What has to happen? Reforming our culture

[Hats Off]

Tim Challies is so straight forward and easy to read compared with the Danvers Statement. I suppose the Danvers Statement is more official and formal and detailed but Challies summarizes it beautifully.

[Aurien]

I'm going to just pull this back to the top, and refer to the thread on Joshua Harris, because I would like to hear the thoughts of others in respect to 'complementarianism' vs 'eglaterianism'. As I stated in that thread, I can see how abusive behavior within a marriage (or other adult relationships) might be covered up under the guise of complementarianism. But does that mean that complentarianism is wrong? (I am not personally doubting this - I just think it is a case of something true being misused to cover up or justify a sin. But I would still like to hear input from others on this.)

In the Joshua Harris thread you said,
"I guess I can see how that (referring to complementarianism) could provide cover for a man who is abusive in adult relationships (either with his own wife or other women), but I wouldn't see any way in which that would intersect with the sin of child abuse, for instance."

I've seen it frequently said that sexual abuse is about having control and power over someone else rather than about the sexual act itself. I think in some cases it is mostly about dominating someone else, in other cases it's about indulging deviant lust and in other cases it's both. In cases where abuse is about having power then I can see why the complementarianism view might lend itself to that. If the headship of men is overemphasized then I think it can turn into men believing that they have the right to control and subdue anyone "under them," like women and children. Then some men exercise this perceived right in the form of abuse.

Ephesians 5:22 -33 says,

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,
30 because we are members of his body.
31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Ephesians 6:1-4 says
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
2 “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise),
3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”
4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

I think that Ephesians 5:22-24 and 6:1-3 are overemphasized to the detriment of the other verses. Equal attention needs to be given to verses 5: 25-33 and to 6:4. I think this would help keep things from shifting so far that some men believe they are supposed to dominate others.

[Robert]

I think that Ephesians 5:22-24 and 6:1-3 are overemphasized to the detriment of the other verses. Equal attention needs to be given to verses 5: 25-33 and to 6:4. I think this would help keep things from shifting so far that some men believe they are supposed to dominate others.

Good points. I wish I would have said it.

Oh wait. I have for the past 10 years here and 30 years other places!!

We agree. That scares me.

[Aurien]

I think that Ephesians 5:22-24 and 6:1-3 are overemphasized to the detriment of the other verses. Equal attention needs to be given to verses 5: 25-33 and to 6:4. I think this would help keep things from shifting so far that some men believe they are supposed to dominate others.

Good points. I wish I would have said it.

Oh wait. I have for the past 10 years here and 30 years other places!!

We agree. That scares me.

That is scary. I feel like I'm in my own personal horror movie!

[Josh]

Aslan,

Power and control are realities that cannot be escaped. They shouldn’t be abused, but trying to eliminate them is both foolhardy and also flies right against clear scripture.

Proper authority and hierarchy has checks and balances against abuse of power.

[Neto]

Thanks, OJ. I will now also read the Danvers Statement. This was written before I read your post.

So I quickly informed myself and can explain my thoughts quickly and thoroughly by quoting Tim Challies

The primary reason I am not egalitarian is because I believe the position fails to withstand serious biblical scrutiny. Certainly it can prevail on a popular or emotional level, but I see no way for it to overcome on a biblical level. The complexity of words like ezer and phrases like mutual submission are far more easily resolved by complementarians than “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” is for egalitarians. Paul’s appeals to Adam’s priority in the order of creation, the distinct male focus in the qualifications of an elder, the extended teaching on marriage in Ephesians 5, the deep mystery and metaphor within marriage—all of these provide challenges to the egalitarian position that I consider insurmountable.

Second to that, I am not egalitarian because complementarianism has proven itself to me.

https://www.challies.com/articles/why-i ... alitarian/
This really makes sense to me and describes my feeling.

I would suggest that full out egalitarianism would lend itself to all out abuse of any kind. A man with that outlook can easily fall into that trap. I have often been somewhat uncomfortable when old men teach young women in a wedding sermon how to be in proper submission to the husband while only mentioning the husband's role almost as an afterthought. I would think that too many Anabaptist leaders have adopted somewhat of an egalitarian approach which can help create the problems that we have been discussing and create the need to reform our culture.

I agree with your first part, and I definitely would be classified as a complementarian by those who use those terms (Evangelicals mostly, as was already stated here).
But I don't follow your reasoning in your last paragraph, and wonder if you mean to say that "full out complementarianism" could lend itself to abuse (as AslanHasHeard also says, in my understanding). I agree that it can be misused that way.
Like in Bill Cosby's comedy line from back in the 60's, where he told his wife "The Pope says you gotta' do it." That is an abusive attitude. And no, I do not think it is, or was, funny. It just exemplifies a misapplied complementarian view point. True Biblical complementarianism makes the man the guardian of his wife. But unfortunately that concept can also be misused, in forcing compliance in any disagreement between husband & wife. I will say here that I believe that God created woman to say 'yes', and any man who pressures any woman or girl to say 'yes' when she needs to say 'no' is violating her nature, and is also violating God's design for the man.

[Aurien]

Aslan,

Power and control are realities that cannot be escaped. They shouldn’t be abused, but trying to eliminate them is both foolhardy and also flies right against clear scripture.

Proper authority and hierarchy has checks and balances against abuse of power.

I was not talking about about eliminating the headship order. I was talking about focusing equally on all those scriptures in Ephesians instead of picking out the ones that tell wives to submit and children to obey.

[Hats Off]

Thanks, OJ. I will now also read the Danvers Statement. This was written before I read your post.

So I quickly informed myself and can explain my thoughts quickly and thoroughly by quoting Tim Challies

The primary reason I am not egalitarian is because I believe the position fails to withstand serious biblical scrutiny. Certainly it can prevail on a popular or emotional level, but I see no way for it to overcome on a biblical level. The complexity of words like ezer and phrases like mutual submission are far more easily resolved by complementarians than “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” is for egalitarians. Paul’s appeals to Adam’s priority in the order of creation, the distinct male focus in the qualifications of an elder, the extended teaching on marriage in Ephesians 5, the deep mystery and metaphor within marriage—all of these provide challenges to the egalitarian position that I consider insurmountable.

Second to that, I am not egalitarian because complementarianism has proven itself to me.

https://www.challies.com/articles/why-i ... alitarian/
This really makes sense to me and describes my feeling.

I would suggest that full out egalitarianism would lend itself to all out abuse of any kind. A man with that outlook can easily fall into that trap. I have often been somewhat uncomfortable when old men teach young women in a wedding sermon how to be in proper submission to the husband while only mentioning the husband's role almost as an afterthought. I would think that too many Anabaptist leaders have adopted somewhat of an egalitarian approach which can help create the problems that we have been discussing and create the need to reform our culture.

I agree with your first part, and I definitely would be classified as a complementarian by those who use those terms (Evangelicals mostly, as was already stated here).
But I don't follow your reasoning in your last paragraph, and wonder if you mean to say that "full out complementarianism" could lend itself to abuse (as AslanHasHeard also says, in my understanding). I agree that it can be misused that way.
Like in Bill Cosby's comedy line from back in the 60's, where he told his wife "The Pope says you gotta' do it." That is an abusive attitude. And no, I do not think it is, or was, funny. It just exemplifies a misapplied complementarian view point. True Biblical complementarianism makes the man the guardian of his wife. But unfortunately that concept can also be misused, in forcing compliance in any disagreement between husband & wife. I will say here that I believe that God created woman to say 'yes', and any man who pressures any woman or girl to say 'yes' when she needs to say 'no' is violating her nature, and is also violating God's design for the man.

Okay, i became a bit confused. I thought complementarianism to be so sound that I thought it was egalitarianism that posed the danger. On second reading, it is as you say, if we take complementarianism past where we should go, it becomes dangerous and can lead to abuse. I guess where I went wrong was in thinking that something so good could not go on to be a danger. However, so often, a things greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. So where I wrote egalitarian, I meant complementarian.

[Josh]

I was not talking about about eliminating the headship order. I was talking about focusing equally on all those scriptures in Ephesians instead of picking out the ones that tell wives to submit and children to obey.

The conservative Anabaptist church I am a member of, and the sister congregations I visit, regularly preach on these verses. It is also a frequent topic of discussion in Sunday school.

I have run into people with an unhealthy focus on obligations for women and children but who have no interest at all in a man's obligation to submit to church leadership, the brotherhood, the law, and won't listen to correction. In my experience, many of these people are actually perpetrators. And in a healthy church (which is what I consider my own church), many of them end up excommunicated for a while because they refuse to listen to their brethren. That's how a conservative Anabaptist church should be run.

[Robert]

And in a healthy church (which is what I consider my own church), many of them end up excommunicated for a while because they refuse to listen to their brethren. That's how a conservative Anabaptist church should be run.

How about internet forums?