The CBE Scroll

Comment by Mary Ann

January 15, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

Interesting. I guess my question would be whether he really believes that or whether he was just saying that to sound politically correct for political gain. It would be wonderful and encouraging if his marriage truly is one of mutual submission and not hierarchy!.. but I wonder what the Southern Baptists think of his statements. If I was still a complementarian, I would be thinking that politics has corrupted him and that he wasn’t staying true to the Baptist Faith and Message.

By the way, Will, what page is this portion of the debate on? I clicked on the link that you provided, but there are so many pages to the entire transcript.

Comment by ShawnaRenee

January 15, 2008 @ 1:04 pm

This kind of surprises me, since last year I read an article about Huckabee where he said he believed that, biblically, a woman’s place is at home raising children. I’m sorry I don’t remember where I read it. And, the article could have been about something he said or preached years ago as well. It’s been almost ten years since the SBC ad, so his views could have changed. I know my views on certain things have certainly changed in that time span.

It would be wonderful if a Southern Baptist in such a public position really has changed his view to mutual submission and affirms that is how his own marriage works. And Mary Ann, you’re right as far as the complementarians thinking he’s backsliding in order to get into office. It will be interesting to see what some of the reactions are going to be.

Comment by Will

January 15, 2008 @ 1:44 pm

This portion of the debate is found on pages 22-23 of the transcript. Sorry about that!

Comment by LMcC

January 15, 2008 @ 1:50 pm

(For the record, I’m a bored and annoyed Independent. I’m bored because no candidate speaks my language and annoyed that we still have ten and a half months of this political monkey business to go. In other words, I’m not looking at what he said from any political oint of view, just taking it at face value.)

When I first heard the quote on television, his words seemed promising. Now that I’m seeing what he said in print… that was slick.

But the point… the point, it comes from a passage of Scripture in the New Testament book of Ephesians, is that as wives submit themselves to the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves, and it’s not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other. It’s both mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.

Notice he never says the husband submits to his wife. He’s definitely playing to both sides of the sex roles debate. He can tell us he believes neither husband nor wife is superior to the other, and he can tell the SBC crowd that he never said anything about husbands submitting to wives or any other woman.

I’m not saying someone’s views can’t legitimately shift in ten years (I believed all that roles stuff until 2001), but I’m having trouble believing he could swing our way so dramatically if he was laying down the traditional party line only a year ago.

Of course, he could also talk complementarian but live egalitarian for most practical purposes, like a lot of complementarians tend to do. That’s nothing unusual, although it does nothing for egalitarian-minded voters in any party.

What would really help put this quote in context is whether he and his church get in hot water with SBC high-ups. If he always toes the line, he’s merely playing to as many voters as he can. If he’s got a contrary streak, he might yet be persuaded to take a more openly egalitarian stand.

Comment by Sandy

January 15, 2008 @ 2:04 pm

I also believe that this was a bit of political double-speak. The portion that LMCC quoted was rather telling, in my opinion as well. While he uses the word ‘mutually’ I feel like he’s using in such a way that the hearer will hear whatever she or he wants to hear.

I found it interesting that I first saw these ‘feminist mormon housewives’ calling Huckabee a ‘chicken patriarch.’ I agree that that’s exactly what’s going on here. He’s backing off, or wording it carefully, for political expediency.

Comment by cokhavim

January 15, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

That makes me sick. It’s downright deceptive. It’s very similar to stuff I’ve heard other complementarians say to make their position more palatable to others and to themselves.

Comment by fjs

January 15, 2008 @ 3:41 pm

I have been wondering about this regarding Huckabee, knowing that he is a Southern Baptist and if that would affect his policy initiatives. I don’t think it is possible for someone to set a belief like that aside in policy matters. It would be inconsistent to live one way and endorse policy that sports another. Furthermore, it is possible that there is unconscious sentiment about the equality of women that will affect his judgement on policy matters.

Comment by Brandon

January 15, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

I think LMCC is right, he does sound like he’s avoided some important clarifications. He doesn’t say he rejects the SBC position.

You can find a video of that question being asked to Huckabee at YouTube, here

The Baptist Press, found here said that when he spoke of husbands submitting he was ‘presumably meaning “to Christ.”‘

Comment by leigh

January 15, 2008 @ 4:57 pm

Yes. I, too, agree with LMCC.

He never states that the husband is also submitting to the wife: He can’t say that.

Yes, he is trying to play to both sides by being careful with the way he phrases things. I will note that he’s not speaking in language that many outside of some experience with patriarchal religion (be it Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc.) will recognize. To secular folks, to egalitarians who have not experienced patriarchal religion, and to those with a more liberal faith, he may sound simply as though he’s a man who is coming from a completely different era (who has some ideas about women that are a bit ‘backwards’).

To state that husbands in marriage submit to wives, as well as wives submitting to husbands, would lose him a lot of his religious and his cultural patriarchal support. And I don’t think that many folks who are currently shaking their heads wondering what language he’s speaking would rush to jump on his bandwagon after such a statement. All of this sounds really freaky from the outside…

Comment by fjs

January 15, 2008 @ 5:27 pm

Thanks, I watched the YouTube video and was bothered by the amount of applause he received for his position.

Comment by Sue

January 15, 2008 @ 5:46 pm

Yes, Huckabee did receive a great amount of applause for his answer. What disturbed me about the applause wasn’t the fact that he received it. It was because I think people applauded because they thought he was saying something he wasn’t.

I think most people thought he was affirming the equality and mutuality of the husband and wife relationship. He wasn’t. I think he was coached to say what he said exactly how he said it. In other words, he put one over on the American people. I am also troubled by his indignancy and sarcasm about being asked the question in the first place. His ‘joke’ about passing the plate was as coached as everything else he said. He made it seem like he is being being persecuted for his faith.

This was not a question about his faith. This was a question about his view of women. It is entirely relevant to the position of the president of the United States. We as American citizens have a right to know what his views of half the population are before he takes office. As it stands now, his deceptive answer is still being accepted and most people don’t know any better. I think if people knew what he actually believes, it would shed a new light on his candidacy. He believes this too, or he wouldn’t have been so well coached in how to be deceptive in the debate.

Comment by Adam

January 15, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

I thought his answer was good insofar that it fit with the complementarian tendency to see the absurdity of their position in public discourse and couch it in egalitarian terms. The use of words like ‘mutual’ and ’sacrificial’ probably really do describe his marriage with his wife. He made clear that she doesn’t just stand by and let him do what he wants. Most complementarians aren’t ashamed to affirm their male headship doctrine, but they don’t seem to practice it in such a way that makes them so different from those that adhere to equality. I actually like the way Huckabee fielded the question. I didn’t find him deceptive at all.

Comment by jlp

January 15, 2008 @ 6:17 pm

I think it would be best for Huckabee to state whether or not he would sign the ad today. That would give people the precise answer they are looking for.

Comment by fjs

January 15, 2008 @ 6:20 pm

I agree that the other half of the American population ought to know where he is on that question. If he holds to the Baptist faith and message statement then that could influence his policy on the family.

Comment by fjs

January 15, 2008 @ 6:36 pm

What do Mormons believe about men and women and marriage?

Comment by sarah

January 15, 2008 @ 7:00 pm

I watched the debate with a couple of female Christian friends who were delighted by his response. Recognizing that this question was, in some ways anyway, an attempt to ’see how he gets out of this one’ using a peripheral issue in a public venue… Deny faith? Upset secularists?… I was bothered by the deflection to some degree. I read some of the CBE online articles on the SBC resolutions and their aftermath to my friends, which put Huckabee’s response in a different light.

Having said that, given the venue, I’m not sure how many other answers he could have given. And, while I believe he was coached, I also think he was probably being honest. It would be lovely to think his views have changed, but even if they haven’t, his answer reflects a lot of what I have heard in complementarian teaching and discourse. My experience seems to reinforce Adam’s observation (see comment 78051).

Most good marriage relationships and vibrant ministries that I have seen involve mutual honor and respect between men and women, and women are encouraged to use their gifts. Complementarian Christians that I have known in these situations have rationalized this by granting the husband a more symbolic headship status (seldom used to coercive effect), calling intentional service ‘leadership’ in marriage and ministry, using different names for equivalent ministries, and placing men in ‘top’ ministry positions, again, sometimes with more symbolic authority than active oversight.

When the marriage or ministry works well, the complementarian theory is credited, though the egalitarian action is what makes it work. Over the years, complementarians in many ministries have publicly endorsed mutual submission between husband and wife (an unavoidable step, scripturally speaking), while maintaining that the husband is the ultimate leader of the home. Thus, many complementarians would not see Huckabee’s statement as inconsistent with their understanding of headship.

Comment by LMcC

January 15, 2008 @ 7:01 pm

JLP (see comment 78053), good one! Someone must try that. I would, but my state won’t mean much in the primaries this year so I doubt we’ll be seeing any candidates at all except the one from here.

I just remembered something I read the other day. Apparently Huckabee has ties to Bill Gothard. Any chances of him having any biblical equality sympathies have dropped to almost none.

Adam (see comment 78051), (love your blog) I don’t necessarily think he was trying to be deceptive (although I’m sticking with slick). If he had said the same thing in his church or in the middle of heavily Southern Baptist Nashville, everyone listening would have immediately filled in ‘to Christ’ and not ‘to his wife’ after ‘the husbands also submit themselves.’ The Baptist Press filled in the blanks as expected, although most people will never read that.

He’s probably used to talking in church to members who know what he means when he says XYZ, and may not realize the need to clarify himself to the non-Southern Baptist world. Then again, he could be playing to both sides by leaving himself wiggle room. I don’t think he believes that others see his position as absurd, necessarily. I believe he sees those of us who disagree as people who do not hold a high view of Scripture.

Of course, if some sharp reporter asks the right questions about his statements, the contradictions built into modern complementarianism could be publicly exposed. Do we have any journalists here?

Comment by Mary

January 15, 2008 @ 8:31 pm

I think two simple questions, with little ‘wiggle room,’ would be to ask Mr. Huckabee:

‘Do you believe that a Christian husband is required to be his wife’s leader and, if so, where do you find this requirement in Scripture?’

‘Do you believe that a Christian husband should submit to his wife out of his reverence for Christ and, if not, how do you reconcile that position with Ephesians 5:21?’

Personally, I’d like to see what he would do with such direct questions. For that matter, I’d like to see pretty much any self-defined complementarian man answer them - directly, that is.

Comment by Kristi

January 15, 2008 @ 9:51 pm

I’m curious as to how his attempts to assure voters that he keeps his beliefs regarding the subordination of women separate from his political actions fits with this statement he made Monday:

‘I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution,’ Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. ‘But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the Word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do - to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.’

Read more here.

Comment by Sandy

January 15, 2008 @ 10:11 pm

Well, the argument (please note, I just lurk there out of trying to learn more after a bad personal experience. Personally, I’m an SBC survivor myself.) was that his ‘chicken patriarchy’ is the same that they see in many Latter Day Saint (LDS) men.

I actually heard a complementarian go ‘all the way’ on FamilyLife Today the other day. The guest (I do not remember his name) actually said, ‘Women do not have the need for honor that men do.’ I remember thinking, ‘Says who? Try again, buddy.’

Comment by The Happy Rock

January 15, 2008 @ 11:31 pm

Rhetoric, pure and simple, in my opinion.

I have a tough time believing that a person happy to be an SBC preacher would say anything other than the husband should be the leader in marriage when asked to pin down his point. Just my opinion.

Comment by Liz

January 16, 2008 @ 7:59 am

Since I am an Australian, Huckabee doesn’t mean anything to me, but when I read his statements I immediately thought he was still agreeing with the SBC line as he said he would be living that way whether he was president or not.

He began to clarify the statement then went off the track and didn’t really answer the question and as I read it, I thought he was defending the SBC statement but trying to explain it to make it palatable.

The word which most gets to me is ‘leader,’ whether it’s servant or otherwise. The whole concept that a woman needs someone to lead her is preposterous!

Comment by LMcC

January 16, 2008 @ 11:04 am

Mary (see comment 78062), good questions, well worth asking.

Any attempt hierarchal men use to exempt themselves from Ephesians 5:21 can only expose the problems in their position, and it may very well expose their own personal belief that they really are superior to those they desire to control.

Sandy (see comment 78069), welcome. I’m an Independent Fundamental Baptist survivor who left the SBC because it was turning into the IFB churches, so you’ve got company.

This may seem weird, but I have more respect for complementarians who just come out and say they believe what they do, no matter how absurd, offensive, and/or flat out wrong it may be. That way, their teaching is out in the open and not slipped in later once someone’s started getting into their ministries, and I can just stay far away from any more exposure to it. I’ve had more than enough, thanks.

Comment by tiro

January 16, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

Any attempt hierarchal men use to exempt themselves from Ephesians 5:21 can only expose the problems in their position, and it may very well expose their own personal belief that they really are superior to those they desire to control.

Yes, and every attempt to not actually say what they believe so strongly reveals that in their heart they know someone is going to be unhappy with that statement. That is what we do as humans when we know or fear our audience is going to strongly reject or resist what we are thinking. It’s understandable that he would hop scotch around it. That is why it’s not a good idea in most cases for Christians to run for office. The powers that be require that you follow their rules before they’ll let you in, and a really devoted Christian will have a difficult time doing both.

But did anyone connect the dots with his 100 percent statement? So it goes… wives are to submit 100 percent to their husbands, and husbands are to submit 100 percent to Christ. I for one, have no doubts that privately he would agree with that, even though he might say that he ‘gives‘ his wife freedom to disagree with him. This ‘giving’ of course is at his sole discretion.

If anyone thinks Huckabee is bad, we should all tremble at what might be an honest response from Mitt Romney. Mormons are even more dominant and controlling of women. And frankly I’m surprised that Michigan approved him.

Comment by fjs

January 16, 2008 @ 9:27 pm

Sandy… regarding men needing honor, that is the ‘Love and Respect’ philosophy… Eggerrichs is the author… It is highly popular in evangelical circles… The premise is that men need respect and women need love. They base it on the Ephesians 5:22-32 passage that tells men to love their wives and women to respect their husbands. They fleetingly allude that women need respect but only as a part of love. While it sounds very nice, it is still complementarian in its assumptions.

I am uncomfortable with it because it cloaks complementarianism with egalitarian language and confuses the philosophies. I felt frustrated with the philosophy because I feel that what I want is also respect. I want my words to have weight, my voice to be heard and my mind valued. The philosophy is soft complementarianism and very kindly paternal, which is just as bad and damaging.

Comment by shatteredmen

January 17, 2008 @ 1:28 am

Would you rather have Hillary in office, because we sure do know she will never submit to any man?

It is apparent to me at least that Governor Huckabee not only tells us he believes in God, he shows us. Hillary’s main use of God is to ask for God to rain damnation on anything that crosses her path, but hey… she will meet your agenda a lot better, so let’s vote for her.

We sure do not want anyone to really ask us to apply 2 Chronicles 7:14, do we? ‘If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.’

Comment by Watcher

January 17, 2008 @ 9:25 am

Shatteredmen, do you assume that being egalitarian automatically makes you feminist, which automatically makes you want to vote for Hillary? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your implications, but that is what it sounds like.

I know I cannot speak for the others on this site because their views vary over quite a range, but I will speak for myself.

Hillary is not my candidate.

When I vote for a female it will be one I can agree with. I’m holding out for a Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir or even an Elizabeth I, for pete’s sake, depending on the needs of the country at the time.

I’m conservative. I’d be libertarian if there weren’t so many in that bunch that use personal freedom as a license to sin with little accountability. I believe in liberty and justice for all. I do not believe in liberty and justice for one bunch more than another. And, I have personally seen that in the extremes of the complementarian movement, as many on here have.

So, while the author of the original post mentioned that politics can be discussed on here, please refrain from assuming that this blog is about getting Hillary elected.

Comment by Mary

January 17, 2008 @ 9:31 am

You’re claiming that ‘Hillary will never submit to any man,’ Ken, but you do not know her; neither do I.

However, she, unlike Huckabee, never signed her name to a document that assents to belief in the extrabiblical notion that husbands are to be leaders of their wives and that only wives must submit in marriage (and to the ’servant leadership’ of their husbands, not to their husbands). You malign a woman who remained married to her husband despite his adultery and his public denials of it. Somehow, they managed to rebuild their marriage. Yes… she’s a horrible, unsubmissive woman.

There are plenty of actual reasons to oppose her politics, but the nasty, untrue ‘She will never submit to any man’ isn’t one of them. And you’ve quite clearly missed the point in the first place: Huckabee is sidestepping questions about his concurrence with the Baptist Faith and Message. You will notice that he implies mutual submission in his marriage, while cleverly not saying that he submits to his wife (as indeed Ephesians 5:21 indicates all Christians should do to one another, even husbands). He’s being duplicitous in his answers.

The question is not even who’s being submissive to whom, but is Huckabee willing to stand up and say, ‘Yes, I signed my name to a document that says I am to be my wife’s servant leader, and she is to submit graciously to that servant leadership. I do/do not agree with that position today?’ So far, he hasn’t been and has given slick non-answers. Good politician, at least.

Comment by Mary

January 17, 2008 @ 9:33 am

If belief in God is a qualification for political office, then even the demons are qualified. They show their belief quite well in the way that they hide from the truth…

Comment by Mary

January 17, 2008 @ 9:36 am

And plenty of us do pray for our country, fervently, to return to God. Not just with their rhetoric and ‘right beliefs,’ but with their hearts and their righteous actions.

And I’d like you to prove that ‘Hillary’s main use of God is to ask for God to rain damnation on anything that crosses her path.’ What is it with the blatantly false, obviously politically motivated claims about her? It would be easy to conclude that you hate her; do you? Why?

Comment by Mary

January 17, 2008 @ 9:53 am

I apologize for being so foolish as to respond to this latest by Ken (Shatterdmen). His comment violates Will’s directive at the end of the original post:

Please refrain from overly-grandiose displays of endorsement and/or the public denigration of particular candidates, seeing as The CBE Scroll is not a political platform, and platforms aplenty exist elsewhere.

Comment by Mary

January 17, 2008 @ 9:54 am

Ken’s post was also cross-posted verbatim at the CCC Forum, where public denigration of egalitarians in general and CBE in particular is the order of the day.

Comment by LMcC

January 17, 2008 @ 11:11 am

The assumption that we would automatically have one candidate picked out, and then have chosen one solely based on a physical characteristic unrelated to the job at that, is ludicrous. It’s almost as bad as disqualifying a godly and gifted individual from ministry solely for a physical characteristic unrelated to the job.

CBE’s membership is all over the political map. Conservative, liberal, libertarian, independent - we don’t fit in a box. I’m sure that among the posters, there may be someone voting for Hillary; but there may also be someone voting for Huckabee in spite of his views on women. We’ve got other issues we care about - social justice, crime victim’s rights, the economy, the war, etc. Many of us, probably most, are going to wind up voting for someone we don’t agree with entirely on the issues. We’ve just got to vote for the person whose views match up with ours on the most topics.

Of course, that doesn’t matter. For some people, it’s much more fun to make us out to be man-hating, baby-killing, self-centered, Bible-shredding shrews than it is to read and listen to what we really say, believe, and live. It’s more fun to troll than to have honest dialogue. I fail to see the point, but then I’ve got other things to do.

For example, anyone got an easy knitting pattern for baby booties or something like that? No, Hubby and I aren’t expecting; but five other couples from our church are!

Comment by Sandy

January 17, 2008 @ 12:56 pm

FJS, I’m very familiar with the rhetoric; what amazed me in hearing the comment that women do not have the need for honor was that I had never heard any complimentarian go quite that far - and I intentionally listen to Focus on the Family, FamilyLife Today, and AFR just to hear what they’re saying!

Yes, that comment has always been implied. However, to hear it explicitly stated that women do not need honor or respect floored me. Usually, they stop short of going that far (just like I’ve never heard them say, ‘Men do not need love’).

Comment by fjs

January 17, 2008 @ 2:48 pm

Sandy, I know. I think it’s really about honoring one another, respecting one another and loving one another. While I know that the Love and Respect has some good stuff in it, I don’t buy its patriarchial assumptions that men need respect and women need love.

I think that the underlying assumption of many complementarian framed books is that God created men a particular way and women a particular way and then stopped. Really God’s creative presence is on-going in the midst of changing cultures, circumstances, and a variety of other influences. At one time I might need more love, at others I might need more respect. It’s really up to the couple to determine what they need and communicate it respectfully to their spouse.

I like to think that God is still at work, forming, creating, and helping me develop and grow and that my needs change with all of that growth.

I don’t like how the complementarian thinking on this is so fixed and then dubbed ‘God’s way.’ I see the Scripture speaking about humans united with Christ moving and having their being in him. This is a profoundly transformative dynamic relation.

Comment by Loren

January 18, 2008 @ 4:43 am

I, personally, could and never would vote for Huckabee. He appears to be playing on semantics to appease the general population and his strong religious following. I have just left a marriage to a SBC pastor; believe me, he enjoys his role as head of his household. His words state that ‘as wives submit themselves to the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves, and it’s not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other. It’s both mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.’ How convenient he left out to whom the husbands submit themselves.

I have in the past chosen to vote for the candidate who was not ashamed of being a follower of Christ. I don’t know what I will do this time, as a conservative, I am having trouble discerning a viable candidate.

Comment by Liz

January 18, 2008 @ 7:43 am

Hi Loren, I know that your decision to leave would not have been taken lightly and would be after some heart-searching times. May you know the peace of God as you desire to follow his ways and live as the person you were created to be.

Comment by LMcC

January 18, 2008 @ 11:18 am

Loren, welcome, and my sympathies to you in this difficult time.

I’m getting to the point where someone openly blowing his/her own horn about faith gets my suspicion rather than my support. I’m not focusing on one candidate here; several of them through the years have been guilty of playing to the church crowd only to let us down later. These candidates don’t need to tell us what they believe. They need to show us.

Comment by Teri

January 18, 2008 @ 2:34 pm

Glad you’ve taken a new pathway, Loren - and greetings, egalitarians.

I watched the debate and heard Huckabee say the very words in question here. Yet he spoke so quickly that I missed it entirely that he didn’t specify to whom husbands submit. In interviews or shows later, I also heard many pundits speak about this portion of his answers and they, too, were ’snowed’ by Huckabee’s careful words into believing that he was egalitarian. Thanks, then, for giving clarity about this.

Truly, he’s an extremely skilled speaker, so Governor Huckabee is probably still holding onto his SBC beliefs. In my work long ago with the Nestle boycott, I learned that crafty speakers use words to deceive or blur distinctions - and this skill helps politicians make people hear what they want to hear and vote accordingly.

One thought, though: it’s just as possible that Huckabee has an egalitarian marriage or theology, and is actually trying to pacify (not exactly deceive) his national church body. It’s tough being ordained in a church, getting a pension, etc. and then coming to believe differently. Maybe that’s his situation?

We can pray fervently for all the candidates, that they’ll learn about and grow into a deep relationship with God.

Parenthetically, I descend from a huge Mormon dynasty; Martha Beck is a cousin. And guess what? Romney’s winning the presidency would be the best thing that ever happened to Mormonism - but not as the Mormons believe (i.e. they think it would help with publicity, evangelism, etc.) No, it’s because the publicity would expose all the hidden or unjust elements of Mormonism.

We know God is in charge and always works everything to the good. Alleluia!

Comment by Jon

January 18, 2008 @ 4:05 pm

I’m not a Republican, but have interestedly watched their candidates. I’m afraid Governor Huckabee demoted himself in the past week for me in a few venues. His comment, for instance, that as president he would disallow any immigrants from Saudi Arabia entrance to America fascinated me… the way a sudden and gory car accident might. But his comments on the issue of wifely submission were fairly brilliant. He, while sidestepping a true egalitarian position, used egalitarian wording in a way that initially fooled even cynical ol’ me.

He leaves out basically one or two words that were key to actually making it a true egalitarian statement. I include them in italics and brackets within his statement below:

But I certainly am going to practice it unashamedly, whether I’m a president or whether I’m not a president. But the point… the point, it comes from a passage of Scripture in the New Testament book of Ephesians, is that as wives submit themselves to the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves [to their wives], and it’s not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other. It’s both mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.

Without the italicized words in brackets, Governor Huckabee’s statement is a hierarchalist statement.

Of course, as an Obama guy, am I being anti-egalitarian by not voting for Hillary in the Illinois primary (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)?

Comment by Teri

January 18, 2008 @ 5:03 pm

Dear brother Trott (Jon), ah, but a true ‘Obama guy’ would reject evaluating any candidate on the basis of gender or race (wink back).

May God help us as we consider these candidates! Obama is brilliant and dear, but he’s also deficient regarding foreign policy, and he admits that. Of course, that hasn’t kept other presidents from excelling once elected.

Unfortunately, just one terrorist attack on United States soil or against United States forces might prompt Americans to support someone who has no core values, who is willing to give away our liberties long-term, for a short-term fix. Help, Lord!

Comment by Watcher

January 18, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

Hey Jon (comment 78259), we’re neighbors. And as a conservative, I’ll not be voting for Hillary or Obama in the Illinois primary, even though Obama is a nice Illinois guy like yourself.

Us downstate folk wish those Chicago politicians would let Springfield, Land of Lincoln, have the governor’s mansion back while keeping Chicago politics up in Chicago where they belong (mischevious grin).

My best. P.S. Wait, didn’t Hillary grow up in Illinois?! And Barak was born in Hawaii, or somewhere else besides Illinois? What’s this about? Boy we are a mobile society, aren’t we?

Comment by Saoirse

January 18, 2008 @ 7:55 pm

Shatterdmen, may I ask what shattered you?

Comment by Lori

January 18, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

See comment 78039.

(For the record, I’m a bored and annoyed Independent. I’m bored because no candidate speaks my language and annoyed that we still have ten and a half months of this political monkey business to go. In other words, I’m not looking at what he said from any political point of view, just taking it at face value.)

And for the record, I’m disenchanted with all the candidates, so I’m not just picking on Huckabee here. If this were a political forum, I’d list my grievances against all of them. I was also raised Southern Baptist and had to leave as an adult when I became an egalitarian.

Given that religious background, I was always uncomfortable with Huckabee. From the moment he appeared on the scene and I heard that he was a former Southern Baptist pastor, I just knew that he would support the partriarchal party line. I just felt it in my bones. You can’t rise in Southern Baptist circles or get endorsed by them without supporting it. Thank you very much for making this post, because I’m finally glad to have confirmation of my instinct.

Notice he never says the husband submits to his wife. He’s definitely playing to both sides of the sex roles debate. He can tell us he believes neither husband nor wife is superior to the other, and he can tell the SBC crowd that he never said anything about husbands submitting to wives or any other woman.

Exactly! I didn’t see the debate, but when I read his statement, that was the first thing that jumped out at me. He never says anything about husbands submitting to wives. Trust me, a complementarian hearing the code words ‘Ephesians,’ ’submit,’ and ‘leadership’ will immediatedly believe that Huckabee is preaching their doctrine. Any submitting on the husband’s part they would have understood as being to Christ.

That’s why his statement was so masterful. I won’t say he wanted to deceive people - that implies evil intent. However, I agree with you, LMCC, that it was incredibly slick. He basically told both sides what they wanted to hear. Most complementarians today don’t make a big deal about headship in their marriage, so they probably would have shook their heads and laughed in agreement when Huckabee talked about his wife not letting him do whatever he wanted to do.

From Huckabee’s speech:

…it’s not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other.

That’s the whole complementarian doctrine of ’sacrificial leadership’ on the part of the husband. That doesn’t change their core assumption, however, that women need leaders and authority over them.

It’s both mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.

Since the patriarchal crowd already heard all the correct code words, and since they know he’s Southern Baptist, they had probably tuned him out by this point. This sentence probably went right past them. However, they believe that a woman’s submission to her husband and to God are the same thing (that is, that a woman submits to God by submitting to her husband). Therefore, if they did catch the above sentence, they probably understood it in the context of wives also submitting to their husbands. Again, really, really slick. I haven’t heard rhetoric this good since Clinton.

Speaking of which, while I would love to have a woman president, I don’t want it to be Hillary. Ironically, I don’t like her precisely because she was too submissive. When she stood by Bill, and even defended him, she lost me. Since I have a British husband and have lived in Britain, I agree with whoever said that they would rather have another Margaret Thatcher.

And finally, back to Huckabee.

So with all due respect, it has nothing to do with presidency.

I’m sorry, but it has everything to do with the presidency. Again, I agree with whoever said that how you view half the population has a great deal with what kind of leader you will be. This is precisely why I was uncomfortable with Huckabee from the very beginning.

Comment by fjs

January 18, 2008 @ 9:50 pm

I don’t agree with all of Hillary’s political positions and I haven’t chosen who I will support but I do identify with her in some ways, especially after the way that talk radio has bashed her as a woman.

Comment by Watcher

January 18, 2008 @ 10:12 pm

Saoirse, just in case Shatterdmen (a.k.a. Pastor Ken) missed your question, I’ll fill you in a bit. There was a thread entitled ‘If You Can’t Be Pastor…’ some time back where he explained himself very clearly, sometimes graciously, but more often frustrated with this present company because of their refusal to accept patriarchy.

It was a very long thread, and at times very heated. He linked his web site ‘Shatterdmen’ in several places in that thread.

His basic view, if I recall correctly, is that the Violence Against Women Act is hurting a great deal of men, shattering them even. And I don’t think people on here refused to believe him. We accepted his information as valid and perhaps another example of injustice, except this time against men. But we disagreed with his solution. His solution was to take a complementarian view on Ephesians 5 and other related verses. From where I stood, it appeared that he felt strongly that if we brought the family into order as defined by patriarchists, then violence against women would see a significant decrease.

Many here were not persuaded, so he washed his hands of us for a time.

Comment by Lori

January 19, 2008 @ 9:31 am

I don’t mean to knock the thread off-topic, but since you bring it up, Watcher…

That viewpoint is actually fairly common within complementarian circles. I read an article in Christianity Today where a pastor kept insisting that if only husbands would learn to love sacrificially, we could eliminate domestic violence. Just because some men take advantage of the system, according to him, didn’t mean that patriarchy itself was wrong.

The more I hear complementarians speak, the more their oppression of women really does sound like the slavery we imposed on black people.

Comment by Joyce

January 19, 2008 @ 10:12 am

Interesting - I had missed that, and it raises some questions. I applaud the person who asked the question because I think it is an important one.

I am not sure that his answer is straightforward enough for me. What is he really saying? Sounds like double-speak to me.

Comment by tiro

January 19, 2008 @ 10:46 pm

See comment 78280.

What Ken seems to miss is that patriarchy and male domination has had it’s chance for a few thousand years to learn to ‘love sacrificially.’ It hasn’t happened. The problem is the system itself which allows, promotes, and encourages men to have the primacy in everything. How can such a system ever encourage equal and fair treatment?

It’s rather like saying that we should keep slavery and just encourage masters to be fair. Well, I’m sure masters were encouraged to be fair, kind, considerate, etc. But the bottom line is that because they are in control they will choose how they wish to treat their slaves. And if they don’t choose to be kind or considerate for whatever reason, it’s their business. They are the masters.

Comment by Watcher

January 20, 2008 @ 12:07 pm

Tiro, I think what you have said is what pushes me toward egalitarian and away from complementarian.

I believe that there are many good and fair men in the complementarian movement who do promote their wives in a Christlike manner. But a lot of them (both male and female complementarians) look sadly at other marriages where the wife is not uplifted, put up with bad behavior or even mild forms of abuse with an ‘oh-well-stinks-to-be-you’ attitude. Sorry you married such a jerk, but that was your choice and now you have to live with it ’til death do you part, graciously submitting in a manner we would never expect of any man. Then ‘death do you part’ is no longer a vow, but becomes a goal.

I’m sorry. I don’t believe in a stinks-to-be-you gospel for women. I believe that God is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all we could ask or think, even for women alongside men in marriage.

And if those in authority in the complementarian movement can’t police their followers better than their history has shown, they need to go back and deal with their own camp, get it in order and then come talk to us about the virtues of their beliefs.

I know there are people who have fled the church due to heavy-handed and unreasonable views of Ephesians 5. And it’s so sad. I want them to come back to church, come back to Christ without fear of some preacher demanding they submit to things in their own lives that the preacher himself would never ever ever submit to.

And if there are any reading these threads who have fled the church for whatever abuses you’ve suffered, even if they don’t have anything to do with gender, please know that God cares, he sees, and he heals those who trust in him.

Sorry for my rant, CBE Scroll. Thank you for your indulgence, moderators. Sincerely yours.

Comment by ILikeReading2

January 20, 2008 @ 12:19 pm

…without fear of some preacher demanding they submit to things in their own lives that the preacher himself would never ever ever submit to.

Your statement is accurate. Unfortunately, when these same preachers are asked if they would be willing to submit to what they are asking women to submit to, they always say ‘yes.’ However, since they are male, they will never be in that same position.

Comment by Mary

January 20, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

Precisely! That’s what so outraged me about Paige Patterson’s ends-justifies-the-means proudness of sending a wife back for more beatings from her known-abusive husband.

Besides the moral bankruptcy of such counsel in the first place, he was demanding that the woman do something that in his own patriarchal system he would never be in a position to do: pay with his own body for another human being’s ‘right’ to ‘rule over’ him. (Come to think of it, nobody rules over Patterson, and no one has for a very long time.)

But all was well, because even though the guy committed criminal assualt against his wife, he was sorry and got saved, so the wife should be glad she ’submitted’ to more violence from her criminal husband. It was all about him, him being the ‘leader,’ and all. He was allowed to beat the tar out of his wife as long as she ’submitted’ and he got saved out of it. Baloney.

Comment by ILikeReading2

January 20, 2008 @ 1:53 pm

Perhaps men like Paige Patterson should be asked if they would expect their daughter or granddaughter to submit to such abuse.

Comment by Lolly

January 20, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

See comment 78404.

But a lot of them (both male and female complementarians) look sadly at other marriages where the wife is not uplifted, puts up with bad behavior or even mild forms of abuse with an ‘oh-well-stinks-to-be-you’ attitude. Sorry you married such a jerk. But that was your choice and now you have to live with it ’til death do you part, graciously submitting in a manner we would never expect of any man.

I actually burst out laughing when I read this, Watcher. It is so true. Believe me, abuse is the dirty little secret of the complementarian movement. The vast majority of complementarian wives would prefer not to think about where their belief system ultimately leads. Hey, my husband is one of those guys loving sacrificially, so it must be right, right? As long as the master treats you well, best not to think about those poor slaves down the road…

Comment by tiro

January 20, 2008 @ 4:19 pm

See comment 78411.

Perhaps men like Paige Patterson should be asked if they would expect their daughter or granddaughter to submit to such abuse.

Unfortunately, some gender hierarchalists are so into protecting male supremacy that they would sacrifice their daughters’ happiness, emotional well being, education, and spiritual growth to protect it.

See comment 78415.

Believe me, abuse is the dirty little secret of the complementarian movement. The vast majority of complementarian wives would prefer not to think about where their belief system ultimately leads. Hey, my husband is one of those guys loving sacrificially, so it must be right, right? As long as the master treats you well, best not to think about those poor slaves down the road…

While it is true that there are abusive women and some are wives, it is a far cry from the extensive opportunity and permissible abuses that happen every day in male-dominant marriages and have continued barely abated for a few thousand years.

Comment by Mary

January 20, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

Tiro, that is true. In a mutually submissive marriage, it is by definition no longer mutual submission if either spouse abuses the other. By contrast, in a marriage based upon husband-as-authority-over-wife, the husband is still very much that authority figure no matter how badly (or well) he treats his wife.

What corrective is there in so-called Christian patriarchy for spousal abuse? Plenty, if the abuser is the wife. Little to none, however, if the abuser is the husband. It’s up to the ‘authority figure’ to police himself. And if advice like Patterson’s (and a lot of other documented cases) is any indication, there’s far too little policing going on to make patriarchy a tenable model for Christian marriage. That is, if a couple is serious about loving one another as Christ has loved us all.

Comment by Suzanne

January 20, 2008 @ 7:04 pm

I think what is missing here is the psychology of abuse. For example, throughout church history there was the belief that women were subordinated because of Eve’s having been deceived - so, yes it-stinks-to-be-you. But, what has come out recently is the belief that there was subordination in the garden. This belief teaches that the wife should joyfully deprive herself of any goals beyond meeting her husband’s desires. So, women are taught that they should enjoy total submission and lack of desire to make decisions.

I have been deeply disturbed by these two posts. Read here.

I have discussed this topic with several women and have been a little bit surprised by their reactions. It seems to me that women would be glad to know that the idea of submission precedes the fall. This shows us that the headship of the husband is not rooted in a punishment, and perhaps even an unfair punishment where woman was given the harsher penalty of having to submit, but is rooted in the very purpose and creation of mankind. Yet women have told me that they prefer to think that submission is a product of the Fall. Perhaps this shows just what a poor job the church has done in teaching this subject and what a poor job husbands have done in making submission joyful. Or maybe this is simply society echoing even in the church.

And then this. I still persist in believing that this is a very difficult situation.

What was the biggest surprise to you after marriage?

I think I may have believed that submission, as biblically defined, would be easier than it actually is. I had such a desire to be married, to serve a godly husband, and to learn how to be a godly, submissive wife. So I guess perhaps I thought this strong desire would make me better at it (ha ha!). I never anticipated how many times we would disagree on small things, mostly matters of preference, and how I was not at all entitled to have my own way on these things just because they were small, or just because they fell under the category of home management, or for any other reason.

So, I think that men with abusive wives, and men or women with violent alcoholic husbands, have a very difficult time.

However, the spiritual abuse of being taught that God has designed a paradise for you in which you are deprived of making even the tiniest decisions for yourself, and that you are not spiritual unless you submit to this image of paradise, is deeply warped.

Comment by ILikeReading2

January 20, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

Perhaps this shows just what a poor job the church has done in teaching this subject and what a poor job husbands have done in making submission joyful.

Does this man have a daughter or a granddaughter? Is this what he wants for her?

Comment by Mary

January 20, 2008 @ 10:01 pm

ILikeReading2, I think it’s more a matter that the church has not bothered to teach husbands that Ephesians 5:21 applies every bit as much to them as it does to their wives.

Comment by DRJLP

January 21, 2008 @ 9:18 am

If Governor Huckabee and other church leaders really believed in ‘mutual submission,’ why is the passage ‘Submit yourselves one to another’ never the headline! Ephesians 5:20 - ‘Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.’

Comment by Watcher

January 21, 2008 @ 9:33 am

Not only that, Mary, it seems many men can do this compartmental thinking where ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’ and ‘If you would be great in God’s kingdom then learn to be servant of all’ somehow don’t apply to women, least of all their wives.

Somehow their prejudices about gender completely nix out the words of Jesus Christ himself. A woman being a ‘lesser’ equal blots out the need to obey the words of Jesus concerning all people. It somehow sweeps women away from being a ‘neighbor,’ an ‘other,’ or part of ‘all.’

In my history as a pastor’s wife we dealt with men who said, ‘Everything would be just fine if she’d just submit,’ and to a lesser degree a few women said, ‘Everything would be just fine if he’d figure out how to love me.’

Well after enough years of hearing that I came to the conclusion that Ephesians 5 and other related chapters are not ‘Principles of Marriage 101.’ The Principles of Marriage start with the words of Jesus, our source of all life, not the words of Paul.

When individuals get the words of Jesus in the three verses mentioned above, then maybe, just maybe, we can move on the the real beauty of Ephesians 5 and the true glory Paul is trying to get across. When Paul told husbands to love their wives, the emphasis really is on L-O-V-E, not L-E-A-D.

What is so hard about this?

Oh, I know. It’s the fleshly nature of mankind trying to create God and the Bible after its own image. Been there. Done that. Won’t submit myself to such error again.

Comment by Michelle

January 21, 2008 @ 12:09 pm

I’ve heard a lot of complementarians use these exact same words to describe their position. But when you ask them a few more questions, it becomes very clear that they are not talking about real equality - just equal in ‘value’ with ‘complementary roles’ - he gives 100 percent to being a servant leader, she gives 100 percent to submitting. They may even say that the husband is to submit to his wife, but they make it very clear that his submission is of a completely different kind than her submission - his is the kind that all believers give to each other, he can chose when to give his, like when he decides it will be okay to let her have her way on a certain issue. Hers, on the other hand, is complete obedience and submission of body, mind, spirit all the time whether she likes it or not, whether it feels right to her or not (maybe adding the ‘unless he asks her to do something that is unbiblical’ clause). This is what complementarians call ‘mutuality.’

Comment by jen

January 21, 2008 @ 4:57 pm

I heard this kind of rhetoric from the pastor of our church when we explained why we would no longer be supporting the church with our attendance or finances because of their complementarian views. I believe, they are sincere, they believe themselves.

I am a Canadian so I don’t follow American politics too closely, so forgive me for asking… Isn’t anyone just tempted to vote for the girl?

Comment by LMcC

January 21, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

Jen (see comment 78478), not really, unless you believe what comment 78153 says about us. Some people here might vote for her, but not for that reason. Some have concerns about her personal beliefs and actions. Some are simply undecided.

In any event, I believe most of us here do not want to support someone on the basis of a physical characteristic unrelated to the job because we’ve been fighting against disqualifying people from ministry for that very reason. We may choose to vote for a candidate based on the issues, we may choose to vote for one only because s/he is the lesser of two evils, we may vote straight party tickets. I hope people vote on the issues, and not merely on whether the candidate has a matching genetic code.

Comment by Mary

January 21, 2008 @ 11:07 pm

The only reason it might be tempting is just so the folks who have sworn they’ll never vote for a woman, no matter what, have to learn to deal with the fact that it’s not womanhood or manhood that makes somebody qualified to hold public office. That fleeting temptation, however, would never be a good enough reason for me to vote for a woman simply because she’s a woman.

I do hope that a woman becomes president here at some point, however, for that very reason. Just as most thinking Christians who experience a female pastor for the first time come to wonder what all the fuss was about (once they get used to the ’strangeness’ of it), so I think that most thinking Americans will come to judge our first female president the same way we tend to judge all the men who will have come before her: by political standards. Those aren’t especially fair, but to this point they have never been about the presidents’ maleness, either.

Comment by Lolly

January 23, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

The only reason it might be tempting is just so the folks who have sworn they’ll never vote for a woman, no matter what, have to learn to deal with the fact that it’s not womanhood or manhood that makes somebody qualified to hold public office.

Okay, dirty little secret time. There are times when I’ve flirted with the idea of voting for Hillary just so all the patriarchs would have to endure a woman in authority over them for four years. To quote the famous philosopher Tweety Bird, ‘Ain’t I a stinker?’

I’ve heard a lot of complementarians use these exact same words to describe their position. But when you ask them a few more questions, it becomes very clear that they are not talking about real equality - just equal in ‘value’ with ‘complementary roles’…

In the thread about pastor’s husbands, we’re talking about a prominent mega-church pastor whose wife has also become prominent as an author. Some people pointed out that ‘not all complementarians are the same.’ Some allow their wives a great deal of responsibility - just not becoming a senior pastor. But you see, that’s exactly the point. I don’t care how prominent the woman is. There are a number of prominent complementarian men whose wives are also famous, but it’s always at their husband’s discretion. Their husbands allow them to do what they do. Their husbands define the limits of what they can do. You can write books. You can speak to women. But, you can’t pastor. You can’t teach men. It’s always the men who define what the women can do, therefore the women are never truly free.

Not only that, Mary, it seems many men can do this compartmental thinking where ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’ and ‘If you would be great in God’s kingdom then learn to be servant of all’ somehow don’t apply to women, least of all their wives.

That’s the result of 2,000 years worth of mysoginistic teaching on the part of the church. I call it the ALA defense - ‘As Long As.’ ‘I can love my wife as long as she submits.’ ‘I can act like a servant as long as she submits.’ Always, always, always it revolves around the issue of authority, from teaching and hearing that women are inherently inferior and therefore need to have authority over them.

I respect this woman tremendously.

Comment by Trevor

January 25, 2008 @ 1:42 am

The responses to this original post have been most interesting, particularly as I’m an Aussie and the political implications won’t have any immediate impact on me at all. Though, in fairness, I guess that when it comes to foreign policy and international relations whoever is president of the United States does become a global issue. So we ought to be as much in prayer about the outcome as you guys.

However, I was really touched to respond to Suzanne’s last comment (comment 78425). I followed your thread Suzanne and was absolutely gobsmacked by both the lead article on the blogsite and the comments that it engendered. Most were thankful and in agreement with the premise that hierarchy precedes the fall. Can’t buy that! But what impressed me most was your bold efforts at refuting some of the arguments. It’s great to see such well reasoned answers (yours) on that site (also this one!) and some of the responses to your arguments. You obviously have a real gift of researching, teaching, writing and a sound grip of the subject matter to be able to comment so incisively. Well done!

Comment by ILikeReading2

January 25, 2008 @ 7:42 am

Here is a site with a summary of Suzanne’s writings on equality. It’s full of good information.

Comment by Suzanne

January 25, 2008 @ 9:14 am

And here and here are two of my blogs.

Comment by Watcher

January 25, 2008 @ 2:46 pm

There is a link on the Yahoo home page for an article about Dobson and his political clout. The article claims his influence is fading. It also mentions that he had tended to support Romney over Huckabee. This link is time sensitive for sure. It is there right now - 2:30 CST, January 25 - for those interested in reading it.

Comment by Greg

January 25, 2008 @ 10:20 pm

So Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to be more in line with Scripture, huh? Didn’t we already try the ‘city upon a hill’ thing with John Winthrop calling the shots as to what’s scriptural and what ain’t? Dang, if worse comes to worst, I can always write in Homer Simpson when I get my ballot.

Comment by Lolly

January 26, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

I believe I found that article you were referencing, Watcher. It’s from Time Online, and it’s very eye-opening. Yes, you would think it would be natural for Dobson to endorse Huckabee. However, Dobson’s silence about the candidate has spoken volumes.

…Huckabee, who has spoken of his great and longtime friendship with the Dobsons, has wondered aloud why no endorsement appears to be coming his way.

And then there’s this:

…the Christian right’s most powerful leader may not want to back a candidate so early in the game. Backing a losing horse could devalue the worth of any future Dobson anointment, especially when America is seeing the rise of a younger generation of less combative preachers like Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and Bill Hybels. [emphasis mine]

As I’ve stated in the pastor’s husband thread, the rise of these mega-pastors gives me hope. I discussed the egalitarian aspect in the other thread, but here let me say that I like the way these pastors make an effort to stay out of politics. By that, I mean endorsing candidates, glad handing with presidents, handing over the votes of your followers, etc. I know that pastors like Warren have been outspoken on social issues, but that’s a far cry from saying something like ‘I endorse Bush’ and implicitly expecting your followers to vote for him. One of the things that has always disgusted me about certain liberals and conservatives is their mixing up of religion and politics.

On another note, as somebody who grew up admiring Dobson (listening to his radio show, buying his books), I found this really surprising. The article goes on to detail how Focus on the Family is basically fading away. Everything’s down - book sales, listeners, donors. Focus on the Family has actually been operating in the red financially for the past couple of years and has had to make staff cuts. The article attributes this to the fact that Focus on the Family was always Dobson’s baby and now that he’s easing into retirement people are simply losing interest.

That might be true, but I think the author also touched on something in the quote above. Society is evolving, and Christianity with it. Today’s mega-pastors know that people don’t want to hear shrill Bible-bashing, and that they’re wary of the Religious Right because of its vision of transforming America into a theocracy. Therefore, these pastors are careful to lead in such a way as to not be tainted with those stereotypes. I, personally, think this is a good thing for both America and Christianity.

Here is the full article.

Comment by fjs

January 26, 2008 @ 4:21 pm

Lolly, I agree with you. Some of the larger churches are pretty careful about how they speak about women… even if they hold a more complementarian position, they are complementarian by the skin of their teeth, reserving only the top leadership position for a man. Greater latitude is given in other teaching and leadership roles for women.

In the other post, I wrote about (emergent leader) Dan Kimball’s book, They Love Jesus but Not the Church. He reserves a whole chapter for the discussion of how the church is perceived by those who do not attend and how the church responds to women. He calls the church to be very careful about how they speak about women, the language they use and the restrictions placed on women’s ministry.

However, the other book, I think by the Barna Group… UnChurched, a book in the same vein, does not even raise the question about women.

I’m still waiting for the book Why Women Hate Going to Church. But there is little anxiety about winning the souls of unchurched women.

Comment by SONshine

January 26, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

If anyone is still reading this blog, I have a few comments. The tangents presented in the previous responses often revealed more about the individuals writing than they did about the subject matter at hand in the original post.

First, one comment was that society and Christianity is evolving. No – true Christianity does not evolve - only the world’s interpretation of it. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

In response to some of the other tangents, Obama is a Muslim, was raised in the same Wahabi traditions and beliefs of the terrorists who are now raging Jihad against all the Western world, and joined a church with a Christian-sounding name simply for political presence. One basic tenet of Islam is that it is all right to lie if it serves the purposes of Islam.

Next, the Mormon position toward women is misogyny at its most devious – under the dictates of a religion – with the belief that a man becomes god of his own ‘heavenly’ planet when he dies and that a woman can only go to this ‘heaven’ by her marriage to a man.

Then there’s Hillary. The very thought makes me shudder. As a staunch socialist, she’s on the fast track to a ‘one world government,’ which would eliminate entrepreneurship, and she takes a strong stand for immorality.

Now, about Huckabee - does everyone drink their coffee black? Or do some of you take it with cream and/or sugar? Yet all coffee drinkers would say they like coffee, without specifying black or otherwise. My point is that all Southern Baptists do not employ the tenets of their religion in the same way. Most of the posts seem more interested in the label ‘Southern Baptist’ than in the person, including his past and present personal and political behaviors, and in picking apart the way Huckabee tried to explain his position. So what if he left out a few words or didn’t go into a dissertation on the subject! I do not believe he was trying to be deceitful or politically correct in any way. Southern Baptists are not all the same and endorsement of the SBC position is based on their own understanding of the convention’s position.

That position, from what I understand, is based on the original meaning of the word that has been translated as ’submit.’ The original word would have been more accurately translated as ‘respect.’ The husband and wife are to mutually respect each other. The individual whose post lumped this in with the husband’s respect for Christ needs to understand that, as Christians, both genders are to submit to Christ and try to be like him. This includes his example of loving each other, even to the point of death. By the way, I am a Southern Baptist church member and an equalitarian. All SBC churches do not teach that a woman’s place is to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, as some people think is taught.

Comment by Suzanne

January 26, 2008 @ 4:52 pm

Pages 167 and 176.

The internalization of the oppressor by the dominated consciousness of the peasants explains their fear and their inefficiency.

The object of dialogical-libertarian action is not to ‘dislodge’ the oppressed from a mythological reality in order to ‘bind’ them to another reality. On the contrary the object of dialogical action is to make it possible for the oppressed, by perceiving their adhesion, to opt to transform an unjust reality.

However, the submersion in reality which characterizes the peasants of Latin America means that consciousness of being an oppressed class must be preceded (or at least accompanied) by achieving consciousness of being oppressed individuals.

So, many women do not experience the restrictions and boundaries of complementarianism as oppression. I imagine that many men do not personally oppress their wives and these women are not directly aware of the subordination of their being as oppression.

Comment by fjs

January 26, 2008 @ 5:56 pm

Suzanne, so it is an issue of awareness? Example: I had limited awareness in a marriage in which I had little voice. I became more aware when I stepped outside of the prescribed box of how women were to behave and what they were to do.

If a woman does not step outside the box or feel a sense of injustice for whatever reason, she may not notice the oppression? Or if she derives some kind of power from her position within the system, she may defend that system?

I ordered the book, it has been reprinted; will read it.

Comment by Mary

January 26, 2008 @ 6:12 pm

I don’t believe that SONshine has swallowed the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ lie, and that other people here are agreeing! Where’s the discernment, people? I have some serious problems with Obama’s record, but given the highly anti-Muslim sentiments of a lot of Americans, I have a bigger problem with Christians spreading the lies about him.

Yet we’re supposed to give benefit of the doubt to Huckabee about his non-answers concerning the Baptist Faith and Message and somehow supposed to cut him (only him, apparently) slack about his religious beliefs.

Please, unless you folks want people to start comparing Huckabee to Hitler or McCain to Bin Laden, let’s have a little less ad hominem and a little more truth. Heck, even a little truth would go a long way. If it’s fair game in your opinion to trash Obama and Clinton, please tell me why it’s supposed to be ‘hands off’ for Huckabee. As far as I can see, people were dealing with something true about him: his non-answer about the Baptist Faith and Message.

Comment by Suzanne

January 26, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

I think one of my comments got lost. I was quoting above in comments 78995 and 78996 from Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. It helped me to understand the dynamic of people who are made to believe that they should occupy a lesser position in society.

It concerns me also that some complementarians have said that submission is always to an authority. However, in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, 38 it was not used that way at all. Here is the context.

Let our whole body, then, be preserved in Christ Jesus; and let every one be subject to his neighbor, according to the special gift bestowed upon him. Let the strong not despise the weak, and let the weak show respect to the strong. Let the rich man provide for the wants of the poor; and let the poor man bless God, because he has given him one by whom his need may be supplied. Let the wise man display his wisdom, not by [mere] words, but through good deeds. Let the humble not bear testimony to himself, but leave witness to be borne to him by another. Let him that is pure in the flesh not grow proud of it, and boast, knowing that it was another who bestowed on him the gift of continence. Let us consider, then, brethren, of what matter we were made - who and what manner of beings we came into the world, as it were out of a sepulchre, and from utter darkness.

So, Clement says that the strong not despise the weak and the weak ‘respect’ the strong. We need to be aware of the meaning of the word in context. I am amazed that there is not wider knowledge of this use of submission. I believe it is in A Christian Understanding of Submission by Alan Johnson on this website.

Also, 2 Maccabees 13:23:

[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded [ὑπετάγη] and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.

Excuse me if I have repeated myself.

Comment by Suzanne

January 26, 2008 @ 9:28 pm

P.S. Thank you, Trevor, for your kind comments.

Comment by ILikeReading2

January 26, 2008 @ 9:49 pm

As for comment 79015, great comment Suzanne!

Comment by Lolly

January 27, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

No - true Christianity does not evolve - only the world’s interpretation of it.

Do you believe that the Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth because they killed Christ? Do you believe that black people were created inferior by God to serve white people? The church taught both of these doctrines for hundreds of years.

In response to some of the other tangents, Obama is a Muslim, was raised in the same Wahabi traditions and beliefs of the terrorists who are now raging Jihad against all the Western world, and joined a church with a Christian-sounding name simply for political presence.

This is demonstrably false, here. Anybody reading this blog and who has been spreading these lies should be ashamed of themselves.

My point is that all Southern Baptist do not employ the tenets of their religion in the same way.

As I said, I grew up Southern Baptist. I knew many wonderful people, and many outspoken wives. Among Christian ‘celebrites’ (famous authors, speakers, pastors) there are many who allow their wives to have a ministry of their own. That doesn’t change my basic point, however. As long as men control what women can do, as long as they teach that women need a man in authority over them, then they are wrong. Plain and simple. Just because many slave owners treated their slaves well didn’t validate their belief that black people were meant to be slaves.

That position, from what I understand, is based on the original meaning of the word that has been translated as ’submit.’ The original word would have been more accurately translated as ‘respect.’ The husband and wife are to mutually respect each other.

That’s not what the patriarchs teach. Entire books have been written saying that husbands need respect, while wives need love. They make it clear that there’s nothing mutual about it.

Here’s one such book: Love and Respect: The Love She Most Desires, the Respect He Desperately Needs by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs.

The individual whose post lumped this in with the husband’s respect for Christ needs to understand that, as Christians, both genders are to submit to Christ and try to be like him.

I believe that was me, and my position has not changed. Patriarchs teach that as a part of submitting to God, a woman submits to her husband. A husband only submits to Christ. Ask Suzanne and she will tell you that you only have to pick up just about anything written by Wayne Grudem to find that message. The very core of patriarchy teaches that if a woman does not submit to her husband, then she is disobeying God. It is all part of the divine order. Yes, both genders submit to God. But for women, there is always that extra layer between them and God.

This includes his example of loving each other, even to the point of death.

Again, patriarchs makes it clear that there is nothing mutual about it. A husband is to love his wife like Christ, while a wife is to submit herself to her husband as Christ submitted to his Father. If you want to see it for your own eyes, pick up any book by any influential patriarchal speaker (Grudem, Piper, etc.).

Comment by Lolly

January 27, 2008 @ 4:39 pm

See comment 79001.

Please, unless you folks want people to start comparing Huckabee to Hitler or McCain to Bin Laden, let’s have a little less ad hominem and a little more truth. Heck, even a little truth would go a long way. If it’s fair game in your opinion to trash Obama and Clinton, please tell me why it’s supposed to be ‘hands off’ for Huckabee. As far as I can see, people were dealing with something true about him: his non-answer about the Baptist Faith and Message.

I couldn’t agree more. To be quite blunt, I find the idea of comparing any politician to Hitler disgusting. I certainly disagree with Hillary politically, but to equate her with one of the greatest monsters of human history is just plain terrible. And, if we’re going to tolerate attacks on the Democrats here, then why not make it hands off for the Repubicans, too? I can think of a few choice words to use about Romney’s Mormonism (in its treatment of women) and Huckabee’s pandering to evangelicals.

See comment 78996.

So, many women do not experience the restrictions and boundaries of complementarianism as oppression. I imagine that many men do not personally oppress their wives and these women are not directly aware of the subordination of their being as oppression.

That’s why I was able to stay in a Southern Baptist church for a few years after becoming an egalitarian. The people in my church were wonderful and the leadership never made a big deal about gender roles. It was only when the higher-ups made such a fuss about it (such as when they fired that woman professor from their seminary) that I very reluctantly left. I still count people from my old church as friends, though.

By the way, Suzanne, I haven’t seen so many big words since I left university! I had to read your post a couple of times before I got it. It was good to get some exercise for my brain, though!

See comment 79000.

Suzanne, so it is an issue of awareness? Example: I had limited awareness in a marriage in which I had little voice, I became more aware when I stepped outside of the prescribed box of how women were to behave and what they were to do.

Hey, that’s me! Only I had limited awareness when I was growing up. You talked about women deriving poower. Well, my mother disciplined us kids (Dad was a softie) and balanced the family checkbook. She also helped my dad as a pastor’s wife should. Therefore, I never really knew there was something wrong with patriarchy until I got to be an adult. Then I ’stepped outside of the box’ by marrying a European man who no knowledge of the gender wars within American Christianity. It was quite eye-opening to be treated as an equal and have a husband who wanted a partner, not a follower!

Comment by Paula

January 27, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

It was a joke, people. Sheesh. Let’s not make this place yet another ‘china shop’ where everyone has to step lightly to avoid offending the hyper-sensitive.

But like it or not, Islam is a danger to any country that allows it. And a Muslim in power here would not be something to take lightly. This isn’t prejudice, it’s historical fact and taught in every mosque.

As for ‘evolving,’ note that nobody said Christianity should evolve. That does not equate to the church. The church as an institution has always been dealing with wolves in high places, but true Christianity does not, nor ever can, evolve.

Comment by Mary

January 27, 2008 @ 9:19 pm

I don’t recognize humor that makes it ‘okay’ to refer to a sister in Christ (or any other human being, for that matter) as ‘Hitlery.’ I don’t find it funny at all, and I don’t mind standing up and saying so.

And Obama is not a Muslim. Saying otherwise is also not funny; it’s obvious you’re serious about what you recognize is a threat in Islam, so why call a fellow Christian a Muslim?

Saying these things, Paula, doesn’t make me ‘hypersensitive.’ I belive it’s my responsibility to object when a Christian slanders her fellow Christians. That’s precisely what I believe your ‘jokes’ did.

Comment by Andy

January 28, 2008 @ 4:24 am

I usually feel overwhelmed by political discussions and have stayed out of this one so far. However, I do wish to express my surprise that those who are concerned about how women are treated and perceived do not seem to have the same concern about ethnic stereotypes.

I am concerned that some people are using ‘Muslim’ as a metaphor to belittle other people. I have spent much time among Muslims from many backgrounds and they are not a homogeneous group and they are not all bad people. Even if they were, I am not sure how honoring it would be to Christ for us to perpetuate hatred towards them.

Much benefit would be gained if those who wish to express an opinion about Muslims would go out and have coffee with ten Muslims and find out what they are really like. The problem is, most people do not know ten Muslims, or even one.

Comment by Paula

January 28, 2008 @ 6:25 am

Hillary is no ’sister in Christ.’ And I’m beginning to think you’re all vulcans who don’t comprehend humor (it’s another joke, okay?). It seems that the 99% of my little post is completely ignored over this one issue. I wrote about Huck and the SBC, does anyone remember that?

I’m very sorry I tried to post in a political thread at all.

Comment by Mary

January 28, 2008 @ 10:17 am

Hillary Clinton professes faith in Jesus Christ. You may choose not to acknowledge her as your sister in Christ, but as a Christian, both she and you are mine.

I don’t care who or what party membership are involved: If a fellow Christian tries even in supposed jest to call someone ‘Hitler,’ it’s not funny. If a fellow Christian agrees with someone who falsely claims that a Christian is a Muslim, I will call him or her on it. I saw that you wrote about Huckabee and the SBC, yes. You shouldn’t have resorted to the faith denials and the ‘Hitler’ schtick.

Comment by SONshine

January 28, 2008 @ 1:52 pm

Paula, I was referring to Lolly’s comment 78983, in which the statement, ‘Society is evolving, and Christianity with it’ appeared. Thank you for clarifying to Lolly that Christianity does not evolve but some forms and expressions of ‘church’ have.

I think it is sad, though, that you believe that ‘…he’s a politician whose answer was carefully worded to keep him from offending the SBC and the general public. Nobody gets to their party’s nominations for president by being completely honest…’ With enough research, a person can determine who is telling the truth, who is flat-out lying, and who is twisting words just to please the masses.

Suzanne, thank you for your comment 79015. You obviously do your research.

Lolly, I checked out the snopes website about Obama. I did not get my statement from an e-mail but from someone whom I thought was giving me accurate info. However, I still view him with skepticism because he and his ‘people’ are the ones disputing the information and if he is a radical Muslim at heart, then he would have no problem with lying. Note, I said if. I am still skeptical because I have certainly heard him ’skirt around’ other issues with vague denials and generalities. And, just for the record, I have known several people of the Islam faith who are loving and kind people, with no hidden agenda, and who believe it is wrong to lie.

Without picking anyone else apart, I still believe Huckabee is being sincere and was using wording that he was used to, not that he had deliberately chosen to try to deceive anyone.

Mary (see comment 79090), I did a search through this blog and can only find the word ‘Hitlery’ in your own post. Maybe I missed it somehow.

By-the-way, I think it helps eliminate some assumptions about a person if more is known about that person’s background. So - in addition to being a member of a Southern Baptist church and an equalitarian, I am also a mental health counselor, an abuse survivor (family of origin and a previous marriage), a former church staff member (not currently - by choice), a mother, and the wife of a wonderful man who knows the true meaning of equal respect and partnership in a marriage. My church isn’t perfect (find me one that is!), but neither am I. Sometimes people get so wrapped up in the problems that they miss the elements of unity, community, and fellowship.