The CBE Scroll

Comment by faith

October 17, 2008 @ 9:01 am

that’s great stuff… modeling and conversation is so important.

After a big church celebration, i walked into the sanctuary and there were two 10 year old girls standing at the pulpit. I asked them what was up? They replied, “we’re playing pastor.” i was so proud of them and excited that they did not question the appropriateness of their game.

Comment by Hope

October 17, 2008 @ 9:55 am

Thanks, Mindy. I cringe when I read the children’s responses. It’s hard to believe that anyone thinks like that anymore.

All the same, and I hope I’m wrong in this, I think I’m detecting a certain patronizing attitude towards those Christians, especially mothers, who take seriously Genesis 1.28. Of course we don’t want to see women reduced to the mother role. That I can agree with. Yet we shouldn’t despise the reality of our female embodiment either. We should give thanks for it and live with it rather than against it. The best way to influence the next generation is to have children of our own and teach them the way of truth. This is not just one more lifestyle choice, as the world seems to see it; it’s something most of us are or will be called to by God.

Comment by Mindy

October 17, 2008 @ 7:41 pm

That’s a great story, Faith! Thanks for your comment.

Hope, I have absolutely no problem with women who take their role as mother as seriously as they take every other role. In fact, I see my role in part to come alongside these women — particularly my sisters and sisters-in-law, as I have demonstrated with these stories about their kids — and help support them in their role as mothers. Since I can’t have kids, I have the freedom to do this in a way that most mothers don’t have. At the same time, I think it is good for these kids to have regular interaction with a woman who is not and will not be a mother, as it helps them to see the multiplicity of roles to which God has called women. I did not have such a role model as a child (I knew only women with kids), and so I had to severely adjust my understanding of identity and calling when I realized I was not going to have the role I had naturally assumed I would. Anyway, no offense taken, but thought I should clarify for you and other readers.

Comment by Hope

October 18, 2008 @ 8:06 am

Thanks for the clarification, Mindy. I have friends who are unable to have biological children, so I know something of what you must have gone through. God has called you to a special avenue of service to his glory.

Comment by Lin

October 18, 2008 @ 12:14 pm

The Old Covenant: Be fruitful and multiply

The New Covenant: Go and make disciples

Comment by Hope

October 18, 2008 @ 5:41 pm

Lin, I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Isn’t it true that we can only make disciples among those who have come into the world through ordinary biological reproduction? Both birth and new birth are due to God’s grace.

Comment by Mary

October 18, 2008 @ 7:33 pm

There’s a significant problem, Hope, in the religiously popular teaching that a woman’s “highest calling” is to be a wife and mother. Other Christians teach that a woman’s *purpose* is to bear children. Neither claim is biblical or truthful, but they’re cornerstones of much of the “complementarian” view of women in the body of Christ.

Of course the biological function of bearing children, for those women who do so, ought to be honored and celebrated. Just not to the exclusion of every Christian’s responsibility to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. No Christian is exempt from that responsibility, and motherhood is no impediment to it. However, teachings that women are to be under the authority of their husbands and be sequestered in the home as their “domain,” does indeed impede the spread of the gospel. Women are not to be the at-home assistants to their husbands’ “domains”; they’re to be active disciple makers under the authority of the Lord and Savior of us all: Jesus Christ.

Comment by Sherri Edman

October 19, 2008 @ 2:06 pm

SO interesting! I’ve been wondering about this a lot, as I have three nephews and a niece whose parents do actively cultivate gender bias.

On the flip side of the issue, how do those of us with children of our own deal with strongly complementarian relatives? I have two small sons of my own, and we are striving to model an egalitarian marriage for them. But both sets of grandparents and their nearest aunt & uncle (parents of the above mentioned nephews & niece) are operating on far different assumptions, and often make statements to that effect.

To clarify, I should mention that in the interest of conflict avoidance, my husband and I have never fully articulated our egalitarian stance to our families. It has seemed the path of least resistance to us to let them make their own assumptions and then just live our lives. But as our children get older, I’m wondering how long it will be until we need to explain, “Actually, X, Y and Z is not what we are teaching our children about gender.”

Anybody out there have experience with this? I’d love to get some words of wisdom.

Comment by Lin

October 19, 2008 @ 2:41 pm

“Other Christians teach that a woman’s *purpose* is to bear children. Neither claim is biblical or truthful, but they’re cornerstones of much of the “complementarian” view of women in the body of Christ.”

Thanks, Mary for explaining for me. I am hearing this so much today even in mainstream churches that used to be ’soft comp’ but are now even Patriarchal.

I am not discounting that we are to make disciples of our children. They are our primary ministry…both husband and wife.

Comment by Lin

October 19, 2008 @ 2:57 pm

“Anybody out there have experience with this? I’d love to get some words of wisdom”

Yes! My daughter is 7 and this has already come up quite a few times. She attends a Christian school that is a hodge podge of egals (a few), soft comps and hard comps. You really see this lived out in how parents deal with their kids.

The boys of the hard comp parents tend to be very rough and disrespectful to girls. When this is pointed out, the parents brush it off, almost proudly, saying ‘Oh boys will be boys’. It is as if they are proud they are acting out what they deem as normal ‘masculine’ traits that are really sinful. But their daughters are to ‘be sweet’. It is sort of eerie in a way.

I was proud of one of the teachers who said, ‘No, they just grow up to be narcissistic and disrespectful of women. Sin is sin and I won’t allow it my classroom’.

I saw this same phenomenon at the comp mega I used to attend…. with the boys being very unruly and mean toward the girls. They are learning early that they are in charge of girls.

I talk with my daughter all the time about it. I even explained how people interpret the scriptures differently (esp Gen 3) and we have gone over the scriptures. We also talk about how women were viewed in the first century and how Jesus interacted with women in spite of that. I have even explained that we have family who do not agree with us but that we love them and pray for them to see truth about women and their spiritual gifts but that is not a salvation issue.

We also read lots of biographies of women missionaries.

Comment by Watcher

October 19, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

“I was proud of one of the teachers who said, ‘No, they just grow up to be narcissistic and disrespectful of women. Sin is sin and I won’t allow it my classroom’.”

What was the reaction of the comp parent?
Or do you know? Were you there?

Comment by Hope

October 19, 2008 @ 5:09 pm

“The boys of the hard comp parents tend to be very rough and disrespectful to girls. When this is pointed out, the parents brush it off, almost proudly, saying ‘Oh boys will be boys’. It is as if they are proud they are acting out what they deem as normal ‘masculine’ traits that are really sinful.”

Lest we totally dismiss the past as unenlightened, whatever happened to raising boys to be gentlemen and to treat girls accordingly? This is what my parents were raised with and they were pretty well complementarian in their marriage. There was a time when treating girls roughly by boys would have been dealt with severely.

Comment by Hope

October 19, 2008 @ 5:39 pm

“Of course the biological function of bearing children, for those women who do so, ought to be honored and celebrated. Just not to the exclusion of every Christian’s responsibility to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

This actually hits close to home. I can agree with you, Mary, on one level. But over the years I’ve known any number of missionary kids who felt abandoned by their parents, who felt a “higher” calling to preach the gospel. The churches I grew up in celebrated such people, even when it led to neglect of their own children. It’s not always easy to know when the pendulum has swung too far, but I can’t help but think that this older pattern was unhealthy.

Comment by Liz

October 19, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

The other side of ‘respecting’ girls is that then they are treated as something ‘other’ - sort of like weaker, lesser, more fragile etc. This is no better really.
Why can’t we teach our children that all children (people) are to be treated the same, with respect and care. Any behaviour teaching which majors on gender difference is fraught with problems.

To illustrate: we were at a parenting conference (hierarchical but not all ‘bad’) and some chairs needed to be shifted. One of the teenage girls proceeded to stack them up and carry some but was interrupted by a mother who asked her son to do it instead. “I always teach my boys to take care of girls and not let them do heavy tasks like that.” If I had been that young girl, I would have been
really annoyed as I was just listening to the mother’s explanation.

That’s the kind of mindset which encourages boys to criticise their peers by calling them ‘girls’, ’sissies’, ‘girl’s blouse’ etc. (some may be Australian expressions) Yes, and this is among nice little church boys who grow up to be men in the church who demean women by silly comments in the guise of fun.

Comment by Bill

October 19, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

I don’t tell them their parents’ hierarchical structures are unbiblical.

Good thing, because their parents’ structures ARE very Biblical.

Comment by Hope

October 20, 2008 @ 6:42 am

Bill, you’ve got to do more than just drop a bomb into the middle of this group without any further explanation.

Liz, I sympathize with you, but I think matters are more complex than you let on here. The fact is that men on average have more upper body strength than women, so in this respect they ought not to be treated the same. I have no difficulty with boys being raised to recognize this and to offer help when needed. Does that make sense? It may be true that “behaviour teaching which majors on gender difference is fraught with problems,” but so is teaching that refuses to recognize gender differences. There has to be a better balance here.

Comment by Lin

October 20, 2008 @ 8:08 am

Watcher, it was done in private but told in a parent meeting to send a message and it was done with tact. I have no idea who the hard comp parents were. There are quite a few of them.

“The other side of ‘respecting’ girls is that then they are treated as something ‘other’ - sort of like weaker, lesser, more fragile etc. This is no better really.
Why can’t we teach our children that all children (people) are to be treated the same, with respect and care. Any behaviour teaching which majors on gender difference is fraught with problems.”

This is a good point. And you are right, the main point is just plain good manners for all the kids.

This is becoming a huge problem. The boys in hard comp homes are conflicted…they are being taught that girls have different ‘roles’ but are equal. Yet, they are not as stupid as us adults…they see right through this: The roles are NOT equal so how can they really be equal? Some of these parents think it would be a sin to have their boys do dishes or any other ’sissy’ work.

As to men being made…stronger, etc. This is a generalization as I could easily beat up Barney Fife. My daughter is 2 heads taller than most of the boys in her class…she would be more likely to ’save’ them in a crisis. We are also in an intellectual economy/society where such physical strength is not as important as it was 150 years ago.

BTW: That mom at the conference was teaching something else to her daughter: Wait around for the man to do what we think he is supposed to do. Since hard comps teach that the ‘man’ is the spiritual leader, such teaching can be disastrous to her sanctification and maybe even her eternal life.

Comment by Watcher

October 20, 2008 @ 9:31 am

Lin said: “Watcher, it was done in private but told in a parent meeting to send a message and it was done with tact. I have no idea who the hard comp parents were. There are quite a few of them.”

That’s even better, done professionally and to a group to set the tone and standard for the school.

Thanks for answering.

Also, in defense of letting men do more of the heavy labor, I have had back trouble in the past for trying to work like a man.
So I appreciate men who will help me in this sense and don’t mind baking them cookies if they do help me in this area.
I understand what you are saying Liz and I see what you mean about people getting carried away with this “men must always lead and take the initiative”. But there are physical differences to keep in mind.

Comment by Sarah

October 20, 2008 @ 10:45 am

I grew up on a small farm in northern Wisconsin and am still physically stronger than many men, particularly in our day and age. I’ve seen some pretty bizarre attitudes over the years about what is “proper” gender behavior. While there can be chauvenism anywhere, I’ve found that some of the most rude, condescending attitudes flow from Christians. Apparently the call to image the character of Jesus in the way we treat others, laid out clearly and repeatedly in the Bible, is less important than enforcing roles re: physical work that have more basis in victorian idealism than anything in the Bible. On the flip side, one of the best church kitchen managers I have ever seen was a man who was a retired military cook. He was happy to work with anyone responsible enough to handle a task, without regard to age ( with obvious safety considerations in play….small children aren’t often an asset in the kitchen) or gender. Why can’t we allow people to use the gifts God gave them without second guessing Him?

Comment by Hope

October 20, 2008 @ 1:34 pm

“As to men being made…stronger, etc. This is a generalization as I could easily beat up Barney Fife. My daughter is 2 heads taller than most of the boys in her class…she would be more likely to ’save’ them in a crisis. We are also in an intellectual economy/society where such physical strength is not as important as it was 150 years ago.”

Yes, of course there are exceptions. But on average adult males have more upper body strength than adult women. No one is denying that there are exceptions.

As to our intellectual economy/society, physical strength is indeed still important, but in recent decades we have exported the jobs that require this overseas. In other words, if our society is more egalitarian, it may be that we’ve achieved this largely on the backs of less egalitarian societies where men continue to do the heavy labor for us, and often at substandard wages.

Comment by Liz

October 20, 2008 @ 6:26 pm

I think the phrase ‘on average’ is the issue. Why even go there! Let’s deal with people and see what each individual can do. As Sarah said, some women are incredibly strong while some men are physically weak. It shouldn’t be an issue of gender. If there’s a job to be done, then the person who is more suitable should do it.

Many men who have smaller frames are intimidated by the expectation of always having to be seen as the physical protector of women. It’s not about expecting all people to do all things regardless of gender or anything else but about the individual, unique person who needs to be considered.

Comment by Mindy

October 20, 2008 @ 6:47 pm

To Sherri — I know what it’s like to try to live by your values, including the one to live peaceably with family who strongly differ on significant issues! I feel for you and trust the Lord will guide you as you navigate troubled family waters.

Lin, your description in Comment 87493 about the various ways in which you help your 7-year-old understand the issues — reading the Scriptures, teaching the historical context and how Christ’s actions were different from the status quo, charitably explaining other points of view, and actively loving and praying for family members who disagree with you — is a great encouragement. You are teaching your daughter not just with facts and arguments but by example, and I am confident she will grow up to respect those who agree with her as well as those who disagree — and she will win their respect as well.

Comment by Rachel

October 20, 2008 @ 9:33 pm

Thanks for this excellent post, Mindy. I like your encouragement to be intentional in our interactions with children and seize the teaching moments that present themselves. I will be keeping my eyes and ears open!

Comment by Watcher

October 20, 2008 @ 10:02 pm

Hope said: “In other words, if our society is more egalitarian, it may be that we’ve achieved this largely on the backs of less egalitarian societies where men continue to do the heavy labor for us, and often at substandard wages.”

Hope, I’m not trying to go against what you are saying, I’m just want to point something out that you may not know.

Not all “less egalitarian” cultures have men doing the heaviest labor.

Many places in Africa are very patriarchal. But this doesn’t mean the men do all the heavy labor. Quite the contrary. I’ve heard from more than one missionary to certain regions that the women do all the work while the men stand around and talk to each other all day about “important” things like politics.

One friend of mine has a mother who goes to Africa every year as a nurse. One year my friend’s dad went with her.
He never went back.
Why?

There were large bags to be moved, of rice or something.
My friend’s dad said something to the African man in charge who in turn called over two pregnant women with toddlers on their backs to move the heavy bags.
My friend’s dad was so angry, even though he couldn’t speak the language, he made it clear that those women were not going to move those bags and he basically ordered the African man to help him do it.
He didn’t care if he offended anyone. He was offended. He didn’t care about their culture. He was furious that the able bodied male would turn around and place the burden on pregnant women.

I’m not saying that my friend’s dad was right or wrong. I don’t know if he disrespected their culture or not. If someone here knows more about African culture than I and can point out that my attitude is wrong, please feel free. But I tell you I laughed when I heard the story. And I felt a small bit of justice had been done that day.

Any and all feel free to disagree with me.
I just know that I appreciate male consideration toward women in this manner. Pregnant women should not be carrying heavy loads, no matter how strong they are. They are at a vulnerable time.

And being patriarchal doesn’t automatically mean consideration is given to the “weaker vessel.”
I feel the end result of patriarchy is always some sort of oppression, whether it is intended or not.

And Liz, don’t worry. Your words and cautions are not lost on me. I’m hearing what you are saying about average.
It really is always better to look at each individual and give them space to be what God has called them to be rather than to stamp them down into pink and blue boxes.
I only told the above story to get to a balance. Some places are overprotective of women’s perceived weaknesses. Other places blatantly exploit women because of the perceived weaknesses.
God isn’t into either extreme.

Comment by Liz

October 21, 2008 @ 12:43 am

You are right, Watcher. In countries including Africa the women do the heavy manual labour which is appalling, particularly when they are pregnant or have just delivered a baby. Women are treated as chattels in many ways and when they are no further use for the work they are discarded for younger, stronger ones.

The ‘widows’ of bible times are alive and (not) well in approx.. two thirds of the world. Praise God for Christians and others who work to relieve this suffering.

Comment by Mary

October 21, 2008 @ 6:59 am

Hope, concerning missionaries’ children feeling abandoned by their parents’ “higher calling,” I think that’s a valid issue, for BOTH parents. The problem is when Christians blithely tell mothers that it’s THEIR highest calling, while encouraging empire building and dominion-taking on the part of fathers. One of the responsibilities of parents, both mothers and fathers, is nurturing and training up their children. Missionaries, pastors, church leaders, corporate CEOs, workoholics…nobody gets a pass on that responsibility if God has blessed them with children. And that goes for the fathers every bit as much as the mothers.

The problem is, we Western Christians have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the Industrial Revolution model that men leave home to work and women take over the majority of the child rearing. That’s neither biblical nor good for families. But the iconization of that model has been baptized as “christian” by some reactionary teachers and preachers, and remarketed as so-called “biblical manhood and womanhood.” Such teachings drive a divide between men and women and stereotypes both into a remake of Ward and June Cleaver, but with halos. They rely very heavily on biblical proof-texting, and are very brittle; any resistance in the form of solid contextual biblical refutation of this worldly-tradition-masquerading-as-biblical-truth, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

It’s not a matter of pendulum swings. The “complementarian” pendulum is on a clock that’s never going to tell true time, because it can’t. The Bible never tells women that their highest calling is motherhood. The Bible tells both men and women, with and without children, that our highest calling is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. Yes, that includes our children (if we have any), but our children are not the primary responsibility of their mothers, and are not to be used as an excuse not to follow our true highest calling beyond the four walls of our own homes.

Comment by Mary

October 21, 2008 @ 7:06 am

Bill commits the classic error of thinking that everything the Bible describes, it also prescribes.

So yes, on one level, familial hierarchy IS biblical, because the household codes of the Roman Empire are not ignored in Scripture and were definitely reality for the original recipients of the Epistles. However, Bill ought to read the re-writes of those codes a LOT more carefully (starting with Ephesians and Colossians) and in context, to see that those to whom this world extends hierarchical power, CAN and SHOULD set aside that position in order to be a servant. But no…it’s all about who’s in control, who gets to be at the top of the hierarchy. So-called “biblical manhood and womanhoold” as marketed by CBMW and the Mousers and others who make money off of making marriage and family out to be a “christian” hierarchy, is just worldly power structures, proof-texted.

Comment by Hope

October 21, 2008 @ 9:09 am

“The problem is, we Western Christians have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the Industrial Revolution model that men leave home to work and women take over the majority of the child rearing. That’s neither biblical nor good for families.”

Agreed. Father absence is especially hard on boys, but even girls need to have proper fatherhood modeled to them.

Comment by Lin

October 21, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

“You are teaching your daughter not just with facts and arguments but by example, and I am confident she will grow up to respect those who agree with her as well as those who disagree — and she will win their respect as well.”

Mindy, I really wrestled with this. I came to the conclusion that full truth is best and it is not just mommy’s opinion, so lets read the Word together and even check the Greek(CEV..no kiddie bibles that only tell stories). This got into a whole question session on translations! I had to do some homework. :o)

There is ONE thing I knew for sure…I could not ask my family to respect my interpretation because they don’t and it would only make the issue center stage each time we are around them. Besides, she is going to deal with lots of people who have different interpretations on other topics as well. Best to get her to start seeking truth as a Berean with the ONE true Teacher and not just some human’s interpretation.

Of course, it is hard to keep them from being little Pharisees at that age, too, when they discover a truth that some other kid in class is ignoring. :o)

Comment by Lin

October 21, 2008 @ 4:14 pm

“Some places are overprotective of women’s perceived weaknesses. Other places blatantly exploit women because of the perceived weaknesses.
God isn’t into either extreme.”

Amen. I agree. (and I am applauding the man who was outraged in Africa)

Comment by Mary

October 22, 2008 @ 7:31 am

Hope, I see it a little differently. It’s not about “modeling fatherhood” to sons and “even” to daughters, but about FAMILIES being together for more than an hour or two during waking hours. It’s simply not (ideally) supposed to be all about the man. Families used to contribute together to their livelihood, taking an active part in whatever it was they did to put food on the table and live actively in their local community. There was an organic sense to it all. With the industrial revolution, that mostly disappeared, and then reappeared, oddly enough, in the micro marketplaces of neighborhoods among those who set up small businesses (shops, stalls) near their homes. Think Mom & Pop groceries, delis, bakeries, etc. But we who fled the inner cities also contributed to the demise of the smallest of such businesses; we instead shop at “big box” stores to which lower wage earners flock, away from THEIR homes, because they need the income.

And though I don’t have a husband or children, I see the part I play in this every time I give in and shop at Wal-Mart, commute to work, and do not patronize the small businesses within walking distance of my home.

Children are seeing individualism modeled. Families too often consider themselves alone as important; they’re not part of a local community. “Me and mine” is a toxic attitude that powerfully affects both boys and girls.

Not that fathers who DO work near or at home are necessarily modeling good things to either their sons or their daughters. Those fathers (and compliant mothers) who model male “authority” and female “obedience” are setting their children up to perpetuate a worldly cycle of privilege vs. subservience that is antithetical to the Bible.

Comment by Mindy

October 22, 2008 @ 12:47 pm

Thanks, everyone, for the lively discussion! We have got a bit off-topic, but Mary’s comment above about kids always learning from our example (whether good lessons or bad) somewhat steers us back in the right direction. I wonder if we might return now to my original questions, which were about specifically how you model egalitarian values to the children in your life, what kind of fruit you are seeing in these children through your example, and what these interactions have taught you about the difficulty of truly valuing and respecting all people. Your personal stories may encourage or edify someone else, so please do tell.

Comment by Jon Trott

October 22, 2008 @ 5:51 pm

Hey, uh… Isn’t the term “Auntie” sexist? Hehehehehehe. I hereby insist that “Uncle” get equal opportunity in the “educating one’s children / relatives / friends” department! But seriously, thanks for a great discussion.

Comment by Brian

November 4, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

So does the “auntie model” work in reverse? What would you think of a complementarian aunt teaching her nieces and nephews the comp view when their parents are egalitarian? Would that be subverting the (egal) parents’ authority?

Comment by Hope

November 4, 2008 @ 9:43 pm

Here’s a critical comment from CBMW: Parents, Beware of the “Auntie Model”. Any responses to this and also to Brian’s comment?

Comment by Sarah

November 5, 2008 @ 2:45 am

Wow…looks like you are indeed sneaky…remind me to not turn my back ;-). I wonder how the author at cbmw figured that the children in question were “presumably unregenerate?” . I’m also somewhat amused by his apparent inability to recognize the children’s questions as really possible. Most moms and others who spend time with small children should recognize the way kids learn how to categorize their world. It seems that he has seen what he expected (wanted?) to see in the post rather than what is there. Regarding Brian’s comment: as a parent, my experience has not led me to believe that many of those complementarian Christian adults in contact with my son would think much at all about pushing their point of view as fact without the grace shown here.

Comment by Sarah

November 5, 2008 @ 3:19 am

A recent example: a few weeks ago, I had the husband of a friend show up to deliver a piece of furniture to my house. He ignored the arrangements his wife and I had made, showed up at an inconvenient time, refused to let me help carry the item and loudly started demanding that my son come and do the job-despite the fact that I told him that my son was doing another chore at my request. He barely allowed me to show him the route beforehand (didn’t need to see it) and scoffed openly when I insisted on removing two of the sofa’s feet. When it became apparent that he would not help carry the sofa without my son, I asked my son to help. The man proceeded to jam the sofa in a tight doorway, snapping at me when I asked if I might offer a suggestion (believe it or not, I was trying to honor him). Finally I just directed my son to adjust his end of the couch, which he did. And, as our hero insisted that my suggestion wouldn’t make any difference, the couch slipped free and my son (all 115# of him) guided it home.

Comment by Sarah

November 5, 2008 @ 3:30 am

The gent in my previous ramble was rude and condescending to of in front of my son because he thought I needed to be put in my place. He’s not the first complementarian Christian to do so either. They don’t even have to know I’m egalitarian; stepping out of my approved realm seems to justify it. Brian, is this o.k.?

Comment by faith

November 5, 2008 @ 8:28 am

i think complimentarians need strict roles with prescribed behaviors because they do not have good conflict and problem solving skills. They seek to define God-ordained tasks because they cannot work their issues out as a family. It’s like reaching outside the family system to settle challenges instead of doing the hard work of relationship.

Epesians 5:21 - submit to one another is really about doing that hard work of relationship. It is a shallow interpretation to make it all about authority and roles and who should be boss.

Submitting to one another is about listening to one another, hearing one another, working together for the cause of Christ within a real world. It’s about valuing personhood and giving one another the respect and love to be heard. It sounds like the moving man in the above story wasn’t willing to humbly listen and respect his customers.

Comment by LMcC

November 5, 2008 @ 12:23 pm

re post 87560:

Oh, boy, gotta love it when the CBMW crowd distorts our views. Despising authority? Subverting parental authority? Rejecting the authority of Scripture? PLEASE! Ludicrous. More like rejecting *worldly* authority, even when it’s dressed up for church, and presenting truly *Biblical* values to those children.

Now, you CBMW fans, if you think it’s so evil and terrible for us to present… what’s it called again? Oh yeah, *Biblical* equality to our own nieces and nephews, then it’s also very bad for you to push the polished and baptized version of worldly patriarchy on your own nieces and nephews.

Comment by Nik

November 5, 2008 @ 2:43 pm

It’s not only what you apparantly do, but also the purpose of doing it, that defindes what you’re doing. So yes, you are disregarding your siblings’ authority as parents.

But of course, political correctness doesn’t make sense to children, so I doubt you will succeed.

Stereotypical gender roles aren’t fought using silly political correctness…

Comment by Don

November 5, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

I am egal and my kids are adults. If they were very young, I would not want an uncle teaching them hierarchy contra my wishes. As they grew and learned to think for themselves, yes, it would be appropriate to engage with other ideas and for them to learn to make their own choices. This is an area that takes wisdom.

Comment by jlp

November 5, 2008 @ 8:40 pm

You are a good aunt, Mindy!

Comment by Hope

November 5, 2008 @ 10:03 pm

From the CMBW blog: “might it not be more loving to teach the good news of the Gospel to these, presumably unregenerate, children?” If these are covenant children being raised by their parents in the faith, why are they “unregenerate”?

The theological issue aside, would it be possible for the CBE and CBMW people to engage in dialogue without distorting each other’s positions? A place to start might be to have each side acknowledge the good in the other’s stance. Is there something in the CBMW position that perhaps we are missing? Is there something right in the CBE’s approach that CBMW has neglected?

Maybe this is too idealistic, but I thought I’d at least throw it out for discussion.

Comment by Brian

November 5, 2008 @ 10:38 pm

Re: 87563 et al.

Going only by the details you have presented, I can’t say what the man should have done, except that he should not have been rude or condescending to you.

I don’t know why he insisted you not help him. (Was he concerned for your health or physical safety for some reason?) At any rate, if you were adamant about helping him, it probably would have been better if he had honored your offer of help.

Comment by Nate

November 6, 2008 @ 4:10 pm

A modern-day Titanic is sinking. Who gets first priority for the lifeboats–women and children? Or do we need to be politically correct and have equal numbers of men and women saved? How would you expect today’s children to view such a scenario. Or maybe an equal number of men, women, and children? Consider the absurdity of pure egalitarianism.

Comment by LMcC

November 6, 2008 @ 6:56 pm

re 87567:

Political correctness? Bwah? Not here. Too pro-life, anti-porn, pro-Bible, all those things CBMW denies exist among those who believe in Biblical equality. Sorry to disappoint :D

I’m in a position to play auntie for a very different reason: someone’s parent is being spiritually abusive and cruel in an effort to make the child a good member of XYZ church, and is actually driving their child out of church entirely. I guess in that case you’d still oppose a caring auntie or uncle stepping in?

re 87574:

Terrible analogy. Terrible misrepresentation of Biblical equality. How about making sure there are enough lifeboats for everybody so nobody gets left behind? Why is that not an option in your mind?

Instead of misrepresenting egalitarianism through the lens of limited power and gifting that requires exclusion, try understanding it as having room for all to be everything that God created them to be and having the heart to accept that the ground is level at the foot of the Cross? Oh yeah, that means some people would have to give up feeling superior to others and actually having to live up to the Biblical standards of love and service. That would be too hard to do because it requires real sacrifice, so I can understand why some people resist that.

Comment by jlp

November 6, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

Mindy - You should be glad to be criticized by CBMW. Now that’s a badge to wear proudly!

Comment by Brian

November 6, 2008 @ 9:46 pm

re 87574:

Terrible analogy. Terrible misrepresentation of Biblical equality. How about making sure there are enough lifeboats for everybody so nobody gets left behind? Why is that not an option in your mind?

That wasn’t the reality on the real Titanic. Unfortunately, there were not enough lifeboats for everyone on that ship. There were men who bravely—and rightly, in my view—gave up their seats for women and children. This fits perfectly with God’s order of creation.

What would be the egalitarian view of the situation on the Titanic?

Comment by faith

November 7, 2008 @ 10:27 am

My guess is that there were poor women, who did not make it into a life boat… those who were in the lower decks.

Whether a man or a woman gives her life… it is still a Christ-like act.

I would give up my seat for families with small children. My children are grown and no longer need parenting… while some younger moms and dads are still needed by their small children.

Comment by LMcC

November 7, 2008 @ 12:15 pm

The reason there were not enough lifeboats on the Titanic was because there was too much overconfidence in the safety of the ship. Unfortunately, due to the class divisions of society of the time, it’s doubtful that there would have been the common sense to put in enough lifeboats. The lower classes were on their own, so to speak. A larger percentage of poorer women and children *did* die on the Titanic.

Your question is the wrong one. The Titanic is long gone. All we can do is learn from the mistakes made in the past, and never again repeat them. Now, ships are supposed to have lifeboats for all onboard. This is what should have been done on the Titanic, but inappropriate and even sinful decisions wound up unnecessarily costing lives.

The fact is that God and the church are *not* the Titanic. God is not limited. God can do whatever God wants. The church should not act like His blessings and gifts are only limited to the men, and the women just have to deal. The church should have room for all who believe, and be able to add new believers. This is one rescue system, the “lifeboat” if you prefer, that should have room for all who come, and should be getting out the message to all those who need it. By limiting some activities only to men and silencing women, however, the church restricts its ability to bring in the lost, and it restricts opportunities for service and discipleship.

I can no longer believe that any Christian or church that is so desirous of strict sexual hierarchy can possibly be just as serious about reaching all of the world for Christ. I see the hierarchal church like a ship without enough lifeboats, or at least a poorly managed rescue system. The best seats are for the men, and women who don’t toe the line perfectly are the first thrown off. Even if there were room for all in these lifeboats, only 40% of the occupants are allowed to do the rescuing. 60% of the church’s membership can only act in the most limited of roles, if at all. So many left adrift, either cast out or not even reached at all. Forget that.

I understand why hierarchal men cling to stubbornly to hierarchy. They get their choice spot on the lifeboats, and they determine which women stay or go. I’m sure that power feels absolutely awesome, but I’d rather listen to the true Captain instead of a fellow rescuee who cannot make room for another like himself only because the body is different.

Comment by Tee Bee

November 7, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

Thanks Don for Speaking some sense.
As a parent I review what my kids watch on TV because I don’t want them to consume so much of the world, and I would rather my sibs not subvert my parental authority. They could bring up these issues (that Mindy was dealing with) to me and I could deal with them instead, that would be support not subvert, better don’t you think??

Comment by Sue

November 7, 2008 @ 10:46 pm

I’ve seen the lifeboat analogy before. What the patriarchists are saying is:
In order for men to be chivalrous towards women, women must be willing to give men control over them in exchange. If women are not willing to give men control over them, they are not worthy of receiving chivalrous behavior.
Somehow they think this is how a Christian man should think and behave.

Comment by Liz

November 10, 2008 @ 8:24 am

I guess there is no ‘perfect’ scenario for a sinking ship! No time to work it all out and ‘nobility’ came to the fore in that era where it was considered noble for a man to sacrifice his life for women and children.

However..maybe some of those men would have been needed to survive and care for their families. Perhaps the elderly could have been the noble ones, those with no children who needed parents. Whatever the situation, it would not have been fair to all concerned.

The Christians (women and men) could have sacrificed their lives as they would have been assured of eternal life and given unbelievers longer time to turn to God. All good in theory, but I understand it all happened very quickly.

Jesus did say that ‘greater love has no person than this…to lay down his/her life for his friends’ so I guess Jesus was pleased with those who did lay down their lives even if they were all males.

Comment by Liz

November 10, 2008 @ 8:40 am

Don..I would agree with you that we don’t have the right to try and subvert the teaching of other family members to their children. But..it is a fine line we walk!
Sometimes children ask innocent questions which can be answered honestly and carefully without disrespecting their parents’ beliefs.

We have grandchildren who are raised differently in regard to Christian things and much as we want to tell them many things about God, we are careful to not over-step our role as grandparents and if our son and his wife asked us to stop talking to their kids about God we would respect that.

The same with families with hierarchical beliefs…if they were unhappy with how we answered their children’s questions, we would apologise and be more careful in the future. I would like to assume the author of this post would show such respect to her siblings if her comments became an issue.

Comment by Liz

November 10, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

Brian..in respect to your comment 87559, I personally wouldn’t consider it to be usurping parental authority as such but if the children told me about it I would use it as a teaching moment to contrast the two views.

I am sure that some comp. adults would take the opportunity to give their nieces and nephews another way of looking at these issues, particularly if they were convinced of their biblical reasons for believing a certain way.

It’s similar to sharing your/our faith with children of non-Christian parents, siblings or others. Unless the parent particularly asks you to not ‘teach’ their children, one would do it quite naturally. Hopefully, if a parent asked us to stop teaching their chidren about God, we would respect their wishes and prayerfully hope that one day the children would learn the good news through other means.

Comment by Mindy

November 10, 2008 @ 9:42 pm

First, let me say a few words re: the CBMW article that took issue with my post. I certainly expect CBMW to disagree with many things we say at the Scroll, just as we disagree with them, as we are on opposite sides of the coin, so to speak. However, this in no way requires anything other than charitable exchange. The author could have pointed out his areas of disagreement with grace and respect, or contacted me to have a genuine dialogue, rather than writing a personal attack on the character of a fellow believer. Because the CBMW site does not allow comments, but this CBE blog does, I can be held accountable by my readers for what I say, while he cannot; it also obliges me to respond here instead of directly to the charges there. So I will both be accountable and respond. For the sake of space and blood pressure, I will stick to the most erroneous and offensive charges.

1) My siblings know my egalitarian position. They know, because we have talked openly about our respective positions. They have never asked me not to speak to their children about these issues (or any other issues), nor have they asked me to refer any questions by the children back to them instead of answering them myself. IF they had done so, I most certainly would respect that request, just as I know they would respect my request if it was the other way around. Therefore, contra the CBMW article, I am not engaging in “theological kidnapping”; I am not “rejecting God’s Word on this score”; I am not contradicting Saint Paul’s “ministerial methodology”; and I am not “intentionally (and sinfully!) usurp[ing] parental authority.” A simple question from this author to me regarding the nature of my relationships with my siblings would have eliminated any perceived need for these uncharitable accusations.

2) Contra the CBMW article, I do NOT “admit to playing on the naiveté and vulnerability of the children.” I will guide, I will educate, I will set an example, I will be truthful about disagreements, and I will do so with unconditional love and respect for each individual. I will NOT abuse authority or take advantage of youthful vulnerabilities. These are PRECIOUS children and the offspring of my PRECIOUS siblings. The CBMW author has taken egregious presumptive liberty in stating otherwise.

3) Contra the CBMW article, these are not “unregenerate” or “presumably unregenerate” children, as is clear from a plain reading of the second paragraph of my post. They are all being brought up in covenant families, the older children have made professions of faith, and I, along with their parents, grandparents, and other aunts and uncles, am lovingly teaching them “the good news of the Gospel,” which this author for unknown reasons assumes they are not being taught.

4) Contra the CBMW article, the conversations I recounted in my post are neither “alleged” nor “satirical”; each of them is a genuine, spontaneous interaction which though not tape-recorded and transcribed!,I presented here in a manner faithful to the tone and content of the original. Why the CBMW author would choose to believe I made these up rather than take my testimony at face value, I don’t know; but it says more about him than it does about me.

Moving on to those of you who have responded here on this blog, I trust my comments above will clarify. To Don, comment 87568, I want to say thank you for your reasonable and gentle critique, which stands out to me particularly in contrast to that I dealt with above. I agree with you that much wisdom is needed is such situations. I agree, as I indicated in 1) above, that it would be inappropriate to teach contrary to the parents’ wishes. I also agree that the age of the child determines how much information, in what form, and from whom. In my case, I have simply responded to normal spontaneous conversations, such as the first one in my post about the niece confusing categories of personhood; I have no doubt that if my brother (her father) had heard our exchange, he would not have rebuked me and insisted that women are not persons. This is a far cry from questions on the role of women in the church, for example, which a 4-yr-old would be unlikely to ask about. But as she gets older, it is conceivable that she might ask such a question in reference to a Scripture passage, and if she does, given my open relationship with my siblings as I have described (and assuming that does not change), I would likely present to her both major interpretations — her parents’(which I once held and can articulate charitably) and mine — and suggest she talk it over with them, in the manner that Lin described in comment 87493. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that to you.

And to Liz, thanks for your last few comments here as well, especially the personal info about grandchildren being raised in ways that do not affirm your Christian beliefs. I am sure that is very painful for you, and I know that, like me, you trust God to guide these precious children to the truth of his Word.

I hope you all will take me at my word when I say this discussion has gone far beyond what I originally intended, and I’d venture to say that we have probably reached the limits of constructive engagement. Feel free to continue commenting if you like, but I suggest that for the sake of charity we move on to other topics.

Grace and peace…

Comment by Ros

November 13, 2008 @ 7:48 am

Mindy, I think you know that my own theological position is closer to that of CBMW than CBE, but I would like you to know that if I had children, I would be honoured for them to know you and spend time with you and learn from you and Brandon.

Comment by sarah

November 13, 2008 @ 6:44 pm

Mindy,

Thanks for sticking with this :-). For the record, I think that one of the points that got lost in this conversation is that very little, if any, of your actual “teaching” should be objectionable to anyone (unless they are convinced that hens are only valuable for the eggs they produce and that women aren’t persons).

Sometimes philosophical/theological positions lead to blind spots that don’t lend themselves to seeing certain known errors right away. I had this situation come up with a pastor and wife who were leading a youth group my son was attending some time ago. My son was making the difficult transition from childhood to adolescence and had become disrespectful to women. When I found out this behavior was not simply aimed at me as parent, but at me as woman and at the pastor’s wife as well, I called her to discuss it.

She told me that her husband had explained this as a boy differentiating himself as male contra female. When I pointed out that overt disrespect was not a necessary or healthy part of this process, a light bulb went on and she immediately agreed. However, prior to our conversation the true significance of his unhappy behavior (which we could now address) was masked by a bias fed, in part, by complementarian assumptions.

For the record, my son is doing much better now. While I support and honor much of what the aforementioned pastor and wife do, my son has not attended their youth group for some time.

Comment by sarah

November 13, 2008 @ 7:45 pm

I also feel that I have to clear up a couple of misconceptions re: my “moving” tale above. I apologize for the delay, but haven’t had access to the internet for some time now. Hope this adds more light than heat to a thread that has already scorched a few.

1. The man in question is not a moving man, but the husband of a friend, and I have known him for a couple years now. His wife was a fellow teacher and great source of support to me when I was teaching art at a local Christian school, and I taught both of their children. He is in a position of leadership in his church.

2. The episode began when he found out that his wife and I had made plans to coordinate delivery of the sofa from the school to my apartment. His help would have been greatly appreciated. However, the first thing he did was unilaterally change the time of delivery, despite his wife’s clear indication that I had been clear about what time would work.

3. At no time did I do anything to trigger or antagonize him, save to stand my ground (”no, we can’t carry it up right now…the stairs are wet” “I’m sorry, but he’s not available…he’s doing a chore I gave him”). I tried to couch my “suggestions” (without which we would not have been able to complete the task at all without significant damage to sofa, surroundings, and human beings) in the most diplomatic terms, until it became impossible to continue. Even then I was polite. Ironically, I was trying to avoid dishonoring him in front of his wife and children while being a positive example of grace and assertiveness myself…not endorsing bad behavior, or making it worse.

3. The issue was not one of me “insisting” on my way. The issue was accomplishing a task safely and effectively. The two most qualified persons to lift the couch were my friend’s husband and I, although my son and I could have done it. I was the most qualified person to direct the endeavor, as I live in an apartment this man had never visited before, and I had already moved (occasionally without any help at all) every piece of furniture I own up the narrow stairs and around corners into my home.

4. I appreciate when someone acts out of concern for my well-being. Even if they are misguided, I can accept their good intentions. However, these were not acts of concern…they were acts of control. From beginning to end, the gentleman in question did everything he could to assert himself and “put me in my place” in my home, with my son, and with (upon its delivery) my furniture. He did this despite the fact that it actually reduced our ability to function…not due to my uncooperative spirit, but to his disregard for the practical realities of the situation. He was somewhat chastised at the end of the episode (particularly after being presented with the plate of brownies my son had put together at my direction for his “help” - that chore I mentioned) but he has never apologized.

I put the story into this thread because it is an example, though somewhat extreme, of “christianized” bad behavior, directly attributable to ego sanctified by patriarchal teaching, that was carried out in front of my son as well as his own children. Further, he attempted to drag my son into the fray. While this is admittedly an extreme example, it is not the first time I have experienced disrespect (or the threat of disrespect) used as a tool to “put me in my place,” despite the fact that I was in no way trying to “usurp spiritual authority.” Nor is it the first time that my son has been witness. On the contrary, I think that this sort of thing is occasionally done in front of children as an object lesson or conditioning in proper role behavior.

By default, most of the Christian men I know are complementarian, and many are kind, generous, and real exemplars of the fruits of the Spirit. However, I’ve seen even some of the “good guys” pull rank when love would have dictated otherwise. Further, there seems to be real confusion, and I have seen more than one instance where violations of clear Biblical instruction (not to mention common sense) have been tolerated in an attempt to accommodate “Biblical” gender theory. It grieves me when it happens in front of my son…or any child…especially when it goes unexamined. I applaud any complementarian who stands up for true Biblical love and calls for repentance and growth when wrongs are exposed.

Comment by sarah

November 13, 2008 @ 7:55 pm

oops…looks like I slipped in an extra “3″ in my talking points….should be 1-5, not 1, 2, 3, 3, 4

Comment by joanne

November 14, 2008 @ 7:36 am

sounds like he dishonored himself in front of his family. i have learned that even if i work really hard to act in a healthy respectful manner, it can be taken as dishonor because it hits their stuff. Instead of dealing with it… it is easier to blame someone else.

for many years, the hard part for me has been not taking the blame when it is not deserved and learning to differientiate myself from what has been dumped on me.

Comment by Don

November 20, 2008 @ 6:03 pm

Mindy,

Thanks for your encouraging words.

I think if you would have stated in your article that the golden rule applied (or similar) then the dinks by CBMW would have been seen as false more easily. Thanks for clarifying in any case.

You can give CBMW feedback via email and I suggest you do this, ala Matthew 18. What they do with it is up to them. Each is responsible for their own actions, basic boundary stuff.