She holds an authority you cannot hold.

As I noted in my last post, complementarians have jumped from deciding that women are not forbidden to preach to women, to believing that women must be taught by other women.  While the first change was accepted under very dubious arguments, the second change occurred with no real argument at all.  Now complementarians not only believe that Paul didn’t prohibit women from preaching in 1 Tim 2:14, they also believe that it is borderline (if not outright) improper for a man to teach a woman Scripture.

Jen Wilkin makes this very common assertion at The Gospel Coalition (TGC) in Pastors Need Women Teachers (and Vice Versa).  Why do pastors need women teachers?  Among other reasons, because women in ministry have authority Pastors do not, and can not, have:

She holds an authority you cannot hold. A woman can tell other women to stop making idols of their careers or families in a way you can’t. A woman can address other women on vanity, pride, submission, and contentment in a way you can’t. She holds empathetic authority over her female students—the ability to say, “I understand the besetting sins and fears of womanhood, and I commend to you the sufficient counsel of Scripture.” She can lighten your load by confronting sins women might resent you addressing at all. She can say things like “PMS is not an excuse for homicide” and not get a single nasty e-mail the following day.

Wilkin is mixing multiple things here, combining Paul’s wisdom in Titus 2 with a claim that pastors lack authority over women.  In the case of the latter, the existence of rebellion is offered as proof that men (and therefore pastors) lack authority to confront women in rebellion.  Wilkin also offers the standard “diversity” argument, explaining that men are too testosterone laden to effectively teach women:

She brings a perspective you cannot bring. When men teach, they naturally draw on examples that resonate with men. This means women who exclusively hear male teaching will be offered a fair number of testosterone-laden illustrations from action movies and sports. And that’s fine. But a woman teacher might also speak the language of Jane Austen novels and HGTV. And she’ll probably draw a few different observations from the text than a man might. This is not to say she will feminize a text, but that she will likely emphasize those elements of the text that highlight the role of women in redemptive history, or that speak to sin issues women commonly face.

Wilkin is the new guard of feminist complementarians, and as such is constantly agitating for more women in leadership.  She is however in the mainstream in challenging the idea of men having the authority and ability to preach to women, especially on the issue of women’s sins.  The idea that it is somehow inappropriate for a man to preach to women is baked into the creation of separate ministries and Bible studies run by women, for women.  It is similarly baked into the expectation that if a Pastor teaches or writes a book about biblical marriage he needs to bring his wife in to teach at the same time, or at the very least make her the public face for women.

When Pastor Voddie Baucham preached on Ephesians 5,  FamilyLife president and CBMW Board of Reference member Dennis Rainey noted that there was something very discomforting about the idea of a man preaching to women about what the Bible says wives are to do:

Dennis:  I’ve got a feeling it’s probably pretty quiet in some cars and, maybe, on some headsets, listening to this broadcast.

Bob:  Let me just say that we still have Part Two to come.  That is where Voddie is going to talk to men about loving their wives as Christ loves the church.  This message has some balance to it, but—pretty strong stuff.

Dennis:  It is strong stuff.  As I was sitting there listening to Voddie give that message, I thought, “You know, this would be a tough message for a woman, in this culture, to hear, if it was given by a woman.

Bob:  Yes.

Dennis:  But hearing it from a man—it is interesting.  I think for some women—that makes it tough to hear.  I would just say to the wife or the young lady who is listening to that and says, “I don’t like that!”—you know what?  He didn’t write it.  He does deliver the mail.  He’s just trying to share with you what the Scriptures teach, in terms of how a marriage relationship between a husband and a wife—how they’re to complement each other and not compete with each other.  There’s a lot about the Bible that causes the hair on the back of my neck to stand up.

Bob:  [Laughing]    You go, “I don’t like that part either!”

Dennis:  As a man, absolutely!  And yet, in this culture, Bob, I feel like we poisoned the stream about—I don’t know—four decades ago and really made it almost objectionable for a message like this to be preached by a pastor—by a man—to a mixed audience, at this point.  I don’t want you to hear me apologizing that we did it—that’s not my point.  I want to recognize that, in this culture, we understand that it does go against the grain of what a lot of women are taught.

When Mark Driscoll preached on 1 Peter 3:1-6, he was visibly uncomfortable with the the idea of preaching to women.  He was so uncomfortable with this that he took the unusual step of bringing his wife up to answer the questions after the sermon.  He did this because:

…if I answered all of the women’s questions it would go really bad.

Similarly, when Acts 29 president Matt Chandler preaches on topics related to women, he prefaces his sermons with a self depricating comment about how dangerous it is for a man to preach to women.  In  A Beautiful Design part 7: Woman’s Purpose Chandler opens with:

A man teaching on the purpose of woman. What could go wrong?

In part 8 Woman’s Hurdles he opens with:

Well, a man talking about the sinfulness of women. Just not dangerous at all, is it?

Under this new model contrary to Eph 5:26 and 1 Cor 14:35 husbands are no longer to instruct their wives on Scripture, especially relating to submission.  Mary Kassian explains this in 7 Misconceptions about Submission:

A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to “submit herself”— deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.

Kathy Keller explained the same thing at FamilyLife:

If there are husbands out there that are saying, “Yes, I’m the head.  This is good teaching.  I like this head stuff.”  It’s respectful submission between equals.  Submission is something that a wife gives.  It’s not something that a husband can demand.

This new sex segregated model only goes in one direction.  In both Kassian and Keller’s cases we have women teaching men (either directly or via their wives) what their proper role is;  the instruction is to back off, you aren’t welcome teaching your wife.  Likewise Jen Wilkin is teaching pastors how they should run their church. Moreover, both Kassian and Keller agree that wives should teach their husbands.  Kathy Keller is famous for teaching that submission means throwing “godly tantrums” if a husband isn’t doing as his wife says.  Kassian teaches wives to set clear boundaries for their husbands and enact consequences if he doesn’t follow them:

No brain-dead doormats or spineless bowls of Jello here! Submission is neither mindless nor formulaic nor simplistic. Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.

This entry was posted in Acts 29, Attacking headship, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Crossdressing Theology, Dennis Rainey, FamilyLife, Jen Wilkin, Marriage, Mary Kassian, New Morality, Pastor Matt Chandler, Rebellion, Social Justice Warriors, Submission, The Gospel Coalition, Tim and Kathy Keller, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to She holds an authority you cannot hold.

  1. Pingback: She holds an authority you cannot hold. – Manosphere.com

  2. Pingback: She holds an authority you cannot hold. | Neoreactive

  3. modernmathetes says:

    I wonder how they feel about a husbands love. Is it his to give but not hers to demand? If so that would throw out the whole Christian marriage counseling industrial complex which is based on her absolute authority to define the kind of love her husband is supposed to give her.

  4. Looking Glass says:

    I’d been thinking upon this recently, and I’m going to reference a movie some might not have seen.

    In “A Bug’s Life”, the Grasshoppers operate by the deception against the Ants. The lead grasshopper even pointing this out so the audience understands the dynamics and the moral of the story. Obviously, the Ants “wake up” and run the Grasshoppers off. (In real life, people rarely will, as the experience of the Iron Curtain quite accurately displayed.)

    What they cannot say and are dancing around, attempting to undermine is the Authority of God. No one likes authority over them, as authority comes with enforcement. And to be in Authority is to be *above* someone else. This strikes against 100+ years of indoctrination in among the Moderns.

    But the core issue isn’t even the anti-equality aspect, it’s actually this: Men have Authority as created by God. That is what bothers them to the depths of their soul, and thus must be fought against at every opportunity.

    I’ve felt the same “tinge” of “wrongness” to this before, so I have spent some thought on how that came to be. The entire situation is far more complex than I can lay out here (or that I believe I truly understand), but I think it can be best summed up, for the Christian Man, as this: you are the Patriarch, *be* the Patriarch the Lord has made you to be. Then act like it.

  5. theasdgamer says:

    Clearly, the next step is for women to be crucified and rise from the dead. Can’t let a man get all the glory.

  6. LeeLee says:

    This is something that always bothers me, men refusing to teach on women’s roles and deferring to women doing that. Really what is does is short change the women, because all that comes down from the pulpit is “MAN UP GUYS” and maybe a timid whisper of instruction to women.

    I’d love to hear the pastor and elders, with all their education and study and thoughtfulness, give the same impassioned teaching and instruction on women’s roles, identities and responsibilities that the men regularly get. But fear.

    As far as men having the right to demand submission or not. If a man doesn’t have the right to insist on submission, the woman doesn’t have the right to insist on love. This may actually be true, it’s just important to apply the standard evenly — like, no you can’t “enact consequences” if your husband is unloving if he can’t “enact consequences” if you are unsubmissive. I would suspect these women would be less eager if they had to take it to this natural conclusion.

    Interestingly my husband strongly prefers the idea of my giving submission voluntarily to the idea that he is an absolute authority that must be obeyed like a parent. He says he feels my submission is more meaningful than the submission of our children because it’s my response to him as a person. I mean, biblically he is obviously an absolute authority figure. But he’s more touched by the voluntary giving aspect.

  7. rugby11 says:

    Women and children first.

  8. Paul says:

    Imagine if a soldier took the view that his officer can’t demand his submission, the private has to willingly offer it. I just don’t think these people understand how authority works.

  9. PokeSalad says:

    At women’s retreats/groups, women are “empowered.” At men’s retreats/groups, men are beaten down and humiliated.

    I’d like some of these “Christian” harridans to look Christ in the eye and tell Him that “they bring a perspective He cannot bring.”

  10. feeriker says:

    I’m waiting for a public rant by a female “teacher” to the effect that either 1) God got it all wrong when he created the sexual hierarchy as described in the Scriptures (“God obviously doesn’t understand us women”), or 2) God didn’t create any such hierarchy at all, and that what’s in the Bible is the written work of barbarous misogynist ancients and is irrelevant to the modern era.

    Blasphemous heresy? Oh absolutely, but the candor would be really refreshing.

  11. feeriker says:

    I’d like some of these “Christian” harridans to look Christ in the eye and tell Him that “they bring a perspective He cannot bring.”

    While it has been said that Judgment Day will be an experience so terrifying (or at least awe-inspiring) that we will be left speechless, I find myself easily able to picture some StrongIndependentWoman of the western world talking back to or arguing with Jesus upon His return and saying exactly such a thing.

  12. Mike T says:

    Blasphemous heresy? Oh absolutely, but the candor would be really refreshing.

    There are times where even as a Protestant I would rather submit to a Catholic Church sufficiently confident to carry out a modern Inquisition on these people than take my luck with my soul among many evangelical churches today.

  13. OKRickety says:

    @ASDgamer,

    Nevertheless, he clearly has ASD, which he needs to compensate for. Has he gotten any obsessions that would lead him to learn social lessons?

    I have not recognized that my son has any interests that would motivate him to work on his social skills. I believe that he could do it, and it would be best if did, but he has no desire to do so.

  14. DrTorch says:

    we have jumped from accepting that women are not forbidden to preach to women, to believing that women must be taught by other women

    Who’s “we”? I’d never continue attending a church that made such a statement.

    I can see that women can be more persuasive to other women, wh/ is one of the reasons Titus 2:4 makes sense. You have an older woman who does submit to her husband offer direction to the younger woman who struggles with that.

    But that doesn’t mean women can only be taught by other women. Not in the least.

  15. DrTorch says:

    I find myself easily able to picture some StrongIndependentWoman of the western world talking back to or arguing with Jesus upon His return and saying exactly such a thing.

    RC Sproul pointed out that while wailing might signify sorrow or agony, “gnashing of teeth” represents rebellion, anger and hostility. So yes, there will be some who openly defy God even at the point of judgment and beyond.

  16. Boxer says:

    Hey Dr. D.:

    I meant to say thank you for the last article today, and found this one here. I really enjoy these deep readings of the text. They have increased my understanding exponentially, and in posting them, you’re providing a service that really isn’t available anywhere else.

    A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!!

    As you’ve already pointed out, the text doesn’t support this interpretation at all.

    You mentioned Ephesians 5 already, but I find the metaphor particularly striking:

    25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
    26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
    27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

    In the subtext, I’d argue for the possibility that not only are husbands allowed to teach their wives, they are both required to do so. In fact, a careful reading suggests that the husband is the only person who should be doing this, and that the husband has a special gift to perhaps forgive any offenses the wife may do.

    While I can see why radfems have such a nutty reaction to this portion of the text, I think it’s both beautiful and appropriate. It speaks of the inviolable nature of the marital union, suggesting that the husband, and no one else, has the special dispensation to “cleanse” (for lack of a better term) his wife.

    As an aside, I started taking the social dimension of this seriously about a year ago, after I first had a discussion here on this blog. It’s my policy that unless I’m at work, communicating about work, I never converse with or interact with any married woman. This has led to a couple of potentially awkward situations, but in all these cases, when I explained myself, the women involved not only were not offended, they found it somewhat charming and old-school.

    Boxer

  17. She holds an authority you cannot hold. A woman can tell other women to stop making idols of their careers or families in a way you can’t.

    Translation: Only a woman can criticize other women. Men who do so are automatically misogynists.
    http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/08/could-a-man-have-written-this/

  18. Sean says:

    Poke Salad,

    True. I’ve sat amongst those groups only to be told that we’re all addicted to porn and video games.

  19. I just don’t think these people understand how authority works.

    For as much as these ‘teachers’ would like to claim they are complementarians, their beliefs, practices and rationales are all based in egalitarian equalism.

  20. theasdgamer says:

    @ OkRickety

    I have not recognized that my son has any interests that would motivate him to work on his social skills. I believe that he could do it, and it would be best if did, but he has no desire to do so.

    How old is he? Does he like girls? Lead/follow dancing is the Old School way of learning social skills.

    Does he need to sell stuff ever? NLP

    Be creative. Can you figure out some way to use breadcrumbs to lure him into studying social stuff based on his current obsession(s)?

  21. theasdgamer says:

    @ Rollo

    For as much as these ‘teachers’ would like to claim they are complementarians, their beliefs, practices and rationales are all based in egalitarian equalism.

    We agree. I called it “Egalitarianism-lite.” Really, though, it’s Feminine Dominant. The Holy Spirit replaced by the FI, as you put it first.

  22. Dalrock says:

    @DrTorch

    we have jumped from accepting that women are not forbidden to preach to women, to believing that women must be taught by other women

    Who’s “we”? I’d never continue attending a church that made such a statement.

    Duly noted. I have replaced “we” with “complementarians”.

    @Boxer

    Hey Dr. D.:

    I meant to say thank you for the last article today, and found this one here. I really enjoy these deep readings of the text. They have increased my understanding exponentially, and in posting them, you’re providing a service that really isn’t available anywhere else.

    You are welcome. Thank you for the very kind words.

  23. nels says:

    “I find myself easily able to picture some StrongIndependentWoman of the western world talking back to or arguing with Jesus upon His return and saying exactly such a thing.”

    Revelation 14:20 tells us that when Jesus returns, the blood will be deep as a horse’s bridle. These SIW will be part of that flood.

  24. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo

    For as much as these ‘teachers’ would like to claim they are complementarians, their beliefs, practices and rationales are all based in egalitarian equalism.

    They are a prime example of what Vox warns about regarding moderates dealing with SJWs. I will have a post soon walking through this, including some cringe-worthy statements from one of the founders of the CBMW. They really had no idea what they were dealing with; as disastrous as that ignorance has been in the fight against Christian feminism I do have some sympathy for how painful it clearly was to be completely and persistently surprised by the lack of good faith of the other side.

  25. The perspective they bring is their vagina. It holds such wondrous power, obviously….

    Amazing the conceit hidden in their hearts. They loathe men with authority over them and will do any and all things, including deception, to get out from under it. I’ve had enough and told them to get the heck out of my life or submit, there is no other choice.

  26. mikediver5 says:

    And most will say then I will get the heck out. To which I say good riddance. It’s better to live alone in the desert than with a quarrelsome, complaining wife.

  27. feeriker says:

    There are times where even as a Protestant I would rather submit to a Catholic Church sufficiently confident to carry out a modern Inquisition on these people than take my luck with my soul among many evangelical churches today.

    No kidding. Between the churchian worship of the secular war-god state and the worship of the godly vagina (Lord Jesus help you if you attend a “church” that worships both), it’s painful to be a biblically-literate Protestant today.

  28. Looking Glass says:

    @Dalrock:

    It’s a hard day when someone realizes that the other side actually is evil, just not in the cartoonish variety. It’s really a massive form of arrogance to assume everyone wants to act as you act, just because you “know better”. But they have to put their head in the sand, otherwise the Light will burn.

  29. infowarrior1 says:

    @feeriker
    ” I find myself easily able to picture some StrongIndependentWoman of the western world talking back to or arguing with Jesus upon His return and saying exactly such a thing.”

    I don’t recall any scriptural evidence to that effect. Given that God already has that covered. Their mouth will be shut after all.

  30. infowarrior1 says:

    I could be wrong but like any “conservatives” the complementarians want is a frozen version of the egalitarianism that they remember nostalgically as children as old-school family values.

    All conservatives want to bring back their nostalgic childhood memories of a healthy society not realizing the rot that is proceeded apace ever since the Enlightenment.

    Likewise they politically are always the rearguard action of any leftist advance:
    http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/03/07/the-pathology-of-the-conservative-mind/

  31. greyghost says:

    It wouldn’t surprise me to see you approached to help form a red pill Christian Church Dalrock.

  32. Fifty Seven says:

    “She can say things like “PMS is not an excuse for homicide” and not get a single nasty e-mail the following day.”
    In other news, there are apparently women out there who will get pissed if you tell them that, yes, murder is still wrong while Auntie Flo is visiting….

  33. Pingback: She holds an authority you cannot hold. | Reaction Times

  34. feeriker says:

    OT, but of interest:

    http://www.christianretailing.com/index.php/newsletter/latest/28590-marriage-champion-gary-smalley-dies-at-75

    Not to speak ill of the dead, but that’s one less pedestalizer to contend with.

  35. Dave says:

    ” I find myself easily able to picture some StrongIndependentWoman of the western world talking back to or arguing with Jesus upon His return and saying exactly such a thing.”

    Will they even be able to stand before Him? Unlike Christ’s first coming as a meek, sacrificial Lamb, His second coming will be in “all the glory of the Father”, with all the Divine majesty surrounding Him. gaining an audience with Christ at that time requires much more than being a “strong independent and liberated” churchian.

    Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to……. stand before the Son of Man. Luke 21:36

  36. PokeSalad says:

    Every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess….

  37. infowarrior1 says:

    @Dave
    ”Unlike Christ’s first coming as a meek, sacrificial Lamb”

    Even his 1st coming involved battles with the kingdom of Satan in the spiritual realm like casting out demons and miracles. His passion and crucifixion is the Trojan horse slipped into enemy lines and Satan was tricked into thinking that he had Christ and was able to prevent the plan of God from succeeding while in actual fact he played into God’s hands.

    Christ’s “defeat” was his ultimate victory in disguise. Through it he descended into the belly of the beast known as Death. And from within the beast emerged victorious. Taking Satan completely by surprise and like a hero took the powers captive and disarmed them. Likewise trampling over death in victory.

  38. OKRickety says:

    @theasdgamer,

    My son is 20. I have never seen him exhibit any interest in girls (which I find hard to understand). Nor does he seem to have any interest in interacting socially with anyone. I do not know of any interests which could be parlayed into him learning/improving his social skills. I appreciate your advice and it encourages me to persevere in trying to help him.

  39. OKRickety says:

    Jen Wilkin attends The Village Church, the church where Matt Chandler is the Lead Pastor. Not surprisingly, she states (emphasis mine):

    “I teach women the Bible, and I hope to see in my lifetime many qualified women teachers raised up in the church to advance Bible literacy. But this hope needs pastoral help to become a reality. I know this help is possible because I have been its recipient, the beneficiary of lavish pastoral input and encouragement.”

  40. gdgm+ says:

    Related to the OP, also from Vox Day, since Dalrock mentions Day above:

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-fruit-of-female-pastor.html

  41. OKRickety says:

    Jen Wilkin is confused when she claims to have an authority the pastor cannot hold. A woman teacher could well have a connection that allows her to empathize with women listeners, and vice versa. However, that connection is not an authority. Instead, it is the result of our psychological make-ups.

    The fact that many, if not most, women consider themselves to be special snowflakes who are not required to submit to the authority of any man is a symptom. Another symptom is that they do not recognize their own rebellion to God’s created authority structure. Jen Wilkin gives the example that a woman teacher “can say things like ‘PMS is not an excuse for homicide’ and not get a single nasty e-mail the following day.” If women were taught to respect men and saw it modelled in their own family and church, they would respond in a godly way.

  42. Tom K. says:

    Dal,

    I appreciate what you do, but I just cannot even bear to read any of it any more. I know I’ve said this before but I always come back and try, try again! It just seems like so much angels dancing on the head of a pin nonsense. I am amazed ANYONE is listening to these feminist manginas.

    Do you attend church, Dal? Why? I stopped going a few years after I married when my wife kept coming up with excuses not to go. Most of them were based around “women in church are bitches to outsider women and we’re new so I will be the outsider. They will judge my clothes, my hair, my children. I’m not going to put up with that!” I continued to attend and take my children. Guess how THAT made me look? And stupid me, I thought it didn’t matter how I looked. I could still have a place of ministry in a church without my wife attending. Boy was I deluded!

    And it was Dobson, Smalley, et al., who gave my wife aid and comfort and even taught her the tactics she used to try to dominate me. Ideas that were the seeds that became this “complementarianism”. What heresies!

    Anyway, God’s Best in your work. I couldn’t do it. Not anymore.

  43. OKRickety says:

    Paul said on March 8, 2016 at 3:01 pm
    Imagine if a soldier took the view that his officer can’t demand his submission, the private has to willingly offer it. I just don’t think these people understand how authority works.

    God gave us free will and allows us to exercise it in the church, in marriage, and even in our individual relationship with Him. The submission in these areas is voluntary. Of course, there are consequences to refusing to submit, but submission is not forced. The consequences are seldom so significant that submission is viewed as the only acceptable option.

    The military environment, in contrast, has significant negative consequences if the soldier refuses to submit. Actually, the soldier’s submission is still voluntary, but his training should cause him to recognize that his obedience is the best option.

  44. OKRickety says:

    I fully expect to be considered an idiot or equivalent by most readers, but I ask you to at least read all of this comment before you make that conclusion.

    Is complementarianism really the evil it is being considered in this blog? Or is it possible that secular influences, especially feminism, has crept in and corrupted its original intention? In other words, some who claim to be complementarians have become egalitarian or feminist in their beliefs.

    I am not an egalitarian, and do not claim to be a complementarian. However, from what I have read of the early works of CBMW, it seems they are reasonably Biblical in their approach. For example, they created the The Danvers Statement in 1987. It includes the following in a section of Affirmations:

    Based on our understanding of Biblical teachings, we affirm the following:

    1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).
    2. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).
    3. Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).

    It (and the rest of the Danvers Statement) seems to be Biblically correct to me. Please read the rest of the Danvers Statement yourself to see if you agree.

    Now, I do not think the CBMW is perfect, and I certainly do not think that any of its leaders and their prominent followers are perfect, either. Since they are people and sinners (like all of us), I think it is reasonably possible that Satan saw the potential for this group to help the Kingdom of God grow, and he took action. He then insidiously caused doubts and inserted ideas that are not Biblical, but ensured that they appeared to be closer to God’s plan. The result is that the Biblical teachings of the early days of the CBMW have been modified to be more acceptable to the majority of churchians and society generally.

    Today, many who claim to be complementarian are no longer completely true to the Danvers Statement and, more importantly, the Bible. This is no different from the fact that many who claim to be Christians (churchians) are no longer completely true to the Bible. The fact that many complementarians have non-Biblical beliefs, intentionally or not, does not mean that a given complementarian is necessarily evil, or even that some of their beliefs must be evil. In general, complementarians are opposed to egalitarianism, and thus closer to Biblical teaching.

    For me, I don’t want to be considered a complementarian, fundamentalist, evangelical, or any other human grouping. I want God to consider me to be His child and follower.

  45. mrteebs says:

    A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to “submit herself”— deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.

    Well, Mary, let’s just take another relationship where submission to authority is likewise taught in scripture and do a little word substitution experiment, shall we?

    A mother does not have the right to demand or extract obedience from her children. Obedience is THEIR choice—their responsibility… it is NOT her right!! Not ever. They are to “obey their parents in the Lord”— deciding when and how to obey is their call. In a Christian family, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s the children’s responsibility to obey . It’s the children’s responsibility to submit. The mother’s responsibility is to love her husband and her children (Tit 2:4)—not to make her children submit.

    Anybody hear Kassian advocating for HER authority in the home to be treated as in scenario #2 – just as she she wants HIS treated in scenario #1?

    But of course that’s different. Because.

  46. ray says:

    “What they cannot say and are dancing around, attempting to undermine is the Authority of God. No one likes authority over them, as authority comes with enforcement.”

    I do! I like that God has authority over me. Most, he doesn’t bother to correct. That’s the time to worry.

    I like it that Jeshua is king. There aren’t any others I’d accept so that’d be a problem. God created a hierarchic universe, and I don’t resent authentic authority (e.g., Scripture) but instead take comfort in it. It’s there for my benefit, kind of like how Earth maintaining orbit under authority benefits us.

  47. ray says:

    “I find myself easily able to picture some StrongIndependentWoman of the western world talking back to or arguing with Jesus upon His return and saying exactly such a thing.”

    ‘Revelation 14:20 tells us that when Jesus returns, the blood will be deep as a horse’s bridle. These SIW will be part of that flood.’

    Right. There will be no yapping by SIWs in Christ’s face. He will not be pleading with anybody, much less with rebellious women. He will always be the Lamb, but will come in roaring next time, doing whatever he wants. And next time is close.

  48. ray says:

    Feministhater — “I’ve had enough and told them to get the heck out of my life or submit, there is no other choice.”

    I learned, slowly, and resisting. But accepted this. No obedience, no protection.

    Bible says Jeshua will do this too, in his Kingdom. No obedience, no rain. No rain, no food. Have a great winter, you know?

  49. infowarrior1 says:

    @OKRickety
    Dalrock had a previous post about the people that 1st coined: “complementarianism” not what they seem at 1st glance.

    Personally I think the term beats around the bush too much. As if apologetic about the hierarchical nature of the relationship.

    Rather it should be unapologetically be called what it is. That is Patriarchy.

    Not mere Human Patriarchy but Patriarchy as originally intended and envisioned by God and likewise sustained by Him.

    A family structure that takes its name from the God:
    ”Him from whom every fatherhood(patria) is named, that is in Heaven and in Earth,”
    Ephesians 3:15

  50. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!!

    Her only choice is whether to say “I do” at the wedding. Once she says “I do.” to her husband, she has agreed to submit for life. She has ceded authority over to him.

  51. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    When I hear people like Jen Wilkins, I’m glad the Catholic Church has held the line on men-only priests and bishops.

    And I’m glad the Catholic Church is an international organization, so that liberal American parishes can’t single-handedly change those rules.

  52. Spike says:

    “She holds an authority you cannot hold”

    Translated from Chickspeak: “There is a part of woman that no one can touch. No man, nor can God. Only another pure Princess like herself can go there…”
    – it’s like women who hit the wall and decide that as no man has chosen them, it must be because they are so awesome. So awesome, in fact that only women can touch the precious porcelain, most intimate parts of themselves….thus becoming lesbian. Same idolatry, just a different strain.

    I would like to put it to Ms Kassian the following:

    A wife does not have the right to demand or extract fidelity from her husband. Fidelity is HIS choice—her responsibility… it is NOT her right!! Not ever. He is to “forsake all others”— deciding when and how to forsake is his call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s her responsibility to be affectionate. It’s his responsibility to be faithful. ….
    One can argue that there is explicit commandments demanding fidelity. Likewise, there are explicit passages demanding submission.
    Ultimately, Ms Kassian’s views are inexcusable. She needs to be called to repent.

  53. Dave says:

    In the subtext, I’d argue for the possibility that not only are husbands allowed to teach their wives, they are both required to do so.

    Seconded. In addition, the man is to mold his wife into whatever he wants her to be, so that he can be completely satisfied with her, just as Christ invested resources to make the Church what He wants it to be, according to the passage:

    That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Ephesians 5:27

  54. @ MrTeebs

    I agree with you but you chose a bad example.

    A mother does not have the right to demand or extract obedience from her children. Obedience is THEIR choice—their responsibility… it is NOT her right!! Not ever. They are to “obey their parents in the Lord”— deciding when and how to obey is their call. In a Christian family, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s the children’s responsibility to obey . It’s the children’s responsibility to submit. The mother’s responsibility is to love her husband and her children (Tit 2:4)—not to make her children submit.

    Children are supposed to Obey (Greek: hupokouo) their parents.
    Wives are supposed to Submit (Greek: hupotasso) to husbands.

    Hupokuou represents an obligation to obey. Hupotasso reflects voluntary behavior (which the feminists get right), BUT husbands can still demand it of wives. The demand does not interfere with free will: she still has the option to obey or not. Children do not have the option to disobey.

    The strongest argument for husbands demanding submission is the Christ-Church analogy.

    John15:12 “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do what I command you. 15 No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. 17 This I command you, that you love one another.

    Authorities have the ability to demand obedience thus creating a moral obligation (as Zippy likes to call it). This is why Christians are commanded to obey the government, unless it directly interferes with God’s commands (e.g. Acts 5 where the Council tells Peter and friends to stop preaching whereas Jesus had told them to go into all of the world and preach the gospel).

    If a wife is being disobedient she is certainly not your friend, and you shouldn’t treat her as such in that instance.

  55. wraithburn says:

    @OKRickety

    I had basically no social skills until that age. For me, it was caused by my natural tendencies to introversion and my upbringing. I had to teach myself how to interact with people during and after college, and it was hard. Some days it’s still hard to do stuff with people.

    Does your son read fiction or play video games? I did that a lot, it’s an escape to a world I understood and could control. That went double for women. I WAS interested, I just didn’t have the tools or understanding to actually interact with them. All the things I’d been taught about being “nice” were wrong, and I’m not dumb enough to play the game when the rules don’t work.

    All of that said, I’ve learned and grown socially. For your son, I’d second learning to dance, though probably not right away. I had to ease into it. A really good one is boxing. You learn that you can take care of yourself, it’s something you do basically by yourself, without a bunch of the “lets all get in rows like good little students.” You have control, and you’re doing an activity, so socializing is incidental. To get him into that one, if he’s into fiction and video games, you’ve got ready made heroes he identifies with.

    Again, personal experience here, but another good step would be playing board games with him. There’s a lot of different choices so you’re sure to find something that suits his tastes. But it gives him an experience of interacting with a person across the table, a shared experience that still has rules he understands. Since you are there, you can gently correct things like popping off to other players. Show him how to interact.

    And those other players? Well, now that you and him are doing a game together, it’s really easy to step that into having a few buddies over for game night. Now you are the one shepherding him into a social situation. He doesn’t have to go out and find one, you’ve brought it to him, even if they’re just your friends. Kind of the classic let your son sit in on poker night. He becomes one of the guys over time and gains some confidence in a social situation. Then you can expand into attending a game meetup in your local area. You are there with him, so he’s got someone to do things with, it’s not sink or swim. He’s built up confidence, and he has some social tools he’s practiced.

    I can’t speak exactly for your son, so you’ll need to take all this with a grain of salt. But for me, I do like a certain amount of socializing. Less than other people, but I still want to be part of a community. I just didn’t know HOW. I would have loved someone who took the time and effort to help me, instead of throwing me into a brand new church and saying “go make friends”.

  56. theasdgamer says:

    A wife does not have the right to demand or extract resources from her husband. Providing resources is HIS choice—his responsibility… it is NOT her right to demand them!! Not ever.

  57. theasdgamer says:

    @ Deep Strength

    In 1 Peter 3:5-6, hupotassw and hupakouw are used in an equivalent sense. The wives addressed by Peter were to submit, following the example of the ancient wives who obeyed their husbands.

  58. RICanuck says:

    Jen Wilkins is wrong about men preaching to women.

    I will attempt to explain with reference to the holy epistles of the Kendrick brothers. I am aware that not all Christians regard Fireproof, Courageous, and The War Room as inerrant, but judge the following according to your own knowledge of Scripture and Tradition. (Spoiler alert)

    In The War Room, Elizabeth is married to Tony. Tony stole from his employer, he padded his sales, he neglected his wife for his career, and was tempted to adultery, While in the gym with one of his friends, his friend figured out that Tony was tempted to adultery and tried to dissuade him. The Kendricks, and Roger Ebert agree that Tony was an abusive husband.

    Elizabeth on the other hand cut Tony off from sexual contact. She also gave big chucks of money to her sister who had a useless husband who didn’t work. So Tony, who wasn’t getting any had to subsidize a useless brother in law who was. It’s not quite cuck porn, but I am sure Tony felt emasculated. Elizabeth sinned against her husband and marriage and disrespected her husband.

    She discussed it with her co-workers, and none of them called her out, but even encouraged her. Add being influenced by bad (female) companions to the above list.

    Elizabeth met Miz Clara, a prayerful Christian woman. Miz Clara called out Elizabeth as being disrespectful to her husband. Elizabeth started to pray, but with little enthusiasm, until she discovered that Tony was tempted by another woman. Then, she started praying, to save her marriage, but with no examination of conscience of her own part in driving Tony away.

    By the power of the Holy Spirit, and losing his job, Tony was converted and confessed his sins to Elizabeth. He confessed his theft to his former employer and agreed to accept the consequences. Elizabeth was supportive of Tony all through this.

    Elizabeth at no time showed any remorse for her sins, nor did she apologize to Tony for her disrespect or her blasphemy against the marriage bed. My biggest take away on this is that women left to themselves will almost never recognize that they too are sinners, in need of the redemptive power of Jesus Christ. Women need to talk with each other to come to consensus and express their feelings, but without a man to point out what is and is not sin, how can they know that they are sinners.

    Miz Clara confessed to Elizabeth that during her husband’s life she was disrespectful and unappreciative. It wasn’t until her husband was dead that she realized the respect he needed, and the turning to God in prayer that she needed. If you as a Christian husband want respect you can always die, and then you might get the respect you crave. I can’t figure out why many young Christian men are a bit leery of marriage.

    A disturbing part near the end of the movie was when Elizabeth’s daughter texted Miz Clara about the sale of her house. When Elizabeth met Miz Clara afterwards, Miz Clara told Elizabeth all about the buyer. Elizabeth wondered at the ability of Clara to know so much, and that she wished she could be in tight with God like that. The Kendricks left unremarked about the temptation many women have for occult powers. These powers are real, but are seldom from God. Jen Wilkins would have men not warn women about this.

  59. feeriker says:

    Ultimately, Ms Kassian’s views are inexcusable. She needs to be called to repent.

    As in the case of the non-believer hopelessly mired in sin, anger, error, and disbelief, only the fire of the Holy Spirit, brought about be her own hopeles desperation at some point, will compel Mizz Kasian to repent. Earthly calls for such will come only from people (mostly men) for whom she has no respect and thus will go unheeded.

  60. PokeSalad says:

    Elizabeth at no time showed any remorse for her sins, nor did she apologize to Tony for her disrespect or her blasphemy against the marriage bed. My biggest take away on this is that women left to themselves will almost never recognize that they too are sinners, in need of the redemptive power of Jesus Christ.

    In Kendrick movies, wives are God’s surrogates on earth – here to shame and correct sinful, wayward men back to the true path. They are either entirely blameless in their suffering, or in rare instances forced to sin by their husbands’ evil behavior, so its not their fault.

  61. feeriker says:

    @ RICanuck:

    Well stated, brother!

    My biggest take away on this is that women left to themselves will almost never recognize that they too are sinners, in need of the redemptive power of Jesus Christ.

    Correct. At best, they will admit that they need Christ in order to fill some void or relieve some discomfort or pain in their lives, notto have their souls cleansed of their sins. For after all, all that is Vagina is pure and righteous.

    Women need to talk with each other to come to consensus and express their feelings, but without a man to point out what is and is not sin, how can they know that they are sinners.

    Even if a man did guide them to this self-evident truth, they would never admit it to him or any other man. In fact, odds are slim of them admitting it even to another woman – or to themselves, for that matter. The immediate reaction would almost certainly be defensive pushback, accompanied by a healthy dollop of shaming (“Who are YOU to point out MY sins? You’re not blameless either!”)

  62. @asdgamer

    In 1 Peter 3:5-6, hupotassw and hupakouw are used in an equivalent sense. The wives addressed by Peter were to submit, following the example of the ancient wives who obeyed their husbands.

    Peter is admonishing wives to make the correct choice which is to obey by dispelling their fears and giving examples.

    Either way disobedient children and disobedient wives are in sin. However, parents can compel/force children to obey. Husbands cannot compel wives.

  63. Dalrock says:

    @OKRickety

    Is complementarianism really the evil it is being considered in this blog? Or is it possible that secular influences, especially feminism, has crept in and corrupted its original intention? In other words, some who claim to be complementarians have become egalitarian or feminist in their beliefs.

    I am not an egalitarian, and do not claim to be a complementarian. However, from what I have read of the early works of CBMW, it seems they are reasonably Biblical in their approach. For example, they created the The Danvers Statement in 1987. It includes the following in a section of Affirmations:

    Based on our understanding of Biblical teachings, we affirm the following:

    1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).
    2. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).
    3. Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).

    It (and the rest of the Danvers Statement) seems to be Biblically correct to me. Please read the rest of the Danvers Statement yourself to see if you agree.

    It is a fair question. The movement has certainly gotten worse over the years, but the excesses of today were rooted in the original Danvers statement. Note that they created a brand new sin for wives, the sin of servility:

    …the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.

    If you look at the quotes about submission in the OP from Kassian and Keller, you will see that they flow quite naturally from the Danvers statement. I’m not really sure in that case that it is even a matter of getting worse over time; this would seem to be what the Danvers statement had in mind all along.

    Another tell is their claim that there had been:

    the upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family;

    As I pointed out in a recent post, Complementarians witness feminist rebellion and conclude that men must be getting more authoritarian. This was written at the end of the 80s, after feminists had beaten the drum on abuse to undermine the authority of husbands. Piper, Grudem, and the rest of the authors of the Danvers statement took this at face value; it speaks volumes about how they perceived feminism.

    But again, it is also true that they got worse over time. Wilkin takes it to a new level, and is much less careful to deny her feminism. Yet Wilkin is welcome today precisely because Grudem, Piper, etc couldn’t spot the feminist rebellion all around them in the late 80s. What they saw was a mostly reasonable reaction by women to a generation of brutish men.

  64. Dalrock says:

    @Deep Strength

    Husbands cannot compel wives.

    The important point is that “You can’t make me!” isn’t an explanation of Scripture, it is the very spirit of rebellion.

  65. Anonymous Reader says:

    But again, it is also true that they got worse over time.

    If I read correctly the original Danvers statement did not mention patriarchy. However, more recent statements / articles / writings by complementarians (not only from the CBMW) have an absolute horror, a full-on pearl-clutching, stand-on-a-chair-and-scream reaction to “patriarchy”. IMO this is an indication of moar feminism in the complementarians.

    However, I do not have quotes or references, so feel free to downgrade this to “rumor” status.

    Wilkin takes it to a new level, and is much less careful to deny her feminism.

    She doesn’t need to do so.

    Yet Wilkin is welcome today precisely because Grudem, Piper, etc couldn’t spot the feminist rebellion all around them in the late 80s. What they saw was a mostly reasonable reaction by women to a generation of brutish men.

    And here is the irony, from one point of view, and the obvious lesson in Game from another pont of view. By the late 1980’s the US had been living with 2nd wave feminism encoded into law for well over 10 years. Divorce had soared, with the majority filed by women for reasons of unhaaapiness. Unknown numbers of men had been crushed beneath the Duluth wheel. Men were more likely to defer to women, and less likely to even attempt to control them.

    In short, by the late 1980’s, men were much less brutish than they had ever been before, at least in the US. Men were more likely to be beta…and the fury of women towards men in general merely increased. This is ironic to many men, “well, we gave them what they said the wanted, now what’s wrong?” and patently obvious to any man with a decent knowledge of Game “failed fitness test”.

    It should be no surprise at all that the younger feminists are expanding their demands via the same old shaming language. There’s no one to stop them, and they’ve learned how to get what they want; they are women that no man can say “NO” to.

    In fact, I’d like to ask Grudem, Piper, et al one question: When was the last time you said NO to your wife and made it stick?” I do believe they would have to think, and think, and think, and it’s likely they wouldn’t be able to come up with an example beyond something trivial like a restaurant choice.

    If I’m right, that would be a micro example of the macro problem that those men themselves have created for the rest of us.

  66. Children do not have the option to disobey.

    That flies in the face of reality.

  67. Kevin says:

    On submission not being demanded, I would like to charitably think they and Dalrock are just talking past each other but given so many other statements I doubt it.

    Like Deep Strength says, you cannot compel anyone. God demands submission but does not make us. We can “Demand submission” until we are blue in the face, but it is always a choice someone else makes and gives. My wife can demand that I love her unconditionally as Christ loved the church, but she cannot compel me to do so. We all walk these roads as imperfect people.

    So, on the one hand this could be miscommunication and they are emphasizing the reality of people’s choices and the impossibility of compulsion while Dalrock emphasises the proscription from scripture, but given so many other statements the more likely thing is they just reject the scripture and submission and want no part of actual humble submission.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kevin, in the complementarian world only men are required to be humble. Women humble themselves merely by tolerating the presence of men.

  69. Authorities have the ability to demand obedience thus creating a moral obligation (as Zippy likes to call it). This is why Christians are commanded to obey the government, unless it directly interferes with God’s commands (e.g. Acts 5 where the Council tells Peter and friends to stop preaching whereas Jesus had told them to go into all of the world and preach the gospel).

    When you demand obedience, it is called tyranny. When a government does it over people but forcing them to do something they do not want, it is tyranny for you have not given them your promise or allegiance. You still have free will to refuse a government.

    When you breach a contract by not fulfilling your part and then are demanded to complete it, it is not tyranny, it is punishment for lack of keeping your word. When a woman agrees to marry her husband, she is to submit to him, it’s part of the marriage contract, it’s the expectation. If she doesn’t want to, she should not get married to said man and tell him so before getting married. If she goes ahead and marries anyway and doesn’t obey, she is not fulfilling her part of the bargain and thus needs to be punished.

    That is free will, free will is not the idea that one can change their mind all the time and revoke agreements made previously without encountering consequences. That is the way of the world.

    In no way does the Bible condemn a Christian for not following a ridiculous law if they do not want to. Only those things that the government should be doing, i.e. what is Caesar’s. The government has no Biblical right to interfere with affairs of the family or the Church, those are God’s domain and are to be rendered to him. It has no right to use your money to bail out banks, single moms or any other welfare, for that is theft, condemned by God.

    The government only has to step in God’s domain over your life for you to be able to refuse them.

  70. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anonymous Reader: By the late 1980’s the US had been living with 2nd wave feminism encoded into law for well over 10 years…. Men were more likely to defer to women, and less likely to even attempt to control them…. men were much less brutish than they had ever been before, at least in the US. Men were more likely to be beta

    And yet, movies and TV are filled with images of brutish men in “wife-beater shirts,” swilling beer, ordering women about, even striking them. They’re also lousy fathers with no love for their own kids. You’d think the U.S. had an epidemic of such men.

    The women are smart, spunky, beautiful. The brutish men oppress them because they fear Strong, Independent Women.

    Then a White Knight tells the woman about her own awesomeness. The White Knight does not himself save the woman. She saves herself, once she’s empowered with knowledge of her own amazing strengths and smarts.

    The White Knight then happily marries the newly-empowered, newly-divorced Strong, Independent Woman. The White Knight is also thrilled to adopt her children from the previous marriage.

  71. Gunner Q says:

    OKRickety @ March 8, 2016 at 11:54 pm:
    “1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).”

    This reads as seriously flawed to me. Adam was created in God’s image but Eve was created in Adam’s image. Adam and Eve were not equal before God; Eve was #3 in that chain of command.

    Where the Danvers people went wrong, I think, is their refusal to acknowledge that the female role is inferior to the male role. Women were created for the benefit of men and to be subject to men; they are not, and were not designed to be, the peers of men. Adam’s problem was that he was lonely, not incompetent.

    The modern mindset has trouble with “these people are inferior to those people” beliefs even when they’re observably true. You can infuriate complementarians by pointing out women have less intelligence, strength, endurance, wisdom and self-control than men… and then drive them insane by saying that’s okay because she has a tight ass and likes to snuggle.

  72. My biggest take away on this is that women left to themselves will almost never recognize that they too are sinners, in need of the redemptive power of Jesus Christ. Women need to talk with each other to come to consensus and express their feelings, but without a man to point out what is and is not sin, how can they know that they are sinners.

    When women speak for God, and the Holy Spirit is replaced with what benefits a feminine imperative the best, it is literally impossible for a Christian woman to sin. Any defining trait of the female experience is to be lauded and praised for its default holiness. There is literally nothing inherently female that can be defined as sinful in this context.

    In fact the only sin a woman can commit is in not living up to the Strong Independent Woman® archetype which they reinforce among each other that God wants them to embody. Anything less than fempowerment is a sin because it implies a lack of faith in a redefined feminine Godliness.

    It’s very convenient when women define their own group (in this case religious) dynamics. In a larger secular scope women do the same – they form collectives of only women, with only women-known rules and introspections. Any man even attempting to marginally criticize (rebuke) or even objectively analyze the dynamic is subject to censure and his observations are disqualified because his experiences can’t ever begin to grasp their experiences.

    I go into this a lot on TRM. The female defined experience, the female imperative, is always the ‘correct’ one, and any man not in compliance with it is ‘incorrect’ by default. In fact for a fem-christian woman to even acknowledge her own sinfulness it would require her to behave, think and empathize in a male perspective. Sin is for men; if a woman identifies with the nature of men in anyway she becomes sinful. Thus sin is only defined in characteristics native to men’s imperatives.

    You’ll see this in a secular sense when you read the flame conversations between feminist and anti-feminist women in the ‘sphere. To sympathize with men is to betray the sisterhood, and if the sisterhood represents the Godly standard, that betrayal is sin.

    Men’s observations of women liturgical errors, or to call attention to their sin, IS in itself another form of male sin. It betrays the ‘correctness’ of the holy sisterhood, and it indicates his sinful want for power over women (misogyny).

    Solution: Socially and religiously convince successive generations of men that complying with women’s imperatives is God’s will and the correct Godly path for their lives.

  73. Anonymous Reader says:

    GunnerQ
    Adam’s problem was that he was lonely, not incompetent.

    Very pithy. One could start a pretty interesting conversation in any church just by saying that, then remaining silent.

  74. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bonus thought: Adam was competent. God did not micromanage him.

    Modern men don’t need micromanagers either…

  75. Pingback: She brings a perspective you cannot bring. | Dalrock

  76. Bill Smith says:

    About the push against saying “we” when the poster is not part of that group: Daniel said “we” in his prayers, even though he was not personally guilty of the problems he was praying about. This should establish the principle that we sometimes need to stand in the gap on behalf of others, including Christians we strongly disagree with.

    I wonder how much the modern “me” focus is a part of the problem in this area too.

  77. Hank Flanders says:

    Dalrock

    The important point is that “You can’t make me!” isn’t an explanation of Scripture, it is the very spirit of rebellion.

    It took me a second to understand what you mean here, Dalrock, but now, I think I know exactly what you mean. What Kassian said about a husband not having the right to demand or extract submission from his wife is not so much an issue of truth as it is an issue of relevance. What would we think of someone saying that it’s not a parent’s right to make his or her children obey or that it’s not a wife’s right to demand love from her husband? People would likely exclaim (or think), “So? That’s not the issue!” Likewise, here, the issue is not the truth of the statement as much as it is the motivation behind making the statement.

  78. Bill Smith says:

    OKR,

    Sometimes you just have to step back and let things take their course. It may not be pretty (and likely will not be), but you are probably past the point of being able to help. I would challenge you if you are letting him live at home and be anti-social. Dealing with the real world may not fix everything, but that has a way of cutting to the core that living at home does not. Your situation may vary of course.

    TomK,

    Tough situation, but you seem to be giving up your frame to your wife. My wife and I used to listen to Family Life Today and Focus on the Family all the time. She continued after I stopped and now we don’t listen to either very much. She would probably listen to them now, but we also (fortunately) have a different Christian station on most of the time and that avoids those shows.

  79. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    If I read correctly the original Danvers statement did not mention patriarchy. However, more recent statements / articles / writings by complementarians (not only from the CBMW) have an absolute horror, a full-on pearl-clutching, stand-on-a-chair-and-scream reaction to “patriarchy”. IMO this is an indication of moar feminism in the complementarians.

    However, I do not have quotes or references, so feel free to downgrade this to “rumor” status.

    It is true. Mary Kassian explains this at TGC in Complementarianism for Dummies:

    4. Complementarity does not condone the patriarchal, societal oppression of women.

    Technically, “patriarchy” simply means a social organization in which the father is the head of the family. But since the 1970s, feminists have redefined the historic use of the term and attributed negative connotations to it. Nowadays, people regard patriarchy as the oppressive rule of men. “Patriarchy” is regarded as a misogynistic system in which women are put down and squelched. That’s why we rejected the term “patriarchalism.” Complementarians stand against the oppression of women. We want to see women flourish, and we believe they do so when men and women together live according to God’s Word.

    They didn’t want to use the biblical term because feminists don’t like it. So they instead made up the term Complementarian. As Kassian explains in the same article, she was there when the CBMW rejected the term Patriarchy and coined the new term in its place:

    I should know. I’m a complementarian. And I helped coin the term.

    She explains that they also rejected the term traditionalism:

    In our name-the-concept meeting, someone mentioned the word “traditionalism,” since our position is what Christians have traditionally believed. But that was quickly nixed. The word “traditionalism” smacks of “tradition.”

  80. @ Dalrock — You are a voice in the wilderness doing the Lord’s work. You have my gratitude and admiration.

    A few thoughts:

    1) If women are teaching women the Bible, are they teaching them to be silent in the meeting? Are they teaching then to submit to their own husband in all things with fear and reverence? Are they teaching them how to love their husbands, with practical application to sex and sammiches? Are they teaching women that they were created to be a helper to a man? To love their children? To not blaspheme the word of God by observing the above? To never argue with their husbands even when he is wrong instead in silence let him observe her chaste and fearful behavior?

    2) Where is all this women rebuking of women happening? All I see is women calling other women to girl-power and rebellion. If only a woman can speak to women’s issues why are they neglecting the issues of women’s predominate sins?

    3) Submission is choice and not an obligation like obeying laws to not steal is a choice. One can choose to obey or not, the magistrate has a duty to punish you if you choose badly. Husbands likewise have a duty to instruct and discipline their wife when she chooses foolishly.

    4) If men do not teach women the things that pertain to women then they also do not tell a woman to repent. This makes marriage counseling in the church a suicide mission for husbands. If the counselor is a woman she is not about to tell another woman to submit, when the women counselor is manifesting her own lack of submission and if the counselor is a male he will not confront female rebellion because he lacks ” feminine authority” and perspective.

  81. @ Dalrock

    The important point is that “You can’t make me!” isn’t an explanation of Scripture, it is the very spirit of rebellion.

    Yup, it’s choosing to partner with sin, which gives rise to rebellion.

    @ feministhater

    When you breach a contract by not fulfilling your part and then are demanded to complete it, it is not tyranny, it is punishment for lack of keeping your word. When a woman agrees to marry her husband, she is to submit to him, it’s part of the marriage contract, it’s the expectation. If she doesn’t want to, she should not get married to said man and tell him so before getting married. If she goes ahead and marries anyway and doesn’t obey, she is not fulfilling her part of the bargain and thus needs to be punished.

    Correct. We’re Jesus’ friends IF we obey him. Obviously, the counterpoint is that we are not His friends when we don’t obey Him. Disobedience requires, at the very least, admonishment or rebuke.

  82. Anonymous Reader says:

    They didn’t want to use the biblical term because feminists don’t like it. So they instead made up the term Complementarian.

    Then feminists were their target audience from the start.

  83. theasdgamer says:

    Husbands cannot compel wives.

    Lol, yeah, cuz wives are more muscular. Mrs. Gamer compels me alla time.

    Great Books For Men: “Taming of the Shrew”

    On fb, some broad posted a list of things wives want from their husband. I responded with, “Ask not what your husband can do for you, ask rather what you can do for your husband.” One man had the balls to like my comment.

  84. The Danvers Statement sows the seeds of feminism that are now bearing the bitter fruit of feminism in the complementarian world-view.

    The first affirmation is
    1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).

    No where in the Bible are women and men called “equal”, the use of the term is to adopt feminist and SJW framing. Looking to see the support from the proof texts results in no support for the use of the term equal. The statement could have read that they were both created in the image of God, but even that is reading into the Genesis text that which is not explicitly there. To Wit:

    Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

    The Hebrew word translated “man” is adam and does not necessarily require that the meaning is the human race or mankind, that is assumed. Possible meanings include the first man Adam, or males, although there were better word choices for males so that is unlikely. The point is that even if we grant that “adam” is intended to mean all man-kind it does not infer equality, but only a common trait. In the same way that midgets and giants share the trait of height they are not equally tall.

    Genesis 2:18-19 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

    The second text speaks not at all to equality but does point out an inequality. Eve was a helper to the man, not equal in vision, authority or responsibility.

    By using the word equal the egalitarians are feeding the discontent of women and are creating an ethical standard that is not biblical. The standard of equality is the wedge that is driven to separate the husband and wife as individuals rather than as the unity that God created when he made them one. The term equality places primacy on the individual at the expense of the marriage union.

  85. theasdgamer says:

    They didn’t want to use the biblical term because feminists don’t like it. So they instead made up the term Complementarian.

    AR: Then feminists were their target audience from the start.

    Rather, Complementarians adopted the Feminist frame.

  86. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rather, Complementarians adopted the Feminist frame.

    Possibly, and if so then likely most of that adoption was done unconsciously, in the “everyone knows this” mode.

    But looking over the CBMW documents I get a distinct impression that they wanted to reclaim or convert some people, and that their primary target group was feminists. Therefore they chose, actively or passively, to adopt feminist definitions.

    If CBMW really had wanted to push back against feminism, they would have chosen different words. However, if they just wanted to, say, co-opt feminism, then using feminist words makes sense.

    Any way you look at it, CBMW has been entangled with feminist thought from the very start. That explains a great deal.

  87. OKRickety says:

    Jonadab-the-Rechabite said on March 9, 2016 at 12:01 pm
    2) Where is all this women rebuking of women happening? All I see is women calling other women to girl-power and rebellion. If only a woman can speak to women’s issues why are they neglecting the issues of women’s predominate sins?

    Apparently some women do rebuke women for their sins, and call them to confess and repent. In fact, one of them is Mary Kassian. What, you say? Yes, the same “complementarian (covert) feminist” Mary Kassian who has been prominently featured in this blog of late.

    Having listened to the entirety of Mary Kassian’s video “Don’t Be a Wimp” while reading the transcript (I doubt that few readers have done this), I present the following quote (note that she uses the word “creep” to mean any negative influence that worms its way into our lives):

    “Can you identify an area in which you’ve been a wimp and have tolerated the creep? Maybe it’s a website you shouldn’t be surfing. Or maybe it’s a book you shouldn’t be reading. Or a show you shouldn’t be watching. Maybe it’s that secret text or email exchange you shouldn’t be pursuing. The lunch with the married guy that you shouldn’t be having. The daydream or the scenario you shouldn’t be envisioning. The place you shouldn’t be going. Or maybe it’s the excuse to skip church that you shouldn’t be making. Or the bitter resentment you shouldn’t be nursing. Or the marital affection you shouldn’t be withholding.”

    Here are other sins she calls the women on (I won’t quote the full text but you can find it in the transcript if you wish to verify):
    – sex outside of marriage,
    – abortion,
    – affair,
    – entrapped in porn,
    – addictions,
    and the final grouping that I think are predominate sins for women (and maybe for men, too)
    – critical spirit, bitterness, resentments, unforgiveness, slander, envy, pride, little lies (she says “any sin is too much”)

    She listed all of those sins and never once mentioned low self-esteem! 🙂

    Regardless of whether she is wrong or right in other issues, in this talk she calls out the sins of women, and does it far better than most preachers do. Perhaps this is an anomaly for her, and perhaps she is an anomaly among women teachers, but I know she she laid it on the line on this occasion.

  88. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Then feminists were their target audience from the start.

    But looking over the CBMW documents I get a distinct impression that they wanted to reclaim or convert some people, and that their primary target group was feminists. Therefore they chose, actively or passively, to adopt feminist definitions.

    If CBMW really had wanted to push back against feminism, they would have chosen different words. However, if they just wanted to, say, co-opt feminism, then using feminist words makes sense.

    Any way you look at it, CBMW has been entangled with feminist thought from the very start. That explains a great deal.

    Yes. Exactly. You really can’t understand the CBMW or complementarianism without understanding their deep need to convince Christian feminists that they aren’t like the bad men the feminists are rebelling against. You can see this in their founding book, where they went to extreme pains to explain why they thought feminists were mistaken while basically ignoring the traditional perspective the CBMW itself was rejecting. They are far more interested in proving themselves to feminists than they are in respecting 2,000 years of Christian tradition.

    I’ve shared quite a bit about Piper, and I know you have a sense of him. The other key founder, the intellectual heavyweight, is Wayne Grudem. As I’ve hinted recently I’m going to do a post on the perspective of one of the founders, and it will be about Grudem’s thoughts here. I don’t know when I’ll be able to write that up because of my schedule for the next few weeks and because I’m also tiring of the topic. I figure if I need a breather my readers probably do as well.

    So in the meantime, I’ll offer a spoiler. Over and over again Grudem spent his energy trying to win over the feminists, with the assumption that they were acting in good faith. Over and over the feminists played him like a fiddle, to laughable extremes:

    1. When feminists claimed that head meant source (and not leader) in Greek, Grudem went out and researched thousands of ancient texts to see if it was true. He found no cases to back up their claims (and they never offered any). After he published his results, the feminists still complained, so he went back and combed through even more texts. But they still objected, so he went back and toiled again (for a third time!). They made a BS claim, never offering any proof, and Grudem spent years trying to convince them he was right. It didn’t occur to him that his first paper had conclusively proven them wrong, and that they had no interest in the truth, only in rebelling against Scripture.
    2. Note how the feminists tricked him and the CBMW into changing the subject to abusive husbands. They contacted him saying they wanted to work together. He eagerly met with them and passed a resolution. Then the feminists lost interest, so the CBMW published their resolution on their own.
    3. Note how the feminist tricked him regarding the gender neutral translation.
    4. Finally, after decades of this, Grudem starts to suspect that feminists aren’t really interested in accurate scholarship; maybe they just don’t like what the Bible says. If only he had really understood that 30 years ago! If only we could somehow go back in time and explain to young Grudem that SJWs always lie.

    Grudem really thought the Christian feminists just wanted him to take them seriously, and as a result he spent a lifetime trying to please them with ever greater commitment to scholarship. Not surprisingly, Christian feminists openly mock Grudem for trying for decades to win them over with scholarship:

  89. theasdgamer says:

    “Be wise as doves and innocent as serpents.” Oh, wait.

  90. infowarrior1 says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer
    The catholic church so far is still quite compromised though. The Orthodox seem to be holding the line better for now.

  91. mrteebs says:

    @DeepStrength,

    I juxtaposed the two examples knowing full well that they are not entirely equivalent. There are nuanced differences between submission and obedience, and it is possible to be submitted to an unjust (yet legitimate) authority while disobeying said authority.

    But it seems my point was made, regardless of its imperfect reciprocity. Parents can force their children’s obedience – up to a certain age or physical stature – but even after their physical abilty to enforce obedience, they can still demand it. Thus, my basic point stands: we cannot necessarily force (physically) submission from our wives, but we have as much biblical right to expect submission from them as a parent has biblical right to expect obedience of their children.

    Kassian is wrong – and at the top of her lungs.

  92. ray says:

    In this age, Christ leads the church, and the church leads the culture. CBMW apparently got rolling in the Nineties, meaning that in their neo-feminism and cringe-romanticism, already they trailed popular culture by three decades. Plus, serving God isn’t a career. If you insist on making it a career, at least don’t preach female rebellion while cucking your brother. Yep, nobody will ever notice.

    Couldn’t find Philadelphia with a guide dog.

    I especially enjoyed this series because CBMW arrogating what biblical manhood means definitely gets my attention. Very much a sign of the times and I don’t like the times.

    Enjoy the break, plenty more good hunting out there! of course. The strategy to-date of concentrating on big fishies has, I think, been effective and productive.

  93. Anne says:

    To those of you who deny women being made in the image of God.

    Okay congregation , let’s open our Bibles to Genesis 1: 26 and 27. KJV:

    Genesis 1 :26 And God said let us make man in Our own image, according to Our likeness. let THEM (male and female- who else would you suppose?) have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

    Genesis 1: 27
    God created man in His own image in the image of God he created him. MALE and FEMALE He created them. ( Psst- most of the time historians assigns one gender for both genders- that gender is usually male- esp fitting in the time of Moses

    Here is just one question for Dalrock:

    1. Are women created in the Image of God ?

  94. RedPillPaul says:

    @Anne

    Yes because they were taken from man and it does plainly state that male and female, He (God) created them.

    Woman is the glory of man, Man is the glory of God.

    So does this mean that woman is greater than man because the Bible plainly states that woman is the glory of man.

    If the answer is yes, with the same logic, wouldnt man be greater than God since it plainly states that man is the glory of man?

    Women are decieved easier than men. The Bible plainly states that as well. That is one of the reasons why women are to be in obedience to their men. Also the Bible stating that in Genesis 3 as a result to Eve’s curse/punishment

  95. RedPillPaul says:

    EDIT

    Man is the glory of God

  96. Spike says:

    What would a female teacher in a pastoral role do that a male wouldn’t? Would she not direct someone she cares about to the Word? Would she not recite Scripture?

    Isn’t this what Pastors have done for a millennium quite effectively without the need to resort to women?
    If there is any evidence that the modern Western woman is pampered and rendered fragile by feminism, it is this: reserving a rebellious streak that is sacrosanct, untouchable not just by Pastor or church but by God Himself.

  97. Swanny River says:

    I revisited this post and am so glad I did. There are so many great comments, except for the cowardly petulant one from Anne. The back and forth about the motivations for CBMW is humbling and enlightening. Humbling because I wasn’t even thinking about it during this series nor did when I first read the book many years ago. Enlightening because of the insights and because it helps get some distance from the heavy authority they carry in my church culture. We all do and know situations where we take up arms in a fight not our own, and I could believe that is what P and G did here. They didn’t have to defend God. It probably wasn’t a calling from God to reach these women for the kingdom but a desire to be relevant perhaps partly born of embarrassment because they also believe the frame of brutish men. I wonder if they ever told the mob, “we don’t have to defend God or the Bible, and the Bible says to direct the questions you asked us to your husbands and fathers.” There is a lot to unpack in Dalrock’s statement about this being the result of what they thought was a reasonable response. Since my pastor is talking to them soon, I’d like for him to ask them about looking anew at their origins.

  98. Anne says:

    @ Red pill Paul,
    still does not take away from the fact that the Bible specifically states that male and female were created in the image of God -do you really believe that woman was created as an afterthought? Is that really how God works ?after studying the Bible for many years I doubt that- God knows all- and I also doubt that God prefers male over female. Christ’s obvious love and respect women proved otherwise and His statement that “those who have seen Me have seen God – ” reinforces my belief that God loves both genders equally. Sometimes women even more as for the most part – women ( and children) are often the victims of those in power.- men. God hates oppressers- and your sex has a bad record of that. My advice to you would be to vomit up that Red Pill and truly seek God. This blog is poisonous. That being said I am dusting off my feet. Good luck to you though.

  99. Hank Flanders says:

    Anne

    …reinforces my belief that God loves both genders equally. Sometimes women even more…

    Which is it?

  100. She just tried to mind fuck you there Hank. Don’t listen to her. Men actually have a very good record of being non-oppressive towards women. We have all these laws, produced by men, for the protection of women. They were all created way back when…

    However, according to Anne, men have such a bad record that she has it on good authority, you know, direct from God, that he actually loves women more because they are just so oppressed, so unless you give up that reality pill, God is going to damn you to hell for not listening to Anne. Don’t you get it?!

    Women are to submit to their husbands, their husbands are to have authority over them. Anne is just another rebellious cunt who thinks she knows better, pay her no mind other than to keep on reminding her that she is a cunt.

    Anne, leave the blog, don’t come back, continue to believe your own cunt dribble but believe you me. You are wrong, in no uncertain terms, the reality of the world around us and the continued degeneration of all things good proves you to be wrong. The more power women are given, the more destructive life becomes, men are the ones building Civilisation, not women. You would do well to remember that. Now… kindly…. fuck off!

  101. JDG says:

    Anne –

    God hates oppressers- and your sex has a bad record of that….

    …This blog is poisonous.

    Your mind has been poisoned with feminism. If you think that women aren’t oppressors, you are deceived. If you think that women as a group have had it worse than men as a group at anytime / any place, even further deceived and ignorant of real history. If you think oppression is somehow counted as a worse sin than rebellion (the popular sin of the day, especially with women), you are deceived and biblically uninformed.

  102. Looking Glass says:

    @Anne:

    This is the part of the destruction of your stupidity that I point out that, since 1980, Women have willingly chosen to murder more of their children than all of the combat deaths in human history, combined. The murderous and oppressive sex is, very clear from any analytics, Women. That the Lord’s Grace is sufficient for someone like you, whose own heart harbors murderous intentions, is truly amazing.

    @Anyone that comes to this later:

    Anne is one of those wonderful examples of the things that happen around here. People get into high dudgeon that we’re lying or deluded about how things are. No, it’s not delusion, but the very clear Truth that the Lord laid out is His Word. Most curse themselves to never be able to get beyond their own assumptions about how the Lord should work.

  103. feeriker says:

    Again, guys, don’t feed the troll(ette). All your rebukes have done is feed her tingles and made her crotch soaking wet. She doesn’t deserve the pleasure of either one.

  104. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anne
    To those of you who deny women being made in the image of God.

    Lovely strawman you have created, dearie, but it’s still a logical fallacy.

  105. Boxer says:

    Dear Feeriker:

    Again, guys, don’t feed the troll(ette). All your rebukes have done is feed her tingles and made her crotch soaking wet. She doesn’t deserve the pleasure of either one.

    I find it funny how these fool women all sound identical to one another. If any of them had an ounce of self-awareness, they wouldn’t lampoon themselves this way. All the same, it’s nice to have a living example of the antithesis of the heroines of the bible. No woman in the text cursed their brothers, or sought to arrogate to herself the male position.

    Anne’s only contribution to the world is her service as living example of what a decent woman ought not be. Other than this she’s a useless cunt. Good riddance.

    Boxer

  106. theasdgamer says:

    @ Anne

    God hates oppressers- and your sex has a bad record of that

    And our sex has a wonderful record of fighting oppression, whereas your sex has shit.

    Men have far more range than women. We can be very noble and also very base.

    Men work in coal mines and do other hard labor. We bear the load in combat. Your sex does shit.

    Keep Hamstering!

  107. Hank Flanders says:

    feministhater

    She just tried to mind f*** you there Hank. Don’t listen to her.

    You give her credit for being aware her statements were contradictory. I give her no such credit.

  108. RedPillPaul says:

    But the troll is hungry. Poor wittle troll needs needs our attention. Its her slice of heaven on earth. We must give her her slice of heaven because her current course is hell bound.

    :sarcasm off:
    Here is some real love. Anne, Jesus rebuke you. You may know about Jesus but i dont think he knows you.

  109. RedPillPaul says:

    @Anne

    So many strawmen.

    Fact: woman was deceived. She desires to be a godess. She has the same sin and tempted by the same thing that lucifer was wanted. To be above God and replace him.

    Fact: God created lucifer and created him full of wisdom and beauty. He created him perfect and lucifer remained that way until the day that iniquity was found in him. You read yout Bible right? You should have come across what im referring to.

    You worship lucifer and follow in his thinking, feeling, rebellion…basically you follow in his ways then the ways of God’s word, in the way of Jesus.

    You are living in deception. Repent! You are full of envy, rebellion and the root of this, what you suffer the most from is pride, just like lucifer.

    Can you honestly say to yourself that Jesus knows you? So sure that you are not suffering and totally bought into lucifer’s deception? Are you mistaking lucifer’s light for the true light of Jesus?

    Out of love, i am telling you that you have been deceived and you genuinely want to be in that state because you really want the deception you are suffering from to be true.

    REPENT! What do you gain if you are a “goddess” as you walk this earth but forfeit your eternal soul to hell when you die?

    You claim to understand the word of God but you add on to it (just like eve. She added that if you touch the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, you will die)

    You are like the weak willed woman being decieved by all kinds of teaching but never understanding or coming to the truth.

    That is why the word of God have women under their men. Its for your own good.

    Your reply to what i state that is anything but humble acceptance and repentance is only additional proof of your pride and you being in utter deception

  110. Jim says:

    I find it funny how these fool women all sound identical to one another.

    Same here. It’s like they were manufactured on an assembly line. The feminist assembly line. The brainwashing is very strong with this little lady. I don’t argue with these silly girls I just laugh. Why? You can’t reason with them. All the fact,s logic, reason, and evidence means nothing to them. They emote. They don’t reason.

  111. feeriker says:

    Anne’s only contribution to the world is her service as living example of what a decent woman ought not be.

    Since such examples are so hyper-abundant that one would think that any woman with a scintilla of self-respect and ambition would aspire to being the polar opposite of the crowd. But yeah, lack of self-awareness, herd-think, etc. Die Gefühle über alles.

  112. Micah says:

    “…they also believe that it is borderline (if not outright) improper for a man to teach a woman Scripture.”

    Ironic, provided that they actually do believe this. Men are chastised all the time to “man up” and be the spiritual leader of the household – which we actually are supposed be, granted. But how can we if it is apparently improper for us to teach women scripture? This is yet more proof of my belief/observation that churches have much more of a feminist mindset than they would like to think. They are empowering women to have their cake and eat it too.

  113. Pingback: Who is she teaching? | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s