"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Sexism and Culture Deform the Masterpiece of God Called "An Adolescent Girl"

Yesterday I read a fascinating book entitled Reviving Ophelia, written by Mary Pipher, Ph.D, a clinical psychologist who lives in Lincoln, Nebraska. Mary is not an evangelical believer, but her insights into the conflict within the souls of adolescent girls are some of the most powerful I've seen. I've long believed that psychologists know all the right questions to ask but seldom have the right answers. Dr. Pipher seems to have found a measure of both. I personally think her book, though written in the mid-1990's, ought to be required reading for anyone who ministers the good news of Jesus Christ to girls from the ages of 11 to 18. All truth is from God, regardless of the secondary source from which you read it. Mary Pipher helps those who know Christ to understand the battle going on in the minds of young ladies who may not know Him. The following lengthy quotes from Reviving Ophelia convey some profound insight regarding adolescent girls, peer pressure and the sexualization of Western culture.

I realize that some evangelical conservatives who read Mary Pipher would prefer John Piper on the subject of adolescent girls and women. However, I think Mary Pipher comes closer to the biblical truth that God uniquely and majestically creates each young woman into a masterpiece of abilities, talents and gifts. Sin plays its part in destroying the image of God in the life of a woman, but Pipher makes a very good argument that sexism and Western cultural rituals have played an even greater role in deforming the uniqueness, character and self-perception of adolescent girls. Read on:

"Psychology has a long history of ignoring girls this age. Until recently adolescent girls haven't been studied by the academics, and they have long baffled therapists ...Simone de Beauvoir believed adolescence is when girls realize that men have the power and that their power comes from consenting to become submissive adored objects. Dr. Beauoir says, "Young girls slowly bury their childhood, put away their independent and imperious selves and submissivley enter adult existence." Adolescent girls experience a conflict between their autonomous selves and their need to be feminine, between their status as human beings and their vocation as females. Dr. Beauvior says, "Girls stop being and start seeming."

Girls become "female impersonators" who fit their whole selves into small, crowded spaces. Vibrant, confident girls become shy, doubting young women. Girls stop thinking, "Who am I? What do I want?" and start thinking, "What must I do to please others?"

Olive Schreiner wrote of her experiences as a young girl in The Story of the African Farm. "The world tells us what we are to be and shape us by the ends it sets before us. To men it says, work. To us it says, seem. The less a woman has in her head the lighter she is for carrying." She described the finishing school that she attended in this way: "It was a machine for condensing the soul into the smallest possible area. I have seen some souls so compressed that they would have filled a small thimble."

Adolescence is when girls experience social pressure to put aside their authentic selves and to display only a small portion of their gifts. This pressure disorients and depresses most girls. They sense the pressure to be someone they are not ... Parents know only too well that something is happening to their daughters. Calm, considerate daughters grow moody, demanding and distant. Girls who loved to talk are sullen and secretive. Girls who like to hug now bristle when touched. Mothers complain that they can do nothing right in the eyes of their daughters. Involved fathers bemoan their sudden banishment from their daughters' lives. But few parents realize how universal their experiences are. Their daughters are entering a new land, a dangerous place that parents can scarcely comprehend.

With puberty, girls face enormous cultural pressure to split into false selves. The pressure comes from schools, magazines, music, television, advertisements and movies. It comes from peers. Girls can be true to themselves and risk abandonment by their peers, or they can reject their true selves and be socially acceptable. Most girls choose to be socially accepted and split into two selves, one that is authentic and one that is culturally scripted (emphasis mine). In public they become who they are supposed to be ... While the rules for proper female behavior aren't clearly stated, the punishment for breaking them is harsh. Girls who speak frankly are labeled as bitches. Girls who are not attractive and skinny are scorned. The rules are reinforced by the visual images in soft- and hard-core pornography, by song lyrics, by casuual remarks, by criticism, by teasing and by jokes.

To totally accept the cultural definitions of feminity and conform to the pressures is to kill self. Girls who do this are the "Muffy's and "Barbie dolls" with hair and smiles in place and a terrible deadness underneath. They are the one who make me want to shout "Don't give up, fight back." Often girls who try to conform overshoot the mark. For example, girls with anexoria have tried too hard to be slender, feminine and perfect. They have become thin, shiny packages, outwardly carefully wrapped and inwardly a total muddle.

Girls have long been trained to be feminine and beautiful at considerable cost to their humanity. They have long been evaluated on the basis of appearance and caught in myriad double binds: achieve, but not too much; be polite, but be yourself; be feminine and adult; be aware of our cultural heritage, but don't comment on sexism. Another way to describe this femininity training is to call it false self-training. Girls are trained to be less than who they really are. They are trained to be what the culture wants of its young women, not what they themselves want to become.

America today is a girl-destroying place. Everywhere girls are encouraged to sacrifice their true selves. Their parents may fight to protect them, but their parents have limited power. Many girls lose contact with their true selves, and when they do, they become extraordinarily vulnerable to a culture that is all too happy to use them for its purposes.

Intelligent resistance keeps the true self alive." (From pages 22-23; 37-38; 44).

189 comments:

Lydia said...

We are studying 1 Samuel this week at home. We lingered on 1 Sam 16:7 and discussed at length what it means in every area of life. It is God we should want to please. Not humans.

We must drill truth into them early and let them know they must even test everthing they hear from any teacher using correct interpretation of the Word. As Zens says, Focus on Pentecost instead of the misinterpreted 1 Tim 2. And, as Carolyn Custis James says, we are to be Ezer warriors in a grand alliance.

Our daughters are hearing a very self conscious yet stifling message from the CBMW and Jon Eldridge types with the man elevating "roles" teaching.

BTW: Throw out your TV's. They are killing instruments of the souls of our daughters with the seemingly "Christian" Hannah Montana's out there. They have much higher thinking to do.

Pege' said...

Wade, Annika is 17, in her Sunday School class a few weeks ago Proverbs 31 was taught. Annika was very agitated because the lesson basically told her to prepare to be married and to have children is all a christian young woman needs to do.Puts her focus on boys and trying to get one. Any thing other than that purpose is to be discouraged. Now I am a BIG advocate for marriage and motherhood. Annika however, discerns the Lord calling her to higher education and possibly serving out country in the political realm. She may not be married for many many years or at all. She is content to follow the Lord as he leads her steps. My daughter Rebekah,24 is perusing a MA/PHD at OU in speech pathology because the Lord has lead her and burdened her heart to pursue this. She is content to serve as the Lord leads her.It is hard work and sacrifice but God has directed her steps and has provided for her every step of the way. Hannah,18 also have goals and dreams of possibly being a lawyer and serving the Lord in that capacity. My daughters love Christ are learning the word as they mature and have learned to follow Him.They have faith and dreams and gifts the Lord has given them to use in many areas.They work very hard at doing their best. Their focus is on God and what He wants them to do with their lives.It has been absolutely amazing to see each of them seek the Lords will and watch God direct their steps as He has also done for my son Nathan.Some consider my daughters to be misguided and rebellious. God knows their hearts. I will continue to encourage them to follow where the Lord leads them and pray for their success. Yes if you ask them, they want to get married and have families in Gods time. we as parents have never made marriage and children the focus of our childrens lives. We directed them to seek the Lord and He would guide them in the work/ministry he has for them to do. God has been faithful.I will enjoy seeing how the Lord will guide each one to use the gifts and talents He has uniquely given them for His glory ....and eagerly await grand kids hopefully some time in the future.

Kate Johnson said...

It always amazes me when Prov. 31 is only half taught. They leave out the part about her being a business woman supervising many people and that she makes decisions all on her own (even though she is married). There was something in my soul that hated the Prov. 31 woman, but that is because of the way it is taught. If we are going to teach scriptural models, we'd better be sure to teach the whole model. So it is both within the chuerch and within society that we destroy our young girls' image and worth.

Thy Peace said...

Dr. Beauvior says, "Girls stop being and start seeming."

Is this not true of some churches and some christians? Media [consultants] driven, publicity conscious and keeping up the image rather than being led by The Holy Spirit.

I came across this book in the 90's. This is based on Jungian techniques of therapy. I found the book to be very interesting. Women Who Run with the Wolves by Clarissa Pinkola Estes.

Darby Livingston said...

Oh for Heaven's sake. While I agree with you Wade that psychologists are good at asking questions, and not so good at answering them; I'm not certain this one is good at either.

Anonymous said...

Lydia,
What is exactly wrong with John Eldredge other than he teaches a proper view of manhood?

Darby Livingston said...

I don't see Eldridge preaching a proper view of manhood. I see him preaching an adolescent view of manhood... and more importantly, of God.

Lydia said...

"Lydia,
What is exactly wrong with John Eldredge other than he teaches a proper view of manhood? "

(Sigh) If you do not see what is wrong with Eldridge then there is not point. I have been down this road ad nauseum.

But if I remember correctly, even Darby sees the fairy tale problem with what Eldridge teaches.

BTW: Has Stasi gotten over her never ending depression yet still waiting in the Castle for John to come home and rescue his princess in her white billowing dress?

What is interesting is the Eldridge uses popular culture myths and that why he is so popular. It is more of the world in Christendom.

BTW: Are you suggesting that my parapalegic male friend cannot live a "proper life of manhood"?

Lydia said...

" see him preaching an adolescent view of manhood... and more importantly, of God."

Are you equating maleness as mapping to God. If that is true then it would mean I cannot strive to be Christlike because Christ was male in the flesh.

So, what "female" is my model for Christlikeness?

Mentanna said...

in the old testament, women saw barrenness as a curse. i believe the modern day equivalent of this curse for southern evangelical women is singleness. i was brought up to believe that i was created to be a wife and mother. that was my created purpose. i could aspire to nothing higher. so what does that do to a young impressionable girl? it makes getting a boyfriend her highest priority. we then become consumed with our looks, our weight, how we speak. even my dad told me to be smart but never to sound smarter than a man.

i think evangelical churches are just as much to blame as secular culture for the pressure put on girls. we give them one mold they have to fit into and then tell them they are sinning if they stray from that mold even slightly. and what of the women who have listened to their spiritual authorities and bought into the line of thought that says they have to get married and have kids to fulfill "God's high calling for women" (J. MacArthur) but never get married? they are the barren women of our time. they carry around shame and bitterness, feeling as if they failed somehow. some respond by turning away from God and the church all together.

how i long for the church to return to the central message of genesis that says we were both created in God's image, to know him and glorify him. if that is through marriage then great. if not, then great. both states are equally pleasing to him.

let's set our girls free to run after Him!

shadowspring said...

Very insightful to the world of adolescent girls. A young daughter from a patriarchal home schooling family wrote here:

http://www.quiveringdaughters.com/2010/03/why-should-i-care-guest-post-by.html

how she became an expert at hiding her true self, in order to appear to be the girl her parents wanted her to be.

So according to this psychologist, it is a common experience for all teen girls, the only difference being the definition of the ideal woman in your reality.

Thanks for attempting to understand the realities women/young girls face in this world. The very fact that you have read such a book encourages me.

Darby Livingston said...

1. Oh not at all. By preaching an adolescent view of God, I was referring to his open theistic views about God being a brave risk-taker, like he envisions the ideal man to be.

2. Why, the Most Holy Blessed Virgin Mary, of course. :)

Actually, I urge everyone, regardless of gender, to strive to be Christlike in character and worldview. God created them male and female. That wasn't a mistake on his part.

Wade Burleson said...

Darby,

I, unlike some, do not believe there is no value to professionally trained psychologists. I stand by my statement earlier that most ask good questions and few have any good answers. If we are going to give the good news of Jesus Christ to girls who need salvation, it would be wise to understand just exactly what it is they need delivered from.

Wade Burleson said...

Pege,

Wonderful comment regarding Annika. I think she is one whom culture will not be able to deface. She sounds like a strong young woman who knows who she is and will not be squeezed into a box.

Wade Burleson said...

Mentenna, Shadow Spring, Thy Peace and Lydia,

Great comments all. You have drawn some connections for me that I didn't orginally see.

Kay said...

Wade,
You've uncovered a gem with this book! It seems Pipher gets to the heart of the problems facing teenage girls and in effect every woman.

Pege,
I sympathize with you. It's as though 1 Cor.7 doesn't exist in some Christian's Bibles. It's as if Acts 21:9 isn't in there either. Don't they ever wonder why Philip's daughters weren't reprimanded? Or Philip himself for allowing such unbecoming conduct and not arranging hasty marriages for them to get them in their proper role??

Craig Dunning said...

"America today is a girl-destroying place."

Better said: "America today is a people-destroying place."

Darrell said...

When my wife was 9 years old she told her mom God had told her to go to Africa aas a missionary. she did high school, college, seminary, Africa with blinders on to follow His call. I met her while she was home leave in a vet clinic in Oklahoma. I loved her before I kniew her name and witnessed to my brothers that God had showed me the woman I would marry. He also told her. We have hae been maried almost 21 years.

She was a jock in high school and till holds records in basketball. she was a book worm...but nothing detered her from the call of God.

She made me promise to never try to get between her and God BEFORE WE WERE MARRIED. I recognized she was quite capable of running her own life and knowing/following His will in her life.

In converstion with my wife, I hear much of what Wade is talking about and also many of the (moms) remarks)

Deb (and God) changed me from the stereotypical southern redneck,... man in charge... to the man I had to be to marry one of His best.

Thank you Lord

Kay said...

Mentanna,
In many circles barreness is still seen as in practicality a curse. I know many infertile couples, yet it's the wives who mainly suffer the brunt of teaching like CBMW's and are made to feel "less than." Somehow, even when the infertility is the husband's, the men escape the constant barrage of teaching that would diminish them as "men." As long as they can "lead" something somewhere, they are up to par.

Anonymous said...

This blog is turning into a women's site. Any chance we could read about something else for a change?

Darrell said...

hey anon, this blg is a "Peoples site" led by a Godly man for pepople seek to be more like God and less like a culture (both SBC and worldly) gone crazy.

There are plenty of he-man sites to visit and spout off and be sarcstic. If you want I will send you a list of them and you can go there.

THANKS WADE FOR SUCH GREAT THOUGHTS.

Anonymous said...

"This blog is turning into a women's site. Any chance we could read about something else for a change?"

If it's "change" you want, stick around "women's sites". Women have been marginalized for far too long and treated as a mere auxiliary to the real world of men. It's long past time for the "other half" of the Body of Christ to escape its chains and start living.

Christiane said...

My daughter remembers her teenage years well.
She was privileged to attend a small Catholic prep school, and one of her teachers was Maria Breitinger, now of blessed memory, who had been a Holocaust survivor.
"Madame B" taught French to Jennifer for three years, and shared stories of her life with the students from time to time.
One year, my husband and I permitted Jennifer to go to Europe with a group of students from the school under the supervision of Mrs. Breitinger and another staff member.
For my daughter, age sixteen, this was an adventure that expanded her perceptions beyond the silly funny extravagant 'Jersey Girl' culture of her friends.

The school is closed now, as the bishop thought it too expensive to keep going, but there is a website and reunions are held. And there at the reunions, I am told, 'Madame B' is lovingly remembered by many of her former students.

What MIGHT have been the 'highlights' for my daughter's teen years:
getting to be a hair-model for shows, driving around in a Fiero, AND sometimes (secretly 'cause we did not know this) sneaking into New York City with a fake driver's license to go to the dance clubs (yikes);
all this fades, when she recalls her time spent traveling and learning about a world that is not always kind to innocent people. What was formative for my daughter was learning it from a Holocaust survivor, whose own stories and remembrances were a plea for tolerance and understanding.

My daughter thinks for herself.
She is capable and compassionate.

She is a volunteer, a professional person, extremely well-educated, and kindly towards many whom this world does not value highly.
I think Mrs. Breitinger might have been pleased with how my daughter has turned out.
We are.

So yes, turn off the televisions, and take your young daughters to the people and the places where they may learn what IS real, what IS important;
and how any Christian person can survive it, and transcend it.
And having been 'called', be ABLE to enter out into 'the world' without fear, to love and serve the Lord.

Phil said...

A problem that I see with Pipher’s column is her belief that femininity is a solely a cultural construction. She believes that femininity is not something a little girl is born with but something that she is squeezed into during adolescence.

I have three daughters and a son. My girls were from the womb feminine and very different from my son. Girls are being squeezed into something they are not and that is into men. Why do we as a church and culture despise femininity? God create men and women different. Why do we curse the differences? Why do we not embrace the beauty of womanhood and manhood? After all, to understand God in his fullness is to understand him as both male and female. If we tell our daughters they have to men are we not distorting the image of God in humanity.

Anonymous said...

Phil,

Your experience is common and typical, but not universal. Many girls are clearly not born with whatever is deemed "femininity", and many boys are not born with whatever is deemed "masculinity". And if a trait is not universal (has NO exceptions), it is not a necessary attribute.

So in fact the people who are trying to stuff others into molds are those insisting that ALL males must be this while ALL females must be that. I am quite confident that the supposed masculine and feminine traits of 1950s north America wouldn't go over well in quite a few other cultures.

How about we just let people be who they are and stop all this silly obsession with genitalia? Are we spiritual or fleshly?

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Hello Phil,

You wrote this observation:

"After all, to understand God in his fullness is to understand him as both male and female."

The rabbis have always understood your concept in this way:
"God, being infinite,
is comprised of ALL valued attributes that are to be found in this world
- including both the male and female characteristics."


We struggle to 'imagine' the 'infinite' and we cannot.
So we settle for what we can understand, in our finite minds.
Somehow, we get it wrong when we decide that there is nothing more to know.

The rabbis understand that there exists a connection of the characteristics of the Infinite Creator, to what can be found mirrored in ALL of His Creation.

For Christians, the Incarnation has given as close a look at the Infinite Lord of Creation as we, in our human condition, have been allowed to see.
It is said, that in Christ, we may look upon the Face of God,
and live.

But still . . .
our smugness at thinking we know IT ALL, about the characteristics of our Infinite Creator,
that proud smugness mirrors to us our own inability to understand our human finite limitations in this place where we see as through a glass darkly.

Anonymous said...

It might be helpful to make a chart of male and female traits. Let's make lists of all that is EXCLUSIVELY masculine, and all that is EXCLUSIVELY feminine. Then we will all know once for all whether we're trying to make men into women or women into men.

I'll start with the obvious:

MASCULINE: ability to inseminate females

FEMININE: ability to incubate and give birth

What else can be added? Don't be shy, this is for posterity.

Darby Livingston said...

Here's the heartbreaking thing about this issue: the more traditionally feminine traits are scorned by women, the more feminine the men become. Rather than analyze one person's psychology of adolescent girls, maybe we should figure out why adult men never grow up and live in perpetual adolescence.

Anonymous said...

Lydia,
You like many others seem advocate a continuing feminization of the Gospel and Christianity. Many men continue to leave the church because they grow tired of hearing the message of Christ preached as though it is nothing more than being in touch with your feminine side. Eldredge, while over the top with some of his stuff, tries to rediscover that there is a masculine and adventurous aspect to Christianity. Christianity is not and should not be portrayed as a feminine religion however that is what it has become to so many.
Yes, I agree that this blog borders on being a women's blog because half of the time that is all that gets discussed. Women have an irreplaceable place in the church. There is no question about that. However, they are not the church and need to learn that they like men and youth and senior adults and children etc...should fit in their place. Please, let us stop feminizing the Gospel and the church. It's killing us.

Anonymous said...

"the more traditionally feminine traits are scorned by women, the more feminine the men become."

Baloney.

"Christianity is not and should not be portrayed as a feminine religion "

So you think the Bride of Christ should be MANLY.

Baloney.

Let the insecure males have their lodge or whatever they want to call it; the rest of us will follow Jesus.

Kay said...

Anonymous@Thu Sep 30, 12:57:00 PM 2010,

What exactly do mean by "being in touch with your feminine side?"

What exactly does "the feminine side" consist of that you are so opposed to?

And please explain why these contents are so damaging to the Church?

Darby Livingston said...

"So you think the Bride of Christ should be MANLY."

Are you serious? That is hilarious. So you do know the difference between men and women, at least enough to know the role of a bride and the role of a groom. Why not just embrace it?

Anonymous said...

"Are you serious? That is hilarious. So you do know the difference between men and women, at least enough to know the role of a bride and the role of a groom. Why not just embrace it?"

Do YOU know whether a bride is the male or the female? Seriously, do you? Because you seem to think the BRIDE of Christ is too feminine. You do know that the church is the BRIDE, right? So should the BRIDE be more manly?

Darby Livingston said...

Good grief. So in your attempt to correct man's chauvinistic domination of women, you're going to dismiss masculinity entirely. Thank you for showing the end result of your way of thinking.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Phil: Women are different just like men are. We are like snowflakes. What is your definition of feminine? I like playing baseball, soccer, fishing, hiking, yet I like to wear make up, fix my hair. I also like to discuss deep subjects. Study theology and what the Bible says. I don't like fluff lessons in SS, I like deep, thinking, study. I like the company of women and I like the company of my husband. I have male and female friends. I just don't think you can put women in a mold and say that is what femininity is. We are all different with different like and dislikes, looks, etc. Just like men are different from each other.

Anonymous said...

"Good grief. So in your attempt to correct man's chauvinistic domination of women, you're going to dismiss masculinity entirely. Thank you for showing the end result of your way of thinking."

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

Unless the BRIDE is dominated by masculinity, then masculinity is entirely dismissed????? Wow.

Let me try and explain this again:

The problem with the church is NOT that it's too feminine; that's ridiculous because it makes the BRIDE not manly enough. The problem is that it's too masculine; it's run by men, and those men decree what is manly and what is not. And it follows the world's definition of manly: combative, aggressive, eager for conquest and success, "wild at heart", controlling...

Tell me, is it only men who have courage? Can confront heresy? Can teach the Word? Can be aggressive when needed, and nurturing when needed? Are the fruit of the Spirit too feminine? After all, "love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control" all sound really feminine, don't they? Where is aggression or leadership, I don't see them listed there.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Darby: I don't agree. Men aren't becoming feminine. That is a misnomer. Women and men should always be in partnership with each other not try to one up each other. Look at the story of the beginning in Genesis. It was never God's design that men and women be at odds with each other or one be over the other, not even a man. Sin did that. God's design is that men and women in Christ are equal. We don't need a man to lead us, we need a life partner who will build a life with us together. Equal. Treasure us yes. But we aren't not fragile little lillies. And what happens when a husband dies. It used to be some women were lost. Or what if divorce happens. There was a time when I was in Legal Secretary school that so many women were the age I am now, having to learn a skill to make a living because their husbands had left them. They were lost as their whole world was shattered. Most had not worked in 30 plus years. It was tragic. This was in the late 70's and it was happening in large numbers. 1/4 of my class were women whose husbands had left them for a younger woman.

DEE said...

When I lived in Dallas, the school that my children attended, Trinity Christian Academy, had all of the middle school teachers read this book and discuss the issues raised by the author. I decided to read the book for myself, to better understand what my daughters, about to enter middle school, might experience.

One of the most important points of this book (at least in my opinion) is that girls tend to stuff their dreams and passions in order to fit into their culture which might emphasize popularity. Said girl leaders then disparage girls who do not conform. So girls, who used to love ballet or science now stuff their passions in order to fit into their stifling subculture.

I made it a point to pray with my girls every evening that they would discover their gifts and remember their talents and passions were given to them by their Creator and to never, ever "stuff" their dreams.

Although the author is a not a Christian, she had a profound impact on how I viewed and encouraged my daughters.

Thank you for reminding me of this great book.

Anonymous said...

Darrell,

Put the sites up so we have some good choices. Constantly hearing about women and their roles and their persecutions is getting old.

Anonymous said...

"Put the sites up so we have some good choices. Constantly hearing about women and their roles and their persecutions is getting old."

Sounds eerily familiar, like:
"Constantly hearing about blacks and their roles and their persecutions is getting old."

Injustice isn't a big concern anymore, is it. Move on, nothing to see here.

Anonymous said...

Luke 18
1 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.'
4 "For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, 'Even though I don't fear God or care what people think, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually come and attack me!' "

6 And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

Anonymous said...

For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

chaidrinkingfool said...

This comment pertains not only to women, but also to men. Things that affect the entire human race are often sidelined or dismissed as "women's issues", meaning, "We don't have to think about this: It does not affect us." But it does.

And even if it did not, Hebrews 13:3 calls us to empathize with others: "Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering."

I do not see evidence in Genesis of God dividing God's traits up between the man and the woman. I do not see in scripture lists of which of God's traits he placed in women, and which in men. The idea that particular traits/qualities are "masculine" and some are "feminine", therefore, is not found in scripture.

Male and female humans were both made in the image of God (not each in *half* the image of God), and both have human traits. Various cultures around the world have labeled some traits "masculine" and some "feminine", and it's amusing to note when what's considered "feminine" in U.S. values is considered a "masculine" trait elsewhere, and vice versa. :-)

Having come to Christ rather late in life, and having been a feminist since before then, the most disappointing thing about the church, for me, is the way that it mirrors the secular culture in terms of gender roles and trying to fit people in little boxes. Only it's worse in the church because God is given the credit....

Christiane said...

Hi DARBY,

you wrote this:
"So you do know the difference between men and women, at least enough to know the role of a bride and the role of a groom. Why not just embrace it?"

Well, Darby, there is THIS to consider:

1 Corinthians 7: 1-7

Directions concerning Marriage

7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is well for a man not to touch a woman.’
2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6 This I say by way of concession, not of command.
7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. "


The Apostolic teachings reflect mutual obligation of spouses to respect one another's marital rights. The whole idea of a blessed Christian marriage is that Christ is the Authority in that union.

If you continue to read the teaching into verse seven, you find these words:
". . But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. "
Notice how closely these words mirror the biblical descriptions of the Body of Christ, where the members each bring their own gifts to share with one another and to build up their union, with Christ at the head.

The language in verse seven is not a coincidence. It is very telling.

The connections are shown between:

A. the marriage union model (as the two becoming 'one flesh' under the Authority of Christ as the Lord of Life);
and
B. the descriptions of the Body of Christ (we are 'in Him' made one).

The Authority in each model resides in Lord Christ.

Lydia said...

Good grief. So in your attempt to correct man's chauvinistic domination of women, you're going to dismiss masculinity entirely. Thank you for showing the end result of your way of thinking.

Thu Sep 30, 01:28:00 PM 2010

Darby, How would you counsel my parapalegic male friend to be more masculine? How would you define that for him?

Lydia said...

"You like many others seem advocate a continuing feminization of the Gospel and Christianity"

I don't believe in either. I think males and females make babies. Other than that, I am not sure what you are talking about.

How does one feminize the Gospel? How does one make it more masculine?

Are you speaking or marketing it to a specific group? Is that what this refers to? make it more attractive to a section of the population by appealing to gender?

Perhaps you could explain to me what you mean.

Darby Livingston said...

Lydia,

You actually believe the only difference between male and female is genitalia? That's what your comprehensive knowledge of Scripture (I mean that sincerely) leads you to believe?

Anonymous said...

(Still waiting for this list to be completed, with scripture references please...)
-------------------

It might be helpful to make a chart of male and female traits. Let's make lists of all that is EXCLUSIVELY masculine, and all that is EXCLUSIVELY feminine. Then we will all know once for all whether we're trying to make men into women or women into men.

I'll start with the obvious:

MASCULINE: ability to inseminate females

FEMININE: ability to incubate and give birth

What else can be added? Don't be shy, this is for posterity.

Thu Sep 30, 12:36:00 PM 2010

JR said...

I haven't read the book by Pipher, but this book by Dr. Meg Meeker is wonderful, and probably a little less controversial:

http://amzn.to/cuWd4i

Darrell said...

when I said "There are plenty of he-man sites to visit and spout off and be sarcstic." my meaninng is Blog sites. seems, once again, you missed the point.

I would say that if you go to any site that discuses sherry klouda and her treatment and read all the remarks by supposedly godly men, who supported the ungodly way she was treated and follow the trail to these supposed godly mens blogs or websites, you will find enough male sarcistic remarks to keep you busy for years.

The scripture says we will "give account for every word we speak." Seems to me you can judge a man's fear of the Lord by the words he speaks and I dont think attacking, slanderous, half truth, sarcistic words are gonna get the so called "rightous" very far with the Judge.

My wife is a better preacher, teacher, human and child of the king than most of thos ya-hoos and has preached and taught Jesus on 3 continents in many countries and in jungles. Those that she taught of Jesus that gave their life to Jesus, who saved them?

Sure wasn't the ones who approve of attacking everyone they disagree with.

Great post Wade.

Lydia said...

You actually believe the only difference between male and female is genitalia? That's what your comprehensive knowledge of Scripture (I mean that sincerely) leads you to believe?

Thu Sep 30, 04:03:00 PM 2010

Perhaps you could show me the pre- fall differences besides biological that are specific to the sexes. Both are to have dominion. Both are to be a "one flesh union".

What we see after the fall is the sin of patriarchy that God predicted in Gen 3. And Eve is as much to blame for it as Adam. She "turned" (teshuqa) to Adam instead of God.

We are NOW spiritual beings in Christ. And that transcends gender. Are you suggesting there is a female way to be saved and sanctified that is different than the male way?

How could such a concept be anything but a work of salvation? A pink and blue Christianity?


Again I ask: How would you counsel my parapalegic male friend to be more masculine? How would you define that for him?

Darby Livingston said...

"How would you counsel my parapalegic male friend to be more masculine?"

Not a very fair question, Lydia, arguing the norm from the extreme. Are you suggesting that Paul's counsel to husbands in Ephesians don't apply to him because of his condition? Naturally there are limitations to practically living out a normal life at all. So what?

I wouldn't counsel a bedridden woman keep a good home. Does that mean Paul's counsel to women in Titus 2 is irrelevant for everyone now?

I wouldn't expect a bedridden man to stand in a pulpit and preach every week. Does that mean there's no proper qualifications and duties for a preacher?

phil said...

I am wondering if I understand the majority opinion. The idea of male and female is simply a cultural constructed reality. We live in the a world and a church where the appropiate understanding of gender is not pink and blue but gray. Adam did not need a helpmate he just needed a buddy. Help to understand if I am wrong, does not this line of argument evidentily lead to a point where we have little grounds to argue against homosexuality.

Darby Livingston said...

It's all a matter of plumbing Phil. Everything else is up for grabs.

Anonymous said...

"The idea of male and female is simply a cultural constructed reality."

Technically, it's not "male and female" that's a culteral construction, but "manhood and womanhood" or "masculinity and femininity". It's a critical distinction. After all, male and female can be told at birth.

"Adam did not need a helpmate he just needed a buddy."

Scripture does NOT say "helpmeet", as if Eve was a secretary or underling. It says "help suitable", and "ezer kenegdo", which is an equal ally. But of course this ally had to be female in order to perpetuate the human race. Anything else is adding to scripture.

"Help to understand if I am wrong, does not this line of argument evidentily lead to a point where we have little grounds to argue against homosexuality."

Ah, the old "slippery slope" fallacy. Let me ask you this: if two boys are identical twins, is one unnecessary? Can't people have worth without over-emphasizing their gender? Here's the main rebuttal for this one: FEMALENESS IS NOT A SIN, whereas homosexuality is.

Darby Livingston said...
"It's all a matter of plumbing Phil. Everything else is up for grabs."

Show us the scripture that says ALL women WITHOUT EXCEPTION are this, while ALL men WITHOUT EXCEPTION are that. If there are any exceptions, it isn't an aspect of essence. It's that simple.

Darby Livingston said...

"FEMALENESS IS NOT A SIN,"

Right on!

But feminism is.

chaidrinkingfool said...

Have I offended someone? I wonder why the content of my posts seems to not make it into discussions, here.

Thank you.

Phil said...

So since creation male and female distinctions have been a result of the fall. So finally after 2000 years of church history we have been enlighted to such a higher level to abolish gender entirely. Is this a result of our Bible changing or us changing with our culture? What has changed?

Wade Burleson said...

Phil,

Gender has not been abolished. The belief in male superiority and female subordination is a result of the fall. Christ reverses and the curse in the New Covenant and brings an equality to men and women that culture is finally catching up with.

Darby Livingston said...

Gender distinctions beyond plumbing are sinful Phil. Instead of fighting the notion, maybe we should get on the bandwagon, stop providing for our families and live like the average 37 year old adolescent man who plays video games all day in his mom's basement before going out for one night stands with the culture's enlightened females.

Darby Livingston said...

"The belief in male superiority and female subordination is a result of the fall."

Wade, is your mixing of two separate concepts in the above sentence intentional? Male superiority, if taken as "man is better than woman" is not necessarily a complementarian position and certainly is not biblical. But female subordination is certainly a NT concept. You know better than this.

Anonymous said...

In truth? I know someone who has provided financially for his family for years--he and his wife are now grandparents--whom I find immature in many ways.

Making money and being responsible with it do not alone make a mature human being.

I believe it is likely that this man would now be more mature if he truly believed his wife were his equal. He then would have had to have, throughout their marriage, given consideration her opinions, thoughts, and ideas. To have stuck with discussions, instead of being able to "call time" and declare victory, regardless of how politely he may have done so. For the record, I believe the woman is also lacking in maturity for having to try to fit into the follower's role in her marriage (and the human baggage that comes along with that).

Darby Livingston said...

"For the record, I believe the woman is also lacking in maturity for having to try to fit into the follower's role in her marriage (and the human baggage that comes along with that)."

I agree. Which is why I'm urging all fellow commenters on this blog to embrace the mature position of liberation from the tyranny of government (and the human baggage that comes along with that). After all, in the New Covenant, male and female are finally completely equal. It's about time the government get with the program of equality as well.

Phil said...

Wade,

So why has feminism been lead by culture instead of the church. Has the church been wrong on its teaching for all this time? Is it not hard to point your finger at all those who have preceded us and tell them they were wrong?

To be honest it would seem more likely that we are simply conforming to culture.

Wade Burleson said...

Darby,

"Wade, is your mixing of two separate concepts in the above sentence intentional? Male superiority, if taken as "man is better than woman" is not necessarily a complementarian position and certainly is not biblical. But female subordination is certainly a NT concept. You know better than this."

No, it is not a mixing of concepts--it is a restatement of the same thing.

Superiority comes from "superior" and the traditional complementarian position holds that men have an inherent superior "rank" (or authority) to women, which requires "subordination" of the woman to man because of his superior(ity) rank.

Ask any complementarian "why" the wife is to "submit" to her husband and he will say that "submit" or "subject" in Ephesians 5 is the Greek word "hupatasso" which is always used to refer to the subjection of one to another of superior rank, as in the military.

I am saying that the "be subject TO ONE ANOTHER" in Ephesians 5:21 is the New Covenant commandmant of Christ that every believer is to see everyone else as superior to himself (male or female).

The concept of the superiority of males and subordination of females state the same principle from simply two different viewpoints.

Wade Burleson said...

Phil,

"Has the church been wrong on its teaching for all this time?"

Just as the church was wrong on the issue of slavery, the church has been wrong, beginning about 300 AD, with the emphasis of inherent superiority of males in terms of authority and the subjection of females to male authority.

The New Testament church got it right.

Anonymous said...

"FEMALENESS IS NOT A SIN,"

Right on!

But feminism is."

Show me the scripture that defines "feminism" and classifies it as a sin.

"So why has feminism been lead by culture instead of the church. Has the church been wrong on its teaching for all this time? Is it not hard to point your finger at all those who have preceded us and tell them they were wrong?

To be honest it would seem more likely that we are simply conforming to culture."

Again, what is "feminism"? And since history shows that homosexuality has traditionally been prevalent in very patriarchal societies (even in Islamic-ruled countries today), then it is patriarchy that conforms to culture. The equality of females is a very counter-cultural thing.

And yes, churches have been wrong about quite a few things, for quite a long time. Infant baptism, anyone? Indulgences? Divine right of kings? Treating the "bishop" as The Lord even before Constantine? Tithing for Christians? The "senior pastor"? It's a long list.

Wade Burleson said...

Chaidringfool,

"Have I offended someone? I wonder why the content of my posts seems to not make it into discussions, here."



I don't delete anyone except for vulgarity. I frankly have little time to monitor the comment section and don't even use moderation. If your comments are not appearing they may be caught in Blogger's new SPAM filter. I'm sorry and see what I can do about it.



Have I offended someone? I wonder why the content of my posts seems to not make it into discussions, here.

Phil said...

The complementary position does not teach that one is greater then the other. At least how I understand it. There is a difference in function but to say one is superior is wrong. We would never say that God the father is superior to God the Son.

Darby Livingston said...

Wade,

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your biblical point concerning mutual submission. However, as a comp, I must say I do not think women are inherently subordinate to men. IOW, women have no obligation to submit themselves to men in general. A man can't walk down the street, tell the nearest woman to tie his shoe and expect she has an obligation to comply. Who's arguing for that? Yet that's the way you guys are suggesting comps view the world.

Men are not of a higher rank than women. Period.

Wade Burleson said...

Phil,

Is a Colonel superior to a Lieutenant? Is a General superior to a Colonel?

Superiority refers to "rank" or "authority," and complementarianism teaches that men outrank women--or more precisely, that men are "superior" in authority to women, because God made men that way.

Therefore, women are to "submit" to the God-given authority of their husbands (or pastors) who are always male.

And, don't look know, but this concept of "submission" to a higher authority is being passed off to Jesus Christ, who according to some, is "eternally subordinate to the Father" meaning, eternally in subjection to the authority of the Father.

Eternally subordination of the Son was ruled heresy hundreds of years ago, but its making a comeback to justify the subordination of women to men.

I say Jesus Christ is equally and eternally God with the Father and the Spirit.

So too, women are eternally equally and eternally of the same authority and rank as men.

Wade Burleson said...

Darby,

"Men are not of a higher rank than women. Period."

You are taking a position that is opposite of traditional complementarianism.

Frankly, you are a functional egalitarian.

Welcome.

Wade Burleson said...

Off for the evening.

Enjoyed the discussion.

Phil said...

So how does one handle Eph. 5 and other such passages?

Darby Livingston said...

Wade,

So be it. I'd like to think I'm taking the biblical position. I admit that I shake my head at some of the things coming out of CBMW, as much as the writings of a David Gushee.

Anonymous said...

The issue about equality comes from the comp catchphrase "equal in essence, unequal in role". This is the same argument as "separate but equal", where whites would say blacks were their equals but they had a role to play, and it was God's natural order for them to follow and not lead, to do the support work in society.

CBWM et al still try this with women. They say that the unilateral submission by a wife to her husband doesn't make her of less worth, but this is just semantics. If someone is permanently subordinate to another on the basis of genetics, that subordinate is of lesser worth as a person.

Gal. 3:28 is argued to only be talking about who can be saved, but even if the context is ignored, the verse itself refutes this, for it's about how those who are already in Christ relate to each other, not how to become in Christ. Jesus came to reverse the Fall, such that all who are in Him are one Body, one substance. There can be no hierarchy in this Body, any more than the hand can say to the eye, "I have no need of you"... or in the case of comp argument, "I am the boss of you".

Wade Burleson said...

Phil,

So how does one handle Eph. 5 and other such passages?

Great question: Call my secretary Barbara at 580-237-0602 and we will send you, free of charge, a tape of Wednesday night's Bible study where one of our pastors took the traditional complementarian viewpoint and exegeted Ephesians 5. I exegeted the same passage based upon the equality of both males and females in the church of Jesus Christ and how "mutual submission" works itself out in the home and the church.

Wade Burleson said...

I must go! Seriously!

Smiling. Everyone have a great evening.

Pastor Steve said...

Thanks Wade. Your comments are insightful and helpful.

chaidrinkingfool said...

Mr. Burleson,
Thank you. There is no need to check your spam filter on my account. I am sorry for the confusion.

What I mean is that I post what I believe to be relevant observations, yet the conversation seems to happen around me, without my points being directly addressed. :-) My comments are indeed showing up.
Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Hey chaidrinkingfool, I know exactly what you mean. I'm sad this happens to you, but happy it doesn't just happen to me! :-)

I stopped posting here under a name a long time ago and things improved somewhat, but I think that in any blog there's the "in crowd" whose comments get the most attention.

I'm encouraged to know now that only vulgarity will get a comment deleted, but since anon commenting is working so well I think I'll stick with that.

But don't worry, it isn't you or what you're saying. I've seen some pretty awful things get said around here, and nothing you said even comes close to being that bad.

I happen to like your comments, BTW. ;-)

Darby Livingston said...

"If someone is permanently subordinate to another on the basis of genetics, that subordinate is of lesser worth as a person."

So a 25 year old Christian man or woman in Cuba is of lesser worth than Castro? Really? Or is he or she not permanently subordinate?

Darby Livingston said...

Chaidrinking fool,

Sorry you felt neglected. Would you like me to agree with you or disagree? :)

Anonymous said...

Phill, it you think all girls are born 'feminine' I'd like to introduce you to my 8 year old who does not have a girly bone in her body....nor did I at that age for that matter.

I've worked with preschoolers for half my life and I can fully assure you that-absent outside conditioning- little boys happily play with dolls and frilly dress up clothes while little girls happily play with dinosaurs, trucks and dirt.

Femininity IS, in fact, a social construct and what is 'feminine' varies from culture to culture.

I'd also like to point out that one does not have to be all into ribbons and lace to be 'feminine.' We 'non girly girls' do not despise femininity....we just want to be appreciated for the fact that we have brains and are free agents of our own lives.

~Robin (PW bonked out again)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous above me,

Your comment is pretty classless.

In my experience, those who anonymously pout about others and their "awful" comments are the ones usually making horrible comments about others themselves.

Just sayin.

Anonymous said...

ANNON.....exclusively feminine traits:

~Picking socks off of the floor
~Putting cup IN dishwasher instead of on the counter


oh, wait, we aren't being sarcastic??? ;P

Anonymous said...

"So a 25 year old Christian man or woman in Cuba is of lesser worth than Castro? Really? Or is he or she not permanently subordinate?"

What on earth are you talking about?

This is about comp teachings. THEY say that a woman is permanently subordinate to a man, just because she's a woman. THEY teach that. I'm only pointing out how ridiculous that is.

This is NOT about government, where even then a person can move to another country if they want. But can a woman escape her femaleness? No. It's a PERMANENT and INTRINSIC quality. So for any woman to be PERMANENTLY subordinate to a man for no reason but her femaleness, is to make her of LESSER WORTH.

I give up. Not on injustice, but on trying to carry on a conversation with any comp. It just isn't possible.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Anonymous above me,

Your comment is pretty classless.

In my experience, those who anonymously pout about others and their "awful" comments are the ones usually making horrible comments about others themselves.

Just sayin.

Thu Sep 30, 07:45:00 PM 2010


Now THAT'S funny! (and ironic)
:-) :-) :-)

Darby Livingston said...

No anonymous (I hope it's okay to call you that), you are actually putting words in the mouth of comps. I am one. Where have I said what you're accusing me of? So if I haven't said what you're accusing me of, why not interact with what I've actually said numerous times - wives are to be subject to their own husbands. I've never said women are to be subject to men.

Darby Livingston said...

On another note, there's so much doggone anonymous commenting on this crazy blog, I've lost track of which anonymous I'm actually not talking to. :)

Anonymous said...

Darby,

Femiminism is a sin? Uh, have you told this little tid- bit to Jesus? He was a feminist, you know.

Methinks that anyone who says such things has no clue what things were like for women before we got all 'uppity' and demanded our rights. Or maybe they do and want us back under such horrid conditions...

~Robin who is growing increasingly frustrated with this dang computer that won't keep her logged into anything.....

Lydia said...

"Not a very fair question, Lydia, arguing the norm from the extreme. Are you suggesting that Paul's counsel to husbands in Ephesians don't apply to him because of his condition? Naturally there are limitations to practically living out a normal life at all. So what?
"

It means a lot to him. He was a staunch comp before his accident. They lived the pink and blue Christianity to a perfect T.

Now, she is the one playing the masculinist "role" in their family. No comps know what to tell them except taht bad things happen and they cannot live out the roles that God intended for each of them.

Isn't that lovely? (sarcasm)


Besides, I do not agree with your interpretation of Eph 5 which always seems to leave out vs 21. :o)

"FEMALENESS IS NOT A SIN,"

Right on!

But feminism is."

Feminism is a sin but being feminine is not? So, when I vote I am sinning? Because "feminists" lobbied for the vote when they had been told to 'know their proper role'.

How come Deborah was not accused of leading to more homosexuality in Israel? :o)

Lydia said...

"So since creation male and female distinctions have been a result of the fall. So finally after 2000 years of church history we have been enlighted to such a higher level to abolish gender entirely"

Who is abolishing gender? Specific gender roles that are non biological: YES!

Phil, women have been told that there are specific gender roles for them in the NC. Would you please give me the list that is for all the women for all time?

Perhaps you can start with 1 Tim 2 and tell me with a "plain reading of scripture" that I must have children to be saved. That is what is says! (But that is not what it means just as more of your interpretations that put "believing" women under a human authority (instead of Christ) do not mean what you claim they mean for believing women who have freedom in Christ. And we have the same Holy Spirit who is NOT her human husband)

Darby Livingston said...

Lydia,

I hope you know how great it is to actually be able to use a name to start a comment. I wouldn't say that to your friend or his wife, as I'm not one who believes that women can't work outside the home. My wife played shortstop in college, ran a pizza joint, has been a stay at home mom to our (agreed upon) five kids, plays guitar in a classic rock band, and is preparing to teach elementary school.

As far as Eph. 5, I believe whole-heartedly in mutual submission - I submit to my wife by lovingly leading our family, and she submits to me by lovingly submitting to my loving leading. Whole lot of submitting going on.

Lydia said...

"The complementary position does not teach that one is greater then the other. At least how I understand it. There is a difference in function but to say one is superior is wrong. We would never say that God the father is superior to God the Son."

Phil, The "functions" are unequal. That is the 'bait and switch' with the Orwellian term: Complimentarian. It is not that different from the seperate but equal tried years ago.

If the functions have a hierarchy then there IS a hierarchy. The bait and switch has worked well for quite a while until people started studying on their own.

IN CHRIST...there is no male for female. You think Paul was suggesting homosexuality? Seriously! Can we stop with that silliness? I am a fervant believer that homosexuality is a sin.

I also love men. But there is no pink and blue way to salvation.

Anonymous said...

SUGGESTION FOR ANONYMOUS COMMENTS:

Sign a name....any name...makes things much easier when responding and trying to keep up.

~Robin

Darby Livingston said...

Robin, great idea. It's not that we want to track you down on Google. It's just to avoid confusion. And I couldn't care less if your name is Robin or not. In fact, I think it's appropriate for this post that you picked such an androgynous name.

Lydia said...

"If someone is permanently subordinate to another on the basis of genetics, that subordinate is of lesser worth as a person."

So a 25 year old Christian man or woman in Cuba is of lesser worth than Castro? Really? Or is he or she not permanently subordinate?

Thu Sep 30, 07:41:00 PM 2010

Darby, that is the "world" system. We are, I hope, only speaking of the Body and Marriage for believers.

I must obey the laws of my government and my boss (customers) in the civil realm unless it wants to be disobey God. That is the way it works. It is the world's system.

Why are we attempting to bring the 'Gentile lord it over' system of "chain of being" to the Body or marriage of believers?

Do you remember how angry God was when Israel asked for king? He was their king. Jesus Christ is my authority and Leader. He sent the Holy spirit to dwell in both men and women believers. Why do women need an earthly spiritual mediator?

Darby Livingston said...

Lydia,

Only because Peter lumps them all together in 1 Pet 3: citizens/gov't, slave/master, wives/husbands.

Darby Livingston said...

Lydia,

The above comment is a response to your question as to why I brought gov't into it.

As to your last question, you have one Mediator between God and you, the man Christ Jesus. And he is enough. I don't buy into the whole man is the priest of his household stuff.

Anonymous said...

"Only because Peter lumps them all together in 1 Pet 3: citizens/gov't, slave/master, wives/husbands."

Are you actually saying that Peter's instructions on how believers are to get along in society, that Jesus' NOT SO AMONG YOU doesn't apply in the Body of Christ??

Anon TK421

Anonymous said...

Darby, Robin is my real name- and I am a woman, are you seriously suggesting there might have been an issue if I signed with an obvious woman's name?

Darby Livingston said...

Anon TK421,

No. All I'm saying is that if we're going to assume that submitting oneself to another for the sake of order in this present evil age is synonymous with being essentially inferior, then every citizen must be essentially inferior to their government. But Peter lumped several kinds of "lead/submit" situations together in 1 Peter 3.

chaidrinkingfool said...

Darby,
Thank you. I appreciate your sense of humor--I like to grin.

It matters not whether or not you agree with what I post: It would be nice to know that someone is considering what I am considering. Eh, nice, but not necessary.

You mention in response to one "anonymous":

"For the record, I believe the woman is also lacking in maturity for having to try to fit into the follower's role in her marriage (and the human baggage that comes along with that)."--anonymous

"I agree. Which is why I'm urging all fellow commenters on this blog to embrace the mature position of liberation from the tyranny of government (and the human baggage that comes along with that). After all, in the New Covenant, male and female are finally completely equal. It's about time the government get with the program of equality as well." --Darby

Are you comparing equality in the marriage relationship to anarchy? I'd like to believe that the covenantal marriage relationship is unique and can be compared in only very, very limited ways to other sorts of human relationships.

What instructions are given in scripture for governments and government officials?
Did God institute government? If so, when, and what form did it take?

Though the government does make laws and regulations that govern my actions in certain ways, the power of a husband over a wife is all-encompassing. Unlike the power of a government. In the United States, at least. FWIW, I'm not interested in starting a political discussion. :-)

Comparing the relationship between a husband and a wife to a type of business structure is another example I've seen, and I believe that one also short-changes the marriage relationship.

The marriage relationship is to be just that: a *relationship*. NOT an organization.

Anonymous said...

"All I'm saying is that if we're going to assume that submitting oneself to another for the sake of order in this present evil age is synonymous with being essentially inferior..."

You're missing the key ingredient: permanence based on genetics. Government only extends to its citizens, who can move to another country if they want. And government is not claiming rule over people based on their genetics.

To repeat: if anyone is to be subservient to another PERMANENTLY because of their GENETICS ALONE, they are being treated as of LESSER WORTH.

Hope that clears it up.

Anon TK421

Lydia said...

Lydia,

Only because Peter lumps them all together in 1 Pet 3: citizens/gov't, slave/master, wives/husbands.

Thu Sep 30, 08:17:00 PM 2010

Darby, we went down this road on another thread. Peter is specifically focusing on BELIEVERS who must live with and around unbelievers.

How does this apply if both husband and wife are believers? How does this apply to the Body of believers? Remember, the focus of that entire passage is believers living around and with unbelievers.

And yes, many governments thought the people were inferior...for thousands of years. Even "Protestant" kings thought this. They were thinking worldly instead of spiritual.

Why do we continue to do so, too?

Darby Livingston said...

Robin,

No. Forgive my whacked out sense of humor. I was just playing around about you choosing a name.

chaidrinkingfool said...

Anon TK421,

Love the Star Wars reference.

I understand what you are saying--if we are not to lord it over one another, why are some rushing to claim their place as leaders over others? I had to look this up, but we're told "not so among you" in at least 3 places in the Bible that I saw.

If in Heaven, the first will be last, why are some rushing to be first on this Earth? That's what has always befuddled me.

Darby Livingston said...

Anon TK421,

Yes that does. But I don't know who argues what you're suggesting. I don't know any comp. who thinks that women are genetically inferior to men.

Lydia,

So you're saying that Christian wives should submit to their evil non-Christian husbands, but that changes when the husband becomes a Christian?

Anonymous said...

chaidrinkingfool,

Good job picking up on the "name"!

And I keep asking comps why anyone would fight for their place in line if it really is a place of the lowest service, but they never answer. The fact that some fight for firs place not only proves that they see it as rule and not service, but also that they don't like Jesus' model of the kingdom.

Anon TK421

chaidrinkingfool said...

Darby,
I think what TK421 means is that females, in complementarian strains of Christianity, are found chromosomally deficient.

Anonymous said...

Darby, It's ok. Sometimes it is hard to pick up om humor/sarcasm online.

I just know that, to some, *coughpipercough* me giving any form of direction to men would be bad.

ROBIN

Darby Livingston said...

"The fact that some fight for first place not only proves that they see it as rule and not service, but also that they don't like Jesus' model of the kingdom."

And if egals didn't also believe this, husbands being the head of the household would never be brought up as an issue. Wives would just quietly submit because it's about service, not rule.

Anonymous said...

Darby, let's try this: we'll drop the labels and what CBMW teaches and only talk about what YOU believe.

1- So do you believe that women are not to teach men "authoritatively"?

2- Do you believe that a husband has the final say in any disagreement with his wife?

3- Do you believe that you are your wife's leader, just because you're the male?

4- Do you believe that "masculine" and "feminine" mean acting a certain way, having certain personality traits or things such as courage, nurturing, guarding, healing, etc.?


Anon TK421

Anonymous said...

And if egals didn't also believe this, husbands being the head of the household would never be brought up as an issue. Wives would just quietly submit because it's about service, not rule.

--

You have this exactly backwards. Egals want EQUALITY, not supremacy. The topic keeps coming up because the COMPS keep teaching that every husband has the final say over his wife, which means THE MAN is fighting for preeminence.

Anon TK421

chaidrinkingfool said...

Darby,
But the point is that egalitarians don't want to replace male rule with female rule. If it's truly about service, why must anyone claim the title of "leader" or the task of "leading"? I could not get a satisfying, logical answer on this from a pastor at my church, so I'm particularly interested in hearing others' thoughts on this.

Robin Michelle said...

Darby, I am going to chime in and ask why you think one or the other must 'rule.'

My husband and I are equal in every way. When we are confronted with a decision or problem, we TALK ABOUT IT. He nor I ever just make a decision that the other has to suck up and live with without question.

House hunting was a prime example, we looked at lots of houses and we had equal say in our house. He rejected some I liked I rejected some he liked. In the end, we found one we both liked and it was a MUTUAL decision.

Moving out of state, again a completely mutual decision. he did not say "I was offered a job, so pack up." We discussed it, weighed pros and cons and came to the decision to move together.

Dealing with our daughter's special needs....we researched together, talked to specialist together and came to the decision, together, on medications, therapies, etc...

Me going back to work- mutual decision.

My business- we evaluated everything that it would take and I ran with it...same with his side business.

The living room color, the kitchen remodel, the repair of our floors, getting a dog, the church we attend, having only one car and saving to pay cash for a second one, what we had for dinner,and on and on and on....

I promise, two can live happily and peacefully working together to make the big (and small) decisions in life.

Darby Livingston said...

1- So do you believe that women are not to teach men "authoritatively"?

I believe that elders must be only qualified men, but qualified women can and should be deacons. And I don't see any gender distinction in terms of spiritual gifts, so I must assume women can teach. And if they teach Scripture, how can it not carry the authority of the Author? I have been "authoritatively" taught by women most of my adult life, and am a better husband, father and pastor for it.

2- Do you believe that a husband has the final say in any disagreement with his wife?

Final say? Not necessarily. Final responsibility? Definitely. IOW, husbands and wives should agree on issues when possible. This is ideal and I'd be very hesitant to make a decision against the will of my wife; unless, of course, my way was clearly biblical and hers was blatant sin. As the husband, I try all in my power to indulge my wife's every whim so long as it doesn't contradict Scripture. That's what it means to be Christlike to me in Eph. 5. But ultimately, the husband is also responsible for everything that happens in his family and it's his duty to love, direct, protect and provide for them.

3- Do you believe that you are your wife's leader, just because you're the male?

Yes. But I don't believe I'm any other woman's leader, just because I'm the male. In fact, even as a 38 year old male, I'm quite fond of my mother and often do what she tells me to do.

4- Do you believe that "masculine" and "feminine" mean acting a certain way, having certain personality traits or things such as courage, nurturing, guarding, healing, etc.?

I believe men generally act masculine and women generally act feminine. I think egals are a long way from deconstructing this inherent understanding. Of course, certain behaviors generally apparent in men or women must be trained and refined and sometimes even killed (lust in men, for instance). It's ludicrous to think, for example, that a woman is the child-bearer, yet doesn't have the simultaneous nurturing instincts to care for the child she bears. And it's just as strange to see a wimpy adolescent 40 year old husband tell his wife to go check the noise downstairs in the middle of the night. IOW, I think some things are so dominant in culture because they're generally inherent inside of us.

I hope this helps.

Darby Livingston said...

"You have this exactly backwards. Egals want EQUALITY, not supremacy. The topic keeps coming up because the COMPS keep teaching that every husband has the final say over his wife, which means THE MAN is fighting for preeminence."

The husband IS the head of the wife. I'm not fighting for preeminence, and I take offense that simply quoting the apostle Paul makes you think I am some kind of male chauvinist jerk who wants to keep women down so I might be lifted up. My wife and I are just trying our best to honestly deal with what Paul wrote. God bless.

Darby Livingston said...

"But the point is that egalitarians don't want to replace male rule with female rule. If it's truly about service, why must anyone claim the title of "leader" or the task of "leading"?"

No one's claiming the title. We're just trying to be faithful to Scripture, hopefully the same as you. I don't rule my wife and she'll tell you as much. I claim the title of leader in my house because, and I say this with fear, God tells me I'm supposed to be.

Darby Livingston said...

"When we are confronted with a decision or problem, we TALK ABOUT IT. He nor I ever just make a decision that the other has to suck up and live with without question."

I agree completely, Robin. Most comps I know are not quiverfull psycho abusive men. I get tired of being lumped in with the worst of my kind as though none of my arguments are valid because of a few bad apples.

How would all the dear sisters on this blog like it if I dismissed all your arguments because Lizzy Borden happened to not have certain anatomy?

Tom Kelley said...

Darby Livingston said...
IOW, women have no obligation to submit themselves to men in general. A man can't walk down the street, tell the nearest woman to tie his shoe and expect she has an obligation to comply.


Hi, Darby,
Just curious -- would you say that, if it were a woman's husband who told her to tie his shoe, the wife would have an obligation to comply? I'm not asking if a husband should order his wife to tie his shoes, just asking that, if he did, is she obligated to obey?

-----
Tom

Anonymous said...

1- Good to know you realize something that escapes most comps: that nobody has "authority" when it comes to teaching scripture. But since only males can be "elders", then females are intrinsically of less worth spiritually. This is the logical conclusion of your statement.

2- Final responsibility is another statement of worth. If malenes makes you more responsible, then it is superiority of being. Where in scripture does it put responsibility for the family on the male alone? And if it does, this is a statement of spiritual superiority. If you are responsible, you are taking a priestly authority.

3- So you are saying you have intrinsic superiority of being over your wife. There's no escaping this conclusion, since it's based completely on the flesh.

4- "Generally" is not intrinsically, so you can't make the "exceptions" into sinners. That is, if a woman does not act in a way you deem "feminine", she is not trying to be a man.

As for your generalizations, there are in fact women who have little nurturing instinct, and men who have a lot. It's not EXCLUSIVE to either gender, and that's the point I keep trying to get across. And if the wife is a black belt, shouldn't she check the noise in the basement?

To your next comment:

"Head" is not "boss", or you are once again saying that the body is worth less than the head, and thus fighting for preeminence. Whether you want to argue to this conclusion or not, it's the logical outcome of your statements. You may not have ever thought your beliefs through, but that's the problem.

Quoting Paul isn't the problem either; it's MISquoting Paul that's the problem. And that's what the whole comp/egal debate is about: what did Paul say? Why is "plain reading" conviently only used when it suits males? Etc. etc. etc.

Anon TK421

Darby Livingston said...

Anon TK421,

Once again, you dismiss what I say and insert your own interpretation. You expect me to trust your interpretation of Scripture when you can't even interpret my very kind reply to you rightly? I will not be interacting with you anymore. God bless.

Tom,

Not obligated any more than any other Christian would be obligated out of loving your neighbor as yourself or some such ethic. Good grief, you guys really think that comps would own slaves if it were legal don't you? This thread is rather vicious in its tone considering I'm the only comp who's actually stuck around this blog lately and Wade says I'm a functional egal. I'd hate to see how you treat a real comp.

Tom Kelley said...

It might be helpful to make a chart of male and female traits. Let's make lists of all that is EXCLUSIVELY masculine, and all that is EXCLUSIVELY feminine.

FEMININE: Leaving the toilet seat down.

MASCULINE: Leaving the toilet set up.

In a patriarchal home, the husband leaves it up and demeans his wife is she doesn't leave it up for him when she's done.

In a comp home, the husband either insists that the wife leave it up or he graciously forgoes his right to make such a demand, and he may even leave it down to be loving to her.

In an feminist home, the wife either insists that the husband leave it down, or she condescends to make an exception for his male stupidity and just bites her tongue about it (sometimes).

In an egal home, the husband leaves it down for his wife and the wife leaves it up for her husband.

-----
Tom

Anonymous said...

Darby,

Once again, you brush off what I say and deny the logical conclusions of your own arguments. You expect me to trust your interpretation of Scripture when you can't even see the fallacy of "separate but equal"? I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that being confronted with the nature of your beliefs causes you to refuse to face them yourself. But I hope someday you do.

"Good grief, you guys really think that comps would own slaves if it were legal don't you?"

They use identical arguments. And if a wife is under her husbands "responsibility" for life, I'd say there's precious little difference in the final outcome.

Anon TK421

Robin Michelle said...

Darby, thing is that you don't seem to want to understand the viewpoint of egals. We don't zero in on a few verses, but look at the whole.

Jesus was a feminist, a radical one for His day....you claim (I think it was you) that feminism is a sin.

I know many comps, and I know how the thinking. I follow blogs by comps, watch the youtube vids...Their view is that women are under total rule of their husbands, some view that all women must be obedient to all men. Women have no say. They must continue birthing babies, even if there is a serious threat to her life/health. She must homeschool, she must never work outside the house even if her family is starving, she can't demand anything of her husband- even if he is sitting on his butt not working while the family is starving.

Think I am being extreme? Try reading DeMoss lies women believe

I had one comp male friend freak out and demand that I NOT read The Shack. He actually thought he as a male and authority over me, a woman in this matter. He was none too pleased when I laughed in his cyberface and read the book. He became very angry with me because I 'defied his protection.' He made the mistake of secretly e-mailing my husband.

This same guy will not allow his own wife on Facebook or her e-mail till after he checks it, then he sits reading over her shoulder while she is online.

I see this kind of nonsense played out on my comp friend's FB walls on a daily basis. I was once ganged up on and told I was 'in sin- and possibly not even saved- because I posted about how I told my husband to do some silly little thing.

These people all attend the church of a very well known QF/P proponent, so I highly doubt they are out of the norm of thinking.

If you are more 'liberal' than all this then kudos to you....but IME, you are far, far from what many of the most vocal comps are.

Anonymous said...

FEMININE: Leaving the toilet seat down.

MASCULINE: Leaving the toilet set up.
--------------

LOL!

Actually, I have an even more betterer solution:

It has been scientifically determined that when you flush, tiny droplets of whatever was in the bowl go flying all over the room and land on things like toothbrushes. So in our house, we all have to put the lid down before flushing. This not only improves the cleanliness of our bathroom, but also means everybody has to pick something up before, and put something down after.

Works for us.

Anon TK421

Tom Kelley said...

Darby Livingston said...
Good grief, you guys really think that comps would own slaves if it were legal don't you?


No, Darby, I don't think that at all. (Others might, but since I was a comp until recently, I can't mischaracterize the position like that.) My question was sincere. Just wanted to see how the idea of husband leadership wife submission would play out in a real life scenario (maybe not the most likely situation, but one that seems rather innocuous).

-----
Tom

Tom Kelley said...

Anon TK421 said...
It has been scientifically determined that when you flush, tiny droplets of whatever was in the bowl go flying all over the room and land on things like toothbrushes. So in our house, we all have to put the lid down before flushing.


Funny, that's exactly what we do, for the same reason. Anyone who can argue the egal position, make arcane Star Wars references, including the initials TK, and knows how to flush a toilet is pretty ok by me!

-----
Tom

Anonymous said...

"Anyone who can argue the egal position, make arcane Star Wars references, including the initials TK, and knows how to flush a toilet is pretty ok by me!"

:-D

And I can cook too!

-----
Anon TK421

Robin Michelle said...

Not to be snarky, but the 'plain reading of the Bible' does allow for slavery.....just sayin.

Anonymous said...

"Not to be snarky, but the 'plain reading of the Bible' does allow for slavery.....just sayin."

And polygamy, at least for non-leaders. ;-)


Anon TK421

Darrell said...

Hhi Lydia, you already know i think you are brilliant so I am goona tell you a funny from my wife....(2 masters degrees, former missionary in africa and other places.)

As I shared some of the thoughts on this thread to her she said, "HA! tell them you ain't my daddy and I ain't your momma!"

Yep, we even have different checkbooks.

If I couldn't love my wife as Christ loved his church, I would never get married.

why would any woman want to get married to those types baffles me. It is like a step down in to being sub-servant and blaming God.

If I wanted a house mouse I would be a 1% biker.

Live in peace

Anonymous said...

" The belief in male superiority and female subordination is a result of the fall."

Wade,
You are way off base on that comment. Nowhere does the Bible support that idea.

Anonymous said...

Jesus was not a feminist.

Robin Michelle said...

Jesus gave value and dignity to women. He bucked the culture and talked to women and allowed them to learn from him...He was a feminist.

Learn the culture, read the Bible and learn what feminism is- as opposed what you have been told it is.

Kay said...

"But ultimately, the husband is also responsible for everything that happens in his family and it's his duty to love, direct, protect and provide for them."

Darby,

So, even if a husband with hare-brained ideas makes a mess of homelife, marriage and family, his wife "ultimately" gets off scott free because she lovingly submits? Am I understanding you correctly?

(I do appreciate your willingness to dialog without sounding hateful.)

Debbie Kaufman said...

Anonymous: Read Genesis 1-3.

Sue said...

Wow - some real doozers in this thread.

First, "feminism is a sin."

I was married for some time before it became possible to accuse a husband of raping his wife. I suppose that whoever made the statement above believes that it is a greater sin to abuse a male than to abuse a female. That is just crass and such a person should not be in charge of a goldfish, at least not a female goldfish.

Next, I read in one comment that secular society took the lead in feminism not the church. Yes, and no. In fact, the first women to train as medical doctors in Canada, USA and Australia were Baptist women who became medical missionaries. Many of the first women in university were Christian women seeking full time service. SOME within the church did lead in feminism. That is only one example.

However, in other ways, the church lagged. Rape of a wife is an area not addressed by the church, but better addressed by secular society.

I am also awaiting a list of attributes found in the Bible for male and female. This would be a worthy contribution to the discussion. Why suggest that egals ignore the Bible on this topic, if nobody can produce exactly which verses egals are ignoring.

For myself, as teacher, parent, and landlord, these are my only roles in life - now that my parents have passed on. I wonder if this has masculinized me, but my mirror tells me that these roles have not caused me to grow facial or chest hair.

(I remember on blogger, who when pushed, made a big deal about facial hair as a masculine trait, since he was grasping to find something other than anatomy. Or wait, isn't that still anatomy?)

I find that as "head of the household" I fill the role which the Bible restricts to women. I wonder when readers will realize that the Bible nowhere says that the man is the head of the household, but reserves that for the woman.

I see both lack of compassion for wives who were raped, and a lack of fidelity to the scripture in this thread.

Cindy said...

Anonymous said...

" The belief in male superiority and female subordination is a result of the fall."

Wade,
You are way off base on that comment. Nowhere does the Bible support that idea.



If you read the Bible through what Bruce Ware calls his "trintiarian lenses," your presuppositions about what Scripture disposes you to believe that female subordination was by design and not a part of the fall. The "trinitarian lenses" of presupposition make the idea that women are the ontological equals of men an unthinkable concept.

If you read the Bible with no presuppositions, like most Christians have done, you will draw no conclusions of gender hierarchy. There are some traditions of men and some would argue that there are directives in Scripture that declare RULES (not roles) of order. Some will argue that those were limited cultural considerations, based on good hermeneutics and understanding the context of the writing and the society at the time (aspects of culture that are not an issue for us today).

But it is improper to day that "nowhere in the Bible" is the concept defined.

It is proper to say that we must agree to disagree on how to interpret the Bible.

We must endeavor to remove our blinders and our lenses to allow the Lord to show us the truth about what Scripture really says. We must also show one another due respect and understanding. We must be open to talk with one another in an atmosphere of respect, not insist only forcing our own viewpoints.

There are arguments for complementarianism. There are arguments for egalitarianism. Our discussions should not be about winning the day but about arriving at the truth of Scripture. Sadly, that isn't how it works most of the time.

Tim Marsh said...

Cindy,

I agree with your comment.

However, please do not call Ware's hermeneutics "Trinitarian." His understanding of the Trinity is flawed. There is no eternal subordination in the Trinity in essence or function. Furthermore, it is flawed to set up institutions that parallel the trinity. Rather, the Bible defines how human beings fit in the Trinitarian narrative of scripture.

Reading scripture through Trinitarian lens is a good thing. However, let's get our doctrine of the Trinity correct, which Ware has not done.

Tim Marsh said...

Anonymous said: "Jesus was not a feminist"

Jesus' views of women, from the evidence we have in scripture, were radically progressive vis-a-vis the culture of the day.

Anonymous said...

Let me state it again: Jesus was not a feminist in the terms is is defined today which is liberal.

Anonymous said...

It would be helpful if people who say things like "Jesus wasn't a feminist" and "you're way off base" would elaborate and back up their claims, instead of making others ask them to clarify.

Anon TK421

Robin Michelle said...

Like I said...learn what the word means before you rail against it.

Feminism= women being seen as valued members of society- not as property- not as chattel- not as things

Feminism= Women being able to be educated, getting protection from abuse and being able to get justice when they are, it means that we can vote, own property, that we can have careers, that we can be who we are and who God calls us to be.

I've heard the stories from my great great and great grandmothers (GG did when I was 10, G is still kicking at 100) about their lives before they had rights. I'll fight to the death before I or my daughter are subject to that crap!

Feminism is NOT- despite the load of bull religious leaders like to dump on people- about women 'wanting to be men.' It is about women being treated as the human beings we are and entitled to our rights as such.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Robin.

The reason there is no corresponding term (or hasn't been until recently) to "feminist" (masculist?) is because men have always been allowed to be whatever they wanted. They can even cook or sew and still be thought "manly" (chefs, tailors), whereas if a woman fixes cars or does woodworking she's somehow trying to be a man.

It's the lopsided playing field that keeps such debates alive. In Christ we are one-- unless some want to argue that all Jesus did was pay for sins, and only the sins of men since women apparently still have to keep paying for theirs (Eve's). Either Jesus came to lift the burden from the oppressed and free the imprisoned or He didn't. Male supremacists can't have it both ways.

Anon TK421

Anonymous said...

Hey Tom, check this out:
starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TK-421#Biography

Anon TK421

Cindy said...

Tim Marsh,

If you take note, I did put my reference to Ware's "trinitarian lenses" in quotes and didn't capitalize the "T"!!!!

There's plenty of evidence on this blog alone for the flack I've taken for making a bold stand against his views!

;)

I will consider adding the word "alleged" before any additional statements I make about the CBMW ESS doctrine, however.

Blessings to you!

Cindy said...

BTW, I have a very dog eared copy of Reviving Ophelia on my bookshelf.

Pastor Wade, I'm not surprised that you found it perspicacious.

Lydia said...

Darrel, Gee, thanks (blushing)

Darby wrote:
"So you're saying that Christian wives should submit to their evil non-Christian husbands, but that changes when the husband becomes a Christian?"

Noooo. I think wives should submit to their husbands as husbands should submit to their wives as all believers are to submit to one another as is made clear in Eph 5:21, not to mention all the "one anothers' all through the NT.

I think Peter was giving very good counsel for believers working around non believers and believers who must live with non believers in a very unjust society.

Lydia said...

Tim,

Trust me when I tell you that Cindy is well aware of Ware (ooh, cool aliteration) and his heretical ESS teaching. Her blog is a treasure trove of information on the cultish doctrine of ESS and Patriarchy.

Lydia said...

"It would be helpful if people who say things like "Jesus wasn't a feminist" and "you're way off base" would elaborate and back up their claims, instead of making others ask them to clarify"

yes, it would be helpful. Otherwise such comments are simply pedantic.

I certainly do not think Jesus was a masculinist so why would I think He was a feminist?

Whenever will the precious spiritual things given to us, transcend gender?

If we focus on gender and roles to model Christlikeness, then I certainly cannot be Christlike because He was male in the flesh.

And we know that cannot be right. So why the focus on gender and roles?

believer333 said...

Darby wrote:
”Here's the heartbreaking thing about this issue: the more traditionally feminine traits are scorned by women, the more feminine the men become. Rather than analyze one person's psychology of adolescent girls, maybe we should figure out why adult men never grow up and live in perpetual adolescence.”


Men who grow up thinking their physical strengths gives them permission to take and make demands from women instead of using their strengths to promote the welfare of women are still living in the sandbox. Men who think talking about the issues of women is somehow feminizing men are still in pubescence marveling over their bodily changes. I’d say that men don’t grow up because real maturity isn’t about marveling over one’s powers, but about becoming like Christ whose goals were to serve others and devote one’s abilities to helping others become all they can be, to use all their gifts. That is the mutuality of Christianity that miraculously helps us all become better humans.

Lydia said...

”Here's the heartbreaking thing about this issue: the more traditionally feminine traits are scorned by women, the more feminine the men become. Rather than analyze one person's psychology of adolescent girls, maybe we should figure out why adult men never grow up and live in perpetual adolescence.”

Darby, I know you do not mean to do this but you are really blaming females here. What does males not growing up have to do with what females are doing?

What feminine traits are being scorned by women? Not playing in sports? Not being a doctor or lawyer? ARe you thinking these things should be closed to women. Or are they sinning if they choose these traditionally male preserves?

What I think is missing is the reality of life outside the 1950's or Victorian era. Poor women have always worked like dogs. Some had babies in the back of covered wagons and worked the fields alongside their husband. Some labored in factories for years. Was that feminine?

Perhaps you should look at what is considered traditional male traits and whether they are realistic in this modern age. The market is demanding more human services than ever. Is that male or female. How about economics. Is that male or female? What about business? Do you see where I am going with this?

Kay said...

"Poor women have always worked like dogs. Some had babies in the back of covered wagons and worked the fields alongside their husband. Some labored in factories for years. Was that feminine?"

Very true, Lydia. And in many parts of the world these are not things of the past, but a present way of life. From the history I've read, the notion that women stay at home with their main purpose being to raise children and tend to them for all their physical needs until they were on their own, came about only after the Industrial Revolution when men started going off to work somewhere other than on their farm or in their own cottage industry. In many countries today, the care of children over 2 (too big to still be carried on their mother’s shoulder when she goes to the field to harvest crops or forage but not big enough to keep up with adult women) is still left to older children.

Wade Burleson said...

I just received an email that went like this:

"My daughter reads your blog and she called and talked to me about this post. She said she wept. She has felt marginalized because she is a woman in Christian circles and I am pleased to tell you she is healing and finding her truth in Christ not what others expect or tell her. Thank you for being the catalyst of a wonderful conversation with my daughter."

That makes blogging, particularly on a subject some might wish I not deal with, all worthwhile.

Freedom for Christian Women Coalition said...

Speaking of Ware awareness...

I've been using a free trial of a video editing program to process the video for the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition website.

There is not enough footage to make a good video debunking ESS left over from the Seneca Falls 2 Convention, so I bought a microphone and may combine the one clip I have with my own material and narration. I've got only five days left to get something together using my free trial!

I would appreciate it of all of you would pray that I manage to hit the mark on this endeavor and that God helps me pull something together that brings Him much glory and honor.

Thanks,
Cindy

Darrell said...

Wade, great email. My wife thrives on dealing with young women who are told "NO" and "you can't do that" etc. When she told her mother in 1961 (9 years old) that God told her to go to Africa, of course mom was afraid but did not tell her no...most MEN did. A light pat on the head and discouragement from them all. She went to college, Seminary, Africa with blinders.

Ladies, no one...NO ONE is your Lord but HE WHO HUNG ON THE CROSS FOR YOU

Cindy said...

Woopps!

Signed in under the Coalition's gmail account with that last comment.

Previous comment from me, Cindy K, whom Tim Marsh rubbed for presumably giving ESS more credit than it's rightfully due!

It is no wonder that young women as Pipher discusses in Reviving Ophelia feel the way they do, and the church doesn't help. In fact, we enhance the damage done when we should be offering healing to young women. ESS which is used to support all kinds of problems that women face do more harm than good. I believe that by addressing the root causes and supports of some of this stuff that the church can be a healing comfort to all women of all ages, just like our Savior was.

I appreciate this blog and the people who blog here. Thanks for encouraging me today.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully by Monday we'll see a new post about something other than women's issues. A blog post about all the evil wicked men in Southern Baptist churches and pulpits would even be a welcome change.

Darrell said...

Hey anon at 2:54 p.m. Why don't you right an informative piece about the things you know FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of about evil men in the pulpit and teaching positions. Lord knows who they are and the Apostle Paul spoke of it. Shine some light on them. try to improve things

Then, why don't you post it on your blog and explain how we should handle the people(men and women) who's lives were destroyed by those men and people who lost their homes and jobs because of those men, who's careers are being wrecked by those men, Christs work being damanged and how you would recommend we handle it.

Oh, wait, isn't that what Wade is doing? And he signs his name!

chaidrinkingfool said...

Yes, I, also, am trying to be faithful to scripture.

"No one's claiming the title. We're just trying to be faithful to Scripture, hopefully the same as you. I don't rule my wife and she'll tell you as much. I claim the title of leader in my house because, and I say this with fear, God tells me I'm supposed to be."

I do not see where God tells husbands they are to lead in their home. As a student and lover of language (though my gifts reside in English only, I fear), I see many read a common current understanding of the word "head" into the part of scripture where the husband is described as the head of the wife. But even here, this is a description of what he *is*, not how he is to act. In any case, we should be careful about reading current US English meanings into Bible translations.

Given that when authority is clearly given to a husband over his wife's body in scripture, a wife is likewise given authority over her husband's body, I am hesitant to read "head" as "leader".

When I read in the rest of scripture all the talk of the freedom we have in Christ, I cannot reconcile the idea of husband as "leader" of the wife with the fact that Christ died on the cross for all of us.

When I read about the Holy Spirit--the same one that resides in me also resides in you--and about Pentecost, I do not see why that Spirit would be squelched in a female vessel once she marries.

"Different" in role is less than entirely honest when the "roles" are also hierarchal. And as others have stated, it's not a "role" when it's the entirety of your life (in terms of 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, since we are not usually talking about betrothed from birth).

I am equal only in theory if I am to live subordinated to another human being for the rest of my life. And since this is deemed so because of the body I inhabit, into which I was born, I must therefore, logically, be inferior in being.

Marriage as described by complementarian is a demotion in the kingdom of God. I am greatly offended that little is made in the general conversation about complementarianism that only husbands are told to love. I believe this is because it is believed that wives will love, "anyway", so this may as well be taken advantage of (not that this is necessarily a conscious thing).

But what should we make of it? If we understand that only wives must submit, we must also interpret scripture to mean that only husbands must love.

I, for one, do not want that sort of marriage.

When scripture tells us that as a result of the Fall, men will rule over women, it was not specified whether it would be a despotic rule or a well-meaning rule called "leadership" by men who love their wives and are trying to be faithful to God.

Anonymous said...

Looks like we're throwing the Bible out with the bathwater.

chaidrinkingfool said...

Funny, anon--It's reading the rest of the Bible that made the understanding of "head" as "leader" challenging for me...

Anonymous said...

" Anonymous said...
Looks like we're throwing the Bible out with the bathwater.

Fri Oct 01, 03:47:00 PM 2010"

These cryptic, undefined statements are like rocks being thrown for no purpose but to vent one's spleen. If you can't defend something, shoot it down.

In fact, it's so cryptic we can't even tell which side it's aimed at.

Anon TK421

Mara Reid said...

Anonymous: "Hopefully by Monday we'll see a new post about something other than women's issues."

Unlike Anonymous that I quote above, I really appreciate being made aware of this book and the words you quoted from it, Wade.

I have two adolescent daughters. One is struggling with the very things you bring up. This post was very timely for me.

Is saddens me that the state of their inner persons and the very real struggles they face are of such non-importance to so many like Anonymous above.

It saddens me that so many are so overly concerned for the outside of the cup, what they look like, how they behave, whether or not their can be formed into the kinds of vessels that will make some man a good wife someday, etc, yet don't give a rat's hiney for the deepest part of their inner person that is being ground into dust.

Yes, the inner heart of the adolescent female is one of the neglected ministries of our age.
And Anonymous above is okay with that.

John H said...

TK421: Ever consider that it's aimed at both sides?

It's not my comment, but really, there's some validity to that applying both directions. There are Scriptures that seem to support both sides, and there's an apparent tendency on either side of the argument to simply dismiss rather than address the other verses.

As such, there is the feeling that truth that is the Bible is being thrown out in the argument. Both sides run to the extreme of their opposition to argue: some run to abusive, rapist husbands to decry the comp side, while others are running towards a near-Amazonian womyn dominated world of homosexuality to attack the egal side.

There are verses in Scripture that are hard to grasp. The Timothy passage about "saved through childbearing" is one that I just don't get, period, whichever side I look at from, unless I just chalk it up to a textual error, which hurts my understanding that Scripture is totally true.

However, you can't have a rational discussion because the cries of slavery or chaos start flying.

It's like talking about many other issues in our society and our churches. However, on blogs, we seem to cut right through pleasantries and just blast away at each other.

Anyway, my 2 cents worth. Where do I stand? I'm happily married to my wife, who homeschools our kids and who I would not want to go fight a war in my place, but who I trust completely to make whatever decisions for her and our family that she needs to make.

As to teaching and having authority in church: I thought the Bible was the authority? As a pastor, I'm not in authority, the Word of God is, and I can be wrong in my understanding. Cannot anyone with the Spirit of God and a Bible teach their understanding, recognizing their own weaknesses and potential need for correction from the Word and the Spirit? Yes, I pastor SBC and, as it is the decision of the church I serve since before I came based on their vote, there currently would not be a lady preach the main sermon of the church, but it takes time to grow, mature, understand. Perhaps this will change in time, but it will take the people growing in understanding to accept it. After all, should we not all submit ourselves to one another?

Tim Marsh said...

Cindy,

I think "rubbed" might be too strong a word, here, as I agree with your comments. However, there is a difference between Bruce Ware's Trinitarian Theology and the traditional Augustinian understanding of the Trinity - that's all.

Anonymous said...

"TK421: Ever consider that it's aimed at both sides?"

That's the problem, we don't know what the anon meant. And while no one would deny both sides can do this at times, what we need is specific instances cited. Where and when is "the truth of scripture" being thrown out by either side? A vague, pointless criticism is worthless.

And FWIW, I think that given the context of 1 Tim., "saved through childbearing" means that the false teacher can be restored to teaching after she first learns the facts. Yes, I've heard all the "it MUST mean saved from God's wrath" arguments etc., but this isn't the place for an in-depth analysis. Just sayin'.

Anon TK421

believer333 said...

"I would appreciate it of all of you would pray that I manage to hit the mark on this endeavor and that God helps me pull something together that brings Him much glory and honor.

Thanks
Cindy"


Been doing so. Really appreciate your endeavors to bring truth to light.

Kristen said...

If I can bring things back a bit to the blog post topic, I'd like to address this isssue:

"Rather than analyze one person's psychology of adolescent girls, maybe we should figure out why adult men never grow up and live in perpetual adolescence."

I absolutely think we should talk about the psychology of adolescent girls, but we are doing our adolescent male kids a disservice if we ignore the fact that the same peer pressures and social dynamics also affect them.

Adolescent boys also learn that it's not socially acceptable not to fit into certain molds that are considered masculine. Talk to a 13-year-old boy who has to conjure up an interest in sports that he just doesn't naturally have, for instance, and take a measure of his angst and fear of peer rejection.

Part of the reason why some boys have so much trouble growing up is that the traits that are considered "masculine" are-- well, adolescent, self-centered, immmature traits. Boys are supposed to be into sports, cars, girls (not in terms of responsibility or commitment, but in terms of conquest), making loud noises, blowing things up, etc.

It is not considered masculine to care for or train younger children.

It is not considered masculine to stay after school studying academically, or working on an art project. The only peer-acceptable reasons to stay after school are to go out for sports or to have detention.

Abstinence, commitment to one girl, respect for adults, courtesy and good manners-- none of these are valued by adolescent boys' peer groups in the world. And in church? Boys are often taught that girls exist to serve and submit to them-- that when they grow up, they are entitled to be deferred to and given their own way by women. Or alternatively, they are told they have to assume the role of Christ to their wives and be totally responsible for the home-- shoes larger than any human being is capable of filling.

And then we wonder why men either fear and shrink back growing up or have no idea how to do so?

I say it's high time we let men just be themselves too. All this role-filling is doing no one any good.

chaidrinkingfool said...

Kristen,
Amen!
Agreed. This "role"-filling hurts *everyone*. The fact that it gives males more power in some easily recognized ways is what makes it difficult to see/communicate/understand that.

The damage these "roles" do to females, males, and to our relationships are what make this not a "merely" "women's issue".

Christiane said...

I think 'feminism' frees people to be themselves: men and women.
Everyone wins.

No more phony cultural and sexist roles. Just people.
Let the Good Lord assign the roles as He gives out the gifts and talents allotted to each human being. And let that human being develop those talents and be able to give back to this world what God intended for them to do.

Those 'limitations' on women were 'limitations' on men, too. They just didn't realize how horrible the fixed roles had limited their own lives and creativity.

So let the men distribute the loaves and fishes to feed the crowd. And let the women run to tell that 'Christ is risen', if that is what God asks of them to do.
We have been given a new role model to follow, only One, just One.
But a very good One.

It requires from each of us a new way to be.

Rex Ray said...

Christiane,
Good words.

It’s been said the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Christiane said...

Hi REX RAY,

How are you doing?
I keep you in my prayers as you know. I don't blog as much as I used to do, but I don't forget the people I pray for. :)

I hope things are going as well as can be expected.

Love, L's

Cindy K said...

John H said...

As such, there is the feeling that truth that is the Bible is being thrown out in the argument. Both sides run to the extreme of their opposition to argue: some run to abusive, rapist husbands to decry the comp side, while others are running towards a near-Amazonian womyn dominated world of homosexuality to attack the egal side.


John H,
I suppose I'm one of those who you would say rushes without cause to extremes of abuse to decry the comps.

You have it backwards with me. I actually dislike the gender debate and got into it because of the abuse of women and also because I was incredulous that any mature Believer could possibly accept the ESS doctrine. In recent correspondence with Lydia, she told me that I'm definitely not an egal, even though I've recently repented of ever using the term to describe myself. I don't fit the molds that CBMW cooked up for people. I follow the Word and what I understand it to say, and that doesn't seem to conform perfectly to any theology, though it looks most like New Covenant Theology.

I would like to explain why I spend great time and energy in an area that I think overlaps with the gender debate: it is BECAUSE of abuse. Three years ago, my husband asked me to spend three months articulating the message of Spiritual Abuse to help those in patriarchy and those in the same circles from which we departed long ago. That was three years and three months ago.

I continue to spend a minimum of 20 hours per week corresponding or speaking directly with women who contend with complementarianism which is used to justify abuse. This week, I've spent a great deal of time on the phone with a woman whose husband tried to hit her with their car which their daughter thwarted by throwing herself in front of the car to save her mother. The husband became so angry with her, he put his fist through a window later that day. Their church recommended that the wife stay and submit to this. This is just this week. Many weeks, I spend more than 50 hours a week trying to help women figure out how to get out of abusive homes, how to talk with their church leadership who tell them they must submit to abuse, and sometimes I focus on speaking out against the teachings that tell women that they must submit to abuse of all varieties.

I rushed to pay may car registration on the last day yesterday because I've failed to find time to fit it into my schedule, taking phonecalls and working on the computer. I would love to be singing or writing music or cooking fun things or organizing closets so that I can take things to Salvation Army! I'd love to cozy up with a new book or maybe even get a part-time job so that I can save up for a house! But in the person of the least of my brethren, broken and bleeding women come to me for help. When I get to heaven, I do not want there to be any possibility of Jesus looking at me, saying that I hid from my own flesh and failed to visit Him in prison and to bind His wounds.

So sir, I look forward to the day when I will not have to sit with a woman in an ER because her church told her to submit to physical violence, letting love cover the multitude of her husband's sins. I look forward to never sitting with a friend who was falsely reported to CPS by the church because the woman was getting “too uppity.” (It apparently makes a mother quite compliant and submissive when she fails to properly demonstrate these qualities.)

But I don't rush to abuse to make false claims against complementarianism. I discuss gender because these teachings are used to justify real abuse. Maybe others do make these cases, but it is not so with me.

Anonymous said...

Excellent testimony, Cindy K.

And it brings up an illustration or parallel on the matter of why comp can indeed be connected to domestic violence.

When Muslims are confronted about their violence they point at violence done by Christians. And our rebuttal is that the Bible does not condone it; that is, violence done by Christians is AGAINST our teachings, but violence done by Muslims is in accordance with their teachings, as it is explicit in their writings and by their prophet's example.

It is the same with comp/egal. Violence done in the name of Christ is enabled and empowered by comp teachings, as you have shown, while nobody is violent in the name of egal because egal does not teach authority between spouses. It is this authority of men over women which comps say is from God, making it a sin for a wife to resist her husband's will.

(The security word is "trater", a fitting one for those who betray the work of Christ by taking His deliverance away from women.)

Anon TK421

Anonymous said...

Some of the abuse is not physical abuse but another form of abuse that I think is hard to explain because the wounds are internal.

It is almost like being a prisoner or hostage. And I am talking about the whole quivering daughters thing which is more prevalent in varying degrees than some think.

Some names associated with the SBC are big into this such as Scott Brown and many of the FIC people, Doug Phillips, Voddie Baucham, etc. I think that Ware, Stinson and Moore are going in this direction if they can ever get more support for it.

Most of them teach the girl must stay home and serve the father until she marries whom they approve. No school, no job outside the home unless she is working for dad. She is not allowed to work for any man except the father or if married, the husband.


A person I know helped some daughters escape from one of the FIC situations. They were in their 20's and were not allowed to go to college and neither one of them had been allowed to see a gyn in their life.

So my friend arranged for them to get basic gyn checkups. A large cyst was found on one girl's ovary that had to be removed.

See, it was more important to her patriarchal parents that her proof of virginity be intact than it was for her to be healthy and pain free.

THAT is abuse.

And John, this is not as isolated as you think. It is just one segment of Christianity.

I know abusive elders, pastors and deacons. It is a big problem that is hidden from the laity. And it comes from men being told they are in charge.

DB

Cindy K said...

Anonymous and DB,

Thank you for lending your voice to validate my own. I didn't even touch on the Quivering Daughters issue. I guess I take for granted that people are aware of this since the book was published. The more unpleasant issues that those girls face were withheld from the book so as to not have it be too sensational, as it is sensational enough. But frankly in my opinion, the book does not begin to tell of some of the horrors faced by these young women. I readily admit that I do not see a representative sampling of all young women in these homes, because primarily I am contacted by the ones who are in the most difficult of circumstances. So my viewpoint is a bit skewed, as I am only really privy to the more problematic cases. But I am deeply changed by them nonetheless.

I wrote something in error above.

When I encountered the term "complementarian" a few years ago, I was told that I was a "comp," so I called myself a traditional comp. Pastor Wade has very accurately described my own views here on a post where he talked about the unfair chastisement dealt to me by the SBC for merely mentioning my rejection of ESS.

I have since repented of using the term "complementarian" to describe myself. I reject so much of their core doctrine that I believe it is improper of me to use the term as a descriptor. So when I said in an earlier comment that I repented of using the term, I meant the term "complementarian" and not egalitarian. I have never described myself as egalitarian in terms of this religious discussion, as my personal views are more conservative than what is commonly understood as egalitarian Christianity. I do however believe it is an intramural debate and I am not threatened or offended by those who do not share my personal views.

But dear Lydia pointed out to me in email that I am not egalitarian, though I have repented of using the term "complementarian" to describe myself.

I've been asked what I could be called, and all I can really come up with is "Berean."

natamllc said...

I will never forget the "insights" my Grandmother imparted to me over the years from the earliest age of being just able to retain her wisdom to the day she died at 98 years old, in my home!

Sadly, I wasn't at home that moment of her passing into Glory. But my wife was and she witnessed her breathe her last breath on earth!

One notable bit of wisdom she taught me one day was when I had just come back into the house, as a teenager, lost and overwhelmed by this American way I grew up under, after "chasing" after my girlfriend, who had just ran out of the house after arguing with me about some silly thing.

My Granny said, "grandson, you made a mistake just now"!

"Huh", I replied. "What mistake did I make?"

Granny: "you chased after her. You should have let her go. All she wanted was you to chase her down".

Now, I was about 17 years old back then when my Grandmother told me that.

Now, after over 35 years of ministry passed, starting when I was 21 years old, now I am 57, some of the ministry of which has been dealings with messed up girls spit out of their safety zones that they should have been raised up within by Godly parents inculcating into their impressionable souls His Truth, His Wisdom and His Word, so that they can be freed as well from their own personal flesh, this impressionable world and the devils wildly running around in it, and, giving counsel to Godly young women to remain faithful to His Covenant that binds them to Him, I can say that the war is on and it will not be diminished until the Church, male and female, rise up and put down every evil imagination about young girls and their place in life lifting up their own special calling and purpose for service to the Lord of the heaven and earth they were born into!

In this world both male and female will have tribulations. Yet, once called and anointed in the Spirit of Grace and Truth, it makes no difference from where you come from. You might have been called from off the street full of promiscuity into this Work of the Lord. Or from your own bedroom in a modest upscale neighborhood to serve Him. Or, you might be a real princess who's father is the king of your culture you grew up within trained to represent your King/father, as I have met in West Africa when at her African kingdom. What is important here is not from "where" you come from, but what it is you will do afterwards, by letting God do what He has promised He will do for you and you discover His Life through yours and then, by His power and Grace, you go about doing what you have been called and elected to do in Jesus' Name for others too!

God's promise to you:

1Th 5:22 Abstain from every form of evil.
1Th 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Th 5:24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.


What you have been called to do:

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Rex Ray said...

Christiane,
Thanks. Things are OK, but "getting old is not made for sissies."

You wrote: “So let the men distribute the loaves and fishes to feed the crowd. And let the women run to tell that 'Christ is risen', if that is what God asks of them to do.”

I knew a woman was the first to tell the Good News, but hadn’t thought of men doing ‘women’s work’ of distributing food.

A bomb would be dropped on a battleship rather than a rowboat, and so it was the devil picked Eve; knowing if he could deceive her, Adam would follow like a puppy dog.

Tom Kelley said...

natamllc said...
Now, after over 35 years of ministry passed, starting when I was 21 years old, now I am 57, some of the ministry of which has been dealings with messed up girls spit out of their safety zones that they should have been raised up within by Godly parents inculcating into their impressionable souls His Truth, His Wisdom and His Word, so that they can be freed as well from their own personal flesh, this impressionable world and the devils wildly running around in it, and, giving counsel to Godly young women to remain faithful to His Covenant that binds them to Him, I can say that the war is on and it will not be diminished until the Church, male and female, rise up and put down every evil imagination about young girls and their place in life lifting up their own special calling and purpose for service to the Lord of the heaven and earth they were born into!


Wow, that just might be the longest sentence in blog history. The apostle Paul couldn't have done much better at keeping a sentence going like that! :)

-----
Tom

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Just tuned in to G&T2U and forgoing the comment stream after the first few...a John Eldredge bashing bonanza...

The issue here is just as much a problem of male adolescent emasculation as it is the issue Wade addresses with girls in this pivotal transescent time. Working in a middle school has opened my eyes to the depravity of parenthood. Boys cannot become men if they have no father figure. Likewise, little girls cannot become ladies if they do not have the affirmation of beauty and worth from their fathers.

Husbands, love your wives, love your children, stay away from pornography, teach your boys how to be men, and model manhood for your daughters...else your boys will become girls and your daughters...well, they will find self worth, in the bed of whomever will give it.

"...as Christ loves the Church."

Anonymous said...

"little girls cannot become ladies if they do not have the affirmation of beauty"

"your boys will become girls and your daughters...well, they will find self worth, in the bed of whomever"

Stereotypes and sexist tripe. Women must aspire to be beautiful. Men must aspire to be.. well, whatever they want, and decisively so.

I don't know whether to yawn, cry, or run to the bathroom.

Anonymous said...

"Stereotypes and sexist tripe. Women must aspire to be beautiful"

Yep, that is what the CBMW types think girls should aspire to.

The quivering daughters all have fathers who think their purpose in life is to serve them until they marry the man he chooses for them.

I would prefer my daughter aspire to follow Christ.

Anonymous said...

"Likewise, little girls cannot become ladies if they do not have the affirmation of beauty and worth from their fathers."

Kevin,

some of us had fathers who died when we were young. My mom did a great job of teaching me who I am in the Lord. My worth comes from Jesus Christ.

Maybe we should focus on Jesus Christ instead of what so many missed out on not having a father around whether he left, was in prison or died.

Every fatherless child has a Father in heaven. Let us make it our business that they know that truth.

Mary

Lydia said...

Kevin, I suggest you spend some time in inner city missions work.

What would you tell those kids? What you wrote here:

" Boys cannot become men if they have no father figure. Likewise, little girls cannot become ladies if they do not have the affirmation of beauty and worth from their fathers."

That is a hopeless message. They had no control over what they were born into.

They can become men who follow Christ and the girls can become women who follow Christ. Both can become adults who reverse the traditions they were raised in with the power of the Holy Spirit.