Comments on Grace and Truth to You: And What Is It About Patriarchy That Scares Us?

Ware's comments are also perfectly clear in this a...

2008-08-21T21:54:00.000-03:00

Ware's comments are also perfectly clear in this article on CBMW's website. I just wrote an email asking my complementarian pastor what he thinks of women being 2nd class image-bearers in Ware's apprehension of the Genesis and I Corinthians passages.

Thank you very much, Pastor Wade, for standing up to those whose paradigm for the gospel is hierarchy.

I figured Doug Phillips must be a misogynist, but ...

2008-06-12T21:18:00.000-03:00

I figured Doug Phillips must be a misogynist, but I didn't realize how much he hates women until now. He thinks so little of women that he's fine with it if they die because they have a tubal pregnancy. He says that women with an ectopic pregancy can't "biblically" seek medical attention. They should just be willing to die. See Doug Phillips Poses Threat To Lives Of Home Schooling Moms

Sounds like the SBC is serving two masters. Who i...

2008-05-13T23:18:00.000-03:00

Sounds like the SBC is serving two masters. Who is Lord here the MAN (patriarch) or God? I love God and I love men but I do not love reform theology. Ghandi said "I like your Christ but I do not like your Christians. They are nothing like your Christ.

In all this talk about women being the keepers at ...

2008-04-24T14:53:00.000-03:00

In all this talk about women being the keepers at home meaning they have to BE at home and not work outside the home (a la Vision Forum's Scott Brown - who, btw, has taught guest-taught classes at SEBTS), I'm wondering why the Greek is chosen to be interpreted that way.

Cannot "oikouros" simply mean that the wife is overseeing the care for her home? Making sure everything is running in an orderly fashion? Does she have to be present to do that?

What about men receiving the instruction in Deut. 6 "You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up."

They certainly don't interpret that to mean that all men need to have home businesses so that they are 100% available at all times for their sons do they?

Thatmom said, "For a long time I have felt that th...

2008-04-24T12:21:00.000-03:00

Thatmom said, "For a long time I have felt that the patriocentric movement has women behind the scenes desiring the perfect world, a Christian version of Stepford. If you go to some homeschooling conferences, you will see Doug Phillips surrounded by a bevy of homeschooling moms clamoring to talk with him. They are the ones making the Vision Forum purchases. If you take a good look at the catalogs, they are designed with women and moms in mind."

Yes! I'm stunned that more people don't see the absurdity of all this. It's a few men who are serving as the public spokesmen of Patriarchy and profiting handsomely from it (Phillips, Sproul, etc.). The so called leaders of Patriarchy do have to be men because it is, after all, supposedly about men being the leaders of their homes and women submitting to their husbands. But strangely enough the vast majority of patrons are women. You don't find many men sitting down to read a Vision Forum catalog, let alone ordering any of the overpriced junky toys for their kids or overpriced books and CDs and DVDs for their wives. No, it's the wives who do that.

Why would any self-respecting self-assured loving and godly wife and mother get drawn into this? They don't. It's another kind of woman who gets sucked in. What's the appeal for their getting sucked in? Image. It's all about image. Image and PRIDE.

This is "Christmas Letter Syndrome" on steroids. You know how once a year your "friends" that you never hear from but once a year have to send you a Christmas letter that drones on and on about how perfect their family is, all their great accomplishments, how there is perfect peace and harmony in their home, etc? It's Life In Perfect. Then they close with, "Oh, and a hat tip to God for sending his son Jesus to save us from our sins."

That's the Patriarchy movement -- Christmas Letter Syndrome on steroids. "Look at me. Aren't I something special? I've got a full quiver of kids that I home school and we're all just as perfect as a picture. I sew all my girls dresses (we ALWAYS wear dresses, even if it's just to go clean the toilets), and I buy matching outfits for all my boys, including my husband. Any time we go out we make sure our clothing matches. I even pick out a matching outfit for my husband. He pretty much does whatever I tell him. Not that I wear the pants in the family or anything like that (How silly that anyone would accuse me of that! I ALWAYS wear dresses!). I would never coerce or manipulate or be controlling because, as we all know, a Christian wife submits to her husband. I even prove my submission by wearing a little napkin thingy on my head to church. We call it a head covering. It's a message to everyone in church that says, 'See, I submit to my husband'. I even make my little girls wear napkin thingies."

Honestly, the things I have seen done by "Prairie Muffins" (a term coined by RC Sproul Jr to describe the wives of Patriarchs) are absurd. It's not biblical submission. It's an act. It's prideful Phariseeism. I've been in the some of these Patriarchy/Prairie Muffin homes, and even a few of their "family integrated churches" and it's the most revolting and phony display of "Christianity" I've ever seen. Lord save us!

LU:Lu:Thanks for the explanation. I would really ...

2008-04-23T22:25:00.000-03:00

LU:

Lu:

Thanks for the explanation. I would really like to know his new churches reaction to such thoughts on women especially the women who work outside of the home.

found this comment by you interesting-"We take 1 T...

2008-04-23T16:47:00.000-03:00

found this comment by you interesting-"We take 1 Timothy 2:15 and 1 Timothy 5:14 to mean that wives should focus on household duties, as it is a means of avoiding Satanic influence in their life."

Please elaborate.

Wed Apr 23, 09:14:00 AM 2008

Tom, it means that ALL women for ALL time are easily deceived and will only be saved if they stay in their 'role'. Of course, scripture is not specific about the 'role'. And I guess Phoebe and Mary M were in sin. Lydia, too. I mean, who did she think she was starting a church in her home!

See, Paul was not speaking about problems in the Ephesian church, he was speaking about ALL women for ALL time. We just have to ignore all the other passages concerning women in scripture who did not get Paul's memo.

See, ONLY women have a 'work' to be saved. Didn't you know that there are pink and blue hermeneutics?

Lu

DR:I found this comment by you interesting-"We tak...

2008-04-23T09:14:00.000-03:00

DR:

I found this comment by you interesting-"We take 1 Timothy 2:15 and 1 Timothy 5:14 to mean that wives should focus on household duties, as it is a means of avoiding Satanic influence in their life."

Please elaborate.

Tom, Yes, I have no problem communicating my posit...

2008-04-23T01:20:00.000-03:00

Tom,

Yes, I have no problem communicating my positions with those in my congregation.

DR:Thanks to your response to my question. As you...

2008-04-22T19:02:00.000-03:00

DR:

Thanks to your response to my question. As you begin your pastorate will you share these views with your congregation?

CJ,That statement is absolutely true and is hinted...

2008-04-22T18:49:00.000-03:00

CJ,

That statement is absolutely true and is hinted at in Ware's book. Cheryl Schatz who is developing and nearly ready to film a video on the Subordinationism in Trinity corresponded with Bruce Ware over these matters in private email. For those interested, look at the Trinity tag on her site. It's appalling. Based on her correspondence, she sent me a refutation of what someone suggested about praying only to the Father on the Part VII of VII of the videos on YouTube. If you go to my blog or if you click on the "more info" section on the YouTube info to the Right of the video on their website, you can read what she sent to me in response.

Note: I don't agree with everything that Cheryl Schatz finds to be true about the gender issue. But, her advocacy for the correct interpretation of Scripture in this area is commendable. I can't believe that so few people, Cheryl among them, note the blatant problems with Ware's Trinitarian teachings.

"....Ware goes on to teach that Jesus does not hav...

2008-04-22T12:44:00.000-03:00

"....Ware goes on to teach that Jesus does not have the authority to answer prayer." !!!!???!!!!

Good heavens -- Ware has been teetering on the edge for a while now, but if the above statement is true, he has finally fallen in and is now swimming in the deep end of the heresy pool.

"As for whether I am patriarchal, I really don't l...

2008-04-22T10:35:00.000-03:00

"As for whether I am patriarchal, I really don't like using that label because it's been used as a pejorative, nor do I want to distance myself from the likes of Bruce Ware and Russell Moore, both of whom I respect greatly and wish more on this blog could meet in person (they are certainly two of the most gracious men I have ever met in my life). "

You don't like the 'term' but do like the stance? Russell Moore does not have a problem with the term all all. He is promoting it.

Lucy

For Sale By Owner,Ah, I see your confusion. I did...

2008-04-22T07:51:00.000-03:00

For Sale By Owner,

Ah, I see your confusion. I did not mean you specifically, but rather was recalling the patriarchal wives that get a double standard (also so typical in spiritually abusive situations). It was nothing personal and I did not think of that way, though my language would reflect that. I understand. It's all arbitrary, depending who you are, in my experience. But I would suspect that a Doug Phillips follower would be quick to give you a pass and quick to sell me down the river because you would be considered "more normative" than I would because of my outspokenness.

You do bring up an interesting point, however. Why do people automatically assume that because I disagree with someone's teachings that I believe they are "bad" or "unkind" or have problems with behavior or are ungracious? I'm sure these men are fine gentlemen and I generally refer to them in such ways when I am not in an academic mode of discussion. (Like a textbook is known by it's author -- say Schaeffer, for example -- I will refer to these men by their last name's only and is not a show of disrespect or disregard. This is an academic tradition.) But I am amazed that I get accused of maligining these men's characters for calling out their teachings. I've said nothing personally about anyone.

But can someone explain to me how being a nice guy and a fine example of a Christian somehow facilitates the rubber stamping of their aberrant teachings? And if I disagree with these gentlemen, why does that mean that I believe that they are not nice guys and fine examples of a Christian? We are talking about exegesis here, not their demeanors.

And I wholeheartedly disagree with you. The world is full of the history of those who denied what they were doing and what they meant. It started in the Garden of Eden with "Ye shall not surely die." "When I said that, I didn't really mean that." I don't buy it. These fine, Christian gentlemen can say until they are blue in the face that they believe women are equal and yet different in a complementary fashion and say that Jesus is not lesser than the Father, but what they explain says exactly that. You can believe their disclaimers, or you can evaluate what they are saying. If they have to make the disclaimers over and over, why do you think that is?

You said "Examples of this are criticisms that Complimentarians believe that women are not equal or not fully human and that it is a rejection of the Priesthood of All Believers, none of which is true."

I think that you are very, very wrong in that statement. I admire the respect and love that you have for the people who make these claims, but I believe that they are deceptive or kidding themselves in making the claims. Their message says otherwise. The Father as "supreme" does make Jesus lesser than the Father because Ware goes on to teach that Jesus does not have the authority to answer prayer. That is not equal in power, something the church fathers did not support. And they can say indirect does not mean lesser, but by definition of the metaphysical and ontological disciplines, their claims are also illogical and incongruent.

I'm sure that they believe that Jesus is equal to the Father and that women are equal to men, but their message is highly contradictory and this assertion is a huge logical fallacy of post hoc ergo proper hoc. Their intent and their hearts of loving intent do not match their teaching, and the teaching is NOT clear from the Word of God and violates solid hermeneutical principle.

And this does not mean that I would not find them kind and humble as you describe them. Apples and oranges.

Cindy, I was referring to this comment, in which y...

2008-04-22T05:22:00.000-03:00

Cindy,

I was referring to this comment, in which you seemed to call me the "patriarchal guy":

Why is it that the wife of the patriarchal guy gets a break and she's out doing the Lord's work in caring for the sick, but nurses like me get labeled "feminist" and those who have capitulated to humanism?

As for whether I am patriarchal, I really don't like using that label because it's been used as a pejorative, nor do I want to distance myself from the likes of Bruce Ware and Russell Moore, both of whom I respect greatly and wish more on this blog could meet in person (they are certainly two of the most gracious men I have ever met in my life). Now there are some I certainly would distance myself from such as the Kinists (as would those two men), and at times Tim Bayly.

My problem is that too often in this thread and elsewhere on this blog, sincere men of God have been unfairly criticized simply by slapping upon them the label of patriarchal. And often the criticism have been in the form of "he believes A, which will inevitably lead to C", when no consideration is given to the possibility that B is a viable option. Also, many jump to conclude the C application without the clear articulation of such an application by those they are criticizing. It is criticism by speculation.

Examples of this are criticisms that Complimentarians believe that women are not equal or not fully human and that it is a rejection of the Priesthood of All Believers, none of which is true.

I hope you see my frustration and understand my assertion that this is unfair criticism. Even so, I appreciate your willingness to engage me with an irenic spirit.

FSBO,I didn't realize that I had classified you as...

2008-04-22T02:58:00.000-03:00

FSBO,

I didn't realize that I had classified you as a patriarchalist. I was not referring to you when I wrote that but of the messages that I have received from those within the patriocentric circles. Now if you are a Dougite (a follower of Vision Forum) or a follower of the Federal Vision and Doug Wilson, then the association might be valid.

If you read that into what I wrote, I apologize as I got the impression that you were a complementarian and were not necessarily expressing issues that you had with me when you made the statement. And as far as me lumping people in with complementarians and painting with broad brushes, since I ascribe to what constitutes a complimentarian view, I would be painting myself.

Again, I was referring to the population of concern as detailed in this blog post and the specific population that I addressed in the lecture that provided the subject for this blog post. I didn't realize that we were engaged in a dialoge about your esteem for me or mine for you. Are you patriocentric or did you just put yourself in the path of my supposed broad brush stroke?

Cindy, In all honesty, I think many of you lump al...

2008-04-22T00:35:00.000-03:00

Cindy,

In all honesty, I think many of you lump all Complimentarians (and use the pejorative of "Patriarchal" to describe us) into one category and find the most extreme examples of us to point to as normative.

As I have said from the outset, I don't think many of those critical of Complimentarianism) understand the positions and applications of those of us who hold to it.

Critics (including those who post here) continue to paint us with broad strokes when in fact, there is much diversity in how we live out our beliefs. I first posted on this subject out of a desire to set forth a Biblical case for our positions and to defend my brothers and sisters in Christ who I felt were being libeled unfairly. But I am beginning to see how fruitless this is, because it seems my views are treated with the same distain and unfairness that the other side claims we handle their views with.

Finally, I have never publicly or privately criticized a woman for generally working outside of the home, and most Complimentarians I know personally do not either. For us it is a matter rightly ordered priorities, not lists of "Do Not's".

What we criticize is a position that does not take into account the priorities of male and female roles in the home and church and the lack of attempt to order the home and church in that manner.

"Why is it that the wife of the patriarchal guy ge...

2008-04-22T00:09:00.000-03:00

"Just to clarify so that I don't read on some kini...

2008-04-21T23:25:00.000-03:00

"Just to clarify so that I don't read on some kinist website that I am an dishonest..."

LOL... it will probably happen anyway, though.

When it comes to calling good evil and evil good, and totally inverting the facts to support their opinions, there's nothing quite like a kinist.

CJ,I appreciate your comment.

2008-04-21T23:13:00.000-03:00

CJ,

I appreciate your comment.

I just wanted to clarify something that was not re...

2008-04-21T23:11:00.000-03:00

I just wanted to clarify something that was not readily apparent to some in my last comment...

I do not have children, but my husband and I planned and structured our married life so that I could be a full-time, homeschooling mom. So when I say that I turned down full-time jobs, this was to resist anything that might pull me away from motherhood, including what kind of houses we've bought on our trek around the country.

But I do not have children and did not claim to have children, but merely stated that I have always planned to have them. In the meantime, I've lived a life very much like the kind that the patriocentrists live, without the Little House on the Prairie attire and without the headcoverings.

Just to clarify so that I don't read on some kinist website that I am an dishonest...

"Why is it that the wife of the patriarchal guy ge...

2008-04-21T22:50:00.000-03:00

"Why is it that the wife of the patriarchal guy gets a break and she's out doing the Lord's work in caring for the sick, but nurses like me get labeled "feminist" and those who have capitulated to humanism?"

Good question.

And here's ANOTHER good question -- how come, back in the pre-feminist eras that the patriarchs idyllize, people thought that schoolteaching and nursing were perfectly acceptable activities for unmarried women and for women whose children were of school-age?

Of course, in "good old days" idolized by the Patriarchs, nobody had ever heard of the homeschooling fad either, and ALL children were expected to attend school -- in fact, one reason that immigrants came to this country in the late 1800's was the opportunity for free education for their children.
Once her children were old enough to attend school, many women back then worked for a few hours each day as grocery store clerks, waitresses, domestics, etc. Nobody thought that there was anything wrong with that, and nobody preached against it.

It wasn't until the 1980's and the advent of the New Religion that this suddenly became problematic, and we suddenly started hearing sermons about how Titus 2:3-5 and other verses meant that women were forbidden to work outside the home -- before that nobody interpreted those verses that way.
Funny how the Bible changed its meaning overnight -- or maybe all those preachers from the time of Christ until the 1980's just missed the true meaning of Titus 2:3-5 somehow. :P

Why is it that the wife of the patriarchal guy get...

2008-04-21T21:08:00.000-03:00

Why is it that the wife of the patriarchal guy gets a break and she's out doing the Lord's work in caring for the sick, but nurses like me get labeled "feminist" and those who have capitulated to humanism?

I have turned down at least 15 dream jobs in nursing because they would have competed with the kids and the family life for them that I planned to have. But I get labeld. Why is that? I'm even working for my husband now when he has work available, and working from our home.

Karen Campbell (thatmom) wrote a few posts back that we live lifestyles that are nearly identical to that of those who believe that a woman's only place is in the home. (How is it that people believe that I know enough about this mess to give a talk on it?) But we are both called names, too many to be listed. Why is that?

In other words, Tom. DR thinks Phoebe, the traveli...

2008-04-21T20:43:00.000-03:00

In other words, Tom. DR thinks Phoebe, the traveling business woman, was in sin.

DR, you are a hoot. I bet your wife works full time right now as an RN in Memphis and you sell 'stocks' for Edwards on commission which makes her the current breadwinner with the health insurance. That is usually the case with guys like you.

Tom, First, my wife and I are convinced by Scriptu...

2008-04-21T19:58:00.000-03:00

Tom,

First, my wife and I are convinced by Scripture that her main role should be the home. Scripturally, here's why:

1) We take 1 Timothy 2:15 and 1 Timothy 5:14 to mean that wives should focus on household duties, as it is a means of avoiding Satanic influence in their life.

For more on this see the excellent article, "Saved Through Childbearing? A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2:15 Points to Protection from Satan's Deception"by Andreas J. Köstenberger.

2) We look at Titus 2:3-5 and see that clearly women are encouraged to be "workers at home." And we believe that working outside of the home will eventually interfere with and possibly counteract her greater work in the home.

3) We see clear distinctions between the roles of men and women, beginning in Genesis and continuing the NT. These roles are for men to lead and to work. We also see a great burden placed on parents to raise children. Thus, we believe this works together for God's purpose for men to work outside the home and women to work inside of it.

Now, having said that, my wife will work part-time outside of the home (one day a week) for many different reasons. We believe this is not in opposition to Scripture, specifically because of the teachings we see in Proverbs 31 regarding how Godly wives are involved in the marketplace. My wife will also be fulfilling her call to serve others since she is a nurse.

So Tom, that's how we view our lives within the framework of Scripture - both Biblical and fulfilling, functioning within our roles and yet not supressing our God-given desires.