Mary

Sorry, gengwall; I missed a letter in your name.

Alison, it’s too bad your “mentor” has so little faith in your future husband, as to think he would even want to marry a woman whose independent spirit (probably the mentor distrusts self-sufficient, competent women) had been trained out of her. Who wants to marry someone who’s trying to be something other than her true self?

And your point about comp theory not making sense is important, I think. There are certain theological truths that are beyond our full comprehension in this life, such as the Trinity, the vastness of God’s holiness, the “why of the Atonement, etc. However, anything purported to be biblically sound practice, such as patriarchy, shouldn’t be nonsensical. It’s not enough to say, “I don’t know why God set up gender roles, I just know that patriarchy is the system God commands.” They often claim that these elusive “gender roles” are pre-Fall mandates, but there’s no biblical support for that claim.

I think that there are quite a few comps who know perfectly well that they’re deceiving people by teaching patriarchy as biblical. I suspect, however, that the rank and file Christian who accepts such teaching has not considered that it just might not be biblical after all. A very few do try some version of what they think of as egalitarianism and then return to compism, though when they tell the story it becomes clear that it wasn’t actually biblical equality that they’d tried in the first place. I know of one individual who rejected biblical equality out of disappointment that egalitarians are as fallibly human as that individual is, and who blamed being an egalitarian for a failure to attract a spouse. (I’m not exaggerating; I’ve read it in that individual’s own words, which continue in vindictive anti-egalitarian diatribes even today.) But in general, people who go to the Scriptures willing to be challenged in their beliefs, find that biblical equality makes far more sense than religious patriarchy, which is nothing more than the world’s practice of the (physically and socially) more powerful ruling the less powerful, but dressed in Sunday clothes.

Genwall, you brought up something I think is very important in comment #41: the difference between life in the flesh and life in the Spirit. I concluded a long time ago that embracing patriarchy even in its “mild” complementarian permutations, there is little or no control yielded to the Holy Spirit. I find no place for the Spirit in most of published comp doctrine. God does not force anyone to stop usurping God’s place as Lord of another’s life, or in the case of women in compdom, giving over to a man/men the place of control that God should have. Where the Spirit is not welcome and free to move, the Spirit does not enter.

It’s not unlike “Choose this day whom you will serve…”.

I’ve rarely seen anyone use as many citations as “Neopatriarch” did to say nothing more than “I don’t like Cheryl Schatz’s) interpretation.” He’s proven nothing with his non-refutation, except his own untenable preference for proof-texting…oh, and of course, his exceptional arrogance as well.

I found it hilarious, Cheryl; really, I did. All that effort and sputtering indignation, all because you’ve done your homework and come to a different conclusion than he has. At least one person takes “Neopatriarch” seriously, I suppose, and that’s “Neopatriarch.” But I simply can’t. His “refutation,” like his other comments and Yahoo entries, are simply absurd. What a waste! He’s obviously educated and has a decent mind, yet his apparent need to be “right” has so poisoned his interactions that he’s neither credible nor the least bit Christlike in them.

Let him revel in his little CCC-cloister and his “anonymous” blog. He and his religious patriarch cronies are fooling no one, perhaps not even themselves.

Greg: Unfortunately, however you dose ’em, we’re left with the same “end result” to clean up. 😉

Oh, and one more choice tidbit from the CCC mutual congratulatory society: HPK/Craig Coffey says (there, of course, since “God led” him to leave this blog) that he “knows” readers from egalitarian blogs read at the CCC-forum. (Well, duh! He’s hardly subtle in the tracks he left from here; I for one have read the ccc’s poison pit for years.) So what do you think: he says that he wants egalitarians (which he seems to be unable or unwilling to spell properly) to “come out into the [ccc’s] light” and post there, where he claims that he will offer said egalitarians the courtesy he “wishes” he had received on their blogs. (I guess he’d really have cried if he’d been responded to in the same manner in which he fired his volleys here.) Talk about revisionist history!

I’m still laughing over that “invitation.” The highly discourteous and unchristlike behavior he exhibited here and at Danni’s blog shows me that we’d be fools to believe such a ruse. And trust me: you do NOT want Michael McMillan (keeper of the ccc group) nor the other members of that group to have your e-mail address. The dive-bombing currently restricted to their occasional unsolicited visits to egalitarian blogs would turn up in far greater numbers in your e-mail in-box, the moment you dared to post anything about the truth of biblical equality on the ccc-forum and defend it against their lies and ridicule. I’ve seen the participants there over and over again, tear up egalitarians for sport, just because they can. It’s fun for them. They’ve convinced themselves that biblical equality isn’t, and Christian egalitarians aren’t, so there’s nothing wrong with treating said Christian egalitarians as terribly as possible. They are not honest people, and they most assuredly do NOT want honest, respectful discourse with egalitarians. If you doubt me, browse through their messages and see what they have to say about egalitarians. You won’t find an honest statement about egalitarians or biblical equality from any of them. You will, however, find that egalitarians are a favorite targets for their scornful lies. I cannot imagine speaking of the worst unrepentant sinner in the way they take pride in mischaracterizing egalitarians. Somewhere, they’ve so lost their focus on Jesus Christ that they think it’s acceptable to lie about, defame, and do verbal violence to fellow members of the human race, let alone fellow Christians (and I will not stoop to their tactic of dismissing them as though they’re not Christians — misguided, absolutely, but not beyond the power of Christ to bring them back). But then, such are the fruits of this world’s love of power and control. Remember, they idolize patriarchy. They’ve even deluded themselves into thinking it’s compatible with Christianity.

I guess it just sticks in Craig’s craw that we can read his own confessions at ccc about his motives, but see no need to muddy ourselves by confronting him further about them on his own toxic soil. He was itching for a fight, but all he got here and at Danni’s blog was the truth, along with plenty of truth-telling about his dishonest intentions. He got found out, and he’s embarrassed that it was a bunch of women who saw through him so easily, so now he’s blustering like the poser he is. And yes, we did have some observations to make about his lack of maturity and wisdom. And the thing patriarch wannabes can stand the least is to not be taken seriously. So he grossly distorts and summarizes what he was up to, and his complaints to his ccc buds sparks a flurry of comment about how horrible egalitarians are, and everybody pities poor Mr. Coffey for how he got treated by those who saw through his ruse and called him on it.

I suspect he knows the truth, and recognizes that biblical equality is the real deal, but like so many who prefer this world’s sinful patterns of patriarchy, he prefers the darkness to the light. So no, Craig, we won’t abandon the light for the ccc’s chosen darkness, just to give you more fodder for your folly. Just in case you harbored any illusion that the flock in these parts couldn’t smell the predator’s scent at ccc. This life is way too short to waste it on ccc-style game playing. At such time as you want to actually deal honestly with the truth of biblical equality and tell the truth about the Christians who embrace it, you’ll find egalitarians will more than meet you halfway. But your games were neither original nor skillfully played. You were right to crawl back to ccc. They quite obviously welcome your twisted version of reality.

Thanks for posting that quote from Danni’s blog, Cheryl. Good for her! This Craig Coffey/”Happy Promise Keeper” has indeed established a pattern of bullying; Danni did right to name the behavior and refuse to put up with any more of it.

Something we would all do well to remember is that the whole “complementarian” movement, started by CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), came into being in order to stand against biblical equality and the organization that first promoted it widely (CBE – Christians for Biblical Equality). “Complementarian” was coined as a more palatable word and concept than “patriarchal.” The word was co-opted, as though men and women are somehow not “complementary” under biblical equality. Since its inception, CBMW and those who speak for the organization have had a vested interest in discrediting egalitarian Christians and the tenets of biblical equality.

And now, we see a number of groups (including the CCC-forum) that consider CBMW “wimpy” and “closet egalitarians” because they acknowledge that scripturally, a man is not supposed to rule over his wife. The hard-core patriarchalists DO promote “father rule” and “husband rule,” quite unabashedly. And it is a group of such patriarchalists who were cheering Mr. Coffey on (assuming he gave CCC his actual name) in his false witness and character assassination here.

We should beware those groups that define themselves by what they stand against. What they stand FOR is usually pretty seriously skewed. When people expend that much energy in denouncing such thoroughly biblical concepts as equality and mutual submission between men and women, it goes a long way toward illustrating what they think male-female interactions should reflect instead.

And one more point: Try getting agreement on what the “instead” beliefs are supposed to be, among those who stand against biblical equality. Truly, “complementarianism” is all over the map. The only point of agreement you’ll find is that there is some degree of abridgment of freedom for women that is not also abridged for men, and this abridgment is justified for purely gender reasons. Just what gets abridged, how severely, and in what areas of life (i.e., church, family, marriage, society), is a matter of what seems right in their own eyes, since there is no agreement on any of the specifics. So it’s a matter, for women, of it being OK and even “biblical” for our freedom in Christ to be abridged simply because we’re women.

Such is the fruit of a belief system that uses only biblical descriptions of worldly social systems as its justification. “Everyone (does) what is right in their own eyes.” Men receive preferential status simply for being men, and women are taught that it is a virtue to accept that status quo. It’s no wonder that egalitarians and biblical equality are so hated! There’s a great deal of worldly power to be lost if women accept their full freedom in Christ and Christian men start considering their Christian sisters as better than themselves. The hard work of treating one another as Scripture commands we treat each other, means putting others first. That’s virually impossible to do if we believe all the lies about men and women being so different and only “spiritually” equal (if even that concession is made). Patriarchy (including the versions masquerading as “complementarian”) pits women and men against each other, as thought “man” and “woman” are antonyms. By contrast, biblical equality/mutual submission requires that we submit to the truth of Scripture that we are all one in Christ Jesus and all members together of the body of Christ.

Notice also the tired old tactic of commenting on a long-dormant entry with drive-by language (that is, accusatory, defamatory, statements with no substantiation). I’ve seen that sort of behavior time and again from patriarchalists toward those whose blogs uphold biblical equality. The patriarchalists can’t refute the truth they find on such blogs, so instead they resort to ad hominem attacks on the bloggers and commenters, focused on older entries that apparently push some equality/egalitarian-despising button or other. Perhaps they think that their false accusations will not get noticed right away, so they can crow to their fellow anti-biblical equality friends that the egals have no answer for them. (If that was “Happy” Promise Keeper’s motivation, you foiled him neatly, Cheryl.)

But whatever the reason for such blatantly false and unchristlike behavior, it’s definitely one of the plays in the playbook. Kind of like complaining bitterly when one’s terrible behavior in private is made public, eh?

Cheryl, I think the following link and the long comment thread it spawned will settle any possible questions about what HPK was doing here, and why:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CCC-Forum/message/28460

He was dishonest from his very first comment here on your blog, and his own words reveal what is in his heart…as do the words of the like-minded people on the CCC-forum show them for who and what they are.

How sad it is to see such self-deception that they’re willing to call lies the truth, and truth lies!

It seems to me that Barbara Mouser’s errant teachings show us a perfect example of why Timothy was exhorted to “let a woman learn.”  Those who would presume to teach, ought to be properly taught first.

For far too many parts of the body of Christ, women are excluded from solid theological and biblical study (and their men’s study could stand some scrutiny too, for that matter).  The fruits of their substandard study show crystal clear in assertions such as Barbara Mouser makes.  But she is bound to back up her husband, according to their highly patriarchal system, and since he makes the same sorts of assertions and is her authoritarian “head” and her “lord,” well…what else could we expect her to say?  Poor education and patriarchalist husband don’t provide much chance for his wife to come up with much besides a parroting of said patriarchalist’s extrabiblical propaganda.

If you had any doubts, google “Bill Mouser” and/or his “faith and gender” blog.   And be sure to catch his assertions that God is engaged in “cosmic sex” with creation.  Of course he’s going to denounce Deborah and push his wife to do the same.  His poor definition of manhood is at stake if he doesn’t.

Hi Cheryl,
Just a note to thank you for your diligent study of God’s Word and it’s application to the church and women in particular.  May God bless your continuing efforts.

Hey Cheryl!

I found you! I see lot’s of good stuff here and now I just need some time to sit, take it all in and digest a bit. As I state at your other place I myself lean more toward a complementarian interpretation, but I would say that someone like Matt Slick? and I would not agree what exactly complentarian actually means. I certainly don’t consider women who teach/preach to be sinners and heretics. No one has ever convinced me that the Bible speaks so clearly on the matter as to be able to call someone a sinner based on differing interpretations. I guess my first thought when I see/hear the word complentarian is marriage and the relationship between husbands and wives. In a nutshell I think that the Bible teaches complentary roles for husbands and wives but big big buuuuut in practice Christian marriages should appear to be egalitarian. When both the husband and wife are following God’s pattern it really works in such a way as what I’ve seen people believe an egalitarian marriage to work.

But thinks for the work Cheryl. So sorry for those who have treated you with less respect and charity than you deserve. You and I may certainly have some differing views, but I have no problem calling you my sister in Christ!

Mary