pinklight

Yes, Mara, it’s crazy. I think it’s crazy that they are obsessed with control. Such a strange and crazy thing to be obsessed over – the control of another human being.
Ya, know I still wonder if they are in fact suspicious of their own desire to rule. It makes sense to me that they can be. I’ve tried to stray from the idea, but it still gets me. I’d have to check, but I don’t recall reading in the Bible that every time it was said “sin no more” that a qualification of the kind of sin followed. Therefore, I wonder how many are suspicious of their sin to control?

bobby,

Gender order must prevail? And what if it does not? And since it ‘must’ prevail, therefore it currently is not prevailing?

haha – still laughen

yea I know it’s sad..
laugh or cry??
lol

Gotta love it. These guys all get off with their self-appointed status – as if they enjoy some sort of “apostolic succession.”

LOL!
Yea, can be amusing, huh! LOL
Nice post – funny

Hierarchal teaching influences the doctrine of the Trinity

Yeah, some wacked out theology there! Well, it cannot be called theology really and it’s not dignified. Nothing like circular reasoning lol
Ugh

Mara,

Good for you.
I had to go and read (as quickly as I did) at the blog post to get some kind of idea of what’s going on..

Women have been force fed a male-biased gospel for far too long. Female discernment has been shut down for far too long. It is the responsibility of all Christians to walk in discernment and no amount of scolding and shaming from a misguided man is going to stop me.

Based on Phil’s last comment on the 25th it does sound like he is stressing a male-biased gospel.

Doesn’t the male-biased gospel have to do with lust? Lust for power, prominence, exclusive rights, authority, etc.

Cindy,

The husband has the higher responsibility to make sure he is hearing from God for the true direction of his wife and family.

I have heard this before but it’s not a biblical teaching. It actualy comes from church culture in the comp world. Where is this recorded, prescribed or taught in the Bible?
How does one go from “a servant position/sacrifical postion” in Eph 5 to being the one exclusively “to make sure he is hearing from God for the true direction..?”

Maybe there’s a comp out there who believes that the husband should submit to the wife but that his submission is different than the submission of the wife, and who’s reading this post and the following comments and can explain to me the difference between when a husbands submits to his wife and when a wife submits to her husband?
I’d like to know the answer to this mystery.

The comp position has made my head spin and caused confusion many a times in the past as it don’t add up.

How can sacrifice not include submission to her needs?

Good point. Not even adding to God’s word that the husband is the “leader” can change this fact. Though there are many comps who say that they submit to their wives also, but not in the same way as the wife is to submit to the husband.
So what makes the submission from a leader different from the submission from a follower? Is submission submission or can submission ever not be submission if a “leader” is doing the submitting?
Doesn’t matter who is doing the submitting, submission is still submission, and can be nothing other than submission. Maybe there’s a glorified way of submitting by the husband/leader/boss and an unglorified way of submitting by the wife? I dunno. Can’t wrap my mind around that one.. lol

Not!

“Are you kidding? Those words are REPULSIVE to women! We can never say we need them, they hate weakness and vulnerability.”

This amazes me. Can’t believe these men have experienced women like that. Everyone has different experiences…

these men, and many women, are so terrified of commitment in our lost, tragic times.

I’m just going to give my two cents, based on my experience of people in general, christian or not. I know it’ll sound negative, but what I’m going to say is filtered through my experiences with people as people.
People should be terrified of commitment, because they should be terrified of people!! People can be terrifying!!!
lol
K, thanks for the vent.

These men swarmed up, referincing a horrible guy who gives men advice to keep women in doubt, even jealous, of their feelings so they’ll never be bored and stray. God help us, please heal these men.

Crazy advice.

Since there has been comments here recently, I decided to go through and read the post and comments. This gave me a chuckle.

I think that so many listen to these well-known teachers and pick up what sounds like a good story and they think it is scriptural. I mean, it has to be scriptural, doesn’t it, if a famous teacher is teaching it? Not!

Re-read what I posted @ 34. I had completely forgotten about Adam becoming unlike God (but not Eve because he sinned with eyes wide open, while she sinned out of being deceived by the crafty serpent).
Comp theology uses such interesting building blocks (a rebel – unlike God – authority/leader). lol For shame!

@120
Listen…
KR is Kristen…

Amos
<3 #120 Nice post

Waneta,

Thanks for posting that.

I liked how you phrased this:

There are many scriptures that tell us what behaviors indicate a true love for God. As you mentioned, treating others as we would like to be treated is one, laying down our lives for others is another, love is not self-seeking, it is not proud and does not consider itself superior, it genuinely seeks the best FOR OTHERS instead of the best for ourselves.

They have imposed their own bias upon God’s Word, and made themselves and their own desires superior to God’s Word.

“Compism is men’s shrine to themselves, and they bow down to the god of husband authority…’”

Indeed.

in spite of the fact that the trinity involves a 3rd “member” and therefore is a poor symbol for a 2-person relationship,
Poor symbols for poor thinking.

lol sad.

Indeed, the discussion about Christ always being submissive to the Father is being used to argue for wives always being subject and secondary to their husbands. And that is why they are so adamant that Christ was always Christ and always secondary to the Father, even though the Bible says that The Word’s subjection has to do with the incarnation.

Ah ha! I see that now.

These male complementarian teachers are not ignorant, they are twisting scripture purposely.

I agree that at least fifty percent of the teachers are not ignorant. It’s a fantasy world to think otherwise, IMO.

But how can we end up with a God-fearing people, when the heavy focus has been to teach wives and children to be man-husband-father fearing people?

Great question!

“Patrick”:

Now considering that we are all in agreement that it is grammatically possible for the singular to be generic, it is obviously therefore not ‘unusual’ for this to happen. It can be a normal part of grammar.

Cheryl’s response:

That is not what I asked.

I was going there next. He didn’t even answer what you asked. Lame.
Cheryl, *smiles* for your comment #66 🙂 🙂

Patrick,

You said:

But let me just say this last point since hopefully it will clarify. My example did not include v13-15 because that was not what Cheryl asked those who disagree with her to show. She simply asked to give a reason for the shift from v10-11. Therefore my example simply did that.

Cheryl said:

Note: Those who are disagreeing with me, need to provide reason for the irregular and unusual grammar change if they believe that Paul continues to write about women in general.

Patrick, right, Cheryl asked for anyone to lift a verse(s) out of context – ROTFLOL!!

Like we need your scenario, Patrick, to know that it is possible grammaticaly for the singular to be generic. It’s possible to begin with (!) but it’s the context that tells us whether or not it is being used genericaly and context comes before and after what’s in question, not just before as you would like to have it.

I meant, ofcourse: Just because it’s possible grammatically does not mean that it is NOT unusual contextaully.

Patrick,

Now considering that we are all in agreement that it is grammatically possible for the singular to be generic, it is obviously therefore not ‘unusual’ for this to happen. It can be a normal part of grammar.

What kind of logic is this? Because it is grammatically possible that the noun can be generic therefore it is not unusual? Just because it’s possible grammatically does not mean that it is unusual contextaully.

Anti-spam: “back” as in “back up”

Patrick,

So you can assert that there is a relative shift in topic by adopting Cheryl’s view, but the context does not require that as the only possible meaning.

Actually the Full context does require such once one reaches v15, which is the key to understanding Paul’s shift in grammar. Could you explain your view of v15 to me?

Joyce,

Hi Joyce. Glad you stumbled across this thread. This is an awesome place. And I’ve learned alot here.
That’s good that it’s not such a controversial issue where you’re from and traditions that hurt or result in similar things should readily be tossed.

Authority first, wives second. That’s hierarchy!

Authority first, for otherwise there would be no complementarian view, therefore this is correct. It certainly isn’t first about serving the wife. It is foremost about being in authority over the wife.

What’s the saying, “How often do you see people fighting over who is going to be last, a servant or a slave to another?” The comp view on the other hand, is in opposition to the the egal view, because of authority/power over the wife. There is no such thing as the “complementarian” view without authority!

Waneta,

not for how they can serve her.

Authority first, for otherwise there would be no complementarian view, therefore this is correct. It certainly isn’t first about serving the wife. It is foremost about being in authority over the wife.

They also break the first of the 10 commandments: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Compism is men’s shrine to themselves, and they bow down to the god of husband authority…

So that I understand what you are saying here on this point, could you elaborate?

Waneta,

and their love for neighbor-wife has more to do with what she does for them, and how they can obtain obedience from her and dictate how her life shall be, not for how they can serve her.

Right, and the reason is becasue it’s not about how the husband can love his wife as himself or do to her as he would like done to himself but rather it’s about elevating himself to be as God to his wife, placing himself over her, which ofcourse he himself would not want his wife to do to him. And as God to his wife he can dictate to her life to her, and obtain obidience if he wanted to from her. And what does dictating and obtaining obidience at will if he wanted to have anything to do with serving her?

Waneta,

… they are breaking BOTH the first and the second commandment. They are loving themselves, not God, with all their heart, soul mind and strength

That makes sense. It makes sense that the husband is usurping God’s place when he must be as God to his wife, and therefore he is taking God’s place and by doing that he is breaking the first commandment.

Waneta,

But a comp would argue that husbands are to be loving leaders.

I know. But really, the funny thing is, what would such an argument in response, that says “husbands are to be loving” change? Egals and comps both say that husbands are to be loving! So the argument in response, techinicaly only amounts to, “Well, but husbands are still to be leaders.”

The “loving leadership” they teach, has pastors and husbands leading wives into the ditch (where the husbands have their way with them). Actually, comp teaching directs both wives and husbands into the ditch.

I agree, at least, certainly when it comes to the comps who argue for complementarianism and at least for the reason that, teaching any to break the second greatest commandment encompasses leading husband and wife into the ditch. They are leading the way to break the commandment.

It’s one thing to not live up to the commandment, but it’s another thing to teach people to break it.

Waneta,

If they can take a scripture and teach that it means the opposite of what it says, what else do they teach that is the opposite of scripture? And what do they teach that misses the narrow way and walks in the ditch instead–while they claim it is the genuine path to God?

What compels anyone to teach the opposite of the second greatest commandment? Jesus commanded, do to others as one would like done to them. So if one is in a position to be like God to his wife, one then cannot even love his wife as commanded to do so, as himself because there is no comparison between God and fallen humanity (the Church). And though a husband is not commanded to go further than that, a husband is instructed by Paul to do so. Comp doctrine teaches men to break the second greatest commandment. Is that the path to God?