3. Avoid sarcasm.

Wiki says,

Sarcasm is the use of sharp, cutting remarks or language intended to mock, wound, or subject to contempt or ridicule.

Some call it being snotty, nasty, or a real jerk.   Whatever you call it, the general idea is, don’t.  

*Don’t forget about the Comment Contest (here, scroll to bottom)! 

_______________________________________________

2. Support your claims with evidence

 Say I am just really concerned about egals and odor, something I believe is important to address and discuss.  What this guideline means to me is that I need to think twice before stating, “All egals smell funny.” 

What would be better is something like,

“I’ve wondered if there is a correlation between egalitarians and bad odor, because I think it is a real problem, one I’ve run into a lot.  So when I ran across this study [link], my concerns were validated.  This study seems to say that many egals do smell bad, especially compared to comps.  I find this concerning.” 

Or perhaps I could also say,

“I’ve wondered about egals and odor for a long time.  I now believe that egals do smell funny.  This book ____, by popular egal author ___, says that egals like to smell funny.  Here is the quote.  “blah blah blah blah blah,” from page 34 of the book.   I find this concerning.” 

I could also support my claim this way:

“I’m concerned about a correlation this study ____ makes between egals and body odor.  The main reason I am concerned is because the book of James says ____, and so does Malachi in chapter____.  Later, when John writes about body odor in Revelation ___, he says the same thing.  Yet egal author ___ says ________ on page four of his book _____, which seems to me to deny what the Bible says in those three places.” 

These are some examples of how I can support a claim with evidence.   Note that I don’t have to back up an opinion with evidence. 

If I say, “I personally think that egals often tend to smell funny,” that is not a claim but an opinion.  I don’t have to back it up with evidence, though I may want to watch how I share that opinion, if it’s going to cause offense, and I also may want to be prepared to explain why I have that opinion—especially when twelve nice-smelling egals married to twelve foul smelling comps read it and then ask me to please clarify.  Whoops. 

Opinions are okay—we all have them—but there are a few opinions, especially the kind that are highly offensive or extremely unsupported, are probably best shared elsewhere.  

Saying authoritatively, “Egals smell funny and that’s just the truth,” is making a claim, and a claim really needs to be backed up with some sort of evidence, preferably including a link or a reference of some sort.    

Speaking of referring to evidences, I’ve been taken to task once in the past for using a study as evidence which, as it turned out, later studies had proven false.  Oops.  I didn’t know that.  I didn’t realize the study I’d quoted from was later discredited and I was glad others did and corrected it.  In fact, I would have never known that the study was misleading if others hadn’t shared. 

So it’s good to work as a team in the matter of evidence finding, because here is one thing comps and egals can agree on: we want the truth and we do not want to make claims that are based on false evidences.   This is a way of saying that we’re in a learning growing process here, and all “evidences” may not be as valid as we think they are, or may need to be balanced with other evidences that appear to point to a different conclusion…and that is okay!  We do the best we can. 

Thankfully, we’re all on the same team and between all of us, we can help cull evidences that have been later proved incorrect and balance evidences that need balanced.  No one study proves anything, just as no one quote proves anything, but together, we can be careful not to make claims unless we can back them up with something solid—or close to solid, as it were–and have some good discussion as we do so.

So now that I’ve shared some things that Number Two means to me, it’s your turn.  What do you understand Number Two to mean?

Boot camp is on!  Gimme twenty, soldier! 

Just kidding.  I’m also kidding about the title of this post.  The dumb/smelly part, not the Comments 101 part.  Speaking of comments, if you have a moment, please review the comment policy on the sidebar.   This policy exists in order to facilitate the goals of this blog, which is to foster an environment where complementarians and egalitarians can talk about gender issues, find ways to build bridges with each other even in the midst of continuing disagreement, and more. 

This cannot be done if any/either side is regularly lobbing bombs at each other.  But many times, we don’t mean to lob bombs.  We just aren’t well versed in conversing with those who are “on the other side.” 

Intentions might be great, but, let’s face it.  We could use some practice!  For the next few weeks, let’s talk about our comment policy guidelines, one by one, fleshing out what they might and might not look like in real life.  Today, we will take a closer look at the first guideline.    

1. Focus on issues, not personalities.

Example A.

Gretta McGlockenstien is an egalitarian and she’s also a militant bisexual who says every woman should have at least five abortions!!!   This PROVES that egalitarians are all militant bisexuals who love abortion!!!!! 

No.

 Gretta is Gretta.  People are complex.  This comment proves nothing about ALL egalitarians.  Gretta’s egalitarianism may or may not have anything to do with her other beliefs.  If the commenter can link to a few studies that prove 99.99% of egalitarians are all abortion-loving bisexuals, then he/she is welcome to make his/her point.  There may be a correlation there, obviously.  Otherwise, this comment is completely out of bounds. 

A better way to comment about Gretta might be,

“Gretta McGlockenstein really concerns me.  She loudly preaches her version of egalitarianism but is also a vocal promoter of sexual immorality and radical abortion beliefs.  Some of my comp friends think she is a typical egalitarian.  Egals here, would you care to comment about her and share what you agree and disagree with regarding her teachings?  Do you think she is a spokesperson for most egals or not?  Thanks.”

Example B

George Blezzer, a popular complementarian teacher, said that women were worth less to God than men are.   Since he said that, it proves that ALL complementarians believe that about women.  This is exactly why I hate complementarians so much!  They never even bother to look at their Bibles!   

No.

If George Blezzer said that, it’s okay to point it out (and link to it to provide proof).  But don’t assert that because Blezzer said it, it is what all complementarians believe.  That isn’t true at all.  One speaker for a group does NOT represent all members of that group.  And throwing in the slam, based on your opinion of Blezzer’s teaching, that all complementarians don’t study their Bibles is taking a bad comment and making it worse.  We want to be assuming positive intent about each other unless we have proof otherwise.    

A more appropriate comment might be,

George Blezzer, a popular complementarian teacher, said that women were worth less to God than men are.   This really concerns me, because it goes against what I see Scripture saying here___ and here___ and also here___.  I also feel personally hurt by his words.  Comps, how do you feel about Blezzer’s teachings?  Is he representative of the majority of comps?  If you agree with him, would you mind sharing the Scriptural basis you have found for doing so? 

…

The first “version” of these fictional comments are purposely over the top, and the characters are intentionally made up.  The comments box below is open for your own imaginary examples of 1.) how to break the first comment guideline and then 2.) how to follow it (and read on below for a bonus). 

The comments box is also, as always, open for any thoughts, questions, complaints or other hypothetical* examples regarding the first rule in our comment policy.  

*Please refrain from using a real comment as an example of what not to do.  Our intent here is not to single anyone out, but rather to learn how to communicate better.     Thanks so much.

FREE Comp/Egal BOOK GIVEAWAY CONTEST:

Whoever comes up with the FUNNIEST hypothetical example to share of an inappropriate comment and then a corrected version (that adheres to all 8 of the comment guidelines)  will win a FREE (gently used) BOOK from Complegalitarian.  

Hint: the judge of the contest says that poking fun at your OWN side is highly recommended. 

This competition will run for the entire week or two of the blog series, and you may place your entries under any of the posts in this series (starting now with this one).  You may enter as many times as you like.  Have fun! 

Comps, this is your chance to get a free copy of Carolyn McCulley’s, “Radical Womanhood– Feminine Faith in a Feminist World.”  Egals, this is your chance to get a free copy of “Women in the Church–A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry,” by Stanley J. Grenz.  

And if you win the contest but don’t want either book, you can always choose the Mystery Prize, which is guaranteed to be one of the most, er, original gifts you’ve ever recieved.  Muhahahaha…

 …I asked around for the best serious, scholarly treatment of the complementarian position on all issues related to gender, marriage and family. The recommendations were unanimous, and I dropped the cash (not Kindle format even) and acquired the recommended book…

Read his entire post here.

Leap-frogging off of something Eric mentioned a while back, or perhaps just blatantly stealing it (since he’s off to the land of Israel for a few weeks and can’t protest-ha) after researching it for myself and finding it legit,  it is my understanding that complementarity, among other things, means that the complementary persons or groups need each other in such a way that they are incomplete in some way if the other is not there. 

The complementarian model of marriage fits this bill.  The husband fulfils the Christ role, the wife the Church role, and as the relationship itself is a representation of how Christ and the Church relate, both husband and wife are needed for that.  The relationship is incomplete if one spouse is not there.   So whether the Christian egalitarian agrees with the complementarian explanation on what this is supposed to look like or not (and vice versa), it is still true that this picture is, indeed, a truly complementarian one.

This does not seem to be the case, however, in the complementarian model of the Church.  In the complementarian model of the Church, men are expected to be the leaders as well as those who sit in the pews being led.  Therefore it would not matter, theoretically, if women were there or not.  The men could do everything that the women do and more.  There is no true complementary relationship between men and women in a complementary church setting, because the one group (men) does not need the other group (women) in order to “do” or “be” the Church.    

Thoughts?  Corrections?  Musings?

An excerpt from a question posed on, “Practical Submission,” an article from the Boundless Webzine, a ministry of the well-known Focus on the Family:

What does submission look like for Christian women, in a concrete, practical way? It seems like there are reams of paper written about how submission is biblical, produces good fruit, and (most importantly, repeated over and over again by every conference speaker, pastor and talk show interviewee ever) submission doesn’t mean treating women disrespectfully or like doormats. Well, yadda, yadda, yadda, I know all that, but what does it mean, then?

For example, does it mean that after careful research and serious consultation with his wife, a husband has the final say on:

• How many kids to have? What type of contraception to use — NFP or artificial contraception? How the kids should be schooled — at home, public or parochial? Whether the wife should be stay-at-home mom or work outside the home?
• Where to live geographically? Whether or not to be a homeowner? Whether to move for a job?
• What church to go to?
• Whether or not to invest money, in say, a 401k or college savings plan?
• What about a gut-wrenching, horrible issue — like, a kid gets diagnosed with life-threatening cancer, and the parents strongly differ on whether they should treat it aggressively, or go with hospice care? After talking about it and doing the research, does the husband still have the final say?

The author of the article, Candice  Watters (who also writes a bi-weekly advice column for Christian women), answers with a yes (read full answer here).  More conversation can be found on the blog post on the same topic, here.

- Hat tip to this conversation

I’m a fan of the author and seminary professor, aka, “The Old White Guy,” Steve Brown’s, “Steve Brown Etc” podcast.   My parents have been ordering tapes from him for years, via his Key Life ministry, which they initially found through his spot on Moody radio.  No offense to the many Key Life tapes I was told I *had* to listen to by my excited folks (and the tapes were good, really, they were), but I like Steve Brown Etc better than Key Life, probably, I don’t know, because I’m younger and I get a kick out of the goofing around (by Steve and his great crew) and the “edgy” (well, for a conservative) topics and authors invited…?     

This week’s guest, Carolyn Custis James, talked about Complegalitarian.  Not quite completely, as she kind of forgot to mention us by name (heh, slight oversight on her part, I’m sure), but much of what she shared are topics that directly apply to what we often discuss here.  Carolyn spent a little bit of time reflecting on the two views of women, the confusing and difficult place it puts women (since every group and person has a different distinct spot on the spectrum where they feel women should not cross), and why her Synergy conference—geared toward women who are in various forms of ministry—purposely refuses to talk about either side of the spectrum.   

Carolyn also spent a little bit of time talking about some women in the Bible who break with convention, like Ruth, a tale that she says is often presented as a romantic Hallmark card story, but decidedly isn’t. 

You can listen to the podcast here, The Gospel of Ruth: Carolyn James on SBE.  Your thoughts, reflections, teeth-gnashing froth or giddy excitement are all welcome, as always, in the comments box below (as long as they are within the parameters of the comment policy, of course).  And will someone please tell Carolyn to mention us by name next time? 

There are many different thoughts going at once on the Imageo Dei thread, but recently they have been centered on what the nature of the Trinity is (and what that may or may not mean as we seek to reflect it in our relationships).  Some bits and pieces from the conversation, in no particular order, that serve to stir the ever-bubbling pot that is my mind:

David McKay muses [full comment here],

Randy Davis, a thoughtful Southern Baptist Louisiana pastor, argued cogently against eternal generation and eternal subordination of the Son at the Yahoo theology group.

I think some folk give more credence to the creeds on the trinity than to Scripture. We have to remember that the trinity is a later development and is not directly taught in the Bible.

We steadfastly hold to the doctrine of the trinity, but must look back to Scripture to check if it is saying what the creeds are saying.

Randy has just about persuaded me that the creeds teach eternal generation, but the Scriptures do not. But I can’t see how to make sense of the passage in 1 Corinthians if the Son does not willingly submit to the Father, as the passage seems to say unambiguously.

The 1 Corinthians 15 passage is the only one I find that may give strong support to the idea of some sort of subjection (of Son to Father), either of an eternal sort or of the sort that began at His taking on humanity and will last through the rest of time.  This particular verse was the lynch-pin for me, when I ascribed to eternal subordination of the Son.  It’s still a question mark in my mind, and so I appreciate David mentioning it.  Aside from that verse, I’ve otherwise laid aside the top-to-bottom hierarchal rendering of the Trinity in favor of the more horizontal imagery provided by the Nicene Creed and other passages of Scripture.   

On creeds vs. Bible, it’s my understanding that the creeds (such as the Nicene, Apostles, since both are held firmly by Catholic, Orthodox, and almost every Protestant branch of Christendom) were developed out of what would become known as the Bible.  The core creeds and Scripture are not in opposition to each other, in other words, but are understood by almost every Christian branch to help us form a clear succinct explanation of core Christian thought (and defense against the uprising of various heresies).  Wait.  I swiped this quote from Wiki here, and it says the above much better than I did:

 The purpose of a creed is to act as a yardstick of correct belief. The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and deniers of a particular doctrine or set of doctrines. For that reason a creed was called in Greek a σύμβολον, a word that meant half of a broken object which, when placed together with the other half verified the bearer’s identity. The Greek word passed through Latin “symbolum” into English “symbol”, which only later took on the meaning of an outward sign of something.

It is my understanding that many of the creeds were written to correct misteachings concerning the Trinity, making creedal statements particularly interesting in light of the current ESS debate. 

Eric quotes Basil [full comment here],

I Cor. XV. 28. On the Subjection of the Son.
“If the Son is subjected to the Father in the Godhead, then He must have been subjected from the beginning, from whence He was God. But if He was not subjected, but shall be subjected, it is in the manhood, as for us, not in the Godhead, as for Himself.”

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. VIII. Basil: Letters and Select Works. (2). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

I really like the differentiation between Christ’s divinity and humanity that Basil gives us here.  This is something that is often missing in the ESS (Eternal Subordination of the Son) discussions and yet seems to be vitally important. 

From Bonnie, here, 

On the passage in I Cor. 15, I believe it says what it says, but I wonder, what does it mean? Is it an outright statement of rank, or does it have a larger, more specific meaning? The passage is about being raised from the dead. Christ is the first-born of the dead raised to life, upon which fact our entire faith rests (v. 17). In v. 27, Paul explains that “all things” means all things except the Father; Jesus’ subjection to the Father completes the loop, so to speak, completes the resurrection. Things have come full circle, and are finalized. Otherwise the dead are in limbo

And we will all reign with Him forever. Does it matter what exactly the order of ranking is, when all will be glorified and perfect? I don’t think so. The problem with authority in a fallen world is that it is abused. Does God ordain abuse? Yes, in some instances, I think He does. But if He ordains all abuse, then Martin Luther is not the hero we think he is. He stood up to the Pope.

I see comp. doctrine as abstracting “authority” from what that authority means and what it’s for. I don’t believe it should be abstracted and idolized itself, as if rank or rule itself is all that matters.

 That was so good that I don’t have anything to say other than that I want to let it percolate.  I love the imagery of completing the loop.  Okay, so I said one thing. 

 And Eric later comments [full comment here],

1 Corinthians 11 tells us that God is the kephalê of Christ. It doesn’t say that “the Son is under the Father” (the words “Son” and “Father” are not even used in this passage). Doesn’t one have to first assume or conclude that a kephalê relationship is an over-under relationship to say that “1 Corinthians 11 tells us that the Son (Christ) is under the Father (God)”?

 I think a possible problem with viewing kephalê as being hierarchical is that Paul’s analogizing or ordering then seems to become inconsistent, for if every man is said to be “under” Christ, why does he then seemingly leapfrog over Christ and say that man is the image and glory of God? If a woman is the glory of her kephalê, why is man not said to be the glory of his kephalê, but is said to be the glory of Christ’s kephalê?

These comments, and others like them, send the wheels in my brain spinning.  Ack!  Sometimes I feel like there’s so many interesting things to investigate, particularly as relates to God, yet my curiosity is imprisoned by a life span that affords too little time.  Fortunately, for myself and other curious minds, there’s the rest of eternity to satiate the compelling thirst to comprehend the One who made us.   In the meantime, I’m not waiting around until heaven to get started! 

When I first came to Complegal, it was as a woman stumbling out of a very hard version of complementarianism and a personal experience that only made it worse.   I didn’t realize there was such a thing as soft-comps.  I didn’t realize there was such a thing as mid-comps.  And I certainly didn’t realize there were people like Sarah Sumner who sat in the “in-between” place of tension between egalitarian and complementarian positions. 

Participating on Complegalitarian has been a sometimes painful process for me, but pain often proceeds growth.  Had I not been here, I have a feeling I’d have sunk down into the comfortable waters of egalitarian doctrine and written off my complementarian brothers and sisters as misogynist jerks, soley based on my own limited experiences.  Maybe even something worse. 

But being here has challenged that.  I simply can’t read the posts of the complementarians here without hearing hearts that truly want to bring God glory.  Hey, I have that same desire, same intensity.  So how can I write off people who are so clearly my brothers and sisters?  The result was that I had to go down into my own heart and deal with what was there.  (Can’t very well wax on about mutual respect when I can’t manage to show it to others, now can I)?  

And I can’t read the comments of the complementarians here without recognizing that they often bring out challenges that egalitarians need to hear and face, or at the very least, stop and consider.   As a person new to an egalitarian paradigm, and thus having no real experience on a practical level, I often can’t say much with regard to egalitarian weaknesses.  I have not experienced egalitarian weaknesses, only complementarian ones.  This doesn’t mean I can’t listen, though.  This doesn’t mean I can’t learn. 

Sometimes I have a knee-jerk response to a well-intentioned affirmation of complementarian truth.  I hate it when I do that.  But while not excusing my need for growth and apologizing for my knee bumping the table and spilling your coffee, I sometimes think this is par for the course, knee-jerking being part of any community where conversation is open to all sides.  I notice complementarians here sometimes have a similar response to egalitarian claims, and it’s my turn to have my coffee bumped.  We all have our experiences and they shape the way we hear words, whether we like it or not. 

Sometimes one person says one thing, and it’s taken to mean something else, and without open lines of communication between us, two people had the same “experience” yet drastically different results.    Person A meant well, Person B was sure he meant offense, and walla.  The normal troubles of two camps interacting.  And we could just walk away and leave it at that, and that would be fine.  Well, maybe not fine, but certainly normal.  Very normal. 

But the purpose of Complegalitarian is to transcend normal, the normal lack of communication that occurs between complementarians and egalitarians.  Because let’s face it.  Out there in cyber space, we “comps” and “egals” are generally two opposing sides, with steep chiseled fortresses and a stockpile of weaponry to go along with them.  In our zeal to communicate our version of truth, often with the best of intentions, we seem to blow up the very people we wanted to share our truth with.  Kind of misses the point, doesn’t it?  But it’s so easy to do.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not saying that this blog has supernaturally risen above this.  Shoot, we talk past each other on Complegalitarian all the time, and despite our no-weapons rule, they get in from time to time.  No one here claims perfection.  What we want is growth.  And we’re willing to risk imperfection and screw-ups and uncomfortable moments to get it.  The conversation is open, the table is set, the coffee is on, and here we are.  We’re talking. 

And, yes, someone’s feelings got hurt over there, and someone else got a little loud over there, and I notice so-n-so hasn’t said a word for an hour, but that’s what happens when normal people get together and try and talk about volatile issues, to say nothing of people from camps that normally only view each other when they peer out from their respective fortress walls to lob a bomb. 

So we’re making progress already, just by being here.  Instead of huddling in our camp bunkers plotting how to blow each other up, we’re sitting down together at a round table, and we’re talking.  Wow.  Medals of Valor all around, just for getting that far! 

And, hey, we’ll get better.  We’ve already gotten so much better.  There’s nowhere to go but up, because look around, and tell me where does this sitting-at-a-table stuff happen at all?  The norm is every side polarizing, and as a result the art of open communicating, with parties who are genuinely interested in building bridges (even while retaining their personal beliefs and differences) is fast becoming an animal on the verge of extinction.   

So we don’t claim perfection.  Heck, we don’t even claim we know how to do this round table stuff in the first place.  But we’re trying.  It’s started.  We”re talking.   And just so you know, Wayne keeps the door unlocked and the table open—and there are more chairs, always more chairs for voices who are interested in building bridges instead of bombing them.  I just put a fresh batch of coffee on and I notice that someone else brought some dunking cookies and, ooh, even a veggie tray and some dip.  You can put your coat over there (and weapons up safely the gun cabinet, if you brought any along from force of habit), grab a chair and lend your voice to the mix.

See the summary of this study by Colaner and Warner here, first published in the Journal of Psychology and Theology in 2005.  You can follow the link trail to access the full article (I had to sign up for a free membership to do so–it was quick and painless).  

Basically, evangelical women attending a Christian liberal arts university were surveyed to see if and/or how their views on gender roles influenced their educational and career decisions.  Some interesting findings from the study included,

As a whole, the sample identified largely with the Complementarian position. One such occurrence of this Complementarian emphasis dealt with the leadership of the husband. Four questions in the survey dealt with the husband’s headship; in every occurrence, women overwhelmingly agreed that wives are to yield to the leadership of the husband. Specifically, 75.4% of women strongly agreed with the statement “The husband is the head of the home,” and 50.7% strongly agreed with the statement, “The husband has ultimate authority over the home.” The responses showed that 201 out of 271 women believed that the wife was responsible to tend to the domestic chores of the home. The majority of women rejected the notion of joint authority and mutual submission and affirmed the wife as the helper to the husband. In fact, 96.7% of the sample either agreed or strongly agreed with the notion of the “helper-wife.”

Similarly, the vast majority of women endorsed conservative responses in their ideas regarding gender relations in the church. Not even 10% of the sample agreed that women could hold equal positions in the church; 88.6% responded positively to the statement, “There will be limitations on what position I can hold in the church due to my gender.”

From the responses to the individual items, it is clear that the majority of the sample view the male to female relationship in a hierarchical way. The responses indicate that there is a special position of authority held by a man within a marriage that elevates his decisions and goals above the wife’s ambitions. This distinction also appears in the church realm, for men have rights to higher positions than do females. The Complementarian emphasis is clear among this sample.

As well as,

A correlation between the Complementarian questions and intentions of pursuing a doctoral degree yielded a negative correlation (r(265) = -.129, p < 0.05). Women with a Complementarian attitude tend not to desire advanced graduate degrees. However, the opposite is true for women endorsing Egalitarianism. There was a positive correlation between the sum of the Egalitarian questions and the Doctorate question (r(298) = .212, p < 0.01), indicating a significant relationship between Egalitarianism and doctoral ambitions.

Egalitarianism also influences one’s desire for a job. A Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for the relationship between the computed total of Egalitarian questions and individual aspiration questions. A positive correlation was found between Egalitarianism and a job that gives purpose in life (r(276)=.321, p < 0.01), a job that provides opportunity for advancement (r(291)=.343, p < 0.01), and a job that offers leadership and management (r(245)=.349, p < 0.01). Therefore, there is a highly significant relationship between Egalitarianism and employment that offers financial gain, satisfaction, advancement and authority.

And,

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between gender role attitudes and career aspirations within an Evangelical Christian community. Among the sample of 271 respondents, results from the correlation suggest that there is a highly significant relationship between gender role attitudes and career aspirations. The pursuit of careers that require higher education, training, and commitment corresponded to an Egalitarian gender role attitude. This suggests that women who view themselves as equal with men are more willing to adapt their lifestyle around career goals. Women who identify with the Complementarian ideology are still working, but are not aspiring. The leadership positions are still to be filled with men while women are to work the jobs that are lower on the hierarchy of responsibility and authority.

Study can be found in entirety here.