(Continued from part one)
Dave’s first defence (“but complementarians actually envision two sidedness”) is inadequate, as they will certainly be willing to teach submission to a wife whose husband is not present, (or present and not doing as much of his part) and tell a woman to do her submit part regardless of what the man does. If the complementarian message was that this is only to be done mutually, and no woman should try it alone, the defence would have had merit.
As for the second part, Read the rest of this entry »
Let’s face it: Most complementarians are not bad people. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They want Christian husbands to treat their wives well, and Christian wives to treat their husbands well. Much like we egalitarians do, actually.
They want to be faithful to God and the Bible, like us. If they proclaim that men should treat women well and women should treat men well, if many a soft complementarian marriage looks functionally egalitarian, where is the big difference? Isn’t marriage complementarianism and marriage egalitarianism just semantics? Read the rest of this entry »
(Continued from here)
Basic one, the first “weightier matter,” is probably to love God with heart, soul and strength, plus other people as yourself. It seems that while all the practitioners of toxic Christianity claim to love God, many (not all) of them seemed not to love others enough. They will say they love, but they allow their love to become theoretical and spiritualized. For example, Read the rest of this entry »
I was overwhelmed by stories recently: True stories of people who honestly tried to follow the Lord – and in their trying, caused misery for themselves, their children or others.
> Mothers who almost died giving birth, or whose children almost died, because they wanted to trust God and not go to hospital.
> Children who were beaten terribly for the slightest infraction, because their parents heard that crushing a child’s will to rebel will crush his will to rebel against God.
> Wives that were told to submit even more to an abusive husband because God asks her to submit – advice which could lead to death. Read the rest of this entry »
(Note: The contents of this post is not something I teach, but which I put up for discussion so I can learn. This is a tentative idea.)
I recently read a book review with this sentence:
The strongest voices speaking into women’s lives in the twenty-first century are Islam and Feminism–systems that reside at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Feminism is, as I understand it, not at the end of any spectrum. It is, per dictionary definition, about giving women the same rights, opportunities, etc. as men.
So on a spectrum, it will be:
Could it be that feminism is, per definition, a moderate view?
Jocelyn Andersen presented this response to the Danvers statement at the Seneca Falls 2 Christian Women’s Rights Convention held in Orlando, Florida on July 24, 2010. For the sake of those who need to compare them, I reproduced it here next to the Danvers statement.* (Danvers in brown, Jocelyn in black.) Read the rest of this entry »
In his profile on the Internet dating site, he describes himself as a godly man who want a godly, feminine, pretty, submissive woman. He is a believer himself, albeit one who struggles with a few things like pornography… Read the rest of this entry »
Here is a link to another one of those stories.
You, complementarian, do you say that this story is not what you stand for, you only support man-on-top and woman below if the man is being a “good” man? How good, then? Any time you talk of women submitting without qualifying your statement, you are strengthening the same attitude that lead to nobody helping this abused girl.
Qualifying your degree of complementarianism still suggest that women should tolerate a certain amount of wrong from men instead of insisting on what is right, a degree of wrong men do not have to accept as they do not have to be subservient.
God is just. It is not just to say a certain group of people should accept wrongs that can be ended, and others do not have to.
Or to quote John Shore, from the link above:
If you are a Christian, then you have an immediate and profound moral responsibility to be absolutely, 100% certain that the Christianity you espouse and practice has nothing whatsoever in common with the systematically vile and manifestly depraved Christianity that, in its appalling arrogance, so cravenly sought to brainwash this poor girl into thinking that she was the cause of the nightmare she was forced to live.
PS: Linking to a blog does not mean that I endorse all ideas on said blog. But you already know that.
With a header like that, I have to start and say I am not so conceited as to call anything I blogged ”The One Egal Article You Simply Have To Read.”
Nope. But I want to link to a great one, by Kristen Rosser. Here is a quote from it:
…But what does it actually mean, that a woman must be restricted, under male authority? Why must she be?
Either women are not equal to men, because God created them with a certain lack of authority over themselves, or ability to lead others, that men do not lack… This makes women, in their essence as women, inferior to men…
Or women are equal to men, but God simply decided that women, because they are women, despite lacking nothing that He gave men for authority over themselves or leadership of others, may not use that authority or leadership… This makes God, in His essence, arbitrary and unjust. He makes rules without good reasons…
But those who restrict women today don’t generally ask why. They don’t think about what it means, that women should be restricted. They don’t believe women are inferior, and they don’t believe God is arbitrary…
I first wanted to quote the penultimate and ultimate paragraphs which are even better, but those should be read as a powerful conclusion, and I do not want to take them out of context.
Please, those who restrict women for Bible reasons, go to that short article, and think about the simple idea of justice and ”do unto others” presented in it.