Light

But this difficult Abigail character…
They just try to pretend she doesn’t exist.

Or they say, “She’s the exception that proves the rule,” like that is some great wise pronouncement. People who say this don’t understand what that saying means. To “prove” a rule, in older English, means to “test” the rule, it doesn’t mean it’s proof that the rule is correct, which makes no logical sense.

While complementarians can be tempted to distort the image of God by saying that God is male …
Cheryl, many female subordinationists don’t quite go this far. Rather, they dance around it by saying that although God isn’t male because He doesn’t have sex organs like we do, he is 100% purely “masculine.” Of course, what they mean by masculine is like trying to nail jello to a wall; I’ve never received a satisfying answer. I would be interested in your take on whether or not God is “masculine” (as opposed to “feminine”).

Obstreperous means someone who is resisting control or restraint in a difficult manner, hard or impossible to manage, stubbornly disobedient.
Cheryl, I wonder which part of “You’re not the boss of me” this person doesn’t understand.

I pray that God will bless you for your obedience to Him, and Him alone!

Some people reading here may wish to post their experiences with CARM at this blog: http://abadgeofhonor.blogspot.com/ . The blog’s purpose is to expose un-Christlike behavior of professing Christian discussion board administrators. By exposing this behavior for the sin that it is, it is hoped that the perpetrators will reflect and repent of their sin.

“So if WOMAN can be strong, then that automatically weakens MAN, in that world view.”

Something just clicked with me when I read what Psalmist wrote there. It’s as if the patriarchalists see things as a zero sum game. If women have any amount of authority or power, that means less for them. It is as if they cannot see, for instance, that more women preachers means more gospel preached which means more people saved which means more glory to God. Instead, it means less notches on their belt, less credit that they get, less glory to them, fewer crowns they get. A woman’s vote means theirs carries less weight (vs. a genuine reflection of the opinion of all adults in the community); a woman who shares the decision making means they have less of a voice (vs a more balanced decision). And on and on it goes.

Zero sum game. Big lightning bolt for me on this one.

Cheryl, in post #95 you used the phrase “emotionally fondle” to describe how some of the women relate to the Bayly brothers. What an apt phrase that is! The Baylys use these women like cheap props to shore up their ego and their supposed high position in the hierarchy. They have no compunction about casting them aside, however, when they are done with them. I have also noticed they allow “villains” on their blog, as long as they can use those villains as a foil for their own (supposed) great theological insights. However, when the villain starts making too much sense – as I did last year, and Corrie, and most recently Suzanne and Rebecca – Tim Bayly is then in danger of looking foolish, because the villain is making too much sense. That’s when the villain is banned, not for discourtesy or falsehoods, but for so-called “false teaching.” By claiming he is banning them to “protect his sheep,” Tim is establishing himself once again as the alpha male. As you know, in cults the gatekeeping function is essential to keeping people in the dark about the truth – any light shed on the truth is a great threat to their control. Interesting, too, that to my knowledge no man has ever been banned from the Bayly blog. Only women. I suspect that has a great deal to do with Tim’s pride; he cannot bear to be shown up by a woman. He doesn’t deign to answer their difficult questions, but rather obfuscates and dances around it, and never gives a clear answer. Praise God there are blogs like this one, and TW, and others, who can present another point of view.

Cheryl, just to clarify my earlier comment about the PCA’s support of the Bayly brothers – it’s not an official position or view, just the view of a number of PCA pastors and others that my friend knows. Also, I didn’t mean to imply my friend had talked to every pastor in the PCA, but he does talk with very many PCA people. The sentence I wrote in post #90 that says, “He tells me the Bayly brothers are considered by most pastors in the PCA to be totally on the fringe and an embarrassment to the denomination” should in all fairness be amended to say, “He tells me the Bayly brothers are considered by most pastors in the PCA that he talks to in the course of his work to be totally on the fringe and an embarrassment to the denomination.” Now, how representative as a whole that is, I don’t know, but I do know he speaks with people all across the country.

thatmom said: There is a spiritual blindness that has its roots in the notions of hierarchy in the same way that slavery and child labor did.
On Saturday, my husband and I were watching a program about slavery in the US. As I sat there listening to how they described the lives of the slaves, it was chilling, because it so closely parallels the lives of women in the patriocentric movement. Comparing them side by side, it comes into very clear focus how patriocentrists are grossly usurping the basic human rights of their women.

Great point about the labeling. It can be a convenient shorthand, but it really doesn’t begin to embrace the depth and richness of who someone really is.

Cheryl, I commend you for your cheerful faithfulness in the face of adversity like this one. You are such a wonderful example of courage and perseverance! May God richly bless you for your faithfulness.

I must wonder, does Tim Bayly’s session of elders have any idea of how Tim treats people who disagree with him? I had a conversation a few weeks ago with someone who is very much plugged into all things PCA. He tells me the Bayly brothers are considered by most pastors in the PCA to be totally on the fringe and an embarrassment to the denomination.

Here’s what Moore says: “Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus,” Moore said. “That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism — and our foremothers, too.”

And here’s the link: http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22161

I could never take Russell Moore seriously again after reading an article where he expressed contempt for those who practice cooperation and mutual decision making in marriage.

Cheryl, I think it is a good idea to have this discussion publicly. It keeps all parties accountable. I also thank you for being willing to allow free and open participation via this blog, and for making the ground rules clear at the beginning. Most patriarchal/hierarchal bloggers don’t even permit comments on their blog. It is as if they are afraid of someone making points that make too much sense. On some patriarchal blogs and discussion boards that do permit comments, I notice it seems to be a common practice that once a commenter starts showing how biblical the egalitarian position really is, comments are immediately shut down or comments are deleted.

Thank you, Cheryl. I can no longer comment over there as I was banned last year. God will, of course, use all kinds of ways to reveal his Truth. I know many women have been helped to see the problems with patriarchy from comments over at the True Womanhood blog, and I’m sure it’s the same with readers here who may never have realized there is another point of view.

Cheryl, I think you could bring a lot to the conversation over there. I noticed that they didn’t actually delete Suzanne’s comment, so even if they ask you and her to “be quiet,” an initial comment or two may be left standing to testify to the truth.

This attitude is rampant among patriarchalist blogs and boards. Many don’t even permit comments, period. Others moderate everything before they permit it to be posted. Over on baylyblog.com, a poster named Suzanne who has studied Greek her whole life and was explaining the Greek got told to be quiet because she was spreading false teaching or something. Every time someone starts backing up their position from scripture on that blog, they are silenced. You know, it really isn’t any wonder why so many people refuse to even consider Christianity, considering how harsh and unloving Christians can be towards those who don’t share every jot and tittle of their opinion.

Cheryl, that is encouraging news. I just said a prayer for your audio promotion, that it will reach the right ears!

Cheryl, did the station say what time they will air your DVD program? I am wondering if they will pre-empt Matt’s own program to do so, or air your rebuttal at another time.