Paula

I see this as another case of only seeing the victim defend herself, never the bully who started it.

We Christians are not to take Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” to the absurd extreme of making ourselves punching bags for all who take offense at us. Did not Paul write disparagingly of legalizers, even using some very crude words? Did not Jesus call the Pharisees many names? There is a time to humbly take abuse, and a time to defend.

So Wanderer, we are simply refuting the baseless charges CARM is making against us. CARM has never backed up its charges, but Cheryl and others here have used direct quotes and references to back up their defenses. If this defense is to be seen as no different than the attack, then you believe Christians should never stand for justice, never defend the victim, never put truth over falsehood.

Even without going to their board at all, you can see here how some from CARM have made personal attacks, threats, feigned concern, etc. Yet Cheryl has never returned these in kind. Every defense is backed up with evidence.

Christians must learn to discern, especially between attack and defense.

Standard patriarchial fare. Lots of straw men, lots of flame and smoke.

All I know is that having authority over someone or being responsible for them is not another form of submission. That’s like saying black is another form of white.

What Jesus did was to lay down his authority and position to serve and die for his “bride”. In his humanity, Christ was not a “servant leader” at all, but a model servant, showing all of us, men and women, how to relate to God– certainly not how men should act like God to women, or how only women should act like the Son to the Father.

What parts of Jesus’ human example are men not to follow? What parts are women not to follow? Is “Christ-likeness” only for men if it’s about leadership, and only for women if its about submission? No!! Christ is the example for all of us in how we should relate to God and to each other. And none of us are ever to play God to another person.

Domination is not submission.
A parent/child relationship is not an example of mutual submission.
Authority is not equality.
Bossing is not serving.
Wanting to be a permanent child is not mature or responsible.
Treating a man as God is idolatry.
Pretending to be a god is blasphemy.
The first shall be last.
The greatest must be the least.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”.

“Just give me a stomach ache…I’m personaly disturbed about this.”

Sorry, pink. 🙂

But it’s true, on any given controversial topic, such as eternal security, the rapture, Bible versions, even salvation (see my rant Here). There are people who will attach to a forceful leader and then go out as mindless drones to seek and destroy all who oppose them. No amount of reason or evidence matters.

That may be a good test of someone’s intentions: whether they present evidence to back up their accusations, and whether they can display knowledge of scripture to back up their beliefs. If they are unable to do so, they have no right to accuse.

Yes, accusations have to be substantiated or they’re just malicious gossip. I’ve noticed quite a lot of baseless assertions coming from the comp camp, top to bottom; it seems to be very common among them.

But what’s even worse, IMO, is when malice is cloaked as fake “concern”. Christianity has become more pretense than substance. It’s all about the external: legalism, roles, hierarchy, performance. Every day it becomes more like Mormonism or even Islam. What happened to genuine concern, genuine love for God and his people, genuine spiritual growth? Why have many Christians become spiritual cannibals, seeming to be more bent on devouring other sheep than wolves? Do they even know the difference anymore? How can the love of Christ be in those who so hate people as to drive them away from fellowship and then attack them in their own homes?

There’s reasoned debate, and then there’s just plain flaming. Zeal without knowledge is a very dangerous thing, but Christianity seems to be filled with such people. They are willing to vilify others solely on the basis of hearsay from anyone whose “ministry” they have sworn loyalty to. It’s all very cult-like.

Lin,

I don’t have the book either, but I’ve been looking for more quotes. Here are some interesting observations from someone who has it:

Grudem argues that God is putting himself under the authority of humans when he helps. This is difficult to reconcile with God’s sovereignty. A temporary setting aside of authority on the part of the Son is difficult enough to comprehend. Did the entire Trinity do this repeatedly in the Old Testament? I agree that a superior can voluntarily, temporarily act as an inferior by serving. At best, Grudem has proved that woman can voluntarily, temporarily act as under the authority of a man.
…
Grudem’s reading is that woman’s original sin is usurping male authority and man’s original sin was rejecting God’s authority. Thus, Jesus died to reconcile men (males), and women are reconciled through their husband. This is a Mormon teaching, not orthodox Christian teaching.

Ignore that last BTW, I tried to do too many things at once this morning.

BTW, the word was “misrepresentation”, not “misinterpret”. Big difference. The former means a deliberate attempt to give a false impression, and the latter means a failure to understand.

Donna, #153:

I should have said, “misunderstand,” rather than “misinterpret.”

Either way, it is not true. We do understand. We do read the material at CBMW. I would turn your appeal around and ask you to take the same care you demand of us with material at places like CBE, the organization CBMW was formed to war against. This also goes for your appeal to examine presuppositions. Many are made by CBMW and their followers. And I can’t imagine a better “time or place” to discuss these issues than here and now. Cheryl’s blog is one of the few truly fair (egalitarian if you will) environments, since it stresses Christ-likeness over conformity.

Although your conciliatory tone to me is appreciated, I am aware of some of your history elsewhere, and the two don’t match. As an example even here, you accuse Cheryl of “doing a very clever job of editing to make yourself look good, and your sister look bad.” You don’t know Cheryl at all, and have made a false accusation against a sister in Christ, and done so publicly. Your statement, “It seems to me that Kamilla exposed you, and you want to cover your nakedness with a fig leaf of hypocrisy” is the sort of maliciousness and character assassination you are becoming known for. It is most difficult to believe you are sincere when you say things like “I love you, Psalmist. Come by to see me anytime, my dear sister.”

You can’t have it both ways, Donna. Either we are all your sisters in Christ and you love us, or we are your worst enemies and you hate us enough to make wild accusations in public. Even going only by what you’ve posted in this thread, it is impossible to tell which view of us you really have.

Lin, #149:

Notice the strawman argument we see being used everywhere about egals:

Technically, it’s the “slippery slope” fallacy: A causes B causes C causes D… It proposes causes and effect where none exists. Of course, when any of us tries it on them with “patriarchy causes domestic violence”, they scream bloody murder.

Notice Grudem makes the first step rejection of Biblical inerrancy. While I know some egals that do reject it, I could say the same about comps. If a small percentage of egals (does anyone have statistics, or are these mere assertions?) rejects inerrancy, and a small percentage of comps do as well, then can both be accused of being on this slippery slope of Grudem’s invention? Somehow I think he’d come up with an excuse.

His second step of course is declared wrong without comment, making it evil simply by being on the list. Then, oh the horror, churches allegedly do something more evil than reject inerrancy: wives are told their husbands aren’t de facto leaders! After all, it’s farther down the slope, so it must be more evil.

Where he gets “sidelining” patriarchal pastors, he doesn’t say; it’s just another assertion. And of course, once these guardians of divine misogyny are pushed aside, we gullible slope-sliders will certainly rush out and find all the homosexuals we can and set them up as leaders. (Note for the expressionally challenged: this is sarcasm.) Notice above all the presumption of a church hierarchy with “high leadership positions”, as if we’re talking about a mega-corporation and not a living Body.

The only “predictable” thing about Grudem’s slope is that it’s completely fabricated or at least equally applicable to both sides. And of course the mixing of “feminism” and “egalitarianism” as interchangeable terms.

BTW #1: When I see “vineyard”, I think “doctrines of demons”.
BTW #2: As Psalmist said, the def. of inerrancy depends on who you ask. Personally, I take the view of the Bible being the inspired Word of God, perfect in its original autographs, and that with the wealth of ancient documents we have, we can trust the original language texts as accurate. The only issue is with dictionaries and translations.

Lin, #152:

“Finally, Grudem returns to the issue of homosexuality, arguing that the hermeneutic employed to advocate egalitarianism leads, if pressed consistently, to the normalization of homosexuality as well. “The approval of homosexuality,” he notes, “is the final step along the path to liberalism.” ”

Ironically, I’ve seen comps do this exact same thing, and I wrote about it Here:

And in so doing, we see the same presumptuous view as that of the gay theologists: that “Paul couldn’t have had ______ [fill in the blank] in view when he wrote this”. That’s it, their proof of historical interpretation: an assertion. If they want to have this lame eisegesis as their “proof” then they’ll have to accept the same from the gay theologists.

They were arguing that Paul was only easy on slavery (then read the article to see how they twist in the wind when applying their reasoning to women) because he couldn’t have had certain ideas in mind when he wrote about it, and this is exactly what gay theologists do: they say Paul couldn’t have imagined a monogamous homosexual relationship based on devotion, but only the Greek practice of homosexuality between a master and slave. So Paul, they argue, couldn’t have been condemning such a relationship.

Almost comically, the solidly comp. article I referenced argues against Grudem’s “trajectory” hermeneutic. At least he openly admits that he considers the very idea of men being merely equal and not superior to women as “danger”, a “challenge”, a “manifesto”. He asserts our position to be “weak”, and that (again, oh the horror!) church as patriarchy has always known it is in great peril. Yes, definite scare mongering.

You’re quite welcome, pink. Now if only the subordinationists would stop making up new ways to confuse. 😉

Good point, Corrie. The extreme teachings of Grudem et al are far worse than any egal. teaching. If we are wrong, we err only in “playing the wrong roles”. But if they are wrong, they err in usurping the very authority of God.

Yes, Corrie, this is heresy, and possibly worse: blasphemy, because it puts man in the place of God. You’re right, “If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.” (Voltaire) They have indeed fallen for the serpent’s lie, “you will be as God” (ironically, this is what they think only females have a weakness for).

Of course this whole idea is absurd on its face. There are “assistants”, and then there are “rescuers”. But Grudem’s problem is that God and Eve share the same “ezer” label, and desperation is truly the reason he would go so far as to start with presumed female inferiority and end with divine inferiority. To borrow a phrase from the PBS cartoon Arthur, “vomatrocious”!

Oops, the first italic section should have ended with “way”.

Cheryl, good to bring up the OT. I am reminded also of Isaiah’s prophecy (9:6), where the “son” is given several names, including “everlasting father”… not “everlasting son”!

Donna, let me answer your points, but first make one of my own: that “misrepresentation” is a very common charge on this topic and many others. When Christians disagree, it seems to be the first reaction. The problem is that this charge is rarely proved but only asserted.

Wayne Grudem has stated that even God is subordinate to a male when he helps him:

Recently some writers have denied that the creation of Eve as a helper fit for Adam signals any difference in role or authority, because the word helper (Heb. ‘ezer) is often used in the Old Testament of someone who is greater or more powerful than the one who is being helped.

In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. (Page 461-462, Systematic Theology, ch. 22: Man as Male and Female).

This is the sort of thing that makes us seriously doubt Grudem’s, and thus CBMW’s, commitment to Biblical accuracy over the point they wish to prove, that being the permanent subordination of one equal to another. So rest assured we take care in quoting them.

1. If one person willingly submits his will to that of another person because they are of one will in the first place, is that person’s being diminished in any way?

This is a logical impossibility. If they are of one will in the first place, then one cannot “submit” their identical will to the other. As God, both the Father and Son (and of course the Spirit) have one will. That makes eternal subordination of any of them impossible.

Only in the case of two different wills can we ask whether the submitter is “diminished”. If both beings are equal in being, then permanent and involuntary submission would indeed be a case of inequality and thus “diminishing”. In other words, it is impossible for equal beings to be permanently unequal in role, when one role has authority over the other. One being cannot be in a state of permanent and involuntary subordination to an equal being.

2. What does the phrase “the Father SENT the Son to be the Saviour of the world” say about when the Son began to obey the will of His Father?

It is well known that in the culture of the time, the one sent was considered equal to the one being sent; there was no hierarchy implied. But we also know that Jesus volunteered to save the world (Phil. 2:5-11, esp. v. 7-8: he made himself nothing, and then after being found in human form, humbled himself). If they were of one will in eternity past, then there was nothing for the Son to “obey”.

3. The very words “Father” and “Son” show that they are in a hierarchical relationship, but one that does not diminish them in any way. God chose to reveal Himself as the eternal Father who has an eternal Son. Christ’s sonship did not begin at the incarnation and end when He returned to sit at the right hand of the Father.

Strong disagreement here. It is impossible for a father not to precede his own son in time, yet “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God”. The father/son relationship did indeed begin at the incarnation, as proven by the Philippians quote above, and ended with his return to heaven (except as concerns only his humanity, ref. to the hypostatic union). In Hebrews 1:5 we read, “You are my Son; today I have become your father… I will be his father and he will be my son“. “Have become” and “will be” indicate chronology and disprove an eternal sonship.

A father and son have a subordinate relationship, but it only begins when the son is born and only lasts until the son grows up. They remain (not always were) father and son but the hierarchy is gone.

Then, may I make a friendly suggestion. Some of you seem to be clueless as to what feminist theology is and what hermeneutic is being used.

Very insulting and demeaning… not “friendly”. We are not clueless, and that’s the problem for you. We read comp. material and give references when we quote it. We are not “feminists” but egalitarians; two different theologies. It appears you are confused between the two. Feminism, like male supremacy, seeks a dominant and a submissive; egalitarian seeks equality. Very distinct, very opposite theologies. And we do in fact know our own hermeneutic… and yours as well.

You also display ignorance of our hermeneutic concerning “head”. The meaning “boss” is not a part of it, in spite of Grudem’s contorted arguments to try and make it so. So with that understanding of the Bible’s meaning of “head”, you will be able to see that egalitarians do not deny that Christ is the head of the Church and man the head of woman. Christ is the source, the sustainer of the Body; the man is that as well for the woman. No one denies that Christ has authority over the church, but this is not in view at all in the passage Paul wrote; it’s all about unity, about Christ “leaving his father’s house” to join to his wife and become “one flesh”. So a man does not share in the authority of Christ, but only in Christ’s example of love, sacrifice, and joining to her.

When you condescendingly say “you really should know where you are coming from, and where your ideas are coming from”, you call us stupid and ignorant. We do know where our ideas (as opposed to the ones you try to assign to us) are coming from: the Bible. When you call us “ignorant” of feminist theology, you still confuse us with them and insist we are the ones who don’t know the difference! Amazing. That truly is a case of what you call “shot-gun theology”, aimless and random.

Yes, you offended, in many ways.

Yes, to even question male preeminence is to “usurp authority” and prove that women are all cursed with wanting to rule men. That’s the black and white world many live in. Yet I would ask them these questions:

What part of “egalitarian” means supremacy?

Who is it that really wants power and control, and will curse his own “co-heirs” rather than give it up?

How is one case of subjugation based on genetics (gender) different than another (skin color)?

Does God judge by outward appearances now? Has he stopped looking on the heart? Has he decided that it is better after all to be a respecter of persons?

Where does it say men must be responsible for women, or husbands for wives?

As others have pointed out on occasion, the so-called “plain reading of scripture” that is the basis for male supremacy is dropped like a hot potato when they read “submit to one another”, “co-heirs”, “the greatest must be the least”, “the first will be last”, etc.

Some say he’s referring to their social standing and inability to earn a significant income because of it (ref. the “co-heirs” statement in that context).

I just so wish that we were at the end of the journey of the Church so that we were without spot and wrinkle and without shame so that we are all ready for Christ’s return.

Ah, but we are very near! The signs of his return are closing in all around us. Rather than look for a pure church when he returns, we are told to look for a sick, dying, sleeping church, and that’s what we’ve got. Of course there is a “remnant”, the ones who have “oil in their lamps”, and “we will all be changed”. Yes, our journey is almost over!

Thatmom,

I did a little reading on kinism, and they deny the racist label. Problem is, if restrictions are put on people due solely to race, that’s racism, and kinism does this (just as it’s sexist to put restrictions on people due solely to gender.) One does not have to desire the extermination of the other in order to be racist or sexist. But where kinism and sexism differ is in the fact that sexism does consider males to be superior.

Their racism differs from the KKK in that they do not technically consider a particular race to be superior, but only that all races must be kept separate. They believe this is God’s divinely established order from the Tower of Babel. (My view: the Tower of Babel only forced people to scatter, which was what God actually had decreed, but people disobeyed and stayed in one spot. When they were forced to scatter, they did not intermarry, not because of race, but because of language barriers. This made each language group a reduced gene pool, resulting in unique sets of genetic traits such as skin color, eye color, hair color and texture, etc. Simple genetic science, not divine decree.)

But kinism also goes beyond race, to tribal or “kinist” segregation. They reject modernity and believe God ordained an agrarian society. And of course they are patriarchal, making them sexist as well.

I don’t know of any teaching in history, any government or society, any religion or philosophy, that truly views women as fully equal to men except the Bible itself. Jesus and Paul treated women equally and taught the same, and the church was supposed to be the showcase of not only equality of gender, but also of race and social standing (Gal. 3:28). The church was fairly quick to obey the “Jew or Greek” part, very very slow to obey the “slave or free” part, but continues to dig in its prideful heels against the “male or female” part. This is the most ancient hatred, that of the serpent against the woman, and the church should be ashamed for calling Jesus’ work on the cross inadequate to conquer that “emnity”.

Orthodoxy. ::evil grin::

Really, this misogyny goes waaaayyy back, just read some of the “church fathers” (see Here).

I just call it sin, specifically pride.

OOPS!!

Correction: “That’s no different than forming a group to fight FOR slavery;”

Yes, labels are a problem. If you’re not patriarchal you must be a radical feminist. If you’re not a Calvinist you must be an Arminian. If you reject evolutionism you must be against science. If you believe in Eternal Security you must be an antinomian.

People start using labels for convenience, really. It’s an easy way to get some general idea of a person’s stance on an issue. The problem is that we all tend to take them way too far and define each other by them, and the definitions keep changing.

My biggest issue with the particular label “complementarianism” is, not only is it an invented word, but it was coined by an organization which formed for the expressed purpose of being against another organization (CBMW formed specifically to counter CBE). Their whole mission is to push against “Biblical Equality”. That’s no different than forming a group to fight against slavery; they are both beliefs in the inherent supremacy of some group of people based solely on genetics. What a way to define one’s “ministry”!

“Self-Righteous Brothers.”

Bahahahahaha! Good one!

When my sisters were teens they and some friends had a singing group called The Pointless Sisters. I think that would work for some blogs too!

Okay, I bit. I looked at the CARM board. For a short time. Then I took some antacids.

I was in a church once where the pastor actually took pride in “getting rid of dead wood”. He went through the denomination splitting churches and blamed it all on people not being able to tolerate the truth. Amazingly, the denominational leaders knew of this and did nothing to him. This was 30 years ago.

It seems this sort of spirit lives on and prospers, and it spreading rapidly on the net. Rick Warren has the same mentality: get rid of dissenters. It seems this “control freak” business is a characteristic of the “kingdom now” dominionist wave, and of course features keeping women in their place. Divide and conquer, and prepare the antichrist’s kingdom.

As I’ve said before, who needs them? They have no power over us. We want to inform the multitudes of women that they have been lied to, and these controllers won’t have it. But until and unless they gain the power to keep us from preaching online, we can reach anyone. We just need to set up our own public places like these blogs, because they are not yet under antichrist control.

Maybe we need to just be like a lighthouse, warning of danger and pointing the way to safety. We need not continually present ourselves as punching bags for the amusement of this antichrist spirit. I no longer care to endlessly dance with it and try to reason with it. I have no interest in having “dialog” with it. I can only oppose and expose it.

Psalmist: how about Masculosis? Mascectimony? Man, that could get nasty, I better stop.

Greg: I agree. Some of the most decorated academics have been so very wrong and blind. The important things are wisdom and vision, things God gives as he sees fit.

Not at all, Psalmist. They play both sides of the table. They want men to “play the role” of God the Father, as if only women are to follow Christ and his example of living. He taught us all how to relate to God, not how to be God! But an eternally subordinate Christ is something they cannot bring themselves to model, even though Jesus told his male disciples point blank to do exactly that. Never in scripture is anyone told to act like God. Christ is our human example, our Brother, our teacher. Yet some men refuse to bow to him or share in his humility.

You’re right, they ignore the Spirit completely. If this sort of heresy goes on unchallenged, who knows what religion it will turn into.

Just another thought, playing “comp’s advocate” for a moment…

In order for one woman to do the “Titus” thing to another, the doer must be “an older woman”. The Bible doesn’t say the age, but in our desperation we can stretch the teachings on widows to this situation, so she’d have to be in her 60s, while her subject would have to be younger than 60, and considerably so in order to qualify as “young”. But knowing many women are loathe to reveal their ages, this could present a problem.

Tanx Prof. Greg! Now daddy will buy me that new car!

Greg,

I’d like to take a shot at the extra credit. God knows I need it this quarter.

It appears that the Red Queen (Kamilla) is desperate to chop off the Cheshire Cat’s head but doesn’t quite know how to go about it.
Why do you suppose this is?

Is it because she would no longer be under the authority of a man and thus violate the dictates of the “Pax Baylyana”?

A multiple choice question with only one choice? (sorry)

My “write in” answer: If I may be so bold as to quote the Wicked Witch of the West, “These things must be done deeeelllllllicately”. The Red Queen is highly trained– to not think independently. Chopping is a man’s job, of course, unless we’re talking about vegetables. So unless the Red Queen can turn her subject into a veggie, the chopping cannot be done. She can’t even suggest to a man to do it though, because she’d be “giving directions”, and that’s too authoritative. Conclusion: When in doubt, move pawn.

Good term, “Pax Baylyana”. It sounds just like “Pax Islama”, the “peace” that comes through sliencing one’s enemies.

What would Aurelius do in a similar situation?

As one of the “Five Good Emperors” of Rome, it’s interesting to note that he changed his name when he got married. Then he spent a lot of time at war. I’m sure there’s no connection between the two. Christians under his reign had the threat of punishment over them but it was rarely used– kind of like a comp. husband’s “authority”. As a Stoic philosopher and upholder of duty and honor and order, I’m sure he’d advise the Red Queen to merely threaten the chopping and not actually do it. This would not violate Order and yet would be a public “rebuke”, however symbolic, thus allowing said Red Queen to appear authoritative without actually exercising it.

So, will this credit show up on my report card next semester?