Alison

Oh, please, don’t even get me started on women’s Bible study materials. There’s so much junk (that’s the nicest word I can use) out there disguising itself as truth, and that junk, unfortunately sells. The only ones getting rich off this pablum are the authors, whose writings inevitably lead to the “man leads and woman submits” paradigm, as predictably as thunder follows lightning. There is precious little room for critical thinking in these fill-in-the-blank, “follow these 5 (or however many) steps and you’ll be a new woman in 6 months!” studies, and that leads me to question their value in truly edifying the sisterhood they’re aimed at. Their real value is in shoving the submission agenda down the throats of the already-convinced, so they can pat themselves on their collective back and air their superior virtue like peacock feathers. NO real learning (perhaps that’s a little harsh; maybe very little learning) is actually accomplished in the teaching and dissemination of this claptrap.

I apologize for my tone if I’ve offended anyone. I simply can’t stand these things, nor can I stand the fact that people are profiting off of a doctrine that’s been linked to abuse, degradation and dehumanization of God’s precious creation in women. It’s disgusting, and CBMW sorely needed to be called out on it.

Kristen: the other thing that will work in getting the complementarians to listen to us: loss of income. Has anyone ever thought of the money that is potentially involved in complementarian conferences/resources, and just how profitable those things might be? I’d love to see the financials on an organization like CBMW and see if my theory that they’re making money like nobody’s business is right. If it is, then that has to change.

Thank you, gengwall. I have no idea where it came from, but it seems to work. Your support is much appreciated. 🙂

Ooops! I meant to say: It hurts like nobody’s business if you (or someone else) drops the bowling ball on your foot, and it also hurts if you drop it on someone else’s foot. Dang caffeine hasn’t kicked in. Late nite w/storms by me. Should probably go running to clear my head….Ooops.

Of course it is, gengwall. (If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, odds are it isn’t a goose). The fundamental problem here is that there is no way to soften the “insistence on male authority”. It’s something like wrapping a bowling ball in a blanket: we still know the bowling ball is in there, and that it’s going to hurt like nobody’s business if you drop it on your foot (or it gets dropped on your foot by someone else).

The “insistence on male authority’ is the bowling ball in this case. We have no way of dropping it without hurting someone. No matter how loving the intent, the overriding of one’s free will by another is bound to hurt. Until we see that, we will continue to have these “bowling ball in a blanket” difficulties. Let’s just take the bowling ball out and put it back on the shelf–insist in love that “trump-card” authority has no place among us.

That’s precisely the problem, pinklight. It’s the ultimate insult, “dropping the h-bomb” on someone with whom you disagree. It is uncharitable, manipulative and childish, to say the least. Even to imply that someone is a heretic is to tread some dangerous ground, ground that one does not easily come back from. As we seek to flesh out what submission is and isn’t, let’s please keep the fact that we are brothers and sisters in Christ first and foremost.

I know I can be sarcastic and harsh, but a lot of that comes from pain and frustration with people who are telling me that if as a woman I’m not doing x, y, or z, I am somehow less of a woman, somehow missing out on what God is calling me. So, if I have offended anyone, I apologize, and will work on responding to some of these issues from a place of loving reason, not mere emotionality. I pray that we can, even in our disagreements, be a community that calls out the best from each other. I am sorry for not playing a part in making that happen. Just my feeling.

@ Kay: I think that’s the essential problem. You nailed it when you said, “Yes, the main point we have is that none of the hierarchist’s view squares with the Law of Love & “not so with you.””

The whole issue, I think, needs to be reframed by the Law of Love. We have to consider how loving it is for a husband to try to take authority over his wife, as if she were somehow incapable of making decisions for herself (or of dealing with the consequences if they turn out to be the wrong decisions). We have to consider if it is at all loving for a husband to assert that his is the final decision in all matters, and the wife consistently has to sacrifice the things she wants and needs in the name of “submission”, just so the husband can have his way (sounds like kids in the sandbox, where one gets his own way all the time, to the detriment of the others).

My fiance and I have had to learn this the hard way. We had a very painful fight over this issue (I said words which can be printed here; I think I even threw things at him), and we didn’t talk for three days. What came out of that fight was a needed commitment to working together, not one-up, one-down. We relearned the importance of what some consider a “dirty” word: compromise. It’s still awkward sometimes, but a whole lot better than the alternative.

Three cheers for gengwall! Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip, hooray! Big ups, brother, for the insight. That’s the comp argument in a nutshell, and now that you’ve provided that, I guess I can burn my copy of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Thanks a million for clarifying it beyond all the word games and nonsense (I would use a stronger term, but it’s early) that the comps throw out there as “truth”. Thanks for getting down to brass tacks. Much appreciated.

@ Lydia: I was hoping not to have to make that connection, between submission and $$$$. But point well taken: there’s a boatload of money at stake in all this, with all the conferences, books, websites, and other materials. I halfway wonder but what some of the comp authors don’t truly believe the dreck they’re sending out, but are only in it for the money. If the figures on the paycheck are right, they’ll cop to comp doctrine, even if it means a betrayal of their own truest selves that genuinely (in some cases) don’t believe any of it.

@ pinklight: sorry to gross you out. I think I took my coffee a bit too strong when I wrote what I did. But the point remains: there’s some nasty stuff out there.

@ pinklight: those who are in rebellion often don’t see their rebellion until it’s too late. The key here is “often”, since the rebellion perpetrated by the comps is so well disguised that even they can’t see it for what it is, since they’ve manipulated Scripture and themselves so well that they are blind. They truly are blind guides for the blind, and eventually they will both fall into a pit.

You’re right, that their doctrine falls apart without the women. But thanks to stuff like the “True Womanhood” movement and other female-oriented comp stuff, winning the hearts and minds of comp women could be harder than we think. Seeing some of their stuff, slickly produced and sweetly manipulative, should tell us that we’re dealing with devilishly ingenious folks who know how to keep the leash six inches long, yet know how to do it in such a way that those on the collar end of the leash (the women!) don’t realize they are being manipulated and leashed. It all looks so good, like Alice in Wonderland’s Eat Me and Drink Me things, yet they do such damage. Mind control, anyone?

@ pinklight (#246 and following): “The more I continue with this thread the more is ridiculous in my mind”. Precisely, and that’s why the authority argument is on its face not just ridiculous but farcical. IMHO, it all comes down to one thing: men trying to prove that women are inferior, and they are the superior ones. We wouldn’t be going round and round in these stupid circles with this infantile argument (essentially a p—ing contest) if there weren’t a huge (and obvious) dose of male hubris at play here. It will be denied but I think (and hope) I’ve been around long enough to sense pride at work, and there’s a lot at work in the writings of the complementarians (Grudem and Piper especially come to mind). Why else would they be hung up on submission, unless they felt like they had to defend “their” authority? That’s the $1,000,000 question, and until they can admit that that’s at least in part what’s going on, we continue in this ridiculous cycle, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.(And if I butchered the Latin, mea culpa. Coffee and Coldplay aren’t enough to wake me up so far. Up too late celebrating my beloved Chicago Blackhawks winning the Stanley Cup!)

@ gengwall and SM: I’ve heard the same answer and it’s about as satisfying as three-day-old brussels sprouts (ick). It leads back into the question of proof, which leads back into the unsatisfying arguments about the Fall, and God’s intention in creation, neither of which can be proven in the patriarchalists’ favor, unless the texts in Genesis 1 and 3 are manipulated past recognition. And so, round and round and round we go, and where we stop, only God knows. It’s a self-perpetuating argument, one that if we look at the texts, simply becomes a non-issue.
I think that’s why we get the “God intended it” answer from the comps, because it then becomes the ultimate “Because I said so, da** it!” The appeal to God’s authority (possibly fallacious) is intended to quell the argument and justify clinging to nothing more than religiously veiled prejudices that have been held for thousands of years about women being inferior to men. (I realize that a lot of complementarians will be offended by that statement, and I apologize if I’ve offended anyone.) But the methodology of appealing to God as the ultimate authority to justify one’s prejudices is fallacious at best, and at worst idolatrous. Until we see that, we will stay on this sick cycle carousel of an argument until Christ returns. 😛

hmmm… methinks something is rotten here. Going “round and round over words” (as some comps are wont to do) doesn’t answer the fundamental question of why women “need” to have men “in authority” over them. I think, quite honestly, that the issue lies in a spirit of entitlement (my antispam word being “title”) that some men have. Didn’t Jesus say that we are to call no man “teacher” since we have one Teacher, the Son of Man? *If I butchered that Scripture, I apologize. Too long of a day and not enough caffeine.*

Yet we so stubbornly cling to “roles” and titles, thinking they give us security by making life predictable: if you’re A, you’re supposed to do B, if you’re B, you’re supposed to do C, etc. In that world, all the spontaneity and creativity can get sucked out in the name of security (for those who hold the power). I wonder how much of this submission and authority problem would be solved if we let go of human-constructed “roles” and simply let each person reveal the Image of God as he or she is uniquely given to do, without the constraints of titles and “roles”. Or is that too scary of a proposition?

That’s the obvious solution, Cheryl. I’ve long maintained that there are no “pink lists” or “blue lists” in terms of spiritual gifts. Today being Pentecost Sunday, I’m having a hard time imagining the Holy Spirit going into the upper room and choosing the women only for gifts like helps, hospitality, administration, etc. (the stereotypical “feminine”) gifts, and the men only for the gifts of leadership, shepherding, etc. I just don’t think He worked that way on that day, nor does He work that way now. He gifts each individual according to their hearts, not their gender.

It just shows the arrogance of some of these men to deny that women were evangelists and preachers after the coming of the Spirit. They might not have ministered publicly, but their contribution to the spread of the early church was nonetheless invaluable. After all, wasn’t it Priscilla who set Apollos straight? I’m having a hard time imagining Paul telling her to sit down and shut up! SO, why then, do we still insist on telling women to do the same, over 20 centuries after Paul?

My prayers are with you, Amanda. I am so heartbroken by your story, and it illustrates why these men (and the women who support them!) need to repent. Their abuse of Scripture in keeping their “entitled” position as leaders “over” women instead of co-workers with them is aligned with the world’s view of women, not God’s. I believe God has designed and affirmed women and men as equals, to work together for His glory and to advance His kingdom, regardless of “roles” or “gender differences”. These things smack of worldliness and the need to control, not the willingness to separate themselves from them. This has done untold damage, and your story is just one example of such damage. I am so sorry for what’s happened, and pray that you find a chuch that values you and your gifting, and is open to what you have to say and do as a member of the Body of Christ.

I totally second the “messed up”. I can’t explain how infuriated I get when I read writings like MacArthur’s. All I can do is pray that he sees the idolatry in his message and repents, especially that he repents for the damage that such a message has done to women (and to the men that it has falsely empowered), and the damage it has done to the male-female relationship, which, unless my reading of Genesis is completely wrong, was intended to be completely equal. I don’t know if he ever will.

@ Greg Anderson:

I second your “BULL****!!!”

I can’t understand for the life of me how these people fail to see that what they are suggesting is idolatry, and that they will be held accountable for leading their congregants astray. I’m surprised they don’t make the women wash their feet from all the meadow muffins they step in….

They allow women to teach other women because: the deceived are all in the same camp, and if they lead each other astray, it only proves their point that women aren’t allowed to teach at all. (Note the sarcasm).

I read statements like MacArthur’s, and I think, oh please. I need a “head” like a fish needs a bicycle. I have a perfectly good one, and His Name is Jesus Christ. He is my Leader, Protector, Savior, and Source of Nourishment. He is all I need, independent of any man. I think by putting men in Christ’s place over women, he is committing a very serious act of idolatry, specifically that of reducing God to One who only upholds the prejudices and biases of man. He is also saying that Christ is insufficient for women, that they need something else beyond Christ, which is also idolatry! The Gospel is NOT Christ plus (fill in the blank, in this case, male headship); it is Christ plus NOTHING!

And as for the whole idea of “women being saved through childbearing”, where the (deleted) does that leave women who CAN’T have children? It seems like such an obvious question, and forgive me for asking it, but I happen to believe that tying salvation into childbearing makes it sound like works-righteousness, something that the Gospels (and Paul himself) disavow. Have they forgotten “By grace you are saved through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Methinks something stinks coming out of CBMW, and they need to be called out on it. I’m sorry for the obvious anger here, but it needed to be said. I can’t believe these people.

Good question, TL. But as my anti-spam word “grace” is a reminder, the churches still have a lot of progress to make toward full egalitarianism. We need to extend a lot of grace to those churches as they heal from the ravages of badly done patriarchal theology, and be patient with them. Your question is an example of grace; wondering what’s at root in the whole “man is the leader in the home” is a great move, since you don’t write off such churches as hopelessly backward or “not getting it”, as is the temptation. Thanks for your question.

Precious, just precious. I laughed until there were tears in my eyes and a stitch in my side. I think we could use these humor breaks more often, not just in the blog, but in our lives. After all, it’s the unwritten 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not take thyself too seriously!

Man…this “Together for the Gospel” thing really ruffles my feathers. To have the unmitigated nerve to call it the “Unadjusted Gospel”, and then to twist the Gospel message in order to have it fit their ideology (idolatry?) is the height of arrogance.

Unless I’ve totally missed something in the Gospels themselves, I don’t see even a HINT of complementarianism in the texts. It just isn’t in the Fab Four (and no I’m not talking about the Beatles; the Fab Four is my nickname for the Canonical Gospels). And if I have missed it, I’m glad I did miss it…I’m not sure God would have given me a strong mind and a big mouth if all He intended for me was to just be a sweet little doormat (!), as complementarian theology in its most extreme forms suggests I be. Grrrrr.

Regardless of who said it first, it’s a good thing to remember, particularly in the issues related to women in ministry, where emotions can run high on both sides. Tanx, Arlene.

Cheryl-

My church is huge, so we cover a wide variety of people, and this means a wide variety of perspectives. The majority of the challenges I am facing represent some of the older-guard of evangelicalism, and some of the younger folks who have grown up in more conservative or traditional settings, and then come to my church after changes in their lives (career changes, moving into the city I’m from, etc), and those folks carry the teachings of their previous churches with them.

What I’m learning to recognize is precisely that, and to remember what John Wesley, founder of the Methodism that I came from, once said: “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity”. I am learning to (and I stink big time at this) receive those challenges with charity and gentleness, recognizing that folks from different backgrounds carry those backgrounds with them. That doesn’t make them wrong and me right, or vice-versa. There might be some folks with that agenda of restricting women in ministry, but if they hold participating membership in my church, they can’t really bring it up in other than small-group settings, since there’s an agreement in place in our membership stuff that we can’t promote doctrines not in our official statement of faith in a divisive manner. I’m not saying the folks who have challenged me are necessarily divisive, but I think they’re widely overruled, so they keep their perspectives to themselves, for the most part.

This post was a treat, Cheryl. Loved your work, how you debunked the theory of Eve “usurping Adam’s authority”. I’ve always wondered about that when it came up in my small group, and the unanswerable question that trouble-maker me always asked was “How in the h-e-double-hockey-sticks could she usurp something that was never either directly or indirectly given?!”

I was told to keep reading Genesis 2, that since the man was created first, he was therefore the head (something that you’ve done excellent work debunking). I was told I was prideful, deliberately ignoring the truth, and in thrall to Satan, disguised as an egalitarian. (And this in a church that officially claimed an egalitarian stand on women in ministry issues! Guess some folks just never read that portion of the memo, tho). But the more I search that passage, the less likely I become to see that reading of it–let the accusations fall where they may. I sometimes feel like I have to apologize for my own egalitarianism, and that just doesn’t make sense.

And that’s what’s so frustrating about the sin of pride lurking behind complementarian teaching, especially in the case of the “semwives” program. It’s not about the deeper things of God since (sorry to be snarky) the “ladies can’t handle them”, but rather about “how to be a better hausfrau”. Knowing that there is NO scriptural precedent for such a program only makes it that much worse.

It really sickens me to see some of this, since the men don’t realize they are only harming themselves by denying women access to the table, so to speak. They are denying themselves the opportunity to learn from women and thus to grow. The loss to the Kingdom of God is almost irreparable, since the loss of the gifts of these women cannot be replaced by yet more men.

Mara,

Their fear is on one thing: that they will lose their status as the “leaders” of their churches and families. That fear has roots in only one thing: pride. Some of these men are so threatened by women having access to the deeper things of God that they are willing to deliberately and egregiously sin in order to prevent such access, and in so doing, they are attempting to quench the Spirit. This doesn’t occur to some of them (as in the “Semwives” program at The Masters’ Seminary), since they figure such programs are enough to qualify as the women’s “good portion”, and the not-so-subtle message is, “This is the half a loaf you’re going to get, and to reach for any more means you are not content with how God designed you, and by reaching for more, you are insulting His wisdom”.

It’s really sad, since they’re the ones who are insulting God. By deciding what the women’s “good portion” will be, they have abrogated His wisdom (that they claim to so highly value), and set their traditions in His place! I know it’s frustrating, but until their sin is revealed to them directly and repeatedly, they will not be willing to sit down at the table with us and be willing to learn from us. All we can do is continue to pray, study Scripture, and be willing to deal with such men with openness and love. Perhaps I’m naive, but that will show them that our “good portion” is authentic, and is not a threat to them, but a cause for celebration.

Cheryl,

Thanks for your reply, and for your thoughts. I have often wondered about God’s design and the impact it has on “roles” assigned to men and women. Your faith is inspiring, and your clarity in articulating it has helped me greatly as I wrestle with what it means to minister as a woman, and what God’s call on my life really is. Thanks again.

Call me naive, Cheryl, but I don’t see any spiritual differences between men and women AS A WHOLE either. I stress that because while I know there are spiritual differences among individual people, I’m not so sure that we can place people into broad categories spiritually based soleley on gender. Unless I’ve completely missed something, I’m with you: I’m not sure there’s anything in the Bible that indicates such differences. This begs the question: why do some people insist on creating them?

PS @ Cheryl: looking forward to your post on Genesis. You bring such great stuff to the table; looking forward to your thoughts on the design issue.

@ truthseeker: Heavens to Betsy! I never thought (who’da thunk it) that there could be a flaw in God’s design! Ye gads and little fishes….what next? Unfortunately, that idea, I think, kind of shoots the “design” argument of a lot of complementarians.

To make this personal: My fiance does not seem like a strong “leader”; he might be seen as more of a “follower”. Is there, then, something “flawed” in his design? Is there something then “flawed” in my design since I tend toward being a stronger “leader” than he does? I’d love to know. Seeing it on that level really exposes the huge flaw in the logic and the issue then becomes a goose chase of who erred in the first place: us, or (Heaven forbid) God?