I originally planned to do this series as three posts. I now realize point 7 needs its own post. The point I try to make is that the assertion Grudem made in this point is completely unsupported, that everything under the header is a red herring. To do that, I need to quote Grudem extensively, to prove I do not leave out the significant part of his argument. Before giving the mic over to Grudem, so to speak, I will show a similar argument:
“The Derickson brothers were born to be house painters: The Derickson brothers vandalized houses of immigrants by painting swear words on them. [Newspaper quote on the Derickson brothers being caught for vandalizing houses with spray paint.] The judge sentenced them to community service. [Another newspaper’s quote on what the judge decided.] The newspaper uses the word ‘fitting’ to describe what the judge said of their punishment. Fitting means [quote from Webster’s Dictionary]. This shows us that the spray painting was a perversion of their God-given purpose to paint houses, house painting was not new to them.”
The problem in the previous paragraph, as you can see, is that not a single shred of evidence is given that the Derickson brothers were indeed born to be house painters. Plenty of evidence is given of their crimes and the sentences they got, none that house painting was their life purpose prior to the crimes. Even if every quote is accurate, it would not prove the header. With that in mind, read Grudem’s argument, or lack of it, while remembering the header of his list (“Ten Reasons Showing Male Headship in Marriage Before the Fall”), and of point seven. (more…)
I heard denouncements of the song before I ever heard it:
“This is a terrible and unladylike attitude.”
“It is not who God made women to be.”
The denouncements came from Christian™ ultra-conservatives. When I heard the song itself, I was surprised: If this song replaced the word “woman” with the word “Christian, and originally appeared on a Christian album, nobody would have complained. (The writer, Helen Reddy, told that her words was divinely inspired – and I believe it.) (more…)
At the start of March, I started a planned 3-piece series on the justifications Grudem uses for male headship before the fall. By now, everyone expected me to post parts 2 and 3 too.
Sadly, I am having serious computer problems, which make it impossible for me to get things done on the Internet. I got a new laptop and the thing gobbles up Internet data. I got a limited amount of data per month. Nowadays, whenever I get on the Internet, my computer eats all my data while I hardly use any of it surfing. So far, no solutions worked yet.
The Grudem articles are written, offline. But even formatting them in WordPress take time on the Internet.
I am sitting in a coffee shop with free wifi to post this.
Is the significance complementarians attach to men being here first compatible with creationism?
Note: I know, I said I am working on a three-part refutation of Grudem’s 10 reasons for seeing hierarchy before the fall. I will, DV, get back to that soon.
The belief in a literal, 6 x 24 hours, creation is common among conservative believers: first the earth, then division between light and dark, then plants, then the sun and moon, then birds and fish, and after that land animals and people.
Some of those same people also believe that it is very significant that the male was made first: From this, they conclude that men are supposed to have authority over women.
On face value, those two ideas seem very compatible: The first affirm that the order in which things were made in Genesis 1 is not only literally true, but significant. The second affirm that the order in which things were made in Genesis 2 is not only literally true, but significant. Sounds good and Bible-respecting, doesn’t it?
But there is at least two problems with that. (more…)
This blog has several articles refuting or exploring the implications of the complementarian idea that husbands represent Jesus and wives the church, and for that reason women should unilaterally submit. If you want to explore the idea, here are the links. (more…)
At first glance, I thought it had nothing to do with my work. “The Nashville Statement: A Coalition for Human Sexuality” is a document about LGBT issues. And while those issues are important and relevant in Christianity, they are not what this blog is about. But it comes from the Council of “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” (CBMW), which exists to promote sexism as a religious requirement for Christians. Then I looked at it a second time.
The Nashville statement is insidious. It purports to be about gay and transgender issues. But, between the lines, it assumes and promotes sexism.
To make it even worse, it has not a single Bible text, making the meaning even more vague. (For example, suppose someone said: “Man and woman were created to be different – Gen. 1:27″. I would understand it differently from if he said “Man and woman were created to be different – Eph. 5:22″. The latter takes a text out of the “all believers should submit to one another – Eph. 5:21” and “God shows no favouritism – Eph. 6:9” context to promote sexism.)
Sexism and gender roles is a the central tenet of CBMW. (more…)
Feminist: “Women make 76c to every dollar a man makes.”
Someone else (typically a man): “Remember that men chooses the better-paying, more dangerous jobs. And women take more leave for family reasons. And … And…”
Dear guy-who-try-to explain: Feminists already know that. (more…)