Whose Rights

Five years ago when I worked for Baptist General Convention of Texas, I went to Dallas for a staff meeting. 

For fun we were told to find a song that best told who we were. I tried and tried to think of a song. For one whole week, I agonized over this.  Finally I came up with a song.

At the meeting, we guessed what each other’s song was.  My supervisor said, “I know what your song is.”

There was no way he knew what my song was!  I didn’t even know until the day before. 

They all agreed they knew what it was.  I held up my song.  “I am Woman”.

Immediately some of you will begin to imagine a feminist, and all the things wrong with the feminist movement.  You will label me a feminist and it won’t be pretty.

You will also be wrong.  I was very conservative and content until the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 was adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention, and I officially learned that I could not be a pastor!   

I am convinced that God did not create woman to be in the shadow of man.  God created women to give birth to the next generation.  Not only to provide the womb, but to contribute one half of her DNA to every child. Adam needed a helpmeet all right, but it was to help him populate the earth, because he was created with only one-half of the equipment needed.

Eve’s full part in this population of the earth was not known until recent years.

It was 1928 when the first human ovum was seen. Up until that time nobody knew exactly what happened inside a woman’s body. 

It was a full 8 years after women were given the right to vote that we had visual evidence of what every woman gives to create a baby.  From the beginning with Adam, we all knew what men had to give.  

That lack of knowledge was the beginning of women’s subjugation.

I found a book gushing over the complementarian role women play at a library book sale, and since it didn’t cost but a few pennies, I bought it and looked at it.  One chapter was about Eve.  Now I have seen a lot of sins laid at Eve’s feet, but this one was new to me.  This female author said “Eve is to bring Adam life, invite him to life. Instead, she invited him to his death.”

Eve is a murderer? What silliness!  Sometimes I think we have lost our minds.  We have taken the Word of God, and found all sorts of silly justifications in it. 

We are 21st century Christians. We need to get out of Bible world.  We live in the real world of today.  Men and women both suffer at the hands of others. As Christians we should be trying to better the world we live in now, and the world our children will be born in to, instead of parking ourselves 2000 years in the past.   

It was not a perfect society in Bible days.  Marriages were not perfect even with all the ‘submitting’ going on. 

The Apostle Paul himself cautioned husbands to love their wives as they loved themselves, and to take care of their wives like they would take care of their own bodies. In other words, men, you wouldn’t give yourself a black eye, don’t give her one either.

Helen Reddy wrote “I am Woman” in 1970, just after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.  African Americans and women got the same rights that white men already had. 

Women began doing things that men were already doing.  It wasn’t all good. Women had to go to the courts to get the freedom that was given them by the Civil Rights Act.  They had to fight for everything they got. 

This freedom began to be reflected in the churches. Some denominations began calling women as pastors and women as deacons.

That was going too far. In 1987 a group of conservative Christians met and came up with an organization called the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood. 

I really wish they had given it a shorter name.  It sounds ridiculous and so pompous.

This would put a stop to the feminist heresy that they feared was changing the churches. 

Claiming a desire to hold on to family values, they determined to  “set forth the teachings of the Bible about the complementary differences between men and women, created equally in the image of God, because these teachings are essential for obedience to Scripture and for the health of the family and the church.”

Now that sounds worthy.  We all want to hold on to family values.  We all want our families and our children to grow up in a Christian home.

Understand, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they had never felt a need to call for the men to have better behavior.  It was just when the women started claiming their rights that they suddenly felt they needed to get the family back under control.

The problem is –  it sets men above women,  it gives men almost god-like powers in the home, and in the church, while holding women to certain “roles” which they decided she is fit for.  The Bible doesn’t tell women their role is to bake cookies and clean house. Women have always worked beside the men to bring home food to feed the family.

One pastor proudly told me that his wife doesn’t work outside the home.  (He was a good Danvers Statement pastor). When I asked him about his church secretary, he changed the subject. 

Whenever leadership position is given to anyone, it means someone else has to follow.

Guess who has to follow?  Women cannot be a pastor, women  cannot be a deacon, we women must submit graciously to our leader – our husband.

 We gained our legal rights, but we lost our Christian rights. 

EQUAL – BUT,    equal – but our husbands have authority over us.   

The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood made men divine.  How else can a man be the head of a woman?  Only a divine God can be over me, and as much as I love my husband, he is not divine!

A man writing on my website asked us why we were dragging out the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood since it is 22 years old.  I told him that it was new enough for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, to adopt it as their statement of belief only 9 months ago.

Dr. Dorothy Patterson, one of the founders of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, says “As a woman standing under the authority of Scripture, even when it comes to submitting to my husband when I know he’s wrong, I just have to do it and then HE stands accountable at the judgment.”   (Christianity Today 1998)

I’ll bet she has wished a thousand times that she had never said those words.

I would like to ask Dr. Patterson for the scripture reference where Paige Patterson becomes divine, and where he takes on her sins for her.

Women, I have great news for you. You are free to come before God just as you are.  You are free to stand accountable before God for your own sins.

Men, I have great news for you.  You are not accountable for your wife’s sins.  You are free to stand before God and account for your own sins.

To believe any other way  –  is blasphemy.

We’ve talked about it, we fussed about it, we have cried over it.  Are you ready to quit talking and start doing?

I want to be able to walk into my church and not feel that my church holds it against me that I am a woman.

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 Demand for an Apology from the CBMW and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Whose Rights

  1. Mabel says:

    I like what blogger believer333 said in her blog Better Exegesis, ” Complementarian evolved in meaning to limit the women to roles in which they complemented men in certain ways and freed men to be everything else (thus complentarity is achieved by restricting one group to promote the freedoms of the other group), I don’t really see that as real complementarity.”

    Like

  2. That is a good way of putting it Mabel!

    Like

  3. Lydia says:

    “We are 21st century Christians. We need to get out of Bible world. We live in the real world of today. Men and women both suffer at the hands of others. As Christians we should be trying to better the world we live in now, and the world our children will be born in to, instead of parking ourselves 2000 years in the past.”

    Actually, it was getting into the Bible deeply that changed my views. I have heard this from many egals who were once masculinists…especially woman.

    What they need to do is be a Berean and check every single word they are taught. Egals can make their case from the Word…but they must study and be diligent. It is not easy. But knowing the Word is very important.

    Katherine Bushnell did this a while back…I recommend her book, God’s Word to Women. But eat your wheaties! It is very deep and scholarly and considering the fact she did not have the free tools at her fingertips we have today, quite a feat!

    Women today have no excuse not to study in depth. We have been taught that someone with a seminary degree has to interpret the Word for us. But Jesus taught different. He said He was sending us the Best Teacher: The Holy Spirit

    Like

  4. Paula says:

    And not just on the egal issue… all believers need to stop thinking along the old hierarchical lines, the “Sunday School” mentality. We need to discern which teachers live and have mastered the scriptures, learn from them, and apply it to ourselves. The spiritually mature need to get off their “blessed assurance” and take an active role (the correct usage of that word!) in discipleship. This is a life, not a place to visit.

    Like

    • Lydia says:

      So true, Paula. The focus on hierarchy within the Body hinders the ability for believers to be led by the Holy Spirit. Instead, they feast on milk and works being led by men with lofty titles.

      I don’t know if anyone else has noticed but the lack of teaching on the Holy Spirit in a believers life has been going on for years…since the rise of the focus on human hierarchies within the Body.

      If people understood the function of the Holy Spirit in their lives, they would not need these men and the men would lose their preeminance and status.

      Like

  5. chaidrinkingfool says:

    Yes! Everyone should check her sources of information, but this is the one that I found closest at hand, and I’ve seen this information elsewhere: Women were being recognized as called by God to preach, teach, and pastor God’s people years prior to the 1960s and 1970s.
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg13.htm

    I’ve found the focus on recognition of appropriate human authority to be disturbing, the way that it discourages the thought and discernment of laypeople. Along with this I’ve seen the elevation (in practice though not in theory) of the Bible to a member of the trinity: probably, yes, replacing the Holy Spirit.

    Like

  6. Lydia says:

    The SBC of today is nothing like the one I grew up in. Women did everything back then. No one thought a thing about it. but then, we did not have celebrity pastors, either. And it was not a path to wealth and fame to be in ministry back them. It was considered a life of hardship and sacrifice.

    The dirty little secret many will not tell you is that Mrs. Criswell, wife of one of the big CR leaders, taught a MIXED SS class for many years. It was even on the radio! Of course, she had special anointing from her husband to do it, even though he was not in the room. (Sarcasm alert)

    And she is just one example of such hypocrisy.

    See, there are strict roles in the bible…for the many but not a select few in power.

    Like

    • Paula says:

      After 9/11 I was asked to present some research on Islam in the Sunday evening service at our church, a Southern Baptist one. Normally this would be forbidden of course. But by the magic of the saying, “As pastor I grant her the ‘covering’ to speak tonight”, I could actually stand behind a sacred pulpit and speak.

      I call this “The Magic Umbrella”.

      Like

      • That makes a man divine, doesn’t it? When he can supercede a scripture in the Bible just by his saying so? I wrote Beth Moore and told her that but of course she didn’t answer.

        Like

      • EricW says:

        “The Magic Umbrella” – LOL! I like that.

        And these are the same people who say that Catholic priests don’t really have the power and authority to change bread and wine into Christ’s Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity by pronouncing the Words of Institution, that it’s all superstitious nonsense.

        Lord, what fools these mortals be!

        Like

      • Paula says:

        Then you’ll also like this spoof. |:-D

        Like

      • Lydia says:

        The ‘divine’ with special anointing granted you covering to speak? Did you speak behind the sacred piece of furniture?

        (magic umbrella…didn’t you have a graphic for that a while back?)

        Like

      • Paula says:

        @BWE: Yes it does.

        @Lydia: Isn’t that freaky? Funny though, I didn’t feel powerful during my temporary conferred anointing. But the people did look smaller from on high. (also, I just posted the link to The Magic Umbrella earlier)

        Like

  7. Pedant says:

    Actually it’s a “feminist” heresy, not a “feminine” one.

    Like

    • Thank you! I went back and made all the corrections? Did you actually read all my blogs? Thank you for taking the time to do that. I appreciate your feedback.

      Like

      • Pedant says:

        Yes. I actually read all your blogs.

        I brought these selected corrections to your attention because I didn’t want people to dismiss your ideas and opinions because you appeared to be careless, uneducated or just clueless.

        I would much prefer that readers dismiss your ideas because they are contrary to Scripture and common sense.

        You sounded the same pitiful note so often I was reminded of Winston Churchill’s definition of a fanatic: “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

        The wanton and repeated misrepresentation of Scripture, manufacture of straw men in argumentation, and the maligning sarcasm of capable pastors and teachers of God’s Word was sadly lacking in kindness, consideration and virtue.

        The list of demands dropped at the doorstep of CBMW by FedEx illustrates the contrarian spirit of your organization. Why would you want to seek such a ransom?

        You might find more success if you gathered a petition with twenty signatories and demanded that the Chicago Cubs win the World Series this year.

        I’m genuinely sorry that you’ve been so deeply hurt by sinful men in your lifetime, or that you’ve taken up the cause of others who have been thusly hurt. The pain is hard to bear, yet freedom comes from forgiveness, not vengeful demands for reparation. A prideful sense of self-pity does not endear yourself to others but creates barriers that hinder understanding and acceptance.

        You might think my comments to be in poor taste, but as a pedant, I’m taking this last opportunity to have a say.

        I did hesitate to comment at such length, since my sincerity could be misunderstood, and I risk being drawn into longer discussions.

        Like

      • Paula says:

        Pedant,

        You do realize, don’t you, that “pedantic” is the meaning of the Greek word typically used against the Pharisees, right?

        You make many charges but back none up. But that’s okay, since we’ve heard them all before. And if anyone is stuck on one note is is men like you who can’t leave us alone, who prowl around like hungry lions looking for someone to devour. You are obsessed with power and control, or you wouldn’t be here thrusting more daggers into women you say are already wounded. And you have the gall to talk about our “contrarian spirit”.

        I’m genuinely sorry too– that you feel the need to prove us right by coming here to say such tripe. What fragile egos these male supremacists have! They are afraid of us too, because to allow that we are equal in essence and function is to expose your insecurity and pride in the flesh.

        Yes, your comments are in the poorest taste. You led us to believe you were friendly and then kicked us in the teeth. Shame on you! And sincerity my foot!

        But you have unwittingly provided just the sort of object lesson that proves our cause to be just and necessary. It highlights the depth of the pride and power being threatened by coalitions such as this, and confirms that we are on the right path.

        It is long past time for these alleged “pastors and teachers of God’s Word” to be exposed for the frauds and wolves they are, for teaching division between male and female, clergy and laity, and making Jesus only the liberator of men. There will be justice!

        Like

  8. Paula says:

    Pedant… good name! 😀 I’ve been known to be the grammar and spelling cop at times myself. Got me a couple free books that way once.

    Like

    • Lydia says:

      Thanks, Paula for sharing the magic umbrella ad. I should have read all the comments first but I did remember you shared this wonderful parody a while back.

      Magic Umbrella…every man should have one. And everyone woman must have her submissive parasol.

      Like

  9. Mara says:

    There is a verse written by Paul that he opposed Peter to his face.
    He did so in the case of Peter becoming a snob and raising himself up above gentile believers.

    Paul also was a Jew and could have held himself up as Peter did and few would have opposed him on it.

    However, Paul saw through the hypocrisy and dealt with it. He didn’t tell the gentile believers, ‘sorry you’ve been hurt by bad people, but oh well, stinks to be you.’

    No, Paul stood on the side of right.
    And that is what these women are doing, by opposing CBMW to their face for the false doctrine they spread.

    That is what these women are doing. Standing on the side of right. Declaring that when the temple veil was torn in two, it gave priesthood status to all believers and opened heaven for God to give gifts to men and women.

    CBMW and the Danvers prefers to shut up heaven and the holy place for women. This is a serious crime, a serious thievery that cannot be ‘gotten over’ or ignored, but must be opposed.

    I understand that you don’t agree, Pedant.
    But you don’t agree because the wool has been pulled over your eyes. Not because you stand on the side of right.

    Like

  10. Pedant says:

    As I suspected, the risk of being drawn in has been realized. This will be my one brief foray into your world.

    >>Pedant,

    >>You do realize, don’t you, that “pedantic” is the >>meaning of the Greek word typically used against the >>Pharisees, right?

    –No, pedantically, I didn’t realize that. It’s actually related to the Greek word for child (pais) and the paidogogos (schoolmaster).

    >>You make many charges but back none up. But that’s >>okay, since we’ve heard them all before. And if >>anyone is stuck on one note is is men like you who >>can’t leave us alone, who prowl around like hungry >>lions looking for someone to devour.

    –Actually made few charges, but many observations and stated some opinions. And (dipping into sarcasm) why do you assume that I am a man? Isn’t that sexist stereotyping since there was a mention of the Chicago Cubs? Tut tut.

    >>You are obsessed with power and control, or you >>wouldn’t be here thrusting more daggers into women >>you say are already wounded. And you have the gall >>to talk about our “contrarian spirit”.

    –Whoa there. Not a very charitable judgment of my character. Actually I don’t see any evidence of “power and control” anywhere in Scripture to describe proper human relationships. I’m not obsessed. Nor am I thrusting daggers, nor am I going to overlook the sexist phallic imagery you have brought in. No gall, just an observation about the spirit of the demands made which the response confirms.

    >>I’m genuinely sorry too– that you feel the need to >>prove us right by coming here to say such tripe.

    –Tripe? How have my comments earned such a dishonour? (Do you think I’m Canadian now?)

    >>What fragile egos these male supremacists have! They >>are afraid of us too, because to allow that we are >>equal in essence and function is to expose your >>insecurity and pride in the flesh.

    –No male supremacist here. Just a gentle soul.

    >>Yes, your comments are in the poorest taste. You led >>us to believe you were friendly and then kicked us >>in the teeth. Shame on you! And sincerity my foot!

    –Certainly this is an undeserved superlative. I led you to believe nothing. You on the other hand led me to believe that you liked my nom de plume (another proof that I’m Canadian?) and then hurled the charge of Pharisee back at me. No kicking. Shame on me? Quite the attitude here.

    >>But you have unwittingly provided just the sort of >>object lesson that proves our cause to be just and >>necessary. It highlights the depth of the pride and >>power being threatened by coalitions such as this, >>and confirms that we are on the right path.

    –Wow. Non sequitur hoch zwei (now do you think I’m German?)

    >>It is long past time for these alleged “pastors and >>teachers of God’s Word” to be exposed for the frauds >>and wolves they are, for teaching division between >>male and female, clergy and laity, and making Jesus >>only the liberator of men. There will be justice!

    –Goodness me! I declare, Scarlett, I’ve nevah heard in all my days such high-minded ideas. Not even in the fundamentalist scare blogs are there such prodigious threats of justice. Will there be violence too? Strike back with fists at the oppressors!! Oh dear.

    Like

    • Paula says:

      Pen, Pen, Pen… we’ve seen all this before. Start a fight and then point at the victims. It’s getting very old. But I’ll humor you with some more responses, just for fun.

      You misunderstood my statement about “pedantic”. The Greek word is “hupokritos” and does not mean “hypocrite” as it does in English, transliteration though it may be. It means “pedantic”, that is, nitpicking and micromanaging. It means control through regulation. That’s what the Pharisees were all about. And that’s what male supremacism is all about.

      You did in fact make charges, but deny this while making even more. And when did I say you were a man? I said “men LIKE you”. I’m all too familiar with women who subscribe willingly to male supremacy, and have so many of their dagger wounds in me that I whistle when the wind blows. It’s the thought that counts.

      So you can tell us our teachings are unbiblical or whatnot, but when we complain about it we’re “uncharitable”. You also deny piling more pain on wounded women, which is itself another dagger thrust. And what is a more glaring example of “sexist phallic imagery” than the teaching that God doles out positions of authority on that very basis? For the comp, God really is looking on the flesh now, and has become a respecter of persons. All based on reproductive organs.

      And I’m glad you’re getting such amazing mileage out of my choice of vocabulary. Would you like chips with that? (Am I now saying your a Brit?)

      And for the record, “gentle souls” don’t walk into somebody else’s house and tell them they’ve got their furniture arranged improperly and have the wrong color paint on the walls. That’s what you did here, though I’m sure you can deny that too.

      Curious that you charge me with non sequiturs… while not even bothering to write out the syllogism so the rest of us can see them too. But it certainly does follow from your actions here that the rightness of our cause is confirmed. You demonstrate the spirit and fear of patriarchy, the reaction of those who don’t want the status quo touched. Reactions are good indicators of what’s really at stake, as opposed to excuses and empty rhetoric. That is, actions speak louder than words.

      And great balls o’ fire, Rhett… don’t git yer knickers in a twist over us lowly wimmin folk growin’ spines for a change. I’m sure you’re not used to hearing bold challenges instead of polite cooing, but this is just the beginning. We only strike back with fists when somebody else draws first blood.

      Are we having fun yet?

      Like

  11. Mabel says:

    Thank you Paula. Good fencing.

    Like

    • Paula says:

      You’re very welcome, Mabel. 🙂

      I think a mistake we egals have made as a group is in underestimating how the game is played. When dealing with a group or position that is deeply entrenched and has much invested, the fight is never fair or civilized. We often lose because we think the other side, being believers, will play by the same rules. But they don’t. They consider “the church” their turf and we are trespassing, and they will defend that turf at all costs.

      We just can’t be nice anymore, or nothing will ever change.

      Like

  12. Paula says:

    Maybe it would help to analyze Pdant’s strategy. I’ll abbreviate to “P” so I don’t have to use s/he all the time. 😉

    1. P began by correcting spelling. I thought this was really strange but, like all of us, didn’t want to be suspicious. No “hello, love your blog, but…” or anything, just “you missed a spot”.

    2. P’s focus to come was never on the post itself but the whole comp/egal debate. They did not tip their hand too soon, and we had no reason to be prepared for an assault.

    3. The statement “I would much prefer that readers dismiss your ideas because they are contrary to Scripture and common sense” is like a sudden slap in the face. This is a sugar-coated insult; P declares their target’s ideas contrary to scripture while offering not one example of such contrariness.

    4. The statement “You sounded the same pitiful note so often I was reminded of Winston Churchill’s definition of a fanatic” was sarcastic and mocking. CBMW is wholly obsessed with sex and roles, yet I’m sure P would never launch this same insult against them. And that’s because this isn’t about principles but defamation. Yet in spite of such brazen statements, P would later deny any evil intent, thus trying to shift blame on the target for self-defense.

    5. The statement “The wanton and repeated misrepresentation of Scripture, manufacture of straw men in argumentation, and the maligning sarcasm of capable pastors and teachers of God’s Word was sadly lacking in kindness, consideration and virtue” begins by repeating the first assertion, adding a second and equally baseless one, then accusing the target of simply digging up dirt on nice Christian leaders. This gives the appearance of a long list of sins, but it’s all smoke and mirrors. In addition, the people who are painted by P as nice and godly are the very wolves in sheep’s clothing Jesus warned us about. Every such wolf would appear nice and godly; that’s why they’re dangerous. We judge them on their teachings and actions, and find them wanting. But P hoped that these teachers could be let off the hook simply by declaring them innocent. No evidence was offered to back up the claim.

    6. The statement “The list of demands dropped at the doorstep of CBMW by FedEx illustrates the contrarian spirit of your organization. Why would you want to seek such a ransom?” begins by judging any sort of criticism as a “contrarian spirit”. But P seems oblivious to the fact that this very attack in this blog is itself an illustration of a contrarian spirit. Why P can be contrarian but the target cannot, is of course unstated because it is indefensible.

    7. The statement “You might find more success if you gathered a petition with twenty signatories and demanded that the Chicago Cubs win the World Series this year” is obvious sarcasm and mockery again, and is ignorant of prior discussion about the aims and expectations of the coalition. We’re under no delusion that CBMW will repent; this isn’t what it’s about. The purpuse is instead to get the issue out in the open where more people will see it. The “success” we’re after is not some pipe dream of turning comps into egals, but of getting the message of freedom to thousands of women and men trapped in the subtle lies of Satan.

    8. Now comes the butter-up: “I’m genuinely sorry that you’ve been so deeply hurt by sinful men in your lifetime, or that you’ve taken up the cause of others who have been thusly hurt”. The message being sent here is, “I’m only doing this for your own good, because I care”. Sure, that’s what all the mockery has been motivated by, right? But CBMW’s “solution” is to enable and empower those very men by telling everyone that males are chosen by God to rule over females, and females must not trust their own thoughts. Then they have the audacity to claim that their teachings are not responsible for how some men carry them out.

    9. After the butter-up comes the “advice”: “A prideful sense of self-pity does not endear yourself to others but creates barriers that hinder understanding and acceptance.” First the target is judged to be self-pitying, in spite of our many clear appeals to scripture. Would P say that abolitionists were self-pitying? The principle here is not over pity or mere emotion but principle: slavery is wrong, and so it male supremacy. This is a moral issue, not a mere social problem. Then we are told that the cure for our problem is to “be sweet” as the Mormons say. To quote a popular phrase, “How’s that strategy been workin’ for ya?” It hasn’t. That’s why we’re taking the gloves off. The “barriers” were erected by proud men who didn’t want us invading their turf.

    10. Now the anticipation of counter-attack: “You might think my comments to be in poor taste, but as a pedant, I’m taking this last opportunity to have a say.” P tries to head off the target’s reaction by a final appeal to the desire to help us with our little problem. And at this point I wonder if P even knows what “pedant” means. There was nothing close to a meticulous study of the arguments egals make, but only broad-brush dismissals and insults, far beyond “poor taste”.

    11. The last attempt to stave off having to deal with all this: “I did hesitate to comment at such length, since my sincerity could be misunderstood, and I risk being drawn into longer discussions”. P may have sincerely wanted us to just shut up and deal, but that hardly turns mockery and sarcasm and judgmentalism into good things. P’s problem at this point is not that we might misunderstand, but that we might understand very well. So P ends with the warning that any ensuing debate is automatically our fault!

    This is how it goes; this is the game. It’s always best to step back and analyze the opponent’s habits so we can spot such strategies more quickly in the future.

    Like

  13. Kristen says:

    Thank you, Paula, for that analysis.

    About this name choice, “Pedant” — it’s interesting. “Pedantic” is a negative adjective, not a positive one. It refers to focusing on dotting i’s and crossing t’s while ignoring or overlooking the substance of the argument. Pedant has focused on our grammar, our character, and our past lives– without ever actually addressing the real issue, which is why men get to walk all over women and claim the Bible supports it– and why women are supposed to respond with “Thank you sir, can I have more?”

    Like

  14. Paula says:

    You’re welcome, Kristen. 🙂 And good example to illustrate the notion that somehow we have to ask permission to use our spiritual gifts. They don’t seem to understand that we’re not asking for handouts, but demanding justice. Just as slavery was not a social issue but a moral one, so also is women’s subordination. We need no permission to be opposed to that.

    Like

    • You hit the nail on the head. Women’s subordination is a moral issue. And the church is in sin to continue.

      Like

      • Paula says:

        It really is sin, and we need to remind them of this fact. Jesus HATES “the deeds of the Nicolaitans” which are the PEDANTIC control freaks who, like Diotrephes, want to keep people from full fellowship unless their wishes are obeyed. It was the rule-making, nitpicking, self-righteous religions leaders Jesus never had a kind word for. And when that’s the sort we’re dealing with, we need to follow His lead.

        Like

  15. Lydia says:

    Paula, we have been down this road so many times that we can spot them a mile away. Thanks for pointing the tactics out. I was a bit disappointed that P did not come right out not tell us we are feminists, liberals, bitter and angry…but P got real close with this one:

    “I’m genuinely sorry that you’ve been so deeply hurt by sinful men in your lifetime, or that you’ve taken up the cause of others who have been thusly hurt”.

    P is assuming something. First of all, many of us have seen wonderful but ignorant men who actually believed the teaching of male supremacy. Some of them are pastors. Others know better and twist scripture to make it fit male supremacy. Many of those are in our seminaries. Many write books, speak at conferences and make money off this teaching of roles, rules and formulas for the pink and blue Christianity they market. (They do need a Talmud so their followers can know all the rules)

    P wants us to think there are a few “sinful” men out there who abuse the doctrine. Seriously, some slave owners were very nice and treated their slaves wonderfully and argued they would not have it better anywhere else. And some WERE like that. But that does not negate that most slaves wanted to be free, anyway.

    It does not negate the fact that women want to exercise their spiritual gifts without being called sinners by their brothers and sisters in Christ when they do so.

    What I simply cannot fathom is that people believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross so that adult women would have a male authority in their spiritual life. A layer between them and Christ.

    Think of it. Another totally depraved human saved by the exact same grace is to be the authority of another within the Body and the ONE FLESH UNION marriage. It defies logic if we are to believe the Gospel and what it means to a believer.

    Like

    • Paula says:

      Yes we have been down this road a lot, Lydia. And you’re very welcome. 🙂

      And we can’t say it often enough, that Jesus did not come just to free men and lighten their burdens, but just as well to women. His kingdom is upside down from the world’s.

      Like

    • Yes. How are we going to get the message out to those who do not read our blogs? How do we reach the pew-sitters who do not want to rock the boat? Did you ladies know that there is something called Americantowns.com where anybody can post information free? I have set up an account with them and you all can, too, to reach your local community. I will post my Demands letter tonight.

      Like

      • Paula says:

        This Demand is the first, step, IMHO. Additional steps would include what someone commented in my blog: the “Rosa Parks” incident. It takes individuals standing up wherever they are, challenging the status quo. Writings online give people the scriptural and historical knowledge to use in their defenses, but it takes egals stopping the practice of quietly “agreeing to disagree” before real progress is made.

        I don’t “go to church” anymore, but I do go to many blogs and boards, some of which are not primarily Christian or religious. When even mild misogyny rears its head, I speak up. Most reactions so far have only proved the extent to which it is patriarchy, not egalitarianism, that “bows to culture”.

        And there is a price, usually on the order of mere ridicule and rejection. But we need to put up with that, because the time will come when they won’t be content with words. In the early days of the women’s suffrage movement, many were imprisoned and some were tortured, just for wanting the right to vote in America. The comps are pushing hard to send us back in time as a backlash against our freedom and treatment as human beings.

        Like

  16. Lydia says:

    Teach. I taught Genesis to a SS class and it was great fun to ask them where all this teaching was in Genesis 1 and 2. It is not there…this prefall authority. Where can anyone get Jr. Assistant out of a one flesh union? It is READ INTO the account. Get educated.

    Especially on the very bad translation of Gen 3:16. Teshuqa is ‘turning’…as in Eve would turn to Adam (and away from God). People do not realize that the masculinists teach sin as virtue. It is insidious. It does not say anywhere that Eve wants to ‘usurp Adam’s authority. It is simply read into it.

    It all starts with Genesis. Because they interpret 1 Tim 2 using a bad interpretation of Genesis. And we all should know that women are not saved by bearing children. That is a works salvation and mocks Christ.

    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