Yes, man-hating extremist, you could embrace complementarianism. Atheists and everyone who do not like to follow the Bible, you are likewise welcome in the complementarian tent!
The picture of authority?
I am being facetious, of course. But if one particular thing Kassian wrote is taken for truth, and inserted into other complementarian writings, it puts complementarianism in a whole new light.
Mary Kassian wrote:
Authority is not the right to rule—it’s the responsibility to serve.
If that was true then we should look again at the Danvers statement:
The consequent [consequence of “hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts“] threat to Biblical authority (the Bible’s responsibility to serve) … (The Rationale, point 9)
and
Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God’s will (the Bible still has a responsibility to serve our subjective discernment) (Affirmations, point 8)
would mean complementarians believe the Bible is responsible to serve. Whom should the Bible serve? It should serve “our subjective discernment of God’s will“!
Is complementarian hermeneutics aimed at making the Bible serve the complementarian desires?
“Wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority“(Affirmations, point 6)
This would only mean that they should allow their husband to serve them, not that he has any right to rule. Whether it cleaning dishes or making coffee or financial provision, they should allow men to serve.
A significant thing about the Danvers statement is that women do not, according to that document, have authority at home and church. In other words, if we believe Kassian, it would mean women have no responsibility to serve their husbands or their churches.
“In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women” (Affirmations, point 7)
This would mean Jesus have a big responsibility to serve us. We should not serve Him – we are not his authorities.
In other words: Mary Kassian, we are not fools. We know that with words choices like “Authority is … the responsibility to serve” you are simply not being honest. “Let your yes be yes and your no be no”, said Jesus. Say what you really mean and stop obfuscating the issues.
Biblical Personhood 
Comments on: "“Biblical” gender roles – just the thing for lazy women, the secular feminist and everyone who use the Bible like a ventriloquist’s puppet!" (6)
Yes, Kassian is once again ‘confusing’ everyone with yet another definition of the term. I have to laugh because she claims the world is confused, and yet they can’t even get their definition together in order to truly ‘define’ it. Hmmm. Who is confused here?
LikeLike
Women have always had the responsibility to serve their husbands, so now we’re calling that authority instead of submission? Apparently those to words are synonomous. So all this time we misunderstood the complementarians. When they said a husband is to take authority over his wife, they really meant he is to submit to his wife. And she is to joyfully and willingly submit to his submission? If that is the case, why are husbands fighting so hard to maintain authority–if it’s just submission and service by another name?
LikeLike
“Authority is not the right to rule—it’s the responsibility to serve.”
In all my years, the only time this ever came out, was in regards to “Servant-Leadership”. And that was not something one had for Husband-Wife relationships – this is something one had in regards to employees or bosses. That’s it.
“The consequent [consequence of “hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts”] threat to Biblical authority” (The Rationale, point 9) and “Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God’s will
Yeah, and not everyone understands translations OR original texts the same way. Plain meanings are simply ONE method of proper biblical interpretation. ONE of many.
Yes, “Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our …. discernment…” – but by which definition? By what person’s authority/definition? By which religious authority? By which religious tradition? Should individuals wrestle with this, or is this only within the realm of those with seminary training?
“Wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority”
I know I was not supposed to laugh at it, but I did. DH hasn’t an authoritarian bone in his body. He’s more a “kumbaya” kind of person. What authority exactly? To sit down in a circle around a fire and sing campy songs, commit to peaceful protests and mediate pacifist goals, disinterest in politics, history, geography and world events? That’s totally not my personality at all. There’s a time for peace, there’s a time for protest and even, yes, for war. There is a time to vote, a time to lobby, and a time for history to be learned lest it be repeated. Geography is handy. Less chance to get lost or make an ignorant statement (Austria? Australia! same difference! – kidding of course.)
“In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women”
Uh, yeah, like totally. And which Christian Egal/feminist says differently? Not any I’ve ever met or encountered.
LikeLike
CBMW need to stop with the ‘hermeneutical oddities’!
LikeLike
Amen!
LikeLike
This further confirms to me that much of complementarianism is word games. The words shift meanings according to the gender application, and essentially the only thing that stays the same across the board is that men have certain church positions available to them that women can’t have.
Big comp is bankrupt.
LikeLike