Continuing where we left off last time per the True Woman Manifesto:
Is a statement intrinsically or automatically “true” or “biblical” because it has Bible verses attached to it? Does having a “big name” associated with a particular model or worldview make it “biblically sound”? Is there a difference between thinking “Bible versely” and thinking biblically? With this in mind, let’s take a look at the following affirmations and declarations from the TWM (not exhaustive):
Affirmation ten: says children are “a blessing from God, and women are uniquely designed to be bearers and nurturers of life,…”
- The “supporting Scripture” for this affirmation includes Genesis 1:28, 9:1; Psalm 127 and Titus 2:4-5. A few pennies to toss out:
- Genesis 1:28: Discussed in part one. Question: can a woman’s design be gleaned from this text? Read it yourself. A good argument can be made that this divine charge and benediction isn’t gender-specific, but inclusive of both male and female. Note God blessed them (plural pronoun)… fill… subdue… rule. Doesn’t the text focus on how humankind goes forth from the hands of the Creator under his divine benediction – flourishing, filling the earth with their kind, and exercising dominion over other earthly creatures – rather than a woman’s design? Again, note the plurals.
- Genesis 9:1: Post-flood, God blesses Noah and his sons and renews his original benediction from Genesis 1. The thought continues into verse 7. Verse eight begins the Noahic Covenant. An odd choice to “support” this affirmation?
Psalm 127: Does this partially support a portion of this affirmation? Verses 1 and 2 indicate it is the Lord who provides shelter, security and sustenance. Verses 3 and 4 indicate that children are God’s gift and a sign of his favor.
- Titus 2:4-5: Also referenced in affirmation two. There it includes verse 3. This passage is discussed in part one.
A few more cents related to affirmation ten:
- Men are only around to help initiate life, whereas the vital process of “nurturing” – developing, cultivating, promoting, fostering, encouraging – is left to women? Isn’t this a disdainful, demeaning view of men?
- We know many fine Christian men who are outstanding nurturers. Does that make them “true women”?
- Following the logic of affirmation ten, “unique” means “one only; single; solo; different from all others; having no like or equal.” But aren’t all Christians called to be “nurturers of life,” women and men?
- Doesn’t the spiritual gift of pastor/shepherd (I Cor. 12:7-11, Eph. 4:11-13) include nurturing? The word “pastor” translates from the Greek word poimen, which comes from a root word meaning “to protect.” Without getting too technical, it basically means “shepherd,” which includes feeding, tending, and nurturing. Question: If nurturing is a design, function, or role “unique” to women – apparently exclusive of men – then shouldn’t pastor/shepherds be female?
- In the list of those whom women are “uniquely designed” to nurture, notice who’s missing: adult males. (Need we say more?)
Affirmation eleven: “God’s plan for gender is wider than marriage; all women, whether married or single, are to model femininity in their various relationships, by exhibiting a distinctive modesty, responsiveness, and gentleness of spirit.”
There’s a lot here, but we’ll confine our remarks to three:
- “Femininity” is used more than once in this document, unhappily bereft of a definition. In affirmation thirteen for example, what exactly constitutes “fruitful femininity” – as opposed to “unfruitful femininity”? (That imprecise language again. For an excellent discussion on this topic, check out Ruby Slippers: How the Soul of a Woman Brings Her Home, by Jonalyn Grace Fincher. Zondervan, 2007.)
- Besides “modesty” and “gentleness of spirit,” God’s plan for women according to this manifesto is responsiveness. Period? Is it outside “God’s plan for gender” for a woman to lead, initiate, be decisive, make the tough calls, etc.? If that’s the case, kindly explain: Margaret Thatcher, Cory Aquino, Sally Ride, Sandra Day O’Connor, Sarah Palin, Harriet Tubman, Queen Elizabeth I, Emmeline Pankhurst, Gladys Alyward, Golda Meir, Deborah, Huldah, Ruth, Lydia, Priscilla, Chloe and Nympha. And so on.
Question: If women are fully competent and capable to lead entire countries, early house churches (Rom.16:3-5, 1 Cor.1:11, and Col.4:15.) or missions, why must they remain subordinate in our homes and churches? (Check out Are the Sisters Free to Function?)
IN THE DECLARATIONS:
With the possible exception of three declarations – three, five, and twelve – shouldn’t the fifteen statements here apply to every believer, male and female? So why does TWM make these “callings” and “purposes” gender specific?
Beyond this, let’s focus on a few of the more salient points, such as Declaration 5, where “true women… by His grace and in humble dependence on His power, … will… Embrace and express our unique design and calling as women with humility, gratitude, faith, and joy.”
Translation (based on Affirmation 5): “Woman, thy name is Suzy Homemaker”?
Declaration six: TW “Seek to glorify God by cultivating such virtues as purity, modesty, submission, meekness, and love.”
- Again, shouldn’t these virtues be “cultivated” by all Christians, both male and female? See Colossians 3:12-17 and Galatians 5:22,23 for starters.
Declaration twelve relates to suffering as “an inevitable reality in a fallen world; at times we will be called to suffer for doing what is good…”
This declaration is tied with affirmation five for having the most “supporting Scripture” attached to it with six references/passages each. Here’s the bigger question: Why is this declaration here? It’s inclusion in a manifesto targeting women is troubling. Is this, in the observation of Words of a Fether:
A veiled reference to domestic violence, perhaps? A backhanded endorsement to the barbaric practice of sending abused women back to their abusers and calling it “suffering for Christ”?
Another observation:
Pastorally, it’s dangerous to give men and pastors in the Christian community one more plank to abuse women with by providing them with a signed copy of a manifesto that could easily be interpreted and used in ways it was perhaps not originally intended.
- “Prophezei”
WORDS MEAN THINGS. IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
Let’s look at the True Woman Manifesto a little closer. What do the words mean? Again, is a statement intrinsically or automatically “true” because it ‘s connected to Bible verses? Is there a difference between thinking “Bible versely” and thinking biblically?
Looking at the words in this document’s title:
In its basic sense, something or someone that’s “true” is:
1) Consistent with fact or reality; 2) Not false or erroneous; 3) Exactly conforming to a rule, standard or pattern; 4) Reliable, accurate; 5) Real, genuine; 6) Faithful, as to a friend, vow, or cause; 7) Honorable, upright, 8. Sincerely felt or expressed, unfeigned; 9) Fundamental, essential; 10) Rightful, legitimate; 11) Accurately shaped or fitted, placed or delivered; 12) Quick and exact in sensing and responding; 13) Conforming to the definitive criteria of the designation.
With this in mind, some readers may argue that the TWM falls short on ten of thirteen points: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,9,10, 11, and 13. Maybe more.
Second, a “manifesto” is “a public declaration of principles or intentions, especially of a political nature.”
Finally a “woman” is…? Aye, there’s the rub. Or the hub?
While we’re on the subject…
Notice the recurrence of the word “distinct” (or derivatives) in the TWM. Also this quote :
“True womanhood is a distinctive calling of God to display the glory of his Son in ways that would not be displayed if there was no womanhood.”++
- John Piper
Question: How are TW distinct, and what/who are they distinct from?
From the overall tone and emphasis of this Manifesto, is a TW’s “distinction” based on “discovering and experiencing” hierarchical complementarianism**, or something else? What makes Christian women or men “distinct” or “counter-cultural”… or “true”? (See Ephesians 2, I Corinthians 15, 12:12-13, and most of Romans and Galatians. That’s the short list.)
Mistitled?
The True Woman Manifesto may be both mistitled and misleading. It relies heavily on I Corinthians 11 (see TWM footnotes), a passage that is the subject of much debate. (Note that the opening address at the first TW Conference, The Ultimate Meaning of True Womanhood, was delivered John Piper. There may be much in Piper’s address that’s laudable, but we’re reserving comment in order to focus on the Manifesto.)
A more accurate manifesto title might be: A Primer on Patriarchy or A Petrified Woman’s Manifesto. (By “petrified,” we mean “to convert into a stony replica, to cause to become still or stone like, deaden.”) Check out A True Christian Manifesto as an alternative. Also see Mystery of Submission, a sixteen-part series focusing on Ephesians 5.
Hmmm…
Some will see the Manifesto and the paradigm it sets forth as a one-size-fits-all approach that may give cause for pause. Coupled with the not-so-subtle implication that the only “true women” in Christendom are those who embrace the “design, function, order” and “roles” outlined in this document, this raises some questions:
- On the “Join the Movement” page of the True Woman site – a “ministry of Revive Our Hearts” – we find this statement:
If you see biblical womanhood as a gift from God, and agree with the True Woman Manifesto, sign it by filling out the form below. We are believing God for 100,000 people like you to join this movement!
QUESTION: WHY? Do numbers mean or prove something? Such as…? When/if this Manifesto garners 100,000 signatures, then what? This effort clearly as a way to go. More than 6,000 women reportedly gathered in Chicago, Illinois, for Revive Our Hearts’ first national women’s conference in October 2008. The Manifesto had barely creased 3,000 signatures on-line as of January 2, 2009. Nearly a full year later - December 2009 – this “faithful, clear, true, wise” and “magnificent” manifesto has reportedly garnered just 10,789 signatures.
- What about those with qualms or questions about the TWM? What about those who “see biblical womanhood as a gift from God” but disagree with the views and tenets put forth in the TWM? Are they “UNtrue women”? False women? Are they “less Christian” or otherwise unbiblical in their views, values, perspectives and models? (A brief sampling. Oh, wait. There’s more.)
- Where is the male counterpart, as in, “True Man Manifesto”? Curious, isn’t it, that with all the male leadership talk in this model, they first publish a true woman manifesto? To be consistent with their own views, shouldn’t a True Man Manifesto lead the way?
- Can those who’ve signed the TWM articulate a clear, succinct, biblically sound reason(s) for so doing?
- Can those who haven’t or won’t sign the Manifesto do likewise?
- Finally, how many sincere, well-meaning Christian women will jump on the TW band wagon, embracing the TWM as “faithful, clear, true, wise” and “magnificent” and sign it sans second thought – or because someone else said so?
Here’s Part One. STAY TUNED FOR PART 3.
++What does this mean?
** “Complementarian” describes advocates of female subordination to male authority, not because it most accurately reflects their position, but because it seems to be their preferred label. The complementarian position is presented most comprehensively in the book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991)
All comments welcome provided they comply with our Comment Policy.
Filed under: Gender Issues, True Woman Tagged: | biblical womanhood, John Piper, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Revive Our Hearts, True Woman, true woman conference, True Woman Manifesto, True woman movement, True Women, True Women Manifesto
The word ‘true’ has been beat up, bruised, dragged through the mud, and assaulted in modern evangelicalism. In our desire to defend it, we suck the meaning out of it by making it into a rhetorical device divorced of life and beauty. We cannot even have normal discourse with the culture nor each other because truth and it’s goals are white-washed.
I had a good bit of writing advice given me in college: Don’t try to be original. Try to be clear, and originality, if it is there, will shine through.
The same can be said of the adjectives “Biblical” and “true.” If it is true, it will shine. If it is “Biblical,” it will be apparent.
Quite… true.
Great work. A fruitful close examination
Re: nurture, Paul notes in Eph. 5:29 that, as each person nourishes and cherishes his own flesh, so does Christ the church, and so must husbands their wives.
Re: Declaration 12, my guess is that this hints at the suffering that a woman might experience at the hands of feminists and others who despise Christ and His followers, by acting and living in a counter-cultural way. However, the “TW” concept of this may indeed be unnecessary, and an incorrect measure of true Christlike womanhood.
The Scriptural references for “gentleness of spirit” in Declaration 11 are telling; they are the passages which essentially “put women in their place;” i.e., note the headship of man over woman and the propriety of womanly head-covering (and not being contentious), as well as women quietly receiving instruction with submissiveness.
I accept and rejoice in man being head as understood properly, and the good instruction to women in those passages. But they do not specifically speak to gentleness of spirit. There are plenty of passages which do, however, and they are not gender specific: Prov. 15:1, Matt. 5:5, Gal. 5:23, Eph. 4:2, I Tim. 6:11, Titus 3:2. And then of course there is I Pet. 3:4, which is gender-specific — and not even mentioned in footnote 16!
If you truly want to understand the complementarian position, take the time to study Five Aspects of Woman by Barbara Mouser. It is put out by the International Council for Gender Studies, found at http://www.fiveaspects.org
Here are there doctrinal distinctives:
The image of God
The image of God is the basis of all human worth and is equally present in both men and women.
The masculinity of God
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are masculine in names, roles, and nature.
Trinity a model for authority and subordination
Subordination does not mean inferiority, only a difference in role.
Trinity not a model for marriage
There is no femininity in the Godhead. God and His people – God and Israel, Christ and the Church – are the models for marriage.
The pre-Fall headship of man
Basic to God’s pre-Fall creation, man’s headship should be honored in marriage and the Church as part of God’s creation and redemption order.
Male headship is not curse of Genesis 3:16b
God’s curse upon woman is not the rule of man; rather, it is her fallen propensity to resist her husband’s headship.
Wisdom and folly are personified as women in Proverbs 1-9
As such, they represent good and evil patterns of femininity to be emulated and avoided respectively.
Wisdom, in Proverbs 8, foreshadows Christ (as does the Law)
Wisdom, in Proverbs 8, should not be equated with Christ, since it is a feminine personification and a created entity.
Man and woman share the same divine image, but their glories differ
Men are the glory of God, for Christ is directly their head. In physique, bearing, temperament, and roles, they picture the strength, leadership, and love of God.
Women are the glory of man, for woman was made from the man and for the man. In body, bearing, temperament, and roles, women picture the believer and the Church – highlighting faith, response, submission, adornment, and fruitbearing.
One more thing – I think it’s important to understand that we are not that different. We love the Lord, we want to follow and obey Him, and we want fellowship of the saints. I know the enemy wants to destroy Christian communion.
I appreciate your viewpoints!
Whaddya think, folks?
Does questioning the TWM and/or the gender paradigm it sets forth automatically land us in the egalitarian camp?
((I wonder if the disagreements between egalitarians and complementarians have more to do with misunderstandings and fear? What I mean is, from my perspective, women and men are equal image bearers of God, have the same value, and both have as their ultimate authority God. Our domains may be different, our roles may be different, but it doesn’t mean women are less then men. Is that the fear of egalitarians, that woman are somehow not up to par with men or women will be taken advantage of if one believes in being complementary?))
What misunderstandings? Does the egal view embrace or promote “fear”?
((If you truly want to understand the complementarian position,…))
“Truly” – there’s that word again – that’s quite an assumption. Don’t the comments on this post indicate that commenters do indeed “truly understand” complementarianism, hence the commentary?
We want to thank Sarah Mae for stopping by and taking time to comment. Hopefully she returns for Part 3 and our Addendum, which address these points a bit further.
HEvencense,
There has been much discussion relevant to the questions you ask in your last comment, at Complegalitarian.
It seems that my own questioning of comp. doctrine has generally earned the assumption of others that I am egalitarian. I think this is because I do not accept a unilateral subordination based upon gender alone, in any relations between men and women. To me, the statement, “Subordination does not mean inferiority, only a difference in role” is fallacious, as are some of the others that sarah mae posted. I object to them on theological/Scriptural grounds.
Bonnie:
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Ack, let’s try that link again: Complegalitarian
Hevensense,
What amazed me most about this True Woman conference was the fact that most of what they presented in a pink wrapper applies equally to men. So to be Biblically Feminine, largely means to be Christian, even by their own descriptions. I just found this odd. You’ve done a great job here of pointing out many of the places where concepts are largely left or left loosely undefined by the manifesto. They are supposed to be automatically understood by the reader, however. What is also odd about it all is that the content of the conference itself did not address what was written in the manifesto at all. Kassian approached the topic but did not define the terms.
One would think that the central purpose of the conference, the manifesto, would be a matter of discussion at some point within the content of the conference somewhere. But to define the terms properly, one must have a pre-existing knowledge of how the complementarian camp defines them. This promotes a type of fallacy of redefinition, baiting and manipulating the conference participants to fall into error. If people recognized what the document had to say based on their prior knowledge of the language used in the document, then they should sign with all due diligence and joy if that is what they believe. But I find it odd that most of this content was almost avoided at the conference, yet there was a signing ceremony at the end of the conference. Was it all poor planning or very decisive planning?
I also read a very insightful critique of the Five Aspects teaching written by a very insightful and talented blogger named “Light” that appeared on the True WomanHOOD blog (definitely not affiliated with and predating DeMoss’s True Woman) and on the Patriarchy Discussion Yahoo Group. To make it easier to find, I was given permission to post it on my own blog and would like to make mention of it here for those who are interested in the topic:
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/06/critique-of-bill-mousers-five-aspects.html
Looking forward to the next post.
Oh, and about automatically landing us in the egalitarian camp…
This is a divisive game from the start — it has been designed to make “distinctions” and divide, as you well point out that the term “distinct” now carries a loaded language connotation. It means separate features, but it carries a coded meaning which most people see and subtly identify as a red flag for feminism. Voddie Baucham uses this term quite often, changing it to a more epicurian sounding variant of “distinctives.”
But the problem is that either you fit the paradigm that the hard comps have defined or you do not. Any position that lands you off the TWM map defines you as a feminist or an egalitarian, or in some groups, this means that you are a Marxist. There is no intramural ground in between that defines you as acceptably “Biblical,” and individuals are bureaucratically classified in static terms. They defined the argument based on their own preference for rejecting meat sacrificed to idols. It adds to the law what is not found in the law or applies Old Covenant standards to those under the New Covenant, more often than not.
It is like talking about quality of life in ethics. What I find to be quality of life might be very different from what you find to be quality of life. They are deeply personal interpretations. Who gets do decide these things and how are those people appointed to make the decisions for all people? Because they are such personal decisions and matters of interpretation, they are hard cases upon which very bad laws are built. Each case has its unique and dynamic nuances. That is why deeply personal matters like this are always individual matters that are decided by the family and not the state or an institution.
So if I were graced with the opportunity to participate in the paradigm, I would say that questioning the gender paradigm or the TWM does NOT automatically land you in egalitarian and open theist camp as many suggest. It does not mean that I lay awake at night dreaming about changing all pronouns that refer to God to “she.” The truth is that I would go to the guillotine before I would support or advocate such a thing. But the complementarian paradigm does not allow for folks like me (who pledged to submit myself to my husband as unto the Lord and denies that women should be elders or pastors) to land on the complementarian map. It is a paradigm of black and white that subtly but sometimes not so subtly denies any continuum of belief.
Cindy:
Thanks for the link and add’l info.
Note this statement from the ICGS site (International Council for Gender Studies – William and Barbara Mouser):
“We think that non-biblical egalitarian tenets about the nature and relationship of men and women are not only corrosive to society at large, but also pose a threat to the spiritual vitality and integrity of the Church.”
Doesn’t this indicate that the Mousers distinguish between “non-biblical” egalitarianism and biblical egalitarianism?
Rhetorically, “non” indicates “not.” It’s a case of simple negation. Thus, doesn’t this statement also indicate that the converse is valid, e.g., that there’s such a thing as biblical egalitarianism?
This leads us to ask, if the latter is “biblical” – there’s that word again – why would anyone oppose it as a “threat” to the spiritual vitality and integrity of the Church?
“Does questioning the TWM and/or the gender paradigm it sets forth automatically land us in the egalitarian camp? ”
Cindy explained this well. I would add that is exactly what they want to do. It is purposeful. They need for therr to be a clear distinction and that is why they have so much added to scripture. .
They are writing a new Talmud. And women are going to need it to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to do. Because in real life, some of this stuff is fuzzy wjhen it comes to day to day application.
Try this exercise: Substitute the word ‘work’ for the word ‘role’ in their writings and teachings and you get a clearer picture of what they are really teaching.
“We think that non-biblical egalitarian tenets about the nature and relationship of men and women are not only corrosive to society at large, but also pose a threat to the spiritual vitality and integrity of the Church.”
Doesn’t this indicate that the Mousers distinguish between “non-biblical” egalitarianism and biblical egalitarianism?
You could just as easily interpret the statement to mean all egalitarian tenets are non-biblical. Anything deemed virtuous in the Bible would not be a threat to the spiritual vitality and integrity of the Church. You could make an argument from silence on behalf of the Mousers, but they are appeals to ignorance and are not are not ever definitive. If they were arguing for a Biblical egalitarianism, they certainly had the opportunity. I don’t think that the rest of their teaching advocates that there is a zone of acceptability for any type of egalitarianism. And I didn’t get that impression from my brief interaction with Father Bill regarding his “some passages in the Bible do not apply to women and should not be studied or applied to them” blog post, now about a year or two ago.
Cindy, it’s good to hear feedback from someone who attended the conference. Not having done so I still smell subversion in the TWM itself, and the way it’s presented on the website.
Lots of great discussion here!
I’m disappointed when I read the Comp literature (and I used to be Comp) is that they automatically push egals into the box that all egals thing there is no gender distinction and all of it is culturally motivated. One of the reasons I stopped being Comp was the big blue book of Piper and Grudem… I honestly thought they were grasping at straws (though some of it does need to be wrestled with). But it felt too flimsy to follow. So I started to look at other points of view.
I know some egals do freak out if comps say there are gender distinctions.
My own view is that genders are different and there may be real distinctions between them. What disappoints me is that Comps often force those distinctions rather than do the harder work of finding the real distinctions. Mars/Venus just ain’t gonna cut it.
And since when did eternal subordination become a role or a work? With my philosophical background, eternal subordination speaks to “nature” not “role.” To me it seems a categorical fallacy to say something can be equal in nature but permanently subordinate in role…. I wish comps would do more work on this rather than just announce it and pretend that’s an argument.
BTW, it wasn’t until the late 70s that Comps started affirming that women were equal in nature but different in role… so the egals have certainly nudged even comp understandings of Scripture.
And that understanding will shift more. Give it time. Then the TWM will have to be changed.
Good comments, all!
Thanks especially to Dale for chiming in with a testosterone perspective.
Very well said, Dale. You’ve put your finger on the true
nature of some problems with comp. “doctrine,” as has Cindy also.
From what I’ve read, it seems that the current comp. movement has come about as a reaction against secular feminism. It is a counter-revolution designed to protect the church from “cultural” (read: secular-feminist) infiltration. Hence the statement, “We think that non-biblical egalitarian tenets about the nature and relationship of men and women are not only corrosive to society at large, but also pose a threat to the spiritual vitality and integrity of the Church.”
I think it’s appropriate to be concerned about the church, and about sin in the church. But the whole precept of the comp. movement is flawed from the get-go because it pits “culture” against “church” as if the church itself is pure. But the church as an earthly institution is surely not; only the spiritual church is and it no doubt looks a lot different than the earthly church. Perhaps the pure-church fallacy extends back to Catholic origins, where the church on earth is God’s representative body. It is, but… ack, I’m not saying this very well. (I have blogged about it @ Intellectuelle, where hopefully I make a little more sense.)
What I’m trying to say is, the comp. movement makes a lot of fallacious assumptions about what is sin, or worldly, and what isn’t, as Dale alludes to.
I would love to see an organized effort among those of us who see these errors, to come up with a response to the comp. movement and RBMW that is equal to them. Whether it be a blog, or a book, or something else. Anyone interested?
Okay, I meant institutional church vs. the actual church, the actual Body of Christ.
Just a couple of points: (hope this blog accepts html code for links)
Comps actually have argued that distinction requires hierarchy (see Here). So naturally, if anyone says there is no hierarchy between the sexes or persons of the Trinity, then they must be saying there’s no distinction. Of course we egals deny that distinction requires hierarchy, so the foundation of their argument is false.
Also, many such debates keep forgetting that the opposite of male supremacy is female supremacy, with egalitarianism the fulcrum or middle ground between the two. But comps keep lumping egal in with female supremacy; they cannot conceive of any points but the two extremes. So in attacking egal they burn a straw man.
Bonnie, I like your idea… isn’t Pierce and Groothius’ “Recovering Biblical Equality: Complimentarity without Hierarchy” a good start? The ‘red’ book takes the ‘blue’ book to task. I found it very helpful as a response…
But I’m always up for more responses!
p.s. glad to add some testosterone… I wish more men would step into the fray! I’m thankful for the ones who do.
Here’s a link to “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy.” Edited by Pierce and Groothuis:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=828346&p=1134425
Thanks, Dale. You know what, I haven’t read Groothuis’ book — guess I need to! (Thanks for the link, HEvencense!) And I second the appreciation for your contribution — I wish more men would join the fray too!
So okay, guys. Where are ya?
The more I read of the comp stuff the more I am convinced it is the same heresy the FLDS. the institute for basic life Principles, and the Ezzo crowd have adopted. Women are here to serve their prophet, priest, and king (hubby) . God is the after thought . Maybe I bottomline it too much –it just seems all the same but to different extremes… I think there are good theologians(piper/Grudem) that get this area dead wrong… They are not infallible-they are not the Pope. I have a book ,less than 15 yrs old ,that discussed if is ok for Christian wives to work outside the home (Pastor Cole from MBI) . Now it seems to be a silly question . 15 years from now -we will look back at the whole Piper/Grudem /Southern Baptist attempt to silence or impede virtually 1/2 of he Body of Christ (the women) and scratch out heads and say “what was that all about??” My women pastor friends who work and serve in churches in remote areas are not worried . They have toiled diligently where no man would come and have built solid , biblically conservative faith communities….they do God’s work . If the comp crowd is right then these wonderful,loving women pastors are in deep sin for disobeying the Word of God.
I just learned of your website today. Your desire to be humble is admirable, but ladies you seem to be falling for the same unscriptural error that previous generations went for, the error that women in Christ have no authority over the devil, and that humility means demeaning yourself while pushing men forward. Nothing could be further from the truth. God’s truth. There is a type of false humility which all Christians are susceptible to, the kind that says ” I’m just a woman” or “I’m just an old sinner saved by grace”. This comes from people who do not realize who they are in Christ Jesus, or who He is in them. As born-again Christians, they have the very life of God Himself in them! Just think of that. Biblical humility is always for the purpose of allowing God to promote you to higher responsibility. Satan’s counterfeit of humility is to say “I can’t do that”.Actually you are promoting patriarchy, which is a world’s system. The Word of God clearly states that woman was created equal in authority to man (Gen. 1:26, and 27). It is therefore grave error to assert that men can have authority that women cannot have. The knowledge of the truth will set you free, but error will bind you. Submission is one of the most misunderstood words in Scripture. It, along with “headship” has been used to set up a patriarchal “chain of command” which contradicts other clear Scripture teachings. Even here in the United States, literally hundreds of laws were based on that bad theology, relegating women to second-class status and men to the status of a “demi-god” in the home, work-place and government. How could that be Scriptural? Yes, feminists changed some of those laws, but the prejudice still persists. Biblical submission just means to make yourself available, and is applied to all Christians in Ephesians 5:21, I Peter 5:6, Gen. 1:26, and I Corinthians 13 the Love chapter. Headship is not about rulership but is a loving picture of Gen. 2, the creation of the woman. God intended the es to relate to one another in a mutual, loving way, something not included in the patriarchal structure, which clearly favors men, no matter what they may say. My intent here was simply to correct error that has bound so many people, and will bind you too unless you change course. Have a good day in the Lord.
My apologies. Toward the end, my comment should have read “God intended the genders to relate to one another …”. I am using a public library computer. Thank you.
Why isn’t there a “True Man” manifesto holding men accountable for lording over their authority? For displaying patronizing, unChristlike attitudes and behaviors? Why isn’t there a document for men to promise against domestic violence and abuse?
Food for thought.
Good questions.