Opinions on faith and life

A Time for Everything

2008-07-07

One might get the impression that Christians do nothing all day but serious study or shaking our heads at the daily news, but believe it or not, we also like to have fun. And it isn’t always squeaky clean.

Recently a conversation in another blog turned to what is known as the “hard complementarian” view, where such extreme misogyny is expressed that it reaches tragically comic levels. Hence this little place of venting and laughing, nay mocking, of that which is taken so seriously by too many.

So without further ado, here is the Comp Lampoon Post! Who (among those who even know what this is about) would like to fire the opening salvo?

97 Comments

ahunt

Well Heck, Paula...I am merely a "responder" and must have some accurately researched, deeply profound, and intensely patriarchal interpretation of scripture in order to properly submit myself to the universal spiritual and civil godlike manliness of the human male.

Paging Corrie.

Paula Fether

Well, where is that girl?

Okay, so, now can I "go there"?

Let’s talk about what aner really means while we wait for Corrie.

Lin

Well, I have been reading the comments over there and ahunt...you have caused me to spew my Earl Grey several times.

1. The policewoman pulling over a Bayly scenerio

2. They get their theology from Bodice Ripper Novels. I have not laughed that hard in ages. My daughter keeps asking me what is so funny. Now how do you explain that?

That is EXACTLY where they get their theology. I can see them now sitting in their cherry paneled offices with a stash of romance novels in a locked drawer.

Poor guy...I bet he wished he had never opened the Bayly can of worms. First Corrie gives out their 10 Failures of CBMW. I mean, I bet that is going over well with that CBMW worshipping crowd. Then, the Knox stuff and then the Wooing is warfare stuff. Can it get any better than that?

But Corrie is right...no one on the comp side is saying..Whoa. That is not us.

We defend ourselves constantly against attacks of wanting homosexual pastors and wanting to lord it over MEN.

But they would have a very hard time explaining themselves because they sound more like the Baylys every sermon or paper.

Lin

You know what I get sick of? EVery time I try to discuss the meaning of 1 tim 2, someone immediately chimes in and says, why do you hate men.

What does exegesis have to do with hating someone?

It is all so illogical. But they are so used to saying it they can’t see how illogical it is. It is like Nazi Germany. Eventually, the Germans forgot WHY they believed what they believed. It just became the way they were. They quit thinking.

I am an amateur historian and you see this theme played in German thinking between 1942-44.

Paula Fether

I’m still gonna talk about aner!

(For those who don’t know, the Greek word aner has the primary meaning of "male" but can be used for any group containing at least one male.)

First, some helpful vocabulary examples:

  • anerexic - male starving for attention
  • anergia - lackluster patriarchy, a.k.a. complementarianism
  • anerhead - not knowing how to be a real man
  • aner_retentive - keeping male-oriented terms in the Bible, even when they’re not there in the original languages

Lin, so right... we constantly hear "slippery slope" from those people. But like Don said, they wouldn’t be so afraid if they weren’t up on their high horse. It’s like the old game King of the Hill, where you fight to reach the top and then try to stay there.

So Lin, amateur historian, can you think of any major civilization that gave women complete equality with men? And would that not constitute "bowing to society" to foster male rule in the church?

Now here we are getting all serious again!

ahunt

Not to worry Paula...I am NOT an amateur historian and NOT a scholar and am as dull and pragmatic an individual as you could ever meet.

So let me give it a shot.

aner clearly refers to any gathering of only men. Any interpretation that deviates from this understanding misrepresents the word of God. The truth is that any interpretation of aner in scripture must be clarified by means of a yellow highlighter, so that women will know what does and does not apply to them (us).

Hope this helps.

Paula Fether

Yes, thank you ahunt! (Silly me, thinking rationally like I was.)

And I might add, that any word for human beings in any form MUST be male-oriented unless it expressly states that females are in view.

ahunt

Exactly! Paula, I don’t even know why there is any need for women to study the Bible, given how little of the content actually pertains to women.

Lin

"So Lin, amateur historian, can you think of any major civilization that gave women complete equality with men? And would that not constitute “bowing to society” to foster male rule in the church?"

Well, how about this: During WW2, all of the major allies put women in men’s normal positions at home. They did just about everything including build ships and airplanes to running trains, etc.

HOWEVER, 2 Countries did NOT utilize women in that way or to that extent. As a matter of fact, they changed policies to make certain sure that women had more children and stayed in their place of serving the needs of men. Guess who they were? Nazi Germany and Japan.

Paula Fether

True. The men folk gonna tell us what it sez anyhow. We should be cookin’, washin’, and fetchin’ slippers, not readin’!

Lin

"Exactly! Paula, I don’t even know why there is any need for women to study the Bible, given how little of the content actually pertains to women."

Uh, this is more real than you think in comp/pat homes. There are women who have relegated anything ’spiritual’ to their husbands. I saw it all the time.

Paula Fether

Obviously my post #10 replies to ahunt’s #8, in case anybody wuz wunderin’.

Lin, good point. And when the war was over, the women got shoved aside. Some had even anticipated this and went to school for certification, only to be pushed out anyway.

In one "conservative" message board, one of the members has had a "Rosie the Riveter" avatar. But the caption was, shall we say, less than flattering. They see us as job takers, as crashing their boys’ club. Will they ever see us as people?

Paula Fether

And regarding the claim that the church is being emasculated, I’d STILL like to know how you can emasculate a bride.

ahunt

Okay... let us just have fun and fellowship, because if Light and Sue and others come, I’m eager to ask questions, serious and not. When I briefly googled Bayly, Light’s name was there, along with what I consider abuse (as in contempt for a sister in Christ.) Clicked off w/o followup.

And Paula Honey, issue a disclaimer for this thread...that we can say what we will without your implied endorsement. The BH has read over my shoulder, and urges me to urge you to protect yourself.

The more I investigate, the more I get that the discussion is deadly serious. You need to protect your credibility from uneducated heathens like me.

Paula Fether

Um... okay...

I hereby disclaimer that this thread is for the purpose of venting and speaking freely without fear of reprisal. It is a "soapbox", a small island of free speech. I therefore absolve myself of all responsibility for what other people write in it. Unless it’s really funny and I’d like to take credit.

Is that legalese enough?

Hey... does this mean I actually have credibility to lose?

Corrie

Hi All!

What a great idea!

Honestly, the only way to handle this sort of stuff is by laughing because it really is scary when you start to think how serious they are.

re: sheathed swords

Why in the world are they calling the male member a "sword"? The violent imagery when it comes to their relationships with women is really quite concerning.

Shall we refer to our birth canals as "canons" because they fire out warriors for God?

It gives new meaning to the passage where Jesus tells Peter to sheath his sword, doesn’t it? What is it? Shall we unsheath it or sheath it? I am confused. I wish they would make up their mind.

http://www.fortifyingthefamily.com/Tattoos_and_Body_Piercing.html

Please note the intro to this article at the above website. THE husband is told to read the article first and then decide if it is appropriate to share with "his women and children". Don’t miss the plural ending on "women".

Here are his exact words:

"“When the Master returns, though, what exactly will you say to Him to explain the fact that during by far the largest portion of your lovemaking through the years, your sword was sheathed, scrupulously kept from your lover’s womb?”"

Then there is another patriocentrist, Steve Schlissel, who wrote an article about piercings and how women can have pierced ears and such because they were made to be pierced. Piercing is picture of humiliation for a man but not so for a woman. He explains that a man pierces a woman during sex and that is a picture of her subjection to him. He pierces, she is the piercee and that is the justification for pierced earrings. I read that article many years ago and it took me a long time to get over the disturbing imagery.

He even spoke about the literal piercing of a woman’s private parts in this article.

Here is the bulk of that article:

“Put plainly, piercing is normally an act appropriate only for women and, in some cases, male slaves.

Delicacy is difficult here—and I want to avoid a charge of misogyny—but the fact is that woman, by her from-the-creation role in the marriage act, is a “piercee.” Within marriage, of course, no stigma at all attaches to this, but outside of marriage, Scripture often refers to it as a “humbling” (Dt. 21:14; 22:24; 22:29). (In this regard, too, childbirth is woman’s triumphant vindication—consider this when exegeting 1 Tim. 2:15.)

Obviously, piercing for a woman need not involve sodomy or “lowering.” She was made a woman, for man, a fact to which her body itself testifies.

Man, however, was not made a woman nor was he made to abide piercing. It is still a universal that he is not expected to. The recent attack on a Brooklyn prisoner provides a tragic case in point. The Associated Press reported: One of the police officers charged with torturing a man by sodomizing him with a stick bragged about the attack, saying he had to “break a man” who took a swing at him. Officer Justin Volpe also told fellow officers “I had to bring a man down tonight.”

Piercing may or may not bring a woman down, depending on many factors. But piercing always brings a man down. That piercing bespeaks a relational subordination is implicitly recognized even in our American culture, yet often below the surface. To the astute it appears dramatically when considering the vocabulary of popular “curses” (as in humiliating phrases, not maledictions). The most common two-word curse in English, the one we want our children never to use, is simply a wish for someone to be humiliated through being pierced. To be pierced, for a man, is necessarily to be lowered.

For in the view of Scripture, piercing is a token of being under the dominion of another. (Even the unique piercing of Christ was a testimony of his total submission to the Father: Isaiah 53:5,10; Philippians 2:8; see also Psalm 40:6-8.) Since woman was created to be under the loving headship of her husband, piercing can be seen as consistent with that calling. Hebrew men, however, were called to be directly under the authority of God (see 1 Cor. 11:3).

Consequently, limitations of Hebrew servitude were codified in the law. But if a Hebrew servant, at the time of his manumission, desired to be permanently under the dominion of his master, this was to be indicated in a rite in which his ear was bored with an awl (Ex. 21:6; Dt. 15:17). The fact that a pierced ear served as a sign of permanent subordination suggests that it was not practiced by males in general, else it would hardly serve as a distinguishing mark.

Some have called attention to the fact that Israelite males took off their golden earrings and contributed them to Aaron for the making of the golden calf. This seems to be the case (Ex. 32:1-4). But out of what estate had they just escaped? That’s right: slavery. So this proves nothing other than that slaves had earrings. Similarly, those who cite the Ishmaelite practice of wearing gold earrings (Judges 8:24) must not miss the point: the Ishmaelites had this custom, not the Israelites. Newly-delivered Hebrew slaves and Ishmaelites don’t constitute a powerful precedent for free males to engage in piercing themselves!

It is interesting that as men in our culture began to pierce their ears, women began piercing multiple holes in their ears. But it didn’t stop there. Piercing parlors now routinely pierce ears, lips, eyebrows, tongues, noses, nipples, and male and female genitals. For those who cringe, not only at the ghastliness of the piercings, but at the thought of the pain involved, you need to understand that the pain is central to the experience. This is freely admitted, even boasted of, in this new “subculture.””

Corrie

Lin,

Yes, what are the comps to do with Bayly’s 10 Reasons why CBMW should close up shop? Not a peep.

I am thinking that they believe that they all have to stick together or else they fear that sticking up for what is right, proper and sound will make them look weak and then it might give the egals an inch and they might get their "nose under the tent" (as Tim likes to say).

But, it actually has the reverse effect. If I had a crazy uncle, I would keep him as quiet as possible and I would NOT let him in the slightest bit represent my family to the opposition.

Are they afraid that the Word of God will fall if they do not stand together no matter how horrendously farcical some of this stuff is?

Corrie

Paula,

I like your usage of aner! :-)

ahunt

Paula...you are a leader, and I think you speak for many. Greater knowlege, greater understanding and a great sense of humor.

After doing some serious googling in the last four hours, I’ve seen and read stuff I never knew was out there. Oh, I got Promise Keepers and SBC pronouncements, and the Pope’s letter to women over the years. No Sweat.

But online slander, deliberate twisting the words of others, outright abuse of info folks put out as testimony...ongoing meanspirited nitpicking and I could go on.

I just do not know what to make of it all, and when I voiced my concerns to the BH, he took a look, shook his head in disgust, and suggested that you make it clear that I do not speak for You. (Nor does any one else)

Paula, there is some nasty stuff out there.

Corrie

Light was abused, ahunt. That was when I was first introduced to Light. The points she made were very intelligent and were quite reasonable and logical. But, the men on that list became flustered and they blustered on about how she was from the devil and how they needed to protect the flock.

I merely asked for them to clear up their false accusations against her and they banned me! Quite telling.

I am thankful for the Bayly blog in that it introduced me to an amazing woman of God!

Paula,

I don’t know how you can emasculate a Bride unless she was a hermaphrodite or something?

Truly, that whole thing is ridiculous. Just for fun, bring up the word "sin" in a search engine of the Bible and then insert "feminist" or "feminized" or "effeminate" or some form of feminine in the place of sin. It is actually very funny but it is just what you get when you read patriocentrist writings.

It seems totally wrong (and silly) that men would demand to be manly men and then turn around and blame a male-dominated organization for being too effeminate.

My definition of a man is that they take responsibility for their own actions and don’t try and pass the buck by shifting the blame.

Paula Fether

Holy Matrimony, Batman!!

Cory, that stuff is just--- I don’t know how to describe it. Sick, twisted, hateful, conceited--- anything but Christian! What religion is this supposed to be?

But this needs to be made known outside the tightknit (funny word to describe manly men) bonds of the fringe misogynists, because it’s going mainstream more every day. If Christians aren’t repulsed by this, then I have a hard time calling them Christians.

It’s as bad as a board I came across once that talked about the need for men to routinely spank their wives just to keep them in line, even if they hadn’t been "bad"! Could Satan do any worse?

Really, this is Satanic stuff. These men want slaves, not mates. They want domination and control. I guess that’s why no comp will answer me when I ask how their teachings can possibly be compatible with what Jesus taught. Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? Not so among you? Husbands love your wives?

Corrie

Paula,

It seems funny to me that we even have to worry about losing any so-called credibility.

We are merely quoting verbatim from their own sources.

I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.

Paula Fether

Ladies, it’s getting late, but I wanted to be sure and thank you for the kind and supportive words. Yes, Christians can support each other without picking a boss! How kewl is that?

Anyway, the venom spewing from these misogynists is more reason to "come out of her, my people". We need to make a clear break from such teachings and tell the world that they are nothing like Jesus taught or anything found in the Bible. We need a revolution from the godless hatemongering.

Corrie

Paula,

Thank you.

I have been talking about this sick stuff for years and all I get are excuses and silenced.

These teachings are disturbing and are the stuff of FBI profilers when they are trying to find serial killers.

"Velvet-gloved violence", marriage is all about "penetration and ejaculation", women are made to be pierced by a man (add the sword analogy and you have the complete picture) because that is a sign of his dominion over her and her subjection (slavery) to him....

If a bunch of women wrote about their private parts as if they were weapons to be used on men to subdue men and dominate them, we would be called "man-haters" and perverts.

ahunt

On the other hand, Corrie has once again given us fodder. I bow before wicked genious.

Why in the world are they calling the male member a “sword”? The violent imagery when it comes to their relationships with women is really quite concerning.

Shall we refer to our birth canals as “cannons” because they fire out warriors for God?

It gives new meaning to the passage where Jesus tells Peter to sheath his sword, doesn’t it? What is it? Shall we unsheath it or sheath it? I am confused. I wish they would make up their mind.

Hilarious.

Glad to see you, Corrie.

I’d work on a condoms and sheaths post, but it’s a trifle obvious.

Paula Fether

You know it.

So much for equal in being, eh?

Nite girls, cya tomorrow!

Corrie

Whoops! I kind of got my quotes and link out of order.

These are the exact words of Tim Bayly and you can find it somewhere on his blog:

““When the Master returns, though, what exactly will you say to Him to explain the fact that during by far the largest portion of your lovemaking through the years, your sword was sheathed, scrupulously kept from your lover’s womb?””"

The above link is for Schlissels treatise on why women can wear pierced earrings because they were made to be pierced.

Corrie

"To be pierced, for a man, is necessarily to be lowered."

And God forbid any man be lowered!

Lowering one’s self and being pierced is only for women, slaves and Jesus (Is 53:5).

Philippians 2:

Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

After all, the Son of God came to serve not to be served. But, mere mortal men are not called to be like Jesus as bondservant. Men are called to be like Jesus in all His glory and splender as God. Being a slave is what women do and that is why they can have pierced ears because men are never to be slaves. Right? No, not right.

Lin

"And when the war was over, the women got shoved aside. Some had even anticipated this and went to school for certification, only to be pushed out anyway."

Oh, as a student of history, I most definitly believe that WW2 was the catalyst for the women’s movement of the 60’s. Right or wrong. And yes, there were excesses as there always are. But there were also good things such as really digging into scripture to see what it really said about women. You know what they changed in the 1970’s as a reaction to this? They ADMITTED for the first time that woman were equal to men in the sight of God. That was a biggie. Up until that time, it was take for granted they were inferior and easily decieved. As a matter of fact, no one discussed it. Women ignored it and did what they wanted at church except preach. It was not until they admitted equality that ’roles’ were invented!

I can look back now and see that the reaction to this ’equality’ permeating the churches was purely political. The reaction was a backlash to the culture. it became a political fight instead of a religious fight... to the death... and we see the outcome in that a little council can make up a name for a marriage relationship and we all use it as if it has been around for centuries! Now that council has become the sole source for scripture interpretation on women. I find that scary stuff.

Did anyone notice that Ellen can ONLY quote CBMW. That is the way it is. I read more ’Grudem’ quotes than anything else from these type bloggers. They quote Grudem as their own. You can see it if you read him. The same arrogant cliched responses.

These people (seminary included) do not study scripture. They study Grudem, Calvin, Kostenburger, Luther, Ware, Mohler and Moore.

Scary stuff.

Lin

You think that poor pat guy who quoted the Baylys to try and hurt sue is sorry he brought them up? :o)

most people do not realize how perverse some of these people are.

Corrie

About condoms and such....we were once told by a patriocentrist that we mustn’t engage in unprotected theology.

From there, I ran (could NOT help myself) with that statement and stated that I do not want to catch a TTD (theologically transmitted disease) and that I always try to practice safe theology.

Then, another person stated that certain versions of patriarchy could legitimately be called a TTD.

The talk about TTDs became "catchy".

I then spoke about my thoughts on ezer.

But, what do I know, I have the theological equivalent of crabs. :-)

Has anyone read Mouser’s book on sex and creation? That would be another good one to add to the list.

ahunt

Well, off to bed, but not before continuing to bow before wicked genious. Corrie.

Lin, it was my understanding major denominations quietly abandoned teachings of women as inferior and easily corrupted in the late 30s and all through the 40s, but I never made the connection with female labor in time of war.

Greg Anderson

Hiya Paula,

Hope ya don’t mind I came over, but I couldn’t resist after hearing about the latest tom-foolery out of the minds of the Baylys. I couldn’t believe what I’ve been reading here! Those guys actually believe this codswallop? A lot of it is built on the glorification of war and the adoration of a chieftain. Heinrich Himmler was really big on producing acceptable Aryan boys for the fatherland too, so I guess it’s all happened before. I couldn’t help but crack-up though about how they equate male genitalia with swords.

Light

Helloooo ... anyone home? I know I’m kind of late. What are all these empty wine bottles doing lying around? Did I miss the party?

I vote for Corrie as the funniest WWF online. I never thought she could top her "theological equivalent of crabs," but the "cannon" comment is darned close. :) I’ve shot four out of my cannon, and I think Corrie’s shot ten out of hers. How ’bout y’all? It’s a noisy business, isn’t it?

Ahunt, you asked over at Denny Burk’s blog if I’m the same Light from Bayly blog. Yup. I was kicked off because I asked a hard question that would have shown Tim Bayly up as either contradicting himself or the misogynist that he is. The question was about a relative of mine whose husband, who ran her family’s ranch (that had been in her family for generations), died suddenly, leaving her behind with just daughters and no sons. Since there were male ranch hands and she couldn’t run the ranch without them, and since Timmy-boy says women are never to be in authority over men, I asked what she should do. Could she keep the ranch, the male ranch hands, and still be in God’s will? Or would she have to sell the ranch and her daughters lose their legacy? You can see why I had to be removed. We can’t have women thinking for themselves. If Timmy-boy wants a woman to have an opinion, he’ll give it to her.

Perhaps we should be linking these posts to the old Bayly blog posts. It might be instructive for our Bayly boys over there to see how smart people really think of them.

Paula Fether

I sure missed a lot by having the audacity to sleep all night!

Hi Greg, you’re welcome here of course, as is any egal of either gender. Shall we start calling males and females "swords and sheaths"? Yeah, that’s what Jesus came to set straight!

Yes, the Bayly Blather is why we need to distance ourselves from that brand of so-called Christianity. We don’t want to catch their TTDs (good one, Corrie!).

Isn’t is ironic, Lin, that those who quote practically nothing but CBMW scream the loudest that CBMW does not speak for them? And in spite of "her" indignations about it, the truth is that what the Baylys teach is in fact the logical outcome of what CBMW teaches. The Baylys are "honest comps", much the same way that terrorists are "honest Muslims". It’s true, and I’m going to keep saying it.

For any who don’t know, some of us are plotting to make a Christian Egalitarian Handbook and companion Study Guide, over at the ECA board (private area so the TTD types don’t bother us, but I might make the document public as we work on it, in a place where comments cannot be made). Right now we’re just at the outline stage.

Paula Fether

Hi there, Light! Welcome to the party, we’re just getting started. Those wine bottles are still around because the male I hired to pick them up won’t get his nether regions in gear.

I’ve fired only two shots from my canon, but you don’t need a lot when you’re a good shot. ;-)

Corrie

"These people (seminary included) do not study scripture. They study Grudem, Calvin, Kostenburger, Luther, Ware, Mohler and Moore.

Scary stuff."

Lin,

I totally agree.

Corrie

Paula,

Swords and Sheaths?? ROFLOL!

And when the man conquers and subdues and dominates his foe...err...future bride, he can sing a rousing chorus of:

Bringing in the sheath, bringing in the sheath, I shall come triumphing, bringing in the sheath, Bringing in the sheaths, bringing in the sheavth, I shall come triumphing, bringing in the sheath,

Corrie

"And in spite of “her” indignations about it, the truth is that what the Baylys teach is in fact the logical outcome of what CBMW teaches. The Baylys are “honest comps”, much the same way that terrorists are “honest Muslims”. It’s true, and I’m going to keep saying it."

Paula,

This is so true and this is what I have been trying to say but couldn’t find the words to say it.

Yes, the Baylys and the CCC Forum and Mouser are examples of honest "comps".

Corrie

"I never thought she could top her “theological equivalent of crabs,” but the “cannon” comment is darned close. I’ve shot four out of my cannon, and I think Corrie’s shot ten out of hers. How ’bout y’all? It’s a noisy business, isn’t it?"

LOL!!! You could say that again! Quite noisy, indeed! I think my cannon firing days are over. ;-)

I am glad you dropped by the party, Light. It really isn’t one without you.

I consider your posts on the old Bayly blog to be "Classic Light".

You totally had them gnashing their teeth when you posed the three scenarios concerning three different couples but not telling which gender person A and person B was and we had to guess whether it was submission or sacrificial love that the person was exhibiting to the other. It was like being transported back to Bible times where Jesus would cause the pharisees to become so angry by speaking the simple truth that they would pick up stones in order to kill Him.

The other Classic Light post was the female ranch hand scenario. Poor guys! That almost pushed them over the edge.

Paula Fether

Corrie,

I love the "new" meaning of Bringing In the Sheaves!! (which, incidentally, is another one of those hymns that make you wonder what it has to do with Christianity or the Bible)

"Classic Light"... is there also a Classic Lager and a Classic Ale?

Light

Corrie said: The other Classic Light post was the female ranch hand scenario. Poor guys! That almost pushed them over the edge.

Pushed them over the edge? You mean, pushed me off the plank, never to allowed to return to Bayly-dom! Actually, I was just re-reading all that, and even though I was asking them in all sincerity and was deadly earnest, their squirming and discomfiture makes for really entertaining reading now.

Paula Fether

Ya know, Light, I’d consider being sent to Baylydom some kind of purgatory. So getting pushed off the plank was an act of mercy, right?

Corrie

Light,

You are right that they had you walk the plank but that is what happens to Mistress Jezzies, no? ;-) I was proud to follow you shortly after that.

They were protecting the flock, don’t you know?

But, your logical and reasonable question caused their minds to go haywire, pushing them over the edge into a seething rage.

If you had not dared to question their authority by having a dangerous opinion of your own and had not post a threat to their authority by your simple question, they would have not responded to you in the way they did. It is just that simple. It can’t be that they have a problem dealing with reality or reasonable questions. It is that YOU dared to ask it in the first place.

You see, women initiate and men respond, even though they will say it is the reverse, when their doctrine actually gets lived out, it is the "woman You gave me".

Marriage, it is the only military ship where the Captain gets to blame his problems on his underlings and still retain all the authority without any responsibility. That stuff just wouldn’t work in the real world.

Paula Fether

Another thing that needs said, especially in light of the comments "over there" about mockery:

Time after time I’ve seen the Christian online community tear itself to shreds by telling each other what they should say, how they should say it, when they should say it. Satan would dearly love to see us implode like that here and "there". Once we start shooting at each other, the Enemy is forgotten. That’s really the heart of the whole egal/comp debate anyway.

And any mockery egals engage in cannot begin to be compared with that churned out by CBMW and the hard comps. Women are openly mocked, made less than men, treated like children, told they are not quite as spiritual, eternally blamed for Eve while men are not blamed for Adam... this is "tearing at the flesh" (the woodenly-literal meaning of ’sarcasm’) of the worst sort. And as we’ve seen from the quotes in this thread, nothing is more demeaning and insulting that what male entitlement teaches.

So there.

Corrie

The whole "sheathed sword" business gives new meaning to the "sword of the Lord", doesn’t it?

I mean, it might be a little confusing when the Lord comes back and asks them why they sheathed their sword and they are thinking male member and He is meaning GOSPEL. (Hebrews 4:12)

I wonder if their church practices segregated Sword Drills? After all, it could be quite risque in a mixed gender class.

Jhn 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath:

Act 16:27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.

Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Wow! Shall I ever read the Bible the same again?

Pass the mind soap.

Seriously, though. They can get away with talking like this because they are being serious. Which is frightening in my book.

But, when I talk about this what they teach, then I am the one with the problem?

Paula Fether

But of course you’re the problem, Corrie. You’re female, and that’s all they need to know.

Gotta get some work done, back l8r today.

Lin

"But this needs to be made known outside the tightknit (funny word to describe manly men) bonds of the fringe misogynists, because it’s going mainstream more every day. If Christians aren’t repulsed by this, then I have a hard time calling them Christians."

Very good point. At my age, I can see how we reached the boiling point today to get us where we are on this issue. One reason is because of little hints my mom would drop here and there. She was not a divider but a very deeply spiritual woman completely guided by teh Holy Spirit. But there were times she gave a warnings in the mid 80’s and throughout the 90’s about where this was headed.

There was a time the Baylys would have been thought to lack love, humility, charity and even good taste by most believers. At the worst, those days were a time of Noblesse Oblige toward those who were thought of as ’lessor’ which elevated the lessors. I saw it in my own Victorian father who thought it his responisbility to humbly elevate his wife. There was no hint of authority at all in this.

Lin

"The Baylys are “honest comps”, much the same way that terrorists are “honest Muslims”. It’s true, and I’m going to keep saying it."

Oh how true! And we can see how many want to dabble with pieces of it and try to explain away the rest.

How mean it sounds to say that Islam is not a religion of peace. Even for ones who are not terrorists!

But all movements-MOVE. They never stay in place. As an egal (I hate that label) i have to be vigilant to stay in scripture and not move past scripture.

One thing that really caught my eye about egals (I thought they were all liberal feminist lesbians who wanted homosexual pastors...because that is the impression comps WANT people to have) is that for the most part they were really digging into scritpure and debating word meanings in Greek

The comps never do this. They KNOW what it means. They KNOW a woman will be saved in childbearing. They are sure of it and that is why they ’debate’ like they do. Insults, arrogance, and changing the subject.

I am not saying we cannot know what most of scripture means. We can. Why? Because God made sure to be clear on the big time important stuff. The primary Gospel stuff. He repeated it. Repent. Faith. Love. Sin.

But lets face it, some stuff is cultural like headcoverings. Even marriage to an extent because of the times. Why would Paul need to tell a piece of property to submit to its owner? There is something going on behind the scenes we do not know. Therefore, we should NOT make a new religion around it.

The comp movement has moved into Patriarchy. and most comps are really egals in practice. And that will not do for the Ware’s, Moore’s, Grudems and Mohlers.

Paula Fether

People never notice the change in temperature, do they (re. the "frog in the pot" analogy). God sends people to warn, but others who don’t see it coming throw rocks at them and tell them to shut up. This is true on so many levels, and the egal/comp issue is no exception. Ironically, the comps warn about **us** being on a slippery slope, but no, not them!

And good point about MOVEments. Where do the comps think they’re going, if not toward Baylism and then Islam? How are they NOT bowing to culture?

Don Johnson

I got a laugh out of "aner-retentive". That WAS witty.

Paula Fether

Coming from you, Don, that’s a real compliment!

(And "aner-retentive" coming after a post about "movement" is, um, just a coincidence!)

Lin

"Where do the comps think they’re going, if not toward Baylism and then Islam? How are they NOT bowing to culture?"

Oh yes, they are going toward what the Baylys are so open about. I have seen that for a while now but there have been hints that i have shared with others that freaked them out. One is a paper Moore wrote 2 years ago for the Henry Institute that is so blatent and insulting to normal comps.

See, most SBC folks have NO idea what they these guys are really teaching. When I show them in black and white what Moore said, most do not believe it! They want to hear it from Moore personally to believe it! Oh, I am sure he did not mean it like that!

That is how much they have convinced people they are the kind of people that can be trusted with correct doctrine. If Mohler says it, they believe it. He would NEVER steer anyone wrong.

All these young guys go out and teach what they have been taught. They have on their ’correct doctrine’ glasses (that are clouded) and never take them off...because an expert professor told them so.

Paula Fether

Yes, "the emperor’s new clothes". No matter how plainly the misogynists speak or write, we must believe they are sticking to scripture.

ahunt

re: the mockery

I sent Brian a gentle challenge to his rebuke, (which I found unnecessary since A)we had already removed ourselves and B)nothing that was written was mean-spirited.

And people do differ in their opinions of what constitutes sarcasm...and whether sarcasm is ever appropriate.

So Paula...thanks for a place to be...funny, sarcastic, irreverent and ourselves.

Paula Fether

You’re very welcome, ahunt. I’ve been censored more times than I can count, and have more wounds from my own spiritual siblings than from enemies, so I am honored to provide such an outlet. I don’t believe in putting band-aids on severed limbs.

Lin

We are held to a higher standard, anyway. They can make comments about women causing abuse in sermons and they defend it with lots of twists and turns. Anyone notice Ware has not publicly explained himself?

he never does. He lets the sycophants do it for him. (Oh the powers of the beloved professor everyone bows to.)

Truthseeker

Has Ware responded anywhere to the uproar his statement has caused?

Lin

"Has Ware responded anywhere to the uproar his statement has caused?"

Are you kidding? His stock has only gone up with the hard core followers. He will be hailed as the brave warrior standing for truth. Or unsheaving his sword.

Has anyone here met Ware?

Paula Fether

Haven’t met any of them, but I did think of another one of their hymns (which, as we know, sounds like "hims", so they must favor males):

When the Role is Called Up Yonder

ahunt

Snerk.

The CBMW teaches mutual submission. Just reviewed their teaching on husbandly responsibilties (per Sue over at Denny’s), and frankly, it is about as clear a call for the doctrine of mutual submission as I have ever read.

What to do with a wife who is "fighting" and "resisting" one’s leadership? The answer? The husband is to "serve" (submit himself) to her needs. So I don’t get how a husband’s service is seen as leadership, and a wife’s service is considered submission. Rationally, how does this work?

Paula Fether

Key word there is "rationally". ;-P

And have they informed a Mr. Grudem that he must now retract his paper stating that mutual submission is impossible?

Corrie

"The husband is to “serve” (submit himself) to her needs. So I don’t get how a husband’s service is seen as leadership, and a wife’s service is considered submission. Rationally, how does this work?"

It is a pink and blue hermeneutic.

The blue definition for "to serve" is guide, direct, protect others from dangers by deciding where they can go, what they can read and who they can be friends with.

The pink definition for "to serve" is serve.

So, when they say a man is to serve his wife, they don’t really mean in the same way a wife serves her husband. They mean that he leads the servant by guiding, directing and "protecting".

If they truly meant "serve" when you using that word, it would be mutual submission but they would never, ever admit that a man submits to his wife. Oh, they will tell you that they submit to the little neighbor boy when he needs help with his bike chain but they NEVER submit to their wife. Although, God submits to them when they need help.

That is why it is hard for me to trust how certain people are using certain words. They don’t mean it in the ordinary sense of the word.

Sue

Hi y’all,

I sure have had a good laugh at all this. Do you know that when I went to gender and faith blog at first I thought it was a spoof of patriarchy and not the real thing. I could not imagine.

Hi Light, I don’t think we have met.

Paula Fether

Welcome to our irreverent party, Sue! This is the place to call out the emperor on his new clothes and pin Big Brother down on his definitions.

Sue

My computer won’t load all the comments on Denny’s post on Ware so I can’t post on it. Is anyone else having the same problem.

Paula Fether

Yep, we all are.

I can’t imagine it got shut down because of unanswerable egal arguments or anything. :-P

Lin

"That is why it is hard for me to trust how certain people are using certain words. They don’t mean it in the ordinary sense of the word."

Oh, this is a big one. Introducing ’Role’ as a biblical word is a big one. Or, ’manhood and womanhood’. No one questions the words and definitions and asks why? They just accept them as definitive.

In a comment on another thread I wrote about how CBMW uses adjectives. It is quite amusing if you really stop and think about how they use them.

"she submits to his loving, compassionate and visionary leadership". Or, "Her joyful, loving and intelligent submission..."

Anyone else notice this? I keep wanting to ask them if the adjectives are optional or if they must be present for this religion to work. :o)

BTW: It was still loading for me in the comments section but I am sure things were getting a bit uncomfortable when Cheryl showed up. Not to mention that Burke is going to SBTS soon to be DEAN of Boyce.

Sue

It could be just a technical limitation. I don’t know.

Paula Fether

Could be, especially since the whole page isn’t loading. Maybe we finally sunk the ship.

Such a shame, too. ;-)

ahunt

What kills me is that we were just getting to the "meat" of CBMW doctrine, with Ellen quoting directly.

And words like "concede," "serve," and "surrender" were all associated with CBMW’s teaching of husbandly duties.

But not "submit." Husbands are to "concede" to their wives, "serve" their wives, and "surrender" to the needs of wives...

Who knew big, brave, godly, manly leaders could be turned into frightened little boys by just one word.

Paula Fether

I couldn’t get over when she said that Jesus washing the disciples feet, a job for the lowliest slave, wasn’t "submission". She used the case of Peter’s objection to claim Jesus didn’t submit, yet there was Peter being given a choice of whether to let Jesus serve him! It wasn’t "do this or else" but "let me serve you". But hierarchialists can’t imagine equality.

Lin

"Who knew big, brave, godly, manly leaders could be turned into frightened little boys by just one word."

It is the whole thing with their new definitions of words. They are smart. They know that words mean things.

Paula Fether

I think if I were to write a book entitled "Understanding Modern Evangelical Thought", I would just copy the entirety of 1984 and that would pretty much say it.

Lin

Ya know, Paula, that is not such a bad idea. that is exactly what we are seeing.

Sue

I am not comfortable with talking about people by name who are not here. I have made the same comment elsewhere. To be fair I have to say it here too.

I am, however, quite comfortable with taking something from someone’s book, sermon or post, citing it and having some fun with it if that is what is needed.

It seems like a good way to let off steam.

ahunt

Oh Good Heavens, Sue...I meant nothing derogatory about Ellen...indeed, she was giving me the direct quotes from CBMW, and not only was I grateful...like Ellen, I am more convinced than ever that soft comps and egals have much more in common than anyone gives us credit for.

And I’m disappointed that I didn’t get a chance to let Ellen know that.

Sue

That’s okay. I am oversensitive right now. I think you are right that many "soft" comps as you say, really don’t believe these stricter doctrines.

ahunt

I was also disappointed that Kathy never got an answer to her invaluable question.

Paraphrasing here, but she truly wanted to know what it feels like to have God given authority over another adult in Christ.

Lin

"Paraphrasing here, but she truly wanted to know what it feels like to have God given authority over another adult in Christ."

I have seen this answered in Q&A sessions with some well known comps. Since I do not have a link for it as it was a conference, it will have to be anecdotal. But the response was basically that it is a huge responsibility that godly comp men take seriously and they have to be guided by the Holy Spirit in all things.

Of course, this begs the question as to why the Holy Spirit is not guiding the wife. However, it is assumed the Holy Spirit would be guiding the wife only in submission to the husband.

A question I would like to ask is what happens when the wife grows in maturity and Holiness past the husband. They seem to think that concept is impossible.

Lin

"I am more convinced than ever that soft comps and egals have much more in common than anyone gives us credit for."

But this is exactly what Ware, Moore and others are upset about. They want comp to really be full blown patriarchy. That is why you are seeing sermons like the one at Denton Bible Church. The vitriol and propaganda is increasing.

Lin

I saw on a blog that DA Carson distanced himself from the CBMW over the TNIV statement . Does anyone know about this? Is there any information about this anywhere? Did he make a statement?

Paula Fether

Can’t tell you anything about Carson, but as for Kathy’s question, the pat. answer (couldn’t resist) is what I would call sterilized. It presume the male has a terrible burden and always feels his obligation strongly and should therefore be pitied or respected.

Hogwash. The only stress they feel is that of not getting their way.

Think of the responsibility of any mother, shaping the next generation. Sure, we keep in mind the importance of our actions, but do we get any respect for that? Not from any pat, that’s for sure. They see it as something we only do for them, only because they can’t.

ahunt

"Terrible Burden?"

Heh.

"Gosh Honey...as your helpmeet, lemme just take half of that crushing weight off your manly shoulders. In fact, I insist, as my greatest need is to be responsible for myself before God, and you are to serve and surrender and concede to my needs. CBMW says so."

Works for me.

ahunt

The vitriol and propaganda is increasing.

But the "message" is falling on ever increasing of numbers of deafened ears. I truly believe that the tighter the fist, the more the lifeblood of the Body of Christ(in the form of female energy, commitment and service) will drain away.

Between 20-25% of the US population currently attend church semi-regularly, a percentage that has been declining since 1960, with no signs of a stopper. Women make up a slight majority in the attendence figures, but there is no doubt that women are walking away in unprecedented numbers. And pat/hard comp theology simply has no meaning and no relevance in their lives. I think that the P/HC movement will reach critical mass very soon, and will then begin to collapse in on itself, the fist closing ever tighter, ultimately crushing to powder its own backbone...women.

Paula Fether

That’s the fate of the self-centered: implosion. Let them.

Meanwhile, while they’re busy looking in the mirror, the rest of us will be forming the real Church again.

Lin

"And pat/hard comp theology simply has no meaning and no relevance in their lives. I think that the P/HC movement will reach critical mass very soon, and will then begin to collapse in on itself, the fist closing ever tighter, ultimately crushing to powder its own backbone…women"

I have to disagree with this but maybe because I am in a situation to see it more. Sometimes it is the women who are the ones who are driving this bus wanting their husband to be the spiriutal leader. I call it ’comp ambition’ because I saw it a lot. They like not having to dig deep.

I have friends whose husbands attend seminary who have simply refused to attend any more seminary wives functions. Even baby showers! If you work outside the home or want to talk about doctrine in depth, you are an outcast...a heretic.

Some of them have not fogotten Russell Moore’s advice that if their wives have to work, they should move into a trailer park. (Most of them were living in those kinds of situations anyway. I think Moore has no concept of what it takes to live anymore...probably because he has had a very nice salary and at a very young age thanks to Baptist tithe dollars)

My friends are in the minority. They are not even close to being feminists. They just have to work to help provide health insurance, etc., for the family.

It may take years for the majority of women in this comp/pat system to come to grips with living out this false teaching. If they are smart, they will see the obvious contradictions in scripture. But if their husband is the spiritual boss, they rarely study on their own for illumination of the truth by the Holy Spirit. It would not be in their best interests to buck the system, anyway.

Comp churches are everywhere. It is as if a line has been drawn. I am blessed that my church is conservative in primary doctrine but has women deacons, etc. This issue is never discussed becasue everyone, including the women are too busy doing what needs to be done. And that includes some women teaching mixed groups!

Lin

Check out this retired pastor’s journey from comp to egal

http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/

ahunt

I’m in retail, Lin...couple that with a large clan peopled by military folks who marry overseas, and my much of my world looks like the United Nations.

So while my rural home spiritual life is fairly insular, and very small...I know there is a big secular world out there (and in terms of friendship, church attendence/affiliation is not on the list of criteria.)

I’m all over secular shared interests, from horses to landscaping, and please believe me when I say that the Body has lost formidable, brilliant women...

As one of my dearest friends bitterly put it...I can spend Sunday mornings listening to some man wearing a dress telling me what it means to be a woman, wife and mother...and the lesser child of God...or I can spend Sunday mornings being a woman, wife, mother and a child of God."

Paula Fether

Ya know, I used to cringe whenever I heard someone try to say Christianity is just like the Taliban. Now I have to agree with them. The "official" churches are all they see of Christianity, and they really are getting to be such control freaks and Pharisees that there isn’t much theoretical difference between the two.

True followers of Jesus aren’t after control or rules or making others follow their personal "vision".

ahunt

It is worse than that, Paula.

I think women are turning away because they believe God has no respect for them

...and it comes down to empiracal rationale...

Why does God give men authority to women when there is not one shred of earhtly evidence to remotely suggest that men are qualified for...or worthy of...such power?

I’m serious, Gals. These are average, chilhood churched women who went through the motions until empty nested, and then quietly put a sharp edge to church ties.

Lin

I know what you all mean. I am amazed that the older folks, seniors, are more tolerant on this issue than most 20 somethings. But these are the older folks who don’t make a living from it, either.

Just to give another perspective, sometimes i feel like I live in the twilight zone. I live in a Southern city that has seen an unbelievable amount of AMERICAN women marrying and converting to Islam. Granted, it is a gentler Islam in that they only wear scarves and long skirts but I am blown away at how many there are! I am seeing mosques in rural towns. And all this after 9/11. We are also seeing the Mormon church grow here. Both of these religions are horrible to women! So what is the draw?

People like works religions. It brings them security that they can work to be good. I fear that is what is happening to many young women being sucked into Patriarchy. They will be sanctified through their ’roles’.

It could be that older women (40’s+) are seeing through it. I really believe that is the case. But the younger ones who grew up in divorced homes, etc., are looking for the formula to a secure life.

It is the 20 somethings that are falling for this or they are falling for the emergent church.

ahunt

Lin, I believe you are correct in thinking that women are more likely to come to a place of soft comp/egal as they mature, (if they do simply walk away).

My guess is that maturing women are not abruptly insisting on their own voices, but rather as time and the growing independence of their children permit, women are simply looking at their lives and realizing that there is no heirarchy...just cooperation and shared responsibilities and yes, mutual "conceding," and that they have always had "a voice" that was heard, respected and acted on.

Cheryl

Okay, I know I am WAY late on this bog entry as you’all seem to have left the building already, but I would like to respond to Lin’s question in #59

"Has anyone here met Ware?"

I met him at a conference in 2006. He sat in the same bench as I did and he had a coughing fit. I gave him a cough candy. I think he appreciated it. That was before we "met" by email months ago when I questioned him on his stand on the Trinity. His thoughts regarding one who believes that Jesus is completely equal with the Father in authority is not too nice. I was told that God should have mercy on my soul and he stopped corresponding with me. It is too bad. I would have liked to give him a spiritual cough candy but he wouldn’t accept it.

Paula Fether

Hi Cheryl! Good to have you here. I’m sure we still have some snacks around. :-)

Yes, God will have mercy on your soul-- because it belongs to Him!

I just keep shaking my head at how far many have strayed from the simple basics of Christian living: humility, love, and service. They call domination submission, and leading serving, and self-centeredness self-sacrifice.

ahunt

Thanks for the heads up, Cheryl. I imagine this thread will be revitalized as needed, but the truth is that some of us are way out of our league...I can do the humor, and some of the real world sadness...but when it comes to scholarship, I have nothing to offer.

I’m wildly grateful to Paula for