The Bayly brothers and the Trinity

The Bayly brothers and the Trinity

Awhile back I was asked to consider posting a comment on a very strong complementarian blog that is known to be rather unloving towards egalitarians. This particular blog, I found, was run by two pastors of a Presbyterian church who appear to think that egalitarians do not have the right Jesus or the right gospel and they have taken it upon themselves to “rip” at the sheep who do not belong to their own complementarian flock. Since there is only one good shepherd and he is the shepherd and master of the entire flock, I wondered how Jesus feels about under-shepherds who mistreat the sheep.

I was quite shocked to see how a fine Greek scholar (Suzanne McCarthy) was treated on their blog not only because they did not have an answer to her explanation of the Greek from the original Greek manuscripts, but also because they told her as a woman that she was to be quiet. Apparently they didn’t have an answer either to what I said about the Trinity because they shut down the comments within a short time of my posting my comments and recommended that a woman should do a Titus 2 work in order to help me to understand the Trinity since I apparently didn’t know a thing about the Trinity. You can read the original post of the Bayly brothers here.

Since I am in the research and writing process of our newest DVD on the Trinity and a part of the DVD will deal with the errors of the complementarian position which teaches that Jesus is eternally subordinated in role, in will, in authority underneath the Father, I am interested in how I will be corrected by one of the women followers of the Bayly brothers. Kamilla is willing to do this “correction” and I am offering this post for our discussions. This public forum is for two reasons. First of all a public discussion is always best to create a permanent record of the argument and so all can see the attitude that comes through. We are all encouraged by Paul to be gentle and respectful so that all can judge for themselves the argument without any quarreling or disrespect. Paul instructed Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,

2 Timothy 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth

The second reason is that I think we can all learn and participate in this discussion and since my time is limited because of the DVD project, I would love to welcome those who have things to say about the Trinity to be able to do so in a safe environment.

Since I greatly desire a respectful conversation and since I know most if not all of you who are regulars on my blog agree with me, I think we can welcome Kamilla as a complementarian sister and ask her to make her time here an exercise in grace a.k.a. 2 Timothy 2:24, 25. Everyone who is interested in this kind of discussion is also welcome with these rules:

1. Correspond in the tone that you would if Jesus was sitting by your side and reading every word you are typing.

2. Remember that healthy discussion and passion is fine as long as there are no personal attacks and the language is respectful. Jesus said that they would know us by our love. (John 13:35) Let’s prove to the world which ones are really Jesus’ disciples in this forum.

3. Be patient and kind especially since my time is limited and I cannot always answer right away.

4. If you do not follow these rules, I reserve the right to edit out inappropriate content or remove your posts altogether. All new posters will have their first post held for pre-approval.

5. Women and men are both welcome to post and no one will be told to “be quiet” because of your gender.

Kamilla may not be on-line until Monday, however if any of you other dear souls have comments about why you believe that it is important to see Jesus as equal with the Father in will, in authority and in “role”, you are welcome to post. If Suzanne reads this post and comes to interact, I would like to just say “You go girl! You are welcome and respected here as a dear sister in Christ.”

Cheryl

250 thoughts on “The Bayly brothers and the Trinity

  1. One of the many problems with the concept of eternal subordination in the Trinity is that it presents more than One Will. As we can see in the Athenasian Creed that is one of the errors the creed was written to correct. Here are some excerpts to consider.

    “And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.”
    “So likewise the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords: but one Lord.”
    “And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another: none is greater, or less than another.”

  2. If the Father has a will and the Son’s will is different from the Father’s in that the Father must take authority over the Son, then there can be no Son’s will at all. A will that is never expressed is not a will at all. It is no different than one who has no will to begin with. Before the incarnation we find the Word of God as the LORD of hosts with will and action and plans. There is no sense that he has to ask permission or submit his will to the Father. It is important to identify the Son in the Old Testament so that we do a biblical test to find his will and if it is ever used.

  3. Thank you for the show of solidarity but I would like to clear something up. I do not believe that I was asked to be quiet because I am a woman. In fact, I notice that many women comment on that blog. Rather, I was asked to be quiet because they disagreed with what I was saying. Quite frankly this is within their rights.

    It has been a good lesson for me in learning to submit without actually feeling that by submitting I am therefore of lower rank than men in either essence or function. I have agreed to certain conditions. Although I am not exactly sure if I have kept them all, they have allowed me to continue to post. I appreciate that.

    I am very interested in how your debate unfolds here but I will watch only. I am not an expert in the history of the church’s view on hierarchy in the trinity. To me it seems a very complex matter.

  4. Suzanne,
    Thanks for your comments! I have noticed, though, that there are men who have disagreed with the Baylys and I have not seen them asked to be quiet. I do have to admit that I haven’t read everything they have posted, so I could stand to be corrected. If they have also asked men to be quiet, then you are right, it would not be your gender but your position that would make them tell you to be quiet. I also got the distinct impression that they were referring to scripture when they asked you to be quiet. 1 Timothy 2 comes to mind as well as 1 Cor. 14:34, 35. If that was the case, then it would be your gender on top of what you said 🙂 Again, I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.

    I also am most interested in the Trinity itself as expressed in the pages of the Bible. The history of the church is far behind what the scripture says and the church fathers must bow to scripture. It is my intention to give a scriptural defense and I will be asking Kamilla to do the same. Once we have covered that, we can move on to other issues.

  5. “If the Father has a will and the Son’s will is different from the Father’s in that the Father must take authority over the Son, then there can be no Son’s will at all. A will that is never expressed is not a will at all.”

    Yes, good point. That is the picture that Burk is painting, right? My thought is that if anyone has to give up his will to another, then he has lost his will. But at one time he did have one.
    It is my understanding that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are always of One Will. None has to give it up to another, none requires the other submit to His Will instead of their own. Only One Will, means there cannot be one who has the authority and one who submits to that authority. There is nothing to submit to if the Trinity has only One Will.

    When hierarchalists try to add authority and submission into the Trinity they divide the substance of the Trinity and they seek to add in human thinking. It is difficult for humans to conceive of the actuality of three who are in perfect Oneness. We can only conceive in human experience of one who takes authority over others in order to maintain one will. That is grossly different to the Oneness of the Trinity.

    Anyway, I’ll try to find some time to see what Giles has to say on this subject also.

  6. Justa Berean,
    It is the human Son where the human will was in subjection to the divine will. Since we all agree that the human Son of God submitted to the Father and there was a will under submission, we must look outside the incarnation to prove an eternal submission of the Son’s will. The problem is exactly what you have stated. If the Son never uses his will and always submits to the Father’s will, then we know that the Father’s will is always in opposition to the Son’s will. That doesn’t sound too good does it? It kind of makes the Son out to be less than perfect if his will is never in agreement with the Father’s. However when we see the Trinity in the scripture there is never any member of the Trinity in opposition to the other members. They have one perfect will in unity.

  7. Yes, exactly. And since the Trinity is One and always in perfect accord, then when they planned the redemption of humanity they were also in perfect accord. Thus the Word of God (John 1:1) who was in the beginning was in agreement to becoming the Messiah at the appointed time. And as the God-Man, being clothed in human flesh (Phil. 2:5-8) in the form of a man also needed to be in accord with God in all things. Since human flesh is not God, this human flesh needed to be submitted during the life of the Messiah.

    I’ve often wondered about after the resurrection when Christ’s human flesh was transformed into whatever it is now. Perhaps, we will be like Him when we are raised also.

    To me even talking about the mystery of it all stretches the bounds of thinking.

  8. Cheryl, I think it is a good idea to have this discussion publicly. It keeps all parties accountable. I also thank you for being willing to allow free and open participation via this blog, and for making the ground rules clear at the beginning. Most patriarchal/hierarchal bloggers don’t even permit comments on their blog. It is as if they are afraid of someone making points that make too much sense. On some patriarchal blogs and discussion boards that do permit comments, I notice it seems to be a common practice that once a commenter starts showing how biblical the egalitarian position really is, comments are immediately shut down or comments are deleted.

  9. Light,
    I too thought it was a great idea to have a respectful public discussion. When Kamilla wrote me she suggested that I read her public comments on the baylyblog.com site (under her name) in the archives. After receiving biblical wisdom and reading her comments on several discussion boards/blogs that she posts on, it became evident to me that a public “correction” from her was the best way to keep things in a healthy, respectful manner and so I set up the blog “meeting spot” and made rules of biblical engagement. I sent this email to Kamilla:

    Okay, I have it all set up and waiting for you. A respectful place, a loving Christian environment and lots of space to talk about the Trinity.

    http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/02/01/the-bayly-brothers-and-the-trinity/

    Whenever you are ready, I’ll meet you there and we will discuss.

    This morning I got this email from her:

    I must say Cheryl, from “I’ll wait for you to get back to me” to “Here’s the public forum I’ve set up on my blog” in one easy leap!

    That’s hardly respectful behaviour, my dear. I’d like to say something clever about the audacity of your move, but I’m afraid it’s a rather common tactic in your camp. The consistency of the Egalitarian playbook never ceases to bore. I hope you and your respondents have a lovely discussion. I’m afraid it won’t include me.

    My response back to Kamilla:

    Hi Kamilla,

    Actually I thought it was very respectful behavior. While I waited, you were the one who suggested I read your posts. I saw a very public person who was not kind nor respectful to the opposition. If you have something to say to me in the way of correction, I am willing to listen publicly. If you have nothing to say in the way of correction, I completely understand.

    No problem, I will inform those waiting to hear what you had to say.
    Ephesians 5:15

    Warmly,
    Cheryl Schatz

    While many would welcome a correction given in secret, I welcome a public “correction” if the one doing the correcting is especially prone to the type of rhetoric and insults that is common on the baylyblog. If Kamilla chooses to change her mind and wants to dialog in this respectful format, I am very willing to talk and I am willing to listen and consider her words.

  10. Cheryl, I was very sorry to read Kamilla’s response. I thought your rules of engagment were very protective for her. And I agree that a public correction is the only option here. We must all test everthing taught and be Bereans.

    I have several friends who have been kicked off the Bayly blog because they were women who disagreed..quite nicely, too. This was probably over a year ago. They were accused of being in sin and rebellion for disagreeing with Patriarchy.

    As long as I have been reading you, I have found you to be extremely respectful, loving and gracious toward those who disagree. But, I am also glad you will not be bullied.

    BTW: Has anyone else here read this paper by Russell Moore titled After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate:

    http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf

    It is scary. (And on topic with this thread as he is arguing a more Patriarchal complimentarianism based on authority within the Trinity)

    Here is an excerpt:

    “Authentic biblical patriarchy is necessary because the problem is not that evangelicals do not hold to “traditionalist” notions of gender and family, but rather where they find these notions. Wilcox correctly argues that patriarchy is “pervasive, at least symbolically, in the world of conservative Protestantism” since “God the Father stands at its Trinitarian core, transcending heaven and earth.”13 It seems, however, that the symbolism is not well fleshed out in evangelical churches, since “patriarchy” in conservative evangelicalism is so loosely, if at all, tied to the Fatherhood of God.
    There is some progress here in evangelical complementarianism, largely in response to egalitarian claims for “mutual submission” within the Godhead. Complementarian theologians such as Bruce Ware and Peter Schemm have demonstrated convincingly that the Trinitarian “bungee-jumping” of egalitarians such as Gilbert Bilezikian and Kevin Giles have erosive implications not only for male headship, but also for an orthodox doctrine of God.14 Randy Stinson of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has demonstrated a dangerous trajectory within religious feminism when it comes to the God/world relationship.15

    But there is more here to be said about the Fatherhood of God—a Fatherhood that is not just eternal and abstract but realized in a divine relationship with Jesus as the representative Man, an historical Father/Son covenantal relationship that defines the covenantal standing and inheritance of believers. Patriarchy then is essential—from the begetting of Seth in the image and likeness of Adam to the deliverance of Yahweh’s son Israel from the clutches of Pharaoh to the promise of a Davidic son to whom God would be a Father (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26) to the “Abba” cry of the new covenant assembly (Rom 8:15). For too long, egalitarians have dismissed complementarian proof-texts with the call to see the big picture “trajectory” of the canon. I agree that such a big-picture trajectory is needed, but that trajectory leads toward patriarchy—a loving, sacrificial, protective patriarchy in which the archetypal Fatherhood of God is reflected in the leadership of human fathers, in the home and in the church (Eph 3:14-15; Matt 7:9-11; Heb 12:5-11). With this being the case, even the so-called “egalitarian proof-texts” not only fail to demonstrate an evangelical feminist argument, they actually prove the opposite. Galatians 3:28, for example, is all about patriarchy—a Father who provides his firstborn son with a cosmic inheritance, an inheritance that is shared by all who find their identity in Christ, Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free.

    This understanding of archetypal patriarchy is grounded then in the overarching theme of all of Scripture—the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10).16 It does not divide God’s purposes, his role as Father from his role as Creator from his role as Savior from his role as King. To the contrary, the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to his headship—a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ (Heb 12:5-11). This protects evangelical theology proper from both the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism and from the “most moved mover” of open theism. Indeed, the evangelical response to open theism would have been far more effective had evangelicals not severed the issues of open theism and egalitarianism. Open theism is not more dangerous than evangelical feminism, or even all that different. It is only the end result of a doctrine of God shorn of patriarchy.
    Many egalitarians are quite willing to concede what some complementarians are afraid to say: a rejection of male headship means a redefinition of divine Fatherhood and divine sovereignty.”

  11. I could never take Russell Moore seriously again after reading an article where he expressed contempt for those who practice cooperation and mutual decision making in marriage.

  12. It’s really too bad when one ideological faction of Christendom cannot just amicably and realistically concede that outside of the essentials (Athanasian Creed), not all Christians agree upon what the Scriptures teach.

    I for one am more amazed at what the Bible does not say as opposed to what it does say concerning faith in Christ and Christ alone.

    History does repeat itself in cycles though, and I do see the complementarians breaking off and creating a kind of eastern empire, much in the same way Constantine did in the 4th century.

  13. ‘Cheryl, I was very sorry to read Kamilla’s response. I thought your rules of engagment were very protective for her. And I agree that a public correction is the only option here. We must all test everthing taught and be Bereans.’

    Lin, I thought they were protective too and I agree with the public ‘correction’. Most would like to be corrected privately, and understandably so. When one doesn’t mind a public ‘correction’, well that can say alot of things…best of all accountability could be in operation in such an enviroment.

  14. Greg Anderson:
    ‘History does repeat itself in cycles though, and I do see the complementarians breaking off and creating a kind of eastern empire, much in the same way Constantine did in the 4th century.’

    Greg, there is something happening, some kind of ‘break off’. Don’t know exactly what it is but something….at least as far as I can see. Wish I could see more or understand better.

  15. ‘And I agree that a public correction is the only option here.’

    Nothing to be afraid of in the light.

  16. Lin,
    Thanks for providing that quote. I do have several Russell Moore audio lectures on the collapse of patriarchy. It has been awhile since I listened to the audio tapes. I will have to pull them out again. I actually have quite a number of CBMW speakers whom I have downloaded that I haven’t found time to listen to yet. I can only listen to this stuff in limited blocks of time not only because I am so busy (which I am) but because they cause me great irritation by the misusing of God’s word. For example when Moore says that Galatians 3:28 is all about patriarchy which takes the emphasis off of Jesus and on to only the Father and from there all men/husbands, is so far off what the scriptures actually say in context, that it is nothing less than proof-texting in the worst way.

  17. Greg,
    The problem with those who promote patriarchy is that their methods are akin to the world system. They speak about servanthood but their way actually promotes abuse. Where is the limits and who regulates what a man does to his wife? And why is patriarchy so important that God would create a being who will never grow up spiritually. She must look to her husband to keep her in line spiritually and the times when she feels the strongest in opposing a view of her husband’s, she is forced into submission at the expense of her free will. The biblical way is to world through the differences in order for both to end up with a united will. Whenever one bowls over the other person disregarding another person’s will and forcing their decision on the other person by pulling rank, one is following the world’s way.

    So the question I have for y’all, is Jesus’ will ever revealed in the New Testament? We know that Jesus as a human submitted to his Father’s will. Did Jesus ever exercise his own will while he was here on earth? Thoughts?

  18. Pinklight,
    You are right. Anyone who has nothing to hide should not fear a public “correction”. I have nothing to hide and if I cannot support my belief through scripture alone then there is more work needed. The thing that I always like the most, though, is a respectful handling of disagreements and that is key to my decision to go public.

  19. “‘History does repeat itself in cycles though, and I do see the complementarians breaking off and creating a kind of eastern empire, much in the same way Constantine did in the 4th century.’”

    Or even during the Reformation. The groups who had been outside the Catholic church were thrilled with the Reformation until they realized that the reformers were keeping many things Catholic like infant baptism, state church, etc. The refused to join and were considered heretics. Many descendents of these groups later coming to America seeking freedom of worship. I read something recently that approximated that only 6% of the American population were members of the Church of England before the Revolutionary war. I was stunned since that was the ‘state church’.

    The parallel is how many comps are now teaching that egal doctrine is as dangerous as Open Theism or Liberation Theology and is sin. People are being shamed and shunned for being egalitarian. I know many who just keep their mouths shut about it at church. Why? It is very hard to find an egalitarian church that is not liberal in primary doctrine.

    Did anyone notice in the paper how concerned Moore is about complimentarians being too soft? And this softness, to him, means they are losing to egalitarians? I do not understand this at all because comps pretty much hold the power reigns in many mega churches and denominations.

    Light, you summed it up in what you heard him say about mutual decision making in marriage. Do you remember the reference by any chance? That is pretty hard core.

    anti spam word: light :0)

  20. Here’s what Moore says: “Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus,” Moore said. “That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism — and our foremothers, too.”

    And here’s the link: http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22161

  21. Thanks, Light. Unbelieveable.

    Here is another confusing quote from the same article:

    “Moore called for a complementarian response built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of male headship in which men lead their families and churches by mirroring God the Father, whom Scripture portrays as the loving, sacrificial, protective Patriarch of His people. ”

    This only reinforces the teaching of putting Jesus in a subordinate place within the Trinity, calling for men to model God the Father instead of Jesus Christ is confusing. Doesn’t scripture call for us all to model Christ as He was on earth?

  22. # 21 by Lin:

    Yes I know what you mean about the mainline churches who are egalitarian but tend toward liberal theology, contemplative prayer, and other new age trappings, I am in one at present. (ELCA Lutheran).

    Those of us there, who are of like persuasion (Bible-believing), keep our mouths shut too and don’t rock the row boat. We are a support group for each other in our adult Sunday School class.

    Our only other alternatives are the mega congregations like Calvary Chapel and Evangelical Free, which tend toward hyper-fundamentalism.

    Most of us have been there, done that, and don’t wanna go back.
    We’re kinda like lizards caught between a man-hole cover and heavy traffic.

  23. I didn’t know this post and comments existed till today, when I was doing a search on anti-egalitarian writings. I came upon a blog that mentioned the “Bayly brothers” and decided to look. It was a former participant of that blog who had been banned, lied to, lied about, gossiped about, and called names. She was a “Piper” comp. but disagreed with the blog owners about some minor point, and for this “crime” they treated her like an unbeliever.

    This is what I call “Christian Cannibalism”. I’ve experienced it often myself in other venues.

    pinklight, there is indeed a “break off” happening in the churches. God is beginning to separate sheep from goats, and we need to take warning. Persecution is coming, and the persecutors will be “of our own household”. It is a spirit of cannibalism; it devours its own kind. That’s why I do not associate with people having that kind of spirit. If anyone is treacherous, dishonest, backbiting, slandering etc., I am resolved now to not even try to talk to them. My blog is there for people to read if they choose, but they have to be willing to listen.

  24. Light,
    Thank you for that link! That was great!

    Paula,
    I appreciated it too that you gave a “heads up” regarding someone else who was mistreated on the bayly blog. I did a quick search and found a blog that gave some of the discussion that resulted in a poster being kicked off. I don’t know if it was the same poster that you came across, but the disrespect that was given to her was extremely troubling to me. I see this all the time in the cults, but when it comes into Christianity, it causes me so much sadness.

    Another quick word to all who read my posts and have stood with us in prayer while we fight a battle against the secular government who is intent on taking away our freedom to preach the gospel to those who are lost in the cults. I am not yet ready to give a full update on what is happening to our ministry, but today God gave a word of wisdom and the four of us who have partnered together in ministry have a sense of joy that God has stepped into a very serious situation and he has come to our rescue and he will fight on our behalf. I can’t give any details out right now but when things are completely settled I will do so. All I can say is that we are at peace and we are joyfully praising God for his wisdom and his timing! Praise the name of the Lord!! He indeed is our helper and our defender.

  25. Hey Cheryl,

    How’s it going? I haven’t read your post entirely… but I did just read their post. I also haven’t read all the comments (waaay to many). But I was thinking of some things.

    They apparently believe that they have the right to as other “wives” to be silent (i.e. Suzanne McCarthy). Which I assume means that they believe woman/wives should submit to all men (not just their husbands). At least that’s the impression that I get.

    They also believe that a husband does have to submit to other authorities (such as, “a boss at work, a cop on the highway, the IRS April 15th, the pastor preaching, the elders correcting”). What if it was a woman boss? or a woman cop? or a woman at the IRS? It seems like they would have the right to tell them to be silent and to submit.

    Also, they seem to have forgotten Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her…” That sounds too submissive for me. Perhaps it should be changed to “Husbands love your wife as Christ loved the church and made all the decisions for her…”

    God’s Glory,
    Lew

  26. Tanx Lin 🙂

    But honestly, it didn’t take much effort to “out-scholar” him. He made such elementary errors of Bible reading (I couldn’t call it exegesis because there wasn’t any) and logic, which seems to be common among comp “scholars”. Suzanne has called Grudem out on numerous blunders of basic Greek.

  27. Reading Grudem is like driving on a Mobius strip; before too long, ya can’t tell which end is up…

  28. Hi Cheryl,

    How’s your research going. I hope and pray it’s going well. I am familiar with the Bayly blog. Some of the posts regarding evangelical egalitarians are just plain horrific. I’ve been noticing a trend in the American Christian blogosphere for so-called conservative, orthodox evangelical Protestants’ rhetoric to be manipulative, divisive, and just plain pugnacious all in the name of God’s glory. These practices do more harm than good for the advancement of the Gospel. They tend to be overzealous about correct doctrine (even if they are right on essential matters) they tend to minor on correct behavior and speech towards others.
    I confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and affirm the ecumenical creeds of the Christian faith. But since when did complementarianism a very recent theological development become the test for Christian orthodoxy?

    This doctrine is based on fear due to societal change, not careful, prayerful reflection on Holy Scripture and in conversation with the Great Tradition of the Church (not that I hold Tradition on equal status with Scripture, just that it’s helpful to look and our elder brothers AND sisters in Christ for wisdom and weight against Scripture).

    This really put egalitarians in a theological predicament regarding fellowship. We don’t hold much in common with theological liberals but we are scorned by evangelical complementarians. Lord help us to endure and give our brothers and sisters on the other side of this issue have are heart of charity towards us and let us do the same.

  29. Cheryl,

    I just read that recent post on Bayly’s blog about Carolyn Custis James and Suzanne’s comments. Lord have mercy! Suzanne held it down, truly! You go, Sister Sue! I’ve never read so much arrogance and lack of discernment in my life. My goodness Jesus!

    Another pet peeve of mine: One guy commenting on Suzanne accused her of attacking God’s Word and his character. What is with people thinking that others can attack God. Our arms are way too short to box with GOD. True false doctrine doesn’t attack God nor his Word, it attacks God’s people and lead them from the Faith. People need to realize God has not nor has ever need people to defend Him. He calls us to repentance, trusting and obeying His Word. A deity who needs defending is not a god worth worshiping.

    Blessings.

  30. #29 Lew,
    Yes, I too got the impression that they believe that as men they are allowed to silence other men’s wives. I also think they would be very disrespectful if they had a woman boss.

    #30 Paula,
    Great post and thanks for the link! Paula is one who likes to get to the meat of the matter.

  31. Tanx Cheryl!

    Jason, I agree, we egals are pretty much outcasts now. We are automatically lumped with the theologically liberal (yet, of course, we dare not lump comps with the abusive and dictatorial!). And the theologically liberal will not tolerate our insistence on Biblical fidelity, viewing us as those dangerous fundamentalists. It’s a real mess.

  32. Paula, That’s exactly what I meant by the crack I made in post #24
    about the lizards caught between a man-hole cover and heavy traffic.

    The metaphor is typically Southern Californian; you have two choices, a mainline denomination that is egal, but inching toward apostasy, or you can get flattened by a patriarchal authoritarian regime in one of the mega-fellowships.

    Take your pick.

  33. Jason #35,
    Things are going well for me but very, very busy. I am still working on the Trinity DVD but distracted with legal matters with the ministry. Hopefully it will be resolved soon.

    “But since when did complementarianism a very recent theological development become the test for Christian orthodoxy?…This really put egalitarians in a theological predicament regarding fellowship. We don’t hold much in common with theological liberals but we are scorned by evangelical complementarians.”

    Jason you have hit the nail on the head. There are those who are willing to separate over a secondary issue and treat their brothers and sisters in Christ as if they are the enemy. This is very wrong and hurts the Lord Jesus who desires that his body draws together in love. It is so sad.

  34. Jason #36,

    “I just read that recent post on Bayly’s blog about Carolyn Custis James and Suzanne’s comments. Lord have mercy! Suzanne held it down, truly! You go, Sister Sue! I’ve never read so much arrogance and lack of discernment in my life. My goodness Jesus!”

    I was shocked too at the harsh comments. Suzanne really did keep her cool and exhibited true power under control. It is these kinds of blogs (baylyblog.com) that should cause those sitting on the fence to really question the complementarian position. This unloving, unwarranted attack on the body of Christ is not the fruit of the Spirit and many men have left because they could no longer stand the attacks on their brothers and sisters in Christ. Complementarians like this really are their own worst enemy.

  35. Well, the Baylys are an interesting breed, aren’t they? As Lin mentioned, the patriarch crowd (much like the more recent comments from Russell Moore of CBMW and SBTS) find complementarianism to be too lax for their standards. Patriarchy is far above and beyond CBMW’s stance on many points regarding gender. They quote Moore often, but I believe that all but the Federal Visionists scrupulously avoid the topic of the Doctrine of God and Trinity. (The Baylys are very friendly with Doug Wilson who is the source of the Federal Vision teachings on Trinity and the appeal to the Trinity to support female subordination, BTW.) They enjoy the ability to draw on Moore and Ware without being held to the foundational assumtions of their Trinitarian (or anti-trinitarian) views. They practice a great deal of intentional vagueness in order to enjoy this lack of accountability.

    The Baylys present excellent examples of the hyperbolic verbal aggression within patriarchy, exemplifying this spiritually abusive characteristic very notably. I don’t know that it is fair to many of the men in the complementarian camp to call patriarchs complimentarians! To many, the patriarchs are a whole different breed, even though they rely heavily upon the teachings of CBMW.

    If you were insulted or thrown off the Bayly blog, you are to be highly esteemed and should wear the status as a badge of honor!

  36. Under Much Grace,

    When I was doing research for my DVD series, I was literally shocked at the things I came across from CBMW and John MacArthur as I couldn’t believe that they could be so strict against women. If you would have told me four years ago that I would say that CBMW could even be considered mild compared to these ultra patriarchal groups, I don’t know if I would have believed it then. It is so unfortunate that these patriarchal groups seem to have gained inroads with home schooling groups. It is also unfortunate that the patriarchal groups are responsible for causing so much division in the body of Christ.

  37. The more I read of bloggers like the Baylys and those on the discussion boards at Carm I really can fully appreciate blogs such as this. It seems to me that the accusation of egalitarians having a problem with authority is misplaced. Complimentarians seem to view everything through the lenses of power instead of love. The scripture says that “God is Love” and that the proof that your are one of Christ’s is the love we show one toward another not the power that we can claim over one another. I Corithinans 13 tells us that ” that love is not puffed up” and “love seeks not her own”. The ugly attitude and personal attacks errupt (when they ca’nt rightly defend thier position, Diane on Carm has called Bibically informed egalitarians stupid) are symptoms of the lack of love in some members of the body of Christ (therefore, all the members suffer.) In such an effort to be orthodox (as they see it) they have omitted the weightier matters of the law which is judgement or justice, mercy and faith. Make no mistake Egalitarians do not miss the air of superiority that leaders in the complimentarian movement exude, that spirit is really there and it thrives among authoritarians. It is not just a figment of the Feminized Church’s (so complimentarians call it) imagination.

  38. Very good points, Terri! I especially liked this:

    Complimentarians seem to view everything through the lenses of power instead of love.

    This is really the bottom line. When you view things through the lens of “power” such as who is on top or who is the big boss, our world view is distorted. You are right in that Jesus taught us to love one another and to hold the other in a higher regard. Those who seek power simply cannot do that because it goes against their goal.

  39. “. . . because they did not have an answer to her explanation of the Greek from the original Greek manuscripts, but also because they told her as a woman that she was to be quiet.”

    Neither of these are reasons they gave for asking Suzanne to be quiet. In the first case, you are making assumptions about their motives. In the second, you are misrepresenting what they said, as Suzanne herself has told you. This makes a poor impression on me. (Although it does leave me favorably impressed with Suzanne.)

    Perhaps you meant well by setting up a public forum for discussion with Kamilla, but it was not respectful to make such a decision without consulting her. This is not neutral ground. You were, in effect, forcing her into a position where she would be out-numbered by a hostile audience. I find her refusal to participate quite understandable.

    “. . . complementarian blog that is known to be rather unloving towards egalitarians”

    I have not come across any egalitarian blogs that I would describe as loving towards complementarians so why expect the reverse. Regardless of who is more correct doctrinally, I don’t see that either side can claim the moral high ground. I have seen less than gracious behaviour from people on both (as well as gracious). And both sides have banned dissenting commenters. I myself was prohibited from posting comments on an egalitarian blog: http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/are-patriocentric-views-of-a-womans-role-causing-homeschooling-freedoms-to-be-at-risk/
    (I expect people here to think Karen was justified in her decision, just as complementarians defended the Bayleys’ decision.)

    It is often easier to notice the ugly attitudes and personal attacks coming from the other side than our own. It is often easier to excuse negative behaviour from those with whom we agree than those we do not. It is tempting to adopt an attitude of “not only are we taking the right position, but we are just nicer people too.” Just remember that many of the people with whom you argue are thinking the same thing.

    As for the Bayly brothers, they have a blunt and forceful style that I can understand some may find off-putting. It doesn’t bother me personally. Their interpretation of Scripture makes a lot more sense to me than the opposing position. And I see nothing wrong with their attitude toward women. The speak to and of their wives and daughters with respect and affection. The only interaction with me personally was kind and affirming (but then I was agreeing with them.)

    I haven’t even gotten to the Trinity yet and I have run out of time. It is just as well. I don’t enjoy this area of theology.

  40. JayneK,
    Welcome!

    “In the first case, you are making assumptions about their motives.”

    Thanks for your comments. No I wasn’t questioning their motives, I said that I was shocked because they treated her poorly and had no answer to her Greek explanation. God only knows what their motive is for that. Regardless of the motive, they came across as harsh to someone who should have been treated as a sister in Christ.

    “In the second, you are misrepresenting what they said, as Suzanne herself has told you. This makes a poor impression on me. (Although it does leave me favorably impressed with Suzanne.)”

    I disagree with Suzanne because I did not see them tell men who disagreed that they were to be quiet. They believe that women are to be quiet in the church and as elders in the church, they silence women who disagree with them. I certainly could be wrong and they may show disrespect to men too, but I haven’t seen it. I do believe that Suzanne has been extremely respectful to the Bayly brothers and has shown a Christ-like attitude to them.

    “Perhaps you meant well by setting up a public forum for discussion with Kamilla, but it was not respectful to make such a decision without consulting her.”

    Why was this not respectful? Kamilla has been publicly sent to reprimand me by the Bayly brothers. If I want to have this reprimand done in public, then this should be my decision. If she was going to do it publicly without asking me first, then that would be disrespectful, however since I am the one to be corrected, I choose to have it done publicly. Since I have asked anyone who would be commenting to do it in a respectful manner and since I am the one who can edit out or block anyone from being disrespectful this is a safe environment for her – much safer than the Bayly blog is for egalitarians. This blog was set up as a place to have respectful dialog and I think that has been successfully done.

    The whole issue regarding the secondary issue of women in ministry is whether we have a right to separate from our brothers and sisters in Christ over disagreement over secondary doctrines. I do not believe that we have that right since Christ told us that we are to love one another.

    The issue of the Trinity is not a secondary issue and it does lend itself to a strong defense of the faith so that Jesus is given his proper place of honor and respect as an equal member of the Trinity in his will and his work. This will be a big part of the Trinity DVD that we are working on. The Trinity has come under attack in many ways and we cannot stand by and let it happen.

    I hope that helps!
    Cheryl

  41. “No I wasn’t questioning their motives, I said that I was shocked because they treated her poorly and had no answer to her Greek explanation.”

    You said they treated her poorly “because they did not have an answer to her explanation of the Greek”. Your use of “because” means that you are claiming this was the cause of their behaviour.

    You also said, “because they told her as a woman that she was to be quiet.” They did not say anything about her being a woman when they told her to be quiet. You have deduced that it was because she is a woman but this is not what they told her.

    You said, “Kamilla has been publicly sent to reprimand me by the Bayly brothers.” Perhaps I missed this. Are you referring to the comment from Tim Bayly which said:
    “Is there a woman reading this blog who would be so kind as to speak to Cheryl privately, as a Titus 2 woman, and explain to her why she should be quiet and learn Scripture before trying to teach Trinitarian doctrine again, publicly?” He neither specified Kamilla nor used the word “reprimand”. If this is what you refer to then your comment was misleading.

    You have expressed some concern about how Christians who disagree with each other get along. I suggest that we can work toward this goal by giving greater attention to the accuracy and clarity of our statements, especially when describing the positions of others.

  42. Jayne,

    I don’t have an opinion either way on the Bayly’s. I don’t care to analyse people on blogs. However, I will gladly deconstruct a published book using quotes from that book.

    Cheryl is doing some good and necessary work. I heartily support it.

  43. JayneK,

    Once again, please read my statement. I was not giving out their heart motive. I do not know the reason why they did what they did. The comment that they treated her bad was connected to the fact that they did not give an answer to her Greek. I did not question the heart motive.

    You are right in that they did not say anything about her being a woman. However they told Suzanne, a woman, to be quiet and I have not seen them tell a man to be quiet who disagrees with them. If you can show me where they treat men the same as women (telling them to be quiet) then I will stand corrected. Since they believe women are to be quiet and not teach men, then telling a woman to be quiet falls right in line with this. Again, if they treat men the same way, then I stand to be corrected.

    “Are you referring to the comment from Tim Bayly which said:
    “Is there a woman reading this blog who would be so kind as to speak to Cheryl privately, as a Titus 2 woman, and explain to her why she should be quiet and learn Scripture before trying to teach Trinitarian doctrine again, publicly?” He neither specified Kamilla nor used the word “reprimand”. If this is what you refer to then your comment was misleading.”

    This is the public call to reprimand me. Mr. Bayly did not specify Kamilla’s name but she is their friend and took him up on his request. It matters not that he didn’t use the word “reprimand”. Telling someone to be quiet and that they do not know Scripture or the Trinity is certainly classified as a reprimand. My question is are you here to take Kamilla’s place and reprimand me? If you are, then please make it known so we know where you stand. If not, then that’s fine. Kamilla has stepped back and I can accept that she would not want to “teach” or “rebuke” publicly.

    Christians need to treat each other with love and respect and Jesus loves his body and gave his life for the church which is his body.

  44. Thank you Suzanne for being willing to dialog with those who believe differently than you do. What a wonderful, godly attitude you have and I trust that we all can learn from you!

  45. Essay question for extra points this quarter:

    It appears that the Red Queen (Kamilla) is desperate to chop off the Cheshire Cat’s head but doesn’t quite know how to go about it.
    Why do you suppose this is?

    Is it because she would no longer be under the authority of a man and thus violate the dictates of the “Pax Baylyana”?

    What would Aurelius do in a similar situation?

  46. Greg,

    I don’t think there is any point in saying things about other people on the internet.

    On the other hand, if someone writes a book in order to subordinate women, I’ll take every sentence apart in public. Here is one that is really worth thinking about.

    “Recently some writers have denied that the creation of Eve as a helper fit for Adam signals any difference in role or authority, because the word helper (Heb. ezer) is often used in the Old Testament of someone who is greater or more powerful than the one who is being helped. In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or our modern day use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped.”

    Then he goes on to quote Cline who says about God and anyone who helps,

    “… in the act of helping they are being “inferior”

    This is on page 461 and 462 of Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem and is available through books.google.com

    There is no doubt that this book clearly teaches that in helping man, God is “inferior” to man. Don’t ask me how this book ever got published. Please will someone just take this apart.

  47. I’ve got Grudem’s Systematic Theology. I’m going to go look at it when I get a chance (and remember). But am in the middle of a study right now.

    I’m rather amazed that Grudem could actually write that and not realize how it affected his view of the Trinity and God.

  48. Christ is subordinate to God.
    God is subordinate to man.
    Woman is subordinate to man.

    The three tenets of the Systematic Theology.

  49. Suzanne,

    Sometimes laughter is a viable route; Lutwidge thought so anyway, and I’ll be first to caricature myself too!

  50. Suzanne,
    That is an absolutely incredible quote. I really don’t know how any Christian could read that and not see how God has been downgraded. Thank you for giving this quote. It will come in very useful.

  51. Greg,
    You are way smarter than I am ’cause I have no idea what you said.

    Regarding being corrected here, I don’t think it should be a problem for Kamilla. The Trinity is such an important topic that it really does deserve to be discussed.

  52. Here is another important trend. On Gender Blog, Ligon Duncan wrote the following a couple of days ago.

    “- Our ministry to men and women must be rooted in a proper understanding of the doctrine of God. Being created in his image means ministry must carry the different distinctions between equal persons of the Trinity.

    – Biblical manhood and womanhood must be rooted in the doctrine of the work and person of Christ. Therefore all women’s ministry in the local church must rely on the doctrine of Christ. Jesus is the example of perfect submission. The work and submission of Christ radically reorients Christian service for Christian women because it is following in the footsteps of our Savior. ”

    Now, think about this. In ministry men reflect God and women reflect Christ.

    How that is carried out is that women imitate Christ in his submission and work. We all know that the work of Christ is his death on the cross, that he was punished for our transgression and God bruised him for our sin.

    I just don’t see the early church fathers and Reformers putting women in the position of sole imitators of Christ.

    If there are concerned complemenatarians reading this blog, please join in and offer a alternate interpretation of what I am citing.

  53. Greg,

    I’d like to take a shot at the extra credit. God knows I need it this quarter.

    It appears that the Red Queen (Kamilla) is desperate to chop off the Cheshire Cat’s head but doesn’t quite know how to go about it.
    Why do you suppose this is?

    Is it because she would no longer be under the authority of a man and thus violate the dictates of the “Pax Baylyana”?

    A multiple choice question with only one choice? (sorry)

    My “write in” answer: If I may be so bold as to quote the Wicked Witch of the West, “These things must be done deeeelllllllicately”. The Red Queen is highly trained– to not think independently. Chopping is a man’s job, of course, unless we’re talking about vegetables. So unless the Red Queen can turn her subject into a veggie, the chopping cannot be done. She can’t even suggest to a man to do it though, because she’d be “giving directions”, and that’s too authoritative. Conclusion: When in doubt, move pawn.

    Good term, “Pax Baylyana”. It sounds just like “Pax Islama”, the “peace” that comes through sliencing one’s enemies.

    What would Aurelius do in a similar situation?

    As one of the “Five Good Emperors” of Rome, it’s interesting to note that he changed his name when he got married. Then he spent a lot of time at war. I’m sure there’s no connection between the two. Christians under his reign had the threat of punishment over them but it was rarely used– kind of like a comp. husband’s “authority”. As a Stoic philosopher and upholder of duty and honor and order, I’m sure he’d advise the Red Queen to merely threaten the chopping and not actually do it. This would not violate Order and yet would be a public “rebuke”, however symbolic, thus allowing said Red Queen to appear authoritative without actually exercising it.

    So, will this credit show up on my report card next semester?

  54. Suzanne, that’s an excellent point. It appears that when it works in favor of the premise that woman is subordinate to man, it’s just fine to tell the man to presume to the place of Christ, as in be an “authority over” his wife because Christ is the Authority over the church. But then, when it suits their purpose, they claim that Christ the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, and so THEN women must be the analogs of Jesus.

    It simply never made sense to me that they’d be so foolish as to bring the Trinity into it in the first place. A relationship so fundamentally based on a divine Three-in-one isn’t going to work on any level as an analog for a human two-in-one relationship.

    When objections to this kind of nonsense get raised, however, the response seems to be, “It just IS, that’s why. No further dissent allowed.”

  55. ‘Suzanne, that’s an excellent point. It appears that when it works in favor of the premise that woman is subordinate to man, it’s just fine to tell the man to presume to the place of Christ, as in be an “authority over” his wife because Christ is the Authority over the church. But then, when it suits their purpose, they claim that Christ the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, and so THEN women must be the analogs of Jesus.’

    Psalmist,
    EXCATLY! Excellent! 🙂

  56. Paula #66,

    You will most certainly make the Dean’s list this quarter,
    and the current bustle in the hedgerow has it that the department
    chair will recognize your work in one of the quarterly journals!

  57. Greg and Paula,
    I am SO jealous! You guys are WAY above my head. Oh, boy, that was a hard one for me. Way to go Paula! And Greg, we will have to work down the list a little so I can one day qualify for an “A”. I am just glad you found your match.

  58. Just another thought, playing “comp’s advocate” for a moment…

    In order for one woman to do the “Titus” thing to another, the doer must be “an older woman”. The Bible doesn’t say the age, but in our desperation we can stretch the teachings on widows to this situation, so she’d have to be in her 60s, while her subject would have to be younger than 60, and considerably so in order to qualify as “young”. But knowing many women are loathe to reveal their ages, this could present a problem.

  59. If Mr. Duncan is actually serious about this:

    “. . . ministry must carry the different distinctions between equal persons of the Trinity.”

    And he makes it all about the “doctrine of Christ,” my question is, where is the Holy Spirit in all this? I can see how, when it suits them, advocates of patriarchy tell men that God the Father is their analog and an eternally subordinate Christ is the woman’s analog. But if we are going to properly reflect ALL THREE of the equal persons of the Trinity in their supposed “different distinctions,” where’s the Holy Spirit?

    Nowhere, that I can tell, in patriarchal “doctrine.” Maybe because a human marriage relationship of two-in-one doesn’t make for a very good analog of the divine Three-in-one in the first place, and eternal subordinationism is rightly considered a heretical doctrine that has long since been proved antithetical to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. Funny how the husband has to be the authority as Christ is the authority when it comes to marriage, but then somehow still the WIFE is supposed to be like the eternally subordinated Christ.

    Am I the only one who sees a certain cognitive dissonance in the hodgepodge that is pro-patriarchy “doctrine”?

  60. Not at all, Psalmist. They play both sides of the table. They want men to “play the role” of God the Father, as if only women are to follow Christ and his example of living. He taught us all how to relate to God, not how to be God! But an eternally subordinate Christ is something they cannot bring themselves to model, even though Jesus told his male disciples point blank to do exactly that. Never in scripture is anyone told to act like God. Christ is our human example, our Brother, our teacher. Yet some men refuse to bow to him or share in his humility.

    You’re right, they ignore the Spirit completely. If this sort of heresy goes on unchallenged, who knows what religion it will turn into.

  61. I nearly answered that last question, Paula, but it wouldn’t have been fair to the existing religion I would have named. In truth, it would be one never seen before except in the self-worshiping world: Masculoidoaltry.

  62. Cheryl, #’s 64 & 70,

    Just because someone can regurgitate stored facts, figures, and their various stage settings, it is still no guarantor of how “smart” they are. This belief is one of the greatest fictions ever foisted upon western civilization.

    All of us here have seen you think rings around many doctoral fellows; with nothing more than the straight edge of simplicity and the compass of elegance.

  63. Psalmist: how about Masculosis? Mascectimony? Man, that could get nasty, I better stop.

    Greg: I agree. Some of the most decorated academics have been so very wrong and blind. The important things are wisdom and vision, things God gives as he sees fit.

  64. Greg,
    I loved that! I’ll take that straight edge and that compass. It is God who draws the lines and the circles and we get to be the tool in his hand. If we fail to remember that (and I am reminding myself here) we fail to give him credit when he is due that credit. The wisdom of the Holy Spirit will out-think any one of the world’s smartest and most educated people. Greg, your words have a real beauty to them. Thanks again for that reminder and the elegant way that you phrased it.

  65. Ok, Here is my stab at this:

    Ligon wants men to be God as we read in the OT. Women to be like Jesus as we read in the NT and the Holy Spirit….ummmm…yeah, Psalmists…they do leave Him out a lot.

  66. JayneK wrote: I have seen less than gracious behaviour from people on both (as well as gracious). And both sides have banned dissenting commenters. I myself was prohibited from posting comments on an egalitarian blog: http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/are-patriocentric-views-of-a-womans-role-causing-homeschooling-freedoms-to-be-at-risk/
    (I expect people here to think Karen was justified in her decision, just as complementarians defended the Bayleys’ decision.)”

    Jayne, I really must protest this as you predicted but not for the reason you predicted. Karen’s blog is NOT egalitarian. She is a complimentarian who is against the legalism of Patriarchy. She has even invited those in the Patriarch camp to comment and explain their beliefs such as Jenney Chancey and Stacy McDonald.

    She did not ban you because you dissented from her views of complimentarianism. I have only seen her ‘ask’ people to stop commenting for: Praying imprecatory prayers against those who are not Patriarachs, another for promoting/defending Kinism and one for very ungracious behavior and accusations against other commenters.

    And even then, she asked them not to comment anymore AFTER they had done the above quite a bit. She is a very gracious hostess.

  67. Cheryl,

    I am so happy to see yet another blog given to the discussion of what I call “patriocentricity.”

    Someone dropped me an e-mail and told me that my name came up here and in not such favorable terms! Jayne, I am sorry to disappoint you, but if you had really read my writings or listened to my podcasts, you would know that you are hot on the wrong trail and are misrepresenting me. And Lin is correct, there have only been a handful of times I have removed posts but have never done so to stop the dialogue, only to ask others to behave nicely.

    I have been reading the Bayly blog for a long time. I had never heard of these men until Terry Shiavo was taken off of life support and they made the mecca to Florida to lead protests against that action, their presence making news in World magazine. As much as I am strongly pro-life, I was bothered that two such highly emotional men where the spokesmen for our movement and when I came across their blog, I immediately recognized them because of the same traits in dealing with everyone. These men are the most arrogant and ungracious bloggers I have ever come across. I cannot begin to imagine what it would be like to be in a church where they pastored. While I have made a couple comments here and there, I have never engaged them in any serious conversation because they aren’t interested in dialog, only adoration from like-minded rude people. Their standards baffle me. A godly wife and mother, like for example, Rebecca Prewett, is banned for asking Tim Bayly to explain his very odd interpretation of a passage of Scripture, while they join others who wax on and on about the virtues of proven liars and those who live much less than transparent lives. I am truly in awe of these men and want no part of them. I have asked why in the world they are so afraid of Carolyn Custis James and can only conclude that they are girly men, so unsure of the validity of their own beliefs that if they are ever asked to explain something they write, they either magically become too busy with their own congregations and families to have time to answer or they ban the offender from ever posting again. Why does anyone ever bother with them? They ought to start their own singing group and call it the Self-Righteous Brothers.

  68. Hi Jayne,

    I appreciate your desire that some people be very accurate about the things they say on blogs but I would also appreciate it if you endeavored to be accurate in your assessments, too.

    Karen’s blog is NOT an egalitarian blog. Lin is exactly correct. You are just repeating the same lies that you have heard elsewhere.

    And talk about being banned from blogs? The Baylys banned me for absolutely NO reason. I was polite and on topic and I was respectful. The Baylys ban people simply for asking questions or disagreeing with their stance on some issues. Karen has NOT banned you! You are free to post on her blog whenever you want. In fact, you did that very thing after she asked you and I and others to cease from a certain topic that was OFF-topic.

    I find it funny that you call men “nice” who come onto blogs calling the host (Karen) and other commenters “cackling hens” and other various demeaning names along with a host of false accusations about how they don’t take care of their families but then you get up in arms when people have a problem with that sort of rude behavior?

    I think the way that many women have been treated over on the Bayly blog is horrendous. The way they treated Suzanne is just more proof of that. Tell me, did Suzanne deserve the response she got from Tim and others? The way they have treated Light is also more proof. Oh, and let us NOT forget about Rebecca and how she was called a “feminist” and a “seminar caller” for simply making some very intelligent statements. All of these women were polite, well-spoken and knowledgeable and they were asking some very good questions. What did they get for being nice, Jayne? They were gracious but they were not treated with graciousness. I do not understand why people would agree with this sort of behavior at all.

    The Baylys are NOT complementarians. They, in fact, left CBMW because they thought that CBMW is too wimpy as far as being patriarchal. David wrote a public letter about leaving CBMW but did not even bother to go to those on the CBMW board FIRST before he wrote it. I wrote CBMW to tell them about David’s public statement (10/05) and at that time they had only my email and one phone call telling them of his statement. They think that the word “complementarian” is a compromise to make the egals happy. They are patriarchalists and would rather be known by that term. Most of what they teach is just personal opinion passed off as bible doctrine.

    Lin is right that Karen and many others, including myself, are against the patriarchal excesses and legalism but we are not egalitarians. It is not fair to paint people like you and others do ( Stacy McDonald- “white-washed feminists” and “professional mommies”) just because we disagree with how patriarchalists interpret scripture.

    Lin is exactly correct that Karen is a gracious hostess and she allows anyone to post on her blogs. You are certainly not banned from her blog nor were you ever banned! She simply asked US to stop talking about a particular subject because it had been talked to death.

  69. Thatmom and Corrie,

    Bravo! This is exactly the right way to call someone to account in a gracious way, upholding the truth in a respectful and Christ-like manner! I am honored to call you my sisters in Christ. We may not agree about everything on secondary issues, but sisters your love for Christ shines through you! Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!!!

  70. Lin,
    May it never be said that I forgot your very Christ-like rebuke as well. You are to be included in my “bravo” post above. I apologize that I missed you to begin with. Your post was so very gracious and it too follows the standard of how to bring someone to task in the way that the “Master” instructs us to speak. Bravo!!!

  71. I think I have read that the Holy Spirit is likened to the children in the marital relationship. How bizarre is that? God the Father and God the Son having a baby together and calling it God the Holy Spirit? It boggles my mind.

    The fact remains that husbands are NEVER likened to God. They are told to be like Christ in their sacrificial love for their wives. Period. They are not told to be like Christ in His resurrection or in His glorious return. They are told to be like Him in His love. Period. Husbands are NOT Christ to their wife nor do they represent Christ to their wives. They are not mediators, prophets, priests or kings. The Bible tells us we are ALL a royal priesthood, husbands are never singled out as priests/mediators for their wife.

    Elsewhere, Christ set the example of leadership when he girded a towel about His waist and washed the feet of His disciples. That was the lowliest of jobs that a slave could do. A Jewish slave would NEVER wash feet because that was reserved for the lowliest of slaves. So, Christ was saying that we are not to be like the Gentiles who lord their authority over others but we are to be as the lowliest slave who does the most lowliest jobs for OTHERS. This hardly leaves room one person in a relationship to be lording anything over the other.

    I do not believe that Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father. He was temporally subordinate in His incarnate state in order to do the work He came to do. Remember, Christ was crucified from the foundation of the World. Before Adam and Eve were created, Christ’s death, burial and resurrection were already planned. Christ is the Word who became flesh. All things were made through the Word/Christ. Christ is Creator. Christ is God. How can God be subordinate to God?
    Christ came to set an example for all of us to follow.

    I don’t know about you all and I am certainly NOT a Bible scholar nor any other type of scholar, just a lowly housewife who is self-taught and who has lived a LOT of life, but it is hard to wrap my mind totally around the implications of the trinity. I know scholarship is really important to people, which is ironic because they are the same people who claim that girls don’t need to go to college to be as smart and respected as college-educated daughters! If you doubt what I am saying, go and read the thread over at Thatmom that Lin linked to in her post and see the very thing I am saying. The patriarchal movement is often schizophrenic in its behavior. Either that or they have a dissociative disorder that prevents them from seeing how inconsistent they really are.

    One thing that I do know is that Christ is God in the flesh. Through Christ all things were made. God the Father and God the Son are ALWAYS and EVER in agreement. They are ONE and it would be impossible for one to go against the other or even have a thought that would be different from the other.

    Not true when it comes to two sinful, imperfect, fallible human beings. Husbands are not God. Wives are not Christ. And patriarchalists really must stop taking analogies to this length because it borders, imho, on idolatry. Who would have the hutzpah to compare themselves to God?

  72. “Self-Righteous Brothers.”

    Bahahahahaha! Good one!

    When my sisters were teens they and some friends had a singing group called The Pointless Sisters. I think that would work for some blogs too!

  73. Psalmist,

    I should have read your posts first because it sounds like I am copying you! LOL I am reading from the bottom up so I just now read your posts after what I wrote.

    Paula said this: “But an eternally subordinate Christ is something they cannot bring themselves to model, even though Jesus told his male disciples point blank to do exactly that.”

    No kidding! I never thought about this. Why are some claiming to be like Christ in all His glorious functions but when it comes to being subordinate, they then turn the tables and liken women to Christ? Makes no sense. Especially when the Bible specifically likens men to the subordinate Christ.

    Also, I love Psalmist’s term “masculoidolatry”. I am not going to comment on the etymology (I will leave that to all the scholars so that I can worry about getting the stains out of laundry) of that word but it seems like a very accurate description of what is going in in some of these teachings.

    It seems to me that this teaching is a new thing, am I right? In my reading, I seem to find scholars saying that Christ was only subordinate to God during His time on this earth.

    About the Titus 2 thing and older women teaching younger women….that is sure true! Another thing is that there are many women who presume to be teachers of other women who should not be teaching but be learning. There are some who give their followers the impression that they have been married for a long while when they have actually been married for a shorter time than many of the “younger” women they are teaching. I am baffled why so many people are willing to follow people who they would readily disqualify as teachers in any other situation.

    I am not ashamed to give my age or tell the pertinent details of my life. We should be transparent as believers. We don’t have to hang our dirty underwear in public but we should be transparent. But there are some who present a false picture to their followers and it is very concerning. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. When I see leaders fudging facts and rearranging the sequential order of their life and not being upfront about some very IMPORTANT details about their families (esp. when they have ministries specifically targeting the redesigning, bettering and reformation of the family and the details of their own histories as BELIEVERS go against what they teach), I get a bit leery. Those who want to be leaders and teachers should not hide pertinent info.

    That is why I am glad people like Karen Campbell are trying to reach out to the younger women. She has been married to the same man for 33 years and has raised 6 children who are walking with the Lord and has her 10th grandchild on the way.

  74. Terri wrote: #47 ….. The more I read of bloggers like the Baylys and those on the discussion boards at Carm I really can fully appreciate blogs such as this. It seems to me that the accusation of egalitarians having a problem with authority is misplaced. Complimentarians seem to view everything through the lenses of power instead of love.”

    I agree except I’d call them patriarchalists. Those who strive to have and hold as much power as possible are generally the ones who have the problems with authority. Patriarchalists such as the ones on CARM regularly teach that women are ONLY required to be of a submissive attitude to their own husbands, their own fathers, and their own pastors. This leaves it acceptable to behave in an unsubmissive manner to ALL the rest of the body of Christ. So, out goes Ephesians 5:21 and a host of other Scriptures about loving the brethren and considering them and their needs above self. Curiously it seems to also allow them in their minds to exercise authority with impunity and a total lack of graciousness, integrity, or fairness.

    Perhaps, the new patriarchal belief that the men are to mirror God, that men share in the maleness of God (remember they believe God is male, a convenient belief!) something with God that women in their femaleness do not, gives indirectly an example to patriarchal women to behave capriciously with the authorities they are allowed. After all God does as He Wills and is accountable to no one. The difference of course is that God is Holy and Perfect in Truth and Love.

  75. I must wonder, does Tim Bayly’s session of elders have any idea of how Tim treats people who disagree with him? I had a conversation a few weeks ago with someone who is very much plugged into all things PCA. He tells me the Bayly brothers are considered by most pastors in the PCA to be totally on the fringe and an embarrassment to the denomination.

  76. I haven’t read through all the comments yet, so this is only a comment to the original post. I’m very familiar with the Bayly Brothers’ blog as well and have also attempted to engage them on some of their extreme views. I belong to the same denomination and what has been most interesting to me is that the President of our own denominational seminary has written a book and papers on the concept of mutual submission and how important it is for male leaders to acknowledge and practice it. Of course, the denom doesn’t ordain women and does support the idea of male headship, which I also agree with. However, I do believe that the Baylys are out of alignment with the truth and the denom just far enough to repell people from the Gospel. IMHO.

    Now, I’ll try to catch up and read thru the 90 some comments 🙂

  77. BTW-The Bayly’s (and Doug Wilson’s) Trinitarian justification for their hyper-patriarchal views also do not resonate with the majority of the PCA. There have recently been a few pastors who have had to leave the denomination for following other erroneous elements of Wilson’s views (esp. Federal Vision). Overall, I hope that the PCA is able to come across as a good example of complimentarianism that supports mutal submission and at its heart is trying to be both gracious and rigorously Biblical. Unfortunately, some who are typically very sound, gracious and respectable on other topics really go off the tracks when really good egalitarian challenges are made. (for the record, I don’t think the Baylys are sound, gracious or respectable on most topics).

    I’ve really, really enjoyed your blog. Maybe I’m more egalitarian than I thought… 🙂

  78. Hello Deb. Welcome.

    Lately I’ve been entertaining the idea that there may be many out there who claim to complementarian views who indeed are more egalitarian. And also, that perhaps there is an area of egalitarian that overlaps quite well with complementarian thinking. I call that being complementary without hierarchy.

    Part of the reason I think that is very possible is that the term complementarian was coined by a small group of people in order to make patriarchal views more palatable by reason of the mutuality of the word complementary. Because most people are not aware of the foundation of the word and what positions some have formed “underneath it”, they have identified primarily with the word ‘complementary’. And fact is that true Biblical equality is very complementary in nature at its core.

  79. Hi Deb,
    As Tiro3 said, Welcome Deb!!

    I too feel very close to complementarians who are respectful and who refuse to call their egalitarian sisters in Christ as sinners merely for their view on the issue of women in ministry. I am starting to think that there are quite a few out there like you that we just don’t hear about. I have just had way more experience with militant hierarchists (I hate to even call them complementarians) who are abusive and rude and who shame the name of Christ by their attitude and their conduct. Jesus has made it very clear that we are to love the body of Christ and he hates those who cause division among the brethren. We certainly are to defend essential doctrine and we can passionately defend our view of women’s freedom to use their gifts for the benefit of their dear brothers in Christ, but we are to do so with an attitude of love and respect because we are all “brothers” in Christ.

    I started to read the paper on mutual submission that your seminary President wrote and there is a sense of humility that is often missing in the complementarian camp. While I may disagree with some of his conclusions, I do respect his attitude. I have not finished reading it yet because I have been so busy. I will be writing a post very shortly about what is happening in my life and why I have been somewhat “absent” around here lately. I do appreciate that you have hung around and enjoyed what you have been reading. This is really what egalitarian women long for – to be heard and to have our gifts acknowledged that they are beneficial and needed for the common good of both men and women. Those of us who are deeply in love with Jesus long to serve him by treating each member of the body of Christ as special and worthy of our gifts. When we are forced to be prejudiced against our dear brothers in Christ merely because of their gender, it hurts us and ultimately this hurts the entire body of Christ too.

    As far as the Bayly brothers, they are ones who seem to revel in dividing the body and pitting brothers against brothers. This should not be so in the church. The thing that really causes me to wonder the most is what strong women get out of following these kind of men. I certainly can see what naturally submissive women can get out of it. These kind of women have a need to have men take over their decisions and to hover over them as if they are childlike persons who are not capable of growing up and making their own mature decisions. But what do the strong women who repeat the abusive words of their male leaders get out of it? What do people like Kamilla get out of following the Bayly boys? I do not know her heart so I cannot judge her motives. However I do wonder if women like this have a need to be controllers but that they also have a need to work underneath the authority of these leaders so that it doesn’t appear that they are indeed strong controlling women? Thoughts?

    I just don’t get how these strong hierarchical men allow a certain class of “special” women to speak out on their blogs. These women appear to get preferential treatment and are allowed to speak in a confrontational or even rude way to those who don’t agree with the hierarchal leader. I have been mulling this over in my head. Is it that these two kinds of people need each other and feed off each other? I am just throwing this one out for comments. Is it possible that strong aggressive women want to appear to be submissive and so they look for these hierarchical leaders and they emotionally fondle telling them how wonderful and right they are to be the “manly” men who take control over women. This meets the man’s need to be the one at the top of the heap and it meets the woman’s need to get special privileges so that she can appear to be submissive but be given full reign to heap abuse on those who disagree with the leader? Guys, I may be way off, but this is how it appears to me.

  80. Tiro3 (#89),

    You said:

    “Patriarchalists such as the ones on CARM regularly teach that women are ONLY required to be of a submissive attitude to their own husbands, their own fathers, and their own pastors. This leaves it acceptable to behave in an unsubmissive manner to ALL the rest of the body of Christ. So, out goes Ephesians 5:21 and a host of other Scriptures about loving the brethren and considering them and their needs above self.”

    This is also one of the most amazing things that I have seen. It is women who push submission to the leaders but who refuse to give their submission to anyone else. On CARM, I have seen Diane be one of the most unsubmissive people ever and that is just amazing! She loves to state that egalitarians are egalitarians because they want to control people and to control men and they do not want to be submissive. But Diane and other strong complementarian women around the blogosphere have no sense of submission to the body of Christ in general. If there isn’t a “chain of command” that they are under, they won’t submit. I don’t see this in egalitarian women. I have been privileged to come to “know” many of you through this blog and through private emails and your attitude is so Christ-like and submissive that I just LOVE you guys! Okay, you boy guys too are submissive and respectful to the teaching of one who has no authority over you, has no “chain of command”, doesn’t demand that you obey or listen to me, but you have given me respect and are willing to consider what I have to say. That just blows my mind! Why is it that egalitarians are painted with the term “unsubmissive” but in reality they are submissive in practice, while hierarchist women pride themselves as submissive but in practice you rarely see any submission outside the “chain of command” group they are in? I also have been grateful for those of you who have given me counsel and have given me your wisdom when I really needed it. It is so easy to submit to those of you who have way more wisdom that I do and way more life experiences and who have an attitude of love. Submission draws us together because it really does treat the other person as being worthy of respect. This is the “way of the master”.

  81. Cheryl, here’s my take on why strong women play chorus to the Baylys.

    They’re all hierarchalists. If the women at least appear to be submissive to the top dogs–and really, to whom are the Baylys accountable? No one but God, and they speak for God, so…–then they can create their own pecking order, of course with the alleged heretics who disagree with the Baylys’ would-be imposition of patriarchy under the guise of godliness at the very bottom of the heap. They more they echo the prevailing voice of the masters of the venue, the higher their status among the mere women on the venue.

    Though I caught wind of a bit of trouble in that pseudo-paradise in this regard. Apparently it’s not always so congenial for all the strong female proponents of female subjugation.

  82. Corrie (#86 & #88),

    Good posts! I too am reading from the bottom up today as I have been so preoccupied I have missed a lot. I like what you said.

    “The fact remains that husbands are NEVER likened to God. They are told to be like Christ in their sacrificial love for their wives. Period. They are not told to be like Christ in His resurrection or in His glorious return. They are told to be like Him in His love. Period. Husbands are NOT Christ to their wife nor do they represent Christ to their wives. They are not mediators, prophets, priests or kings. The Bible tells us we are ALL a royal priesthood, husbands are never singled out as priests/mediators for their wife.”

    Amen, sister!! My dear complementarian sister in Christ, you are just like us! You see things clearly in scripture just as we do. I also especially liked this:

    “I do not believe that Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father. He was temporally subordinate in His incarnate state in order to do the work He came to do. Remember, Christ was crucified from the foundation of the World. Before Adam and Eve were created, Christ’s death, burial and resurrection were already planned. Christ is the Word who became flesh. All things were made through the Word/Christ. Christ is Creator. Christ is God. How can God be subordinate to God?”

    This is especially encouraging to me because I was beginning to think that much of church had gone mad. The downgrading of Jesus to an eternally subordinate position is especially troubling to an apologist who has worked most of my ministry life helping Jehovah’s Witnesses come to know the true Jesus Christ, not the subordinated inferior “a god” of the Watchtower. Now we are a kinship to this same type of thinking in the church! Complementarians who say that Jesus as the eternal Word before he became man did not even want to strive to be equal with God in authority and position have lost their way. Their attempt to downgrade Jesus because they want to support the downgrading of women is beyond comprehension.

    “One thing that I do know is that Christ is God in the flesh. Through Christ all things were made. God the Father and God the Son are ALWAYS and EVER in agreement. They are ONE and it would be impossible for one to go against the other or even have a thought that would be different from the other.”

    Amen!!! How is it possible for men who say they represent the evangelical church to now teach us that Jesus is subordinated in will as if he disagrees with the Father? Other than the incarnation where Jesus subordinated himself to become human and to take on the human will, Jesus has never been in any other position but One in will with the Father. Anyone denying that is denying the revelation of scripture.

    Lastly I will quote you here:

    “Not true when it comes to two sinful, imperfect, fallible human beings. Husbands are not God. Wives are not Christ. And patriarchalists really must stop taking analogies to this length because it borders, imho, on idolatry. Who would have the hutzpah to compare themselves to God?”

    Oh my gosh, I really like you and what you have said! This truth was so clearly worded. My sister, are you sure you are a complementarian? I join with you and hope there are many more out there like you. It is time that the church pulls back the protective cover off of the self-made abusive hierarchists so everyone can see who they really are. This is not true Christianity. I see Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 come to life:

    Mat 24:48 ”But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time,’
    Mat 24:49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards;
    Mat 24:50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know,
    Mat 24:51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

  83. Psalmist,
    You make some very valid points! You also said:

    “Though I caught wind of a bit of trouble in that pseudo-paradise in this regard. Apparently it’s not always so congenial for all the strong female proponents of female subjugation.”

    Apparently this is so. It appears that the Bayly’s have lost Donna Carlaw for now as they didn’t defend her. I think that the “chorus women” are in a precarious position. They can be turned against at any time. It appears that the Baylys like other men to tell the women off and they won’t defend the women when they tire of them.

  84. In the past couple of years, I have come to the conclusion that labeling each other with either “egalitarian” or “complementarian” really doesn’t tell us much about teach other or our marriage relationships, our convictions, etc. I tend to think in terms of a continuum. On one far end are those who embrace the extreme, secular feminists views of abortion-on-demand, gay lifestyles, etc. On the other end of the spectrum are what I call the patriocentrists, those who believe that only men have callings from the Lord and as such, women are placed in a box where only certain roles and behaviors are acceptable, both within and outside the church. The picture I see is somethings like a number line or, if we are talking about numbers of people in these groups, perhaps a bell shaped curve. As Sarah Sumner said so well, I am somewhere in that middle area. I am not comfortable with being labeled. At one time I would have called myself complementarian but that title has been embraced by the Baylys, McDonalds, and many others who are so far down toward the extreme end, if not holding up that end of the banner. So I cannot call myself that because I would not want to have anyone think I agree with those extreme views.

    A couple weeks ago our pastor mentioned in his sermon that we tend to look at church history and wonder how in the world believers could have accepted some of the horribly abusive things they did in the past…child labor in England, slavery, etc. I think that, one day, the same will be said about our generation. How was the church ever so passive about abortion? (We have to admit that we are….there is little sense of outrage, IMHO.) And I think the same will be true as far as the roles of women and ministry. There is a spiritual blindness that has its roots in the notions of hierarchy in the same way that slavery and child labor did. And at the root of it was financial gain. I believe there is money to be made in the patriocentric camps and that that is driving much of their agenda. That and the control issues these people have.

    I would encourage us to abandon the labels of complementarian and egalitarian and to listen to each others’ perspectives, all believing that God’s word is true. Just my thoughts….

  85. thatmom said: There is a spiritual blindness that has its roots in the notions of hierarchy in the same way that slavery and child labor did.
    On Saturday, my husband and I were watching a program about slavery in the US. As I sat there listening to how they described the lives of the slaves, it was chilling, because it so closely parallels the lives of women in the patriocentric movement. Comparing them side by side, it comes into very clear focus how patriocentrists are grossly usurping the basic human rights of their women.

    Great point about the labeling. It can be a convenient shorthand, but it really doesn’t begin to embrace the depth and richness of who someone really is.

  86. Yes, labels are a problem. If you’re not patriarchal you must be a radical feminist. If you’re not a Calvinist you must be an Arminian. If you reject evolutionism you must be against science. If you believe in Eternal Security you must be an antinomian.

    People start using labels for convenience, really. It’s an easy way to get some general idea of a person’s stance on an issue. The problem is that we all tend to take them way too far and define each other by them, and the definitions keep changing.

    My biggest issue with the particular label “complementarianism” is, not only is it an invented word, but it was coined by an organization which formed for the expressed purpose of being against another organization (CBMW formed specifically to counter CBE). Their whole mission is to push against “Biblical Equality”. That’s no different than forming a group to fight against slavery; they are both beliefs in the inherent supremacy of some group of people based solely on genetics. What a way to define one’s “ministry”!

  87. Cheryl, just to clarify my earlier comment about the PCA’s support of the Bayly brothers – it’s not an official position or view, just the view of a number of PCA pastors and others that my friend knows. Also, I didn’t mean to imply my friend had talked to every pastor in the PCA, but he does talk with very many PCA people. The sentence I wrote in post #90 that says, “He tells me the Bayly brothers are considered by most pastors in the PCA to be totally on the fringe and an embarrassment to the denomination” should in all fairness be amended to say, “He tells me the Bayly brothers are considered by most pastors in the PCA that he talks to in the course of his work to be totally on the fringe and an embarrassment to the denomination.” Now, how representative as a whole that is, I don’t know, but I do know he speaks with people all across the country.

  88. Cheryl, in post #95 you used the phrase “emotionally fondle” to describe how some of the women relate to the Bayly brothers. What an apt phrase that is! The Baylys use these women like cheap props to shore up their ego and their supposed high position in the hierarchy. They have no compunction about casting them aside, however, when they are done with them. I have also noticed they allow “villains” on their blog, as long as they can use those villains as a foil for their own (supposed) great theological insights. However, when the villain starts making too much sense – as I did last year, and Corrie, and most recently Suzanne and Rebecca – Tim Bayly is then in danger of looking foolish, because the villain is making too much sense. That’s when the villain is banned, not for discourtesy or falsehoods, but for so-called “false teaching.” By claiming he is banning them to “protect his sheep,” Tim is establishing himself once again as the alpha male. As you know, in cults the gatekeeping function is essential to keeping people in the dark about the truth – any light shed on the truth is a great threat to their control. Interesting, too, that to my knowledge no man has ever been banned from the Bayly blog. Only women. I suspect that has a great deal to do with Tim’s pride; he cannot bear to be shown up by a woman. He doesn’t deign to answer their difficult questions, but rather obfuscates and dances around it, and never gives a clear answer. Praise God there are blogs like this one, and TW, and others, who can present another point of view.

  89. I sometimes wonder if complimentarian women defend hierarchy out of self preservation. Young girls are raised to be passive in thier relationships with boys. Carolyn Curtis James, the author of ‘When life and beliefs collide’ made the comment in a taped conference that she was conditioned/instructed to lose any game she played against her brothers. I thought that was an interesting comment, as I have heard other women say the same thing. Most young girls are rewarded for “bowing out” or “dumbing down” to make boys feel masterful. Its no wonder we see what we see in society or the church, should we act surprised? The desire for male approval in some women is so strong that submission, denial of ones talents, abilities, and gifts is a small sacrifice for such a great reward. With Mrs. James it seems the ability to try hard to be a loser was what made her a great sister (my opinion.) For complimentarians the preservation of female inferiority (which equals no visible authority) must be maintained even if the boundries are blurry and keep being moved, and women must be the first to agree with this and be happy about it (go along to get along, self preservation.)

    When some authority is given to some complimentarian women (like Diane at Carm.org) she goes into preservation and protector mode. She has to preserve what little authority she has been given and she must use it to protect her man. She could never disagree with her man because POOF there goes the little authority that she has been given.

    I hope that does’nt sound mean spirited but that is what I have observed as an infrequent lurker at Carm.

  90. You know, the more these uber patriarch types throw around the word ‘feminist’ as an insult for any deviation from THEIR legalism…the less insulting it is. :o)

  91. “My biggest issue with the particular label “complementarianism” is, not only is it an invented word, …”

    What did we call it before?

  92. Orthodoxy. ::evil grin::

    Really, this misogyny goes waaaayyy back, just read some of the “church fathers” (see Here).

    I just call it sin, specifically pride.

  93. [quote]“My biggest issue with the particular label “complementarianism” is, not only is it an invented word, …”

    What did we call it before?[/quote]
    Patriarchy before complementarianism.

  94. re: slavrey parallel

    I have been studying the patriocentric movement now for years and in the past few have made many connections with the nouveau patriarchs and an affinity for the Old Dominion. I kept seeing various bloggers in these camps refer to readings in a book entitled I’ll Take My Stand. A person who is quite knowledgeable of all things hierarchal recommened it to be so I bought a copy and it has been very informative. It was written by a dozen southern men in the 1930’s and is a lament of the loss of the southern white male. They blame the second industrial revolution for many of their woes and encourage a move back to agrarianism which, to many people, I believe is a code word for “kinism” which is the modern “Christian” white supremacist movement, That is a mini take on a very complicated issue and, while not all patriarchialists are racists, I believe that their views of hierarchy are only a hop, skip and a jump to the real thing and that is where the kinists come in.

  95. Terri,

    YOu might be interested in this week’s podcast segment I did with Corrie Marnett where we discuss the idea some women have that they cannot be women, but rather, little girls with their husbands. It parallels what Carolyn is saying about her brothers. It is the February 15th segment.

    http://www.thatmompodcast.com or
    www.http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/february-15-podcast/

    Please feel free to comment and participate in discussion…all of you!

  96. Thatmom,

    I did a little reading on kinism, and they deny the racist label. Problem is, if restrictions are put on people due solely to race, that’s racism, and kinism does this (just as it’s sexist to put restrictions on people due solely to gender.) One does not have to desire the extermination of the other in order to be racist or sexist. But where kinism and sexism differ is in the fact that sexism does consider males to be superior.

    Their racism differs from the KKK in that they do not technically consider a particular race to be superior, but only that all races must be kept separate. They believe this is God’s divinely established order from the Tower of Babel. (My view: the Tower of Babel only forced people to scatter, which was what God actually had decreed, but people disobeyed and stayed in one spot. When they were forced to scatter, they did not intermarry, not because of race, but because of language barriers. This made each language group a reduced gene pool, resulting in unique sets of genetic traits such as skin color, eye color, hair color and texture, etc. Simple genetic science, not divine decree.)

    But kinism also goes beyond race, to tribal or “kinist” segregation. They reject modernity and believe God ordained an agrarian society. And of course they are patriarchal, making them sexist as well.

    I don’t know of any teaching in history, any government or society, any religion or philosophy, that truly views women as fully equal to men except the Bible itself. Jesus and Paul treated women equally and taught the same, and the church was supposed to be the showcase of not only equality of gender, but also of race and social standing (Gal. 3:28). The church was fairly quick to obey the “Jew or Greek” part, very very slow to obey the “slave or free” part, but continues to dig in its prideful heels against the “male or female” part. This is the most ancient hatred, that of the serpent against the woman, and the church should be ashamed for calling Jesus’ work on the cross inadequate to conquer that “emnity”.

  97. Paula,

    I would personally consider kinists to be white supremacists because part of their agenda is to remove all African-Americans, Jews, and Hispanics from the United States. If that doesn’t make them out to believe whites are supreme, what does?

    Here is the link to the blog of those who founded kinism:

    http://spiritwaterblood.com/

    Cheryl, I will perfectly understand if you choose to delete this link.

  98. “the church was fairly quick to obey the “Jew or Greek” part, very very slow to obey the “slave or free” part, but continues to dig in its prideful heels against the “male or female” part.”

    Cheryl, this very true. I believe that the issues of women in the church and home are problematic for many people in the same way slavery was a problem for people during the 19th century. There was the potential for personal loss for even Christians and thus they had to find a way to maintain those views and still practice their faith.

  99. thatmom,

    Lemme guess, if they’re gonna deport Blacks, Hispanics, and er ah, Jooze, what on earth will they do with the remaining American Indians? Maybe they can be shipped east to a place where work will set them free???

  100. Thatmom,

    Thanks for the link to your blog and your audio files. I would encourage those who post here to interact over there as well. I will have to carve out some time to listen to the audio myself.

    The link you gave for kinism was alarming. I won’t delete the link because I believe in allowing people to check things out for themselves. I just hope that they don’t somehow find their way to this blog ;-] I don’t think they would like us very much.

    Yes, you are right in that the church took a while to deal with the Jew and Greek part and then a great deal of time to deal with the slavery issue (slave and free). It appears that the hardest of all is the male and female part. I have often pondered why this is. In one of my bible study groups where I taught scripture to ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses, I asked this one question of the group and one young man piped up that the reason is because inside the male is the drive to dominate everything in sight. When we given women freedom in Christ, many men will see this as a threat because women have been seen as an easy target, ones that they can dominate and rule. When you try to take away a man’s kingdom, he will fight you rather than lose control. Now I can’t say that all men have this inside them or even that all men have the potential to be despots, but there are enough of them defending their kingdom to know that this is a problem area. For many of them there is a payout in feeling like they are the king of the castle. They are not about to share. Sometimes I also wonder if these Christian men only knew how much better it would be for them to have the load shared and to have someone they can trust working alongside them, they would not fight their sisters to stop them from using their God-given gifts for the benefit of men.

    The other thing I think about is, how much of this struggle between men and women is not of human origin? After sin happened in the world God said that he would initiate an emnity between the serpent and the woman and between his seed and her seed. Is this struggle between men and women part of the struggle between the woman and the serpent? If I look at it this way, then I can have a more compassionate view of my brothers in Christ. They are not the enemy at all. They have been influenced by the enemy to hold back part of the body of Christ, but they are not the enemy. I think it is much more helpful for me to pray for these men and ask God to remove the blinders off their eyes, then for me to be hurt and insulted by those who are deceived. I need to be mad at the deceiver and love my brothers in Christ with a true love and true passion because they too belong to the Lord Jesus. I just so wish that we were at the end of the journey of the Church so that we were without spot and wrinkle and without shame so that we are all ready for Christ’s return. The more we work shoulder to shoulder with the entire church, Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, the more we are in the very image of Christ who died for all of us and knit us together into only one body.

  101. I just so wish that we were at the end of the journey of the Church so that we were without spot and wrinkle and without shame so that we are all ready for Christ’s return.

    Ah, but we are very near! The signs of his return are closing in all around us. Rather than look for a pure church when he returns, we are told to look for a sick, dying, sleeping church, and that’s what we’ve got. Of course there is a “remnant”, the ones who have “oil in their lamps”, and “we will all be changed”. Yes, our journey is almost over!

  102. I walked upon a discussion between two dear sisters and a dear brother last night. Catching the very last comment of the conversation, “Its better to live on a roof top then in the house with a brawling women” (all three laughed.) I sat down behind my brother and said, ‘ I don’t find to many examples of brawling women in the bible, but I can find alot of mean men’ (crickets chirping.) Matter of fact nobody gave me one example of a brawling/quarelsome woman from the bible. And as I walked away I heard one sister whisper to the brother, I’m just assuming it was about my egalitarian leanings which they mistake for burning liberal feminism. Like most women I guess I am expected to laugh at things I no longer find funny. Why many feel the need to constantly tear down the female gender is beyond me. Maybe the tendancy of some to always be critical and negative about women in general precludes you from taking them seriously (and women themselves play into this.)

    I have asked my pastor three questions:

    1. Can you please locate the scripture that says that the husband is the head of the (home?)

    2. Can you please tell me which group of people are exluded in the submission ethic in Ephesians 5:21, it says submitting yourselves one to another, who does that exclude?

    3. If Ephesians 5:22-33 has it’s roots in authority why did Paul use the example of (Jesus as Saviour and his crucifixion) instead of (Jesus as Lord Master of all) to teach husbands how to love thier wives?

    I felt the need to ask him these questions as he was using terms like; chain-of-command, Supreme ruler, Gods protocol to describe male and female relationships. As of yet he has not responded to my questions, and this has been months ago. He is friendly enough with me but I can feel the vibes of disapproval for even asking such things. The implication is that while you are defending women that you are simultaneously berating men, or the fact that you are defending women means you are not defending men………which really means, you hate men???

  103. Response to post #113

    Thank you thatmom. I really do want copies of your Podcasts on Patriarchy and Patriocentricity on CD. The resurgence of male supremecy is evident in even my small independant church. I so badly need the reflections and informed opinions of others in this area, as I feel that I am alone in my church, as it does not regard the negative effects on women involved in patriarchal institutions (they don’t see a problem.) I have heard the statement ‘thats just the way it is’ so many times……it’s become mantra. Many give no sound, logical, biblical reason for the demands and regulations that they place on women……..just the above statement.

    A small independant baptist church that one of my friends attend does not allow women to wear red dresses as that is the color of a harlot. Another does not allow open toe shoes for women, another does not allow colored hose because it draws attention to a womans legs. Where does this insanity stop?

  104. “The implication is that while you are defending women that you are simultaneously berating men, or the fact that you are defending women means you are not defending men………which really means, you hate men???”

    I know exactly what you mean. It is as if any words that are positive about women becomes an insult to men or we are ‘feminizing’ the church. I am so sick of hearing that one!

    Yesterday my daughter came home from her 1st Grade Christian private school very upset. She said the boys sang this song to the girls at recess, lunch and whispered it to them during class when they could:

    Boys go to college to get more knowledge
    Girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider

    Now, I know these are silly kid games but it starts here. And I am paying out a lot of money for a ‘Christian’ environment. So, while these ‘Christian’ boys are acting like this, I have to teach my daughter not to respond in kind but to love. I am telling you it is harder to explain this when you are dealing with other Christian families! And it is not just this…the boys are extremely disrespectful to the girls in all ways. They are just not learning respect at home.

  105. Yes, to even question male preeminence is to “usurp authority” and prove that women are all cursed with wanting to rule men. That’s the black and white world many live in. Yet I would ask them these questions:

    What part of “egalitarian” means supremacy?

    Who is it that really wants power and control, and will curse his own “co-heirs” rather than give it up?

    How is one case of subjugation based on genetics (gender) different than another (skin color)?

    Does God judge by outward appearances now? Has he stopped looking on the heart? Has he decided that it is better after all to be a respecter of persons?

    Where does it say men must be responsible for women, or husbands for wives?

    As others have pointed out on occasion, the so-called “plain reading of scripture” that is the basis for male supremacy is dropped like a hot potato when they read “submit to one another”, “co-heirs”, “the greatest must be the least”, “the first will be last”, etc.

  106. Lin #122, Go to the school admin. officials and DEMAND! (in a diplomatic fashion of course) accountability! If there was any race based bashing, it would of course, have been all over the 5:00 pm news nationwide, as well it should be. Explain to them that gender-based bashing is equally unacceptable, and that you are within your rights as consumer, and a parent, to demand its end.

  107. Greg, I do plan on bringing it up. Thanks for your support. If anything, it IS labeled a ‘Christian’ school and the goal is to teach them to bear the Image of Christ.

  108. Terri #120,
    Those are great questions and deserve to be answered. Unfortunately I don’t think you will ever get an answer to your questions.

  109. Lin #122,
    The term “the feminization of the church” is abusive in my mind. It isn’t just attacking men but women. It is using who we are by nature (feminine) as a type of swear word. The thought comes to me about what the men who use this term expect the women to do? Should we stop using our gifts in the church so there is no “feminine” influence at all? Should we stop going to church so that there are more men than women and then the church will stop being “feminized”? This kind of term is abusive to both men and women.

  110. Paula #123,
    Great question – What part of “egalitarian” means supremacy?

    This is the part that I don’t really get. Why do some complementarians think that egalitarians are “power hungry” and what the supremacy when all they are looking for is be useful in our spiritual gifts as equal human beings? Men have taken a role of rulership that I do not want. The fact is that these men shouldn’t have it either. No man or woman should rule over the other. The world’s way is rulership, domination and subjugating other people. This is not the “Way of the Master”. Jesus turned the world upside down by equating greatness with humility and servanthood. Those who seek power and control are not following Jesus’ way and I do not know any egalitarian who wants to set themselves up as a ruler.

  111. Terri #121,
    I am glad that you found this forum. There are many here who are working through what an egalitarian marriage looks like and you have friends here who can help out. I just wish I had more time.

    The practice of legalism against women is a symptom that the church is unwilling to allow people to make healthy decisions for themselves. This creates dependent people instead of growing-into-maturity Christians. A church who dictates what color you can or cannot wear is treating their members as children. Maturity isn’t encouraged this way, it is stiffled.

  112. >>>

    Why don’t you ask her? 🙂

    No, I’m not lost, nor am I misplaced.

    I see that you are misinterpreting the idea of the eternal subordination of the Son, thus setting up straw men arguments.

    The CBMW has written some excellent articles on this subject at their blog. You can check it out there, and see that what they are saying is well within orthodoxy.

    http://www.cbmw.org/Blog

    Just to guide your thinking about what the eternal subordination of the Son, here are some questions to ask yourselves.:

    1. If one person willingly submits his will to that of another person because they are of one will in the first place, is that person’s being diminished in any way?

    2. What does the phrase “the Father SENT the Son to be the Saviour of the world” say about when the Son began to obey the will of His Father? No one disagrees that Jesus was in submission to the will of His Father during the time of His earthly ministry. However, when did this submission to His Father’s will begin, right at the moment of His conception by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary, or before? When was He SENT, IOW?

    3. The very words “Father” and “Son” show that they are in a hierarchical relationship, but one that does not diminish them in any way. God chose to reveal Himself as the eternal Father who has an eternal Son. Christ’s sonship did not begin at the incarnation and end when He returned to sit at the right hand of the Father.

    Then, may I make a friendly suggestion. Some of you seem to be clueless as to what feminist theology is and what hermeneutic is being used. Some of you say that you have no labels, which is fine. There is no law that says you have to be a complementarian or you have to be an egalitarian.

    There is no doubt that God can and does use whoever He pleases, whenever He pleases, however He pleases. He is the Lord of His church, and He ministers to her and trough her as He wishes, since He is her Head.

    However, you really should know where you are coming from, and where your ideas are coming from. Feminist thelogy has not been developed in some secret, dark corner somewhwere, so why are you so ignorant of it’s hermeneutic and it’s presuppositions?

    I fear for you , and am saying this in the most loving way possible. You are just doing shot-gun theology, but some among you are very aware of feminist theology and are actively promoting it in your midst, and you seem to be clueless.

    No offense.

  113. Donna,
    Regarding your “questions” regarding the subordination of the Son:

    1. If one person willingly submits his will to that of another person because they are of one will in the first place, is that person’s being diminished in any way?

    Answer: It is impossible for there to be “one will” if one is submitting his will to another. The fact that one has to submit his will proves that there is not one will but two wills with one will subordinated to the other.

    2. What does the phrase “the Father SENT the Son to be the Saviour of the world” say about when the Son began to obey the will of His Father? No one disagrees that Jesus was in submission to the will of His Father during the time of His earthly ministry. However, when did this submission to His Father’s will begin, right at the moment of His conception by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary, or before? When was He SENT, IOW?

    Answer: The Father’s sending does not in any way mean that it was not the Son’s will to become man. You may want to watch our DVD on the Trinity to see the OT references where YHWH of Hosts sends YHWH. YHWH of Hosts is a reference to the preincarnate Christ. This does not mean that there was a difference of will just because one sent the other. It actually proves a unity of will.

    3. The very words “Father” and “Son” show that they are in a hierarchical relationship, but one that does not diminish them in any way. God chose to reveal Himself as the eternal Father who has an eternal Son. Christ’s sonship did not begin at the incarnation and end when He returned to sit at the right hand of the Father.

    Answer: Not so. It proves a relationship not a hierarchy. An adult son is not under the lordship of his Father. Also in the Old Testament the Son is not called the Son except in prophesy about the incarnation. He is called YHWH of Hosts – the LORD of armies.

    Your presupposition about what we believe and how we reach our beliefs has tainted your view. This is kin to witnessing to a JW who says that we get our idea of the Trinity from pagan sources. No, we get our idea of the Trinity from the pages of scripture, in context. That is the exact same way that we get our belief that God has created men and women spiritually equal. It is from the pages of scripture taken in context.

    I do not know what you mean by “shot-gun” theology. I do not shoot anyone. The theology I have is very respectful to scripture. I believe that each word and each piece of grammar is God-breathed and there for a purpose. There are many complementarians who do not hold to this level of respect for scripture.

    In the end we will all give an account of ourselves before God. How have we treated God’s word and how have we treated our brothers and sisters in Christ? When we judge each other unfairly and attribute sin to a person merely by the gender of the people that they minister to with their God-given gifts, we are judging unfairly and with an unrighteous “law”. For those who think that their sisters in Christ are sinning by giving their teaching gifts for the benefit of men in the body of Christ, I would think they should leave the matter in God’s hands, accept them as sisters in Christ and move on to more important things.

    Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

    Donna, thank you for stopping by. The body of Christ needs to be united on the gospel and united in our love for one another. It is then that the world will pay attention because they will see us in diversity but in loving unity.

  114. Donna, let me answer your points, but first make one of my own: that “misrepresentation” is a very common charge on this topic and many others. When Christians disagree, it seems to be the first reaction. The problem is that this charge is rarely proved but only asserted.

    Wayne Grudem has stated that even God is subordinate to a male when he helps him:

    Recently some writers have denied that the creation of Eve as a helper fit for Adam signals any difference in role or authority, because the word helper (Heb. ‘ezer) is often used in the Old Testament of someone who is greater or more powerful than the one who is being helped.

    In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. (Page 461-462, Systematic Theology, ch. 22: Man as Male and Female).

    This is the sort of thing that makes us seriously doubt Grudem’s, and thus CBMW’s, commitment to Biblical accuracy over the point they wish to prove, that being the permanent subordination of one equal to another. So rest assured we take care in quoting them.

    1. If one person willingly submits his will to that of another person because they are of one will in the first place, is that person’s being diminished in any way?

    This is a logical impossibility. If they are of one will in the first place, then one cannot “submit” their identical will to the other. As God, both the Father and Son (and of course the Spirit) have one will. That makes eternal subordination of any of them impossible.

    Only in the case of two different wills can we ask whether the submitter is “diminished”. If both beings are equal in being, then permanent and involuntary submission would indeed be a case of inequality and thus “diminishing”. In other words, it is impossible for equal beings to be permanently unequal in role, when one role has authority over the other. One being cannot be in a state of permanent and involuntary subordination to an equal being.

    2. What does the phrase “the Father SENT the Son to be the Saviour of the world” say about when the Son began to obey the will of His Father?

    It is well known that in the culture of the time, the one sent was considered equal to the one being sent; there was no hierarchy implied. But we also know that Jesus volunteered to save the world (Phil. 2:5-11, esp. v. 7-8: he made himself nothing, and then after being found in human form, humbled himself). If they were of one will in eternity past, then there was nothing for the Son to “obey”.

    3. The very words “Father” and “Son” show that they are in a hierarchical relationship, but one that does not diminish them in any way. God chose to reveal Himself as the eternal Father who has an eternal Son. Christ’s sonship did not begin at the incarnation and end when He returned to sit at the right hand of the Father.

    Strong disagreement here. It is impossible for a father not to precede his own son in time, yet “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God”. The father/son relationship did indeed begin at the incarnation, as proven by the Philippians quote above, and ended with his return to heaven (except as concerns only his humanity, ref. to the hypostatic union). In Hebrews 1:5 we read, “You are my Son; today I have become your father… I will be his father and he will be my son“. “Have become” and “will be” indicate chronology and disprove an eternal sonship.

    A father and son have a subordinate relationship, but it only begins when the son is born and only lasts until the son grows up. They remain (not always were) father and son but the hierarchy is gone.

    Then, may I make a friendly suggestion. Some of you seem to be clueless as to what feminist theology is and what hermeneutic is being used.

    Very insulting and demeaning… not “friendly”. We are not clueless, and that’s the problem for you. We read comp. material and give references when we quote it. We are not “feminists” but egalitarians; two different theologies. It appears you are confused between the two. Feminism, like male supremacy, seeks a dominant and a submissive; egalitarian seeks equality. Very distinct, very opposite theologies. And we do in fact know our own hermeneutic… and yours as well.

    You also display ignorance of our hermeneutic concerning “head”. The meaning “boss” is not a part of it, in spite of Grudem’s contorted arguments to try and make it so. So with that understanding of the Bible’s meaning of “head”, you will be able to see that egalitarians do not deny that Christ is the head of the Church and man the head of woman. Christ is the source, the sustainer of the Body; the man is that as well for the woman. No one denies that Christ has authority over the church, but this is not in view at all in the passage Paul wrote; it’s all about unity, about Christ “leaving his father’s house” to join to his wife and become “one flesh”. So a man does not share in the authority of Christ, but only in Christ’s example of love, sacrifice, and joining to her.

    When you condescendingly say “you really should know where you are coming from, and where your ideas are coming from”, you call us stupid and ignorant. We do know where our ideas (as opposed to the ones you try to assign to us) are coming from: the Bible. When you call us “ignorant” of feminist theology, you still confuse us with them and insist we are the ones who don’t know the difference! Amazing. That truly is a case of what you call “shot-gun theology”, aimless and random.

    Yes, you offended, in many ways.

  115. Oops, the first italic section should have ended with “way”.

    Cheryl, good to bring up the OT. I am reminded also of Isaiah’s prophecy (9:6), where the “son” is given several names, including “everlasting father”… not “everlasting son”!

  116. Donna,

    Based on your false accusation against me on your blog, I invite you to return to comment #100 here and see who said what, to whom.

    Unbelievable. At least you could bother to quote, accurately, if you’re going to accuse someone.

  117. “In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. (Page 461-462, Systematic Theology, ch. 22: Man as Male and Female).”

    Wow, Paula. Excuse me while I try and pick my jaw up off of the floor.

    When God helps his people He is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped? This sounds blasphemous to my ears. It seems that desperation is driving some of these statements. Maybe they think that to give an each, that all you egalitarians will take a mile or something? 😉 This sort of thing seems fear-driven since it it totally irrational.

    So, that means that God is my subordinate and/or inferior on a daily basis? After all, isn’t He my ever present HELP in times of trouble? Isn’t God, the Holy Spirit, our Helper who *leads* us into all wisdom? And, Jesus, the Son of God, came to serve and not to be served.

    This is really a dangerous thing to say about God. He is our subordinate and inferior when He helps us? That, imho, is desperation. The meaning of ezer must be preserved at all costs and if that means making God subordinate to man, then, by golly, that is what needs to be done. Ezer must mean subordinate and/or inferior so whenever it is used, even of God, it means subordinate and inferior. Talk about presuppositional! They have their minds made up about ezer, for sure, if they would pervert a puny human’s relationship with God in this way.

    I am not sure I have read a feminist or egalitarian saying anything even close to this at all. Maybe heresy is too strong of a word but that is the word that comes to mind.

    What is that old saying? “God made man in His image and man has been returning the favor ever since.”

    Wasn’t Satan banished from heaven for doing the same thing? He wanted to ascend higher than God? Well, can’t get much higher than God to refer to Him as a subordinate or inferior.

    When I help my children, I am not their subordinate or inferior, am I? Would Wayne Grudem also say, in order to be consistent, that when a man helps his wife he is then her subordinate and inferior? Or when a father helps his child, he is that child’s subordinate and inferior?

    I guess defining ezer as being a help from a source of strength is too scary of a concept. So, since God is above all others and is frequently referred to as an “ezer” then God must necessarily be put into a subordinate position in order that the inferiority of women be maintained lest someone get the crazy idea that ezer has nothing to do with rank or position and more to do with strength. We must keep God down in order that we can keep woman in her rightful place.

    Interesting and dangerous.

  118. Corrie, I think it’s pretty obvious. Accept that EZER refers to help given from a position of strength, and strength can’t be one of the “masculine attributes” in a world where “masculine” and “feminine” are opposites. And that’s what the world of patriarchy revolves around. There’s not very much celebration of men’s and women’s shared humanity, and their differences as male and female are elevated to an absurd level, in some instances even to the point of idolatry, if one takes the writings at face value.

    So if WOMAN can be strong, then that automatically weakens MAN, in that world view. MAN can’t be anything that WOMAN is. So it’s a whole lot easier to change the meaning of the Holy Scriptures than it is to change a hardened heart and a made-up mind.

    Or maybe it’s fear of the idea that woman can be strong FOR THE MAN, rather than him being the he-man protector of the universe. NOBODY’s stronger than the man! Sadly, sometimes, God is even weakened to keep that “true.”

  119. Yes, Corrie, this is heresy, and possibly worse: blasphemy, because it puts man in the place of God. You’re right, “If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.” (Voltaire) They have indeed fallen for the serpent’s lie, “you will be as God” (ironically, this is what they think only females have a weakness for).

    Of course this whole idea is absurd on its face. There are “assistants”, and then there are “rescuers”. But Grudem’s problem is that God and Eve share the same “ezer” label, and desperation is truly the reason he would go so far as to start with presumed female inferiority and end with divine inferiority. To borrow a phrase from the PBS cartoon Arthur, “vomatrocious”!

  120. “So if WOMAN can be strong, then that automatically weakens MAN, in that world view. MAN can’t be anything that WOMAN is. So it’s a whole lot easier to change the meaning of the Holy Scriptures than it is to change a hardened heart and a made-up mind.”

    Psalmist,

    I guess it is easier. I have seen where patriarchalists constantly slice and dice character qualities and attributes into pink and blue groups.

    Add to this that scripture refers to women as the “weaker vessel” and “ezer” cannot mean strong! You are right, being strong is a masculine quality.

    And since Grudem defines “ezer” as helping someone, then do not men also help others? When a man helps his wife or children, is he not then also like God, a subordinate to the wife and child? Or, are they higher than God? IOW, when a patriarch helps his child and wife it isn’t in an “ezer” sort of way because that is a word that is fit only to describe what God and women do for others. When they help it is in a leader/ruler type of way. No wonder they only use the first half of Paul’s statement without using the correcting and clarifying part of his statement. When Paul states in 1 Cor. 11:

    “8For(M) man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but(N) woman for man. ”

    They like to forget that this was only HALF of the equation/truth. If woman was made for man, then woman helps man and he defines her use to him but since he was not made for her, he does not help her and she does not define his use to her. In fact, he has no use to her since he was not made for her, right? Wait…… Well, I guess if I remain consistent in their teachings it will actually undo some of their deeply held paradigms.

    “1Nevertheless,(O) in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And(P) all things are from God.”

    And here is where Paul delivers the missing part of the equation. Neither the woman or man is independent of each other (that speaks of mutuality and interdependency) and now the man comes from the woman so that all things are from God.

    “Or maybe it’s fear of the idea that woman can be strong FOR THE MAN, rather than him being the he-man protector of the universe. NOBODY’s stronger than the man! Sadly, sometimes, God is even weakened to keep that “true.””

    The Proverbs 31 woman was strong for her husband. We didn’t see her husband rescuing her and saving her over and over again like some helpless, weak damsel in distress. (Not that husbands don’t sometimes save and rescue their wives but I also know of many wives he save and rescue their husbands. In fact, I have saved my husband’s life more than once (he is a Type 1 diabetic) ). But, I look at the marriage relationship as one of mutual rescue. When one falls the other is there to lift them up, as Ecclesiastes so clearly illustrates. We saw the Proverbs 31 woman ministering to her husband from a position of strength. There seems to be no heirarchy to be gotten out of that portion of scripture. She seems to be a doer, a mover, and an initiator. She doesn’t seem to be a woman who sits back and waits to respond. She is like the ant:

    “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.” In fact, she is prepared beforehand so that means she must be someone who actually initiates much of what is going on around her.

    Doesn’t seem to gel with the responder/initiator/little helper stuff I have read. I guess King Lemuel’s mother taught her son that he needed to look for a woman who didn’t wait to act. I would think that most men would want to be married to a woman who could look around and see what needed to be done and do it instead of waiting for their husband to direct their every step.

  121. “Yes, Corrie, this is heresy, and possibly worse: blasphemy, because it puts man in the place of God. You’re right, “If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.” (Voltaire) They have indeed fallen for the serpent’s lie, “you will be as God” (ironically, this is what they think only females have a weakness for).”

    Oops! Is blasphemy worse than heresy? Here I thought I was trying to hold back with strong words!

    They do forget that their mother was Eve and that Paul reminds Christ’s followers of this in 1 Corinthians and tells them to be careful that they are not deceived like their mother Eve.

    It is not only girls who inherit things from their mothers, after all.

    “But Grudem’s problem is that God and Eve share the same “ezer” label, and desperation is truly the reason he would go so far as to start with presumed female inferiority and end with divine inferiority.”

    You are right and I am finally beginning to see the problem very clearly. Instead of searching for the Truth and being unafraid at what they find, they suppress the truth.

    If God, as an ezer to mankind is mankind’s subordinate and inferior, then we are in a heap of trouble. Goddess worship is the least of our worries.

  122. Good point, Corrie. The extreme teachings of Grudem et al are far worse than any egal. teaching. If we are wrong, we err only in “playing the wrong roles”. But if they are wrong, they err in usurping the very authority of God.

  123. This will be my last post for a while. I don’t want to hog your blog!

    “But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. (Page 461-462, Systematic Theology, ch. 22: Man as Male and Female).”

    Every time I read this, I have the same reaction. My jaw hits the floor. I am stunned. I am flabbergasted. This is in his systematic theology book? Yikes! It is just so nonsensical on so many levels.

    I guess I can now better see why he would tell a woman who is giving directions to a man over the backyard fence to make sure she recognizes his manhood and remains submissive to him in the way she gives him directions. When a woman helps a man, she cannot do it from a position of strength and knowledge. It must be done from a position of weakness, subservience, subjugation and inferiority. So, that means, we better understand the 1950’s handbooks on women when they tell women to pretend they are not as smart as the men around them. Men must not know that they need help because they are in need of help. I know that some teach that “help” means in the way of providing sexual intercourse, birthing babies, cleaning homes, cooking meals and doing the laundry. That hurts less than believing that they are truly needy and not just for sex and a housekeeper. 🙂

    I was looking up the word “help” in my English dictionaries since Grudem asserts that anytime a person gives help that means they are in a subordinate position. Not only is this nonsensical but it is dangerous. Do I want to help someone at the grocery store or when they run out of gas because that would make me their subordinate. When a police officer helps people in distress, he is their subordinate? When a man helps his wife, he is her subordinate. When a woman helps her children, they are her master?

    Look at the following English definitions for the word “help”. Certainly does NOT imply subordination or inferiority. It does imply strength. It does imply having the strong resources in order to help someone who is LACKING or IN NEED. And that is much more in line with what God does as an ezer for man. God helps us with His strength to supply what we are lacking and when we are in need.

    “When I look in my English dictionary help simply means this:

    to make it easier for someone to do something by offering your services or financial or material aid; improve a situation or problem (be a benefit to); to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist: He planned to help me with my work. Let me help you with those packages. to save; rescue; succor: Help me, I’m falling! to make easier or less difficult; contribute to; facilitate:

    Antonym of help: hinder or impede

    The word help doesn’t seem to say what Wayne Grudem would have us believe it means.

  124. “So if WOMAN can be strong, then that automatically weakens MAN, in that world view.”

    Something just clicked with me when I read what Psalmist wrote there. It’s as if the patriarchalists see things as a zero sum game. If women have any amount of authority or power, that means less for them. It is as if they cannot see, for instance, that more women preachers means more gospel preached which means more people saved which means more glory to God. Instead, it means less notches on their belt, less credit that they get, less glory to them, fewer crowns they get. A woman’s vote means theirs carries less weight (vs. a genuine reflection of the opinion of all adults in the community); a woman who shares the decision making means they have less of a voice (vs a more balanced decision). And on and on it goes.

    Zero sum game. Big lightning bolt for me on this one.

  125. Cheryl:
    1. If one person willingly submits his will to that of another person because they are of one will in the first place, is that person’s being diminished in any way?

    Answer: It is impossible for there to be “one will” if one is submitting his will to another. The fact that one has to submit his will proves that there is not one will but two wills with one will subordinated to the other.

    Paula:
    1. If one person willingly submits his will to that of another person because they are of one will in the first place, is that person’s being diminished in any way?

    This is a logical impossibility. If they are of one will in the first place, then one cannot “submit” their identical will to the other. As God, both the Father and Son (and of course the Spirit) have one will. That makes eternal subordination of any of them impossible.

    Only in the case of two different wills can we ask whether the submitter is “diminished”. If both beings are equal in being, then permanent and involuntary submission would indeed be a case of inequality and thus “diminishing”. In other words, it is impossible for equal beings to be permanently unequal in role, when one role has authority over the other. One being cannot be in a state of permanent and involuntary subordination to an equal being.

    My response:
    Thank you both Cheryl and Paula. The answers you gave were extremely clear and simple, so much so that there could be no confusion on this point.

  126. Cheryl, about that potential discussion with Kamilla and her response to you, I have to say that’s par for the course regarding her.

    I’m speaking from experience.

    There was NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING wrong with your blog forum for a discussion, but she made you out to be a bad person for suggesting that.

  127. Lynn,
    Thanks for the good thoughts. I sure didn’t know what she got so upset with. If she was wanting to teach some of her truth, you would think that she would appreciate a bigger audience especially since I made it clear that everyone had to be nice.

    I actually did it this way because I submitted to the advice of godly Christian “brethren”. We are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. If someone is going to rail on us, it is wiser to allow it in a public forum because there is accountability for both sides. I am a big fan of accountability and I highly value the wise advice of those who visit this blog and often give me of their wisdom.

  128. My friends,
    You all have had great comments today. I wish I had more time. I have been working on my Trinity DVD for a good portion of today and I am extremely tired. I will have to leave my thoughts regarding your comments until tomorrow when there is an awake brain! 🙂

  129. Cheryl, I think the advice was proved sound when you got the response you did.

    When someone contacts you uninvited, at the hostile urging of a third party, and claims to want to instruct you, it simply must be done in public or not at all. No mature, healthy Christian would object to saying in the presence of witnesses what they intend to say in private. Your “instructor” knows you made perfectly sound, reasonable statements at the Bayly blog. There was no reason for you to be “instructed,” and she knew it. She merely has a big axe to grind against her declared enemies, those who believe in and practice biblical equality. You were right to invite her to say her piece in public, and it says volumes about her that she was offended by the public venue.

    IMO, you could not have handled it any better.

  130. check out this article on Grundems book Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?

    http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-10-23

    Notice the strawman argument we see being used everywhere about egals:

    “In a brief historical analysis, Grudem demonstrates that denominations move through “a predictable sequence” of theological liberalism. First, biblical inerrancy is abandoned. Then, in turn, the denomination endorses the ordination of women, rejects biblical teaching on male leadership in marriage, sidelines pastors who are opposed to the ordination of women, approves homosexual conduct as morally valid in at least some cases, ordains homosexuals, and elects homosexuals to “high leadership positions in the denomination.”

    After reading this article, I am starting to see where their ‘language’ comes from.

    BTW: On doing a search on Grundem, I was astonished to find him very involved with the Vineyard Movement.

    BTW: Can anyone define inerrency for me? I get confused. This is a huge deal with the SBC which is made up of Calvinists, Arminians, cessationists, non cessationists, tongues, no tongues, etc. Get my point?

  131. Light, I’m glad that made sense to you. It just gets clearer and clearer, the more I read patriarchalists’ objections to mutual submission and fully shared ministry in the church. It’s ALL about worldly power to them! Some think, and perhaps a few pretend, that their system is godly, but it’s the antithesis of what we find consistently throughout the Scriptures.

    How can anyone who would keep women powerless and subordinate to men, claim to be following the Christ “who emptied himself, taking the form of a slave…”?

    When will they understand that if they’re full of worldly power, there is no room for the Holy Spirit to give them true godly power? We all must choose between God’s way and the ways of this world. It’s no surprise to me that some of the most highly patriarchal churches are also some of the coldest, dead churches you could ever find. God has been crowded out and the idol of male-only “authority” threatens to take over. It’s an intoxicating thing, to have all that kind of power over other people. No one’s telling pastors of those churches how spiritually bankrupt they are…or at least, no one they’ll listen to. God has a great deal to say about in in Scripture, but without the Holy Spirit being permitted to teach them, they may never learn it until eternity.

  132. Lin, it depends who you talk to (kind of like patriarchy in general); the definitions are all over the map.

    Grudem has claimed to like the Colorado Statement. It has more to do with bible translation (it’s a club he used to wrongly beat up the TNIV), but I believe it has something to say about inerrancy. I would think that Grudem ought to be very clear how HE defines inerrancy, given his rather novel re-definitions of so many other things. Perhaps he does define it. I didn’t waste money to buy a copy of it, so I can’t look it up right now. (Excerpts showed me he was just making it up as he went along, as I WAS familiar with the work he supposedly refutes in his ponderous tome).

  133. A few more quotes from this article:

    “Finally, Grudem returns to the issue of homosexuality, arguing that the hermeneutic employed to advocate egalitarianism leads, if pressed consistently, to the normalization of homosexuality as well. “The approval of homosexuality,” he notes, “is the final step along the path to liberalism.” ”

    Guys, I hear this everywhere. It is making inroads as being ‘logical’ which it is NOT. How could the ‘hermeneutic’ be employed for this? Scripture is MORE than clear about homosexuality.

    I could use their hermeneutic to argue that complimentarianism leads to less respect for women and more Domestic Violence. But I know that sin leads to sin. And I don’t know which came first…the domestic violence or the comp belief!

    “The great value of Wayne Grudem’s new book is its combination of cogent argument and fair presentation. Grudem is careful to acknowledge that many, if not most, evangelical feminists have not moved completely along the trajectory toward the full embrace of theological liberalism. Nevertheless, his surgical approach to their theological arguments and hermeneutical proposals reveals the clear and present danger to evangelical orthodoxy posed by egalitarian theory and practice. Evangelical Feminism is truly a tract for the times–a manifesto that should serve to awaken complacent evangelicals to the true nature of the egalitarian challenge. Furthermore, the book serves as an arsenal of arguments to use in revealing the crucial weaknesses of the egalitarian proposal. ”

    Read that last sentence again. War words. Use the book as an arsenal of arguments.

    “Nothing less than the future of the Christian church in North America is at stake in this controversy. Evangelicals no longer have the luxury of believing that this controversy is nothing more than a dispute among scholars. Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? has arrived just in time. Get this book quickly–and read it with care.”

    Is this scare mongering or what?

  134. Paula:
    Donna, let me answer your points, but first make one of my own: that “misrepresentation” is a very common charge on this topic and many others. When Christians disagree, it seems to be the first reaction. The problem is that this charge is rarely proved but only asserted.>>>>

    I see what you mean. The word “misrepresentation” can be understood as being something deliberate, a deliberate lie about the position of another person.

    I should have said, “misunderstand,” rather than “misinterpret.”

    I would encourage people to read what is said at the CBMW, and try to understand where they are coming from as far as the eternal subordination of the Son is concerned. It is an appeal to greater understanding.

    Then, I would also appeal to people to examine presuppositions. What are the hermeneutic principles being used, and what is the basic theological bias of anyone writing about theology, even in these little comments sections. Even saying ” I do not use labels, I am a biblicist” is a theological bias. What does a person mean when they say, “I am a biblicist” or “I don’t use labels” or “I am a complementarian” or “I am an egalitarian” or whatever. Not everyone tells you where they are coming from, and you have to figure it out for yourself.

    So, thank you for allowing me to clarify. This is a difficult subject. I’m not going point by point with you, not because I don’t think you are important enough to me to respond. On the contrary. You are my sister in Christ, and of infinite worth to my Saviour and Lord. We are in His family, and it is natural for us to love one another.

    I just don’t think that this is the time or the place.

    God bless, and please take care,
    Donna L. Carlaw

  135. Cheryl:
    Actually I thought it was very respectful behavior. While I waited, you were the one who suggested I read your posts. I saw a very public person who was not kind nor respectful to the opposition. If you have something to say to me in the way of correction, I am willing to listen publicly. If you have nothing to say in the way of correction, I completely understand. >>>>

    Cheryl, I must point out something to you, and it causes me grief. You are sharing information that was sent to you in private. In doing that, you are casting aspersions on your sister, and betraying a confidence. You are doing a very clever job of editing to make yourself look good, and your sister look bad.

    It seems to me that Kamilla exposed you, and you want to cover your nakedness with a fig leaf of hypocrisy.

  136. Lin, #149:

    Notice the strawman argument we see being used everywhere about egals:

    Technically, it’s the “slippery slope” fallacy: A causes B causes C causes D… It proposes causes and effect where none exists. Of course, when any of us tries it on them with “patriarchy causes domestic violence”, they scream bloody murder.

    Notice Grudem makes the first step rejection of Biblical inerrancy. While I know some egals that do reject it, I could say the same about comps. If a small percentage of egals (does anyone have statistics, or are these mere assertions?) rejects inerrancy, and a small percentage of comps do as well, then can both be accused of being on this slippery slope of Grudem’s invention? Somehow I think he’d come up with an excuse.

    His second step of course is declared wrong without comment, making it evil simply by being on the list. Then, oh the horror, churches allegedly do something more evil than reject inerrancy: wives are told their husbands aren’t de facto leaders! After all, it’s farther down the slope, so it must be more evil.

    Where he gets “sidelining” patriarchal pastors, he doesn’t say; it’s just another assertion. And of course, once these guardians of divine misogyny are pushed aside, we gullible slope-sliders will certainly rush out and find all the homosexuals we can and set them up as leaders. (Note for the expressionally challenged: this is sarcasm.) Notice above all the presumption of a church hierarchy with “high leadership positions”, as if we’re talking about a mega-corporation and not a living Body.

    The only “predictable” thing about Grudem’s slope is that it’s completely fabricated or at least equally applicable to both sides. And of course the mixing of “feminism” and “egalitarianism” as interchangeable terms.

    BTW #1: When I see “vineyard”, I think “doctrines of demons”.
    BTW #2: As Psalmist said, the def. of inerrancy depends on who you ask. Personally, I take the view of the Bible being the inspired Word of God, perfect in its original autographs, and that with the wealth of ancient documents we have, we can trust the original language texts as accurate. The only issue is with dictionaries and translations.

    Lin, #152:

    “Finally, Grudem returns to the issue of homosexuality, arguing that the hermeneutic employed to advocate egalitarianism leads, if pressed consistently, to the normalization of homosexuality as well. “The approval of homosexuality,” he notes, “is the final step along the path to liberalism.” ”

    Ironically, I’ve seen comps do this exact same thing, and I wrote about it Here:

    And in so doing, we see the same presumptuous view as that of the gay theologists: that “Paul couldn’t have had ______ [fill in the blank] in view when he wrote this”. That’s it, their proof of historical interpretation: an assertion. If they want to have this lame eisegesis as their “proof” then they’ll have to accept the same from the gay theologists.

    They were arguing that Paul was only easy on slavery (then read the article to see how they twist in the wind when applying their reasoning to women) because he couldn’t have had certain ideas in mind when he wrote about it, and this is exactly what gay theologists do: they say Paul couldn’t have imagined a monogamous homosexual relationship based on devotion, but only the Greek practice of homosexuality between a master and slave. So Paul, they argue, couldn’t have been condemning such a relationship.

    Almost comically, the solidly comp. article I referenced argues against Grudem’s “trajectory” hermeneutic. At least he openly admits that he considers the very idea of men being merely equal and not superior to women as “danger”, a “challenge”, a “manifesto”. He asserts our position to be “weak”, and that (again, oh the horror!) church as patriarchy has always known it is in great peril. Yes, definite scare mongering.

  137. Donna, #153:

    I should have said, “misunderstand,” rather than “misinterpret.”

    Either way, it is not true. We do understand. We do read the material at CBMW. I would turn your appeal around and ask you to take the same care you demand of us with material at places like CBE, the organization CBMW was formed to war against. This also goes for your appeal to examine presuppositions. Many are made by CBMW and their followers. And I can’t imagine a better “time or place” to discuss these issues than here and now. Cheryl’s blog is one of the few truly fair (egalitarian if you will) environments, since it stresses Christ-likeness over conformity.

    Although your conciliatory tone to me is appreciated, I am aware of some of your history elsewhere, and the two don’t match. As an example even here, you accuse Cheryl of “doing a very clever job of editing to make yourself look good, and your sister look bad.” You don’t know Cheryl at all, and have made a false accusation against a sister in Christ, and done so publicly. Your statement, “It seems to me that Kamilla exposed you, and you want to cover your nakedness with a fig leaf of hypocrisy” is the sort of maliciousness and character assassination you are becoming known for. It is most difficult to believe you are sincere when you say things like “I love you, Psalmist. Come by to see me anytime, my dear sister.”

    You can’t have it both ways, Donna. Either we are all your sisters in Christ and you love us, or we are your worst enemies and you hate us enough to make wild accusations in public. Even going only by what you’ve posted in this thread, it is impossible to tell which view of us you really have.

  138. BTW, the word was “misrepresentation”, not “misinterpret”. Big difference. The former means a deliberate attempt to give a false impression, and the latter means a failure to understand.

  139. Hi Donna,

    “I would encourage people to read what is said at the CBMW, and try to understand where they are coming from as far as the eternal subordination of the Son is concerned. It is an appeal to greater understanding.”

    When the egalitarians say appeal to “greater understanding” of the scriptures they are eviscerated by the Bayly Bros, et al. They mock and scoff and scorn such statements citing that an assertion of greater understanding is just not possible.

    But, here you are appealing to the “greater understanding” argument?

    After reading Grudem’s statement in his Systematic Theology book, no less (!!!!!!!!!!!), that God is a subordinate/inferior to man when He is an “ezer” to man, I don’t think I can trust where this “greater understanding” is coming from or what fuels it. It looks to me like desperation. The comps/pats are now changing scripture and the historic understanding of the Godhead in order to shore up their need to be in control and to have primacy. That doesn’t look good at all.

    Is it your argument that people who do not agree with CBMW’s statements on the eternal subordination of Christ to be without understanding? That CBMW and those agree with this new wind of doctrine are those who a greater understanding of God?

    I beg to differ.

    I can’t quite wrap my mind around the whole concept because the Trinity is a mystery but since Christ and God cannot go against their perfectly unified will as God, their will is one. Christ is God. He is “I Am”. Through Christ the world was made. He and the Father are one.

    Not so for puny humans. A man’s will is not God’s will nor are two sinful human beings going to be perfectly in accord with one another at all times. And at times we are to resist the will of man in order to remain in the will of God. To compare a husband to God and the woman to Christ is not greater understanding. It is poor understanding and poor hermeneutics. Why do what the Bible does not? Are not the instructions left for husbands and wives enough? Why must we elevate where God has not? This to me is the sin of pride and not seeing one’s self as they really are.

  140. To all, the individual Cheryl wanted to converse with said some pretty caustic, accusatory things about me to a third person, and that person shared the email with me in private. I tried to talk to this person IN PRIVATE, as is in accordance with propriety, but was rebuffed and warned to not email her again.

    So I don’t blame Cheryl in the LEAST for wanting some public accountability in this matter.

  141. Donna,
    This forum is a place where I have chosen that the words spoken here will be with Christ-like respect and ones that honor truth. I would ask that you respect the intent of this blog. You said:

    “Cheryl, I must point out something to you, and it causes me grief. You are sharing information that was sent to you in private. In doing that, you are casting aspersions on your sister, and betraying a confidence. You are doing a very clever job of editing to make yourself look good, and your sister look bad.

    It seems to me that Kamilla exposed you, and you want to cover your nakedness with a fig leaf of hypocrisy.”

    Truth is important and facts are part of that truth. I did not share any information that was sent to me in private. The fact is that Kamilla did not share any information with me let alone any private information. I set up this blog post so that she could share whatever she wanted in the safety of community. She chose not to do that. Donna, if you are going to come onto my blog and accuse me of sin, you will have to do that with facts. You have presented nothing to prove that I shared something that was private.

    On the Bayly blog, I was told that I needed to understand the Trinity because apparently I didn’t know anything and there was a public request for someone to educate me. I set up this post for that “education” to happen. Are you now the one who will be “educating” me? Are you now the new representative of the Bayly’s who has come to correct my error?

    I have done no editing yet of people’s comments, except for one egalitarian as I removed a word that came across as harsh. I haven’t even had time to read all of the comments here from yesterday or this morning but I trust that people have been respectful enough that I wouldn’t need to edit. Please show me the evidence that you have that I have edited something to make Kamilla look bad or that I have edited something to make myself look good. It is a godly thing to prove your accusations if indeed there is sin to be accounted for so that if I have sinned I can see my sin and repent.

    If Kamilla has “exposed me” and my “nakedness” then it wasn’t here that she did this. Kamilla has refused to come here and speak the truth. I can understand why she might not want to do this. If there is nothing to say of value in private, then there is nothing to say in public either. I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt. I have certainly done that and not every blog owner would take the time to invite the other side to speak without censorship except what is required – respect and no personal attack.

    I believe that it is time that we expose the attempt to put Jesus into a position that is less than the position of the Father. When we place one person of the Trinity as “more” of anything than the Son, we have dishonored the Son. The Father is not the only Supreme in the Trinity. The Father is not the only one who gets the highest honor as some have written. All honor is shared and all glory is share by the equal members of the Trinity. I think the quote that was given from Grudem reveals the level that some have gone to, to put Jesus down. When Jesus is put into any kind of a lesser role, the next step is to pull God down to our level. Indeed God is pulled down to even below us when it can be said that God is our subordinate when he helps us. When we can read that kind of thing and not weep internally for the state that the church has been pulled down to, then perhaps we are naked and without spiritual eyesight. We need to buy from Jesus that white robe to cover our nakedness and we need to ask him to give us eyes that see. God help us!

  142. “I believe that it is time that we expose the attempt to put Jesus into a position that is less than the position of the Father. When we place one person of the Trinity as “more” of anything than the Son, we have dishonored the Son.”

    Like Corrie, My jaw dropped on reading the quote from Grundem. I have not read the book but I have to ask…does he say anywhere that the quote refers only to humans? And not to God? I am incredulous that he has not only been NOT been publicly rebuked by his peers but they are heavily promoting and teaching from this book in seminaries and churches all over. Every student at seminary has one under his arm.

    But, I want to say that this position grieves me to no end. The Name of Jesus Christ MUST be lifted up. He must increase. I saw the liberal seeker churches humanize God and try to bring Him down to our level and I am blown away that so called ‘conservative reformed’ theologians are doing the same.

    Could the end be near?

  143. “I am incredulous that he has not only been NOT been publicly rebuked by his peers but they are heavily promoting and teaching from this book in seminaries and churches all over.”

    Clear as mud, huh? I was doing two things at the same time. Here is the translation:

    I am stunned he has not been publicly rebuked and even more stunned that his book is being promoted by so called scholars everywhere.

  144. Lin,

    I don’t have the book either, but I’ve been looking for more quotes. Here are some interesting observations from someone who has it:

    Grudem argues that God is putting himself under the authority of humans when he helps. This is difficult to reconcile with God’s sovereignty. A temporary setting aside of authority on the part of the Son is difficult enough to comprehend. Did the entire Trinity do this repeatedly in the Old Testament? I agree that a superior can voluntarily, temporarily act as an inferior by serving. At best, Grudem has proved that woman can voluntarily, temporarily act as under the authority of a man.

    Grudem’s reading is that woman’s original sin is usurping male authority and man’s original sin was rejecting God’s authority. Thus, Jesus died to reconcile men (males), and women are reconciled through their husband. This is a Mormon teaching, not orthodox Christian teaching.


  145. I wonder if he gives any examples of this from scripture. Of God helping and being subordinate by doing so. I sure would like to see them

  146. I still don’t see what’s so hard to understand about the trinity. Just look at the simplicity of water in its three states: It moves from solid to liquid, to steam, and back the other way with no linear hierarchy whatsoever; if anything, a circular unity is demonstrated.

    If Dr. Grudem and the CBMW are intent upon imposing a linear hierarchy in the trinity, let them, it is their right to do so in the free-market place of ideas.

    They have only overstepped their bounds when they try to say that those of us who reject the doctrine of eternal subordination are not Christians.

  147. Cheryl:
    This forum is a place where I have chosen that the words spoken here will be with Christ-like respect and ones that honor truth. I would ask that you respect the intent of this blog.>>>>

    You have failed, my dear, and I pointed out your failure. You are just engaging in gossip. Kamilla is not here, yet you brought her into the conversation in a disrespectful way.

    You do not want to be held accountable for your words. You have exposed your shame and hypocrisy.

  148. “Grudem’s reading is that woman’s original sin is usurping male authority and man’s original sin was rejecting God’s authority.”

    That is bunk. The scripture says no such thing. She did NOT usurp male authority at all. She disobeyed God, not Adam. Where does Scripture tell us that Eve violently overtook Adam’s authority and went against him? I thought the scripture simply says that Adam was with her in the garden and she was deceived? Doesn’t sound like usurpation at all. We can speculate until the cows come home but I wonder how the patriarchalists rectify their speculation while at the same time denigrating other speculation? John MacArthur goes so far as to say that he KNOWS why Adam did what he did and even though he wasn’t there, he didn’t have to be to KNOW why Adam ate the fruit. It was because Adam wanted to be noble and not let Eve die on her own. Yeah right!

    “Thus, Jesus died to reconcile men (males), and women are reconciled through their husband. This is a Mormon teaching, not orthodox Christian teaching.”

    Exactly. A lot of this is Mormon-like teaching.

  149. Paula,

    Thanks for the link to that blog. I appreciated how he has has explained what Grudem teaches in his Systematic Theology book. I am disturbed that it is so well like in so many colleges and seminaries.

    Here is a quote from that blog which quotes what the Athanasian creed says about the trinity:

    “The Athanasian Creed, which Grudem accurately says is “still used in Protestant and Catholic churches today,” puts it thus:

    “Nothing in this trinity is before or after, nothing is greater or smaller; in their entirety the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other.””

    I would agree. To go further than this is adding and/or subtracting from scripture and playing around with the very divinity of Christ.

  150. Donna,
    I have asked you to be respectful and to prove your accusation with facts. You have not submitted to my request. That is not respectful and it is not applying discipline with grace or knowledge.

    You said:

    “You have failed, my dear, and I pointed out your failure. You are just engaging in gossip. Kamilla is not here, yet you brought her into the conversation in a disrespectful way.

    You do not want to be held accountable for your words. You have exposed your shame and hypocrisy.”

    Donna, you have not proven this accusation and I would ask you to be respectful enough to either prove your accusation or cease commenting on this blog. You are not acting in a responsible Christ-like manner. If you would like to make an accusation without having to show the facts of your charge of sin, I am sure that there are many blogs who would appreciate any attack on a brother or sister in Christ. I do not allow this because this is not honorable and this is a warning to you. Do not bring an accusation without facts. This is an ungodly attack on one that you have been charged with loving because I too am in the body of Christ. If your purpose here is only to attack then please provide us with your facts for your accusation otherwise, please my sister, do it on you own blog, but do not do it on mine. I have not yet censored your comments although you have defiantly refused to abide by the rules. I ask you respectfully to cease the personal attacks and if you bring an accusation I will hear it only if you have facts to back up an accusation. Otherwise I ask you to go where all the other mockers congregate who refuse to be corrected with love.

  151. This whole Kamilla thing is like deja vu.

    Donna, maybe you are getting confused between Lynn’s invitation that was also dubbed “shameful” among other things and Cheryl’s invitation.

    I see that Cheryl explained to you that you were [once again] wrong or confused about the facts and you refused to acknowledge that. You have do this a lot to people and it does get wearying.

    May I recommend that you be a bit slower on the trigger? Maybe you should really find out the facts before you start shooting?

    I think it is honorable that Cheryl invited Kamilla to come over here but I could have told Cheryl that she shouldn’t hold her breath. Kamilla frequently takes pot-shots at people but then when she is called on her words, she behaves like she is being victimized. You would think she would welcome the chance to own up to what she says?

    I won’t judge Kamilla as you have judged Cheryl. To each his/her own. If Kamilla doesn’t want to discuss these issues on this forum and she would rather stay under safety of the wings of Bayly and Co., that is her prerogative. But, it is not shameful and hypocritical to invite her. It is actually polite and cordial.

    It is funny to me that so many patriarchalists can talk very bravely in certain venues but then refuse to discuss the same issues when they are asked some very straightforward questions.

  152. Donna,
    You are right. There has been a pristine purity here because we hold up Jesus as the one watching our words and we want to honor him. This is why I asked you not to violate the intention of this blog and please refrain from what you rightfully speak as “gossip” for that is all it is if it is an accusation without facts.

  153. What do you think, Donna, about a Christian sister who refers in her own blog to two different conversations on two separate blogs somewhere else, using two different people’s quotes to smear a third, by claiming falsely that the third person actually said those things, and twisting what the quotes actually said into something that no one in either conversation actually said? What do you think about never dealing with the falsehood, and insisting that the third party just forget about it in the interest of “peace”?

    Is that not gossip? Or does it just depend on how intimately close to the blogger in question you are? Do you think it’s OK to lie about other people if they’ve “hurt” you (by holding you responsible for previous untruths)?

  154. Ms. Carlaw,

    I can understand it, if you had called me on the carpet to account for less than Christian treatment of Kamilla, after all it was I who satirized her as the Red Queen. But Cheryl has done no wrong in that regard whatsoever. She has been gracious and accommodating and does not deserve to be branded as a gossip.

  155. Notification to bloggers,
    I have put Donna Carlaw on moderation for her un-Christlike behavior and her continued personal attacks. This is the first time I have had anyone come onto this blog who has refused to submit to the rules after several warnings. I am the owner of this blog and I am responsible for the attitude here so Donna should have been gracious enough to comply with my requests. Honestly for someone who prides themselves as being “submissive”, this kind of unsubmissive attitude speaks volumes about what Donna stands for.

    I will release any comments from Donna to the blog that meet the standards of this blog. The rest will be taken care of appropriately.

    I hope the rest of you will agree that I have been extremely patient with Donna.

  156. You have been more than patient, Cheryl. If only she would engage in actual facts backing up her allegations or even disagree with grace, it would be different.

  157. Yes, accusations have to be substantiated or they’re just malicious gossip. I’ve noticed quite a lot of baseless assertions coming from the comp camp, top to bottom; it seems to be very common among them.

    But what’s even worse, IMO, is when malice is cloaked as fake “concern”. Christianity has become more pretense than substance. It’s all about the external: legalism, roles, hierarchy, performance. Every day it becomes more like Mormonism or even Islam. What happened to genuine concern, genuine love for God and his people, genuine spiritual growth? Why have many Christians become spiritual cannibals, seeming to be more bent on devouring other sheep than wolves? Do they even know the difference anymore? How can the love of Christ be in those who so hate people as to drive them away from fellowship and then attack them in their own homes?

    There’s reasoned debate, and then there’s just plain flaming. Zeal without knowledge is a very dangerous thing, but Christianity seems to be filled with such people. They are willing to vilify others solely on the basis of hearsay from anyone whose “ministry” they have sworn loyalty to. It’s all very cult-like.

  158. Yes, you’ve been more than patient, Cheryl.

    Donna has a lot of nerve making the accusations she has here, against you, when she deliberately misquotes other people, then yanks or drastically edits her own blog entries in order to falsely accuse them and smear them based on her lies. She’s proud to let such untruths stand; she ignores requests that she retract the lies. Yet YOU’RE gossiping?

    Choice. Really choice.

    (Did you know that she appears unable to tell the difference between a quote from you, Cheryl, and one from me? Let’s see…there’s ONE letter–L–in common between our names. I don’t think that’s an excuse for the confusion.) 😉

  159. Lin, Paula, Psalmist,
    Thanks for your support and help on this blog.

    Psalmist,
    I saw a show the other day that showed how one who practices ungodly behavior will often accuse their spouse of that same behavior. It doesn’t make sense to me, but I guess it is one way of dealing with one’s own bad habits. I do not support that kind of tactic and the burden of this blog is on my shoulders. I do think, though, that there are many godly complementarians out there who do not attack others and try to live lives that will honor Christ. I am honored to call these ones as my sisters in Christ.

  160. I’ve been reading what Donna says on a number of different blog and forum venues for quite a few years now. It never fails that once she has pulled a stunt, she falsely accuses those who object to it of doing the exact thing she’s done. It’s predictable.

  161. And you’re correct, Cheryl, that there are plenty of complementarians who try to interact with others as they would wish to be interacted with. I don’t agree with them on various points, nor they with me, but they’re a joy to converse with. A basic grasp of the difference between truth and falsehood in communication is necessary. Thankfully, most Christians can and do have a firm grasp of this skill. 🙂

  162. Paula:
    But what’s even worse, IMO, is when malice is cloaked as fake “concern”. Christianity has become more pretense than substance.

    Just give me a stomach ache…I’m personaly disturbed about this.

  163. My point, Cheryl, is not that you are a bad Christian, or a bad person, or insincere, or anything like that. I do not doubt for a moment your desire to serve God as you understand that term.

    My point is that since Kamilla is not here, it was not appropriate or kind to share what she had said in a private email. You did not need to do that in order to move the discussion along. Kindness would have just said that she did not wish to discuss the issue in this venue. That is what I mean. You “tattled” on her.

    Love covers.

    Sincerely,
    Donna L. Carlaw

  164. Dear Donna,
    I let Kamilla know that I was posting her comment in an email to her. She did not object then and why should she?

    You said:

    “I do not doubt for a moment your desire to serve God as you understand that term.”

    This is not proper to say to a sister in Christ as if my God is different than yours.

    I appreciate that you tried this time to make your objection known. At least this gives me an idea of what you are talking about. That is always helpful. So for the record, I didn’t “tattle” on Kamilla. The blog was set up as a safe place for her and if she didn’t want to show up that was her decision. I posted her decision exactly as she gave it as I told her I would. I think that is respectful and if she doesn’t think that she was respectful to me, then she will have to deal with that.

  165. “Just give me a stomach ache…I’m personaly disturbed about this.”

    Sorry, pink. 🙂

    But it’s true, on any given controversial topic, such as eternal security, the rapture, Bible versions, even salvation (see my rant Here). There are people who will attach to a forceful leader and then go out as mindless drones to seek and destroy all who oppose them. No amount of reason or evidence matters.

    That may be a good test of someone’s intentions: whether they present evidence to back up their accusations, and whether they can display knowledge of scripture to back up their beliefs. If they are unable to do so, they have no right to accuse.

  166. I have had a chance to read through some of this thread, and saw the references to “The Red Queen.” This reminded me of the multiple times Donna has referred to Patricia Gundry as “The Borg Queen.” Which by the way, has gotten a pass in the places I’ve seen Donna make the remark.

    Now each side has its respective queen, I guess. 😉

  167. Let me hasten to add crowning people queens in this fashion is unproductive and not conducive to fostering conversation, so I agree with Greg that the charge could be made that his remarks were “less than Christian.”

    However, I have seen Donna crown Pat Gundry a queen, but not on a public forum Pat been invited to to speak to, but then turned down, and in the process of turning it down taking a dig at the person inviting her.

    Donna, you are being hypocritical. Greg is right. Cheryl has done nothing like what Greg called Kamilla and what you called Pat Gundry, and this whole thing apparently wasn’t Cheryl’s brainchild in the first place — it came from the Baylys.

    Yet you claim Kamilla is not here to defend herself. That was Kamilla’s choice. But Pat Gundry wasn’t even invited to the CCC forum where you crowned her queen. Shouldn’t you repent of your gossip about Patricia, then? Or do different standards of decency apply to you and not to everybody else?

  168. Posted at the CCC-Forum, 2/26/08, 7:55 p.m., by Donna L. Carlaw:

    “Kamilla, have you noticed that egalitarians respond to anything? All they do is react and act up. I think that they have burned out their critical-thinking skills. Egalitarian thinking is sort of like an intellectual mad cow disease, isn’t it?”

    It’s no wonder that several there are touting Ann Coulter’s “Godless” as a good book. Talk about queens…

  169. Here’s a public archive from the CCC forum. It’s available to anybody who has internet access. The post number is #27337. DL is Donna, and Kamilla is Kamilla. I am going to have to eliminate hatch marks in the original in order for the comment to go through. Donna and others constantly mentioned “Borg Queen” on that forum.

    DL:
    I think that you are correct. However, they [ie women who have been abused who gravitate to CBE] tend to dwell on the abuse. They tend to want to keep the hurt and the memory going. That is not Christian.

    Kamilla:
    Yes, they cherish it and feed it, lovingly watch it grow until it
    comsumes them. They’d rather remain victims, crying “Woe is me, I
    have been abused!” on the street corner like the proud pharisee
    praying out loud how glad he’s not, yadda yadda yadda.

    DL:
    Wow! Yes, I fear that you are correct. I am thinking Gollum. He was a disgusting, yet pathetic creature, who had been warped by the ring of power. Is there an analogy, here? It is a fearful thing, since any of us can be corrupted by the desire for power – or empowerment? That “will to power” becomes more precious than
    anything else, and we will sacrifice anything and everything, anyone
    and everyone to that desire? Maybe?

    [Lynn here — Donna, that comparison of abused women who become egalitarian to Gollum is worse than pathetic. That’s the first time I’d seen that.]

    Kamilla:
    Stepping out of that and into forgiveness is scary. Better the devil you know. . .

    DL:
    Yes, the land of perpetual forgiveness can be a scary place.
    Goodness! I just can’t keep from comparing what you are saying to
    Gollum.

    DL:
    …abuse, then work at forgiving the abuser – even if you don’t have continuing contact with them – , and letting the memories go.

    Kamilla:
    I think this is one of the key problems – people misunderstand
    forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn’t mean restoration nor does it mean
    the offender is released from the consequences of his actions.

    DL:
    I agree, and would add that forgiveness opens the door for restoration, but it is not the restoration itself. Often, a
    relationship will not be restored. However, you don’t have to wait
    until someone wants restoration in order to begin forgiving.

    Kamilla:
    Nor does it even necessarily mean you ever communicate your
    forgiveness to the abuser.

    . . .
    Kamilla:
    On the contrary, it is between you and God. Forgiveness releases the forgiver, cleanses them and renews them, removes the poison of hate and desire for revenge from their hearts.

    DL:
    Yes! That goes against the flesh, doesn’t it?

    DL:
    Actually, that is part of the Borg Queen’s definition of abuse – if
    someone makes me feel bad, then I am being abused.

    [Now this is interesting, because Donna claims I and others have abused her. Is she then in agreement with Pat?]
    . . .

    Kamilla:
    I always felt like I was “out of phase” when in conversation with the BQ, does that mean she was abusing me? Hmmmm.

    DL:

    Well, maybe I need to quit calling her the Borg Queen? 😉 Maybe
    I’ve got some work to do on my own beams!

    …later…after I say this one more thing… . . .

  170. Correction to comment 192 in here:, that archive was 26227, not the number I gave, sorry.

    Here is the first reference on that forum:

    #24677
    BTW, don’t underestimate the internet egals. One of them – the one I call the Borg Queen – is a well-known writer, and has been very influential in the whole movement…MUCH more influential than your seminary friend, or you, will ever dream of being…

    #24704
    Ralph:
    Not Sweet Patricia, who has always a nice word to say, oh I
    can remember well her and Stan’s debacle with me a few years ago. I’ve since tried discussing a few issues with her, but it just doesn’t work, and she’s a pro at mentoring/cloning others to be like her

    And there are many other comments about the Borg Queen, about her books, etc., on that forum, which people can find for themselves.

  171. Oh, we’re not supposed to go to “places we don’t like” if we don’t like them.

    Translation: How dare we go read what Donna and her friends have said elsewhere in order to properly understand what she means when she maligns people.

  172. Lynn,
    Thank you for that information. I guess this settles the matter. Kamilla and Donna are very public figures choosing to post on public boards for the world to see their line of reasoning and the way that they look down on other sisters in Christ who do not agree with them on what women can or cannot do in the body of Christ. If there is correction coming from either one of them from the Bayly brothers, then this “correction” will come publicly so that all can see the maturity level of the one doing the “correction”. The posts prove that public accountability is the path of wisdom.

  173. I still have a lot of posts here that I have not thoroughly read through. I have them marked and will be going through them in the next day or two as I continue to work on the Trinity DVD. If there is anything said here that I am not catching that is inappropriate, please could someone else me so it is caught sooner rather than later?

  174. One other post before I start my work for today…it is possible for complementarians and egalitarians to disagree agreeably and still dialog in a respectful manner. I found a blog where I have been treated rather fairly. It is here http://prouty.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/whats-a-girl-to-do/ and although it is said that I am sinning for teaching the bible to men, honestly it was said in a respectful way. My line of reasoning is an outside-the-box reasoning that looks on the impact of men not being allowed to receive God’s gifts.

  175. “DL:
    I think that you are correct. However, they [ie women who have been abused who gravitate to CBE] tend to dwell on the abuse. They tend to want to keep the hurt and the memory going. That is not Christian.

    Kamilla:
    Yes, they cherish it and feed it, lovingly watch it grow until it
    comsumes them. They’d rather remain victims, crying “Woe is me, I
    have been abused!” on the street corner like the proud pharisee
    praying out loud how glad he’s not, yadda yadda yadda.”

    ROFLOL!!!! Oh, this is good. Especially considering who it is that are making these statments.

    I am wondering if they see some black in their pots?

  176. Thank you, Lynn, for this documentary trip down memory lane. I sometimes wonder how those “they’re making up abuse to get sympathy” folks will face the very real people who have suffered terrible abuse at the hands of “patriarchs.” Patriarchy certainly does not mandate or inevitably result in physical or sexual abuse. It does, far too often, provide abusive men with a religious shield for their sin. It wrongly puts unilateral power in their hands and misuses the name of God to do it.

    Just once, I’d like to see an INTELLIGENT argument from patriarchalists that shows ANY harm that can come from a couple practicing biblical submission to each other.

  177. “Just once, I’d like to see an INTELLIGENT argument from patriarchalists that shows ANY harm that can come from a couple practicing biblical submission to each other.”

    Psalmist,

    I would like to see the same thing, too. They will tell you that no one will see the gospel in such a marriage. Well, what sort of picture is painted when we are told in a systematic theology book that God is subordinate/inferior to man when He helps man? I am getting the same picture as Satan proclaiming that he will be seated above God.

    Obviously if God can be a subordinate/inferior to man when He helps man and no harm comes to God or His word or His people or the lost, then I hardly think that a fellow human being is going to be harmed by submitting to the person they are closest to.

    If submission is such a good thing, then why do patriarchalists react with vehemence when it is suggested that husbands do submit to wives? If it is a good thing and a good word and a good concept, then why is it only good for some people? Didn’t Jesus subordinate Himself in His incarnation in order to set an example for ALL of us to follow? He came to serve, not to be served. He emptied Himself and took on the form of a man. That seems to be saying that being a man is a lowly state and one of subjugation.

    Does a husband help his wife in the same sense that God helps us? Well, a husband’s help PALES in comparison to God’s help but you get the picture. So, if God is said to be an ezer to humans and according to Grudem makes Him subordinate/inferior when He is in ezer-mode, then a husband certainly cannot deny that he helps his wife and that when he helps her he becomes an inferior or subordinate (aka submissive) to her, can he? Is a husband above God? Is he so far above his wife that he can’t stoop to help her? Is helping a lowly position only relegated to women, children, slaves and God?

    Hosea 13:9 says this:

    “O Israel, you are destroyed,
    But your help is from Me.”

    In other words, God is telling them: O Israel, you are destroyed, but your EZER is from Me.

    What does it mean to be an ezer? Junior assistant or strength? Hmmmmm……I think it means “strength”. Certainly God is not telling Israel that He is their subordinate, was He?

    It would seem that Grudem’s words might put patriarchalists in a tight spot. Grudem did say that any time a person helps another person, that person who is helping necessarily becomes the subordinate/inferior to the one that he/she is helping. Right? So, that would mean that Grudem is saying that men submit to their wives when they help their wives. Or am I getting something wrong here? Maybe it is wrong for men to help their wives. Maybe that is why we play semantical games and call it “sacrifice” when a man helps his wife.

    And, if a man isn’t practicing submission towards his wife in the bedroom, then he is in sin. After all the Bible does tell us that the woman has authority over the man’s body. We could talk about all the harm that comes to a man’s body when he submits himself to his wife in this area. 🙂 After all, is not 1 Cor. 7 a picture of mutual submission? Or do I need greater understanding into this passage, also?

  178. [Edited by blog owner to remove offensive words]

    No, there is nothing wrong with the idea of mutual submission, it just depends on what you mean by “submission”? Is it connected to “yielding” or to “empowerment”. there is a big difference…

    Hey, God bless, and please take care,
    Donna L. Carlaw

  179. You’re the one who, on Lynn’s blog, made the false claim that egalitarians aren’t interested in mutual submission, but are about female empowerment. You’ve been shown a number of times that this is false, that in fact, egalitarians DO practice mutual submission precisely because the Holy Spirit empowers BOTH husband AND wife to do so.

    So far, you’re the ONLY one who is twisting submission into “empowerment.” God empowers us to serve one another. That is, if we LET God empower us for service.

    Will you let yourself be convinced of the truth, or will you persist in this tangent of misinformation you’ve been spreading?

  180. All I know is that having authority over someone or being responsible for them is not another form of submission. That’s like saying black is another form of white.

    What Jesus did was to lay down his authority and position to serve and die for his “bride”. In his humanity, Christ was not a “servant leader” at all, but a model servant, showing all of us, men and women, how to relate to God– certainly not how men should act like God to women, or how only women should act like the Son to the Father.

    What parts of Jesus’ human example are men not to follow? What parts are women not to follow? Is “Christ-likeness” only for men if it’s about leadership, and only for women if its about submission? No!! Christ is the example for all of us in how we should relate to God and to each other. And none of us are ever to play God to another person.

    Domination is not submission.
    A parent/child relationship is not an example of mutual submission.
    Authority is not equality.
    Bossing is not serving.
    Wanting to be a permanent child is not mature or responsible.
    Treating a man as God is idolatry.
    Pretending to be a god is blasphemy.
    The first shall be last.
    The greatest must be the least.
    The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”.

  181. Cheryl, thank you for taking the trouble to edit posts when they need to be edited. Not all blogging platforms have that feature, but it’s nice when a blog owner who does have it, uses it when commenters can’t be bothered to be civil in their communications.

  182. “DL:

    ..but I am not sure that you folks are able to grasp the meaning of what I am saying.

    [Edited by the blog owner. I do not know what you are saying here Donna but it appears you are doing cross talk using my blog to reach someone else regarding what was written on their blog. Please keep to the subject and please post your comments applicable to someone else’s blog on that particular blog. Thank you.]

  183. I don’t know why she is talking to me on her blog. She is not even quoting me nor do I say the things she says I say. She mixes me up with others.

    Just thought I would let you all know that if you are going to read Donna’s blog please know that she frequently mentions people and attributes things to them that they do not say.

    I don’t think people who put words in people’s mouths should lecture others about the subject, especially when they are attributing things to them that someone else said.

    False assumption? You bet.

  184. [Edited by blog owner for using my blog for what it appears to be a personal agenda regarding other posters and their blogs. Please and thank you for taking the time to post on the proper blogs dialogging with your “friends” there. If you have something to contribute on the Trinity and it is respectful I will allow the posts to go through]

  185. Since Cheryl has me on moderation, and none of you, I was not sure if she would post my answer to you.

    So, I put it on my blog. Read up a few comments and you will see that I have responded to you.

    [Blog owner has edited the comments. Donna you are not being fair to me. Please get up from the computer and take a walk. When you come back from your walk, please consider removing yourself from all of these egalitarians blogs. Why do you care so much about what other people do in their service to the Lord? The Bible says that the Lord is the one who will make us stand so we are not to be judging another man’s servant. If you do not want to teach the bible to men and you like your marriage exactly as it is, then good for you. Stay there and be blessed. Let the Lord deal with his dear children in his way and in his time.]

    God bless, and please take care,
    Donna L. Carlaw

  186. Donna,

    I can’t ask you this question on your blog, so I will ask it here.

    You said:

    “I love the ministry of the Christians for Biblical Equality. One of their members is Family Life Today, which is an excellent resource.”

    Are you really recommending CBE as a resource?

    “Given the amount of anger and even hatred people have for her, and given the nature of those who oppose her, she must be a good woman. She is hated by the wolves, who also hate me.”

    This is totally unfair and an outright lie. You really do not have any idea what you are talking about. How dare you judge your sisters in Christ as wolves. Have you read James lately? Maybe you should. It has much to say about the sort of judging you do and the lies you spread.

    You are treading in dangerous waters, Donna. You are falsely accusing fellow believers as wolves because they dare to examine the teachings of men like the Bereans were commended for doing. No one is inventing new meanings for words but there are some who have a problem with people who suppress the truth in order to shore up their doctrine.

    You have no idea if someone hates someone else. And no one hates you. I tried to reach out to you on Lynn’s blog and you called me a liar and a hypocrite and told me that I wasn’t being genuine. Do you know what is in my heart? Are you super-human and have some sort of omniscient ability to discern the thoughts and motives of others? How dare you lecture others about putting words in your mouth and making assumptions. Discussing what is taught by leaders within a certain movement isn’t hatred or you would be guilty of your own accusations. So are the Baylys and any other ministry, blog, pastor or discussion group that discusses what is taught by other leaders within Christianity.

    Also, people have problems with certain leaders because they are not forthright about facts and details.

    You obviously do not take scripture seriously because if you did you would not be talking like you do and judging falsely and unjustly like you do.

    I think your mission board, husband and elders need to see what you write. You need to show them so they can help you.

  187. Psalmist,
    Thanks! Believe it or not, I don’t think I have ever used continual moderation before. If I could poke my finger through the computer, I would just do so and tell her to take a break and go for a walk. It always helps me when I need to clear my head. When people get too intense it isn’t good. Passionate it good, but intense just causes one to see themselves as either a perpetual victim or God’s special judge and jury. It won’t happen on my blog if I can help it because I want a real community here.

  188. this blog is not about me. You are tying to make it about me, and Cheryl is allowing it.

    [Blog owner has edited the comments above]

    I do not hate or even dislike egalitarians. Did the women tell you all that I have said about egalitarianism? I have spoken on the theology list, too, and you can go to see my interaction with Pastor Robin there. I was sad that she left the group, but it is hard to be the dissenting voice. I miss her, and she is one of my favorite internet people of all times.

    [Blog owner’s comments…let’s end with this positive comment. Donna if what you say is true, then the most loving thing you can do is to stay away from egalitarian blogs. I do not think anyone should have to defend themselves on this blog. There are a lot of worthy organizations out there that could use your God-given gifts without you thinking another moment about complementarians and egalitarians.]

    [Blog owner’s further comments. If anyone wants to remove any of their comments on this post, just let me know. For now, the subject of Donna will be done with on this post. I have asked Donna to take a break and I assume that she will be submissive. When I find someone on a blog or a discussion board that “stirs the pot” to get all the ugly stuff going that has settled on the bottom, I just ignore them. One hand can’t clap. Blessings, Cheryl]

  189. Donna,

    You keep on insisting that I said something that I didn’t.

    Here is the quote you keep attributing to me:

    “DL:
    I think that you are correct. However, they [ie women who have been abused who gravitate to CBE] tend to dwell on the abuse. They tend to want to keep the hurt and the memory going. That is not Christian.”

    That is what Lynn wrote up above in #192. Go read it for yourself. I did not say this. You keep on attributing things to people that they didn’t say. If you are going to be so dogmatic and so accusatory don’t you think you better get your facts straight first? This totally causes loss of credibility when you keep on making false accusations and then when people confront you about them you keep on making the same false accusations.

    You told me to ask you but I cannot ask you since you have no comment section.

    You said this:

    “The words “i.e. women who have been abused who gravitate to the CBE” are your words. Maye you didn’t recognize them after you said them?”

    I didn’t recognize them because they weren’t my words. I told you this but it is like you have your fingers in your ears or something?

    You have done this to a lot of people, Donna. Don’t you think you should take a step back and maybe take a break for a while? You can’t keep on falsely accusing people and then talking like you have greater discernment and wisdom and understanding.

  190. My, my. I inserted those words in brackets. They were there for clarity because I didn’t want to copy and paste two entries. I thought everybody understood why I was doing this.

    I tell you what. In the interest of fairness, could some people please go to the CCC forum, look up the post number (I had to correct the post number in a later entry on the blog – the accurate number is 26227), read a little in that thread, and tell me if I accurately spelled out in the brackets what the pronoun “they” referred back to?

    If not, I will be happy to be corrected.

  191. OK, I found the reason why I placed what I said in brackets. The thread started with this hypothesis, and “they” that Donna mentioned refers back to this opener for that particular thread:

    #26219
    Kamilla:
    I wonder if they focus on it so much because so many of them have suffered genuine abuse? I can think of two former listmembers here – both were very public about their past experiences. One talked about her abuse when she was in a “shepherding” group and the other talked much about her abusive first husband. I believe most of the abuse they spoke of was genuine abuse. Do you think this might be a pattern within those attracted to an organization like CBE?

  192. Lynn,

    After reading that excerpt from Kamilla and Donna, I wonder why that would not fall under their very own definition of gossip and making assumptions? I could ask “Why do they hate Carolyn Custis James so much?” because they say the most unkind and uncharitable things about her without cause. I know the two women they are referring to in the discussion you quoted, Lynn, and it is not hard to figure out who they are. They are hypothesizing about the motives of these two women and why they are egalitarians. That is ridiculous. I could do the same thing about patriarchalist females who were abused in the past. It is a known fact that women who have been abused gravitate towards abusers and abusive systems. Maybe that is why the two outspoken when on the CCC-forum are patriarchalists?

    You see, it is just as ridiculous when I turn their very own words back on them.

    We should stick with the facts. I know the two women they are talking about and they are intelligent and learned women. They also don’t seem like the emotional type that would be their feelings over fact. They arrived at their beliefs through careful study as they have often asserted.

  193. “They are hypothesizing about the motives of these two women and why they are egalitarians.”

    I know, Corrie. There’s nothing wrong with the general hypothesis about abuse and the general outcomes for women escaping abuse and why they may make the choices that they make, but when you start dropping hints about people that lots will recognize the identity of, then start talking about abused women as though they were Gollum, greedy and power hungry and unforgiving, the conversation quickly turns into an “incestuous, feed on each other, gossiping blog.”

    YKWIM? 😉

  194. You know what part of the problem I see is, if I may say a word or two. There is much reflexion on who said what to whom, when, and where – and what they meant and who they are. This comes from both sides. In that we are equal.

    We do too little real reflective thinking. We are too quick to ask others questions, and too slow to ask ourselves our own questions.

    We do not reflect, we react.

    …and I do mean WE…

    So, what I have suggested to myself and to others is to stay in your communities and discuss these things of common interest.

    What do I look like when I come on an egalitarian group? You answer that question.

    What do you look like when you come on a complementarian board? You answer that question.

    What is helpful is to be able to read what one another is saying. that is helpful to make one think, to make one reflect.

    So, just FYI. The experiments at trying to dialogue are failures – total and utter failures.

    So, you read what I am reflecting on if you wish, and I will read what you are reflecting on if I wish.

    Thinking through these issues is important.

    So, thank you Cheryl, for allowing me to say something. I think that it is a total waste of time to discuss these issues together, but it is not a waste of time to read and think.

    Maybe I suggest the reflections of a very thoughtful women? If you have not read Dorothy L. Sayers’ Letters to a Diminished Church?

    It is not so much what she concludes, but rather how she arrives at her conclusions that is so lovely to read. She is, of course, a role model within the Christian classical school movement.

    She seems to have been a delightful person, too. I would recommend reading her biography.

    She is a woman who thought deeply about theology, and came down squarely on the side of orthodoxy.

    She is a good role model. No, I am not, nor have I ever said I was. …and my story is still my story…

    God bless, and please take care,
    Donna L. Carlaw

  195. Donna,
    You said:

    “So, what I have suggested to myself and to others is to stay in your communities and discuss these things of common interest.”

    I don’t think that we need to necessarily stay in our own communities. That can cause “inbreeding”. It is good to go outside ourselves and interact with those who do not believe as we do. The problem comes not with interacting with others (because we certainly can learn from others and they can learn from us) but when we interact in either an offensive way or we habitually become offended. Then it is better to stay away and sometimes we just need a break so that we can see things without all the emotions. Strong emotions can distort our perception of reality.

    You asked:

    “What do I look like when I come on an egalitarian group? You answer that question.”

    Donna, you appear both defensive, often sarcastic and at times out-right attacking your sisters in Christ. I also think you appear very hurt by something that has caused you to be offended in the past that you haven’t gotten over. Perhaps someone offended you who did not intend to offend, but again I must mention that strong emotion can color our perception of reality. I sense that you are offended easily and offense is taken at things that shouldn’t cause an offense.

    You also asked:

    “What do you look like when you come on a complementarian board? You answer that question.”

    I try very hard to see complementarians as my brothers and sisters in Christ first and foremost. I also try to make the women in ministry issue to stay within the “secondary issues” of the church and not make it one of the essentials so that it breaks fellowship. If you would like to see how I come across on a complementarian blog, go to http://prouty.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/whats-a-girl-to-do/ and read the interaction.

    You said:

    “The experiments at trying to dialogue are failures – total and utter failures.”

    I don’t agree. These issues are not solved at the drop of a hat, but continued dialog with graciousness and charity go a long way to mend these areas of disagreement. This is not an issue for the faint-hearted. It takes courage, love, patience and endurance and these are characteristics of the mature.

    You said:

    “So, thank you Cheryl, for allowing me to say something. I think that it is a total waste of time to discuss these issues together, but it is not a waste of time to read and think.”

    You are welcome. I have no problem in allowing people to “speak” when the dialog is respectful.

    You said:

    “She is a good role model. No, I am not, nor have I ever said I was. …and my story is still my story…”

    Being a good role model is very important. However we cannot just be a role model in our own little circle. We must grow up to be a role model who transcends the churches in-grown issues. The eye cannot say to the hand “I have no need of you”.

    1 Corinthians 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”

    When the church with all its divisions starts working together and loving one another, we will mature and grow and get beyond the offenses. I may be an eternal optimist but I truly do believe that Jesus is coming back for a mature church who has gone through the fire and has kept the faith. That mature church will love one another as He has loved us and in that heart of love there will be no real divisions.

  196. Cheryl, I’ll see you on the Bayly blog. Until then, I wish you all the best as you seek to understand these issues better.

    God bless, and please take care,
    Donna L. Carlaw

  197. Donna said:

    “So, what I have suggested to myself and to others is to stay in your communities and discuss these things of common interest.”

    That is wonderful, if what one values most is being agreed with and not having to substantiate what one asserts. If one actually wants a conversation, however–at least, one that is more than mutual congratulations and agreement–one must risk being disagreed with. Disagreement is not evil. Lashing out with insults and false accusations when one is disagreed with, however, most definitely falls short of the standards of decent Christian discourse.

    “So, just FYI. The experiments at trying to dialogue are failures – total and utter failures.”

    Only if one failed in one’s personal agenda and projects that failure as everyone else’s failure. There is a wealth of things that COULD be learned from the attempt, if one is willing to learn them.

    If you are determined to take offense at others daring to read what you write, perhaps the motivation in writing could be examined a bit. People don’t generally write in order to be ignored, especially by those they’re targeting with their writing.

  198. Donna,
    You said:
    “Cheryl, I’ll see you on the Bayly blog. Until then, I wish you all the best as you seek to understand these issues better.”

    Actually I don’t plan to go on the Bayly blog much if ever. There are other complementarian blogs which are much healthier and where the men and women are not as closed-minded to respectful dialog regarding secondary-level beliefs that do not mesh with their own. If I were to stay interacting within the communities that keep a hedge around these “secondary” issues by their strong-arm control and harsh treatment of their sisters in Christ, I might find myself taking on a sarcastic attitude too and I cannot afford to do that.

    Jesus found himself face to face with unbending pharisees who tried to push him into their mold. Jesus characterized them in very unflattering terms because they were stiff-necked and they were not willing to have their motives and their ways examined by his light nor were they willing to repent of their ungodly attitudes and ways. But if you look carefully at how Jesus lived his life, he did not make a habit to be around the Pharisees nor did he ever run after them. He did not run from them but he did not keep company with them either. He dealt with them when they came in his pathway, but other than that he pretty much ignored them as he went to the common folk. Jesus is my example. When there is an issue that I have been asked to deal with by the precious people in the community that comes to this blog, I will deal with those like the Bayly brothers head one, but I do not readily seek them out nor do I want their attitude to affect mine in any way. I will just go about doing the work that God has called me to. While I will interact with complementarians from time to time as I pay attention to issues and comments that others raise, I will purposely seek for those who are respectful and Christ-like. These are the ones who are likely to be touched by the abilities that God has given me. The others will not change nor will they listen. Their pride precludes them from considering that I am a member of the body of Christ that they need. Every member of the body is needed and when the members are rejected we can start to understand that perhaps the one doing the rejecting is not even in the body at all. That is not my judgment to make. One thing I do know – if I want to follow the “Way of the Master” I must go to the ones who will listen and consider. The ones who are deaf and blind to the light of God’s word spoken through a woman are not my concern. God will deal with them in his own way.

  199. whats-a-girl-to-do

    To begin with I disliked the fact that they compared (women) in ministry to (girls.) The implication is that girly/women have alot they can do in the church and outside the church, why are they not satisfied? I feel that the author of the post is trying reallyyyyyyy hard to be gracious in thier interaction with Cheryl which is more than most (you must give credit where it is due.)

    But the fact is that Religiousity demands that men throw women a morsel or crumb while standing back and hoping that they don’t ask for the whole loaf.

  200. Terri,
    Your points are well taken. I did find the men on that blog to be trying very hard to be gracious and I can applaud and lift up my brothers for that kindness. Unfortunately they don’t have any answers for me but then I hope that what I said will cause them to think a little outside of the box. Greg Koukl, a wonderful apologist and author, said that when we have encounters with those who do not believe as we do, at least we can put a “stone” in their shoe. We may not convince them but we can cause them to think about it.

  201. Cheryl, you should be aware that Donna has made some serious(ly false) charges against you at her blog. Not that she has an apparently wide readership, but she feels free to name you by name, probably because her comments are disabled and she knows her lies can’t stand the light of day.

    That is, sadly, how Donna operates. She shows her position to be based on ad hominem attacks, rather than anything even resembling truth. She can’t/won’t deal in a mature manner with being refuted. She retreats to “safe” dark little corners and posts wild, accusatory comments with no heed toward biblical proscriptions against such terrible behavior.

    It’s obvious that you’re no heretic, and that Donna is highly unqualified to judge you even if you were one. I simply thought it was right to make you aware of her dirty tactics.

  202. Psalmist,
    Thank you for letting me know and I really appreciate your caring for me this way!

    My response to Donna is that I haven’t read what she wrote about me neither do I care. Those who treat me in a Christian way will have the courage to say things to my face. Those who refuse to do that generally show themselves to be operating in a fearful-filled manner always going into their own safe place where they can launch an attack against others instead of dialogging in a respectful manner. My husband always gives me his wisdom in these matters by telling me to remember the source. I have no inclination to get sucked in by those who practice throwing scud missiles and then running away to hide, so I will give Donna’s blog a miss.

    Nevertheless, I appreciate having a head’s up so that I could make that decision.

    Much blessing,
    Cheryl

  203. After having just read the entire thread I must say I’m sorely tempted to call the doctor’s office to ask for a Protonix prescription. I am impressed by those who were submissive to the list owner’s rules. It isn’t often that I find “christians” who are willing to be gracing and caring in their posts. As one who frequently has to apologize to the non-Christians for the behavior of “christians” it is nice to find a place where the words and tone were respectful of one another and truly Christian. I appreciated the way people dealt with the one who was less than respectful and acted like a “christian” rather than a Christian. That “christian” behavior prompted a need for the Protonix. Please understand I am not judging that person’s heart, just the behavior I observed throughout the thread.

    I am interested in more discussion on equality within the Trinity. It is something that was preached when I was much, much younger but I don’t often hear about lately.

  204. MN Swede,
    Thanks for your gracious comments, and I welcome you here! You are right in that the equality within the Trinity is not something that has been preached lately. It may be because books have been printed that come against complete equality and this certainly is a serious matter. We are doing our part in our work on a new DVD on the Trinity. We trust that it will not only be uplifting to the complete equality of the person in the Trinity but also have a respectful tone towards those who oppose us. Honestly it isn’t easy and at times it would be nice to have a spiritual pill to make all the fighting and opposition to go away. But God sovereignly works even in times of conflict and so that does help us to stay respectful to others. The way I think about it is to consider how I would like to be treated if I was the one in error. Surely I cannot be right in everything. How would I like to be treated that would help me the best to see my error if indeed I am in error? When I apply that practice, then it is easier for me to try to persuade instead of attack.

  205. Oh and one other thing…I do VERY much appreciate all those on this blog who try very hard to keep the rules of a respectful dialog. I know it isn’t easy, but you guys have been trying hard and this is a good time to say THANK YOU to all!

  206. Hello MN Swede,
    I’m sure Cheryl will tell you about the upcoming DVD she’s working on about the Trinity, but in the meantime, there’s a long and involved discussion of it Here. There is a definite link between concepts of the Trinity and justification hierarchialists use for the subjugation of women. In fact, discussion about the Trinity had been long dormant in Christianity until revived by George W. Knight III, in his 1977 book, The New Testament Teaching on Role Relationship with Men and Women. We can reasonably deduce that since this resurgence came from a book primarily about gender relationships in the NT that there is probably a connection.

  207. Cheryl, the Baylys are frightening in their horrid treatment and mockery of manhood, aren’t they? The fact that they spluttered into blasphemy just to shut Suzanne up is almost amusing. I’m sure the only bruises she carries from that encounter are blue marks on her ribs from laughing.

    You know the link at the top of this page “Laugh your way to a better marriage”? Thanks to the cruel and clumsy likes of the Baylys, I think many can laugh their way to a better theology than complementarianism! 🙂

  208. The Baylys blusteringly asked a woman to correct you and Kamilla, their resident idol of Bayly-prescribed womanhood, eagerly volunteered. Gah, that’s too funny for words.

  209. Oh it’s you, Jane. Yes, I remember your side-long comments against others and strange logic. No surprise.

    Greg, you are awesome!! 🙂

  210. “He taught us all how to relate to God, not how to be God! But an eternally subordinate Christ is something they cannot bring themselves to model, even though Jesus told his male disciples point blank to do exactly that. Never in scripture is anyone told to act like God. Christ is our human example, our Brother, our teacher. Yet some men refuse to bow to him or share in his humility”

    Paula, SO well-said!! Amazing.

    It’s unbelievable that the Baylys call CBMW wimpy as far as patriarchal beliefs go. Someone on CBMW wrote a bogus article saying wives must be subordinate for eternity, even in heaven!! That’s not enough for those awful-minded men?

  211. “It seems to me that Kamilla exposed you, and you want to cover your nakedness with a fig leaf of hypocrisy”

    Donna. Your accusation is a joke. And Kamilla, very like a pit bull to any and all egals/polite disagreers (?) with the Baylys, is sister to no one but her own falsely submissive kin.

  212. Hi Jennifer,
    I was quite surprised at the attitude that some of these comp women have towards their sisters in Christ. And the Bayly boys are….well…..let’s just say they are not a good example to a Christ-like attitude. Kamilla didn’t stick around long enough to educate me on the Trinity as they had hoped. I wonder why? 😉

  213. Indeed, Cheryl. Couldn’t be that she knew you were already educated in a superior fashion, could it? 🙂
    I still pray for the constant kindness and patience you have for others.

  214. Ok, maybe I’m slow but I was just re-reading the top of this post and only now saw Kamilla’s email response to you. My gosh… The mannerism of these people never ceases to shock. The fear of easily-defeated women like Kamilla is all too clear, almost stunningly so at first. It rather makes sense to me that the Baylys’ blog background is black and this one’s white; seems to illustrate the fact that truth is shown here in the open, while the extremely aggressive patriarchals prefer to stay in their shadowed domains where the seeds of their doctrines better flourish.

    And I’m not saying this about all comps either! (Or even most regular comps, which the Baylys and Kamilla are not). Some are awesome Christians.

  215. Jennifer, you have identified the problem well. These men insist that they have the truth, but they will block people from responding and they don’t take challenges well. Here there is freedom to have respectful disagreement and challenges because the truth as light isn’t afraid. To me it is a serious red flag when free speech is quenched and challenges are not allowed. I ask myself what are they hiding and why would light run from “darkness”. The truth is that error will run from the truth and so we should not fear a challenge if we claim to be in the light. Why some people can’t see this from the Bayly blog really mystifies me.

  216. Thanks, Cheryl. Indeed, the people who don’t see this in the Baylys don’t wish to, but they truly should have MORE challengers. If they do, though, I guess they don’t last long on their own blog. I’m so glad to find them elsewhere, like here! What really amazes me is how unapologetically rude some people are to you personally.

    Speaking of nice comps, I recently found a book of original psalms by the Baylys’ late father, Joe Bayly, called “Psalms of my Life”. It looks beautiful and I plan to buy it. Their father seems to have been looked up to as a great writer and good man, so it amazes me how his sons came to be so proud. I hope that’s not unkind of me to say, but the one persistent attitude on their blog is pride that I’ve seen again and again.

    Btw, if I haven’t told you already, BOTH your DVDs about the Trinity and women in ministry were amazing blessings to me. They were so thoroughly researched and artfully made! Grudem’s words about God being subordinate as helper are the most shocking thing of all: how is he still credited as a teacher?? Many of his wolf supporters try to tear down critics of his book on Amazon.com too; is the world flat? I’m so glad you addressed them in the Trinity DVD. And to think: was this blog post where you first heard about his claims thus? (I can’t recall who brought it up).

  217. Jennifer,
    Thanks for the kind words! Yes, I believe it was on this post and it was Suzanne that gave me a head’s up to Grudem’s quote. I can hardly believe that these men can say things like this in scholarly books and from the pulpit and godly men don’t say anything to correct them. I was mortified and really amazed that so many leaders are straying from orthodoxy in this way and yet their “name” keeps them from being openly corrected. It is as if men are afraid to be the one to point out the error. Good thing that there are egalitarians who are not afraid to point out the error. I also learn a lot from each of you.

  218. Indeed, thank God for folks like you and others here! 🙂

    I’m so grateful for all these blogs, for Kathryn Joyce’s book “Quiverfull” which totally exposes the Vision Forum cult-think, and for Karen’s podcasts on patriocentricity, several of which I’m getting on CD 🙂 I do wish more in Grudem’s own camp would call him out.

  219. Mara,
    Here is the quote:

    Systematic Theology an introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne A. Grudem pgs 61-62

    In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern-day use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped,. This is true even when I “help” a young boy in my neighborhood to fix his bicycle–it is his responsibility, and his task, and I am only giving some assistance as needed; it is not my responsibility. David Clines concludes that this is the case throughout the Hebrew Old Testament:

    What I conclude, from viewing all the occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, is that though superiors may help inferiors, strong may help weak, gods may help humans, in the act of helping they are “inferior.” That is to say they are subjecting themselves to a secondary, subordinate position. Their help may be necessary or crucial, but they are assisting some task that is someone else’s responsibility. They are not actually doing the task themselves, or even in cooperation, for there is different language for that. Being a helper is not a Hebrew way of being an equal.

  220. Cheryl, to answer your much earlier brilliant observation, “What do people like Kamilla get out of following the Bayly boys? I do not know her heart so I cannot judge her motives. However I do wonder if women like this have a need to be controllers but that they also have a need to work underneath the authority of these leaders so that it doesn’t appear that they are indeed strong controlling women? Thoughts?”

    You pretty much answered this question with the last sentence and the several sentences afterward: the most extreme women do wish to appear “submissive”, like Jennie Chancey and the unpleasant Carmon Friedrich. Kamilla’s another breed, though, in the sense that I’m not sure she actually believes she needs authority over her, nor does she seem to care to give any impression that she’s submissive in spirit the way the other women do. I think instead she’s one of those who blatantly sees the spoils evident in patriarchy: while it clearly isn’t beneficial to women, certain members of it do spoil, coddle and flatter their females, while others enjoy letting their truly snappish wives butter their egos in public and snarl at women who stand taller than they and their husbands. Kamilla has no husband, but she has tapped into the Baylys’ agenda and is clearly their most treasured female. I’m guessing this is both because she flatters them most and mirrors their unkind spirit best, rather like the bulldog or small terrier adorned in the same outfit as its master. And as we know, with certain canines, the master enjoys giving the dog a long leash so it may snarl at others and even lets it run loose occasionally, to show its meagerly sized but razor teeth to anyone the master doesn’t like.

    I’d never noticed before that the Baylys tire of some of their prized females (and yes, I’m using animal-like terms here deliberately, as these people remind me especially of the harsh patriarchal baboons and their harems I just saw on the Discovery channel). Just as well; perhaps they’ll lose more followers this way. The observation skills and analysis I see on this site have been brilliant.

  221. So true, Mara. Patriarchals think they get to model God, as someone else said, but that women should only model Christ…when He was broken on the cross.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: