Religious feminists show their hand...

(by Tim) A good reader passed along this link to a post on the web site of those calling themselves "Christians for Biblical Equality." The post heaps scorn on Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, for implementing a new program at Southwestern's College offering women a BA with a concentration on homemaking. To which feminists jeer, "I thought we already killed home economics. Where did these neanderthals come from?"

Patterson explains the program: "If we do not do something to salvage the future of the home, both our denomination and our nation will be destroyed."

Mocking the righteous, the women of CBE scoff:

National destruction? Quite a price to pay for a lack of homemakers.

Actually yes, CBE, "national destruction and the destruction of the church." As usual on matters other than Arminian theology, Paige is fighting the right battles. And right next to him is a diminutive woman usually wearing a distinctly non-diminutive hat (almost equal in size to Paige's belt buckle) named "Dorothy" who likely put these stupid ideas in Paige's mind in the first place. Together they stand, man and wife, taking on the world. And God bless them real good.

(Don't miss the comments under the post. They make everything too, too clear.)

Comments

[Mark Priestap]

Quote from the comments:

"I have a more practical question. Just how does the seminary hope to get people to pay expensive tuition dollars for a degree that, by its very nature, can’t possibly result in giving the recipient a higher salary upon graduation (since these are homemaker-type tasks)? Economically, it would be a foolish investment!"

Foolish? My wife saves me untold thousands of dollars every year cleaning, cooking, rearing the children, making sure the house is running smoothly, and a host of other things. I must respectfully submit that it is pure foolish thinking to consider this worthless economically.

And then from a spiritual perspective, a Christian's treasure is not in this world, but in our heavenly home, which will not grow old and can never be lost, like the things of this life. The more that a woman can invest in her children that will prepare them to invest in eternity, the better. If that means living in a shack because the mother is caring for the kids, so be it. Mansions in heaven can't even be compared to the shacks down here. The folks in the SBC don't expect non-Christians to have the same outlook since they do not believe that Christ's saves sinners and do not have an eternal home in view.

My children will rise up and call Meredith blessed for her labor and love. And then we will rejoice together for all eternity. :)

[rich]

Hey Baylys,

Care to comment on this article (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070826/3mommy_print.htm)? It is linked from Worldmagblog here: http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/031661.html

[rich]

The actual article's link did not come up correctly. Here it is again:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070826/3mommy_print.htm

[Tricia]

I'm glad to hear someone is on the right track and standing up for womanhood. It is all too true that this country will fall, ruined by its own hands, if we continue to destroy the home.

[Chantal]

Why do they call themselves CHRISTIANS for Biblical Equality when they hate God's Word so much?

A Christian is to love God's Word, but this group despises a pretty huge chunk of it.

[rich]

The reason I bring up that article is that most Christian women who work outside the home or have a full-time work-at-home-business say that they can do so while not neglecting their duties to their families. The Prov. 31 passage is always used to buttress these assertions, thereby saying that it is not only okay for women to do these things, but it is also normative.

[Ray D.]

While I admire the idea of restoring education about homemaking, I wonder if teaching it in college is really the right way to do it. It would seem that homemaking is best taught at HOME, not in an academic setting.

Now, for prospective pastor's wives (which is after all what many women going to school near the seminary will be), there may need to be a major in budget-stretching, thrift-shopping, and furnishing an apartment tastefully with hand-me-downs...

[Ray D.]

While I admire the idea of restoring education about homemaking, I wonder if teaching it in college is really the right way to do it. It would seem that homemaking is best taught at HOME, not in an academic setting.

Now, for prospective pastor's wives (which is after all what many women going to school near the seminary will be), there may need to be a major in budget-stretching, thrift-shopping, and furnishing an apartment tastefully with hand-me-downs...

[Ray D.]

While I admire the idea of restoring education about homemaking, I wonder if teaching it in college is really the right way to do it. It would seem that homemaking is best taught at HOME, not in an academic setting.

Now, for prospective pastor's wives (which is after all what many women going to school near the seminary will be), there may need to be a major in budget-stretching, thrift-shopping, and furnishing an apartment tastefully with hand-me-downs...

[Robert Perry]

Let me get this straight; we complain night and day about obesity, lack of exercise, immodest clothes, poor government schools, and a lack of family and societal togetherness. At the same time, "evangelical feminists" are telling women that it's somehow beneath them to cook healthy meals, tell the kids to go outside and play, sew for their children, teach their children the 3 Rs (and more), and bring families together for those bountiful meals, church potlucks, and block parties.

Did I get that about right? It seems that "evangelical feminists" are concentrating on everything but that which is important.

[Michael McMillan]

> [Tim:] A good reader passed along this link to a post on the web site of those calling themselves "Christians for Biblical Equality."

I love their masthead: a modest, shamefaced, headcovered, humble, saintly-looking woman. Highly ironic!

> [Mark quoted:] "I have a more practical question. Just how does the seminary hope to get people to pay expensive tuition dollars for a degree that, by its very nature, can’t possibly result in giving the recipient a higher salary upon graduation (since these are homemaker-type tasks)? Economically, it would be a foolish investment!"

LOL -- same goes with being a pastor!! Why pay all that tuition to just barely eek out a living and have people on your case all the time?

> [Ray:] While I admire the idea of restoring education about homemaking, I wonder if teaching it in college is really the right way to do it. It would seem that homemaking is best taught at HOME, not in an academic setting.

That'd be nice, but the same could be said about theology. Jesus and Paul mentored individuals. They didn't found academic institutions of higher learning.

> [Robert:] Did I get that about right? It seems that "evangelical feminists" are concentrating on everything but that which is important.

Touché!

--Michael

[Kamilla]

"My former pastor, who is a comp, said that there is 100% recidivism. No man ever stops beating his wife."

This is a quote from the latest post when I checked tonight. I'll simply say I am glad I serve a different Lord than this one who is incapable of changing lives.

Kamilla

[David Wegener]

Dear Tim:

Loved the bit about the hat and belt-buckle.

David

[Donna L. Carlaw]

I'm glad to see that the CBE types are discussing these issues among themselves. It has been really, really tiresome to have them use well-trafficed blogs such as the Bayly's as a platform for the promotion their false teachings. Maybe they will be forced to fish for souls in other waters? IMO, it's good that they are staying in their place - at least for now...

...besides, this example of religious feminist muddled thinking is really not all that extreme for them ... it gets much, much worse ...

[Michael McMillan]

"My former pastor, who is a comp, said that there is 100% recidivism. No man ever stops beating his wife."

What a sad, pitiful bunch, Kamilla. And these folks are on the cutting edge of what God is doing in the church today? Theirs is the message lost for millenia? Men, including Christian ones, are perpetual wife-beaters? The CBErs need therapy instead of considering themselves theologians.

This is another example of what I consider a large part of feminism: organized tongue-wagging and back-biting. Gossip with an official masthead. Nothing new under the sun, slander just gets dressed up and becomes a "ministry."

Since they believe in equality so much, do they ever turn the statement around? "No woman ever stops _________ her husband." Even us bad comps do not talk like this, assuming the worst all the time.

This is how women have exercised power for ages, bad-mouthing rivals, starting rumors. So, if we were to follow CBE's lead, we could say "No woman ever stops belittling her husband."

Which of course is not true, just like the "comp" pastor's statement is not true.

--Michael

[Michael McMillan]

> "No man ever stops beating his wife."

> Even us bad comps do not talk like this, assuming the worst all the time.

Trying to reason with feminists is like trying to counter the irrational "you don't love me anymore" tactic.

--Michael

[Sam]

I resent your comment that refers to subscribers of the CBE blog, "Mocking the righteous, the women of CBE scoff:". I am a man, and I am among many other male egalitarians and male supporters of CBE. With all sincerity I ask this: have any of you *seriously* spent time thinking about the theological points that are made by egalitarians? (I can speak for myself that I have seriously considered complementarian views; in fact, I was a very good complementarian.) Please do the same.

[historyloveralways]

Check out this link: (Yes, I got it from the equality blog)

http://pastoretteponderings.blogspot.com/2006/10/domestic-violence-story-of-dancer.html

Care to comment on it?

[Chantal]

Sam,

Have you ever *seriously* spent time studying the Bible?

Or have you ever *seriously* spent time to see how CBE does nothing but twist and attempt to destroy God's Word, and mislead His people?

Please, do those things. Also, while you are at it, be sure to check out the categories on this blog related to this subject. Tim and David have written on this subject many times.

[Tim Bayly]

Those who believe that pastors commonly order abused women to go back and submit to the husbands who have battered them; that spouse abuse is always male against female, never female against male; and that domestic abuse justifies rebellion against God's created order of father-rule, will not want to read the article I just posted on the main blog page dealing with abuse. After all, the man who considers only a few things has no trouble making up his mind.

On the other hand, several of us on this forum used to be card-carrying feminists and were brought to repentance by God's Holy Spirit. If God changed out hearts and minds, surely He will change the hearts of others, too.

[Kamilla]

Sam,

I did seriously consider the teachings supported by CBE. I was deeply involved for several years. When I was a student at Denver Seminary, Doug Groothuis was my advisor and his wife Becca was one of my mentors. I was offered a job in the national office by Mimi Haddad. I gave a paper in support of CBE at ETS in 2001. I've shared meals with Linda Belleville and Joy Moore, I've personally met and spoken with Kay Rader and Cathie Kroeger and others. I think you can safely conclude that I did most seriously consider the theological points made by egalitarians.

And, quite frankly, a lot of it made an awful lot of sense. I found Bill Webb's idea of trajectory hermeneutics particularly appealing. But I could never entirely square it with the New Testament picture of marriage, particularly the teaching that the husband is the head of the wife *AS* Christ is head of the church. No one willing to consider the plain language of Scripture or the relationship of Christ to His Church can reasonably believe this doesn't include an element of authority. Once you drop this link in the egalitarian chain, the rest falls apart bit by bit.

Once that cracked opened for me, I started asking questions and I just couldn't do it anymore. Much as I wanted to believe - because I had been enormously blessed be a couple of female preachers associated with CBE - I just couldn't. Then a very strange thing happened. The idea of beauty kept running through my head. I looked around me and I saw the wonderful partnerships, marriages of complementarians or patriachlists. Contrary to the world's wisdom, and my own wisdom, that "equal partnerships" would be the most wonderful, beautiful marriages, I found that the opposite was the case. Once I admitted this to myself, I knew that I had seen it all along.

See, Sam, God makes fools of us who depend on wordly wisdom by turning the world's wisdom on its head. You see, ""And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

Kamila

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Sam:
With all sincerity I ask this: have any of you *seriously* spent time thinking about the theological points that are made by egalitarians? >>>>

DL:
Yes.

[Barbara Lehr]

Kamilla,

I will post this here, for all to read, since I don't have your personal email address. Everything you say on this blog causes my affection for you to grow. Please move to Bloomington and become a member of CGS. I have a cup of tea, and some nice homemade cookies, waiting for you in my kitchen.

[Kamilla]

Oh, Barbara, you've made my day - but you're entirely too kind! I hope to visit someday, but I am afraid if I actually moved there you'd regret your invitation.

Kamilla

[Michael McMillan]

> I hope to visit someday, but I am afraid if I actually moved there you'd regret your invitation.

Naw. I met Kamilla years ago in her former life, and even then she wasn't that bad!

[I've also heard Catherine Kroeger speak in person, and her talk was very wacky. She was using archeological evidence of perversion in NT-era secular society to disprove the obvious understanding of the Bible regarding manhood and womanhood. Talk about grasping at straws!]

--Michael

[MK]

"No one willing to consider the plain language of Scripture or the relationship of Christ to His Church can reasonably believe this doesn't include an element of authority." - Kamilla

Yes, it is true that Christ has authority over His church. He is Lord, Savior, King, Creator, Author, Redeemer. Christ has many, many attributes. But in Eph 5:23, is the comparison saying that the husband is really ALL the attributes of Christ? Is the husband Savior? King? Lord? Creator? Redeemer to the wife? Some would say so (for example Michael Pearl), but I don't think this is a right interpretation. Would we say the wife must submit to her husband as if he was her redeemer? (Would she then have to worship him?)

In Eph 5:23, the only attribute that is compared is head (in the Greek, 'kephale'). [NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Out of love for God, His Word, and His people, I've removed some of MK's text here, since it's not true, directly contradicting the Word of God. Plus the claims be made in this particular text have been so clearly exposed, even by secular academics, that removing them is really a kindness to MK.]

I'm just thinking this may be a more plausible interpretation especially because whenever Christ talked about 'leadership', he always talked about serving and being last. It doesn't seem like His ideas of leadership and 'headship' fit our definitions which always include authority and power of one OVER another. (See Mark 10:42-25 for Jesus' definition of leadership.)

[Stephen Baker]

MK,

In 1998, Dr. Wayne Grudem wrote the following in an open letter to feminists who use the "kephale as source" argument.

He wrote:
“Where the Bible says that the husband is the 'head' (kephale) of the wife as Christ is the 'head' (kephale) of the church (Eph. 5:23), and that the head of the woman is the man (1 Cor. 11:3), you tell us that 'head' here means 'source' and not 'person in authority over (someone).' In fact, as far as we can tell, your interpretation depends on the claim that kephale means 'source without the idea of authority.' But we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature that gives support to your interpretation. Wherever one person is said to be the 'head' of another person (or persons), the person who is called the 'head' is always the one in authority (such as the general of an army, the Roman emperor, Christ, the heads of the tribes of Israel, David as head of the nations, etc.) Specifically, we cannot find any text where person A is called the 'head' of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons. So we find no evidence for your claim that 'head' can mean 'source without authority.'

“Does any such evidence exist? We would be happy to look at any Greek text that you could show us from the 8th century B.C. to the 4th century A.D. (a span of 12 centuries). In all of that literature, our question of fact is this: Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for 'head' (kephale) is used to say that person A is the 'head' of person or persons B, and means what you claim, namely, 'non-authoritative source'? If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of these key verses, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if such factual basis existed. We would also respectfully ask that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.”

So, MK, have you found any proof that your assertion about the meaning of "kephale" is accurate? He who asserts must prove! If Greek scholars have found no examples of this usage, especially in the time frame in question, then why do you accept this as a fact?

[Lizzie]

Hi Kamilla,

I just wanted to share with you that I had a similar experience as you did. [I hope the Baylys don't mind that I testify about what the Lord has done in my life?]

I became a Christian in high school after what seemed like a long, long search for the Truth. Jesus became my Lord, my Savior, and the love of my life! I wanted to give him everything: my whole heart, my whole life, all my dreams and aspirations, joys and crowns. I also wanted to tell people about Him - which I did.

I came to know our Living God and encountered Him face-to-face through His Word. Everyone who knows me knows that I love the Bible. Scripture memory has always been my top priority. And as God would teach me insights from His word, I wanted also to teach others what I was learning. I think it's human nature to want to share things that are wonderful, don't you think?

I had the opportunity to teach many high school boys and girls as a high school advisor and Sunday Christian Ed teacher at my church, when I was in college. I also had the privilege of discipling many college students as well. It was such a joy to teach and to see my students grow in the Lord and be encouraged. Over and over again, I saw God affirming my teaching gift.

Of course, I was a complementarian. Isn't everybody? That's the preaching I hear from most pulpits - men are the leaders, women are the followers. Men have authority, women submit. I am a woman, so of course I submitted to this reasoning. Plus, I liked the whole knight-in-shining armor idea -- how wonderful that it was espoused as biblical!

I taught all the college girls (and guys) that in relationships, girls need to wait for the guy to initiate, and guys needed to step up to the plate. For many years, I 'preached' this message (inspired by Elisabeth Elliot) like it was gospel. :)

The hard thing though was when I encountered men in my life who told me to stop teaching. They pointed me to those few Scripture verses and told me God said so. I love following God. I did some studying of the Scriptures and asked my (complementarian) pastor what he thought, and he told me both sides of the argument and told me to do as the bereans did and study the Scripture and ask the Holy Spirit to lead me. (I am still so thankful to this pastor to this day for how he did not TELL me what to believe but trusted the Lord would lead me to the Truth.) So I studied it and fell on some in-between conclusion that women could teach, just not be the senior pastor.

And yet in the midst of this, I felt a lot of internal conflict. I understood the complementarian stance as 'men and women are equal before God, they just have different roles.' But somehow, I did not feel the equality. I heard someone recently compare this line of thought to "...if we said that blacks and whites are equal before God, but they have different roles. Whites have the positions of authority and blacks must obey and submit", then we would all immediately recognize that this is not equality. So how is this different than men and women's roles?

So I did more research and more studying of the Scriptures, examining very deeply both sides of the argument. One evening several years later, I attended a Bible study with a pastor at our church. That was a tremendous turning point for me. The pastor illuminated the Scriptures to us all. I understood the 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Cor 11 passages for the first time. [NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Out of love for God, His Word, and His people, I've removed some of Lizzie's text here, since it's not true, directly contradicting the Word of God.] More research, study, discussions, prayer, lots and lots of prayer -- with my husband -- and with other ministers and theologians and everything keeps getting clearer for me.

Christ's truth sets us free. And I rejoice at the understanding that God values men and women so equally and calls and gifts them [NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Out of love for God, His Word, and His people, I've removed some of MK's text here, since it's not true, directly contradicting the Word of God.]. I rejoice too at the complete beauty of the mutually-submissive marriage I have with my husband now.

So you see, I had a similar experience as you did, Kamilla, except it was the opposite. I went from a complementarian stance where I felt confined and restricted in so many ways to an egalitarian stance of freedom and affirmation -- with a husband who yields and submits to me as much as I yield and submit to him. [NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Out of love for God, His Word, and His people, I've removed some of MK's text here, since it's not true, directly contradicting the Word of God.]

All this is to say that [NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Out of love for God, His Word, and His people, I've removed some of MK's text here, since it's not true, directly contradicting the Word of God.] I am happy that you are happy in your marriage in full submission to your husband. But I am also happy to be in a marriage of mutual submission with my husband. To me, [NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Out of love for God, His Word, and His people, I've removed some of MK's text here, since it's not true, directly contradicting the Word of God.] when God created man and woman in His own image.

[MK]

Stephen,
Yes, I have found the proof that you are looking for. But I don't think you would change your mind if I spent the next hour writing them here. I just wanted to share these thoughts so that both sides are represented on this blog -- even if in a very small way, not start a debate. We egalitarians are [NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Out of love for God, His Word, and His people, I've removed some of MK's text here, since it's not true, directly contradicting the Word of God.] Not "wacky" or "irrational" as was said earlier. Much of the words here are not loving and gentle -- but more jeering and scoffing (e.g. this is the best one, "Why do they call themselves CHRISTIANS for Biblical Equality when they hate God's Word so much?"), which it seems, is exactly what you criticize the CBE people. I don't want to spar with you as if I need to prove something... [NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: See above.]

MK

[Donna L. Carlaw]

MK:
I'm just thinking this may be a more plausible interpretation especially because whenever Christ talked about 'leadership', he always talked about serving and being last. It doesn't seem like His ideas of leadership and 'headship' fit our definitions which always include authority and power of one OVER another. (See Mark 10:42-25 for Jesus' definition of leadership.)>>>>

MK, I appreciate your sharing here. You are kind and polite. You are a good example to me. Thank you. Please consider the following ideas, if you will, and please understand the spirit in which they are shared. These issues are extremely important, of course, or we wouldn't spend time thinking about them and discussing them, would we?

See the following statements of Christ, if you will. It is very clear that even though He had been among His disciples as one who serves, He expected them to obey Him.

Anyone who seeks to follow Christ must also be willing to obey. A head in the Biblical sense is certainly to serve God and those under his leadership, and he is also to be obeyed as the church obeys Christ.

You cannot take the idea of authority and obedience out of headship and submission without gutting the whole Gospel, actually.

John 14:15
"If you love me, you will obey what I command.

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

John 14:23
Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

See that love and obedience are connected in the following verse. Love for and submission to God-ordained authority are not mutually exclusive principles.

John 14:24
He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

Then, the disciples were not in an equal to equal relationship with Jesus, their Friend. Obedience to Christ's commands is the test of friendship to God even.

John 15
14You are my friends if you do what I command.

The Christian marriage is a picture of this kind of hierarchical relationship according to Paul in Eph. 5, of course. If you take the hierarchy out of the marriage relationship, then how will you avoid taking out the hierarchical relationship between Christ and the believer? We are not in a relationship of mutual submission with Christ, our Head.

I don't see how egalitarian feminists can avoid the error of making Christ out to be less than who He is - which is a key Gospel doctrine, really.

The real attack is not on women or even marriage. The real problem has to do with minimizing the person of Christ, which is pretty grave error, really. So, whether or not I have or do not have a good marriage is not the point. The point is who is Christ? How can this not bother egalitarians who really do know that Christ is their Lord?

Please excuse the ackwardness of some of my sentences, but I hope that I can be understood. The whole Eph. 5 passage is about Christ and the Gospel as much or more than it is about husbands and wives.

[MK]

Hi Donna,
I appreciate that you spent some time to look into the Word and are processing through these things thoughtfully (as opposed to just quoting something an 'authority' said). I don't have the time now to write a comprehensive response, as I have other responsibilities. But I did want to say that "even though you are a woman," I very much so respect the words that you say. I am not sure all your complementarians brothers would do the same (albeit some would), and that, my sister in Christ, is the unfortunate thing about complementarian theology. If you were an egalitarian woman writing this and I was a complementarian man, I would just dismiss what you are saying - to the great hurt of many sisters. I know this because I have seen it happen one too many times.

[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Loving God, His Word, and His people, I've removed some of what MK wrote here since it is untrue, directly contradicting God's Word. David and I have no obligation to allow destroyers of souls ready access through this blog to our precious brothers and sisters who hunger and thirst after God's Truth. Such destroyers have the whole rest of the internet to ply their trade; they don't need this puny little forum for an outlet.]

MK

[Michael McMillan]

[MK:] We egalitarians are logical, academic and spiritual, lovers of God and lovers of the Word. Not "wacky" or "irrational" as was said earlier.

To call Kroeger's talk "wacky" was putting it mildly. Dissing the Bible with pictures of perverted Gentile art? ...Paul was addressing sick stuff in ancient times and not us today, so we can ignore him when we feel like it? I have some less charitable words for what I thought of it.

As far as "irrational" -- in classic tickling itching ears fashion, egals readily accept the disjointed "scholarly" explanations for the various scriptures they do not care for ['kephale' means 'source', Gal. 3:18 does away with male and female distinctions, and 100 others]. But, when taken as a whole, their reasoning is contradictory. There is no big picture, they just shoot down what they don't like any way they can think of, grasping at straws. They profess to be wiser than millenia of believers before them, discovering the truth lost and or purposely suppressed. They know more than Paul did, apparently, since they are correcting him so much.

I'll take the Bible at face value, instead of swallowing all their convoluted new meanings, much of it based upon worldly philosophy. Feminist theology takes more faith than I can muster.

--Michael

[Donna L. Carlaw]

MK:
I appreciate that you spent some time to look into the Word and are processing through these things thoughtfully (as opposed to just quoting something an 'authority' said). >>>>

Hello, MK,
I appreciate your response. Just one little thing, though. Isn't the Scritpure an authority? Isn't Jesus the Supreme Authority, being the Word made flesh, the only begotten God, the Son of God, the radiance of God's glory, etc.? I believe that I was quoting "authority." Don't you agree on that? Isn't the Word of God your final authority?

MK:
I don't have the time now to write a comprehensive response, as I have other responsibilities. >>>>

DL:
We all have other responsibilities, MK. For example I need to go to the bank for my husband, get the oil changed in my daughter's car, iron the clothes, etc. We all have God-given tasks and responsibilities. I believe that it is important to make time for this subject, though.

MK:
But I did want to say that "even though you are a woman," I very much so respect the words that you say.>>>>

DL:
I thank you for that, MK. That is nice of you to say. It's better to respect the words of God, though, right?

MK:
I am not sure all your complementarians brothers would do the same (albeit some would), and that, my sister in Christ, is the unfortunate thing about complementarian theology.>>>>

DL:
Actually, I have found that my complementarian brothers are very kind to me for the most part - and even tolerant of my sometimes emotional outbursts as well as my occasional confusion on this or that subject. In fact - oh, horrors - I consider Michael McMillan to be an e-friend. He has been especially kind to me, even when I was not very tolerant of him when we first "met." I have grown to appreciate his forthright, masculine style, though I still wear pants and dye my hair. :-) He still speaks to me at times. There are others, too, such as the guys on the CCC.

DL:
It has been the egalitarian feminists and their "complementarian" useful idiots - thank you Kamilla for expressing what I think, too - that have been downright cruel and abusive to me. In a way, though, I kind of miss all the hate emails and the intimidating phone calls. I used to be more aligned with them, and they did not like my switching positions. It has been a bit like trying to leave a cult. I still have deep feelings for many of them, and pray for them, even though they were incredibly cruel to me personally. Would that be a kind of Stockholm Syndrome response?

MK:If you were an egalitarian woman writing this and I was a complementarian man, I would just dismiss what you are saying - to the great hurt of many sisters. I know this because I have seen it happen one too many times.>>>>

DL:
As I explained above, I have suffered the opposite. Maybe the ones who hurt me are really complementarians - as some of them claim to be the true comps - and I am really the feminist but am just confused? Most of the time I think that I am more in favor of equality than they are.

MK:
Briefly, I want to say that egalitarians DO believe in the full authority of Christ, and yield ourselves to His authority and reign with full submission.>>>>

DL:
Thank you, MK, for that clear statement.

MK:
Wives, however, are not called to do this same with their husbands. >>>>

DL:
My authority says otherwise.

Ephesians 5:22
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.

MK:
However, I do want to clarify also that wives DO submit to their husbands in egalitarian marriages. The difference is that husbands also submit to their wives. Eph 5:21.>>>>

DL:
Show me the specific command where husbands as husbands are commanded to submit to their wives as wives, and I'll be satisfied.

Well, I got a little sarcastic, there, but it's hard not to, especially since my "experience" with the egal/fems has been very painful.

I do appreciate your time, MK.

[Tim Bayly]

MK and Lizzie, you are not nice smiling Christians who honor the Word of God, but in a different way than the rest of us, but rather deceivers spreading rebellion against the Holy God and His Word. Of course, I could write this in such a way as to make everyone feel like we could continue to be all warm and fuzzy with each other, but then I'd be proving myself indifferent toward my Heavenly Father Who is jealous for His honor and Word. So my affect, here, must match my doctrine.

Thus you are both to be silent on this blog on any matters in which you seek to lead immortal souls into the rebellion you yourselves have chosen, denying God's creation order of the sexes.

This blog is not a salon or living room, but a table of fellowship where those fomenting rebellion against the Master of the house are silenced. And this is out of love, both for the fomenters and those who were in danger of becoming their dupes.

Every college, university, publisher, and major media outlet across the western world, including those claiming Christian foundations, provides a soapbox for your heresy. You'll shouldn't notice the loss of one rinky-dink blog.

[Kamilla]

Hi Lizzie,

First, a correction. I am not married, have never been married.

I am sorry to have to say that I don't believe God is taking us both on a journey with Him. We can't both be happy for each other when one of us has to be wrong, and dangerously so. The truth of Scripture is not determined by how we feel about it, it is what it is.

Do I really have to explain how the analogy to racial relations is illegitimate? Do we not read in the Scriptures that, in the beginning, God created them male and female not white, black, yellow, brown and purple? Do I have to dig out my old A&P textbooks to explain that sex differences run far deeper than external appearances, that our musculature, bone structure and our very brains differentiate us? Do you not think this might give us a clue as to how we are made for different purposes?

MK - Methinks you've been reading too much of Cathie Kroeger's writing.

Kamilla

[RM]

Mr. Bayly,

I appreciate that you genuinely care about God and the worth of Scripture. But it seems rather unfair to the discussion to call someone else's views untrue and heretical and yet not allow them to defend themselves from the scripture.

May Christ lead you into all truth.

[Kamilla]

Dear RM,

Whoever said life was supposed to be "fair"?

Kamilla

[John]

Dear Pastor Bayly:
Thank you for being loving rather than fair.
I thank God as well for men such as you and your brother who strive to love God and his Word above the approval of men (Galatians 1:10).

[David Bayly]

Dear Kamilla,

I praise God for you. What a joy to be a yokefellow with you in the cause of Christ.

Your brother in Christ,

David

[Donna L. Carlaw]

MK:If you were an egalitarian woman writing this and I was a complementarian man, I would just dismiss what you are saying - to the great hurt of many sisters. I know this because I have seen it happen one too many times.>>>>

I have been thinking about this point, MK, and yes, often men dismiss what women have to say. Often women dismiss or rage against what men have to say. Often young people reject what their elders say to them, and so on.

I do not know the Bayly's, nor do I feel an excessive need to defend them, personally. We are not friends, nor have I ever spoken to them.

Maybe all the gossip about them is true - though I have not seen evidence of that. Maybe the egalitarians have suffered at the hands of comps. I have not seen evidence of that, but maybe it is true.

However, what does how comps allegedly treat egals or egals comps have to do with the truth of God's Word? Is there a niceness requirement in the truth - that is, the ones who are the nicest, who never use disgusting sarcasm, who never get upset or emotional, who never say things that they later wish they had not said or that they wish they could take back,etc. are the ones who have a corner on the truth?

I don't think it works that way.

It is pretty obvious that egalitarians are promoting a religified, - which I am sure is not a real word -quasi-spiritual version of ungodly, secular, counter-culture, extremist, revolutionary feminism. Taking certain Scriptures out of context, twisting others to come up with new and unusual interpretations, or even forcing silly definitions onto words is not nice, really, but it is what the religious feminists major in.

What you folks do is sad, really, and disgusting all at the same time.

[Tim Bayly]

Brothers and sisters, I'd like to give a word of explanation concerning our recent actions in removing from this blog certain statements that claim God's authority for denying God's authority.

Some years ago, back when I was working on the staff of First Presbyterian Church in Boulder, I was holding a series of classes on contemporary ethical issues. I invited believers to address the class giving their biblical reasoning for the positions they took on matters such as nuclear weapons (a number of our members worked at Rocky Flats where triggers for nuclear warheads were made), nuclear energy, and abortion.

It occurred to me that, given the lethargy among First Pres. members concerning abortion, it might be good to hold a debate between an anti-abortionist and a pro-abortionist on a Sunday afternoon and invite the whole church to attend. First, I invited Jon Archibold to take the anti-abortion side, explaining to him that the forum would be a debate.

He declined to participate if it meant providing a forum among the people of God for someone who advocated the murder of unborn children in their mothers' wombs.

Thinking about it, I came to agree with Jon and we held the forum without providing proponents of murder a public forum. Rather, Jon himself fairly summarized the ethical and legal justifications employed by pro-abortionists and then answered them according to God's perfections and Word.

Everyone agreed Jon had dealt with his opponents fairly, and many people came to a deeper understanding of why men of God must stand against child murder today.

Our readers will understand, then, how it was that several months ago David and I came to the conclusion that we ought not to provide a forum for feminists promulgating lies in God's Name here on this blog. Regularly, there are comments posted that we disagree with--sometimes strenuously--as well as insults thrown our way. Unless the comments contain lies, we leave them be.

But when comments go beyond attacking us, and proceed to attack God and His Word, then it is that our love for God, His Word, and the precious souls we have been called to shepherd leads us to remove text or even whole comments.

Yes, this is a forum not only for fellowship and instruction, but also for debate. But when the serpent again hisses, "Hath God truly said?" it's Adam's duty to cut off his head before he, again, deceives Eve.

If you disagree with our stewardship of this blog, God bless you.

[Donna L. Carlaw]

DL:
What you folks do is sad, really, and disgusting all at the same time.>>>>

I want to clarify who the "you folks" are. It is the egalitarian feminists/religious feminists, of course. About three years ago I met some of them online. They fed me that line about how the comps were mean, but that they, the enlightened, truly godly, Christian egalitarians were nice and would not be "mean" like those guys are.

So, I participated with them for a couple of months. It was not long before I understood why the comps strongly refuted the egalitarian arguments, and why there was a division between the two groups that no one can bridge at this point. As soon as I started challenging the feminists, arguing against their position, even daring to try in my own way to refute the very silly arguments of one of their mentors and pioneers in that movement, the wrath of "she who must be obeyed" descended on me.

I began to receive intimidating emails, phone calls, and all kinds of harsh treatment. Of course, I fought back. I didn't lie down and take the abuse they were heaping on me. Isn't that what abused women are supposed to do, after all? Aren't women supposed to stand up for themselves and not allow the abusers to get away with it? They must be exposed, right?

As far as the feminists go, all of that is true for a woman who is being "abused" by a male in her life, but don't dare try that out on abusive, bullying females. There will be hell to pay - and I have paid it. Have any of your heard of relational aggression?

Anyway, MK was kind to me - to start out. I know how it turns out in the end, though. I have been down that road, and I'll take my chances with the comps, thank you very much.

I can be nice, and I tend to be in real life, also. I am a nice person. However, I am no longer taken in by the enemy's niceness - and they are the enemy, no doubt about it.

Again, I don't know the Bayly's. I have never met them. I am not here to defend them or to criticize them. For all I have seen, they are pretty nice Christian guys who really do care about the sheep being destroyed by false teachings.

I am not even Presbyterian, but Baptistic. I am more interested in trying as best I know how - which may not be adequate, granted - to refute the damnable heresies that parade as high-minded egalitarianism.

I am also interested in exposing them for what they are. They are not nice people, but rather wolves in sheep's clothing - at least the ones I have met online. I am sure that there are exceptions to just about every rule, but the exception neither establishes nor negates any rule.

Anyway... that's a bit of my unpleasant experience with the religious feminists and their sympathizers - which does not make me right and they wrong, but it does help to show that they are not the innocent victims of abusive comps, as they like to present themselves. We are all descents of Adam, after all, and God's analysis of human nature is still true. Read the account of the flood - both before the flood and after - to see what God thinks of mankind, not just males.

BTW, about a year ago, I tried to reconcile with some of them. Some were whining about how much I had hurt them, so I took them seriously, trying to bring about some resolution or truce, or something. They spent the better part of a month mocking me, but not just me. They mocked the Word of God and its injunctions to seek reconciliation with an offended brother and to promote forgiveness.

It's fine to mock me, as I am sure that there is plenty of material to work with. It is another thing to mock the Word of God and Christ's direct commands.

[Michael Foster]

Pastor Tim,

I'm thankful for the way you and your brother steward this blog's content. Its a blessing. Thanks again.

[Kamilla]

Hello David,

You are such an encouragement! If there is any good in what I have written here, it is all to God's account. If I had my way, I'd still be an Egalitarian, depending upon my own wisdom.

It's such a wonderful, beautiful and funny paradox that God really does turn human wisdom on its head and that we gain so much by giving up what we so dearly wish to hold. We suffer from senile dementia and forget what the pagan Greeks knew over two millennia ago - man is never so free as when he lives within the law.

SDG,

Kamilla

[Will Rettig]

Dear David and Tim Bayly,

I am the CBE employee, blog moderator for the CBE Scroll, and author of the CBE Scroll post ‘If You Can’t Be Pastor…’ to which you responded to in this post. I’m writing this as a Christian deeply concerned, and not as a CBE employee.

Upon reading both here and within moderated comments placed on the CBE Scroll, I see that further discussion between frequent visitors of both this site and the CBE Scroll has brought about much that I feel must grieve the Lord that we both so clearly wish to serve. Is there a way in which we might talk about this and both work to bring about, in the least an end to slander, and even perhaps an irenic environment within which discussion and disagreement may civilly take place?

I am in no way trying to appear before your bloggers as having been the ‘first to extend an olive branch,’ and so please feel free to even withhold this comment for moderation and simply write back to me. Is there an e-mail at which I may contact you privately? If so, you may email me either at my private email address, or at CBE’s general mail at cbe@cbeinternational.org (I’m the one who checks it.)

Thank you. I pray that each of us being persons who love God, his Word, and his people, out of love, we might arrive at a solution.

Will Rettig

[Tim Bayly]

Dear Mr. Rettig,

Thanks for your note. If there's slander on this blog, please let me know and David and I will deal with it. As for slander on your own blog, I received a link to this post from a friend, and wrote above what I believe is appropriate to say concerning that post and the comments beneath it.

Really, it's the direct contradiction of God and His Word at the heart of your work that is the stumbling stone to many--not the comments about any of us, personally.

Tim Bayly

[Will Rettig]

Dear Tim Bayly,

By slander, I mean the simple back and forth of ‘complementarians are this way’ and ‘egalitarians are this way’ or ‘complementarians did this to me’ and ‘egalitarians did this to me’ that is simply defamation of one another and one another’s views. It seems very destructive and in no way similar to the spirit of love with which Christians are called to correct one another, even if (sadly) that would be all we would wish toward one another.

We are going to disagree. Egalitarians could simply turn around and label the complementarian position a ‘direct contradiction of God and his Word,’ and many have, and yet where would that get any of us? Defamation of another’s position is no way to convince another of the truth of one’s own position, and that is what I would suggest we find a way to avoid.

Is there any way to do this? I, for one, would like to be able to post here and engage in dialogue and disagreement without being censored or silenced, and I suspect that those more inclined towards the complementarian position may wish to do the same at CBE’s blog. Can we realize that what we disagree over is not our shared faith in Christ, but instead matters of interpretation and executed practice of those interpretations? Do you have any ideas as to how we might make room for more civil dialogue, on both of our sites? (Or, if you would rather that such a forum be located elsewhere, do you have any ideas on how we might do as much at CBE’s blog?)

Will Rettig

[David Gray]

>that is simply defamation of one another and one another’s views

Are there views, in your view, that are worthy of opprobrium?

[Donna L. Carlaw]

WR:
Do you have any ideas as to how we might make room for more civil dialogue, on both of our sites?>>>>

Are you a Peanuts fan? Remember Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, trying to get him to trust her just one more time?

[Kamilla]

Will,

Changing your word from slander to defamation really doesn't help. It only qualifies as either if it isn't true. I am sure Tim and David would gladly deal with any false and slanderous or defmatory statements if you would just let them know which statements posted on this blog qualify.

Having a disagreement and failing to be what you might call suitably irenic doesn't qualify as being slanderous or defamatory.

Kamilla