Recipe for Danvers Statement Stew

Oh, no! Not again.  I’m tired of Danvers Statement for supper every night.

Just the recipe, my child, just the recipe.

  1. Put  Affirmations 5 and 6 (see below*) in a stewpot
  2. Add water to the top
  3. Bring to a boil.  Turn up the heat until it boils over all over the stove.

Take out and serve.  It will stink up the place,  but some absolutely love it.

I think the man who sent me the following email last week has eaten a little too much Danvers Statement Stew.

“You mention 1 Timothy 3 but you did not include 1 Timothy 2. I believe/know your issue is rebellion against God. You are angry with God for creating you as a woman. You do not want to accept your role in the local church context. If you look at the Bible God always have roles for individuals and specific qualifications for certain task. You are not satisfied with your role because “your desire is for your husband, but he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:15ff). Your role is partly due to the sin in the Garden of Eden and partly due to the fact you are a woman. Women are created from men not vice versa. Your battle is not with Baptist but with God. I have a mother, sister, wife, and daughter. They are capable of preaching and leading, but they would violate scripture if they operate outside their roles. Why is this so hard for women? Genesis 3:15ff. You want to rule, subject, and dominate men but God will never permit this action. Again your frustration is with God. I recommend you sincerely ask God if I am correct and reveal your heart intent.


BTW, your message for the blog is flawed. (My post about Peter realizing God does not show favoritism). You are using relationships that are not appropriate for this discussion. Consider this: every Levite could not serve in temple. Every Jew could not serve as a priest. Everyone could not be the king. This is life. Read your Bible and you will see the fact. Some one has to serve (Mark 10:45).
 
One last point. I played sports and thought I was good. In high school I was the star and had a major role. In college I was the fourth option and never was the star. I had a different role. I was still a player and enjoyed it, but I had to accept my role. Roman 8-9 tells us God create us for various uses and roles. You must accept this or you will alienate so many and cause unnecessary strife in the church of Jesus Christ. This issue is not related to salvation and comes from the feminist movement. I don’t have time to address this matter in a clear and coherent manner so this will have to serve the purpose.”

I’m not seeing the love here.  Does anybody see any love for a fellow Christian in this email to a sister in Christ? That might be because the DS recipe does not have a pinch of love in it.
*The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood Affirmations 5 and 6: “The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women. Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community. Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse. In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership. In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men.”

Advertisements

About bwebaptistwomenforequality

Shirley Taylor writes with humor and common sense, challenging the church body to reclaim equality for Christian women.
This entry was posted in Equality for women in Southern Baptist churches, The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Recipe for Danvers Statement Stew

  1. Paula Fether says:

    I’ve taken a look at that recipe myself, and found it poisonous. But this guy’s rant is so full of holes it deserves the same kind of decontamination.

    1st paragraph:
    They like to play God, or at least psychic. They deny that’s what they’re doing, but telling someone what their motives are is playing God, especially when they don’t know you at all. His objection here is more Freudian than scriptural. As for God always having roles for people, what utter hogwash. “Show me the scriptures”, and then please try and define “roles” as opposed to “intrinsic qualities”. And show me what a “local church context” is. He quotes Gen. 3:15 and completely changes the meaning: “your desire will be for your husband” means exactly that: she’d want HIM, not his “rank”, because he didn’t have any. Otherwise God would not have put this rule in the future tense. And pray tell, how is it that both men and women inherit Adam’s sin, but only women inherit Eve’s sin? This recipe is laced with “special pleading”! And if your battle is with God, so is his, since he seems to want God’s job. And why is humility so hard for men? Who is it that God said would do the ruling over? And isn’t “lording over” a sin for men too? What religion is this?

    Paragraph 2: What relationships would this proud man deem appropriate? Is he saying that God DOES show favoritism between men and women? That the Christian community must be patterned after the Levitical priesthood instead of the Body of Christ? Has this guy grasped even one egalitarian argument? And if “someone has to serve”, why not men, as Jesus did? Are they better than He?

    Paragraph 3: This Body, and marriage, are not a sport, an army, a business, a machine, or any other hierarchical construct. Bad analogy! And is this man STILL, for LIFE, on the 4th string? Was it based upon his being male, or white, or speaking English as his native language– things he can never change? Stupid analogy! At least he was honest at the end: he can’t “address this matter in a clear and coherent manner”. 😉

    Like

  2. Mara says:

    Men have claimed to speak for God for thousands of years. And they have claimed to know God’s mind and heart concerning women. And women are just supposed to take the man’s word for it.

    I thank God, first of all, that not ALL men are that freaking arrogant. Thank God for the strong, humble, supportive men that don’t engage in that sin.

    I thank God, secondly, that women are rising up and not taking men’s word for it any more, but are seeking God for themselves.

    I’ve heard it said that the commandment that states, “Thou shalt not use the name of the Lord thy God in vain” that one of the meanings is, don’t claim to speak for God, when you don’t.
    Too many men are claiming to speak for God when really they are pushing their own prejudices and agendas.

    Like

  3. territippins says:

    In the first paragraph he used the word role/roles five times, and the Bible doesn’t even us it once, hmmm, go figure.

    In the second paragraph, he doesn’t know what he is saying as,every Levite could not serve in temple. Every Jew could not serve as a priest. Everyone could not be the king. This is life. Read your Bible and you will see the fact. Some one has to serve (Mark 10:45). He forcibly links priestly service and being a king together (which is only appropriate for men) and then says someone has to serve……….sister that’s you/women! Makes my head hurt.

    The third paragraph uses the word role/roles four times………this guy loves this word, to bad Jesus never used it. 🙂

    Like

    • I’ve really enjoyed all your comments! What powerful preachers you are. I hope everyone else is reading these comments. My readership has picked up, by the way, and I thank you all for the “role” you have had in that.

      Like

    • Steve J. says:

      Just because it’s not used doesn’t mean the concept isn’t there. Do you have a grandfather? Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you have an automobile? Just because the word isn’t in the Scriptures doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.:)
      Can I get a witness?

      Like

  4. Mara says:

    “Your battle is not with Baptist but with God.”

    You know, our emailer is partly right, but not nearly in the way he thinks.

    Jacob battled with God. But the Bible used the word wrestled.

    There comes a point in time when everyone has to wrestle with God.

    The time came for me when there was a disconnect between, “My yoke is easy and my burden is light,” and the heavy burden that men have placed on women in the church. One burden you have mentioned Shirley, the burden of being the standard bearers.
    The other is the burden of women having all the responsibility and none of the authority.

    When submitting to my husband was making me crazy because he had adult ADHD, I had to lay the submission doctrine, as taught by men, on the table between God and me and ask Him what He thought of it and how He expected me to obey.

    What He revealed, using scripture in the Bible, scripture the Danvers lovers ignore, has set me free to submit in a way that helps my husband and my marriage. It has helped me to be my husband’s strong help. The Danvers version of submission tied my hands and didn’t let me help him like he needed. It made me a mere shadow of a human with not voice.

    So yes, I battled with God over submission. And guess what? He brought me to a place of freedom in the Spirit and taught me what true submission was. And it looks very little like the Danvers version.
    God won. So did I. And so did my husband.

    The Danvers stew makes losers of us all.

    Like

    • Well said. After all, we are Christian women. Many, many of us have a submissive nature, just as many men do. They used to call it hen-pecked, but it was just women stepping up to get the job done when her husband couldn’t or wouldn’t.

      Like

  5. Steve J. says:

    I just wonder how many of you women are divorced and lonely because you can’t stand not wearing the pants in the family, or wondering why there shouldn’t be women pastors (always have to have the lead role). You just can’t wait for men to post on here so you can blast them and have 20 other divorced, loneley women sitting here having an all night man bashing party. And you call that loving? You’re no different from the rest of the women in the world. Women like you think your the godliest thing to grace this earth apart from Jesus, yet can’t comprehend that this is the way God made things to be. Who says we have to understand every excruciating detail?

    We (men) can’t have babies but you don’t see us going around demanding equality and that God discriminates against men because we can’t have the same role as women.
    You sit here and stereotype every male unless they are sheepish and agree with you on every point. The only thing the man stated out of place was “Someone has to serve (Mk. 10:45). That was stupid and I apologize for men on behalf of him, but by the same token, he was very much right about alot of things we have to accept. I just think you can’t stand your husbands wearing the pants in the family and it eats you up.
    That’s what God meant by the woman’s desire is for the man, but he shall rule over her. The only other place this “desire” concept is mentioned in in Gen. 4:7 where sin’s desire is to master us, but we must master it. In the same way, women (such as egalitarians) desire to master their husbands, but we are to make sure that that doesn’t happen. Do you want to see what happens to someone who gives women the rule? Take a look at 1 Kings 11 and see the end of Solomon’s life, and why he would even go to the extreme of sacrificing his offspring to Molech? Because he gave in to his wives and didn’t have a backbone to stand for the Lord.

    Like

    • Steve, you are talking to the wrong person when you talk to me like that. My husband and I have been married for almost 49 years. He is my greatest supporter in women’s equality.

      You mention love. I failed to see the love shining through in your letter.

      Like

      • Steve J. says:

        I don’t have a problem with equality, especially in the workplace. But when it comes to the biblical mandates that define our roles (I’m sure someone will say something about this)a bit more clearly, and women think they have to do the same thing a man does not to feel less important, then that is when they tread in unsafe waters. Do you teach these women that? Why on earth do women insist on doing everything a man does? I can’t stand seeing women toting block and acting like they have more testosterone than men, or women playing tackle football; how ridiculous! Whatever we do, there has to be a women’s __(fill in the blank)__. It’s gross and out of character for women. When it comes to crucial decisions that could affect the future (immediate or long range) of the family, the man should have the final say, and the responsibility falls on him to stand before God and give an account. That responsibility does NOT fall on the women but men. I only hope that in Heaven, when you see your husband give an account for why he let his wife have a website like this, and he didn’t stop you from bashing men, I hope you stand up for him and take responsibility for him then. I’m sure you’ll say yes I will, but it’s always easier to say something now without having to deal with immediate consequences.

        Like

      • Steve, let’s get something straight right here. My husband will never have to stand up for me and give account for what he has allowed me to do. That is contrary to everything the Bible says about salvation from the blood of Christ. That is contrary to what Jesus says when he gives parables about each person making a decision for himself.

        That is unbiblical and you can’t provide one scripture for it.

        You will never have to stand up and give account for what your wife does.

        And, thank God, she will not have to stand up and give account for what you do.

        Like

      • Steve J. says:

        Before I reply, do you think the pastoral epistles are for pastors only and not the rest of the congregation? Are these principles that can be applied to other places other than the pastorate or deaconate, or are these letters only limited to church leaders and no one else? When you answer this, then I will decide if I will reply or not. If it does, then the answer is found in one of the pastoral epistles.

        Like

      • Paula says:

        There are no “pastoral epistles”. Not one is written to a “pastor”. Not one is written to an “elder”, with the possible exception of 2 John, to “the chosen master” (lit. Greek). And no leader is ever called the “head” of the church. The letters are written either to whole congregations or apostles who are setting them up or setting them straight. They are not pastors.

        Like

      • Steve J. says:

        Three time in 1 Tim. 3, Paul uses the word “manage” to describe someone who wants to be a leader in the church. The word “manage” is “pro-histami” in the Greek, and it means “to guide.” ‘to so influence others as to cause them to follow a recommended
        course of action’ – `to guide, to direct, to lead.(Louw & Nida)’
        That means that this person is influential to such a degree that people gravitate toward him. That makes him leader over whoever follows him by example. In this context, the man is assumed married and has a family. The man follows Christ, and is the father of his family whom he guides under the headship of Christ. It also goes without saying that his family follows him.
        This same word is also used in Hebrews to describe the leaders whom they were called to obey. “HEB 13:17 Obey your “leaders” and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”
        The same application could be applied to fathers as well. The leaders (who are men who have a family, and lead that family), are the same ones who will give an account for their souls. Now the principle is that leadership in the church comes with accountability before God, correct. Then if the bible describes these leaders as men with families (including a wife), then those who follow their husband (who should be as a spiritual compass [not the destination]) are obeying them, and moreso, Christ because He commanded it. But that man will be responsible for the souls of his family since he is the guide, leader of the family.

        So yes Scripture does speak of men giving account for the souls of those whom he leads. He doesn’t take full responsibility b/c each one will give an account for what they do. But as leaders in the church (which our home is also the church) we, whether a pastor or father, we will be held responsible for what we teach our children in words and deeds.

        Like

      • Steve J. says:

        I apologize. At the very end, I meant to say “family.” …”But as leaders in the church (which our home is also the church) we, whether a pastor or father, we will be held responsible for what we teach our “family” in words and deeds.

        Like

  6. Paula says:

    “women (such as egalitarians) desire to master their husbands”

    What an ignorant, bald-faced lie. What part of EQUAL does this guy not comprehend?

    Methinks he protesteth too loudly!

    Like

  7. Steve J. says:

    I rest my case.

    Like

  8. Paula says:

    And I rest mine… on scripture.

    Nobody fights for the last place in line, which is where Jesus said we will find leaders in His kingdom. And nobody growls if anyone else tries to join them at the last, lowest place. So anyone who tries to keep a place from others is guarding what they believe is a HIGH place of RULE, NOT of SERVICE.

    Equality means exactly that: nobody is fighting for position.

    Insulting us with words like “get the to a nunnary” may seem cute and witty to you, but to us it’s the desperate cry of the privileged as they see that their claims to God’s favoring of their flesh are being exposed as lies.

    “Not so among you” has no fine print.

    Like

    • Steve J. says:

      Says who? There you go stereotyping again.

      No, I just didn’t want you to think that bacause I’m a man, I’m also a neanderthal. You’re not the only ones God gave brains to.
      Was it any less insulting than calling me an ignorant, bald faced liar? It’s not a one way street sister. If you’re gonna dish it out, then take the heat.

      The pastorate is a high calling, but it is limited to men as laid out in the Scriptures. It is also a position that requires more servanthood that any other ministry there is. Tell me another ministry that has to deal with this nonsense all the time? People threatening to leave the church if they don’t get their way. What a bunch of babies. Not only does the pastor take the “role” of servant, dealing with suffering people, death, difficult issues, plus preaching two to three times a week he also takes the “role” of babysitter because Christians can’t grow up, and know, accept and be who they are by the grace of God as the apostle Paul said. You don’t argue with me, you are arguing with what God says.

      As for the others on here:

      I see alot of negative about the Danver’s Statement,” so what is your statement? Please post it because I’d really like to see what you think is right, and so we can dissect you statement to the same degree you dissect the Danver’s Statement.” If necessary, please post a link to the website you get your statement from. Thank you.

      Like

      • Paula says:

        What stereotype?

        Who called you a Neanderthal (which, according to the latest findings, was fully human)?

        Why are you so defensive? Are you afraid you’ll lose male privilege if the truth of scripture gets out?

        Show me anything called “The Pastorate” in scripture.

        Assertions are not proofs. We have many articles and books disproving your assertions. Familiarize yourself with them before thinking you can just waltz in here and lay down the law, simply because you are male. We’re not buying that bullying anymore.

        And you still don’t get it: a SERVANT is NOT a BOSS. “Ministry” is service, and ALL believers are to serve. We are ALL priests, all parts of one Body, and no part is superior to another. This is Christianity 101, Steve. Where have you been?

        And who is more of a baby than the male who cries “Me first! Me first!” Boys only! God made me the boss of you!”???

        And I’ve ALREADY posted my own critique of the Danvers’ Statement. Sheesh Steve, read first and then try and interact.

        Like

  9. Steve J. says:

    First of all, I was looking on google for biblical equality and stumbled onto this page. I’ve glanced at some stuff here like the headcoverings and idolatry of men that’s ludicrous, but I haven’t had the time to see every single page; I just came on here yesterday.
    The stereotype is that “nobody fights for last place.”
    And where do you get the idea that “anyone who tries to keep a place from others is guarding what they believe is a HIGH place of RULE, NOT of SERVICE?”
    I’m not a pastor, and neither am I trying to keep it from others.
    I do believe women can be deaconesses, but they are not elders. Please show me how we are “guarding” anything other that what God says about this?

    I am not defensive, I am however an apologist.
    The name “pastorate” is not there, but Ephesians says “EPH 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
    EPH 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;.”
    I am not laying down any law, it seems that this website does just that. I am also not bullying anyone, but I will take issue because you are severely wrong. As a matter of fact, I’m not the one whose life is consumed with this stuff. A couple of days, and I’ll move on to something else. Just like taking issue with pre or post millenialism isn’t a subject I’m going to camp on all of my life because life will pass me by, I will not camp on this issue forever neither. I won’t ever have a 20+ page website divulging all my time into one issue. There is so much more to know in Scripture, and it seems that egalitarian women can’t get over this issue. That’s why I say what I say on here. Men definitely are not your idols as some of you suggest, egalitarianism is.

    Like

    • Paula says:

      I just came on here yesterday.

      So you expect us to repeat the whole history of comp. vs. egal. for you? Please research what’s already been said so we don’t have to keep repeating ourselves. You must know that this is an ongoing debate, not something that just started.

      The stereotype is that “nobody fights for last place.”

      That is no stereotype; look up the definition. Do you know of any situation where people would fight to keep the lowest position of servitude? I’m not singling out men or Chinese or chambermaids here, but the whole human race.

      And where do you get the idea that “anyone who tries to keep a place from others is guarding what they believe is a HIGH place of RULE, NOT of SERVICE?”

      It’s common sense, Steve. Do you defend male privilege because it has no authority? Of course not; you defend a position of rule. That is, if you defend a position, it must be a high one, because no human being defends the last place in line.

      Seriously, if you struggle with such simple things, how can you debate more complex things?

      I’m not a pastor, and neither am I trying to keep it from others.

      Yes you certainly are trying to keep others (women) from being pastors, whether you are one or not. And you defend male privilege and rule over women in general. You say it’s what the Bible teaches. We say it does not teach this.

      I am not defensive, I am however an apologist.

      I too am an apologist. But I have no position of rule to defend, ergo I am not defensive. You, however, are defending male preeminence. With emotion.

      The name “pastorate” is not there, but Ephesians says “EPH 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, EPH 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;.”

      I don’t see authority or rule in there, nor a division between “blue” and “pink” gifts. So women can have the “pastor” gift, which is not an office regardless of what you may call it. But when you say “the pastorate” you are inventing an un-Biblical office of authority.

      As that passages says, all gifts are for the building up of the Body. Not the ruling over of it. There are no offices in the Body.

      I am not laying down any law, it seems that this website does just that.

      Then you didn’t mean it when you pronounced that God says men have privileges women don’t have? That’s good to know, and nice for you to admit. All this website does is expose the false teachings of male supremacism.

      I am also not bullying anyone, but I will take issue because you are severely wrong.

      That’s called bullying. You think that by virtue of the flesh you can declare us wrong without debating actual scripture and our actual arguments, which you admit you are not well familiar with, having just arrived yesterday.

      I’m not the one whose life is consumed with this stuff.

      Oh, but you are, or you wouldn’t have been upset enough about it to try and tell us how “severely wrong” we are. If you are not consumed with male privilege, then you won’t object if you see a woman pastor. Right, Steve?

      There is so much more to know in Scripture, and it seems that egalitarian women can’t get over this issue. That’s why I say what I say on here. Men definitely are not your idols as some of you suggest, egalitarianism is.

      We are not one-dimensional either. But when men tell you you can’t exercise your God-given gifts in their presence, and that they have privileges based on the flesh, and they call any woman who disagrees “Jezebel”, you have to put some effort into combating the false teachings that are tearing the Body of Christ in half. I think that’s a worthy thing to pay attention to. Of course it doesn’t bother you; you are among the privileged.

      Do you think counter-cult ministries only ever think about cults, and that they never discuss other topics? Do you think they are wrong to combat the constant onslaughts of Satan on the church? Then maybe you’ll come to understand that speaking out against the continual onslaught of Satan to paralyze half the Body of Christ is a worthy use of our time and attention.

      There is no “getting over” an issue that tells you God prefers people on the basis of the flesh. It won’t just go away for you, Steve. You will have to face it and justify hobbling the Body for the sake of male preeminence. To not care that this is going on is to be a part of the problem. Ignore it at your own spiritual peril.

      And if it is not idolatry to say a woman must go through a man to hear from God (standard teachings of CBMW and all the big-name “Christian leaders”), then I guess you don’t have a problem with idolatry.

      Steve, we are adult human beings who hear directly from the Spirit as any man, and are given gifts by that same Spirit as any man. If all Christian men would admit that this is what the Bible says, we egals wouldn’t have to keep opposing it and writing about it. We’d much prefer as Jude said:

      “although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints”

      and as John said:

      “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.”

      Women are being “put out of the church” by men who claim privilege. We have to keep speaking out against this evil, just as the saints of old spoke out against evil.

      Like

      • Steve J. says:

        I am not consumed with this issue, except to reply to you. I won’t be on here daily or even weekly to see what the new juice for the day is. Maybe CBMW thinks that you have to go through a man to get to God, but that’s not what John Piper says. He says that men like that are “sick,” and I agree. So wherever you heard that junk lie, they need to get their facts straight before quoting someone.
        Women aren’t being put out of the church. The only positions you struggle for is elder and pastor. What is wrong with teaching young men and women? Why do you insist on teaching married men. This is what this is really about isn’t it? Who are the only ones people like Piper and MacArthur say women can’t teach? Married men. Why the obsession with teaching married men when you have the ability to teach everyone else? Talk about fighting for rule. Why are you so bent on women being pastors when married men are the only group of people you aren’t supposed to teach? Why do you accuse me of defending male preemminence? I defend biblical teachings, and that I do with passion, yes I do. And I do it without reservation. And I know many men who do their best work in the background where no one sees. I know men in my church who joyfully serve the Lord cleaning the bathroom, setting up chairs, sweeping the floors. They don’t want to be recognized, they just want to serve God faithfully. So where you get the idea that people don’t fight for the lowest position is beyond me because it’s unorthodox at best. The “ministry of the pastor” if that name pleases you, is a perfect example of fighting for servanthood. I would fight for that position because you get to witness Christ, minister to people in the hospital, jail, financial crisis, etc., and doing it without everyone knowing or exalting you for it. If you look to be glorified for visiting someone in the hospital, you don’t need to be a pastor. And to say that ruling is what male pastors do IS stereotyping them. Just because some do, it does not mean that all of them do that. Paul even said that some preach out of pretense, and some preach for the truth. But he don’t care because either way Christ is preached.

        You label any pastor that is complementarian as a false teacher. That’s a nasty accusation because false teachers, according to the bible ( and in particular, Jude & 2 Peter), these people are bound for hell. That means that according to you, anyone who is complementarian is not saved and is going to wake up in Hell.
        You’d better make you you know what you’re saying before you make the accusation that complementarians are false teachers.
        None of the men mentioned about the Trinity (men thinking they should be idolized) such as Piper and MacArthur, doesn’t square with one of them as far as I know. I’ve never heard that kind of garbage, so who’s doing the fibbing?
        It’s these kinds of statements that show me just how consumed you are the power of the pulpit and the ruling of the man. I disagree with you, and you, nor other women on this website who subscribe to this will agree with me.
        This is not an issue worth spending all this time on. I mean, conferences in Orlando to promote this so-called biblical teaching?
        This is an important issue, but not as important as abortion. And to even equate this with something of that magnitude (where life and death are involved) is ungodly to speak of.
        This is not an issue worth spending millions of dollars to promote. Egalitarianism (whether you believe it or not) is on the same level as speaking in tongues and prophesying. No one’s salvation is based on this belief. So to spend so much time and money on this is ridiculous.
        Really, all of the issues have been discussed at length by both sides. What more is there to say than what’s already been said? All that’s new is the new juicy gossip that comes from someone making a comment about subscribing to one side or the other.

        Tell me,the topic on this page “Recipe for Danver’s Statement Stew,” was it really necessary to re-hash this all over again, or does it give someone a platform to stand on and “preach” from, if you call this preaching like someone did above.
        You already know that you don’t agree with it; all of you, yet you continue to re-hash it over and over again. How many times can you bash complementarians on one website?
        Y’all are so angered and outraged that you keep throwing gas on a fire that needs to be quenched, and ignite the fire that’s been quenched by this one issue that will divide the church until Jesus comes.
        And by the way, just because I won’t spend countless hours a day learning every single nook and cranny about either camp, that doesn’t mean I’m not getting educated about it. And when I am educated, I don’t have to have a PhD in Egalitarianism and Complementarianism in order to debate the issue. As I said before. I will not let this, tongues or premillenialism consume my life.

        And if “that’s just common sense” is your best argument, then you need to find a better one because that don’t fly.

        And if it does, then you’d have to agree that when the bible says women are to remain silent in the church, and I told you that it’s just common sense that women are to be seen and not heard because the Scripture says so, you’d have to agree because that’s the same answer you gave me. “That’s just common sense” doesn’t work now does it?

        Like

      • Paula says:

        Maybe CBMW thinks that you have to go through a man to get to God, but that’s not what John Piper says. He says that men like that are “sick,” and I agree. So wherever you heard that junk lie, they need to get their facts straight before quoting someone.

        Piper is in thick with Grudem and the rest at CBMW. You can read one of his CBMW articles at http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Sermons/Husbands-Who-Love-Like-Christ-and-the-Wives-Who-Submit-to-Them . The fact that you are not aware of Piper’s connection to CBMW indicates that you yourself need to get your facts straight.

        Women aren’t being put out of the church.

        They are if they keep speaking up about the evils of male supremacism. Many can testify to being shunned, shamed, and shoved out for their views. And any who feel called to ministry can testify to the “stained-glass ceiling” above their heads. These women are shut out, figuratively if not literally.

        My point in quoting what I did, which you completely missed, was to show that we do need to spend time and effort on issues that you may not think are important. You went on and on about how we shouldn’t be so focused on one topic, and that was my answer, from scripture.

        The only positions you struggle for is elder and pastor.

        Struggle? Position? You haven’t been reading carefully. Egal is all about the LACK of position, about people being all on the same level. All we want is to exercise our spiritual gifts without the interferance of men.

        What is wrong with teaching young men and women? Why do you insist on teaching married men. This is what this is really about isn’t it?

        What are you going on about? This is concerning using one’s spiritual gifts, not POSITIONS. And don’t married men need teaching too? By what right, then, do married men presume to teach other men’s wives?

        Who are the only ones people like Piper and MacArthur say women can’t teach? Married men. Why the obsession with teaching married men when you have the ability to teach everyone else? Talk about fighting for rule. Why are you so bent on women being pastors when married men are the only group of people you aren’t supposed to teach? Why do you accuse me of defending male preemminence?

        Your last question there is answered by all your “who” and “why” questions.

        I defend biblical teachings, and that I do with passion, yes I do.

        Everybody says this. But I have argued from scripture, as have many other egals, that your INTERPRETATION is flawed and it DIVIDES the Body of Christ right down the middle.

        So where you get the idea that people don’t fight for the lowest position is beyond me because it’s unorthodox at best.

        Which of those men is FIGHTING to keep those lowly servies from women? Did you even read my eariler statement at all? I said that the evidence for someone thinking they hold a position of rule instead of humble service is that they FIGHT to keep it and forbid others to have it. Whatever is fought for is a position of rule. So those who fight for men-only positions believe those positions are of rule, not service. And what on earth are you claiming is “unorthodox”? That made no sense at all. I don’t know how to say this any more clearly, and with this comment I will give up trying to reason with you.

        The “ministry of the pastor” if that name pleases you, is a perfect example of fighting for servanthood. I would fight for that position because you get to witness Christ, minister to people in the hospital, jail, financial crisis, etc., and doing it without everyone knowing or exalting you for it.

        Thank you for proving my point. So you obviously think women are not allowed to “get to witness Christ” etc. Wow. And I can’t waste any more time on your inability to follow a single point or simple argument.

        Like

    • Steve J. says:

      I am not a bully. Since when is disagreeing with someone the same thing as bullying. You can come on here and push your agenda, but when I disagree, I’m the bully?

      Like

  10. Steve J. says:

    Just go to YouTube and type in “Complementarianism.” you’ll see a question, answer video for John Piper called, “Can Complementarianism be Twisted into Something it’s Not?” Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp4WOttWs_I. It’s only 3 minutes long. I’m sure you can endure that. Then you can come back and apologize for having my facts straight from the horse’s mouth.

    Like

  11. Steve J. says:

    I also never said it’s an issue not worth learning, but not to make a career out of it.

    Like

  12. Steve J. says:

    This is what you origionally said:

    “And I rest mine… on scripture.

    “Nobody fights for the last place in line”, which is where Jesus said we will find leaders in His kingdom. And nobody growls if anyone else tries to join them at the last, lowest place. So anyone who tries to keep a place from others is guarding what they believe is a HIGH place of RULE, NOT of SERVICE.”

    My argument was that they do fight for last place.

    Then you have the audacity to say: “Did you even read my eariler statement at all? I said that the evidence for someone thinking they hold a position of rule instead of humble service is that they FIGHT to keep it and forbid others to have it. Whatever is fought for is a position of rule. So those who fight for men-only positions believe those positions are of rule, not service.”

    This is a direct contradiction to what you just stated. How do you defend this?

    Like

    • Paula says:

      Steve, anyone who can sincerely believe that people fight for the lowest position and will fight to keep certain other people from serving there as well, is a person I can’t communicate with. You have contradicted yourself by saying this and also saying that the men who serve in lowly places do so without recognition. Both can’t be true at the same time.

      So hold your charges of audacity and please take your irrational rants to somebody who doesn’t mind talking nonsense. I honestly cannot communicate with you.

      Like

    • Paula says:

      Glad to be of service. 😉 Never seems to make much difference, but I do try.

      Like

  13. Steve J. says:

    Just for curiosity, did you ever see the video?
    You talk equality, but all that’s on this site is woman domination. You are equal we got it. Now let it go and move on!

    Like

    • I tried to watch the video, but it was so jerky and what he said didn’t make a bit of sense, and he was laughing all the time. What kind of kicks do men get out of wives submitting. They ought to be ashamed!

      Like

      • Steve J. says:

        That we can agree on! It’s pathetic men do that, and they need not be married. I heard enough of that type of talk on the job site all the time(I used to be a block mason by trade), and it makes me sick. Men belittling women, hooting and hollering at every woman that walked by (but some women did walk by on purpose so the men aren’t totally to blame:)). Men should treat women with dignity and honor, not just a slab of meat or some other metaphor.
        I asked my wife to be perfectly honest with me, and she told me that the only thing I push is that “she doesn’t dress like a slut.” And she agrees with me; especially because we have two teenage daughters(and no my daughters don’t look like they just came from Little House on the Prarie, but they do dress modestly:)). I think it’s tactless (but that’s my opinion) when a woman has to come into church and constantly pull down her skirt b/c if she didn’t, something would be revealed in church that men don’t need to see. My wife makes alot of decisions, she’s the bread winner, she and I share our bank account and our bills and our debts, as well as our meager savings. We also share responsibility with the raising of our children. I’m not a “thumb over the woman” type of guy. But I think God mandated certain things, and whatever they are, we have to accept.

        My wife is equal with me, but when it comes to big decisions, she really doesn’t mind dumping it on me. As a matter of fact, she doesn’t want the consequences that go with those decisions. I can’t be nor do certain things, and I have to accept it and move on with life. It’s just part of life. It doesn’t make me less of a man though, as not being pastorette? or the man of the family makes you any less of a woman.

        This isn’t a total black and white issue neither. There are some grey areas we are not sure about. So I don’t want to squabble over unclear stuff.
        All I’m saying is that I believe it’s unorthodox for women to be pastors (no Scriptural support), or to be the leader of the home unless the man just simply isn’t doing his job as a man. I know that don’t gel with you, nor your followers, but I need some hard core evidence to see something different. I am however open to believe you if you can prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that women should be leading the home and the congregation.

        As far as the link goes, it works fine for me when I click the link. I don’t understand what the problem is. But the reason I gave the link was because what I said he said, he said. I had to validate what I said and if you got that (between 1:00 and 1:20 min.)then that’s all you really needed to hear.

        I must apologize for the snide comments I made though. Some things I said were unnecessary, and I could have made my point without being facetious about it.

        Please understand that every Women’s Equality website I’ve visited in the last 24 hours does nothing but bash men and label us as if we are not individuals. Not one says anything positive about men. Not one.
        And I bought “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” and nowhere in that book nor on the CBMW website do they demean women the way Women’s Equality bashes men. In fact, if you read the book, and listen to Piper’s sermons on this subject, he highly exalts women. I have yet to see women belittled except in little 50 member legalistic churches that demand dresses and no drums, and are going to be snuffed out with the congregation. But you have to be open and give them a chance too.

        In Christ,
        Steve Jones

        Like

      • Come on, Steve. You are surely smarter than that. Women who want equality don’t bash men. We bash the system. I read your words and you were full of derogatory remarks about women. You don’t find that anywhere from women who are seeking equality.

        The whole BMBW bashes women, so there is no need to say anything else.

        Like

  14. Steve J. says:

    So are the other women (deragatory remarks about men) but I don’t see you correcting them.

    Like

  15. Steve J. says:

    Deragatory? Have you seen your ladie’s remarks? I don’t see you correcting them.

    Like

  16. Steve J. says:

    Sorry for the double-up.

    Like

  17. Paula says:

    Passive-aggressive.

    😉

    Like

    • Steve J. says:

      Call it what you will but I’m just making a point that you are playing favorites here. Tell me you don’t see the concept of roles in the bible. Did I get a witness? No.
      I also gave three biblical reference points. Did anyone challenge what they “claim” to believe? You tell these women “What powerful preachers you are.” and don’t even know what you are talking about. What are they preaching from? You told me there was no biblical support for my position and I gave it to you. No one has refuted that, nor the Genesis 4 or 1 Kings 11 account. Yet you call yourslves powerful preachers? Where is your biblical support? Or does your feelings trump the bible?

      Passive-agressive, no…active, yes. Now that wasn’t very nice pastor Paula, was it Mrs. Taylor? Can I get a witness???

      Like

      • For Pete’s sake, Steve. You are a broken record.

        You have corrupted the scriptures to mean what you want them to mean. You have given meaning where Paul did not give meaning. It is really simpler than you are making it to be. The whole New Testament is not about mankind having authority over anybody. In the example you give, Paul is actually saying something new and something that gave a woman hope in this new Christian faith. He told her husband to love her, to treat her as he would treat his own body, and to a woman that meant only one thing – for her husband not to beat her.

        Paul goes on to say that he would liken a marriage of a man and woman to that of how Christ feels about the church. He loves the church body and will take good care of it. He can be trusted to act in the best interests of the church, just as a husband would act in the best interest of his family.

        It is that simple. He is talking to simple people who have not had the years of Bible study some have had. He is trying to find something they can relate to, and he relates it to something they know – their marriage.

        Like

  18. Steve J. says:

    Please I pray, SHOW me where I corrupted the Scriptures? I searched for myself, without having someone whisper in my ear what to say. Exegete the passage and show me where I am flawed, and I will repent. I don’t think you can. And saying “I won’t gratify that with a response” doesn’t work. If you make that bold of an accusation, then be prepared to defend your position…biblically.

    This is just another pathetic example of you riding this Women’s lib horse which is only based off your emotions, not Scripture. How long will you ride that horse?
    The world is going to hell in a handbasket and you’re worried about your “rights”? America is falling apart and all you worry about is if you are equal with your husband? Get a life!

    Like

  19. Paula says:

    Steve,

    Throwing words like “women’s lib” and “pathetic” around, claiming we only run on emotion (when you already admitted you do too), and announcing “I don’t think you can” isn’t motivating us to sit down and talk with you as a rational, open-minded man. We can and have exposed ALL the male supremacists proof-texts and have already asked you to read some of our arguments before spouting off about what you think you’ve proved, but all you do is whine and burn straw men. When we push back just a little you get defensive and play the victim– the passive-aggressive thing.

    If you seriously want to talk, you have some major changes to exhibit in your lousy attitude. The fact that you’re still here proves your own obsession with the issue, and your unwillingness to walk away from something you have said you don’t even think is all that important. Actions are speaking louder than words.

    We knew your proof-texts before you showed up, Steve. We’ve been all over them. We’ve written about them. We’ve read all the standard male supremacist, “God judges on the flesh first” articles and books. And we’ve already refuted them. If you have something NEW to bring to the table, then we can talk. But you don’t even know whether you do, because you haven’t read existing writings.

    Yes, I’m saying you’ve got some books to read before presuming to debate this issue. We did our homework and now it’s your turn.

    There’s material in this site and in mine. My most concise document is a book you can read for free online at this link, and it covers the equality issue from Genesis to Jude, including the issue of the un-Biblical clergy/laity divide. Go read and then come back and demonstrate some familiarity with the issues.

    Please.

    Like

  20. Steve J. says:

    Do you think you’ve been rational yet? Saying “I just sat back and enjoyed the show” seems pretty demeaning to me.
    Just because I said I was looking recently about the gender equality issue recently, doesn’t mean I’m not familiar with it. I know the arguments you make just like you know the arguments I’ll make. Just because I recently purchased a book I got tired of reading online, doesn’t mean I don’t know what the issues are.
    Just because you’ve written on other pages doesn’t meant that I have to hunt everything you say down. And it doesn’t make me uneducated about this issue. I know it’s about equality, but it’s really about your lust for power.

    For the record, I’ve read quite a bit of RBMW, Biblical Womanhood, Evangelical Feminism, The Feminist Gospel, and Women, Creation and the Fall.
    I’ve also listened to lectures from men you avisly disagree with but are very straight forward and biblical. I’ve also dabbled on your site and already seen flaws in what you write which is why I know this is notheing more than a power struggle for you, and those who drink your tainted kool-aid.

    You’ve done nothing but slam anyone who disagrees with you whether its a well known leader or lay people. This isn’t about male supremacy either, it’s about empowering women to do “anything a man does, and better.” What a bunch of crap you claim to preach.

    We are all equal in Christ, but we have different callings, different roles. You’ll never agree with me nor I with you, except where noted on this blog.

    And if anyone is angry it’s you. I can be a pastor. I can have the final say and my wife go along with it with no disputes, because we both understand the Scriptures and desire to submit to Christ who is our Head, thank God. I thank God that every decision I make doesn’t have to go through her, and every decision she makes doesn’t have to go through me. What a miserable life to always be equal without ever being individual.

    And I don’t have any resentment. What would be the basis for it? I may be a bit frustrated that all I see on these equality sites as I’ve already said is men bashing parties for those who don’t want you to be their pastor (the pastorate being a valid role in the body of Christ that you again never corrected [you must be reading the JW’s bible or something], but she had a great argument when she said I made it up, didn’t she?).

    And as you can see, a bit sarcastic, but so was Elijah when he went against the prophets of Baal. And Just like Elijah, darn if Jezebel isn’t right around the corner waiting to butcher him the first chance she had. Sound resoundingly familiar?

    If anyone has any resentment, it’s you. I don’t have a Woman bashing site. I don’t have a blog that keeps rehashing old things like the Danver’s Statement. I won’t spend the rest of my life arguing this point, unlike some people, hint, hint.

    I’m actually about to go through Revelation with my kids, and read it twice since I’ve been on here. And I will be going back to Mark after Revelation. then on to Habakkuk. Why, because this won’t consume my life like you think. I’ve been on for 1 1/2 days. You are here every day, waiting for some man to come by and slay him.

    It’s been a couple of days now, so I am moving on. This isn’t ministry, it’s a rotary club.
    No need to for any of you to reply…unless you have to have the last word:)We’ll see!
    Ahh, temptation! Can you feel it?

    Like

    • I am not looking for the last word, Steve, but I do want to correct you. The Danvers Statement is not an old document. It was officially adopted in October 2009 by the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, as one of their statements of beliefs. So they didn’t think it was old and out of date. – Shirley

      Like

      • Steve J. says:

        With all due respect, I don’t care if it was drafted by the SBTS or not, they don’t determine when something becomes official/valid or not. It was drafted and published some 25 years ago in the mid 80’s, regardless of if the SBTS accepted it or not.

        According to CBMW, and I quote:

        The “Danvers Statement” summarizes the need for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and serves as an overview of our core beliefs. This statement was prepared by several evangelical leaders at a CBMW meeting in Danvers, Massachusetts, in December of 1987. It was first published in final form by the CBMW in Wheaton, Illinois in November of 1988. https://www.cbmw.org/danvers

        Steve J.

        Like

      • Steve J. says:

        Correction:
        With all due respect, I don’t care if it was “adopted” by the SBTS or not,

        …not “drafted”

        My apologies.

        Steve

        Like

  21. Paula says:

    Steve, you have not read any EGAL literature. You only know the characature of it painted by the male supremacist authors.

    But thank you for removing all doubt as to the futility of attempting to reason with you, and for finally promising to move on.

    God will judge between us.

    Like

    • Steve J. says:

      HA! I knew you couldn’t resist! Just had to have the last word didn’t you? What was that about a lust for power??? HA! I love it!

      I rest my case:)

      Like

  22. Paula says:

    A general note to everyone but Steve:

    I will never fathom how “equality” becomes “a lust for power”. Or how those who have a death grip on power can say they don’t lust for it. What a crazy, mixed-up world.

    Like

  23. Paula says:

    Never throw pearls to swine. Or waste pixels on mockers.

    Like

    • Steve J. says:

      Unfotunately, you are not throwing pearls nor pixels. Maybe pee and poop, but not pearls or pixels:)

      Again, got to have the last word? It just eats you up don’t it? Power struggle?

      *Steve, what a wild ride you took us on today! Thank you for your comments. I just sat back and read. You did great.

      **Glad to be of service. Never seems to make much difference, but I do try. I’m so humble and submissive. Can’t you see it radiating off of me?

      **Thank you for stroking my ego though!

      *No problem. We women have to stick together, whether we lie or not. We can’t let a man win a battle.

      **I know, right;) Amen to that!

      Like

  24. Steve J. says:

    Yes I do!:D

    Like

  25. Kristen says:

    Steve said,

    “For the record, I’ve read quite a bit of RBMW, Biblical Womanhood, Evangelical Feminism, The Feminist Gospel, and Women, Creation and the Fall.”

    To the best of my knowledge, these are in the liberal strain of Christianity. Why don’t you read some works by evangelical egals? Start with The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight. It’s a fast read. Then there’s What’s Up with Paul and Women? Or Man and Woman, One in Christ, or When Dogmas Die. Or go visit the Christians for Biblical Equality website, or the Women in Ministry website– and of course there’s Paula’s own website. Steve, you aren’t even aware of where evangelical egals are coming from.

    Like

  26. Kristen says:

    What I meant to say was, some of the works Scott cites are in the liberal strain of Christianity. Others are, as has been said, simply what non-egalitarians are saying egals believe, and not what egals themselves would say they believe.

    Scott, please think about the fact that you’re coming onto a website that by its own name is for women, and then throwing your weight around as a man, telling us where to get off. Try to lay down your privilege for a while and actually listen to us.

    Like

  27. territippins says:

    It seems that Scott likes to fancy himself an apologist. Out of all his replies to Paula he never approached any of her comments with respect nor did he sufficiently answer anything. Scott did not enter this website for a deep discussion on egalitarianism but has tried instead to convert us back into compism (been there done that, glad I escaped). This battle with hierarchy in the church seems to amuse Scott and because it does not affect him personally (he is the favored gender) he therefore, can make light of our struggle. Scott links egalitarianism with liberalism. Thats why you hear the great things like, Yeah, she wants to wear the pants in the family,’ or ‘You women just hate men’, when you try to approach the issue of inequality between the genders. It gets the focus off the mens sinful desire for ‘power over’ women and puts it on the women instead. It is typical “Adam”, Excuse me God, but the women you gave to be with me she……..it wasn’t me it was her! They set up Gen. 3:16 as the prototype for a sucessful marriage (which is a consequence of the fall) and 1Tim 2:12 as a foundational law in which to have a successful church. If the husband does not ‘rule over’ his wife he feels like he isn’t being a Godly husband (as this is the indoctrination.) If a woman tries to teach men in a church setting then she has committed the most grave sin and the church is in line for a ‘Jezebel spirit’ takeover. It must wonderful to look down from a higher rung on the ladder (as a man) and tell women that equality is not something to be sought after or even hoped or dreamed about. Thats mighty big of men to set themselves above women and then try to give it a pretty title like ‘servant-leadership.’ In reality it is all about who’s the boss not who serves. Paula, has made that point and is spot on.

    Like

    • postghost says:

      Thanks Terri. 🙂 I just wish someday all this work would actually get through and produce changes of heart.

      Like

      • A group of us is trying. You know we are meeting in Orlando, Florida, Saturday to work on this. Wish you could be there. Time to get something done!

        Like

      • Paula says:

        Me again. Gotta see what’s up with my WordPress account.

        Like

      • territippins says:

        Paula, there is so much dogmatism when it comes to this issue, that you can’t even get a die hard comp to respond to any question or comment you make (except with sarcasm or condescention). We have valid concerns about the wave of MS in the Church but are met with disdain from those that call themselves brothers and sisters. We are routinely called names, ignored or dismissed. Even with all the insults and lies we have to keep spreading the word about gender equality! Keep up the excellent work Paula!

        Like

      • Paula says:

        Thanks Terri! 😀

        And affirming each other is a great way to keep up the momentum. We can easily get isolated and think we’re making no difference, but then someone comes along to say something positive, and it keeps us going.

        Like

  28. Kristen says:

    Territippins said:

    “It must wonderful to look down from a higher rung on the ladder (as a man) and tell women that equality is not something to be sought after or even hoped or dreamed about. Thats mighty big of men to set themselves above women and then try to give it a pretty title like ‘servant-leadership.’”

    Steve not only tells us not to dream of equality, but that we are prideful and sinful to think we could be equal. From his high status as the favored male, he seeks to show us how wrong we are to not embrace the restrictions and subordination that he himself has never had to face. It all sound very much like the things whites used to tell African-Americans, about being good n–s and not getting uppity.

    But those who bind heavy burdens and place them on other’s backs, without lifting a finger to lift them themselves, got the highest censure from Jesus. Those in the higher place were not to exalt themselves and tell the lower ones to just be content– NO. They were to go down lower themselves.

    Do these kinds of men really think Christ, who said “the last shall be first, and the first last” doesn’t SEE?

    Like

    • territippins says:

      Kristen,

      We both know that power over women is the last thread and only remaining vestige left to the die hard comp/patriarchalist. They won’t sell thier homes and become wandering tent dwellers. They won’t take a second wife, nor will they aquire a few slaves, as these ideals of patriarchal life are repugnant, immoral and anti-christian. What do they really have left except power over women.

      And you are exactly right when you say it is much like what the whites used to tell African Americans. Here is a short catechism, which was taught to slaves:

      Q. Who made you:
      A. God made me
      Q. Why did God make you?
      A. To serve my earthly master.

      Following Jesus for African Americans meant accepting one’s servitude to a white earthly master. Women are told that to properly serve Jesus that they must be totally submissive (or in mens minds) obedient to men. Serving, which is a positive symbol in the Bible has been used to exploit African Americans and Women. The symbol of servanthood is precious for many christians but through the leadership of white men it has been used to oppress. Servanthood for men reminds them to excercise thier leadership in a ‘spirit’ of service and love rather than as tyrants, hence, the term ‘servant-leader’. Servanthood does not mean for them (esp. white men) what it means for everbody else. To a comp husband love=leadership. But the Bible does not describe love in that way………I think they need to go to 1 Corithians 13 and read what love is really all about.

      Like

      • Paula says:

        This is exactly the problem, a double standard. They howl when we point out that the same rationale for subservient women was used for subservient blacks, as I wrote Here. Then they try to claim that we do the same thing when we connect male supremacist teachings to abuse, but of course that’s ridiculous. MS teachings enable abuse by giving it divine sanction, while the arguments for slavery are shown to be identical to the arguments for MS.

        Like

  29. Lydia says:

    RK McGregor Wright has an excellent response to the Daners Statement. I do not have a link but will try to find one.

    Steve wrote:

    “My wife is equal with me, but when it comes to big decisions, she really doesn’t mind dumping it on me. As a matter of fact, she doesn’t want the consequences that go with those decisions.”

    This is a big problem with how myopic comps are. To give ONE example of something that happened to a comp couple I know who attend a church here that is extreme comp and spend a ton of time on this doctrine in sermons, seminars, conferences, selling books, etc.

    When he was 39, he fell off the roof of his house while putting up a sat dish. He became quadrapalegic. Now, his stay at home wife was forced to go to work. She was also forced to make the big decisions. He was having his diapers changed by her, too.

    Can you imagine what it was like for him to sit through all the “Biblical Manhood” sermons? Where is HIS place now in this doctrine? As she is not only the breadwinner but his caretaker, too.

    “My wife makes alot of decisions, she’s the bread winner, she and I share our bank account and our bills and our debts, as well as our meager savings. We also share responsibility with the raising of our children. I’m not a “thumb over the woman” type of guy. But I think God mandated certain things, and whatever they are, we have to accept.”

    As long as all this is her choice and she agrees, I do not see any problem. But if she is being taught comp doctrine, I cannot see how she can view you as her authority, spiritual or otherwise.

    I do not mean to be indiscreet but you volunteered the information here so it is open game. And I have been reading your unirenic, dogmatic comments before you shared this info. It has been my experience,in my many years of working in comp marketing world that many laymen (this includes seminary students) whose wives are the bread winners and try to follow the comp doctrine have lots of cognative dissonance in their lives. And they usually are extremely defensive.

    Like

  30. Lydia says:

    “Paula, there is so much dogmatism when it comes to this issue, that you can’t even get a die hard comp to respond to any question or comment you make (except with sarcasm or condescention). ”

    This has been Paula’s point all along. Would there be dogmatism to fight for last place? To fight for being the lowliest servant?

    When viewed in this reality, the position of patriarchy is seen as the sinful, selfish, idolatrous position it really is.

    Like

  31. Lydia says:

    I would also ask Steve to show me one single prohibition to women teaching men in the Old Covenant.

    Since it is not there and one cannot map Levite Priests to the function of pastor/elder in the New Covenant then we have a problem. It means that God made a new law just for women in the New Covenant. That the Priesthood of believers does not extend to married women. And that an earthly layer was put between women and Jesus Christ in the NC.

    This cannot be true so something must be wrong with the proof texts they use. Like creating an entire doctrine on “authenteo” when it does not mean authority over. Or redefining “kephale” from 1st Century understanding.

    It would also mean that the Joel Prophecy was only for one day and not the church age. But the prophecy does not say that.

    Like

  32. Paula says:

    “As a matter of fact, she doesn’t want the consequences that go with those decisions”

    And that’s the draw for comp women. But she is made a child, and the man who always gets his way has stunted spiritual and emotional growth. Then the man whines about his terrible burden, which entitles him to his wife’s obedience. So he adds a martyr complex to selfishness, while she shirks responsibility but has been indoctrinated to fear her own thoughts.

    This is one wicked, poisonous stew all right.

    Like

    • Lydia says:

      “As a matter of fact, she doesn’t want the consequences that go with those decisions”

      And that’s the draw for comp women. But she is made a child, and the man who always gets his way has stunted spiritual and emotional growth. Then the man whines about his terrible burden, which entitles him to his wife’s obedience. So he adds a martyr complex to selfishness, while she shirks responsibility but has been indoctrinated to fear her own thoughts.

      This is one wicked, poisonous stew all right.”

      And to add to the poisonous stew, this means that within Christian marriage, they are NOT sharing one another’s burdens as Word teaches believers to do for one another. Roles, rules and formula’s they teach prevent this from happening in practice..once again stunting spiritual maturity and standing in the way of the Holy Spirit who dwells in INDIVIDUALS, not just the husband.

      It IS a poisonous stew.

      Like

  33. Kristen says:

    “As a matter of fact, she doesn’t want the consequences that go with those decisions”

    Another fact is that whether she likes it or not, she reaps the consequences of his decisions. And the courts hold her just as responsible as he is, for the decisions of the family. She doesn’t get to tell the police or the debt collectors, “I’m not responsible, because I let him make the decision.”

    If she would consider herself responsible as fully functioning adult, then she’d have more incentive to be involved in the decision-making. Two are better than one– so they’d be more likely to make responsible decisions.

    Like

  34. Lydia says:

    “:Please I pray, SHOW me where I corrupted the Scriptures? I searched for myself, without having someone whisper in my ear what to say.”

    For one thing you claim the “positions” described in 1 Tim 3 are for married men. 1 Tim 3 says “tis” which is Greek for “anyone” desiring….. Secondly, you are saying that Paul would not qualify as an elder or deacon, either.

    Husband of one wife is a Greek idiom for “Faithful Spouse” and has been sighted on ancient graves of even some women in Ephesus. But you will never hear that from your CBMW teachers. There is a lot you won’t learn from them. They are masters of editing quotes, too.

    Your hero Piper promoted a complete lie when he and Grudem cited Epiphanius to prove that Junia (Romans 16) was not a female. Problem is that Epiphanius, in the SAME writing…even in the same paragraph!, claimed Priscia was not a female, either. They conveniently left out that part and some of their fellow comp scholars called them out on it. Just cannot trust those guys.

    Like

  35. Lydia says:

    If anyone can get ahold of RK McGregor Wright’s response to the Danvers statement it is worth the read. He drives a mac truck through the exegetical holes in it. In fact, the statement uses almost NO scripture but mostly man made philosophy. I was stunned when I read it. What little scripture they use is twisted and proof texted so that it is unrecognizable in content.

    Wright’s response was written back in the early 90’s and is not online. I have a MS Word copy if someone knows how to download it and post it somewhere.

    This statement has guided this issue since the late 80’s when it was written. Entire doctrines have sprung up around it and ironically it was a RESPONSE to the culture. It is culturally driven. Until the 20th Century, it was accepted doctrine that women were simply inferior and easily deceieved. This doctrine taught that the fall put women in a lower position. During the 20th Century that doctrine would not fly in the face of too many people studying scripture for themselves. In fact, if women are more easily deceieved for all time then the Cross did not work for them, did it? And it became a bit too obvious they were citing the sin of the fall as virtue for women! Think about it: Sin as virtue!

    So there came a need for a new doctrine to prove hierarchy among believers and in marriage BEFORE the fall. So, they went for creation order to prove hierarchy. (Now they are using it to try and sell hierarchy in the Trinity which is heresy).

    They coined an Orwellian term that does not mean what it says: Complementarian. There is NO hierarchy in true complementarian so the term does not mean what it says. It is a bait and switch game. They say, oh yes, you are equal when it comes to salvation but you do not get a “full inheritance” as men do.There are “roles” you must be in to be really Holy. The roles are “equal but different”. It takes a real flake to buy that one. In fact, we tried to sell that same premise to African Americans at one time: Seperate but equal.

    The whole comp doctrine is a response to culture and is culturally driven. It is way for humans to try and be the Holy Spirit for others. It is man centered. Not Christ centered.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s