That’s why complementarians complain that egalitarians are unfair in their representations and prone to ad hominem attacks. It’s why egalitarians voice the exact same complaints about complementarians.
“If only those egals would stop implying that we’re abusive and dictatorial, there could be peace!”
“If only those comps would stop twisting everything we say and comparing us to feminists, there could be peace!”
Please. Such protests are pointless. If we want peace, we need to start treating one another with respect, listen to each other with a sympathetic ear, begin giving one another the benefit of the doubt, and avoid the temptation to resort to sarcasm and cutting remarks. We may not agree with each other. We may conclude that the other side’s reasoning is seriously flawed. But we can nevertheless do our best to extend the love of Christ to our theological opponents, and put a stop to the endless regression of blame. In the end, it is the only way forward.
This is how I see it.
Some snoofers spit on pifters, some pifters spit on snoofers.
Statistically 1% more snoofers spit on pifters than pifters spit on snoofers. This is a predisposition that we cannot change. We all equally preach and teach and model the fact that, while we all spit, we should never, ever, ever spit on each other. We all agree that this is not allowed.
However, group C believes that putting snoofers in charge of pifters will reduce pifters getting spit on. Group E thinks snoofers being in charge of pifters means some pifters will be spit on and won’t be able to complain about it to others.
What really complicates things here is that the people who are accusing group C of allowing pifters to be spit on, are pifters who have been spit on by snoofers, or snoofers and pifters who have seen pifters being spit on by snoofers.
PS The snoofers who have been spit on by pifters have their own blog.
So the question is “Why should snoofers be put in charge of pifters?”
I know that one can say that it is because that is what the back of the cereal box says, but we are have agreed to respect each others interpretation. Now groups E says that considering we have each seen a pifter being spit on, we ask that group C respectfully reconsider or defend their interpretation of the back of the cereal box.
And group C says, we all agree that spitting isn’t allowed, why do you keep accusing us of being spitters?
No, David, we all spit, or don’t spit, equally. Sometimes we even feel like spitting on each other. The question is still “How can we have the least number of both snoofers and pifters being spit on?”
Pifters also get tired of having someone else in charge of them all the time, especially someone who is not even a pifter, and doesn’t even admit that pifters like doing all the things that snoofers do, except actually being a snoofer, of course.
Everything about being a pifter is fantastic – except having to get permission all the time, and knowing you are only allowed to actually do those things that group C snoofers say the cereal box says you can do, AND not being able to do anything AT ALL that your own snoofer says you can’t do.
Group C wants pifters to accept this as the original paradise but it doesn’t feel like paradise to pifters. I know some pifters do like all this, but doesn’t make it more fun for those pifters who don’t like.
How could a snoofer ever know what this feels like? And why don’t group C snoofers study the language that the cereal box was actually written in instead of only trusting their group C snoofer-translated translation.
Well, let’s put aside the feelings of those 1% of spit-upon pifters and the pifters who don’t like all the pifter-explicit rules and talk about the cereal box.
Only one of group C has really presented her view of the cereal box and she is getting lonely. I am one of group E and I talk about the cereal box also. I am also a little lonely.
Can we please talk about the cereal box? After all, why else should pifters accept all these disadvantages in life?
Would you mind changing the topic and writing about the cereal box? I have never seen anything that you have ever written about the cereal box.
I agree, David. And thank you for writing this post. Reconciliation and peace can only begin with me. I have to make a choice about how I’m going to treat and talk about others, including those with whom I disagree. And I do believe it is perfectly acceptable to disagree and to state that we do.
Thanks for your prudent words.
I enjoyed the pifter-snoofer thing, though I’m hazarding a guess that this “pifter” is really Suzanne. Whether Suzanne or no, this “pifter” has called me out for not being partisan enough in my complementarianism, and not writing “anything” about the “cereal box.”
Now, I’m not sure whether the “cereal box” is supposed to represent all of Scripture, or those particular passages which snoofers and pifters dispute. Either way, I’m a little uncomfortable with comparing the Word of God to the back of a cereal box.
The fact is, I have written about the “cereal box” in that I’ve chosen to write about passages which I see as helping us move forward in our discussions. My goal is to push us toward some common ground before I begin analyzing disputed passages and drawing lines in the sand.
Besides, given the proliferation of spitting from both pifters and snoofers, I’m doing my best to keep my saliva to myself!
The “cereal box” speaks explicitly about women being the first humans to preach the heart of the gospel “He is risen.” It was at the direction of angels and directed toward men, the very closest disciples of Christ himself.
I have yet to receive one response regarding this “cereal box” example. . .I personally find it to be quite compelling. How does this scripturally historical fact agree/contradict with your position in this matter?
As a side note, the snoofer/pifter thing. . .made my heart truly “merry.” Laughter is a good thing. I’m sure God has laughed at my own “self importance” many a time. He didn’t call us “sheep” for nothin’.
I’m a little uncomfortable with comparing the Word of God to the back of a cereal box.
And I am a little uncomfortable seeing the Word of God put into a software package!
In any case, given the extraordinary personal cost of C beliefs to pifters, don’t you feel that you need to know for sure that this is what your software package actually says.
I think there has to be some acknowledgment that there is a high cost to women and then move on to prove that this is what the scriptures really do demand of women.
Two questions.
1. Do we agree that there is a cost to women in the C belief?
2. How then do we defend the C belief?
I am not sure how you would answer either one of these, but I do believe that it is the avoidance of answering these questions straight out that is leading to a build up of tension. In my view C people seem to think there belief “just is.” This is my feeling, not an accusation.
What do you really think?
I will make an attempt; at the first “conversation stopper” I will end this attempt also. That is the only way that I can be assured of not being drawn into the “blame game”.
David asks in this post: If we want peace, we need to start treating one another with respect, listen to each other with a sympathetic ear, begin giving one another the benefit of the doubt, and avoid the temptation to resort to sarcasm and cutting remarks.
The first question to ask before asking what a truce or peace looks like is: do you (general “you”, not aimed at anybody in particular) even WANT a truce?
At least one here says that “…there can be no truce until…[the other side] is marginalized…” To this person “peace” means “we ‘win’”
Perhaps that would be a good question to ask: Do you even WANT a truce?
The next thing is: what is peace? It is more than an absence of war. Sometimes there really is a person or people at fault and the answer may not be to simply say “it takes two to tango”. It may mean having a person in authority look into claims of “twisting” and claims of “untruth” to see if they are accurate. If they are, say so. If they are not, then say that it was a false accusation.
No matter which side a bully is on, tolerating a bully leads to more bullying. (yes, I’ve been confronted – and rightly so – in the past for being [I don't remember what the exact word was, but it wasn't a good word]. That is when I publicly stated that I would be held accountable for my words.
I will say it again, if all will let the past be past (we shall see), then it will be an easy thing to bring up current excesses without referring to past “but you always…” offenses.
I understand there have been excesses on both sides. I commit to do my part to keep them to a minimum.
On a different note: I haven’t seen Molly around lately. I hope she’s ok.
Suzanne wrote:
1. Do we agree that there is a cost to women in the C belief?
No, we do not. We agree that sinful distortions and misunderstandings of the C belief are costly to women. Rightly understood, complementarianism is, I believe, liberating both to women and men.
2. How then do we defend the C belief?
Frankly, my interest is not so much in defending complementarianism as it is in getting egalitarians like yourself to understand it. What you and I perceive complementarian teaching to be are two vastly different things. Consequently, most of your and other egalitarians’ arguments are unconvincing to me because you are attacking a belief system other than the one I hold.
I would be happy to explain my understanding of what complementarianism really is, but frankly, I have very little time to devote to this blog, and all I can promise you is bits and pieces over time. This is not “avoidance,” but an attempt to balance those things which are most important in my life. It is also part of my effort to be “quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.” (None of which come naturally to me, by the way.)
I hope that these answers are “direct” enough for you. Until I can give more complete answers, I ask for your patience.
merryquake wrote:
I have yet to receive one response regarding [the fact that women were the first to receive the "good news" of Jesus' resurrection]. . . I personally find it to be quite compelling. How does this scripturally historical fact agree/contradict with your position in this matter?
It tells me that women hold an exalted place in God’s kingdom, that they experience the gospel without the need for a male priest or mediator (other than Christ himself), and that they fully share in the Great Commission to take the gospel into all the world. To my knowledge, every complementarian would agree with those statements. (Of course, they might inject a few caveats to make sure I’m not implying things they wouldn’t agree with!)
No, we do not. We agree that sinful distortions and misunderstandings of the C belief are costly to women. Rightly understood, complementarianism is, I believe, liberating both to women and men.
What exactly about C belief do you think would be liberating for me? How would a single middle-aged women, no more kids, find C belief liberating? The only teachers I find that are truly educated in the word are E, so they aren’t leading me in that direction.
Two of the most liberating experiences in my life were meeting and being ministered to by women pastors. One older than me, during the death of my mom, when I had young children myself and very lonely.
Second, recently, a slightly younger woman but dedicated spiritually leading us in the study of the word. Yes, also many men as well. I do not think that I need to be exclusively ministered to by women, but neither can it be only men.
You would deprive me of these crucially important and healing experiences and offer me a desert.
I think back to more women preachers who have held out hope for me, that woman will not always be subordinated, that this is not the permanent and unchangeable condition of woman. I sit down to a meal, and someone wants to snatch it from me for my “liberation.”
How exactly do you think that C beliefs would liberate me?
Suzanne, I see one idea that I find sad (but I have no doubt that it is true.)
The fact that it has been female pastors that have ministered to you being the most “liberating” (in your word).
I find that chasm between “ordained” and “lay people” that minister to be distressing, when we are all should be able to counsel.
Some of the worst marital advice I’ve ever gotten was from an ordained minister (female) and her husband (also ordained).
Some of the best counsel I’ve ever gotten has been from older (not ordained) women.
Complementarian marriages (as opposed to patriarchy, as I’ve attempted to define in another post), can be very freeing. One of the reasons is that complementarians recognize full equality, while also recognizing different roles. In complementarian marriages, the PRIMARY function of the servant leader / husband is the good of his wife and family. His leadership should ALWAYS put the needs of the others first, should ALWAYS be about lifting his wife and equipping her to do the job that God has set her to do.
She never has to worry about being the one to “win”, to make sure that leadership is “equal”, that her partner is submitting to her in the same way that she is submitting to him.
Frankly, my interest is not so much in defending complementarianism as it is in getting egalitarians like yourself to understand it.
How can we be expected to understand that which has not been defined? If comp. is not what the people who invented the term say it is, then who defines it? We certainly do understand what CBMW is teaching.
What you and I perceive complementarian teaching to be are two vastly different things. Consequently, most of your and other egalitarians’ arguments are unconvincing to me because you are attacking a belief system other than the one I hold.
We are not trying to deal with every possible private definition of comp., but CBMW’s definition (and other organizations that purport to be authoritative about it). This isn’t egalitarianism vs. every possible flavor of beliefs that calls itself complementarian.
We’ve been over this before with others. We quote CBMW and their supporters and argue against their teachings, because they have great influence over many Christians. If you do not personally agree with CBMW, start another blog and we can talk about your personal beliefs.
Paula wrote:
We’ve been over this before with others. We quote CBMW and their supporters and argue against their teachings, because they have great influence over many Christians. If you do not personally agree with CBMW, start another blog and we can talk about your personal beliefs.
Paula, my point is not that mine is some different flavor of complementarianism from that of CBMW, but that most egalitarians fail to understand what CBMW teaches or the picture of marriage and ministry which it espouses. I certainly don’t agree with CBMW on every point, but when I read your quotations and interpretations of CBMW writings, and then I go and read those writings myself, I always come away wondering if we’re reading the same thing.
This really should not surprise any of us. The same thing happens when comps read egalitarian material. We don’t always respond to the words which are written, but to the “errors” which we suppose lie in back of those words. Likewise, we react against the “dangers” we perceive those words to be leading to.
It is this dynamic which results in both sides feeling that their words have been twisted and that the other side has been unfair. This is why, as Wayne so eloquently put it, we need to start with ourselves. We have to recognize that we are not completely objective in our reading of one another, and guard against the self-deception of thinking that we are. Then and only then, will we be able to engage in meaningful dialog rather than in “controversies and quarrels about words” (1 Tim. 6:4, TNIV).
“This really should not surprise any of us. The same thing happens when comps read egalitarian material. We don’t always respond to the words which are written, but to the “errors” which we suppose lie in back of those words. Likewise, we react against the “dangers” we perceive those words to be leading to.”
This is a huge problem, though. One that MUST be addressed. Because communicating what Comp IS and IS NOT is extremely important.
The comp position can easily lead to legalism. And we are seeing it lead to Patriarchy in many areas.
Immature believers will be looking for the ‘list’ of do’s and don’ts. That is why we see such a huge market for comp style books, conferences, sermons. Everyone is looking for the ‘formula’ to put into practice.
But God did not make us one size fits all. He did not give us ‘formulas’ to follow for genders. We have ‘relationships’ with Him and with other believers.
The Egal position, which is mutual submission, only requires that BOTH genders grow in the Lord. There are no specific roles except those which are natural like childbearing, etc.
The bottom line is that egals can focus more on their relationship with the Lord while comps have to worry about being in their specific roles and earthly authorities.
The other problem is that comps have so many different positions on gender roles. If you read the post by Cheryl Schatz where she discussed the chapter of the book by Dennis Rainey, written by Bob Lepine, it was scary. He believes, as a comp, that men must confront their wives’ sin. But the wife is NOT allowed to confront the husband’s sin. He is her earthly priest, authority and king as Lepine writes. His position makes her into a child.
Now, you can dismiss his chapter but Dennis Rainey is involved with CBMW and must have thought this was ok because he included it in his book.
Bruce Ware says I am not created in the direct image of God. So does Russell Moore. All are big in CBMW.
Whether any comps like it or not, CBMW has become the clearninghouse and standard for Comp beliefs in Christendom.
Where is the Egal clearinghouse with so many big names in Christendom and crossing over so many denominations? Where are the best selling egal books?
There aren’t any. No one group speaks for Egals. It is simple. Egals believe in Priesthood of believer and mutual submission. There are no formulas just relationships in the Lord.
Those egals who are false teachers in doctrine have no ‘authority’ over anything I, and many other egals, believe. This is good because we recognize that there are no earthly ‘authorities’ or priests in the Body. We can joyfully ‘yield’ to mature believers who teach us. But we must also be Bereans so we can recognize spiritually mature.
One of the reasons is that complementarians recognize full equality, while also recognizing different roles. In complementarian marriages, the PRIMARY function of the servant leader / husband is the good of his wife and family.
And how would that be different from an E marriage where both are behaving in such a way to their partner? Doesn’t a wife has as her primary function the good of her husband? Obviously not for you. You think the woman doesn’t have to care about her husband?
His leadership should ALWAYS put the needs of the others first, should ALWAYS be about lifting his wife and equipping her to do the job that God has set her to do.
Obviously the husband has authority to decide what job God has for her to do. This job is restricted to NOT teaching men anything about the word of God. We see the results in some literature.
She never has to worry about being the one to “win”, to make sure that leadership is “equal”, that her partner is submitting to her in the same way that she is submitting to him.
She has to endure having her partner not submit to her. I think that one should pass without comment! I might have actually experienced this part already.
The point of having women pastors is that if a woman only gets to church on Sunday morning because of circumstances beyond her control, she can have the ministry of both men and women in the Sunday service.
I am quite frustrated with women having to go to twice as much church as a man in order to hear a woman speak.
My question remains unanswered. Neither of us are married and so we should turn rather to how C beliefs “liberate” the older single woman. How does believing in unequally functioning gender roles liberate me?
Quite frankly I am feeling patronized and rudely dismissed at this point. I reel that the enormous work that I have gone to in researching the linguistic foundations of the C position is totally ignored and that the words of gender ideology are being promoted above scholarship and no one is acknowledging this.
Instead I am told that the C position will liberate an older single woman. How? Why isn’t my real situation as single being acknowledged? What about other single women in this room?
I see a complete breakdown in communication and a deliberate attitude of ignoring real people’s real circumstances.
How will the C position liberate an older single woman?
Ellen,
I very much enjoyed your recent post. It indicates that you have a seasoned understanding of submission as it should be. I have stated in previous posts that my questions on the matter are not necessarily about the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the whole “headship” thing. Rather, as always, how it is enacted and overseen by those of faith.
I got to thinking, much of the way I view this corresponds to my opinions on parenting. I have four daughters–two grown and almost grown, and two still fairly young.
Obedience is necessary in my household. Some parents enforce obedience because “they are the parent and they are in charge.” This is not the case with my family. Personally, obedience as the result of power has been the motivation for all sorts of oppression throughout the history of mankind.
So how is it that I receive obedience from my children? Well, my children obey me because they understand that the highest aim I possess is THEIR greatest good. They understand that I will sacrifice anything to protect and provide for them. They understand that I would never knowingly place them at harm or leave them without the absolute care of another trusted, like minded, adult. In short, they trust me.
Obedience based on trust in unbreakable. I have two daughters who have already passed through those rebellious teenage years. Not once did I have issues with rebellion or disrespect. The parents of their friends often asked in amazement how I managed to do this. All I could tell them was, “why would anyone rebel against their own ally?”
Respect of authorities is a given. But, OBEDIENCE should be earned. My grown children know to test whether authorities are good or bad BEFORE they blindly obey. BLIND obedience to authority produced the Holocaust (in which several of my mother’s family perished). BLIND obedience to authority caused Anglicans to persecute and murder Anabaptists. BLIND obedience to authority wiped out entire Indian Nations in North America.
I have absolutely NO qualm with headship so long as that obedience is the result of earned trust. In fact, properly administered, it is the most freeing thing indeed.
I do however, vocally oppose headship as the result of “power.”
I see that you also have expressed a few similar opinions on the correct administration of headship. I feel this is an issue of “self policing” by the Church. The Church has not done so well. Can we at least agree that there is a need for the CHURCH to “stand up to the plate” on this one?
Paula, my point is not that mine is some different flavor of complementarianism from that of CBMW, but that most egalitarians fail to understand what CBMW teaches or the picture of marriage and ministry which it espouses.
“Most egalitarians fail to understand” is itself a broad-brush judgment that doesn’t help communication. Whether comps do this also to egals is beside the point. It’s a blanket judgment either way, and a very easy statement to make but much harder to prove.
I really don’t see how it’s possible to take CBMW’s constant theme of “men have authority over women in the church and the home” as anything but what it is: hierarchy of an authority over an inferior. Hierarchy itself is the sticking point; how individuals practice it is irrelevant. No matter how kindly it is alleged to be practiced, it’s the hierarchy itself we object to.
When anyone teaches that men have this authority by the divine decree of God, and that to reject it is sinful and rebellious, they are doing much more than expressing a personal belief; they are calling those who differ with them sinful.
What egals argue also is that these teachings have consequences. There is nothing in egal teaching that would give divine sanction to one spouse beating another, but comp. teaching is frequently cited as the excuse given by many violent men in the churches. Again, the point here is not whether this is an extreme, or infrequent, or whether CBMW puts out disclaimers. Instead, the fact that CBMW has to put out disclaimers proves that their teachings **can** be made to condone it. Either men have divine dominion over women, or they don’t. What they do with it is irrelevant.
Another undeniable consequence of CBMW teachings is that women are told they have restrictions on their gifting which men do not have. This again is not up to personal interpretation; CBMW makes it quite clear that there is a glass ceiling, no matter how comps may differ on exactly where that ceiling is. The fact is, the ceiling exists. And egals object to its very existence.
Suzanne,
I agree, egal scholarship is being completely ignored. Not only yours, but that of pretty much every egal scholar. In fact, most Christians would be hard-pressed to even name them.
There are many reasons for this. “Christian” bookstores are selling just about every wacky teaching under the sun these days, but you still won’t see much (if anything) by egal authors. They sell what is popular, and what is popular is largely determined by what pastors recommend to their compliant listening audiences.
And when we have large SBC seminaries churning out patriarchal pastors, who will teach patriarchy to thousands of people for decades, what chance does an egal have?
When I read at the Better Bibles Blog about how the UBS was not above changing Junia to Junias without any reason, I knew that scholarship would always take a back seat to ideology, even in the assembly of original language texts that translators would be relying on. If we can’t trust them (and we can’t) then what hope is there of honest dialog?
Bushnell also despaired of her life’s work making any difference, so if it’s any consolation, you’re in good company. But personally, I’m very glad she (and you) do the work of scholars anyway, because it has greatly benefited me.
I’ve read this and the two previous posts and most of the comments, as well as Ellen’s post, in pieces over the past day, as I was able to. So this comment is in response to things I remember reading, but am not sure exactly where! (sorry!)
Regarding the point of egalitarian thinking corresponding to a belief in the legitimacy of homosexuality, please be aware that both the Evangelical Covenant Church and the Assemblies of God support women in leadership in the church but decidedly do not support homosexuality.
Also, I am someone who believes in complementarity and authority and headship, but not as defined by CBMW and others. I’ve written a few posts on these issues at Intellectuelle in the “gender issues” category.
Merryquaker,
I see no comparison between what you describe between children and parent, and headship in marriage, nor is this in anyway suggested in scripture.
I don’t think any Christian woman would disagree with complementarity in marriage or in sexual relations.
I do think that many Christian women have functioned in such a way as missionaries as to put the matter to question. Godly women simply did whatever they put their hands to, whatever task God put in their way.
Headship as an expression of complementarity also seems to be something that we can agree on. Adam was “head” and Eve was “help.” The problem is that for some “head” means authority, and “help” means subordinate assistance.
My sense, from reading other literature in Greek is that “head” is beginning or origin, and “help” is defender or succourer. The “head” acknowledges that the woman is his body, flesh of his own flesh, and the “help” provides for the weakness of the one being helped. This is not intended to be a theological statement but a linguistic summary, although rather narrow.
Please, please get the reporting correct Bonnie.
CBMW, Dr Grudem and others do not teach “egalitarian thinking corresponds to a belief in the legitimacy of homosexuality “,
What they have observed is that in denominations that have adopted an egal approach to leadership, have consistently, years later, moved towards an acceptance of homosexuality as an exceptable lifestyle for leaders and those recognised as members of their churches.
Some have taken longer than others, but it has been consistent.
The denominations you name may well reject such a stance now, but if further down the line they do not move towards said acceptance they will stand out as the ‘exceptions that prove the rule’.
And for exactly the reasons you stated, Glenn, Grudem and CBMW show their assertion to be false. That’s the beauty of making such assertions: add in the “If it appears not to be so, then it’s the exception that proves the rule” non-proof and it still “proves” the assertion, at least to those unwilling to look critically at the argument.
You wouldn’t want someone to falsely claim that non-abusive husbands are the exception to the rule that complementarianism leads eventually to spousal abuse, would you?
We were told that it was fair game to bring in the homosexuality issue because egalitarians had dared to bring up the issue of husbands abusing their wives. Was that unilateral rule supposed to continue here in perpetuity? Since I didn’t make or agree to the rule, I object to your appeal to Grudem/CBMW’s flawed rule; it has nothing to do with anything legitimately within the scope of this venue’s discussions.
I’m curious. . . .is all sin equal? Or are some sins “serious sins” and some sins “itty bitty” sins? I know Christ said that he who breaks one law is guilty of breaking all of the law. . . So, curiously the church handles homosexuality as a sort of “capital offense” sort of sin. Yet, beating one’s wife seems to be treated with nonchalance. I’ve even heard people say that the sin of wife beating is a personal issue in which the church should not interfere.
I believe the general opinion of those who defend comp ideas (and I have stated that I take no issue with headship properly practiced) is that spousal abuse is sin. Yet, the same folk take huge issue with the sin of homosexuality. I can only gather that you have a list somewhere with a hierachy of sin (perhaps there are point values assigned) through which you calculate which individuals should be allowed membership in your church. I have never seen such a list. Could you provide an example?
“What they have observed is that in denominations that have adopted an egal approach to leadership, have consistently, years later, moved towards an acceptance of homosexuality as an exceptable lifestyle for leaders and those recognised as members of their churches.”
What I have observed in the SBC and some non denominational mega’s is that churches that promote and focus on the comp position consistently moved toward Patriarchy.
That is anecdotal, of course. But I have seen it.
I asked this question on another thread but never got an answer. This is a serious question. In comp doctrine, if a husband is a proven abuser does he lose his authority or ‘headship’ over the wife. Must she still submit?
How is that handled in your churches? What does it take for the wife to prove abuse or does she have to prove abuse to the leaders? How does all that work?
Glennsp, please don’t ask me to get the reporting correct when I’m neither reporting nor referring to anyone else’s. Nor did I refer to anyone’s teaching.
I see no real semantic difference between what I said and what you said about egalitarian thinking and homosexuality, though, except that perhaps I should have said, “Regarding the claim that acceptance of egalitarian thinking is linked to or leads to approval of homosexuality…”
The real question in this case is what is the reason that the churches who accepted egalitarian thinking also accepted homosexuality? Not everyone who disagrees with CBMW and Grudem does so for the same reasons, and there are varying disagreements over exegesis.
Whether or not exceptions prove the rule (or whether there is a rule) is also beside the point.
Glennsp, please don’t ask me to get the reporting correct when I’m neither reporting nor referring to anyone else’s. Nor did I refer to anyone’s teaching.
I see no real semantic difference between what I said and what you said about egalitarian thinking and homosexuality, though, except that perhaps I should have said, “Regarding the claim that acceptance of egalitarian thinking is linked to or leads to approval of homosexuality…”
The real question in this case is what is the reason that the churches who accepted egalitarian thinking also accepted homosexuality? Not everyone who disagrees with CBMW and Grudem does so for the same reasons, and there are varying disagreements over exegesis.
Whether or not exceptions prove the rule (or whether there is a rule) is also beside the point.
Lin,
The church I was in says that the man loses his headship. There is a line drawn in the sand. On one side of the line stand all the men who have not lost their headship, they are the authority in their families, and on the other side of the line are the men who have lost their headship. Because these men bring disgrace on headship they are treated with great disdain.
The children are then told that the male is supposed to be the authority, the head, but in some families the male is no longer the proper head. The children are told that their father has lost his headship. It is the worst kind of emotional abuse you can imagine for everyone. This teaching must be corrected, and the children must be told that their father is always their father. They must respect him. That is the teaching of scripture.
So, either the man keeps his “authority,” as in some churches, and the wife is supposed to submit, or he loses it as in ours – because our church was modern and informed!
Now that you have brought this up, I can honestly say that I cry for people who are bound by this teaching.
And who will explain how one is liberated by this kind of teaching?
If you say that a woman is liberated by staying home with her children, I can agree. We are not talking about who has to work outside the home. Yes, a woman should be free to enjoy every tiny bit of her children. But, both men and women should be freed from the misery of hierarchy.
Sue, I am very sorry to hear about what your former church teaches. How confusing for families and the children. So, if they teach that head is authority, then who is her head when her husband is no longer qualified?
My experience is that the abused wife is always under great pressure to prove abuse if it is not obvious like needing to go to the hospital or something. It has to become very serious for her to get help from the church. I have seen this drive some women to a nervous breakdown if their husbands happen to be elders or successful well known men in the church. She pretty much does not stand a chance.
Others are sent to marital counseling that has an emphasis on more submission. This works for a little while and then the pattern starts again.
I have also been in homes of comp elders who talk and treat their wives horrible. What I would consider verbal abuse. I can name about 6 comp couples I know right now that stay together because of his position in the church and it would prove too embarrassing to separate but they despise each other.
Of course, no one knows except those close to them. And each of the couples I know are totally sold out to the comp position but they are focused on the other person not doing thier ‘comp’ duties.
I have also seen that this position can turn the wife into a manipulation machine. Instead of being a women in Christ, she has to play games to get what she needs from her husband and an inordinate amount of time is spent with this. And of course, the children see this and the cycle repeats itself.
Then there are the comp couples who proclaim the virtues of comp lifestyle and when you are around them in their home, you see real quick they are really egalitarian! But they would never admit it in a million years.
The comp people I know are closer to egalitarian, but they agree to uphold the C image. Therefore, when things don’t work out for some couples they wish to assign blame. They do not believe in no fault divorce.
I personally do not believe that it is honourable to have to disclose proof of adultery, addiction, abuse, or alcoholism in order to get a divorce.
But they uphold the image that all men are nice people who tenderly love their wives, except that some foolish women made poor decisions etc.
In order to invest men with authority they have to sort men into those who deserve it and those who don’t. The sheep and the goats.
I find it very cruel to men as well as women.
On the other hand, if, by “liberating,” people simply mean that C women are free not to work and can stay home with their kids, I think that part is great.
The role of women in the home needs validation. However, even in the secular workplace some women are opting for staying at home for some time. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with the “authority of the male.” They would crack up at the thought.
But my question remains. How does C liberate single women?
I am going to take silence on this as tacit consent that C does nothing for single women, but keeps them tied to the “list.”
Suzanne wrote:
But my question remains. How does C liberate single women?
I am going to take silence on this as tacit consent that C does nothing for single women, but keeps them tied to the “list.”
Suzanne, you are free to take “silence” on your question however you like. Personally speaking, I’m too busy dealing with the death of two family members in less than a week to address it. Besides, as someone who has never been a single woman, anything I might say about what single women find liberating is likely to be summarily dismissed as the ignorant delusions of a man steeped in “patriarchy.”
First of all, Suzanne, there is no where to put single women in the comp doctrine except she is looking to be married. Where do they put widows? Single moms?
In Patriarchy, single women are to serve their fathers until marriage. But if she is 50 with a deceased father, no one can tell me who is her earthly authority.. Some say her oldest brother. Or even an uncle. It gets very complicated and legalistic.
“But they uphold the image that all men are nice people who tenderly love their wives, except that some foolish women made poor decisions etc.”
And herein lies the biggest problem with comp doctrine. Men are depraved sinners saved by grace such as I. How some of the reformed at CBMW can teach we have depraved sinners as earthly priests is beyond me.
Unfortuantly, I know too many women who married professing Christians they met at church only to become abused later on. They thought they were marrying a Christian because he acted like one for many years. Yet, the church recognizes the husband as the head and applies comp doctrine to the situation which only makes it worse for the woman.
I cringe when I think that men are being taught that women are not made in the direct image of God. Only men. Think of the subtle ill effect this has on some immature believers. Or bullies in sheep clothing. Scary.
David wrote:
I’m too busy dealing with the death of two family members
Our condolences, thoughts, love, and prayers are with you, David.
David, I am very sorry for your losses. May the God of comfort give you peace.
Silence can equally mean that there is nothing presented that requires interacting with, beyond the demand of the person that one does so.
C has much to say on single women,
a quick search on CBMW for example returns 94 articles (with a bit of overlap) and that is just the one site.
You will find reference to single moms etc despite the claims being made that C has nothing to say in such areas.
As to the concept of ‘no fault’ divorce, well if there is truly ‘no fault’ then why are the people breaking the covenant which was, in the case of Christian marriages, enacted before God.
How can there be divorce without someone being ‘at fault’, whether it be abuse or adultery.
Glenn,
If you find any particular comment or passage on the CBMW site which you believe demonstrates the positive aspects of being C over E for a single woman, that would be helpful. I don’t recall anyone ever writing on this topic.
Since more than half of women my age are single, I think silence in this regard is possibly not useful.
I am not saying that there is “no fault.” I am saying that asking people to prove the fault with evidence is not an honourable way to treat people. Who is without fault?
Scripturally speaking, I think there’s a big difference between actual divorce — the sundering of a marriage — and the modern act of filing for divorce.
Without exception, the actual sundering has occurred long before one or both spouses say “I want a divorce” and go find a lawyer.
As I read Scripture, it’s the sundering that God hates, and which a couple vows not to do. We’re on pretty shaky ground to say that, when a marriage IS sundered, that the Bible prohibits filing for divorce.
Let’s say that a wife (or it could be the husband) is sexually unfaithful and says, “I don’t want to be married anymore.” Why is it anyone else’s business to know the details, so as to assign “fault,” once the couple agree to put a legal end to an already dead marriage? I know that’s a pretty popular thing to do in churches, but why should it be, I wonder?
That’s not to say that the hypothetical marriage I described isn’t worth the couple fighting for, but that’s a moot point if the unfaithful one files on her own and moves in with the other party in the affair. Or what about abandonment? How are you going to prove “fault,” even if you want to, when the other spouse is nowhere to be found? And should we really drag a battered wife or husband through the pain all over again just to prove “fault”?
When the sundering makes it clear the marriage is over, somebody (maybe both) sinned. That’s pretty obvious. If they’re unrepentant, or even if the wronged spouse simply can’t take it any more, why is it so wrong to just acknowledge that sin killed the marriage, and give the battle-weary spouse(s) some peace as they end legally a marriage that’s long been in the grave?