The CBE Scroll

Comment by ShawnaRenee

August 29, 2007 @ 2:07 pm

My take on it is here. Although I do have to thank them for giving me such a perfect lead-in for the introduction of my book.

Comment by Makeesha

August 29, 2007 @ 3:05 pm

I just don’t even know what to say. Wow… just… wow.

Comment by B-W

August 29, 2007 @ 4:21 pm

I’d been informed of this elsewhere. Besides the obvious complementarian issues this program demonstrates, I have a more practical question. Just how does the seminary hope to get people to pay expensive tuition dollars for a degree that, by its very nature, can’t possibly result in giving the recipient a higher salary upon graduation (since these are homemaker-type tasks)? Economically, it would be a foolish investment!

In fact, why don’t they just go ahead and give the degree the name that many of us (when I was in college) jokingly used for certain undergraduates: Masters of Residency Science (MRS)?

Comment by B-W

August 29, 2007 @ 4:24 pm

Actually, this is the first I’ve realized that this program is hitting at least two Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) seminaries! I was already aware that Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville was doing it (as mentioned in the link in Shawnarenee’s post).

Comment by Sue

August 29, 2007 @ 7:36 pm

Can you even build on a degree such as this and go for a master’s degree in something so you can at least have some kind of skill which will earn some money to pay for your student loans? How much is four years’ tuition at this college anyhow?

Comment by Sue

August 29, 2007 @ 7:49 pm

I just checked the website. Relax, folks. It only costs $60,000 for this four year degree if you’re not a Baptist, and it’s only $35,000 if you are a Baptist. I couldn’t help but notice the fact that the course on the biblical model for the home and family concentrates only on the ‘biblical role of women.’ Do you suppose they buy the textbooks for this course from the Equality Depot?

Comment by JLP

August 29, 2007 @ 9:15 pm

Do they have a course on ‘How to handle it when your husband gets laid off, and you have no marketable skills to help out financially?’

Comment by JLP

August 29, 2007 @ 11:02 pm

If a woman follows all the advice she gets in these courses and ends up getting divorced -is there some sort of money-back guarantee? I mean, does she get the $35,000 or $60,000 back that she paid in tuition?

Comment by Mary

August 29, 2007 @ 11:56 pm

Two issues come to mind here.

1. The hermeneutic that limits a ‘woman’s role’ to homemaking is neither godly nor biblically sound. It is little wonder that an institution that teaches such a thing also stands to profit from that false teaching.

2. It is short-sighted and hypocritical (to say nothing of unoriginal) to blame the woman for the destruction of the home. (God did not accept ‘the woman’ excuse the first time around.) Beginning with the Industrial Revolution, men have been abandoning the home and praising themselves for doing so. The increases in wages from this major societal shift resulted in an increase in wealth that permitted the wealthier families the luxury of women not contributing materially to the family’s livelihood, which previously had been almost exclusively home-based and the responsibility of all family members. The industrial revolution, not biblical mandate, gave us the absentee father/secluded mother model that the pro-patriarchalists now try to market as God’s division of labor for the family. If they wished to return to a truly godly model, men and women would work together for their families’ livelihood and both would be intimately involved in the rearing and education of their children. And, when the sad reality of death or divorce happens, as it did in biblical times and still does today, the church would be supporting those families together. Sadly, many couples and churches opt for the world’s model instead and families are suffering for it.

And a final observation: The apostle Paul claimed that singleness was to be preferred, though marriage was also to be held in high esteem. What place is there for the single woman in places like Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS)? Sadly, at best she is considered ‘not yet married.’ The amazing thing is that they use the words of a never-married apostle (Paul) and the silence of the never-married Savior to proof-text their worldly notions that women must be married and have children, and refuse to even consider that God has the right to call them to ministries other than to family, other women, and children.

Perhaps a little ‘follow the money’ research would prove enlightening about this new program. As I see it, the seminary stands to profit from its unbiblical teaching that a woman’s role is that of wife and mother by offering select women (those with the money) the status of being master-level educated ‘Godly wives.’ Perhaps if they were truly interested in building up families, they’d think about the desperate need for ‘Godly wives’ to be married to ‘Godly husbands.’ For all the rhetoric, seminary does not make either men or women godly; God alone does that.

Comment by A.Lin

August 30, 2007 @ 12:41 am

If the student comes from a Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) church, then part of the tuition is subsidized by the SBC. But, there are a lot of SBC churches that are questioning the use of their cooperative money to fund the homemaking degree.

The SBC seminaries create these programs to inflate their numbers because the enrollments in the traditional programs are going down.

The whole thing makes me gag.

Comment by Terri

August 30, 2007 @ 7:39 am

It is almost like the Southern Baptist leaders are adding insult to injury. They are recommending that grown women participate in souped-up high school home economics. It is sad, but I do believe through the intense false indoctrination about gender and roles (not in the Bible) that Southern Baptist woman have been exposed to that they (if they can afford it) will flock to take these courses.

You can almost feel something sinister in the way that the Southern Baptist treats their sisters. Outwardly the Southern Baptist smile at woman while they quote Scripture out of context to justify the demeaning stance taken toward them. Its almost like the politician jug that some potters create in the south, one side of the jug presents a smiling, welcoming face (because he wants your vote), but when you turn the jug around the face is distorted and frowning , (because now he’s got your vote). They can be what they have to be, to get you to do what they want you to do – that’s manipulation that has been fine-tuned through much use.

Mr. Patterson believes that the welfare of the nation depends on woman being able to sew, cook, and organize an untidy house. The Scripture says that without a vision the people perish. People perish because of a lack of knowledge – whosoever believeth in him (Jesus) should not perish – but nowhere does it say a nation will be destroyed because women don’t know how to darn socks or organize a messy drawer. Women were not put on the earth to be incubators and housemaids for men, and it is a shame that the Southern Baptist have elevated domesticity to a realm of spirituality.

‘Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. And she has a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. But Martha was cumbered (distracted) with much serving, and came to him and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? Bid her therefore that she help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful (worried) and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.’ (Luke 10:38-42, KJV, emphasis added)

Yeah, yeah, we have things/chores that we have to do like cleaning and cooking (just like men have chores/sometimes that includes cleaning and cooking too) but there is only one thing that you and I need, and that is Jesus (the Word).

Comment by Makeesha

August 30, 2007 @ 8:41 am

I was just thinking about the financial implications of this. Nuts, I tell ya.

Comment by PS

August 30, 2007 @ 8:46 am

Sadly, many school districts have abandoned ‘home economics’ as a department or choice of classes. Schools had moved, at least in some areas of the country, to offering home skills to both girls and boys, and then the programs got gutted in favor of more higher academic subjects, which have their place, but actually, will be used by far fewer people than basic skills would be used.

Many young men and women have no idea that opening a package, adding water, and microwaving something isn’t ‘cooking.’ Obesity and disease are part of the consequence.

All the previous comments are right on target, although I thought that the original said bachelor level, not masters level classes. Hey, who would teach these classes? Can’t only men teach? Are there masters level teachers in these areas?

But this is also another example of the college level courses having to step in to fill a gap not being filled in the home and public schools. I just think that these skills have universal usefulness and, if offered, why not to anybody?

I can think of some snarky comments, but I’d best not take a risk of being misunderstood.

Comment by PS

August 30, 2007 @ 9:12 am

Follow-up thought: several of the most dynamic, interesting, strong, and creative older women that I know were home economics majors when in college. I don’t think they were taught a submissive role!

Comment by Exegetist

August 30, 2007 @ 11:29 am

What parent in their right mind is going to cough up $35,000 for their daughters to learn souped-up high school classes on homemaking? It’s all on the parents shoulders. There will be no college loans for these classes since the daughters will not be working to pay them back.

Comment by Melanie

August 30, 2007 @ 11:32 am

So if I enroll at a prestigious cooking school or at some school specializing in fashion design would that be OK? If I go out and get a teaching degree and teach other people’s children, then that is acceptable, because then I would have marketable skills that could be used should my marriage fail (despite the fact that God hates divorce) or my husband fails to adequately provide for our family?

Seems to me I would be acquiring many of the same skills offered by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS). The only difference is where I plan to use my skills… in the home serving those I love best or in the marketplace serving a boss I may or may not like or other people’s children whom I may or may not enjoy.

Is a paycheck what will make me equal? I thought being made in the image of God was the great equalizer.

Oh well. The proof will be in the pudding for SWBTS come time to evaluate enrollment levels for the program. In the meantime, national trends show more and more women forsaking careers in the marketplace to stay home. Seems home is where most of our hearts are, whether we are employed outside the home or not.

Comment by Rachel

August 30, 2007 @ 11:44 am

‘She considers a field and buys it; from her earnings she plants a vineyard.’ (Proverbs 31:16, NIV)

‘She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies belts to the tradesmen.’ (Proverbs 31:24, NIV)

Am I missing something here? It seems to me that according to Scripture, there is nothing distasteful about a woman who brings in an income. Granted, an occasional journey outside of the home to inspect a field doesn’t constitute an away-from-home office job, but the fact that she is earning money, in or outside of her house, undermines the whole ‘let’s go back to Levittown’ chant of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

The ancient Near Eastern view of gender roles most certainly allowed for working women. Women and men worked together in the fields to harvest the crop, and child care was not an issue because most homes doubled as workspaces. If the Proverbs 31 woman wanted to go out and inspect an olive grove, her husband, or her older children, or the various aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents in a Middle Eastern extended family could take care of the children while she was gone, and in some ventures, the children were involved in the process. It was the Industrial Revolution that led to daycares and latchkey kids, not feminism.

I once heard Russ Moore of the Southern Baptist Seminary claim that a woman being the provider was ‘emasculating’ to the man, but what is the Proverbs 31 woman’s husband doing? I’ll give you a hint – he isn’t sitting in his men’s Bible study complaining that his wife bringing in all this money was making him look bad. Realistically, in those days if a woman had the education, skills and time to provide financially for her family but neglected to do so, she wouldn’t have been seen as ‘embracing her femininity,’ she would have been viewed as lazy and a drain on her husband. Granted, times are different now and some families can afford to have one parent stay home – and there are a lot of good reasons to do so, but this idea that a stay-at-home mom is somehow godlier or more feminine than a female CEO flies in the face of both Scripture and reason, and has to go.

One final note: the Bible has plenty to say about money as well as gender roles. If a woman does not plan to bring an income into the marriage, she has no business bringing $35,000 of debt into it, either. If it is an education she wants, library cards are free.

Comment by Lauren

August 30, 2007 @ 2:17 pm

Why is everyone on this page so judgmental against this program? The degree is voluntary, so it’s not like these women are forced to spend their money on the program. What is so horrible about wanting to learn how to be a good mother and wife anyway? I fully disagree with all those who commented above that by creating this degree program, women are now somehow viewed as valuable only if they become wives/mothers. Of course single women are seen as valuable within the church as well. I am also curious what version of the Bible people are reading because the verses below clearly teach a complementarian view of men and women in the home and church. Please read: 1 Corinthians 14:26-40, 1 Timothy 2, 1 Peter 3:1-7, and Titus 2:1-4.

Comment by JLP

August 30, 2007 @ 2:46 pm

Lauren (see comment 65142), what use is a homemaking degree if a man gets laid off, or he gets ill and cannot work, or he dies without a good life insurance policy or the marriage ends in divorce? All married women will face these issues at one time or another and how will this degree help then? In addition, how do you provide medical insurance for the family on a homemaking degree?

If you are going to spend money on a degree and want to be a primarily a homemaker – why not get a degree that will help you bring in money when you need it? Many women go into fields like nursing, x-ray technology, and teaching that allow them to be homemakers first but provide a decent income if needed. In fact, some nurses can work part-time and still get medical insurance for their families.

By the way, as for the verses you quote – the women in the New Testament era were not engaged in what today we would consider full-time homemaking. Except for the rich, most women were involved in bringing some kind of money into the home. Their work was home based, but it helped the family economically. It wasn’t a choice back then; the women had to help bring in income. And again, unless the women were rich, they didn’t spend their time decorating the house, the houses back then were strictly for utilitarian purposes.

Comment by JLP

August 30, 2007 @ 3:35 pm

Lauren (see comment 65142), as examples in the Bible of women bringing in income, think of Lydia the seller of purple goods, and of Priscilla who with her husband was a tent maker. Also think of the woman of Proverbs 31. The Bible says she did the following (NIV):

‘She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks. She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.’ (16-18)

And, ‘She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.’ (24)

Until recent history, the whole family (including young children) was involved in bringing income into the home. It had to be that way or the family would not have survived.

Comment by Terri

August 30, 2007 @ 4:29 pm

A total indoctrination/brainwashing of passivity does not come with a career choice in the secular world. To be sure, these courses will be teaching much more than just the proper way to fold dinner napkins. Those that have not been introduced to the complementary way of life will get their first glimpse, and those that are living it will be fine-tuned. The motivation/motive behind these courses is obvious to an eagle-eye egalitarian observer.

Comment by LMcC

August 30, 2007 @ 5:16 pm

This program is nothing new. Fundamentalist Baptist schools have had stuff like this for years. Check out Hyles-Anderson’s website, for example. ‘Marriage and Motherhood’ is a major.

To comments 65134 and 65142: for the record, believers in biblical equality are not opposed to women being homemakers. Many of us are wives and mothers. Many of the women here are full-time homemakers and homeschoolers. We’re not even opposed to women taking these courses if that’s really, completely, certainly what they want to do. What we do oppose is the idea that a woman is only allowed to have a very limited sphere of influence regardless of her own gifts and talents.

To comment 65134: actually, although I know you did not mean this seriously, suggesting that women would get the same skills in fashion design school or teaching degrees is really a fantastic idea. I know from personal experience that husbands and fathers do become disabled and die, so the idea of a woman getting the skills she desires for the home and making sure she can support herself in the event of the unthinkable would be desirable for these women. Sadly, neither the church nor the world truly values what most people consider ‘women’s work,’ so a fashion design or education degree would make so much more sense than the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) program if a drunk driver or a heart attack took a woman’s husband home. Preparation for the possibility of widowhood or caring for a disabled husband isn’t feminist, anti-family, or sinful. It’s prudent. One look at the local news and obituaries would confirm that.

To comment 65142: single women valuable in the church? Speaking as a semi-newlywed who can compare the treatment of single vs. married women… uh, no, not even close. I have already heard more than once from the pulpit that a woman’s highest calling is to be a wife and mother, even though Luke 11:27-28 contradicts the idea. The SWBTS program will only reinforce what’s already been taught for years. Speaking of verses and church traditions in conflict, I have verses for you as well: 1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 5:18-21, Judges 4, Proverbs 31, and too many more to fit in this space. God really doesn’t limit women as much as the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) does.

Comment by Mary

August 30, 2007 @ 6:07 pm

As far as which version of the Bible we biblical egalitarians read and study, I would think there is a variety represented here. Perhaps the distinction is that we believe women, no less than men, are responsible for both studying and living what we read in the Bible, as opposed to the restrictive agendas that men like Paige Patterson claim are biblical but clearly are not. That becomes clear when the Bible is read in context and not abused by proof-texting this world’s power-hungry traditions of the stronger lording over the weaker. Jesus, of course, told his disciples that it is not to be so among us.

Comment by Mary

August 30, 2007 @ 6:46 pm

I looked carefully at the options open to women at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) and its college. They’re tellingly vague on what, outside of the ‘homemaking concentration’ and ‘women’s studies concentration’ actually is open to women. But I stand corrected in my earlier mistaken belief that the homemaking courses are masters level; they’re an option in the B.A. course that so carefully avoids the description of what it is: liberal arts.

If the description of the homemaking concentration really is ‘a woman’s first priority is her family and home,’ and that is interpreted as absolutely, and for all time and for all women as the SBC’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12, SWBTS (and their college) does insist that all women (not simply a woman) are to have family (that means motherhood) and home as their first priority. From what I’ve read of what the current leaders have said and written, that is precisely how they deal with the issue: ‘a woman’ means ‘all women, always.’ Those who currently speak for the school and the denomination are quite enthusiastic in their insistence that no woman is ever, in any way, to even hint at teaching a man, for example, and that men are automatically to be their wives’ leaders by virtue of their being men, while only the wives are to submit in the marriage (in contradiction of Ephesians 5:21, but that’s the root of the problem, better dealt with elsewhere). Sure, they come up with the usual out-of-context proof-texts for these worldly ideas. That hardly makes such beliefs either biblical or Godly.

Truthfully, I think this kind of segregation of men and women is at least consistent with the stated attitudes of the people who now shape this institution. The ‘women’s studies’ concentrations for the advanced degrees simply reinforce the false teaching that the Bible provides for men to teach anyone, but for women only to teach other women. Better that they should be up front with their flawed hermeneutic and resultant flawed biblical interpretations. It’s too bad that their consistency of restriction applies only to out-of-context verses about women, however. If they applied a similar hermeneutic to other aspects of the Christian community, such as the Lord’s Table, worship, community living, and so forth, we’d really see the full fruits of out-of-context, maximum restrictive interpretations and have an easier time recognizing their false teachings for what they are. But since it only adversely affects women, it really doesn’t matter too much. They have to submit to the men anyway and it gives them a cross to bear, right?

Comment by JLP

August 30, 2007 @ 7:46 pm

I’ve seen many complementarian women who are obedient to their husbands, and who do not work outside the home suffer economically because of the factors I’ve previously listed.

God did not spare them from economic difficulty just because they were living a complementarian lifestyle. Many complementarians have privately recognized this and are making sure their daughters have marketable job skills.

It disappoints me when a leading complementarian like Paige Patterson does not recognize this problem.

Comment by Sue

August 31, 2007 @ 8:30 am

There is no doubt that Paige Patterson’s decision to promote homemaking as a college degree is a reflection of his belief in the importance of a wife being at home in submission to her husband. (Let me just say that I think we as egalitarians all agree on the value of a wife and mother choosing homemaking as a career option.)

I became concerned about Paige Patterson and the level of respect he has for women when I listened to an audio message on the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website. One of the messages offered is called ‘How Submission Works in Practice: A Panel Discussion.’ Paige Patterson is part of the panel. At about fifty-five minutes into the message he is asked about how he handles wife abuse. He explained that he never recommends divorce, and only in the most serious of cases does he recommend a separation. He said he advises women who are being abused less seriously to do three things: pray, submit, and elevate their husbands. As an example of why he is right in counseling in this way, he gave an example of one of his counseling situations. A woman came to him and said she was being abused by her husband. He advised her that every night she should kneel down by the side of the bed and pray for her husband even if it made him mad and may cause him to beat her again. She did that, and she did get beaten. When she came back to church, she approached Mr. Patterson with her bruises and angrily told him, ‘I hope you’re happy,’ to which Mr. Patterson replied, ‘Yes, ma’am, I am.’ He went on to explain that he was happy because what the wife didn’t know at that point was that the husband felt so bad about beating his wife again that he had come in earlier and repented and became a Christian and from that time on was a man of God. The moral of the story was that if a Godly woman stays in the situation and takes his advice (pray, submit, elevate), then she can trust God to move in the situation.

Comment by Mary

August 31, 2007 @ 9:01 am

‘Less serious’ abuse includes being beaten. ‘More serious’ would render the woman unable to leave. And, keeping women financially and completely dependent on their husbands – those who have them – essentially accomplishes the same thing: makes it even more difficult for a woman to leave an abusive husband.

Some of these men of God give women truly un-Godly counsel and should be ashamed of themselves – not proud of sending women back to be beaten by husbands who may or may not repent.

If a husband is abusing his wife, Patterson’s brand of ‘complementarianism’ enables him to keep on doing it. Unacceptable.

Comment by Terri

August 31, 2007 @ 11:11 am

Let’s face it; every religion has this same great flaw/error running right through it. The degradation of women is pronounced in the text of every major religion. They are not obscure passages, nor have they been sugar-coated by those who are expounders of the religions. The Christian fundamentalists, not Christ, have distorted and twisted God’s Word concerning women until it looks nothing like the love-letter that it was meant to be.

I listened to Adrian Rogers on the radio yesterday teaching on having a happy home. It was interesting how he linked passages in 1 Peter directly to wives. He quoted 1 Peter 2:23 – ‘Who when he was reviled, reviled not, again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.’ (KJV) In chapter 3 he waxed eloquent about wives being in subjection to their own husbands and having a meek and quiet spirit and he even mentioned for good measure that Sara called Abraham ‘lord.’

The implications are that for a woman, submission is connected to suffering. What else could it be when he links the horrible crucifixion of Christ with all its pain and agony and injustice to wives subjecting to husbands? It makes domestic violence not plausible but acceptable. Here again women are allowed to participate in the suffering of Christ but cannot be partakers of his power and authority. It is woman that is like a sheep led to slaughter, not man. The sacrifice/death of Jesus on the cross brought redemption to the whole world – it was salvific. What can we say that the physical abuse of a wife produces? Do her scars (mentally and physically) bring healing and restoration? This is one dangerous interpretation, and if an abused woman believes it, it could cost her her life.

The fact that you can feel the heat being turned up on women to be even more passive and more restrained tells me that people have been praying for God to use the sisters in these last days. That’s the very thing that the devil does not desire and he will use whatever or whomever to keep that prayer from being answered. But we must be like Daniel and keep praying, though Satan tries to interfere and intercept the word that the Lord has for us. If he can make the sisters feel like the Lord doesn’t hear us or even cares, he has won the battle. And, believe me; the devil doesn’t care what he uses to accomplish his goal – husband, church, etc.

Just please don’t stop praying, because God’s ears are opened unto the righteous and he hears us.

Comment by Exegetist

August 31, 2007 @ 11:16 am

In response to Sue (see comment 65408):

Just because the man dedicated his life to God after feeling bad about beating his wife does not mean that everything was then hunky-dory. Wife beating includes far, far more than just the beatings. And, unless that man were to get real Christian counseling, which is doubtful, he will continue in the other supporting attitudes of abuse (belittling, controlling, mocking, coercing, demanding his way in everything, etc.) and will likely eventually end up beating his wife again. And the reason that is very likely is that the pictures that gender hierarchalists paint of women is demeaning and encourages men to treat their women in demeaning ways… calling it biblical.

Comment by JLP

August 31, 2007 @ 3:24 pm

It seems like Adrian Rogers wants wives to submit to their husbands and to love them as much as Christ loves the church. Does he teach that husbands should love their wives as much as Christ loves the church? It doesn’t seem like it.

As for the verse 1 Peter 2:23 – ‘Who when he was reviled, reviled not, again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.’ (KJV) – isn’t that supposed to be the model for the husband? After all, he’s the one who is supposed to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

Actually, I think Peter meant for that verse to apply to all Christians who suffer unrighteously. But, if it is going to be applied to only a specific group, as Adrian Rogers applies it, it fits more aptly for husbands than for wives, as they are specifically told to imitate the behavior of Christ in relation to their wives.

Comment by JLP

August 31, 2007 @ 3:29 pm

As for Paige Patterson, I think we all know men who have repented of wife beating or infidelity and then gone right back to it. Even some complementarians I have spoken to know it happens a lot.

I don’t think Patterson realizes how difficult it is to stop behavior of this sort without a lot of commitment to change and a lot of help over a long period of time.

Comment by Sue

August 31, 2007 @ 10:37 pm

My former pastor, who is a complementarian, said that there is 100% recidivism. No man ever stops beating his wife.

Unfortunately, his preaching encouraged the situation, so I had to tell him that he was unable to help me in any way – he had already done enough damage by not encouraging women to stand up for themselves.

When will these people realize the excruciating humiliation and physical damage they are serving out to any woman under their influence?

Comment by tboots

September 1, 2007 @ 2:36 pm

In reading these posts it seemed to me that no one sees the part that a church community should play in the event that a woman loses her husband ‘and has no marketable skills’ with which to support her family… I pray that the church will do everything in its power to allow that woman to raise her kids at home.

Imagine the time when all these gifts (crowns) God has given us are laid at Jesus’ feet. God gave my dad the gift of a beautiful singing voice. He laid it down before Jesus in this life and raised nine kids with my wonderful mom and was a janitor at a large church until he retired.

Ain’t this life about voluntary sacrifice to the glory of God?

Comment by fjs

September 1, 2007 @ 4:07 pm

I think we should restrict men to farming – after all, weeds were his consequence in the garden – to farm and struggle to grow food with the pests and weeds. It’s the same reductionistic logic that limits women’s roles to childrearing and homemaking. Or better yet, we could restrict men to fathering children because that is their unique essential call based on biology.

Too bad the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) does not use the same reductionistic exegetical method for men that they use for women. We could even say that if everyone were home on the farm, well, then the world would be a better place.

The bottom line – we are mothers, fathers, farmers, homemakers, and those who hold all manner of careers – but that is not all that we are. We are multi-faceted human beings with a variety of gifts and talents meant to be used for the good of the world in service to Christ. That’s my take.

Comment by Mary

September 1, 2007 @ 4:13 pm

Like with pro-patriarchy in general, the flaw in that, TBoots (see comment 65806) is that you appear to think that women must be at home with their children – no other option – and that that would be hunky-dory if churches would just do everything they’re supposed to do.

That’s what the pro-patriarchs say about women and husbands. If husbands were perfect, then women would have no reason not to submit to them. (Never mind that we’re all commanded in Scripture to submit to one another.)

This is a fallen world, and nowhere in Scripture do we find ‘man goes out to work while woman stays at home’ as a commandment, or even commended as godly. That’s merely how Western society since the Industrial Revolution has worked for relatively wealthy families, and the pro-patriarchs are trying to baptize it as biblical.

I pray that we all use our gifts to the best of our ability, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Telling women not to even develop any gifts that don’t relate to homemaking and child rearing is not a godly thing, yet that is exactly what pro-patriarchalists teach. Shame on them!

Comment by Mary

September 1, 2007 @ 4:16 pm

Yes, voluntary sacrifice is essential to the Christian life. Pressure from one group or another for women to sacrifice in ways they never expect men to sacrifice, simply because they’re women, takes the ‘voluntary’ out of the equation. And, when one of the sacrifices being coerced is a rigorous education, they are left without the tools to see through the tissue of lies they’re being taught are ‘God’s design for women.’

Comment by JLP

September 1, 2007 @ 5:02 pm

TBoots (see comment 65806), you said:

In reading these posts it seemed to me that no one see’s the part that a church community should play in the event that a woman loses her husband ‘and has no marketable skills’ with which to support her family… I pray that the church will do everything in its power to allow that woman to raise her kids at home.

That’s a worthy goal for a church community to fulfill but economically a very difficult one.

Comment by tboots

September 1, 2007 @ 6:39 pm

Yes, that the church community rally around anyone in need is a worthy goal, and could be economically very difficult but it all comes down to sacrifice. No more Starbucks for me, it goes in the plate on Sunday. It is an everyday sacrifice we should all be aiming at. Let’s work toward a communal care instead of an ‘I must do this on my own’ because I don’t want to put anyone out. Yeah, I know this is difficult, but man, the leaders in the church should be preaching this and expecting it every week, don’t you think?

Comment by PS

September 1, 2007 @ 6:55 pm

Check out this article and the comments it contains about this situation.

Comment by Sue

September 1, 2007 @ 7:32 pm

Oh, brother. If only all masters were good Christians, then slaves would have no reason to want freedom. If all monarchs were good Christians, then we should all be thriving and happy subjects. If all empires were Godly, we would all be happy as colonies.

When the Baptists crawl back to the Pope, colonies to the crown, subjects to their monarchs and dictators, and slaves to their masters, then those same people can tell women to live in subordination to human males.

When Americans put themselves back under British rule, then women should reflect on placing themselves under their husbands.

Comment by JLP

September 1, 2007 @ 8:29 pm

The members of the church would have to give up much more than just Starbucks in order to financially support women who want to stay home with their children. They would have to give up some of the income they use to support their own families.

Not only that, but there are other church ministries that need to be supported. You would need to take money away from every other ministry of the church in order to financially support women economically to stay home.

Having children is a choice – it’s not something you have to do. If you decide to have children and stay home with those children, you should have a backup plan to support them in case something happens to the main breadwinner. Churches already have enough economic demands made on them, more than they can handle. Adding another burden, especially one as expensive as this, is quite difficult.

Would you be willing to go before your congregation and ask them to sacrifice more so that this type of program could be put in place? Would you be willing to dramatically increase your financial gifts to your church (because this is what it would involve – a dramatic increase in giving) so that these women could stay home with their children?

Comment by historyloveralways

September 1, 2007 @ 9:34 pm

I can’t afford to have children, although I would like to. Should I be expected to give to a ministry so women can stay at home with their children when I can’t even afford to have them myself?

Comment by Mary

September 1, 2007 @ 11:51 pm

Subsidizing an upper-class lifestyle that was unknown prior to the Industrial Revolution is not the job of the church. One two-generation family living in (by world standards) an extremely large house with only one of its members contributing financially to their livelihood and doing so by abandoning the rest all day to work miles away is a modern innovation and not a particularly healthy one. I believe it is a historically ignorant and extrabiblical notion that Christians should enshrine this lifestyle as ‘normative,’ or subsidize it when tragedy strikes a family unprepared for the tragedy, whose entire basket of eggs depends on an absent wage-earning husband and an at-home mother untrained to support herself or her family.

Should the church help those stricken with tragedy? Yes, we should. But, is it our mission to standardize this kind of unpreparedness and irresponsibility? No, it’s not.

Comment by sally

September 2, 2007 @ 3:26 am

I have been reading a lot about domestic violence recently, in order to understand the situation of a young person I know.

A great book is Sandra Horley’s Power and Control – Why Charming Men Can Make Dangerous Lovers (Vermilion, 2002).

I wouldn’t give much credence to Paige Patterson’s wonderful story about the repentant husband in the matter of the woman whom he advised who was being abused. Horley’s book makes it very clear that most abusive men are extremely charming and can turn the hearts of all their listeners towards their side of the story. They can appear sorry and repentant whenever they think it will further their goals of control.

One thing I had not thought of before was her reply to the question ‘Why does she stay?’ Horley says rather than ask that, we should ask ‘What’s stopping her from leaving?’

She also calls the problem ‘woman abuse’ rather than ‘domestic violence’ or even ‘relationship violence.’ This is because the latter two terms seem to assume a two-way partnership in the problem. The reality, however, is that no matter what the woman does in an abusive situation, she cannot stop the abuse happening to her. She does not deserve it. And, it happens to her because the man who is doing it to her wants to control her. It’s not about being nice or being awful. It’s all about control.

Horley’s book is not a Christian book. One of her chapters talks about the broader social reasons as to why woman abuse happens. She says to a large extent it is because society believes men are powerful and should be and women are not and shouldn’t be. She believes that strict roles for men and women contribute greatly to abuse.

This expert on abuse and violence to women in the home holds that these ‘Christian’ beliefs are partly responsible for aggression towards women.

I believe it’s true too. But, it’s ultra-disappointing when so-called ‘Christianity’ gets blamed for some of the worst kinds of violence.

Comment by sally

September 2, 2007 @ 3:32 am

In answer to the comments about whether the church should help young widows (or divorcees) with children, staying at home to bring them up, I would say there are some fairly clear scriptural principles that would put this idea to bed very quickly.

The widows that Paul said the church should help were older widows who would not marry again, and who were incapable of looking after themselves financially. They also had to give something back to the church, in being on the ‘list’ of widows and having some sort of ministry.

Where a woman is young and in theory capable of supporting herself and her family, she should definitely do so. The system in the New Testament was to help those who could not, in any circumstance, help themselves, not to support people with the ability to work! You can’t possibly say that young women today have no way of supporting themselves, even if they have children at home.

If you want to say that someone else should support them, probably the furthest you could stretch would be to the extended family.

Anyway – what about life insurance and social security and superannuation? Perhaps things are different in the United States than in Australia, but I’d be able to get on if my husband died. I’ve made sure of it!

Comment by tboots

September 2, 2007 @ 9:39 am

Thanks Sally (see comment 65860) for setting me straight on who takes care of widows – family (1 Timothy 5: 3-16). Does this apply to divorcees? You-all tell me.

I have appreciated this discussion and am learning – thank you.

Comment by historyloveralways

September 2, 2007 @ 1:25 pm

If Paige Patterson wants the Christian family to be stronger and he only wants to do it through the effort of the female gender – why not look into more practical ways of keeping the marriage together than a bachelor’s degree in homemaking?

For example, he could encourage women to major in child psychology or family and marriage counseling. This would help women understand the emotional, mental, and physical issues that tear families apart. Or, he could encourage them to major in finance, since money issues are one of the major issues behind divorce. All three of these majors would also have the benefit of giving women marketable skills in case of financial difficulty.

Or, he might consider encouraging men to take as much responsibility for keeping the family together as he expects women to take. If both partners take responsibility, the chances of the family staying together and being happy go up astronomically.

Comment by historyloveralways

September 2, 2007 @ 1:35 pm

Another major Paige Patterson should consider encouraging women to go into is addiction counseling. Alcohol, drugs, pornography, and sex addictions are tearing many Christian families apart. If women knew how to deal with these issues more effectively, perhaps less Christian families would fall apart.

Of course, the best way to keep Christian families from falling apart is to have both the husband and wife equally involved in solving the family’s problems.

Comment by tboots

September 2, 2007 @ 1:51 pm

Well said, HistoryLover (see comments 65915, 65916).

Comment by LMcC

September 2, 2007 @ 2:37 pm

See comment 65806.

The churches do pretty much nothing to help widows anymore. My mother and I never received help from the church. In fact, nobody from her church ever did anything special for her until maybe three years ago, and she was widowed in 1979. Widows and fatherless children are nothing to the churches.

See comment 65408.

Paige Patterson’s behavior toward that abused woman was nothing less than cruel. Send her back for more beatings? Would he have put himself in the same position? No? Then he had no business sending anyone else into that position. The day I see a hierarchical pastor (or any other hierarchical man with church authority) volunteer to take the beatings of the abused wives of his congregation and then actually take the blows, then he might have a tiny bit of room to tell an abused wife what to do. That said, once he suffers through that kind of abuse, I bet he’d never send another woman back into it again.

Mary (see comment 65831), right on.

I’m not dealing well with watching the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) turn into a giant clone of the Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB). The IFB did more than their share of damage to women and the testimony of the church in general. They don’t need help.

Comment by JLP

September 2, 2007 @ 2:37 pm

I wonder if it was Paige Patterson’s daughter getting beaten if he would be so ready to give the same advice.

He said he advises women who are being abused less seriously to do three things: pray, submit, and elevate their husbands.

I wonder if he was in a situation where he was getting beaten if he would be willing to take his own advice and to pray, submit, and elevate the person who was beating him.

I also wonder if he was getting beaten if he would define ‘beating’ as ‘less serious abuse.’

Comment by JLP

September 2, 2007 @ 4:35 pm

I get really scared when I hear people like Patterson defining ‘submit’ to mean to ‘submit to abuse.’ The devastation that women experience when they define ‘submit’ in this manner is absolutely horrific. And yet in spite of this, men like Patterson keep teaching submission in this manner.

When are the Christian men who teach submission in this manner going to take responsibility for all the pain and damage they have brought on Christian women with their teaching? When are they going to admit they were wrong? Why isn’t the Christian community holding them accountable?

We never hear these same Christian men teaching that men ought to submit to abuse from women. The Bible says we ought to protect the weak. How are we protecting the weak when we are telling the women (who are weaker) to submit to abuse from men (who are stronger)? Where is the Christianity in all of this?

Why do some Christians do this to women?

Comment by historyloveralways

September 2, 2007 @ 5:43 pm

So Patterson says:

If we do not do something to salvage the future of the home, both our denomination and our nation will be destroyed.

If Patterson wants to salvage the future of the home, he should stop telling women to submit to abuse.

Comment by Mary

September 2, 2007 @ 8:07 pm

Maybe the thing to remember about this whole Patterson embarrassment to the Gospel is that if he’s so off-point in how he counsels women on ‘submission,’ his counsel is probably equally unbiblical and ungodly on other issues as well. (Not that that’s keeping people blind to the truth from buying into his schemes.)

Comment by Light

September 3, 2007 @ 10:09 am

Does anyone else see the rampant hypocrisy here? An institution which tells women their place is in the home and to be keepers at home is paying women faculty members who are outside the home to teach other women to ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ If applying the Titus 2 passage is so highly elevated, why is Dorothy Patterson teaching for a salary while she has a maid and a cook at home? Why is she not donating her time instead of participating in a scheme which requires young women to part with $35,000 for that which women are commanded to do in the Bible as a ministry?

Comment by Mary

September 3, 2007 @ 10:15 am

…for that which women are said to be commanded to do in the Bible as a ministry.

Here again, we see the Pattersons taking something that’s commended scripturally and making an exclusive commandment out of it, despite the plentiful scriptural evidence that being ‘keepers at home’ was hardly an exclusive, commanded ‘role’ for women.

But yes, I do see the hypocrisy. Follow the money…

Comment by PS

September 3, 2007 @ 4:00 pm

Perhaps (male) pastors who give this counsel came from homes or are now in homes where there is physical abuse, so they just view it as normal. In any case, we can assume that they are in homes where they act as lord and master, right?

Could this topic be started anew and more generalized to a new blog post?

Here’s what I’m wondering: I think I remember reading some time ago that marriages from ‘conservative’ churches break up just as often as do marriages from modern society in general. Maybe somebody knows how to look this up and can find some statistics about this, including causes.

Then instead of conjecture about this, we could see if ‘traditional’ marriage roles really do guarantee success.

My own view is that there could not be mutual respect between spouses if one always had to be the boss and the other had to ‘submit.’

Comment by pw

September 3, 2007 @ 5:41 pm

PS (see comment 66078) – I’d have to go back to look up the reference, but the last research I saw noted that traditional marriages are breaking up at a rate higher than those with more egalitarian relationships, and where they are not breaking up, they show more marital dissatisfaction, while egalitarian marriages have higher rates of satisfaction and intimacy. Here’s another thing to consider (based on Patricia Evan’s work, The Verbally Abusive Relationship): you can have a power-over relationship (i.e. one boss and one ‘submissive’) or you can have an intimate relationship. But you cannot have both – one cancels out the other.

Comment by Liz

September 4, 2007 @ 6:25 am

The comment by TBoots (comment 65890) asks whether 1 Timothy 5: 3-16 applies to divorcees. We believe so and have taught that for many years. Many women are on their own in today’s society and experiencing the same pressures and ‘aloneness’ that widows of biblical times knew. We also believe that the church community has a huge responsibility to not just give handouts to all people in need but be prepared to spend the long hours helping folk to readjust to living on their own.

It’s a tiring business and not always appreciated – people don’t always change or improve as we think they ‘should’ but we have the responsibility nevertheless.

Comment by Jon

September 4, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

Hey, I really want to take that meals preparation course. I’m just terrible at cooking and could use a serious, in-depth education in that regard, precisely. However, I am worried that I might not be allowed to earn a degree in meal preparation. You see, I’m a man. And I hear that among Southern Baptists, that might disqualify me?

(Sorry, couldn’t resist…)

Comment by JLP

September 4, 2007 @ 12:55 pm

You are a man – you are supposed to take of the thistles – not cook (Genesis 3:18). Remember your biblical role and adhere to it!

Comment by Jon

September 4, 2007 @ 1:27 pm

Ah, but could I cook the thistles?

The new punk dish: tongue-piercing, anyone?

harharhar – Slap! – Ow… violence on the CBE Scroll!

Comment by JLP

September 4, 2007 @ 3:34 pm

Now Jon (see comment 66167), please refer to the following Scripture:

‘Once when Jacob was cooking stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was exhausted. And Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am exhausted!” (Therefore his name was called Edom.) Jacob said, “Sell me your birthright now.” Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” Jacob said, “Swear to me now.” So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.’ (Genesis 25:29-34, ESV)

See what happens when you let men in the kitchen! There’s a reason those fundamental Baptists won’t let you take their cooking course.

Comment by JLP

September 4, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

And one more thing, Jon – if you think I am taking the above Scripture out of context just to prove that men don’t belong in the kitchen – remember this – context doesn’t matter when discussing gender roles in the Bible!

Comment by Jon

September 4, 2007 @ 3:49 pm

Well, well. I really thought I was making a joke about the men not being included. Guess what? Paige Patterson makes it clear they are not included; that ‘The [homemaker] program is open only to women.’ I haven’t seen relentless consistency like this since… well, we aren’t supposed to discuss politics here, are we…

So JLP (see comment 66178), context really doesn’t matter. And now, my wife will never get to taste my culinary potential. Ten minute pizza, anyone? Sigh…

Comment by JLP

September 4, 2007 @ 4:02 pm

Pardon me, Jon (see comment 66179), but once again I must refer you to Scripture:

‘And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:17-19, ESV)

The clear teaching of Scripture is that men don’t belong in the kitchen.

Comment by LMcC

September 4, 2007 @ 4:28 pm

(takes notes)

Finally, a good argument to keep hubby out of the kitchen!

(lifts Diet Dr. Pepper to last few posters)

Comment by JLP

September 4, 2007 @ 5:00 pm

To the men on this forum:

God had to put somebody in charge of the kitchen and he chose women. But that doesn’t mean men aren’t equal, just that they are less valuable. And it doesn’t mean God doesn’t love men as much as he loves women, even though he doesn’t. It just means that men are somehow fundamentally flawed in a way women aren’t.

Remember that any woman who truly loves her husband will never make a dish that will hurt him. No truly Christian woman would ever put rat poison in the meatloaf no matter how bad a day she had.

And don’t think I’m just saying this because I’m a woman and I might have something to gain from it. No, God’s Word says it and I’m just taking advantage of it.

Now, don’t you men feel better? I do.

Comment by Sue

September 4, 2007 @ 9:35 pm

JLP (see comment 66186), I think it’s also important to remind the men that God’s order for the kitchen is for their own good. And that even if the woman does deliberately cook dishes that would hurt the man, there is a God-ordained solution. The man should pray for her, submit to her, and say really nice stuff to her so she won’t want to hurt him any more – and, of course, the man should continue eating the food in spite of the risk. It’s what God would want the man to do.

Comment by sally

September 5, 2007 @ 12:43 am

You guys are hilarious. I am laughing.

Comment by Mary

September 5, 2007 @ 6:03 am

Sue (see comment 66211), that’s true. His silent submission, despite the personal cost to him, might just bring about his wife’s salvation, and that’s what really matters, right?

And if he’s having some trouble with that, buckling down to his God-given farming (that’s what God created him for, after all) for a while should help get him get his heart right.

Comment by pw

September 5, 2007 @ 7:32 am

Whoa – I think you all have gone too far! Surely God did not intend this to extend to BBQing! Did he? Besides, BBQ is outdoors and behind the scenes of the kitchen!

Comment by sally

September 5, 2007 @ 7:45 am

Well – the question is really – is BBQing cooking or not? When does a BBQ become a meal? Is the man doing the BBQ out in the back cooking for the family or just for other men? Are there women around making sure it’s done right? Can the women eat what the men cook?

Personally I think BBQing is OK for men to do, as long as the women are there in the kitchen, making the salads and setting the table.

It’s a grey area – others may disagree with me. It may be a secondary issue to the real issue of nutrition, but it’s one we have to be careful about because it has implications.

If men start preparing the whole BBQ meal, it could lead down the slippery slope to (gasp) restaurantism and going out of the home to eat food cooked by male chefs.

Comment by LW

September 5, 2007 @ 9:26 am

And for a Baptist, the slippery slope down will lead to dancing. Then what will happen to Christianity?

Comment by PS

September 5, 2007 @ 9:50 am

Oh, oh… it must mean that those big gas grills with all the bells and whistles and even a few burners so that all the cooking can be done outside by the man are tools of the devil to fool us into thinking that men are allowed to cook.

Or perhaps the woman just puts up with this and silently eats the burnt steak, letting the man think that he is wonderful and helpful, when in reality, she has to clean up the mess he makes.

Comment by Jon

September 5, 2007 @ 10:21 am

Dear sisters, I have seen the light. I will now lay down my arrogant pride (and my BBQ grill), admitting I was not designed to think about such complexities as food creation, but rather to remain silent in the kitchen. I will henceforth never again make a peanut butter sandwich, thus rebelling against God’s order, nor will I get up to ‘get my wife and I a cup of coffee’ – since to do so is to usurp her proper role. I am so glad that I have finally discovered my proper place in the kingdom of God, though it does remain slightly puzzling as to why having a penis means I cannot make a cake. But mine not to question why, mine but to shut my mouth and submit. Amen?

Comment by pw

September 5, 2007 @ 10:53 am

Thank you all. You have no idea how badly I needed a laugh!

Jon (see comment 66275), I would recommend you continue to get the cup of coffee, as long as you don’t make it!

Comment by JLP

September 5, 2007 @ 1:36 pm

Ladies, Jon may make the cup of coffee as long as he is under the authority and covering of his wife. The same goes for BBQing.

Wives provide a spiritual covering for their husbands that allows them to do things that we claim are unscriptural for men to do.

Jon (see comment 66275), I feel the obvious resentment in your voice over the issue of making cakes. You are being rebellious to the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Comment by Mary

September 5, 2007 @ 4:36 pm

See comment 66176 (Jacob cooking stew).

This is obviously a case of God having to use a man to do a woman’s job because no woman would step up and do it. God chose a man to shame women into being the cooking leaders they’re supposed to be. But this is in no way normative. Men should never believe themselves to be called by God to BBQ grilling; Jacob is an exception that proves the rule: no men cooking!

Comment by pw

September 5, 2007 @ 5:00 pm

So, Mary (see comment 66287), is the interpretation that Jacob should have stewed but not cooked? (Sorry bad pun, I know.)

Comment by leigh

September 5, 2007 @ 6:14 pm

Thank you! Thank you so much for the laughter. I am sharing the link to this article and these comments (thank you for the serious, insightful comments that I think led up to this release of steam, certainly).

These humorous illustrations highlight the way(s) that some folks use theology to assault logic. Ouch.

Comment by tboots

September 5, 2007 @ 8:09 pm

I have been on both this site/blog and the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood site, and I must say that the Council brings their points across with a lot more ‘gentleness and respect’ than you all have. In all the areas of their site that I have visited I have not seen one derogatory remark made at any of the egalitarian exponents. You could learn from them.

I will be checking out more of your articles, but at this point this blog is a waste of my time.

Comment by JLP

September 5, 2007 @ 8:20 pm

In private web-based discussions with people who are users of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) website I have been insulted so many times I can’t even begin to count them. A lot of the jokes here are because of the insults we have received on a personal level.

In fact, many times I have read the literature on CBMW because these people asked me to. I haven’t been there in the last couple of years, but as of some years ago I was very familiar with the site.

Comment by historyloveralways

September 5, 2007 @ 8:21 pm

Tboots (see comment 66299), why don’t you check out the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s (CBMW) CCC list. I think you would find it interesting.

Comment by historyloveralways

September 5, 2007 @ 8:29 pm

Tboots (see comment 66299), I made a mistake. CCC is not the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s (CBMW) list.

Comment by leigh

September 5, 2007 @ 9:16 pm

Tboots (see comment 66299), if I may, I would like to offer that I have found many articles from CBE to be helpful, as well as reading the initial blog posts. Some of the exchanges in the comment sections of the blog I have also found useful.

However, as the blog is multi-functional – serving as a place to relate with one another as well as to educate, it may not always live up to one’s expectations in either capacity.

I hope that you have not felt that anyone has interacted with you disrespectfully at an individual level. If I had to hazard a guess, you would find individual interaction with any one of the commenters here to be a different type of interaction than… the sort of bantering and letting off of steam (both from the weightier earlier comments and from the situation mentioned by JLP) that is currently going on in this particular thread.

Comment by Sue

September 5, 2007 @ 9:45 pm

Does the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) website have a blog? I have visited the website fairly often and wondered on many occasions why they do not have a blog. The fact that they don’t have one has made me suspicious that they do not believe that their beliefs would stand the scrutiny of opposing views. I also suspect that they would not want people writing real-life stories of how their views have hurt women.

I admit that some of the previous posts are somewhat sarcastic, but I don’t believe any posts were insulting. Their intention is to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd. Why is it that the reasoning that is used by the other side to keep women in their place seems so ridiculous when in the same ‘reasoning’ is applied to men?

If any of you CBMWers read this blog, how about starting a blog on your site? Maybe your first post could start out by justifying Paige Patterson’s approach to counseling abused women as outlined on your very website. (That would be found about fifty-five minutes into the panel discussion ‘Submission: How It Works in Practice.’) It would make for an interesting discussion on your blog.

Comment by Mary

September 5, 2007 @ 9:52 pm

It’s been a while since I visited the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s (CBMW) site, Tboots (see comment 66299). Have they added a blog? Is there interaction, or is it (as I remember it) simply the CBMW opinions published without interaction with people reacting to their articles?

If that’s the case, of course CBMW’s site would seem ‘gentler and respectful,’ especially to one who accepts their opinions as accurately reflecting biblical teaching. My online experience of people who accept patriarchy as biblical, some of whom endorse the CBMW, is that many are extremely pugilistic toward biblical egalitarians, to the point that they routinely call us heretics and deny that we’re Christians. Not that we all shouldn’t strive for respect and gentleness in truthful interaction. I’m wondering what you found especially lacking in respect and gentility in this comment thread. I’ve seen an attempt to address what many of us see as fundamentally flawed reasons for the seminary in question to offer the course it does for the reasons they state. I also don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to express strong reactions to their president’s criminal behavior in counseling a battered wife to return to her husband in order to be beaten further – and yes, if this counsel was given in Texas (where the seminary is located), he was criminally negligent. Finally, there’s nothing in the humorous exchange among the most recent comments that is not a parody of the same illogical, biblically flawed devices being taught by patriarchalists as biblical ‘fact’ when the focus of the restriction is women instead of men.

Anyway, it’s not reasonable to compare a single-view publication (CBMW site) with a site such as CBE, when you’re using the blog feature to fashion your negative assessment of CBE. Do some blog reading among CBMW-friendly people and see what they’re saying about egalitarians. I believe if you’re willing to be fair-minded, you’ll recognize there is restraint being shown here among most of us commenters, even in this thread.

Comment by JLP

September 5, 2007 @ 10:02 pm

Tboots (see comment 66299), when I was younger I believed in gender hierarchy because that’s what the Christian community taught me. These teachings caused great pain in my life and the lives of my friends. After much study, I converted to egalitarianism.

When Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) website users insulted me over my egalitarian beliefs it dredged up a lot of the memories of that pain. I have to admit I made the sarcastic jokes I did in reaction to that.

I’m sorry if I offended you. Had I known it would have offended you, I wouldn’t have started the jokes in the first place.

Many of us here have had our lives damaged by gender hierarchal teachings, and it comes out in the frustration we express concerning them. Perhaps we could express them in a more appropriate way.

It’s hard because no matter how sincerely we express our feelings, some people will not take us seriously. They keep teaching women the same things that caused us so much pain and trouble. And it breaks our hearts to see this. So we express that sometimes in an inappropriate manner.

Comment by JLP

September 5, 2007 @ 10:13 pm

And I still think Jon should stay out of the kitchen!

Comment by Mary

September 6, 2007 @ 7:00 am

PW (see comment 66287), I don’t know the answer to your very punny question, but I do know when Jacob simmered his braised meat mixture, his brother saw red. (snicker)

Comment by pw

September 6, 2007 @ 9:02 am

I have been very careful to not reveal my gender in any of my posts. The Christianity I was introduced to was very egalitarian – my spiritual father was a senior pastor and his wife (my youth director) was my spiritual mom; both were committed to being conformed to the image of Christ and leading us, their charges, to do the same. The concept of ‘whosoever’ appealed to me as it was radically different from world I was raised in and observed how ‘privilege’ hurt people. My church was 55% European-American and 45% African-American at a time that they were still rioting in Boston over school integration.

Professionally, I work with men who have been convicted of domestic violence (DV) and are court mandated to treatment, as well as women who are victims. I do court evaluations on DV cases. I have had my Christianity questioned because of my stance that women and children deserve to be safe (see James 1:27 – and if he is abusing her, she is an emotional widow and the children are emotional orphans), and if that means not returning to an abusive home, then they don’t return.

I have been held in suspicion by a DV community whose experience with Christians has been to tell battered women to go home and be submissive, even if she or her children are ultimately maimed or killed. I have been the support person for five colleagues who have had women murdered by their husbands (in some cases, the children were murdered also in a gruesome and violent fashion). I have done court evaluations on men and women who have murdered their partners and their children. Today is Thursday. Since Monday I have had to deal with a woman whose husband threatened to kill her (he admitted to doing so but stated he ‘didn’t mean it’), a man who broke bones in his female partner’s face (not just nose but facial bones), ‘Christian’ men who have used such vulgar and degrading language on their wives that if I were to repeat it here the blog would be banned or fairly thoroughly edited.

I write the above for background, not self-glory. The difficulty with the written word is that tone is left for the reader to interpret. Please know that the tone comes from a heavy heart, and not anger, sarcasm or condescension.

For many, the discussion of authoritarianism versus complementarianism versus egalitarianism is one only of semantics, for me it is an issue of life and death.

It is easy to focus on her and how she provoked, was responsible for, or deserved what happened to her. But doing so will not change things. Men feel justified in their behavior, and many use male privilege as promoted by their churches. Until we acknowledge the fullness of God in those redeemed by Jesus, we will make little progress toward putting me out of business (and I would relish not being needed in this area).

The goal, as I see it, is for all (regardless of gender) to be conformed to the image of Christ, living love as defined in I Corinthians 13, practicing the fruit of the Spirit, and doing good to all (especially those of the household of faith). To put only one gender in the pulpit and one in the kitchen perpetuates the underlying principles and beliefs that keep me in business.

So, once again, I thank those who allowed me a respite of laughter this week.

Comment by HKH

September 6, 2007 @ 9:45 am

I have been lurking here and have enjoyed the comments. I’d like to throw in just a little bit that hasn’t been mentioned yet. In reference to sending a woman back into an abusive situation, it is not only criminal. It is insane.

The general public has no idea of how widespread undiagnosed brain disorders and personality disorders are. Adult ADHD, OCD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder… I could go on and on and on. But, I believe you get the picture.

Many of these disorders, since they are not flaming Schizophrenia, are under the radar of most of the population and even most doctors. People not living with one of these disorders in a spouse have no clue the abuses that go on in both Christian and secular situations or how insidious these disorders can be.

Telling a woman to go back to an abusive man, not knowing of the existence of Narcissitic Personality Disorder or how it plays out in relationships is folly in the most extreme sense of the word.

Blindly following a pet doctrine to this point shows such a corrupt understanding of Scripture, as one previous poster stated. How can we trust this man with anything else pertaining to Scripture? How can Southern Baptists trust him to head up their prestigious college?

I am just shocked.

And, I hope something happens soon to shake up this destructive stronghold in the minds of those who are so willing to carry and enforce it this far. Too many people, men and women, are being hurt by such a ridiculous stand.

Comment by Mary

September 6, 2007 @ 11:26 am

Thank you for the work you do, PW (see comment 66335) and for your powerful witness. You are the hands and feet and voice of Christ, helping to work transformation and change in the lives of God’s beloved children. I’m very glad you told part of your story here. You’re doing work that too many Christians know nothing about.

HKH (see comment 66339), you bring up a very important point about an abuser’s possible mental illness. To add to that point, I find it discouraging how many Christian leaders disparage the science of the mind and coerce their followers into not getting adequate mental health care for themselves and their loved ones. I don’t know Paige Patterson’s stance on mental illness and treatment, but then, I’m the one who observed that I wouldn’t trust him about anything anyway, based on his appallingly bad hermeneutic concerning women and social structure. But you are exactly right, that sending a woman back to a proven batterer, especially without knowing what pathology may be contributing to the violent behavior, is inexcusable.

Egalitarians are sometimes accused by patriarchalists of all being focused on a ‘victim mentality.’ Of course, not all egalitarians are survivors of violence. Perhaps the notable difference is that most of us egalitarians acknowledge the huge problem of violence by men against women (as well as the much less common problem of violence by women against men) and do not ignore the exacerbation of male violence enabled by the patriarchy-friendly religious environments in which some men take shelter. Too many people try to pretend that patriarchy protects women. Selfless actions protect people, including women; patriarchy may tout selflessness in certain arenas, but in no way enforces what can only originate in the attitudes of the heart. Patriarchy protects only the privileged position historically enjoyed by men. History makes this abundantly clear.

Comment by Karen

September 6, 2007 @ 2:41 pm

This blog has been great. The humor and laughter that it has brought to many of us has been refreshing. I am not an English student by any means, but I was recently in a conversation about the use of satirical content in our dialogue to ‘get a point across.’ Is it right or wrong? Sometimes we have to be able to laugh at some of our ideas – Godly as we thought they were – and conclude that maybe we don’t ‘own the corner market on understanding life.’ Perhaps in our quest to be spiritual/Godly/holy/pure we have lost one of the very traits that we have been given in order to cope with this life – fun, humor, laughter, comic relief.

So, did the Scriptures use satire? I found this great little article on Christian satire.
Here is a quote taken from the link.

Perhaps the funniest came from Elijah to the prophets of Baal. I Kings 18:27 ‘Shout louder. Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.’ That is funny! Further examples could be given of irony and other forms of humor used in Scripture. The truth is, the Bible is far wittier and more creative than we trust ourselves to be.

Often we can’t see the error until we twist it a little – poke a little fun – have a laugh at it and then lights go on – ‘now I get it!’

As for the idea of a homemaker’s degree – parents/guardians ought to be teaching their own children the essentials of how to make home for themselves on their own, as a single or couple. Some of this will be learned just by living. Spending money of any proportion on a nonsensical degree is another reason we have the huge problem of selfish consumerism within the church and our world. What can that kind of a degree do for anyone? This all reminds me of the movie Mona Lisa Smile where it’s all about outward appearances. Thank God we don’t have to go back to the ‘good ol’ days.’

Comment by Mary

September 6, 2007 @ 6:11 pm

I’ve debated about posting this link, and I’ve prayed about it. I decided that since a couple of people have expressed doubt about self-described complementarians speaking ungraciously about biblical egalitarians, it would illustrate the problem we face.

This link is to a blog run by two brothers who are Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) clergy, who used to be very closely associated with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), and who provided both the blog entry in response to this one here and their obvious support for the comments following the entry on their own blog.

Note: I am not endorsing this blog. I find much on it to be divisive to the body of Christ, sinfully dismissive of the faith of biblical egalitarians, and untruthful about biblical equality and its adherents on a regular basis. However, there is demonstrated pride in their expressed pejorative opinions about us for daring to criticize Paige Patterson and a particular course at the seminary where he is president. Therefore, I think linking to the entry and its comments may be instructive to readers here.

Comment by Sue

September 6, 2007 @ 8:13 pm

Mary (see comment 66365), I can see why you had to first prayerfully consider sharing the blog, but I’m glad you did. You did a great job of illustrating the fact that only the women who stay ‘in their place’ are worthy of respect by proponents of patriarchy. Since they so earnestly read this blog and they are so eager to defend Patterson, it would have been helpful to read their concurrence on Patterson’s belief that women who are being beaten are expected by God to be sent home by their pastor to be beaten again. Maybe they missed that that is why the discussion about domestic abuse got started in the first place. They have also distorted our shock at the concept of paying $60,000 for a degree which will garner no income generating skills and which could be done without a $60,000 degree. They twisted it into claiming that we do not respect homemaking as a career choice. And these guys are clergy! They are clergy who are sadly lacking in ‘gentleness and respect’ for (at least some) women.

Comment by JLP

September 6, 2007 @ 8:21 pm

Here’s a link to a website with a story about a woman who was advised to submit to beatings from her husband and ended up being murdered in the process.

For your information – I know one famous complementarian pastor who tells women who are being beaten by their husbands that it is biblical for them to leave. I mention this because I know that there are many complementarians like this pastor who do not believe in sending women back into situations where they are in danger.

Comment by Melanie

September 6, 2007 @ 10:26 pm

JLP (see comment 66404) – Thanks for the clarification regarding complementarians. I happen to be one and also attend a church that would not advise a woman to stay with an abusive spouse. The focus of the teaching is aimed much more sharply at men to love their wives sacrificially, as Christ loves the church. The women are encouraged to be ‘helpmeets’ to their husbands and are taught that they are not helping them by allowing deplorable behavior to go on in the name of ‘submission.’

Submission does not mean a woman is limited to a docile, passive, silent role. It is an acknowledgment of where the burden of responsibility lies and who will be held to account for the state of the family – the husband. But, as a helper I can advise, question, make suggestions, and share in various responsibilities. Also, as a helper I can point out areas of sin I see in my husband and if need be, bring him before church leaders. And if he beats me, I can help him by removing myself and our children from the line of fire and forcing him to face the consequences of his actions – one of which is the loss of his family.

This is a healthy form of complementarianism, which in many ways will not look a lot different than an egalitarian relationship.

Let’s remember that it is indwelling sin that is at the root of domestic violence. I am sure there are cases of abuse in egalitarian churches too. Not to mention the secular world, that is largely feministic in its values. A patriarchal belief system is not the cause of violence. If that were the case, we would not need a Savior from our sin; we would only need a better education. Complementarian or egalitarian, I think we can all agree on that!

Comment by Sue

September 6, 2007 @ 10:52 pm

Melanie (see comment 66437), thank you for your comments about complementarianism. I’m glad you feel comfortable in following this blog and contributing to this website. You have much to offer in giving your perspective. I have no doubt that there are many complementarians who would not advise a woman to stay in an unsafe situation. The fact remains, though, that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) is the most prominent on-line resource for the complementarian view, and Patterson is a very prominent leader for the complementarian view. The fact that Patterson has this view and that it is endorsed on the CBMW website gives that view a strong endorsement by complementarians, and that has the potential to cause much harm to women in that situation who are looking for guidance. CBMW apparently stands by Patterson’s view or it wouldn’t be on their website, and CBMW is one of the main mouthpieces for the complementarian view.

Comment by Liz

September 7, 2007 @ 3:27 am

Melanie (see comment 66437), thanks for sharing your experience, and we recognize that many non-egalitarians are totally opposed to abuse and wouldn’t sanction men beating their wives. One point you made was about ‘where the responsibility lies and who will be held accountable for the state of the family – the husband.’ I have not heard a biblical reason given for this belief, which is very strong in some circles. Could you please explain why you believe this?

Comment by Mary

September 7, 2007 @ 6:39 am

Let me say that I don’t believe patriarchy is the cause of violence by men against women. Sin is the cause of that. The problem is that patriarchy provides men with little or no accountability when they sin against their wives, and leaves wives with whatever power or lack of it their husbands permit them to have.

As for the complementarian-patriarchy link, I think it is fair to say that most or all complementarians embrace some degree of patriarchy, in that in order to be what people generally consider religious complementarians, they must agree with abridging certain rights for women that men enjoy. It’s a little slippery, based on the literature and the informal writings I’ve read. You can be completely egalitarian in all other regards but still hold the belief that women are forbidden from serving as senior pastors, for example, and still be considered somewhat complementarian. However, let you be the otherwise egalitarian but believe that men and women complement each other in marriage, and generally you’re not going to be considered complementarian by other complementarians. So as I see it, there is not a lot of direct link between belief in true complementarity and patriarchy, but a definite link between being a religious complementarian and embracing some aspect(s) of patriarchy.

And it’s worth remembering that the whole so-called complementarian movement, as conceived and spread by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), was begun in reaction to CBE. The whole system relies on demonizing our belief in equality as biblical.

Comment by Mary

September 7, 2007 @ 6:42 am

Melanie (see comment 66437), I agree with you that men who abuse their wives (as well as women who abuse their husbands, which happens) should have to face the consequences of their actions. That abuse sunders the marriage.

Comment by Mary

September 7, 2007 @ 6:59 am

Relative to a retaliatory re-post from two years ago: Wife abuse is not a ‘useful lie,’ it is a tragically common fact. And, as you said Sue (see comment 66446), it would be good to see the people who are calling it a ‘useful lie’ tell the truth about Paige Patterson’s admitted pastoral malpractice in sending a wife back to an abusive husband to be beaten again. (At least Patterson acknowledges that wife abuse is a fact. What he did about it, at least in that incident, was unconscionable.)

Simply because women are sometimes violent, too, does not negate or excuse the huge problem of men’s violence toward women, nor excuse pro-patriarchy leaders from taking responsible Christian action when it occurs (and refrain from such sin themselves, of course). One would think that at some point, the light would dawn upon these leaders that patriarchy inherently protects abusive men from, as Melanie said (see comment 66437), the consequences of their actions. That system relies on men, not the abused women themselves, taking whatever action they’re willing to risk, to force abusive men to stop abusing. It does not take great effort of thought to understand that a system in which women have little or no power does not empower women to leave abusive husbands and have them arrested and prosecuted.

Comment by Mary

September 13, 2007 @ 6:53 am

I’m trying to figure out, Ken (see comment 67509), if you’re holding all Christian feminists (not at all an oxymoron, despite your opinion) responsible for your negative experience on another forum. It sounds like it to me, and you would not be alone in that self-defined ‘guilt by association.’

You might do well to realize that when you tell people you are essentially taking the place of the ultimate judge, Jesus Christ, about their salvation – which is what you do when you say ‘Christian feminist is an oxymoron,’ you are not setting yourself up to get a fair hearing on anything else you might wish to tell them. If you’re basing your opinion of fellow brothers and sisters on a false premise (that Christians can’t be feminists), you are telling them in effect that your judgment is fundamentally flawed; they’re not too likely to believe much else you say if you get something so basic, so wrong.

Please observe that the things you’ve contended about the beliefs of the feminists at that other (unnamed) venue are nowhere demonstrated to be true about CBE members and other participants here. Whatever your beliefs about the ‘feminist agenda,’ you really ought to deal with what people are actually saying in the venue you’re participating in, not project onto them the thoroughly negative presuppositions about feminists that you happen to cherish (and upon which your resentments appear to be based).

In other words, you can say a lot of things about other people, but that doesn’t necessarily make them true or make you very credible about what you say.

You might start with believing what feminists know to be true: a feminist is a person who believes that women have the same human rights as men. It’s not a difficult concept; I wonder that so many Christians rail against this truth.

Comment by Melanie

September 13, 2007 @ 10:48 am

Mary (see comment 67521), I think it depends on the connotation one has of ‘feminist.’ Clearly your definition of ‘feminist’ is different than that of Ken’s, and my own. When I hear the term ‘feminist,’ I think of someone who likes to blame men for all their problems, is pro-choice, sees homemaking and childrearing as a waste of a woman’s potential and for that matter sees a woman’s femininity as irrelevant. This is what most in my circle of friends, both Christian and non-Christian, perceive feminists to be.

From that standpoint, indeed putting ‘Christian’ and ‘feminist’ together is an oxymoron.
Now I know that is not the heart of CBE, and I don’t get the impression that that is yours. I just think we need to be careful about how we identify ourselves and the perceptions of those around us. If you constantly have to define and defend your position it may be time to drop the feminist label for one that is more clearly understood.

Though complementarian myself, I appreciate the concerns of CBE regarding the abuse of leadership that has gone on in the Christian community and the oppressive effects this has had on women. I wish there could be more dialogue on this, without complementarians denying that abuse is a genuine concern and egalitarians painting all complementarian teaching with broad brush strokes and calling it abusive.

As food for thought, Josh Harris had an interesting post regarding feminism yesterday on his blog.

Comment by Mary

September 13, 2007 @ 10:55 am

I simply resist efforts of people who are not feminist; twisting what feminism is into something not remotely resembling what feminism is, then presuming to tell feminists that their twisted re-definition is ‘feminism.’ It’s not. Just because people who have invested a lot of energy into demonizing feminism have convinced a certain number of people that feminism is anti-Christian doesn’t make it true. That’s why I try to set the record straight about what feminism is and is not. As a feminist (that is, someone who believes men and women have equal human rights), I’m a little more of an expert on it than those who are, frankly, bearing false witness against feminists.

Comment by Mary

September 13, 2007 @ 11:02 am

I’m not saying you’re one of the people demonizing feminism, Melanie (see comment 67535). I see you making some effort to discern for yourself what the truth is and finding much that you might previously have thought about feminism and biblical equality to be false.

Getting people to believe the lies about feminism and equality has been one of the successes of organizations like the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and various popular religious leaders. I pray that more people are willing to think for themselves and recognize the difference between the religiously-popular propaganda and the simple, biblical truth that CBE stands for.

Comment by Mary

September 13, 2007 @ 11:15 am

While I will concede that Harris’ viewpoint is better for women than the all-out authoritarianism it counters, it’s still based on what I see as a totally extra-biblical viewpoint: men as leaders of their wives. The Bible portrays a husband and wife as one flesh, not as a leader and a follower. And, as long as Christian leaders claim that recognizing this is ‘contrary to God and the Bible’ and denying the Christian faith of those who recognize this (as many have), there’s little difference to egalitarians in how their Christian brothers and sisters act toward them.

As someone said further up the thread, it’s much the same as saying that if masters all treated their slaves kindly no one would need to oppose slavery. If kings were just rulers, no one would need to revolt against their monarchs. If dictators did nothing but good for their nations, there would be no coup.

No, as long as a system counters the biblical counter-culture of putting others first instead of exercising worldly power for one group over another (as patriarchy, monarchy, slavery, and tyranny all do), there is Christian transformation that needs to occur. That is why CBE is needed. God is working to reconcile the world to himself through Jesus Christ so that worldly patterns of subjugation are abolished in favor of truly Godly relationships.

Comment by leigh

September 13, 2007 @ 2:48 pm

Many folks say bad things about Christians, too. That doesn’t mean that I am not going call myself a Christian.

It also doesn’t mean that I agree with all other Christians about everything.

Eh, they’re labels.

Comment by JLP

September 13, 2007 @ 3:00 pm

Melanie (see comment 67535), I like to use the term ‘egalitarian’ rather than ‘feminist.’ Since I’m pro-life and I understand the desires of women who choose to be full-time homemakers I feel it describes me more precisely.

The term ‘feminist’ means many different things to many different people. It’s like the term ‘evangelical,’ there are several different definitions for it.

I don’t know anyone who calls themselves a feminist who hates men. I do know people who call themselves feminists who hate what some men have done to women, though.

Comment by JLP

September 13, 2007 @ 3:18 pm

Melanie (see comment 67535), one more thing. You ought to get to know some of these feminists who appear to hate men on a personal level. What I have found about them is that they hate rape, pornography, violence against women, political and economic discrimination against women, and male attempts to dominate and control women. What happens is that when they express their feelings over these issues, the way they do it makes it sound as if they hold all men accountable for these acts. But, in fact they don’t.

I have never met a feminist who hated men, only feminists who have mis-communicated their anger over what some men have done to women.

Comment by JLP

September 13, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

Me again on the topic of feminists who appear to hate men – for the third time! I think the reason some people perceive that feminists hate men is because they hear the feminist rhetoric, which sometimes is very angry in tone, and it sounds to them as if these women hate men. In fact the anger heard in the women’s tone is actually from the pain caused by what some men have done to women. An unintentional misunderstanding is going on here.

Comment by Sue

September 13, 2007 @ 6:03 pm

As someone who espouses the beliefs promoted by CBE, I have to admit that I do see it as a problem to know how to label those beliefs. The term ‘feminism’ conjures the image of being one who believes in abortion or homosexual marriage, and some Christians can’t get past that image. The term ‘egalitarian’ conjures up the image as being one who insists that there are no differences between men and women and that ‘equality equals sameness.’ That doesn’t describe us either.

I have always thought it unfortunate that the name which should be applied to us has been hijacked and misused by another group. I believe that we are the true ‘complementarians.’ The dictionary definition for ‘complement’ is ‘one of two mutually completing parts.’ That accurately describes how we view the way husbands and wives should relate to each other. The differences we enjoy as men and women are a fit for each other. Although complementarians have taken that name for themselves, it is a misnomer for them because what they actually believe is that one person should have power and control over another. That is hardly ‘mutual’ or ‘complementary.’

Comment by Mary Ann

September 13, 2007 @ 8:36 pm

Hi Sue (see comment 67571), I totally agree with you! It seems that calling themselves ‘complementarians’ is such a misnomer.

On a related note, I just read this excerpt from Pastor Rob Bell’s book Sex God. He describes mutual submission so well through his explanations of Ephesians 5. It’s a must read.

Comment by Pastor Ken

September 13, 2007 @ 8:53 pm

See comment 66577.

Melanie (see comment 66437), I agree with you that men who abuse their wives (as well as women who abuse their husbands, which happens) should have to face the consequences of their actions. That abuse sunders the marriage.

There are many State Attorney Generals that will not prosecute a woman for domestic violence. Many of the police jurisdictions have ‘must arrest’ orders in which someone has to be arrested if they are called for domestic violence. It is often an unspoken policy that it is the man that has to be arrested, even if he is the only one battered.

All of this is brought to us by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Although there is a great deal of unbiased research that shows women are as violent or more violent than men, there is no protection for any abused man in the VAWA.

Right now, there is a bill before Congress that will reinforce this one-sided concept – House RES 590. I wonder if any of the ‘Christians for Biblical Equality’ have, or would, call their congressman and tell them we need a gender-neutral domestic violence act which will not encourage women to be abusive.

Oh, by the way, there are three verses in Proverbs that do talk about angry, abusive women. They tell men that it is better to live in the wilderness then in a mansion with an abusive woman.

Comment by Pastor Ken

September 13, 2007 @ 8:57 pm

I have attended several marriage workshops in order to be able to help those whom we serve build stronger marriages. These have been ‘Christian’ workshops. In one, we were told that these Christian marriage counselors no longer teach submission because too many people misunderstand it. I could not stay silent. I asked if we throw out the Word of God because we do not understand it, help me understand. Do we have to throw out saved by grace too, because I sure can not understand how God could love me so much… and I sure do not want to throw that out?

I then told them that the thing to do when someone does not understand clear biblical concepts was to educate. Regarding submission, we need to teach that submission has to be offered. It cannot be demanded, or it would be slavery.

I have written about this in Marriage… His Duties… Her Duties.

Most of us have seen the bumper sticker that says ‘God said it, I believe it, that settles it.’

I ask, why is that middle statement there? If God said it, that settles it! It would be in my best interest to believe it.

Yes, it does take extra effort to correct wrong mindsets, but we cannot compromise God’s Word because it is not politically correct to teach it. He has written it.

Comment by Mary

September 14, 2007 @ 6:56 am

If local policy doesn’t work to protect anyone (not to single out men or women here) who is being assaulted, then yes, I would contact lawmakers about it. Where I live, there’s not one-sided arrest and prosecution, at least not that I can find any evidence of.

I’ll thank you, Ken (see comment 67579), not to ‘quote’ when you refer to Christians for Biblical Equality. We are Christians, and equality is biblical. It would help your witness immensely if you dropped the insinuations against Christians who embrace biblical equality. Yes, I know you’re on a campaign to change the tragedy of women who abuse men; you’ve been posting identical comments on several venues. It would help if you didn’t attempt to demonize women in your rhetoric.

Comment by Mary

September 14, 2007 @ 12:22 pm

The reason I spoke against your practice of placing ‘Christians for Biblical Equality’ in quotes is because you have already made it clear you don’t think we are Christians. It is incredibly disingenuous of you to go elsewhere and falsely claim my objection is because I’m ‘not strong enough in my belief’ in biblical equality as Christian. You are the one who came here declaring you don’t think the Christians of this organization are really Christians. Make that kind of untrue judgment; don’t feign surprise that someone objects to the lie. That you twist an objection into something else that is untrue is truly sad.

It appears you’re blaming the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for local law enforcement not taking effective action when women commit violence against men. That is ludicrous. You implied that Christian egalitarians don’t care that some men are abused by women and made our demanding the repeal of VAWA a test of our opposition to such violence. Support for repealing a perhaps imperfect law proves no such thing.

You commented here as an individual and have made many unsubstantiated claims about misdeeds by women. You, not your group, have done this. That is why I say you attempted to demonize women. This is disingenous and unworthy of a Christian, pastor or not. I don’t doubt that those with a demonstrated vested interest in doing the same kind of demonization of Christian egalitarians will applaud you for it, but I advise you not to be deceived about your own actions.

I have no moderation responsibilities here and in no way have hindered your comments from being posted here. Your own words, as you report them on the Bayly blog, would seem to be the problem in that regard. You will probably find a warm welcome with them; after all, they have claimed (falsely) that wife abuse is a lie.

The women who have died and been maimed by their husbands are evidence of the truth, whether you wish to see it or not, just as men who have been killed or maimed by women are proof that some women are violent against men. Neither horrific practice is diminished by any group that says only one gender has a problem, which is why members of CBE have never claimed that only men are violent. Your welcoming blog may tell you otherwise, but on this they are absolutely wrong.

Maybe it’s time to recognize that advocating against violence against women in no way diminishes the gravity of crimes women commit against men. It’s time to stop demonizing those who focus energy in one direction or another. If we all work as God leads us to transform lives for Christ, fewer and fewer people will be abused by those who are supposed to love them.

Comment by Mary

September 14, 2007 @ 12:30 pm

And finally, Ken (see comment 67580), racism is the false belief that one race is superior to another. Racism is antithetical to the Christian faith.

Feminism is the true belief that women have the same human rights as men. Feminism is informed and upheld by the Christian faith.

It is despicable for you to accuse me of believing in ‘Christian racism.’ It appears to me that, despite people showing you what feminism is and isn’t, you’re going to keep believing a lie and accusing those who uphold the human rights of women and men of not being Christians. So be it. At some point, I pray that you accept the truth and stop perpetuating the lie.

Comment by JLP

September 15, 2007 @ 9:40 am

Ken (see comment 67580), do you have any evidence to back up your various statements on men, women and violence?

Overall, men are far more violent towards women than the reverse. In addition, men’s violence is generally more brutal.

Unfortunately, both men and women beat and kill each other, and sometimes the legal system allows both men and women to get away with it. But, men kill and beat more women than the reverse.

Whether the violence is towards men or women it needs to stop. However, stating that women are more violent than men and that the legal system favors female abusers over male abusers is not in line with what I have read and heard on TV from the police and other law enforcement agencies.

Comment by pw

September 15, 2007 @ 10:02 am

Mary (see comment 67648), while unpopular, I have come to use the phrase ‘stopping male violence.’ Men are the most common victim of male violence. While both genders have the propensity for violence, the most severe violence against both genders has been perpetrated by men. For example, in 2003, over 1200 women were killed by a male partner; over 300 men were killed by female partners. I don’t remember the total number of men killed that year (you can Google the Department of Justice and get the figure), I remember that about 4% of men were killed by women. Meaning, 96% of men were killed by men.

I believe we should work to end all violence.

Comment by tetra

September 15, 2007 @ 10:07 am

JLP (see comment 67805), my other ID is being censored and I will not be posting on this forum anymore because of that, but since there is no other way to contact you to reply, yes we do have a lot of evidence to this which I believe we have posted in previous messages, but you or anyone else that wants to can e-mail me at the address listed in the previous comment or at ken4thelamb@yahoo.com.

For an article on men as victims of partner violence, read this.

Part of this states ‘In fact, when it comes to nonreciprocal violence between intimate
partners, women are more often the perpetrators.’

Furthermore, Whitaker discovered, of the 24% of relationships that had been violent, half had been reciprocal and half had not. Although more men than women (53% versus 49%) had experienced nonreciprocal violent relationships, more women than men
(52% versus 47%) had taken part in ones involving reciprocal violence.

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25% versus 11%) were responsible. In fact, 71% of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.

And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25% of the time) than were women (20% of the time). ‘This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious,’ Whitaker and his group stressed.

Again, we do look at both sides and we do have many women in our ministry.

Comment by JLP

September 15, 2007 @ 5:39 pm

Pastor Ken (see comment 67580), I do believe any legislation concerning domestic abuse should also include protecting men. It should cover both genders.

Comment by Terri

September 17, 2007 @ 12:12 pm

Yes, women’s anger can also lead to violence, but rarely is violence from women as brutal as that put forth by men. In reality, the most well-remembered serial killers and murderers have been men and their most-often choice of victims are women and children. The fact that some would like to deny this does not take away from the reality of the atrocities committed against woman and children by men.

Religious evil against women has been virtually sanctioned by the church by masking it with abstract claims to virtue, love, and justice. Evil can hide most effectively behind the cloak of religion because people consider it/religion to be the antidote against evil and sin. You won’t find bigotry here, you won’t find discrimination here/respecter of persons, and you won’t find spousal abuse here – not in the house of God. The problem with exposing sin in the church is that it makes the sinner/abuser look sinful and bad, so many refuse to acknowledge it when they see it, or they outright deny its existence in the church altogether. Paul delivered the fornicator in 1 Corinthians over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. The intention was to turn this man out that he might repent and be taken back in.

The system of oppression and abuse draws much of its strength from the acquiescence of its victims, who have accepted another’s perceptions and distortions as being truth. Some want to deny that abuse exists in the church, some want to say that woman are just as abusive as men, but most say that if a woman’s abused that she somehow did something to cause it/her fault. It is just assumed in the church that the husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church – his love is never questioned, but I am so glad that some people are beginning to take the initiative to uncover this hidden sin.

‘The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.’ (Galatians 5:22-26, KJV)

Comment by Pastor Ken

September 17, 2007 @ 12:38 pm

See comment 66186.

To the men on this forum:

God had to put somebody in charge of the kitchen and he chose women. But that doesn’t mean men aren’t equal, just that they are less valuable. And it doesn’t mean God doesn’t love men as much as he loves women, even though he doesn’t. It just means that men are somehow fundamentally flawed in a way women aren’t.

Remember that any woman who truly loves her husband will never make a dish that will hurt him. No truly Christian woman would ever put rat poison in the meatloaf no matter how bad a day she had.

And don’t think I’m just saying this because I’m a woman and I might have something to gain from it. No, God’s Word says it and I’m just taking advantage of it.

Now, don’t you men feel better? I do.

To the women on this forum:

God had to put somebody in charge of the home and he chose men. But that doesn’t mean women aren’t equal, just that they are less valuable. And, it doesn’t mean God doesn’t love women as much as he loves men, even though he doesn’t. It just means that women are somehow fundamentally flawed in a way men aren’t.

Remember that any man who truly loves his wife will never do anything that will hurt her. No truly Christian man would beat her with a rod no thicker then his thumb no matter how bad a day he had.

And don’t think I’m just saying this because I’m a man and I might have something to gain from it. No, God’s Word says it and I’m just taking advantage of it.

Now, don’t you women feel better? I do.

Please note that this is not my view, but it is the exact opposite of another post which no one questioned.

I reversed the post so that you can see how offensive it was to me and other men. That post was not contested and I had every intention of getting many here to contest this post, but I do not want to cause any undo distress to anyone here so am posting this now rather then wait for responses.

The bottom line is that we need to value all our people and to help each one to become all they can be.

Paul stated that he did not want to be a cast away. He was not worried about salvation in this statement, but he did not want to be set aside and not used by God any longer. I realize that each person that really loves the Lord wants… needs to be useful to the Lord, but we each have to fit in where he wants us to be, not where we want to be. I tried many other ministries before Shattered Men. They failed because it was not where God wanted me to be.

To read the message ‘They Had Been With Jesus’ at Shattered Men, click here. To read ‘The Value of a Man… or a Woman,’ click here.

Comment by Pastor Ken

September 17, 2007 @ 2:36 pm

Terri (see comment 68007), there are female serial killers too, but often they get away with it without even being charged. ‘Black widows’ often kill several husbands before even being suspect and therefore many are never even suspected. I can explain more on this if needed.

I also find more churches that will address abuse to women than those who will address it to men. One of our female moderators has firsthand experience in this when she talked to her pastor about addressing abuse. He denied any occurred in their church of about 1,000 members. Later, a man in the church asked her about her involvement in a ministry for abused men. He then told her he was being abused and he knew of a half dozen other men in the church that were also. He left encouraged and planning on going back and getting these other men to come too. A few days later, he committed ‘suicide.’ Personally, I doubt very much that he did.

Yes, there are those who will say if a woman is abused, she did something to deserve it. I have heard from those that work in women’s shelters the same thing about abused men far more. No one deserves to be abused, but if we are honest, we will admit that often some will provoke their abuse. For example, if I went walking down the street in the ‘rougher neighborhoods’ with a $100 bill sticking out of my pocket, should I be surprised if I were to be mugged?

I have worked in mental health for thirty years and I have seldom seen a conflict between two adults where both did not add to the conflict. One problem is that we do have those that will excuse bad behavior and they will not call what they do abuse, although it is.

Please realize I am not trying to demonize women, but I am trying to help those women who realize they are angry, who realize they abuse their husbands or children to be able to seek help. As it is, since society always states 95% of the abuse victims are women, these violent women will not see their actions as abuse, and they will not seek help.

Terri, we have to start giving people… men and women the ability to say, ‘I need help.’

One more thing… the actual rate of real abuse is very low. The definition for what is abuse has been watered down in order to keep the domestic violence industry well fed. Soon it will be called abuse if a man does not like his wife’s meatloaf.

The only real way to stop abuse is to have a right relationship with Jesus Christ.

To read a message from Shattered Men, click here.

Comment by Pastor Ken

September 17, 2007 @ 2:47 pm

Pastor Ken (see comment 67580), I do believe any legislation concerning domestic abuse should also include protecting men. It should cover both genders.

JLP (see comment 67866)… I do agree with this, but it just is not happening. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) only protects women. I have personally confirmed from the Department of Justice that there is not one dime to help abused men.

It was written with the input of the National Organization of Women and other radical feminist organizations. No one from those that oppose this act was allowed to have input. This is like asking the KKK to write racial relations laws and never allowing the NCAAP to have input.

Many of us have tried. I sent information packets regarding this to fifty lawmakers, and I got letters back from two of them… thanking me for my ‘support’ for the VAWA.

JLP… my concern is that even more women are being harmed in the long run because our society will not look at both sides. We do have the facts to back this up.

For more on the VAWA, read this. For more on accuracy in Domestic Abuse reporting, visit here.

Comment by Kristi

September 18, 2007 @ 11:16 am

See comment 68008.

I reversed the post so that you can see how offensive it was to me and other men. That post was not contested and I had every intention of getting many here to contest this post, but I do not want to cause any undo distress to anyone here so am posting this now rather then wait for responses.

Ken, you seem to be missing the entire point. The posts about men needing to ‘accept their place’ and that they were ‘not allowed’ in the kitchen were intended as a parody of things that women hear all the time from extreme complementarian men. The entire point is that they are hurtful and offensive. I don’t see how anyone could miss that those lines were intended to be humorous parody if they had been reading the whole thread.

Comment by JLP

September 18, 2007 @ 11:32 am

Ken (see comment 68008), my comment, 66186, which you refer to above was only a joke. I didn’t mean it seriously. I was reversing what I’d had preached to me personally for several years. I meant it as nothing more than a joke, seriously. Please don’t take offense.

As a man, you don’t get these kind of things preached at you, so you may not have realized how disturbing it is. It drove me nuts, and making fun of it was a way to let off tension.

Comment by Mary

September 18, 2007 @ 12:04 pm

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has a much longer history than Ken is showing here. It originally addressed a huge concern: local law enforcement policy that did not permit officers to take action in ‘domestic violence’ unless one or both of the parties was seriously injured. Rightly or wrongly, based on statistical evidence (that still holds) that women and children are more likely than men to be seriously injured in ‘domestic violence,’ legislation was drafted to improve this situation so that women and children had a better chance of getting effective action taken when they were threatened with violence in the home.

Such violence continues to be a major societal problem. The people who advocated for change initially focused on the women and children who were victims. That doesn’t mean that men aren’t also sometimes victims of violence at the hands of a relative or loved one. The problem I see here is the demonization of women in order to raise awareness of the male victims of violence. The blatant attempts to minimize or ridicule the need for legal protection of victims of violence are shameful, especially when they’re made by Christians. Credible advocacy for male victims should not include such untruthful manipulative techniques.

And, overlaying the whole problem with demands that ‘male authority’ models of relationships be addressed only adds to the problem. There is much evidence that men have shielded themselves and prevented women from getting help because of demands for women to practice religious ‘submission.’ Patriarchy is a worldly societal practice of the stronger ruling over the weaker. It is not godly, it is not commanded in Scripture, and it is a hindrance to people getting the help they need when sinful people (not just men, not just women) choose to abuse their spouses and loved ones.

Comment by Terri

September 18, 2007 @ 12:19 pm

As I read the comment of Pastor Ken (see comment 68008), I can appreciate how important it is to listen when anyone, male or female, states that they are being abused. Men I believe, just like women, will only report the abuse as the last resort to try and stem some of the violence (whereas they will let emotional abuse continue on for years).

Pastor Ken, it is an uphill battle for the government to take domestic abuse seriously in the first place, and especially when it concerns men/the stronger sex. The days when a husband could beat his wife with a rod no wider than the width of his thumb hasn’t long been considered an archaic law by some. The Talmud has a lot to say about women that has been accepted as fact and baptized as divine doctrine. Women are inferior by nature and defective, their voice is as filthy nakedness and should not be heard among the congregation, men should not talk much with women or they will inherit Gehenna/Hell, etc… men were never given such a low status in humanity. But then again, that is not to say that men have not been mistreated, because they have, but most often by other men.

The desire for ‘power over’ has always prevailed in the male gender (while you see mothers and wives mourning and grieving over a loss that they can never recover because some man wanted power over another man and we went to war). Most husbands, especially in the church, don’t feel compelled to have to fight for such ‘power over’ women because they feel that they have it by the divine right of God and being born a male (Genesis 3:16).

I can appreciate what you are doing. It is important work that all abuse be recognized for what it is… a breach of covenant, a failure to recognize the worth and value of another human being, the failure to love your neighbor/wife/husband/friend as you love yourself.

I also thought you might like to know that a Jewish man in Paul’s day could divorce his wife if she cooked something he disliked or burned his dinner – I remember the remark about the meatloaf dinner. It is just fact that men have made laws to benefit themselves to the detriment of women and that women are only trying to counteract all the injustice that has been done to them over the ages, and that has been, and will continue to be, a long and wearisome process… it sure won’t be easier for abused men who are supposed to have the right and the power to change their situations.

Comment by JLP

September 18, 2007 @ 2:57 pm

Ken (see comment 68008), I think you and I hang around different Christian crowds and that’s why you didn’t realize I was reversing what had been preached at me for thirty-five years by men.

When you reversed my reversal, you just repeated exactly what these men (and some women) had been saying to me all these years. So you didn’t need to do that. I know how it feels to have these things said to me, because I have had it said to at least 100 times already. I know what it feels like.

Comment by Exegetist

September 18, 2007 @ 11:48 pm

Pastor Ken (see comment 67580) stated:

I have attended several marriage workshops in order to be able to help those whom we serve build stronger marriages. These have been ‘Christian’ workshops. In one, we were told that these Christian marriage counselors no longer teach submission because too many people misunderstand it. I could not stay silent. I asked if we throw out the Word of God because we do not understand it, help me understand. Do we have to throw out saved by grace too, because I sure can not understand how God could love me so much… and I sure do not want to throw that out?

I then told them that the thing to do when someone does not understand clear biblical concepts was to educate. Regarding submission, we need to teach that submission has to be offered. It cannot be demanded, or it would be slavery.

It is good that they no longer teach ‘submission’ of wives to husbands. The submission that has usually been taught is not freely given/offered submission but obedience to the sword of husbandly authority and kingly rights of rule. Even you say that it ‘has’ to be offered. So, if a slave has to offer himself because he is the slave, is that any different than coerced obedience? You’re just trying to get them to like it.

Because Christ is God, and because he as the Messiah has freely given himself without demanding anything in return, we can trust him to freely give ourselves, our lives, in return.

But, that is not the picture that gender hierarchalists paint of ‘female submission.’ The husband is painted not as the one who first gives himself, but as the authority, the one with the right to demand obedience, the one who will make all the decisions of a wife’s life, simply because he is male. I’ve seen too well the results of these marriages, even when the wife is sworn to secrecy and the husband makes a good public face.

It’s really time godly men gave up their rights and started giving sacrificial love without demanding anything in return. Only then would godly women be motivated to yield their hearts trustingly into wholehearted support of their husbands.

Comment by Liz

September 19, 2007 @ 2:29 am

Ken (see comment 68016), we live in Australia and so have no idea what you mean by keeping ‘the domestic violence industry well fed.’ Could you please explain?

Comment by Pastor Ken

September 19, 2007 @ 7:01 am

See comment 68178:

Ken (see comment 68016), we live in Australia and so have no idea what you mean by keeping ‘the domestic violence industry well fed.’ Could you please explain?

Liz, we have several members from Australia. The situation there is much as it is here in the United States.

An industry needs a study stream of customers to stay in business. In order to stay in business, there has to be money involved. No one would stay in business if there was no money in it.

In the United States, domestic violence is a billion dollar industry. It is an industry that needs more ‘victims,’ so if it cannot find them, it creates them by making victims where none exist. How do they do this? They lower the bar of what abuse is to simple things such as yelling at your wife or even withholding intimacy from her. Strange, they say nothing about women locking their husbands out of the bedroom. From the Duluth Wheel of Abuse, this domestic abuse appears to only be a one way street.

The question to ask would be if it is abuse for a man to do it to a woman, why is it not also abuse if a woman does it to a man?

I would suggest you Google the term ‘domestic violence industry’ and read some of the sites it shows. Several good ones are: Cult of the domestic-violence industry, ifeminists.com and editorial: ‘Why Are Most Male Victims of Domestic Abuse Said to Be Homosexual?,’ ‘Make the Violence Against Women Act,’ and the site Reciprocal Violence Can Lead to More Injury.

I will include part of this last site:

When it comes to domestic violence, we’re frequently told that men getting hit doesn’t matter because even if men get hit, they are rarely hurt. A new study shows this may not be the case, especially if the violence is reciprocal (thanks to Steve for pointing out the article):

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25% versus 11%) were responsible. In fact, 71% of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.

As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25% of the time) than were women (20% of the time). ‘This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious,’ Whitaker and his group stressed…
Of the study’s numerous findings, Whitaker said, ‘I think the most important is that a great deal of interpersonal violence is reciprocally perpetrated and that when it is reciprocally perpetrated, it is much more likely to result in injury than when perpetrated by only one partner.’

If reciprocal violence results in more injuries, it would seem important for domestic violence prevention to focus on both women and men in these cases. By focusing only on men, women never get the help they need to reduce violence. The false notion that men perpetrate the majority of domestic violence and women are on the receiving end just doesn’t seem to be holding up in study after study.

Please notice this sentence in this:

By focusing only on men, women never get the help they need to reduce violence.

This is something Shattered Men has been saying since 1999, but because we focus on abused men (remember we do not ignore abused women, as they are welcomed too), Christian ministries want nothing to do with us, and because we are biblically based, secular organizations do not.

We will not change either approach.

Comment by Terri

September 19, 2007 @ 8:16 am

See comment 68016.

The definition of abuse has been watered down in order to keep the domestic violence industry well fed.

Like Liz, I personally don’t know what industry/organization you are referring to. But, I do sense a little bias against women in that remark… I don’t know why. Maybe, you feel like women have found a useful tool in domestic violence issues to finally ‘get what they want, to be the head and not the tail.’ Before I say more, I would really like to know what you were trying to convey, so please elaborate for us.

Comment by Terri

September 19, 2007 @ 8:47 am

Pastor Ken (see comment 68008), we are now at 155 comments on this post. The comments that you were referring to were all done in jest. They were not taken seriously by anyone that has been reading the posts regularly. It is easy to misconstrue and misunderstand what is being said when we only comment on select posts without reading the full body of comments.

The short time that I have been commenting and reading posts on this website no one that posts here on a regular basis has been offensive or tried to demean anyone (that usually only comes from those who pop in to argue). The posters here are conciliatory and very respectful, and we are also open to being taught by others if the teaching is biblically sound. Please don’t mistake our group for being naive or deceived (and that happens a lot) because we don’t agree with everything that people try to pass off as sound doctrine. We can all learn from one another, but that takes a listening ear and a receptive heart and mind.

Comment by Pastor Ken

September 19, 2007 @ 4:53 pm

See comment 68215.

Like Liz, I personally don’t know what industry/organization you are referring to. But, I do sense a little bias against women in that remark… I don’t know why. Maybe, you feel like women have found a useful tool in domestic violence issues to finally ‘get what they want, to be the head and not the tail.’ Before I say more, I would really like to know what you were trying to convey, so please elaborate for us.

Terri, the bias is not against women… it is against a system that allows women to be abusive and that penalizes men for being abused. There is no accountability for a woman who simply states she is abused. There can be no questions asked. If she said it happened, it happened. Men are guilty until they prove themselves innocent. I have seen this in court myself.

I have posted several links to show just what the Violence Against Women Act does. It is my guess that none of you have bothered to check out what it says.

Check it out here.

Also, using your statement to ‘be the head and not the tail,’ that shows it is not about equality but about superiority. If it is abuse for a man to be the head… why would it not be abuse if the woman was the head?

Again, as I have said several times… if we do not look at both sides, (and I have shown plenty of evidence that the abuse is equal) then we are enabling women to be abusers but more important more women will be hurt as men get tired of being battered and start to hit back.

Comment by Pastor Ken

September 19, 2007 @ 5:10 pm

See comment 68109.

The days when a husband could beat his wife with a rod no wider than the width of his thumb hasn’t long been considered an archaic law by some.

Terri, there has never been any law common or written that allowed a man to beat his wife with a rod no thicker than his thumb. It is a myth, just as many other ‘facts’ about domestic violence are… such as that more women are hurt on Super Bowl Sunday… and more women go to the ER for domestic violence than rapes, muggings, and auto accidents combined. They are all myths. Some call them lies. Yet I am accused of demonizing women for correcting these myths and pointing out the real facts of domestic violence using unbiased sources. I guess I should stick to the facts given by the National Organization of Women, too.

Lest you think it is only ‘bitter angry men’ stating these things… check out what the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) has to say here. The IWF home page is here.

I would suggest you use their site search and look up ‘domestic violence industry’ because these very intelligent, very successful women also call it an industry. These women are all successful on their own merits, not using affirmative actions to gain success at the expense of others.

The posters here are conciliatory and very respectful, and we are also open to being taught by others if the teaching is biblically sound.

Terri, since when is it biblically sound to blame all of the problems on one gender? Did not the Psalmist pray ‘search me oh Lord…’ or was it ‘search my husband’ or ‘search my wife?’

‘It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.’ (Proverbs 21:9)

‘It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.’ (Proverbs 21:19)

‘It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.’ (Proverbs 25:24)

Comment by Liz

September 19, 2007 @ 6:13 pm

Ken (see comment 68008), please excuse me for still not understanding your statement replying to money and domestic abuse. How can something so appalling bring in money?

I would also like to say that I consider abuse of any sort by women towards men just as wrong as abuse by men towards women. Each person is precious to God and no amount of statistics makes it any easier if one person is being abused by any definition.

Comment by Terri

September 20, 2007 @ 10:29 am

My husband’s brother, a pastor, just went through a messy divorce. His wife told me that she was kicked and choked (when she did not did give in to his sexual demands) she also said that his favorite name for her was b****. At the divorce proceedings the fact that she was abused during the marriage was not even considered.

To be quite honest, no one really believed her when she finally revealed what was going on in the privacy of their home (but I did). In reality no one wants to hear about abuse much less call it by name. A friend of mine was accused of being abusive toward her daughter because she came to school one day with a broken wrist, even though she has been exonerated from any wrong doing (she’s an excellent mother) she still bears the stigma and funny looks when she takes her daughter to school and now her name is permanently on a governmental list somewhere. Life does not always deal us a fair hand (especially in my sister-in-law and friend’s) case. But, what can you do when no one believes you?

And yes, I am actively reading your site!

Comment by LMcC

September 20, 2007 @ 12:57 pm

Wow, this thread is still active?

Ken, I can’t believe what you just did in post 68008. If missing the point of the parody entirely wasn’t enough, you just repeated the very words many of us have heard time and time and time again. What you said wasn’t parodying a parody, but turning the parody back into reality.

The parody you quoted would never be seriously said to anyone in church. No pastor would ever tell a man to stay with a wife suspected of poisoning his food. I’d think pretty much all pastors would be looking for any loophole to justify a divorce for the guy in that case. What you said is told to women every day in hierarchal Christian circles. Pastors frequently send women back to ‘Christian’ husbands for further abuse and even to their deaths, and that’s considered perfectly okay in too many churches. It’s just women hurt and dying, after all.

Even though pretty much everyone here has repeatedly said that we oppose domestic violence regardless of the sex of the perpetrator or victim involved, you keep insisting we don’t. I guess those years I spent running a forum for male and female abuse survivors didn’t count. Next time a male survivor wants to confide in me (and they still do), I’ll tell him that he can’t because Ken believes I don’t exist. (No, I won’t really do that. The ones I do know would just poke my side and laugh.)

Comment by Donna

September 24, 2007 @ 2:37 am

See comment 66350.

This blog has been great. The humor and laughter that it has brought to many of us has been refreshing. I am not an English student by any means, but I was recently in a conversation about the use of satirical content in our dialogue to ‘get a point across.’ Is it right or wrong?

Well, it depends, Karen. If the ‘satirical’ comments are about men, complementarians, or those evil patriarchalists, then it is just fine. It gets the point across just fine.

However, if it is a comment about women, feminists, or egalitarians, then it is abusive and offensive sarcasm which must be repented of.

So, it all depends on your point of view, I guess.

Comment by Mary

September 24, 2007 @ 6:38 am

You also, Donna (see comment 68716), appear to miss the point of the parody. Ken said exactly what patriarchalists are saying to women all the time. Strange how hateful several people have taken it when it’s addressed toward men, though it was clearly tongue-in-cheek. Sadly, and this is why the parody came up in the first place, what the patriarchalists say about women needing to accept their segregated ‘roles,’ is never tongue-in-cheek. They mean it, and they’re promoting it as if it’s biblically mandated and trying to manipulate women’s very faith through conformity to the ‘roles’ they themselves have defined.

Sorry. The whole point of the parody was to show that nobody ought to be lied to like that, women or men.

Comment by Donna

September 24, 2007 @ 1:01 pm

See comment 68723.

The whole point of the parody was to show that nobody ought to be lied to like that, women or men.

Hey Mary, how are you doing?

Yes, I appreciate Ken a lot. He is a man who really is concerned about the issue of abuse, whether it is done by women or by men, whether it is done to women or to men. He is open to minister to men or women who have been abused. Much of what we have been told about abuse is inaccurate.

I’m glad to see that you folks are also open to the idea of gender-blind ministry to those who are being mistreated. That encourages me, actually. I do believe that before the law, each individual should be judged as an individual. Anyway, thank you for your comments.

I agree, too, that no one should be lied to. No one should be called a liar, either, just because they may disagree with others and/or have strong opinions.

Anyway, I am still hopeful… God bless, and please take care.

Comment by Donna

September 24, 2007 @ 6:38 pm

See comment 68344.

Even though pretty much everyone here has repeatedly said that we oppose domestic violence regardless of the sex of the perpetrator or victim involved, you keep insisting we don’t. I guess those years I spent running a forum for male and female abuse survivors didn’t count. Next time a male survivor wants to confide in me (and they still do), I’ll tell him that he can’t because Ken believes I don’t exist. (No, I won’t really do that. The ones I do know would just poke my side and laugh.)

Hello, how are you doing?

Your statement may need some clarification. Well, first I want to point out your use of humor to make a point – we all do it, after all. Some call it sarcasm and condemn it. It can be sarcasm, but it may or may not be appropriate. After all, both Jesus and the Apostle Paul used sarcasm on occasion. Unfortunately, none of us are Jesus or Paul, so sarcasm is often ineffective in internet discussions.

Anyway, you said that you have worked with abuse survivors. Of course I commend you for that. You said that you worked with male abuse survivors as well as female.

May I ask how you respond to a woman who says she was abused by a woman? Many women have been abused terribly by their mothers or their sisters or a grandmother or a foster mother or a stepmother. How many such abuse survivors have you worked with?

Then, how would you respond to a man who says that he was abused by a woman? After all, many men were abused by their mothers, or sisters, or grandmothers, or wives, etc. How many men have you worked with who are survivors of female abuse towards them?

In other words, are you truly an egalitarian?

I have seen it argued that men can be the victims of male abuse. Personally, I have yet to see an egalitarian admit that a man can be abused by a woman, except in theory. Examples, anyone? No, telling me that I am abusive does not count. That is already a given for some. So, beforehand, please forgive me for existing and thinking differently from you guys!

This is serious ‘stuff,’ ladies and gentlemen. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by Donna

September 24, 2007 @ 10:22 pm

See comment 66688.

Reading the Bayly Brothers’ blog regarding abuse I was left with a couple questions.

1. If they make the assumption that patriarchy is what is contrary to biblical equality, then why do they claim that women are equal but different?

Well, I cannot speak for the Baylys. I am not Presbyterian. I don’t know them. I began to read their blog a few months ago, and find it interesting, so I am not an apologist for the Baylys.

I am wondering if you think that women are not different from men. In some ways we are equal, in other ways we are different. We are not exactly equal in every way. We balance one another out and we complement one another. Do you believe otherwise? I mean, we are equal but different.

Why not just say women are different than men, have different roles, etc. Why promote a fake picture of equality where they do not really believe equality exists?

Okay, I understand what you mean, I think. I am assuming that this is a sincere question that you are puzzling over. It seems to be.

Maybe you need to go back to Chrysostom in order to understand the complementarian position a bit better. I do not agree with his take on slavery – that is another matter, but not unrelated, of course. (I just want to say that I do not agree with him on that subject.)
He was one who explained how men and women are equal. We are equally human, equally created in the image of God, and in many other ways. He also explained how the distinct roles that men and women were created for complement one another.

You may wish to get a fine little book that is a collection of his sermons on the subject of marriage and family life. He spoke very strongly to the men about how they should treat their wives, too. Anyway, he may be the first to use that word ‘complement’ to describe the relationship between husband and wife. It is biblical, of course.

2. I find it interesting that they ask ‘what about men abused by their wives’ without first addressing the more prominent issue of men abusing wives.

Well, I am not sure that this is true. After all, the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has had a statement about spousal abuse that is pretty clear. In fact, if I understand right, the CBMW under Bayly did invite CBE to join them in their stance on spousal abuse. CBE mystifyingly refused.

I think that is something that we Christians should stand together on, putting aside other differences.

Thus, one is left wondering if the fact that there does exist male abuse by women is used something like the child’s excuse of ‘well she did it too!’ to excuse their own bad behavior.

Do you have evidence for this? Why don’t you write to the CBMW or the Baylys to see if they think that way? You can ask them directly.

One time I did write to Christchurch in Moscow, ID, to ask them what they would do with a wife abuser who was a member of their church. I got a response from one of their attorneys. His first concern was that it wasn’t I who was being abused. He kindly offered assistance if that were the case. He then told me that he would tell the woman to call 911 if it were an immediate danger, and then the elders of the church. So, sometimes assumptions are made that are unfounded, actually.

3. One wonders if they have considered applying Emerson’s rule to themselves. Emerson’s rule: ‘The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.’

Now, now. That can cut both ways, or many ways. Enough said on that…

4. This statement was important: ‘…patriarchy does not elicit violence against women in any direct fashion. Rather, it may provide the values and attitudes that personality-disordered men can exploit to justify their abuse of women. This distinction is an important one…’

Again, is there proof of this, or only speculation? Remember, too, that we are talking about biblical patriarchy, not the Taliban. If you good folks do not like to be lumped in with the extremist, radical, pro-abortion, lesbian-led feminists, then don’t lump all patriarchalists in with the Taliban!

So, the values and attitudes of patriarchalism provide a perfect backdrop for ‘personality-disordered men’ to abuse women, and they don’t find that a problem? And, set that information down next to the huge amount of female abuse in worldwide cultures, and why would anyone want to promote values and attitudes that encourage male dominance and female compliance that can encourage abuse? So patriarchy doesn’t cause abuse. But, patriarchy encourages abuse. Fine line, if you ask me. I would rather promote respectful equality, compassionate honor, and mutual support that neither causes nor encourages any type of abuse of any member.

Let me ask you one thing. Is our Heavenly Father abusive? He rules as a Father, after all, and a Husband who rules his wife. If he is the patriarchal model, then why would evil be the necessary outcome?

God bless, and please take care.

Comment by Liz

September 25, 2007 @ 9:43 pm

I don’t know how long this topic will continue, but if anyone is still reading…

When I think of my heavenly Father, I don’t think of ‘ruler’ but of someone who loves and cares for me. When I think of the bridegroom of the bride of Christ (the church), I don’t think of someone who rules his bride but of someone who loves his wife and delights to be with her.

Different concepts, I would think, and maybe that explains why there is a debate.

Comment by Mary

September 25, 2007 @ 10:09 pm

I agree, Liz (see comment 69031). The father of the parable dropped all the dignity of his wealth and age and ran, legs bared and robes flying, to meet his wayward son, in order to welcome him home to the family once again. The bridegroom is as one with the bride, as a human husband and wife are: one flesh, head and body, inseparable.

God stoops, over and over again, to raise us up, to condescend to have relationship with us. First-century husbands, who had the culturally-normative rule over their wives in the Greco-Roman world, were nevertheless commanded to love their wives as Christ loves the church. So if those ancient men, who in their worldly context were authority figures to their chattel-status wives, were to love them so completely as to be one flesh with them, how much easier it should be in our worldly cultural context, where men and women mostly enjoy equal human rights, to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ?

But no. Latter-day religious patriarchy starts with the presupposition that the ancient historical, positional authority figure versus subject pattern be re-invented and imposed upon the Scriptures, when the Scriptures never commend that practice and certainly never command it. Religious patriarchy then invents complex explanations for why the simple commandments that are in Scripture don’t apply fully in the church or in marriage, at least not for everyone. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ ‘Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.’ ‘Love one another as I have loved you.’ ‘The one who is greatest among you is the servant of all.’ ‘Bear one another’s burdens.’ ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

I see it this way: if I would not want to have some practice perpetrated upon me, I should not perpetrate it upon anyone else. I don’t like to be looked at primarily by my gender; when people do that, they make me essentially like every other woman and ignore those things that make me the unique child of God that I am. They sort me into the pink category and thoughtlessly expect me to fit whatever that mold means to them. So, since I see that as such a distasteful, superficial, God-denying practice, I’m sure not about to make up my own molds about what ‘all men are like,’ or ‘all women are supposed to do,’ or anything else like that. God chooses to delight in the one-of-a-kind masterpieces we each were created to be. I can permit God to be sovereign to me and to all my brothers and sisters, calling us to and equipping us for whatever service God might choose, or I can wrongly make God out to be the stamp of approval for my stereotypes and selfish preferences for what I want myself and other people to be.

Comment by Donna

September 26, 2007 @ 12:27 am

See comment 69031.

I don’t know how long this topic will continue, but if anyone is still reading…

When I think of my heavenly Father, I don’t think of ‘ruler’ but of someone who loves and cares for me. When I think of the bridegroom of the bride of Christ (the church), I don’t think of someone who rules his bride but of someone who loves his wife and delights to be with her.

Different concepts, I would think, and maybe that explains why there is a debate.

Hello Liz, how are you doing?

Thank you for responding to my comment. Do you think that it is possible to love someone and also obey them? Do you see love and obedience as mutually exclusive? The Bible does not.

Consider the words of Jesus:

‘If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.’ (John 14:15-16)

‘You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.’ (John 15:14-16)

We love God; Jesus is our friend, but we do obey him. He rules us. He is our Lord. We are his friends only if we obey him. If we do not obey him, we cannot say that we love him. Do you see what Jesus means? God bless, and please take care.

Comment by LMcC

September 26, 2007 @ 10:42 am

Hi Donna (see comment 69064).

Love and obedience are not mutually exclusive. Abraham and Sarah loved each other (we hope, anyway), yet Sarah obeyed Abraham – and the Bible also says that Abraham obeyed Sarah.

The type of love that is supposed to exist in marriage and demanding obedience, on the other hand, would be mutually exclusive. Marital love requires humility and sacrifice. Demanding obedience requires control and dominance. One will win out over the other. There’s just no way to swing between ‘I love you, wife… submit to me… I love you… submit, wife… I love… obey me!’

Also, there is a vast difference between God and humans. God is perfect, he always works in our best interests, and he has perfect love for us. Humans are imperfect, we don’t always work for the best interests of others, and we don’t give perfect love no matter how hard we may try. Part of the reason we believe in mutual submission as opposed to unilateral female submission is that we understand the need for checks and balances in human relationships. Otherwise, it’s too easy for one person to take total control and another to be neglected or abused.

Some levels of obedience are reserved for God alone because of our human frailties. With humans, it’s a very good idea to make sure that the person who wants obedience actually has the right to request it, that the level of obedience required does not cross into what only God should get, does not contradict what God says is to be done (or avoided), and is in the best interests of all involved. Otherwise, the one who is obeying would actually be participating in something very wrong. In such situations, it would be right to refuse to obey. Too much of hierarchal demands for obedience from women goes against at least one of those four tests, and women who think they are obeying God by obeying her husband are actually working against him.

Because of what I just said, I’d be extremely careful about trying to justify obedience to men with verses talking about obedience to God. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. The saying applies to more than just money. Do not give to Caesar the level of obedience what rightfully belongs to God.

Comment by Martin

September 26, 2007 @ 1:27 pm

See comment 69031.

When I think of my heavenly Father I don’t think of ‘ruler’ but of someone who loves and cares for me.

Christians think of more than that. God is God. He is Creator. He is holy and perfect. There is no flaw in him. He is perfect truth. He is justice. He is omniscient. The miracle of miracles is that God loves us with a perfect love.

No human can claim these attributes. No human should ever think that he deserves the obeisance due to God. Any woman who tries to emulate a human’s love for the Creator (the created toward the creator) toward her husband is going to display inordinate affection and adulation. While she may enjoy doing this and it may bring a sort of false peace in the marriage, it does harm to both parties.

In the end-all, we all are brethren. We need to pay attention to the ‘one anothers’ (allelon) of Scripture and not consider ourselves more important than another.

‘They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.’ (Matthew 23:6-8)

When two ‘brethren’ (brother and sister) get married, they are still just brethren. One does not suddenly become Christlike while the other is demoted to human-like. We are all to seek to be Christlike while acknowledging that we are all still human, fallible, fragile, and in need of God.

Comment by Donna

September 26, 2007 @ 11:17 pm

I want to thank you who responded to me. I appreciate your taking the time. I’ll just read what you have to say for now so I can get a better handle on where you are coming from. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by Donna

September 26, 2007 @ 11:23 pm

Just a couple of comments.

I don’t think that submission can be forced. It should not have to be. It is first of all a heart attitude that is directed primarily towards God. If the heart is not right, then there can be no real submission.

We submit willingly, even to God. The Holy Spirit has to do a work in us in order for us to be able to respond to God in loving submission. Even so, submission is a Christian duty. If we are not willing to submit even to God, then there is something wrong with our heart. We don’t emphasize obedience and duty much in our day, but they are Christian graces.

Comment by ken

September 27, 2007 @ 12:15 am

See comment 69119.

…and the Bible also says that Abraham obeyed Sarah.

Could you tell us the chapter and verse for this?

Comment by leigh

September 27, 2007 @ 5:44 pm

I think a good place to start looking would be Genesis 21, verse 12.

Comment by Donna

September 28, 2007 @ 12:10 am

See comment 69441.

I think a good place to start looking would be Genesis 21, verse 12.

You mean where Abraham obeyed God?

‘But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”’ (Genesis 21:12)

Comment by Mary

September 28, 2007 @ 7:20 am

God told Abraham to listen to Sarah. Abraham did what Sarah told him to. Abraham obeyed both, in this instance. I think you missed the humor of the fact that even Sarah and Abraham obeyed each other.

God did not ever command wives to obey their husbands, nor husbands their wives, however. The demand for obedience from wives toward their husbands comes from a much different source.

Comment by Mary

September 28, 2007 @ 7:24 am

Ken (see comment 69288), show plainly where God ever made the man the ‘leader of the home.’ Use the Bible, please, though it will be very interesting to see what you use to get it to say that.

Likening husbands to ‘those that rule over you’ is ridiculous. God told the woman – not the man – that in sin her husband would (voluntary, sinfully, not-commanded act) rule over her. It is not to be so among Jesus’ followers, which to me says a lot about men who choose to ‘rule over’ their wives anyway.

Comment by Mary

September 28, 2007 @ 7:27 am

Also, Ken, I’m curious how you get the Bible to support your notion that ‘it will be the husbands that will have to give account, not the wives.’ I know that’s a very popular teaching in some circles, but the biblical support for it is non-existent.

Comment by ken

September 29, 2007 @ 12:00 am

‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’ (Ephesians 5:22)

‘Submit’: hupotasso 1. to arrange under, to subordinate 2. to subject, put in subjection 3. to subject one’s self, obey 4. to submit to one’s control 5. to yield to one’s admonition or advice 6. to obey, be subject

‘For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.’ (Ephesians 5:23)

‘Head’: kephale 1. the head, both of men and often of animals (Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.) 2. metaphysically anything supreme, chief, prominent of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife; of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the church; of things: the cornerstone. (This does not only apply to Christian homes… it applies even if the husband is not a Christian.)

‘Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives.’ (1Peter 3:1)

One thing I have seen time after time is that people think only men should suffer for the Lord. My wife is not a Christian, and believe me… I do a lot of suffering for this too. Many think that being a Christian should be instant prosperity and an end to all suffering, especially for women. I can find nothing in the Bible that promises that and in fact I find a lot that promises that we will suffer while on this Earth if we do things that way God wants us to do them. This need to obey God applies regardless of what anyone else does. It applies to husbands and wives, too. I am to love my wife regardless of what she does. Believe me, it is not always easy to do, especially when told to chose between her and doing what I know the Lord has commanded me to do.

From most of what I see here, all the burden and responsibility should only go on men… and the women need not worry about anything other then taking advantage of all that men are responsible to provide. Actually, in a way that is true because real love gives without expecting anything in return. Our Lord loved us enough that he died for us and all we need to do is accept that love… but I want to give back to him! I want to do the things that please my Lord, not because I have to… but because I want to.

Yes, there are those on both sides that take it too far. I wonder if one of the reasons for this is that often we can think we are a Christian because we have been misled in what really makes us a Christian. We are not a Christian because we believe Christ died for us. We do not become a Christian because someone tells us we are, nor is there a family plan. We only become a Christian when we ask God to apply the payment that Jesus made for our sin to our sin. There is no slow change. It is always a sudden new birth.

Comment by Mary

September 29, 2007 @ 12:32 am

See comment 69512.

From most of what I see here, all the burden and responsibility should only go on men… and the women need not worry about anything other then taking advantage of all that men are responsible to provide.

Ken, please explain what you mean by ‘what I see here’ (emphasis mine).

One other reminder: You are certainly aware that the verb hupotasso, in the middle voice, appears only in the portion of Ephesians we know as 5:21: ‘Submit/subject yourselves to one another, out of respect/reverence for Christ.’ Verse 22 shows that wives are included in this command to all Christians. We are to choose to submit ourselves to others (the middle voice makes it clear that this is very different from mere obedience). It is self-surrender. It is not commanded by another human being; it is not one-sided. Within the body of Christ, all submit to one another – that is, if they take seriously the commandment of Ephesians 5:21. That means even in marriage, even by husbands toward their wives.

What need has one flesh of any commander except for God? Two friends need no designated leader. The Bible does not make husbands out to be such a designated leader in the in-Christ, one-flesh friendship that is marriage. No, I understand that many marriages are not brother and sister in the Lord. This sad fact does not negate a Christian’s responsibility in marriage to sacrifice self for the spouse’s good. It certainly gives the Christian husband no permission to declare himself his wife’s leader and thereby expect her to obey him.

Comment by ken

September 29, 2007 @ 2:05 am

Mary (see comment 69514)… any organization that has more then one head is doomed to fail. You are suggesting the home has two heads. It will not work and it is a direct violation of God.

Ephesians 5:21 is to each Christian, but it goes on with verse 22 to give specific instructions to husbands and wives. Wives… submit yourself to your own husband as onto the Lord! Is this they way you submit to the Lord? To question him? To defy his instructions at every twist and turn?

As Donna has pointed out… even our Lord does not demand obedience. It has to be offered! I assure you that when it is offered we are certainly happier for doing so. I have never said husbands should demand obedience from their wife.

See comment 69514

Ken, please explain what you mean by ‘what I see here’ (emphasis mine).

We were reminded several times that men should love their wives and even sacrifice their own lives for them, yet I see nothing being offered in return for this sacrifice as those here demand equality. It seems this demand for equality only goes for the good things in life… never the sacrifices that have to be made… those are only for males to give!

I have also seem many Christian wives demand so much from unsaved husbands that these men would never see Christ in their wives and as a result, they will die and end up in hell because their wife demanded equality instead of submitting, according to 1 Peter 3:1.

Do a real word study on this… notice it starts out ‘likewise…’ so ask yourself what is 1 Peter 3:1 asking a Christian wife to do likewise?

Comment by ken

September 29, 2007 @ 2:33 am

One example from a real Yahoo group that thinks God has only called women to be saved.

A unique ministry that will use anointed women from different backgrounds and races, to go out and minister to a lost woman. This ministry was revealed be the [Holy Spirit] to go and minister to women only. God will use these anointed women to not only lead them to Christ, but also to meet their needs whatever those needs may be. With the trials and tribulations that you have gone through, God will be able to lead you to that woman to meet her needs and make her life better.

I was sent an invitation to this group under an identification I used to use. As soon as I asked about men I was banned. It seems that according to them the Gospel is only for women.

I have tackled the other side of this issue, too. I have confronted men who thought that women were their stepstools and that men should be the absolute dictator not only in the home but for all women. I have seen some say I am a ‘novelist commenter’ who ‘does have his own venue – a membership-only Yahoo group called “Shattered Men.”’ Oh yes, there must be something wrong to value all people because we all know we should only value women, just as we see in our society. Yes, it is membership-only because we are protecting the men and women there. Many have been abused and are still subject to it, but anyone can join. In fact, we have two members there now that only recently have attacked me personally. Yes, all new members are moderated, but this is only to keep excessive profanity off the board. Although we have allowed mild profanity, I have also personally allowed many outright attacks on me, including a link to a group called ‘I Hate Ken,’ because truth has nothing to hide.

Odd… I have had people say I hate women. Others said I am a feminazi and that I hate men. This does not bother me, and in fact right now there are at least three places on the web with my name on it saying I am looking for men to have sex with. I did not place them there, but it is someone that detests what I am doing.

What does bother me is that too many Christians are demanding their rights! Too many Christians are far too much into wanting their comfort zone that they can care less about anyone else. They want to be comfortable, even if it means others will spend an eternity in hell for their comfort! That does bother me! Yes, we can demand our rights, but at what cost? For one, it is very hard for a dead person to demand their rights. If we are truly crucified with Christ, they we should have died to ourselves, and if we did… how can we demand the right for anything?

Again, how many here have unsaved spouses? How will your demands help that spouse come to find the Lord? Is your ‘right’ for what you want more important then their soul?

Comment by tiro

September 29, 2007 @ 9:57 am

See comment 69516.

First, Christianity is not an organization. Even though the government has forced churches to fill out papers and choose president, secretary, and treasurers as if we were an organization, we are not. Now some churches may have begun to believe that we are because of having to jump through those hoops for tax exemption, but they are mistaken. Nevertheless, we need those checks and balances on the use of the church contributions else the sinful nature of man rise up and abuse the free will offerings of Christians.

The church is a living body of believers having those servants within us who are ministers to the life of the body. Ministers not by a fixed parameter of specified limited functions but as moved by the ever-living power of God’s Holy Spirit. We observe how God uses us and our ministers, we do not control them as in human organizations.

Second, have you read the Athanasian Creed lately? You will find that in the Trinity there is no ‘head,’ but all are one. Though this has confused some (in human understanding) by the fact that one person of the Trinity laid aside his glory to clothe himself in human flesh and miraculously become 100% human as well as 100% God, this does not change God who is Trinity.

The Athanasian Creed

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit.

The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal Being. So also there are not three uncreated beings, nor three infinite beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being.

In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord only.

For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord, we are prohibited by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or lords. The Father is made by none, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made, not created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not created by the Father and the Son, nor begotten, but proceeds. Therefore, there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal to themselves. So that through all, as was said above, both unity in Trinity and Trinity in unity is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him thus think concerning the Trinity.

Check the ecumenical creeds here for more.

Comment by Martin

September 29, 2007 @ 10:06 am

See comment 69512.

From most of what I see here, all the burden and responsibility should only go on men… and the women need not worry about anything other then taking advantage of all that men are responsible to provide.

Do you mean that the dear little women should not worry their pretty little empty heads about anything, because us big strong men will take care of it all (thumps chest Tarzan-style)?

Comment by tiro

September 29, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

Well, Pastor Ken (see comment 69517). What church are you pastor of, if you don’t mind my asking?

From most of what I see here, all the burden and responsibility should only go on men… and the women need not worry about anything other then taking advantage of all that men are responsible to provide.

If all responsibility should only go on men, and if women should not worry and must only take advantage of the things that men provide, then they must find their existence at the whim of the men who are taking care of everything, and wait for their provision. If that is not what you meant, then what did you mean?

Yes Tiro… Jesus Christ is totally equal to the Father… but when he was on earth he was also totally submissive to the Father, too. I guess that made him second class and inferior to God.

Remember that Christ is 100% human and 100% God. When he was on earth, he learned submission in order to fulfill the mission of the salvation of humanity. However, this did not change the Trinity, it did not change divinity.

More of the Athanasian Creed:

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the substance of the Father; begotten before the worlds: and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world.

Perfect God: and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.

Who although he be God and man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of substance: but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell: rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father God Almighty. From whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he can not be saved.

In the Trinity, the divine, there is no one before and one after. There is no one will that is imposed on the Son and the Spirit, but together they have only one will, that is God’s will. To say that there is one will that is imposed on the Son and the Spirit is to divide the Trinity and make one greater and two lesser.

So, I say that if God can have one united will between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and operate with power, love, and wisdom, then two who love one another in marriage can work together until they find that harmony that brings them together as if they were one.

One will imposed on another does not create unity; it simply creates compliance.

Comment by HKH

September 30, 2007 @ 5:34 pm

Ken, I have only posted on this forum twice – on this thread once. It is lost somewhere far above here.

On this thread, I pointed out the presence of brain disorders in some men and that sending women back to men who may suffer from Anti-social Personality Disorder or Narcissistic Personality Disorder was a bad idea. I want you to know that I realize that women also suffer from brain disorders. I want you to know that I see what you are talking about in this VAWA.

There is a family in our small town, where half the women are near crazy and the men are mostly normal. Recently a pregnant, high school-aged girl from that family went berserk. Her brother restrained her to keep her from hurting him, herself, and her unborn child. He was the one put in jail and kicked off the high school football team. I am happy to say that in spite of this injustice displayed toward him that things have turned around and he is back on the football team and things seem to be getting back to normal.

I know of other stories. I work with individuals who have family members with such brain disorders as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Adult ADHD, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Bi-polar Disorder. A man’s wife went crazy when he pressed her to get treatment for her ADHD. She took their kids and hid, got an order of protection against him, hired and aggressive lawyer, and started divorce proceedings. He was a kind man who wanted to treat his wife with honor. We had to encourage him to stand up for himself and play hardball in the court system because if he didn’t, he would lose everything including the children that he loved so dearly. Finally, he stepped up to the plate and fought back hard for his rights. It was a hard road, but he had to take it even though it went against his loving, giving, self-sacrificing nature.

Why am I telling you all this? To get you to know that I see that there is injustice perpetrated against good men by female members of their own house. And these things should not be. Nor should the converse happen. I believe everyone here agrees. Where we differ is with the solution.

Comment by HKH

September 30, 2007 @ 5:39 pm

Some men have been told, ‘If you love you wife enough, she will turn around.’ This may work in some cases, but not all.

If the woman has ADHD or some other brain dysfunction, loving her enough won’t cure her of it and heal the relationship any more than loving a person enough will heal that individual of diabetes. A chemical imbalance in both brain and blood need medical treatment. Unfortunately, brain science is so new, and people are so resistant to anything having to do with ‘mental illness,’ that getting people the treatment they need is next to impossible. And most people with these disorders have had them since childhood. They have built up huge defense systems within themselves that deflects all blame off of themselves and onto everyone else.

Ken, I’m no expert, but I’m willing to bet a large percentage of the members on your shattered male site are dealing with spouses with brain disorders. And just as telling men, ‘You need to love your wife more and everything will be fine,’ is ridiculous so also is telling women, ‘You need to submit more and your husband will see the light.’

I don’t take exception with Ephesians 5. There is wisdom there for relationships. I’m undecided on whether I’m egalitarian or not so I don’t have a problem seeing that ‘head,’ besides meaning source, can also contain authority in it. But what I have taken huge exception with is the overemphasis, by some, of this authority to the point that Ephesians 5 completely trumps all other Scripture having to do with marriage and male/female relationships. Too many have used Ephesians 5 to cancel out and make null and void all other Scriptures that give wonderful and beautiful freedoms to women to enable them to serve along side their men.

I don’t believe that you are one of those men, Ken, who wants to reduce women to second-class citizens in the kingdom of God. But in your frustration with the injustices done to men by women, I fear that you may fall into the trap of using Ephesians 5 as a panacea for whatever is wrong with marriage, VAWA, and all other ills that have to do with gender.

Comment by HKH

September 30, 2007 @ 5:47 pm

Ephesians 5, standing by itself, is not that panacea, or cure-all, nor do I believe it was it ever intended to be. It was meant to work with and balance with the rest of the Bible, like the Proverbs woman, all of Galatians, Judges 4, and the words of Jesus himself, to mention a very few. By taking Ephesians 5 only, focusing on this alone and becoming like a Pharisee who is far more concerned with the letter of the law which kills, than the spirit of grace which brings freedom and life, we are losing thousands of intelligent, but hurting women to the ‘goddess’ and that paganism you mentioned before.

Ken, I have faith that we both agree on something. There is no goddess that can help these hurting women. There is only the ‘bride,’ the ambassador and representation of Jesus Christ on this earth. We are that bride, and Jesus raises his bride to high places of authority in this world. When we humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, he raises us up. I have little to no problem with submission teaching when it is taught to raise women up as Jesus raises up his church, not above him, but next to him to rule and reign with him. (Ephesians 2:6,7; Revelation 5:10)

I have huge problems with it when it is dead-ended, no opportunity for advancement, and just used by carnal, insecure men to put women down and keep them in low places in the church, marriage, and the work force so that those insecure and small minded men don’t feel threatened.

Instead, those men need to find true spiritual healing, not a worldly healing that requires putting women ‘in their place.’ Putting women down does not heal or elevate men. It only produces a false sense of security and misplaced ego and a whole lot of other problems that arise when building a house on sand.

Comment by HKH

September 30, 2007 @ 5:53 pm

Jesus does not strip his bride of all power and authority. He is not insecure. He empowers his bride and arms her to the teeth. (Remember Ephesians 6, the full armor of God, follows right on the heels of Ephesians 5 and is written to all of the church, men, women, and children.)

Ken, you may not mean to come across as one who wants to disempower women and take away their voices in the church. I only ask you to take care. Just as there are wounded men (and women) who need your site, so there are wounded women (and maybe a few men?) who need this one. Recognize the spirit of grace here. If you differ on certain passages and their meaning with these good people, fine. It is your right. Just don’t confuse them with the bunch that promotes the goddess and paganism. These are not them.

And don’t fall into the trap of thinking that what they teach is destroying homes and marriages. Heavy handed, off-balanced complementarianism has done far more damage in the long run, in my humble opinion. I may even venture to guess that the VAWA may be a backlash against too heavy a use of Ephesians 5 against women among other things. If so, I am sorry that you and other men have been hurt by that backlash. It looks and sounds like it has been completely unreasonable and unfair against men. But then, heavy handed complementarianism has been completely unreasonable and unfair against women.

And I think some of the women on this site have found a place to heal and be raised up in their authority in Christ, authority that too many misguided denominations have tried to either tone way down or even totally strip away. Loving guidance and healing from God brings all things into balance and order as defined by him. Let us make it our goal to find that balance from a place of wholeness and healing, not out of bitterness, prejudice, or with a ‘chip on the shoulder’ attitude.

The end. (And someone in the back shouted, ‘amen’ which translated meant, ‘It’s about time HKH was finished with this novel length post!’)

Comment by Donna

October 1, 2007 @ 12:28 am

See comment 69588.

Just as there are wounded men (and women) who need your site, so there are wounded women (and maybe a few men?) who need this one. Recognize the spirit of grace here.

I appreciate your openness and good humor. You seem to really be in the equality camp. You recognize the fact that men can also suffer abuse at the hands of their wives or girlfriends.

HKH, you may be surprised at the spirit of grace you find at Shattered Men. Please take a look. You may be surprised, too, at the number of women who post there. In fact, it is also for non-Christians.

Then, Ken is one of the few people I know who also has a ministry to those suffering from Dissociative Disorder, or what has also been called MPD. Most of these are women who have suffered the worst kinds of abuse. Of course, that group is only for those with MPD.

So, check Shattered Men out. It may not be your cup of tea, but you will see that people are in a safe place to share their stories and to bear one another’s burdens. It won’t hurt to take a look. You may be surprised. Things are not always as they seem at first blush.

Hey, thank you for your novel. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by Donna

October 1, 2007 @ 12:49 am

See comment 69532.

Second, have you read the Athanasian Creed lately? You will find that in the Trinity there is no ‘head,’ but all are one.

I know that you are not saying that the Son is the Father, but…

Though this has confused some (in human understanding) by the fact that one person of the Trinity laid aside his glory to clothe himself in human flesh and miraculously become 100% human as well as 100% God, this does not change God who is Trinity.

Well, actually, the idea is that the Son and the Father are in a Father-Son relationship, which is eternal. Was the Son of God eternally the Son before he was made flesh to dwell among us?

The Athanasian Creed

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit.

This creed clearly shows that the Father is the Father and the Son is the Son.

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.

Actually, this sentence is talking about divine nature versus human nature. Human nature is inferior to the divine nature. The Son and the Father are equal in nature, but there is a difference between them, too. The key to understanding this difference is in the divine titles themselves. Father and Son are not exactly equal in role.

So, we have a perfect example of what is commonly called the complementarian position. Some say that they do not understand how two beings or people can be equal in nature, yet have different, assigned roles. Even so, the Trinity is the perfect example of this – ontological equality, yet with differing roles within the Godhead. There is something similar going on in Christian marriage.

Comment by fjs

October 1, 2007 @ 9:34 am

Regarding the Trinity, when the Son is mature and adult the Son is not in subordination. Furthermore, the Son shares the same purpose so the oneness in obedience has to do with shared purpose. Furthermore, the Scripture says that the son was exalted. His subordination on earth was temporal, not eternal.

Comment by Mary

October 1, 2007 @ 9:53 am

Sue, if you’re still reading this, please give us a link to the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) audio file you referenced in comment 65408 where Patterson said he sent the battered wife back to her husband to be beaten further. I listened once, but now I can’t find it. If they’ve yanked it, ultimately I’m glad, but it may just be buried. I’d like to be able to link to it just so no one can deny that Patterson did such a thing.

Comment by Mary

October 1, 2007 @ 9:56 am

Good point, FJS (see comment 69611). The husband-wife relationship is hardly a parent-child relationship. I’ve always thought it was a pretty silly argument to make that wives should submit to husbands (and not vice-versa) because the Son submitted to the Father (and not vice-versa). Besides, the Holy Trinity is a Trinity, not a duality. As with so much in the worldly system of patriarchy, there’s essentially no place for the Holy Spirit to guide and control, what with husbands being likened to both God the Father and Jesus the Son.

Comment by Sue

October 1, 2007 @ 10:52 am

I checked, Mary, but it’s no longer there. When I couldn’t find it, I put the title into the search engine for the site and it came up.

Comment by Sue

October 1, 2007 @ 11:02 am

I checked the CBMW website, Mary, but it’s no longer where it was before. When I couldn’t find it, I put the title into the search engine for the site and it came up under Resources for Women (of all things!) But when I clicked on it, it said ‘Sorry but the content you requested cannnot be found.’ So the title is there, but the panel discussion is not.

I haven’t been to that site in a while. At first I was startled to see that they now have a blog. Then I found out that their idea of a blog is to make their statements and then give no way to respond to their statements. I guess they can’t take the risk that some of us might go over there and start making comments.

Comment by Mary

October 1, 2007 @ 11:03 am

Thanks, Sue. No longer endorsing that appalling abuse of pastoral influence is perhaps a step in the right direction. However, it would lend a little credibility if they denounced Patterson for sending a battered wife back to be futher battered and advocating that as an acceptable thing simply because the husband allegedly got saved.

What amazes me is that Patterson’s pastoral abuse and terrible scholarship are tolerated. I suppose that’s what happens when there’s essentially no accountability.

Comment by Mary

October 1, 2007 @ 11:05 am

Sue, you’re right. That’s just a revamp of the way it’s always been: A whole bunch of proof-texted support of the world’s practice of patriarchy, dressed up in religiously-popular language. Those who see through the deceptions have to say so elsewhere.

Comment by Mary

October 1, 2007 @ 11:07 am

Oh, a funny thing, Sue… when I did the search, it came up as ‘resources for men!’

Comment by HKH

October 1, 2007 @ 11:51 am

Donna, just for the record, I went to the Shattered Men site the first or second day after the link was posted. I didn’t stay very long because I perceived a whole lot of anger. That is not necessarily a bad thing. When there are injustices done against anyone, the proper response is anger. I think too often, we in the body of Christ look at anger as a sin in and of itself. It’s not a sin if it is over the right reason, and it promotes the right action. When buried and not dealt with properly, anger can turn to bitterness which becomes a long standing problem, hard to root out. I was just simply not able to deal with that much anger all at once at that time. I may get back over there again some time. It is hard with my schedule.

It was a real luxury for me to sit down and write a novel-length post to send here last night. Glad you enjoyed it.

Comment by Donna

October 1, 2007 @ 6:56 pm

See comment 69627.

Donna, just for the record, I went to the Shattered Men site the first or second day after the link was posted. I didn’t stay very long because I perceived a whole lot of anger.

Hmmm. That’s funny, but I perceive a whole lot of anger on the feminist lists. This is the best blog, but if you go to others, you will find a lot of anger directed towards ‘patriarchalists’ and patriarchy.

Sometimes it is a matter of perspective, too.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. When there are injustices done against anyone, the proper response is anger.

Some of the people coming in have been beaten down by the system. Not all are believers, either.

I think too often, we in the body of Christ look at anger as a sin in and of itself. It’s not a sin if it is over the right reason, and it promotes the right action.

I understand and agree.

When buried and not dealt with properly, anger can turn to bitterness which becomes a long standing problem, hard to root out.I was just simply not able to deal with that much anger all at once at that time.

I agree.

I may get back over there again some time. It is hard with my schedule.

It was a real luxury for me to sit down and write a novel-length post to send here last night. Glad you enjoyed it.

Hey, it’s nice to talk to you. Thanks for giving me a chance. Thanks for at least checking out Shattered Men. I don’t participate much over there, but I am glad that men and even women who have had hard times and been chewed up by the system have a place to share.

See you around, HJH. Yes, I need to get on to my work, too, and a family crisis related to my parents’ health. My mom knows the Lord, but my dad does not. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by Mary

October 1, 2007 @ 10:26 pm

Here is a link to some of the verification of Paige Patterson’s infamous statements. Wade Burleson included the story in his blog entry, and commenters have confirmed both the story and Patterson’s identity as the leader who was happy (his word) that he sent a battered wife back to her husband.

Comment by tiro

October 2, 2007 @ 12:46 pm

Listen to a Patterson tape here.

Interesting, that Paige Patterson rebuked a mother who was correcting her teenage son. The son had quipped to his friends about a young woman walking by, ‘man is she built.’ The mother slapped her hand across her son’s mouth and told him she never wanted to hear him referring to a woman that way. Patterson, standing by, told the mother to leave the boy alone that he was simply being ‘biblical,’ and went on to talk about the fact that in Hebrew the word used to describe God’s forming the woman meant to build. Now talking about original Hebrew is all fine. However does Mr. Patterson really think it is okay for young men to characterize women according to their physical appearance? This did not seem a casual observance since he publicly rebuked a mother for correcting her son. Or, is he just that lacking in wisdom?

Comment by jlp

October 2, 2007 @ 2:19 pm

I think the woman should have gently explained to her son that women should not be judged by the shape of their body, but by the shape of their heart. She should have asked him if he would like it if the young lady he made the remark about judged him by the shape of his body.

The mother shouldn’t have hit her son. This was an opportunity for her to give her son gentle advice. Hitting him was totally unneccessary and may have undermined what she was trying to teach him.

It’s hard for me to tell what Patterson meant. I know a lot of Christians (including complementarians) who don’t appreciate it when women are talked about in the manner this young man did. I have to admit I find Patterson hard to understand.

Comment by tiro

October 2, 2007 @ 2:29 pm

I’m not sure that the mother slapped her son, or just quickly covered her sons mouth. But I agree that she could have given a more detailed explanation, which could have happened later. We don’t know. What concerned me was Patterson’s confession on tape that he stopped the mothers rebuke and basically made it okay for the son to typify young women in that manner. I don’t get it.

Comment by Sue

October 2, 2007 @ 8:28 pm

For those of you who have trouble ‘understanding’ Paige Patterson or have trouble ‘getting it,’ please allow me to help clear things up.

We have learned that Patterson’s beliefs include these philosophies:

1. Men are above being taught in a Christian seminary by a woman, even if it’s a non-theological course (for instance, Dr. Sheri Klouda).

2. Men who cause physical harm to a woman should be prayed for, submitted to, and elevated.

3. Men who lust openly at a woman are displaying their healthy masculinity. In other words, he is a Christian leader whose respect for women should be emulated by other Christian men.

There now, got it? Glad I could help. If you have any further questions, why not just jump on over to the CBMW blog and ask your questions there? Oh, wait, that’s right! Their blog isn’t interactive! I wonder why that is?

Comment by Mary

October 2, 2007 @ 8:55 pm

I actually feel some compassion for Paige Patterson, for I have known a lot of people who essentially articulate their first thoughts with little or no self-editing. Honestly, I think he suffers from that flaw.

However, there are consequences to what people say, and the more prominent and influential they are, the more serious those consequences. Right or wrong, we expect religious leaders to have even more control over the tongue than everyone else. My problem with Paige Patterson is the complete lack of any admission that he could be wrong in any of these problems with which he’s been involved. In other words, he seems to be accepting no responsibility for his published statements other than to stand by them to the bitter end. It appears that he thinks it’s more important to be right in his own eyes than to admit he’s made a mistake.

To anyone who knows the Scriptures, it is clearly wrong to tolerate offensive comments (especially sexually offensive comments) by one’s own child. It is clearly wrong to tell a woman whose husband is beating her that she must return to him in order to be beaten further. It is clearly wrong to make an agreement with a fellow believer, then renege on that agreement so that her family’s livelihood is jeopardized, then to compound that wrong by proof-texting it from the Bible (taking the Lord’s name in vain). God does not tell mothers to stand silently by while their teenage sons make explicit remarks to young women. God does not tell pastors to send beaten wives back for further abuse from their criminally abusive husbands. God does not tell seminary presidents to circumvent due process in removing a tenure-track biblical language professor with a pristine academic record from her teaching position. Yet Paige Patterson did all these things. He should not be shielded from the consequences of those actions, even while we all as Christians ought to be praying for him to better reflect the image of the Christ whose name he has professed as Lord. He will need those prayers if he ever decides to accept responsibility for the wrong he has done – as will we all.

Comment by Sue

October 2, 2007 @ 10:10 pm

The problems with Paige Patterson are not based on first thoughts. His beliefs that women are not to teach men spiritually are long-standing and well-known. They did not begin with Dr. Sheri Klouda and they did not end there. He did not decide to terminate her on a whim. He backed up his decision both long and hard. Also, when he answered that question about domestic abuse during the panel discussion, he was not talking off the top of his head. He was relaying the way he habitually counseled women in that situation. He spoke about what he typically told women who came to him saying they were abused, and he gave one particular example as a demonstration of why his manner of couseling women in that way was the right thing to do.

Paige Patterson’s problems do not stem from an unfortunate habit of blurting out things that he doesn’t mean or from the fact that he hasn’t thought through some things that he’s too proud to take back. The problems stem from fundamental core beliefs that disrespct women and are designed to relegate women to a role he openly prescribes. These beliefs permeate his career as a Christian leader. Maybe he does deserve compassion as a misguided Christian leader. But so do the women who have been victmized over the year by the effect of his lack of respect for women.

Comment by ken

October 3, 2007 @ 12:22 am

Donna, just for the record, I went to the Shattered Men site the first or second day after the link was posted. I didn’t stay very long because I perceived a whole lot of anger.

Did you check the website or the interactive group? The website was designed to get people to come to the interactive group where we could address their needs specifically. As Donna said, we accept anyone that comes to us for help, including some that have outright attacked me personally. The header of this message will lead to this interactive group but there is another page that will tell much more about me. It contains over 200 things that I have written to help people heal from abuse.

These topics do cover anger, rejection, the cause of abuse, depression, suicide and much more. #204 tells the purpose of Shattered Men, but in short, although we are a biblically based ministry, we do limit the number of devotionals we allow in the interactive group because we do invite everyone and we do not want them to feel like they walked into a church. We strongly believe that the only real solution for abuse is for each person to have a right relationship with God and that is why there is a link to how to have eternal life on each of over 800 pages on our website.

You can find these messages here.

Many have came to this ministry very angry. They were angry at just about everyone and often I moved to the top of the list. One called me at 3 AM cussing me out but by 4 AM his anger was gone… he had met the Prince of Peace. Even one of our moderators could not say the Lord’s Prayer a few years ago because her parents were abusive. I ‘adopted’ her to show her what a father should be like and now she easily calls me and to say, ‘dad, I need to talk about something’

To conclude, I suggest you join the interactive group or check on Ken’s page to see what SM is really about. We do require people to join now to see the message board in order to protect those who post about very serious issues of abuse.

Comment by Mary

October 3, 2007 @ 9:00 am

Sue, I only meant that when Patterson expresses his appalling beliefs to a public audience, he puts these obviously long-held beliefs in the absolute worst words possible. He’s not much of a spin-master. I do have compassion for those whose lives have been damaged by Paige Patterson, believe me, I do! I’m a little surprised that I find any compassion for Patterson, frankly. But I believe he’s finally having to face some of the consequences that he himself has created. I wouldn’t ever want him not to have to face them. Too much is at stake, not least of which is the credibility of the Gospel. But whenever anyone begins to be undone by their own misdeeds, I feel at least a glimmer of compassion for them. I think it’s because I’ve too often had to face my own self-made consequences and know how hard that is for me, a mostly private person. How much more so for someone so prominent? But I would state that however difficult that is proving to be for Patterson (who to date is still behind those circled wagons), it is more important for those he’s hurt to receive justice, than it is for Paige Patterson to be shielded from the consequences of his actions.

Comment by Sue

October 3, 2007 @ 5:44 pm

Thank you, Mary for your thoughts and comments. Here’s my struggle. Maybe I’m missing something here, but I’m honestly not aware of Patterson facing any consequences for his views. He has the complete support of every organization he is associated with. From what I know of, he has lost nothing. He still believes exactly what he has always believed, and so do his associates. He shows no signs that he is rethinking his views or that he has any remorse. If he had to make the same decisions over again, he would do exactly the same things he already did. He will continue to teach others those same beliefs, and those who have been taught by him will continue to teach others those beliefs as well.

Patterson doesn’t respect women, and he compounds this disrespect by claiming his views are from God.

Mary, in what way is he facing the consequences? I honestly don’t know. And are the consequences of a serious enough nature to cause him to rethink his respect level for more than half the Chistian world?

Comment by LMcC

October 3, 2007 @ 6:12 pm

Maybe Mary sees the exposure of his views to a larger audience as a consequence in and of itself? He can’t hide anymore. He can’t even pretend anymore to care about the whole body of Christ. Exposure will harm his ministry, whether he recognizes what is happening or not.

Granted, I don’t think he cares about being exposed. I don’t think he’ll rethink his views under any circumstances. He’ll probably consider the exposure ‘persecution’ and be even more dogmatic about his views, just like the Fundamental Baptists I’ve dealt with liked to do. As I said, the SBC is turning into the IFBs.

Comment by Sue

October 3, 2007 @ 7:48 pm

LMCC, I didn’t know his views were being exposed to a larger audience until now. I just thought it was a controversy on the CBE blog. That’s why I wasn’t getting what consequences he was suffering through.

Can you provide the address where the article you posted can be found? It came up automatically at first, and now I can’t get it back.

I guess it remains to be seen whether the exposure he has gotten will have any effects. Unfortunately, I think your predictions about how he will respond will prove to be true.

Comment by Martin

October 3, 2007 @ 9:15 pm

Patterson is bound to get even more exposure as the law suit against him for unduly firing a tenured professor, simply because she was female, gets more and more public. Frankly, this sort of abuse under the guise of religious zeal needs to be widely exposed.

Comment by Mary

October 3, 2007 @ 9:56 pm

Hi, Sue. The more I read, especially among Southern Baptists, the more I’m finding that Patterson doesn’t have the support base that I’m sure he wishes he had. Maybe he still does think he has it. But it’s eroding, fast, mainly over the Klouda lawsuit. It’s hitting the seminary in the pocketbook in a big way, no matter how things settle out.

Sometimes, I see things projected into the future. This may be one of those instances. There will come a time when Paige Patterson will face a reckoning. In an eternal sense, we all will. I do believe, however, that matters are unfolding so that he will rather soon be facing a human accounting for his attitudes and actions as well.

Sometime back in my own history, I learned a very important lesson: The more I earnestly pray to be like my Savior – and believe me, I know I have a long way to go yet – the more I can expect to be surprised by genuine compassion for those who, by my own estimation, deserve little or no compassion. I suspect that’s because I know I deserve no compassion from Christ, yet because of my faith, I believe he offers it to me regardless.

Again, I would say that my compassion does not mean I think Paige Patterson shouldn’t face the consequences of his attitudes and actions. I strongly believe he needs to, and those he has wronged need for him to, in order for justice to be served. Whether or not he knows that process has begun, I believe it has. I also believe it’s going to get much, much more difficult for him before he submits to the truth and admits his wrongdoing. He may never get to that point; that’s up to him.

I don’t know if this answer is especially satisfying, but it’s the only one I have to give. This kind of surprise of compassion has come to me several times lately, each time shaming me because of my own sinfulness and the added sin of holding another’s wrongs against him or her. It doesn’t negate the wrongs, but it helps me at least to put them in something closer to God’s perspective and not to be hostage to those wrongs.

Comment by Mary

October 3, 2007 @ 10:06 pm

Let me also observe something else: Paige Patterson is essentially accountable to no one. The checks and balances at the seminary have proved to be ineffective. As a former president of the convention, who’s realistically going to tell him he’s wrong? Yes, some do, but he tends to brush off their concerns because he has significantly more power, in the world and certainly in the SBC, than any of them do.

The only way people seem to be reining him in is those with serious money, starting to withhold it. I have heard that this is starting to be the case, but I don’t have anything reliable I can link to at this point. If that’s what it’s going to take to wake him up, I hope it happens sooner than later.

But that’s one reason I think Patterson sticks with his initial thoughts. If there’s anyone willing to tell him face-to-face that he’s in slavery to an ungodly philosophy concerning women, he has no reason to listen to such a person. When a person is ‘used’ to ‘being right’ in their own eyes, it can be incredibly difficult to be told otherwise, especially when one is a person of significant power and influence.

Comment by LMcC

October 4, 2007 @ 9:57 am

Sue (see comment 69779), I posted an article? (confused) I don’t remember this. Can you tell me what it was about so I can find it? Was it linked to my username? I’d be glad to help out but I’m drawing a heavy-duty blank.

Comment by Sue

October 4, 2007 @ 5:24 pm

Yes, LMCC, I believe it was linked to your username. Your name was among the list of the latest posts on Wednesday evening, and when I clicked on it, it took me not to the CBE posting but to another website. I thought you arranged that. The other website had an article about the fact that CBMW removed the controversial panel discussion with commentary about how that is not a good idea. Was that your personal website?

And thank you, Mary, again, for your comments. You say you believe that Patterson is facing consequences for what has happened, and until now, I knew of nothing going on. You sound like a very strong but kind woman, and I appreciate your compassion. From seeing this go on and from a very recent and painful personal experience with a Baptist pastor in my own life, here’s an observation I have made that confuses me. Let me say, first of all, that I mess up all the time. I have to accept that about myself. But I am grateful that biblically I am not left in that condition. I know what to do. If I do something to hurt someone, I have a responsibility to express my remorse to that person, undo whatever damage I have caused, and assure that person that I will do my best not to repeat the offense. I have to do that quite frequently! To put these thoughts into the context of what is going on with Patterson and the Baptist pastor in my life, both men insist that their zeal for putting women in their places is based on the fact that they believe in and live according to the Bible. When the Baptist pastor in my life carried out actions that caused me personal damage, he handled it as Patteson is doing: admitted nothing and avoided anything possible. But their passion for the Bible verses that put women in their place is so adamant! Where is the passion for the verses that tell you how to right your wrongs? Are those verses not of at least equal value to the ones telling women to get in their ‘roles?’ All I’m saying is that there is a biblical, God-honoring way out of this situation. I know confession and restitution aren’t as fun as feeling superior to others. But it is the biblical thing to do. And haven’t they been saying all along that their motivation stems from a desire to follow the Bible? Basically, what I’m saying is that I’m not expecting anything of them that I don’t expect of myself on a frequent basis. And I’m just a woman. Shouldn’t my spiritual superiors be better (and be more biblical) than I am?

Comment by LMcC

October 4, 2007 @ 6:22 pm

Oh, that! It’s linked on comment 69119 in this thread. Sometimes I’ll link to something semi-appropriate to my post, and sometimes I’ll just forget to delete the last thing I linked.

Comment by Mary

October 4, 2007 @ 10:19 pm

Sue! I’m sorry that happened to you, and shame on the pastor who did it!

Thank you for your very kind words. I don’t think I deserve them, but I thank you all the same.

I agree with you 100%, Sue. The trouble is, when people won’t even admit they’ve done anything wrong (except perhaps in a nagging conscience that they keep private), they will not see any need to make amends. That’s where the lack of accountability comes into play, I think. In hierarchies, the guy (always a guy, of course) at the top answers to no one. They generally give lip service to being answerable to God, but here’s how I see that working: As a friend once told me, God often disagrees with him when he’s among other Christians, but pretty much always agrees with him when he keeps to himself. So since patriarchal churches model themselves on hierarchies of ‘authority’ (translated, that’s power structures), their pastors are at the top of that hierarchical pyramid. They have what they think of as ‘authority over’ everybody else, so who’s going to hold them accountable? God, yes. But it really is quite easy to convince oneself that God is in complete agreement with one’s own preferences in that situation.

That’s my perception right now about Paige Patterson, and how I suspect the pastor who wronged you got things so twisted and unbiblical. People say and do all kinds of hideous things and convince themselves they’re ‘right’ in doing them. That’s the nature of sin. It’s addictive. The more we sin without confession and repentance, the easier it gets to keep sinning and the harder it is to confess and repent.

Sometimes, it takes outside forces to bring an unrepentant sinner back around to God’s way. That’s where I see things just beginning now for Paige Patterson (regarding the lawsuit and possible financial trouble because people aren’t giving as lavishly as in the past).

Comment by fjs

October 5, 2007 @ 8:18 am

I was forty years old before any man asked for my forgiveness. It was wierd… I finally woke up and realized that I am not at fault for all conflicts – and began to realize that no one can be that sinful. It was the beginning of healing for me. I stopped taking responsibility for the sins done to me by others. I finally grew up emotionally and spiritually.

I think the patriarchial teaching really did have something to do with a sense pride for men (in not needing to ask for forgiveness when they wronged another and in defining reality for their wives and other women) and a sense of shame or false guilt for women in my life context.

The patriarchical teaching in my experience led to a really dysfunctional perception of myself and my own ability to know what was real and what was not real. I allowed my reality or my truth about offenses to be interpreted and governed by the men in my life. The Scripture seemed to reinforce this sense that I was easily deceived. I could not trust my own voice or even my ability to understand the Bible. It was sheer spiritual and emotional torture and affected my view of God and ability to have a genuine relationship with God.

God is good. He delivered me and my family.

Comment by LMcC

October 5, 2007 @ 12:20 pm

Hate to say it, but because we’re both women, anything we say is not to be trusted by him. Unless and until a man steps up about it, we are not to be believed.

(Light goes on)

Wait. What’s Wade’s blog URL again? Wade is a man (and a Southern Baptist pastor) who has made some strong statements against the Klouda incident and the panel discussion. If a male pastor doesn’t have enough authority in the hierarchal mindset to say something about the situation, nobody else will.

Comment by tiro

October 7, 2007 @ 6:00 pm

Tribe leaders do not establish patriarchy. Patriarchy evolved a long way away from tribe leaders.

Comment by Sue

October 7, 2007 @ 8:22 pm

Yes, God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And Moses. And David. And Sarah. And Rebecca. And Ruth. And Peter, Paul, and Mary. He is God of countless people He didn’t specifically name in the Old Testament. He was God back then and He’s God right now. He always will be.

That’s a huge leap to jump from quoting verses in which God declares Himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Old Testament and somehow making some kind of connection in order to say that in the United States of America in 2007, a Christian woman must obey her husband in the same way the children of the household must obey him, or that a husband has a God-ordained right to have his own way in any disagreement with his wife, or that two people in a loving committed marital relationship need one of them to be designated as the boss, or that Christian women must live with husbands who are beating them.

The Scriptures are full of passages about loving, serving, and giving. There are many passages about humility and esteeming one another. We have the golden rule and the great commission. Those Scriptures are every bit as relevent for marital relationships as they are for any other relationships.

Comment by Donna

October 7, 2007 @ 10:22 pm

See comment 70042.

May I suggest that it’s time to lay down the grudges and deal with what is said by people here, with people here.

Amen! I heartily agree, Mary. Thank you for this. I appreciate your saying that. I assume that grudges should also be dropped that may be held against complementarians?

It is Christian to lay aside grudges. It is Christian to forgive. It is Christian to forget.

Your words are very healing, Mary, if we will all apply them to one another. It helps to clear away some of the misunderstandings and hurts of the past. Oh, we will disagree on these teachings themselves. We are, at least on this issue, worldviews apart. However, we should not disagree on the basics of forgiving from the heart. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by LMcC

October 8, 2007 @ 9:17 am

Ah, the thread that will never die.

I’m surprised that nobody has yet pointed out that it would have been perfectly right and completely possible if Paige Patterson had told the woman to get out for her own safety, and then could ‘pray, submit, and lift up’ her abuser. Ken’s defense of Paige Patterson becoming an accessory to assault would be unnecessary. Prayers are still effective if the woman is in safety. Lifting her abuser up in prayer would probably be a lot easier for her if she were in a safe place, and praying for his well being and his salvation would still be a very submissive act. In fact, she would still be submitting to him through prayer without submitting to his sinful behavior in the process, a much better way to go. She didn’t have to be there for more abuse. If God really wanted that man to get saved that night, he’s more than strong enough to do it without putting her in jeopardy.

Think about it, would you want to be forced to pray like this in your own home? ‘Lord, please lift up my slap – ow! – husband, and bless punch – ow! – him, and help me get the medical help I kick – gasp – am going to need after he gets done with hair pull – Aaghhh! – me…’

The other thing that got missed is that Christians can and should expect abuse from the world. We should not expect it, nor should we tolerate it, from within the body of Christ and within our own homes. There is a radical difference between the two. The world may have some friends in it, but it also definitely has strangers and enemies. We’re going to get heat. The church is not supposed to be the enemy of a Christian, it is not supposed to tolerate abuse within its ranks, and it’s sure not supposed to condone sin – and I think beating the daylights out of someone counts as sin.

Comment by Donna

October 8, 2007 @ 10:47 am

Patriarchy is a result of the fall, Donna.

Patriarchy is the result of God being our Father. Christian patriarchy emphasizes God our Father as the example of how earthly fathers are to love and rule their families. Patriarchy is a compound word: ‘patri‘ for father and ‘archy‘ for rule. It just means ‘father rule.’ If patriarchy were the result of the fall, then how can you avoid saying that our heavenly Father’s rule is also the result of the fall?

Harsh rule by men is a result of the fall. Women’s need to usurp men’s rule is also a result of the fall.

Men and women were also created equal as far as our humanity goes, but we are not exactly the same. Human beings come in two models – male and female. That fact is written into every cell of our bodies.

Comment by Donna

October 8, 2007 @ 10:53 am

As for your question regarding Mark Driscoll, his words speak for themselves. Lots of people love to hear him denigrate other people and other Christians, particularly those who don’t conform to his unbiblical patriarchal worldview, and they applaud him for such things. I’m not one of them.

In Driscoll’s series on the book of Ruth, he spoke strongly to the young men in his congregation. He told them to quit having sex outside marriage, to quit doing drugs, to quit partying, to grow up, find a nice Christian woman to marry, settle down, have some kids, and build a legacy for the future. He called all that ‘patriarchy.’ He told the women a number of times that God redeems women like Ruth. She came from a pagan background where sexual sins were common. She may not have been pure when she married, yet God had a plan for her. He redeemed her because He is in the business of redeeming women. I am thrilled with his version of patriarchy, and pray that his tribe increases. I applaud him heartily for his patriarchy.

Comment by Donna

October 8, 2007 @ 10:59 am

What Ken does is demand that married women obey their husbands – he calls that obedience ‘submission’ – and consider their husbands ‘authorities’ over them.

So, then, what does ‘submission’ mean? The word implies a willing yielding of the will to one in authority over them. The command for a Christian wife to submit to her husband is binding on her conscience. If she disobeys, God will take her to task for her disobedience to his Word. If the husband disobeys God and begins to treat his wife harshly, God will take him to task, too. In fact, he may even use civil authorities to get his point across.

God demands that married women obey their husbands. You have to strip the idea of obedience from submission in order to come to the conclusion that wives are not to obey their husbands.

Comment by Donna

October 8, 2007 @ 12:01 pm

Just a couple more comments, and then I will leave you good people for a time. You have been most kind to allow me to participate with you. We have such strong disagreements in many things, but we do have points of agreement, too.

I just want to make sure that it is understood that Ken is not advocating that women never run for help when they are being abused. He would not tell a man to just take abuse, either.

What he did say was that even he himself would take abuse and persecution if it meant that someone would or might come to Christ because of it. Some pointed out that a woman can still pray for and seek to win an abusive spouse, but at a safer distance.

The focus of all that we advocate should be that people come to know Christ in a personal way. Christ Himself should be the focus of our theology, right?

When people continue in their wrongdoing, everyone affected by their wrongdoing (including those who choose to forgive them) have to decide what to do to deal with their wrongdoing.

Mary, by not forgetting the wrongs done, a person leaves the door open to bitterness and revenge-taking. Much of what is done in the name of making wrongs right is nothing more than revenge. Yes, if crimes have been committed, then the wrongdoer should be punished according to the laws of the land, and that without respector of person. Then, Christians are even told by Paul to not drag one another into court over lawsuits. We have no business taking vengence on others. Rather be wronged says that Word of God. When God forgives us, he puts our sins behind him and remembers them no more. He also says that if you do not forgive from the heart, you will not be forgiven by your Father in heaven. We must not confuse ourselves with the civil authorities who do punish wrongdoers. We must not sue other Christians, either.

Of course, I am sure that somehow those commands are not binding of a Christian’s conscience, either…

Comment by Mary

October 8, 2007 @ 12:21 pm

Donna, I was talking about the human practice of patriarchy. Human beings are not God. Human beings are never commanded to rule one another by means of patriarchy, not in society, not in the church, not in the family. Patriarchy is the worldly pattern of the physically stronger and politically more powerful ruling over the weaker and less powerful. It is the world’s tradition. It is not to be so among us Christians, no matter how one tries to justify it and use God’s name to do it.

We are commanded to forgive one another; no one is exempt. We are not commanded to forget what others have done to us. God is said in Scripture to forget our sins. We are not God. We may, over time, forget what others do to us. But forgiving and forgetting are not the same thing. We human beings can forgive. That forgiveness is not contingent upon our forgetting the wrongs. When we are wronged repeatedly by an unrepentant person, for example, it is unlikely and even unwise to forget that wrong, especially if it puts us or others into danger.

As for submission, it is not synonymous with obedience. Women are not commanded to obey their husbands. Christian men are not authority figures to their wives. We are to submit, freely and willingly, to one anothers simply because we honor Christ. Even in marriage. I know that is not the religiously popular pattern, which twists marriage into a hierarchy consistent with the world’s patriarchal tradition. But that is scripturally how we are taught to treat one another, even in marriage. If we would all practice all Christian teachings in marriage, it would be obvious that none of us is permitted to neglect submission, sacrificial love, honor, respect, nor any other teaching of Christian behavior. Instead, however, it is popular in some Christian circles right now to tell husbands that they are not to submit to their wives, while twisting biblical submission into a matter of obedience to someone (a husband) who has unbiblical power and authority over the one ‘commanded’ to obey him (the wife).

You mentioned the lawsuit issue, presumably applying it to Sheri Klouda without naming her (since she and Patterson are the only parties mentioned in this entry and comments who are known to be parties in a lawsuit). Klouda was defrauded by Patterson. There was no redress to her grievances. Patterson behaved in a completely worldly way to her and legally thumbed his nose at her when she sought a remedy. Sadly, the secular courts are her only means of relief. So it seems to me that while you are quick to apply a blanket ‘no lawsuits’ judgment against her (and perhaps any other Christian), you have nothing to say about the broken word and professional and financial devastation Patterson inflicted on Klouda. That, to me, is a matter of consequences to unconfessed, unrepentant sin (Patterson’s). His wrongdoing gave rise to what you’re claiming is wrong on Klouda’s part. Even Ken conceded that there ‘may’ have been wrongdoing on Patterson’s part.

Comment by Pastor Ken

October 8, 2007 @ 1:14 pm

CBMW disabled their own link to the Patterson et al recording, Donna, but not before no less than five people (ones I know of personally) all listened to at least the excerpt in question and heard Patteson say he sent an abused woman back to her husband to be beaten again.

One person we have not heard from either is the woman involved. Is there anything mentioned about what she meant by being beaten? I know of many who have said they were abused by they did not have a scratch on them. Did this woman go back partially as a result of realizing she played a part in it? Was it a slap? Did she need to go to the hospital? Did she call 911 to have an ambulance sent?

It sure would be interesting to hear her and her husbands side of it.

Just for the record, there are times in which either a man or a woman should get out of the situation. I have said that often but few hear care to hear that part… but for a Christian, divorce should not be advised as it is not a biblical grounds for divorce.

Almost all of the women shelters and even most of the Christian ministries that only address abuse if it is done to a woman will tell them to divorce however.

Comment by Mary

October 8, 2007 @ 7:32 pm

Hmmm… Tiro, I didn’t consider this before, but I don’t doubt that Patterson does have plenty of influence to have CBMW disable the link to that recording.

Yes, LMCC, that’s it exactly. If we look at what scriptural divorce was, it was the ‘putting out’ or ‘putting aside’ of one’s wife, or abandonment of one’s wife – in a sinfully patriarchal culture, it was any action that left a wife with no livelihood and no way to herself alive except the selling of herself in prostitution. The Bible, unlike religiously popular teachers, makes a distinction between the divorce itself (the sundering) and a certificate of divorce (which merely gave a divorced woman a legal proof that there was no sin involved if a man married her). Jesus rightly spoke out against the sundering of marriage. He was speaking quite practically when he taught that if a man gave his wife a certificate of divorce (among Jews even in his day, only a man could do that), he was causing her to commit adultery. He gave her no choices except prostitution or remarriage, if she was to stay alive. Hardness of heart, indeed!

It’s obvious to me that it is no sin to flee from a spouse who beats you. The abusive spouse (as you say, male or female) who threatens another human being’s very life has most certainly destroyed the marriage. Could the marriage be resurrected? Possibly. But it is not reasonable to coerce the abused spouse – spiritually or otherwise – to return to the abuser with the responsibility both to change the abuser and save the marriage. Both are up to the abuser, not the abused. Someone so bound up in sin as to beat one’s spouse, should have to make an enormous effort to deserve trust from that spouse again.

This bunk about ‘what did she do to contribute’ to her broken nose and blackened eyes is ridiculous. Unless she beat her own face, that’s blaming her for her spouse’s chosen, sinful behavior. If she beat him, she’d also be responsible. Both deserve arrest and prosecution, which are logical consequences of physically violent sin. And in my opinion, any abusive spouse has no right to expect or demand that the victim stay married to him or her. Their marriage is already dead. A decree is only the death certificate. It’s time the church stopped holding abused spouses to a higher standard than the counselors themselves practice; they’re not the ones being ordered back into an abuser’s fists and they certainly would resist any such coercion demanded of them. It’s time the church cared more about what kills marriage, than about demanding that people stay in dead ones. It’s like the cheapness of protests against other sinful practices. Protesting the end result does nothing to change the root causes.

Comment by Mary

October 8, 2007 @ 7:43 pm

Sue, I just want to be clear to you. I heard the recording, too, and it was just as you said. I think you’ve been to Wade Burleson’s blog and seen that Katherine and I talked about it there. Wade said he knows of four people who listened to the recording. I know of five, including you, myself, and Katherine.

It’s simply ridiculous for someone to something didn’t really happen, simply because evidence of it has been removed from public access. I’d still like to see CBMW denounce that kind of pastoral malpractice, but more than that, I’d like to see Paige Patterson admit that in giving such counsel, he sinned against that Christian sister. I’m not holding my breath, but I know God has accomplished much greater changes of heart than those.

Comment by LMcC

October 8, 2007 @ 7:58 pm

Sue (70164), thank you for putting yourself through listening to that discussion in order to bring us Patterson’s views. That had to be painful to hear. I’ve read backup accounts from Georgia columnist Jeannie Babb Taylor and from various commenters on Wade Burleson’s blog. These people are corroborating what you heard. (By the way, I’ve met Jeannie in person and know her to be trustworthy.)

See comment 70166.

But it is not reasonable to coerce the abused spouse – spiritually or otherwise – to return to the abuser with the responsibility both to change the abuser and save the marriage.

Isn’t that the truth! I can’t speak for abused men this time, obviously, since I’m not a guy (and there’s no possible biblical justification for a wife to abuse her husband, anyway), so I have to take this one from the traditional Christian female perspective. The female in a hierarchal relationship is supposed to submit, submit, obey, even if he kills her. If I go by the descriptions of marriage from http://www.bible.ca, she has to behave toward hubby like he’s God (and they say it isn’t idolatry). She may ‘manage the house,’ but ‘he manages her.’ She has no real freedom, no power at all. Yet somehow this powerless woman is supposed to go against everything she’s been taught and somehow find this amazing power to change her husband and repair the marriage all by herself while trying to protect herself from further beatings and still remaining perfectly submissive? Uh, no! That’s not good Christian behavior, that’s codependency, enabling the abuse, and completely impossible for any human being. (But since when have women in traditional Christianity not had to live up to higher standards than men?)

Comment by Donna

October 8, 2007 @ 11:24 pm

It’s simply ridiculous for someone to something didn’t really happen, simply because evidence of it has been removed from public access.

It’s still hearsay. I heard the session in question, too, and did not find anything as extreme as you say. It’s a matter of opinion, maybe? Without the recording or the transcript, we do not know what was said and we do not know the context. All we know is how each one of us reacted to the session.

I found it pretty interesting, especially the amount of freedom that the wives said that they had within submission to their husbands. Both Mrs. Elliott and Mrs. Patterson have their own ministries, after all, ministries that their husbands help them in and encourage them in. What surprised me about the session is how much the women talked. The men didn’t say much at all, if I remember right.

In fact, I’m wondering if maybe I was the one who provided the link to that session when it was discussed on the CCC list. Anyway, we all have a right to react as we wish and remember what we think we remember. How many years ago was that session?

You could write to the CBMW to ask them for a copy of the transcript or a copy of the recording. You could ask them why it was removed, if it was removed for good. Often those links do not work as well as they should, especially on something that is several years old. You need more information in order to make the judgments that you are making, it seems to me.

Comment by Donna

October 8, 2007 @ 11:38 pm

No, I would not advise a woman who is being abused by her husband or a husband who is being abused by his wife to just stay in the situation and do nothing. If the life is threatened, I would tell the battered spouse to run far, run fast to a safe place. Just for your information. There are many things that can be done. Restoration of the marriage should be a priority. Divorce is not the first action to take.

Of course, if you define abuse as being made to feel uncomfortable by another person, then I part company with you good folks there. When I say abuse, I mean life-threatening, personality-destroying behaviour on the part of the abuser. Some have very liberal definitions of abuse such that a woman could feel justified in leaving her husband if he does not make her feel fulfilled, whatever that means. That is a lot like the stories about Jewish husbands who felt justified in divorcing their wives if they dared to burn dinner!

Comment by Sue

October 9, 2007 @ 12:30 pm

Thank you Mary and LMCC for your comments. I hadn’t checked the other websites that you mentioned in your postings before I read your comments. It was good for me to read them. It was especially good to find out that what I heard in that audio message a year ago seems to be as shocking to others as it was to me.

Thank you also, Martin, for your insight about the defense lawyer approach. I guess the approach you talked about is about the only defense available at this point.

I don’t want to appear to be piling on, but I do want to say that I listened to the rest of the discussion as well. While I didn’t hear anything else said that had such an impact on me, I also did not get warm fuzzy feelings from it either. Subordination is subordination no matter who says it and how it’s packaged. It’s not something I decided to forward to my daughters as a ‘wonderful’ teaching tool.

Comment by LMcC

October 9, 2007 @ 12:36 pm

Now I wish I had saved some BBS fights back from 1997-1998. I know of two men, one a Catholic and one who I think was IFB, who both advocated sending women back for more abuse. The IFB guy even had a sister who was in an abusive marriage, and he refused to help her.

If I had only known about biblical equality back then. As a traditionalist, I didn’t know there was any hope for the abused wife. I knew churches sent women back, I knew it was wrong, but I didn’t know any biblically sound answers. Only the feminists (yes, the very feminists that the hierarchs hate so much and blame for everything) gave a rip about those women. I had to live with the tension of cooperating with the ‘enemy’ for a greater good, not realizing who was the real enemy.

J. Lee Grady also refers in Ten Lies The Church Tells Women to women who were sent back to abusive husbands only to die by their hand.

Does anyone have the URL to Dorcas’ account of a friend of hers who did send an abused wife back only for her to be murdered by her husband?

Comment by Martin

October 9, 2007 @ 9:23 pm

Back to the topic…

It’s really interesting how many patriarchalists paint such a negative picture of women. They cannot be pastors or do anything that might instruct men or lead men in a group setting, claiming this is what 1 Timothy 2 is saying. Interestingly, some will allow women to teach adults if (and it’s a big if) they only teach what men have instructed them. So this carries it even further to women not being allowed to think for themselves. They must have a man teach them what is truth and or approve what they may think. Some will even link that with 1 Corinthians 14 and women asking husbands at home. Then they tighten the noose even further and encourage women to teach other women, but only about being wives and mothers, homemakers, etc.

Then you tighten the noose even further and say women must not only submit to husband but obey him. Not obeying him would be sinful. And of course, we get down near the bottom where women who are abused by their husbands must go back and submit better.

Because in the end-all, it’s not about women. It’s about patriarchal men and their claim to fame in their tribe. Sorry if that sounds too negative. But it’s the picture I’ve been seeing lately. While I agree that women should be thinking of their husbands, how to please them, etc. Yet, men should not be thinking about their own stuff, but about how to please their wives and families… how to release their families to be all they can be, instead of how they can limit them.

Comment by Mary

October 9, 2007 @ 10:04 pm

LMCC, you asked ‘Does anyone have the URL to Dorcas’ account of a friend of hers who did send an abused wife back only for her to be murdered by her husband?’

If you scroll back up to comment 66404 (JLP’s comment) I think the link there will take you to that story.

Comment by Donna

October 10, 2007 @ 12:08 am

Once again I was thinking about this discussion. Let me try to clear up something. I am not saying that those who remember the session in question are lying, making things up, or even wrong. I am saying that for me, I would like to see the transcript in order to see the context and the full statement.

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I think you are lying. I apologize and beg your indulgence and forgiveness if that is what you understood me to say.

Comment by Sue

October 10, 2007 @ 7:04 am

Donna, thank you so much for your kind and gracious apology. I really do appreciate your making that statement.

I think anyone here would welcome the idea of your obtaining the information from CBMW you want to have. Ethically speaking, I would think CBMW would have no problem releasing the transcript and audio message to you.

I do hope you will let us know the results when you hear back from them.

Comment by Sue

October 10, 2007 @ 7:28 am

Martin, I appreciate your noose analogy because that’s how patriarchy feels. People don’t always understand that. I grow weary of statements saying that women won’t mind subordination if the man carries out his authority over her in a nice way. Because after all, they say, women aren’t designed to need respect; they are designed to need love. And, they say, it’s the men who are designed to need respect. When you compare patriarchy to a noose, you show you clearly understand the impact on women.

Usually men who write about patriarchy try to make it seem so noble. They say they only want to rule because it’s not their way; it’s God’s way. And it’s in the best interests of women, children, and society. I don’t see as many times when there’s an acknowledgement that for men, patriarchy is self-serving. I am interested in your statement that ‘it’s about patriarchal men who need their claim to fame in the tribe.’ I haven’t heard that before. Can you elaborate on that?

Comment by Will

October 10, 2007 @ 2:12 pm

Will here, surprised to see that this post is still as active as it is. I agree with a few here, asking that we please keep the dialogue and argument pertinent to this post, and not to the question of whether or not Paige Patterson said something in a recording several years ago. It seems that that question has sidetracked us again and sent us into needless arguing, rather than any meaningful or constructive dialogue. Let’s not fall prey to as much. No accusations, no hard feelings, let’s just move above and beyond it. Thanks!

Comment by jlp

October 10, 2007 @ 4:49 pm

Thanks for your comments, Martin. They really mean a lot to me. They express my feelings.

Comment by Martin

October 10, 2007 @ 10:04 pm

Patriarchy became about men, what men wanted, and it’s still that way today. Those women who will give them their excessive supply of adoration, they will protect to a certain degree. Patriarchal men will decide how much and how far. It really isn’t about women, it’s about a feeling of power.

Watch patriarchal men. Listen to them. I’ve heard them in the men only forums. I’ve overheard them in the locker rooms. There really are not that many gender hierarchalists who are true patriarchalists. So many come along for the ride, the camaraderie, the men only smoke room’s back slapping ‘I’ll help you if you’ll help me’ type of fellowships. There is a different feel to life when you are of the ‘ruling’ group.

However, in my opinion it is not the type of humble servant ministry that Christ advocated.

Comment by Martin

October 11, 2007 @ 11:03 am

I did not use the noose analogy for patriarchy, Donna. I think Martin made some good points, even if I think accepting an unbiblical yoke of bondage (to patriarchal rule) is a better analogy than noose.

I’m laughing out loud. Yes, I like unbiblical yoke of bondage also. The noose is my picture of how the controllers tighten and intensify the heaviness of the bondage. It’s not a one weight and size fits all. Controllers definitely know how to shrink wrap it to choke the life out of a person. Okay so now I’ve got shrink wrap. There is definitely room for many analogies here.

Comment by jlp

October 11, 2007 @ 7:27 pm

For LMCC post 70237,

Here‘s the link to the story about Dorcas’ friend who was murdered by her husband:

Comment by Mary

October 12, 2007 @ 12:47 am

If Patterson and the pastor in the linked story were purely interested in the salvation of the men who were violent to their wives, they would have been the ones to put their own bodies in harm’s way. God is never going to guide a third party, acting as a spiritual authority figure, to tell a wife to ‘submit’ to her husband’s beatings in order for the husband to ‘get saved.’ I’m not saying it’s never possible for such a wife to know such a thing herself, but no godly pastor would ever tell her to do it. No. Never. Such a pastor ought first to lay down his or her own life to protect the battered wife (or, if it were a husband being battered, the husband), not abandon them to further violence while the pastor stayed safely in the distance and let it happen. That is condoning the violence and it is complicity in it. Shame on such pastors! And shame on those who defend their malpractice!

Comment by LMcC

October 12, 2007 @ 9:59 am

JLP, thanks.

I want to put something Ken said somewhere it will stand out, since it was in a long comment (70482):

I have read the link JLP placed just above this and yes, that pastor will have guilt feelings… but that does not mean that God did not lead him to say what he did. It does not mean that God did not inspire Page Patterson to give the advise he did either… because God’s plan is always beyond our understanding.

(‘That pastor’ being a man who sent a woman back into an abusive situation, and she later was murdered.)

Think about what Ken has said. These are his own words about pastors sending an abused wife back to her abuser’s fists. Also, comparing abuse within the home, often by other Christians, to persecution from the world is highly inappropriate. Certainly the Scriptures tell us to expect persecution from the outside world. The church is a different matter entirely, as is the institution of marriage. The church is supposed to be the body of Christ where its members lift up one another and look out for one another. Church members are not given license to mistreat one another or to stand by idly while another suffers.

The thought of minimizing the seriousness of abuse within a relationship in which the participants have sworn before a clergy member (or judge, notary, ship captain) to love one another is also barbaric (or at least should be) to reasonable believers and unbelievers alike. It too should not be compared to true persecution, since the opponents of the Gospel have made no similar promises nor shown any particular affection toward the church.

Finally, many of the abusers (of either sex) claim to be Christian. What if a Christian spouse abuses to death one who does not believe? What about unsaved friends or relatives of the deceased who knew that the abused one went to the pastor for help and was turned away? These people have been turned off from Christ by the abuser’s action and the pastor’s inaction. What is the worth of those souls? Then, of course, there’s the victim. What is the worth of that life? What is the worth of that soul?

Comment by tiro

October 12, 2007 @ 11:07 am

It might be good to remember that Paige Patterson is not important in the scheme of things. Sometimes, Christians want to defend a favorite leader no matter what he’s done and in the process end up defending the crime as well.

I’d advise Ken to forget who did the wrong here and just look at the wrong done. No one of any social status should be advising wives to return to an abusive husband when he is beating her without some assurance that it isn’t going to happen again. Do we tell the attacked, robbed, and beaten to go back to their attackers and let them do it again? No, we call the cops and talk about putting those criminals in jail.

Physical spousal abuse is a criminal act. Emotional and mental abuse is destructive and should be considered criminal but is not punishable. Often emotional and mental abuse slides into physical abuse if allowed to happen long enough.

We need to teach people to not allow their partner to abuse. And I think the church should not stand by and do nothing when abuse of any form is occuring that they are aware of. In my opinion, the patriarchal gender hierarchy form of slavish submission (obedience) taught women is at the root of the problem. Godly submission is about coming together as one unit in Christian harmony where each honors, respects, supports, encourages, etc. the other. Yet gender hierarchalists have made it about women obeying men as their masters and leaders. There is no way for two to truly become as one unit when only one will is yielding and only one will is drawing the other into him. The woman disappears into the man’s life and then it’s all about the man’s dreams, desires, insights, etc. in the extreme.

And when it’s all about the man, he expects his wife to fulfill his desires, his goals, his wishes, his dreams according to the ways he thinks it should be done. He may be nice about being a ruler and even a charming guy to the public eye. But that is setting up the man to be an abuser.

Comment by Mary

October 12, 2007 @ 11:08 am

LMcC, I’m still reeling from the outrageous assertion that God supposedly guided Patterson to refuse to protect women who were being beaten, demanded that they return to their abusive husbands, and called it ‘submission.’ God had nothing to do with Patterson’s and the other (unnamed) pastor’s coercion of their parishioners. God will judge these men, however. How awful to think that such judgment will surprise them. To be so far gone into this world’s power brokerage (patriarchy) that they think they’re doing God’s will when they demand that wives return to be beaten again! It is the work of the god of this world, though. Christian pastors need to get clear on the difference. Physical lives, not only souls, are at stake – and as you so rightly pointed out, the abuser’s souls are not the only ones affected by ungodly pastoral counsel.

Comment by Donna

October 12, 2007 @ 12:34 pm

Now, back to the subject at hand… Will said in his post:

National destruction? Quite a price to pay for a lack of homemakers.

I think that is an exaggeration, of course. However, let’s ask this if we may. Is it good for a society to direct women towards homemaking? Is it in the best interests of a society to have a mother focused on caring for her children and her home? Then, if it is not good to push women exclusively into homemaking, is it at least a good idea for Christians to push men and women towards marrying and forming a Christian family?

We patriarchalists believe that a revival of the traditional pattern of women caring for the home and men going out into the marketplace is best for the church, for individuals, for the family, and for society at large.

What do egalitarians promote as a way of strengthening families? Is the family unit the essential building block of society and the church as an institution? Then, how do you define family? Is it two parents, one a father and the other a mother, and some children and maybe some other relatives living together?

Comment by Donna

October 12, 2007 @ 12:37 pm

Then, if the College at Southwestern offered this homemaking major to women and men, would you have a problem with it?

Comment by Donna

October 12, 2007 @ 12:49 pm

Ken, I loved your post. Thank you for that. It seems to me that a man in our society is now considered guilty until proven innocent.

Our egalitarian system here in the United States has been based on a man’s assumed innocence. This is the new egalitarianism, I guess?

Comment by LMcC

October 12, 2007 @ 1:24 pm

See comment 70565.

What has he done? Now are you accusing Paige Patterson of some crime?

Calm down. What you are reacting to is just a figure of speech. Haven’t you heard ‘do the crime, do the time’ when it wasn’t in reference to an actual crime? In that case, it refers to people having to own up to their mistakes. Tiro is saying that some people will be so ready to defend a leader that they will also wind up defending some of the things they have done wrong. And yes, some things he has done have been stinkers. Going back to the original post, trying to convince women to drop $35-60,000 for a degree they can’t even use to get a job if their husbands die young? Great for the school’s bottom line, but bad for the women if hubby becomes disabled or dies too soon.

See comment 70567.

We patriarchalists believe that a revival of the traditional pattern of women caring for the home and men going out into the marketplace is best for the church, for individuals, for the family, and for society at large.

You’ve obviously never lived on a farm or run a family-owned business. The idea of men going to work while women stayed home wasn’t always the norm. Throughout history, married couples supported themselves by working in their own homes or on farms. The line between home and business was not and is not as sharp in those cases as it is when people have to do the commuting thing. Women cooked and took care of the kids while helping the husband with his work, or the whole family was out plowing the fields or harvesting. Even now, with a family-owned business, both spouses pitch in, teenagers may work for the new company on weekends, and even the preteens may help out – in ways that do not break child labor laws, of course. Even within SAHM families, many women have a home-based job which brings in significant income (For example, go look up the cloth diaper and ‘mama cloth’ sites). The idea that only the man is doing the work of bringing home the bacon is really nothing but a middle- and upper-class luxury most of the time.

The pattern you’re supporting is not a consistent biblical pattern, but one created by the Industrial Revolution. After all, Priscilla worked alongside her husband as a tentmaker, and Lydia was a seller of purple, yet the Bible condemns neither woman for these things. Even the Proverbs 31 woman had business sense and knew how to use it. And then there was that whole Deborah thing about judging Israel for forty years, but that story always gets twisted into something it never says.

Comment by tiro

October 12, 2007 @ 4:10 pm

See comment 70576.

What you are reacting to is just a figure of speech. Haven’t you heard ‘do the crime, do the time’ when it wasn’t in reference to an actual crime? In that case, it refers to people having to own up to their mistakes. Tiro is saying that some people will be so ready to defend a leader that they will also wind up defending some of the things they have done wrong.

Thank you, LMCC. It didn’t occur to me that someone would think I was hinting that Patterson had committed a crime. I’m laughing out loud, as I stated: Patterson just isn’t all that important in the scheme of things.

Although, whether or not Patterson has committed a crime regarding the Sheri Klouda case, is yet to be seen. He certainly acted with a lack of integrity in my opinion.

Just how far above the law is it okay for religions to be? We are supposed to be upholding God’s laws against which there should be no law.

Comment by Sue

October 13, 2007 @ 9:02 am

After reading some of the stuff I’ve seen here lately passing for Christian theology, as a public service, I am going to provide some pertinent newsflashes:

The survival of capitalism does not depend on men being able to exact obedience from their wives.

A husband and wife can build a relationship with each other based on mutual love and respect and live out that kind of relationship before their children and it won’t destroy the family or society.

A husband does not have to be able to claim a unilateral right to have his own way in all marital decisions in order for the family and capitalism to thrive.

Sometimes women do things other than being a full-time homemaker, and yet both the family and capitalism live on.

A pastor has no business routinely telling wives that God expects them to stay under the same roof with someone who is physically harming them.

An unsaved husband’s salvation is not dependent on his ability to hit his wife.

And finally:

It is ridiculous that I even had to write any of these newsflashes.

Comment by Sue

October 13, 2007 @ 9:05 am

Mary, I hope all that banging your head against the wall didn’t cause you any physical damage.

Comment by historyloveralways

October 13, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

I do not like patriarchy, and choose not to live under a patriarchal system. If the US ever goes back to a patriarchal system, I’m leaving the country.

Comment by historyloveralways

October 13, 2007 @ 3:11 pm

I might add that I am old enough to have grown up in a semi-patriarchal society. I was not happy with it. The reduction of patriarchy in our society has given me great happiness, and I could not see ever going back to it.

Comment by tiro

October 13, 2007 @ 11:49 pm

Anyone have any more news about the Sheri Klouda lawsuit?

Comment by ken

October 14, 2007 @ 3:36 am

United States District Judge John McBryde has filed an order for status report in the case of Sheri Klouda versus Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) and Paige Patterson. The order sets October 17, 2007, as the deadline for counsel to apprise the Court of the case status, a proposed trial date and length, and any prospects for settlement. The Court also ordered parties to meet face-to-face to discuss settlement, and advised counsel that the Court will not – as a rule – allow evidence to remain under seal.

Download the court’s order here.

In reality, I think both Patterson and Klouda are wrong on this.

‘Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.’ (1 Corinthians 6:1-8)

‘Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.’ (Matthew 5:21-26)

Comment by ken

October 14, 2007 @ 3:38 am

My last comment was referring to Tiro’s question:

Anyone have any more news about the Sheri Klouda lawsuit?

Comment by Mary

October 14, 2007 @ 5:42 am

Donna just informed the members at her new Yahoo group that she received word her father died. I’m certain that we here at the CBE Scroll will want to pray for her and her family at such a sad and difficult time.

Donna, if you return to read this, I am sorry for your loss and am praying for you and your loved ones.

Comment by Pastor Ken

October 14, 2007 @ 6:43 am

Mary, I know Donna will appreciate your prayers. I know I do.

I saw her post a few moments after it was posted and I did call her and talked to her and we prayed with her last night. I am sure the next several days will be even more difficult.

Again, thank you so much for posting the need for prayer for Donna here.

Comment by historyloveralways

October 14, 2007 @ 7:54 am

Where is Donna’s address where we can post a message of condolence?

Comment by historyloveralways

October 14, 2007 @ 9:56 am

Donna, I don’t know if you will read this or not. But if you do, please accept my deep sympathy on your loss. When I lost my father it was as if an atom bomb went off in my heart. I was absolutely devastated. I imagine you are going through similar feelings.

I hope you are surrounded by people who love you and are able to give you the support you need. If this is any encouragement at all, know that I understand the pain you are going through and am praying for you.

God bless you and give you strength and courage during this terribly painful time.

Comment by jlp

October 14, 2007 @ 10:17 am

Donna, I submitted a post to CBE recently called ‘Memories of My Father.’ I invite you to share the fond memories of your father once it is up. Tell us about the things that your father did to make you laugh, the way he supported you when you were down, and anything else you want to share. If you don’t feel comfortable sharing there because its an egalitarian site, why don’t you share it on your own website. You are good with words, and expressing your feelings of love and appreciation for all the good things your father did for you will help you.

Please accept my condolences on the loss of your father. Losing a parent is awful. No one can ever take their place. They are simply irreplaceable.

Comment by tiro

October 14, 2007 @ 11:41 am

Thank you for the information, Ken.

As to the rest, I disagree somewhat. First, Patterson’s dismissal was not a matter of offense to himself. Klouda did nothing wrong. She dutifully did her job to excellence. Someone else wrote an excellent post about Klouda’s responsibility as a Christian. Don’t remember it fully. But yes, Klouda could have first sought justice with the Christian body at the University. But they didn’t offer it, and refused to consider it. Thus her only other recourse for justice was to go to the laws of the land.

Similar thing I think when Christians sin against one another. Sometimes, I think it would be immensely helpful if we would first seek the help of our local churches, even in the case of spousal abuse, rape, thievery, etc. But any time a crime is committed in most cases we must also report it to the local laws. And in most cases even if a Christian sought the help of the church, the church simply is not prepared to be of real assistance. Consider the other Patterson problem of him advocating sending abused wives back to their abusing husbands to elevate him. People who commit crimes need to be subdued, not elevated.

Comment by tiro

October 14, 2007 @ 11:43 am

Donna, I’m very sorry to hear of your loss. I hope that your father lived a fruitful life and that his passing was easy. I’m praying for your comfort in the days to come.

Comment by Donna

October 14, 2007 @ 11:57 am

Hey, folks, thank you for your expressions of sympathy and love. Please pray that the Gospel will be preached at his funeral. He did not know Jesus as far as we know, except that my nephew was able to share with him once again last Tuesday. He was more open to Jesus and they prayed together. Of course, we often prayed with my dad, so we hope that the Holy Spirit opened his heart to receive Jesus. God does not work in vain, and the invitation to come to Jesus is sincere. So, that gives us hope that we will see him again with the Lord.

He is in God’s hands.

Hey, maybe this will bring some healing to our relationships, too. May God use these circumstances for our good and his glory.

P.S. See, I do care about you people and wish we could shake off the suspicions – by God’s grace, maybe? We don’t have to sacrifice one another’s strongly-held convictions in order to be friends, in my opinion. Of course, that is my impossible dream…

Comment by jlp

October 14, 2007 @ 12:00 pm

Donna, you said:

He did not know Jesus as far as we know…

How heartbreaking! I am so glad your nephew was able to share and pray with him before he died. Perhaps in those last minutes he came to faith.

Comment by LMcC

October 14, 2007 @ 12:07 pm

My sympathies about the death of your father, Donna.

Comment by historyloveralways

October 14, 2007 @ 12:31 pm

Please share any feelings you need to about your father’s death here. Tell us also about your father’s funeral. We care.

Comment by jlp

October 14, 2007 @ 4:38 pm

Ken, you love and appreciate Scripture, and I like that. But as a woman I would be afraid for my safety and my welfare to live in the patriachal world as expressed by your views here on this forum.

I know you don’t mean to harm women, but your views would lead to a world in which women would be harmed.

Comment by Jester

October 14, 2007 @ 9:02 pm

Ken’s debate methods are frighteningly familiar… I’ve run into them in every ‘Christian’ chat room or BBS I’ve been on in the last twelve years. Most of what he’s putting out for us to read falls under the label ‘logical fallacy,’ mostly straw-men arguments and pathos. Since it’s been reliably demonstrated that replying to such individuals only eggs them on, I would generally recommend not bothering. He has an agenda, and he’s only here to pursue it.

LMCC, remember the Preterists on Jungle? Anyway.

I’ve been married for about five years now. The things that my wife does well, I let her handle. The things that I do well, she lets me handle. We work together, and we submit to each other (I clean whatever I can, I do chores, I keep up the house, I watch the kids so that she can go out with kids) and she does her best to do the same for me. We’re aware of each other’s needs, our goals, our dreams, and we try not only to support each other in this, but also to model Christ as well as we can for each other, so that each by their testimony will spur the other to be more and more like Christ. Which, as the disciples we are called, is what we’re meant to be doing.

In May of 2002, we were both in Delaware (she had moved out there to be with me) and she had just lost her job, at a time when we both needed to be employed in order to afford an apartment (we were already engaged at that time). Since there wasn’t time to get a new job for her before we needed to be elsewhere, I made the decision to move us back to her home in Arkansas, where she had a trailer in her parent’s back yard… until we were married, I could live in the trailer, and she would live at her parent’s house.

I made this decision based on faith that God would watch over us in the process, on knowledge that she was desperately unhappy in Delaware and would be much better off with her friends and family, and it would be cheaper, relatively, to live in the trailer. I didn’t want to live in Arkansas, but I submitted to my wife’s needs, to our needs as a family, and to where God seemed to be leading (and believe me, he has blessed incredibly through it).

At the same time, April submitted to my decision that we would move, to my reasoning on the matter. We discussed it, I made the decision, and we moved. We acted in mutual respect and mutual submission. We’ve made other decisions on the same basis since then, and God has blessed it. Yes, there have been struggles, and arguments, as there will be in any relationship. But overall, our marriage is full of blessings, even if I’m not as dictatorial as some patriarchal preachers would prefer.

We’ve adopted two children, but both April and I work, because there’s no way to afford to live otherwise, especially with the debts that we have. But this has also led us to churches where we are strengthened and enriched in God and daily led into opportunities to minister to others, and to live out testimonies for God.

I think that any time somebody calls us out for not ‘obeying God,’ the first question that comes to my mind is ‘is the act that is being required one of love, or one of domination?’

In the society of the Old Testament, the laws set forth through Moses were an improvement over the laws of the current society. It kept the Jews from killing off wives who they no longer preferred, or killing whole families in vengeance, and all sorts of other things. It instituted principles of grace, and mercy, and forgiveness into their very society, in a people who had none of those things.
The new covenant brought to us by Christ fulfills these things even more… where the old covenant, with it’s enormous list of laws (so abused by the Pharisees) was only about action, Christ’s new covenant fulfills God’s intent by ruling simply over the heart, rather than only action.

1. Agape the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength.

2. Agape your neighbor as you Agape yourself.

3. Agape each other, that you will be known by your love.

When I hear people openly decreeing that by not following this law, or that rule, that people aren’t going to be going to heaven, that they’re heretics, that they’re breaking God’s law, I don’t hear agape. I hear defense and self-righteousness. I hear pride.

Oswald Chambers tells us that in his interpretation of Christ’s ‘timber in your eye’ bit, what Christ is saying is that not only do you need to be without sin, but without judgment, for judgment itself is sin. ‘By the means with which you judge others, you yourself will be judged.’ I see plenty of judgment on this forum… somebody is sending God a very clear message on his preferences.

Without judgmental attitudes, we can see clearly, have discernment, wisdom, and compassion. If I come to you in a spirit of agape and humility to approach you with your sin or error, and you see in me only my love for you and my loving hope for your correction, then you take away love, not judgment.

Peter says ‘I will never deny you Lord!’ and Jesus (knowing, as he does, that we all fail far more than we think we will) says sorrowfully, lovingly, ‘Peter, you will deny me three times before the cock crows thrice.’ Not judgment, not condemnation, not righteous accusation. Sorrow and love.

If a woman speaks to me with wisdom from God, with wisdom from learning, from our church fathers, from the ages, from the Holy Spirit acting in her, should I be thinking ‘How can God use this knowledge in me?’ or should I be thinking ‘How dare that woman think to instruct me?’

We love to quote the phrase ‘God’s wisdom is foolishness to the world’ when it suits our needs, but we are all, in truth, fools far more of the time than we would prefer. Oh, the pride of this generation, of this world!

Equalitarians desperately look for the relationship where, in love, both spouses submit to one another in the furious, passionate love of Christ, and through his leading find grace and wisdom in this broken world. I know for sure that LMCC wouldn’t have settled for anything less than an incredible, godly man… who she is currently whipping into shape!

My brothers and sisters, let us not hit this ‘submit comment’ button any further until we know that we proceed not from outrage, or righteousness, but from love.

Will there be those whose logic is flawed, whose efforts will be to attack us merely for wearing a name? Certainly, as there always will be. But for them, only sorrow and love.

Comment by Sue

October 14, 2007 @ 10:49 pm

On another visit to Yahoo Groups, I noticed that the quote I attributed to Ken above was actually made by the person who was introducing Ken’s comment and not by Ken himself. I sincerely and humbly apologize for the misattribution.

Please also forgive me for the fact that my trust level is still very low. I remain weary of the way Christians who are egalitarians have been mischaracterized on this and the other blogs. I don’t want to be caught up in that any more and regret any part I might have played in it. I am ready to move on to concentrate on the mission of CBE.

Comment by tiro

October 15, 2007 @ 1:38 am

Sue (see comment 70885), no need to apologize for your trust level being low. Many of us are in the same place for the same reasons. It’s been a good learning experience. And yes, let’s concentrate on CBE’s mission.

Comment by Will

October 16, 2007 @ 3:50 pm

Will here. Like I mentioned much further up in this thread, I am astounded that this post is still as active as it is. Its activity was shown me by several bloggers themselves, as comments here had not been sitting in moderation. For this oversight (or rather out-of-sight) in management I deeply and sincerely apologize and ask for your forgiveness.

After reading what had been being said here, to be honest, I was at a loss as to what to do, seeing as it had become what it had. It came down to making a judgment call, and so I went ahead and stuck with blog policy, and deleted a great number of comments that I felt were in violation of that policy. I’m sorry to play moderator so visibly, and once again I apologize for the meaningful comments that may have been attached to any of the excised material, but if comments cannot contribute to a safe and respectful environment, they will disappear.

Also again, if there are any questions regarding the line between censorship and editing policy, I ask that you please read ‘Comment Guidelines,’ above.

There are plenty of other egalitarian and/or complementarian blogs where we can participate in the destruction of one another rather than healthy argumentation. I once again implore you, please do not let the CBE Scroll be one of them. I will keep fighting for this.

Comment by LMcC

October 16, 2007 @ 7:35 pm

Jester (see comment 70880), I forgot the Preterists, but I do remember the BerHorse fiasco on multiple BBSs (shudders). Now that was impossible – could have been worse. Ever had KJVOs decide to commit you to Satan for admitting you owned an NIV (waves two hot pink TNIVs)? If they could see me now!

As far as whipping Chief into shape, you wish! I’ve met the one person who is more stubborn than I. (He’s just a lot nicer about it.) Actually, I’ve become more flexible about things in my gray-headed old age (ha). He’s still a tough cookie, though. He got too set in his ways when he was single. Nagging is counterproductive, so I tell him things just once and let him figure out if something is important or not. If it’s important but he doesn’t figure it out, I just take care of it myself unless it is something I just cannot do alone. Otherwise, we just go about our business and don’t worry about jockeying for position or what’s men’s or women’s work or whatever. What he does best he does, and what I do best I do. Micromanagement is so not for me.

Comment by LMcC

October 17, 2007 @ 9:56 am

Jester (see comment 70880), your description of the way the BBS battles – including the whole BerHorse thing – went down is about right, as were a whole bunch of those arguments. The way things got twisted around into something unrelated to the original had to take a lot of work. At best, it’s clearly misunderstanding what has been said, At worst, the distortion is willful and malicious. I’m still trying to figure out even after all these years, for example, how a supposedly clear reading of Scripture can say that the Son of God is not God. Scripture in context just does not back that up, and watching the people involved get obsessive every login wasn’t making the case any better. At least it wasn’t KJVOs or fringe fundamentalists. The moderator of a blog documenting abuse charges in IFB churches has some stalker-acting types on her case.

People here and on the ECA forums get the logical fallacy business all the time. For the last six years, I’ve watched people attempt to turn ‘mutual submission’ into ‘you evil women want to run the show.’ Uh, where’s the ‘mutual’ and the ‘submission?’ Ignored. I’ve watched people attempt to turn ‘holding ministers accountable’ into ‘hating authority,’ both on ECA and Fundamentalist debate forums. Uh, aren’t ministers people too, with tendencies toward weakness and frustration and a need for moral and emotional support in the tough times? Godly accountability does not mean punishment or persecution. It means recognizing ministers are human and not super-creatures who don’t have hearts and souls. And of course, the whole spousal abuse issue always gets turned into ‘y’all just hate men, that’s your problem.’ (I even remember that from my pre-biblical equality days on the BBSs.) That one gets really wild because the best advocates for the abused wives have most often been the happily married women! (Shame we didn’t have any of those on the BBSs back in 1998. Maybe that one guy would have been convinced to rescue his sister from her abuser.

The focus on God does get completely lost so much, and a focus on worldly power takes its place. Whether it’s KJVOs saying everyone else won’t even get to heaven if they use the wrong Bible, racial separation and superiority issues that have been taught even into the beginning of this century, Word Faith making health and wealth a test of godliness, or the sexual hierarchy doctrine – it’s all a matter of keeping the power in the hands of one preferred group at the expense of both the other believers and the world at large. Never mind that it’s not power anyone’s supposed to be after, but Christ. The lust for power and control obscures the mission of the church as it blinds the ones grasping for that little extra edge over those ‘other’ people.

That’s why biblical equality makes sense. Ministry becomes serving instead of control over others. The pedestals are history. Husbands and wives can have real intimacy and unity instead of a power imbalance. Our focus is free to be on Christ and not on what the person ahead of us is doing or keeping the person behind from getting ahead or whatever. All that wasted energy and all that modeling of the world’s power structures can fall aside, and we’ll all be more free to serve God as he has gifted us. It’s all about Christ, not our own gain.

Comment by tiro

October 17, 2007 @ 1:02 pm

I’m still loving Jester’s comment (70880). Thanks for those good words.

Comment by Mary Ann

December 5, 2007 @ 3:27 pm

Did any of you read this article at USA Today, here, about Patterson’s program?

Comment by tiro

December 6, 2007 @ 5:24 pm

See comment 75333.

Good article, Mary Ann. Thanks for sharing it.

I was a bit surprised that Patterson comes right out and suggested that a woman’s primary purpose was to reproduce. Even Genesis does not do that. According to Genesis, that was a part of being human for both the man and the woman. It was never delegated as the sole responsibility of the woman. If that were the case, then some might rightly conclude that women only need men to share the seed and then everything after that is woman’s work. But we know better. Children need their fathers as much as their mothers.