Do you see what I see in that photo? I see a contract where a young woman agrees to be spiritually and emotionally abused, controlled, and manipulated. I can see NOTHING healthy or good coming from such a contract.
According to my friend, in the ceremony (yes...I said ceremony...ewww) that accompanies this covenant, the father signs under his column, the daughter signs under her column, the pastor signs at the bottom of the document, and then, the father places a ring on his daughter's finger. Yuuuuuuuuuck. THIS IS EMOTIONAL INCEST.
Daughters who decide at any point to take the ring off of their finger are brought before the pastor - I would guess essentially for "breach of contract" - and are generally considered sluts by their church community and family (when all they've done is taken a ring off their finger). What a beautiful picture of spiritual health and exactly what Christ had in mind when He envisioned His church! SA
What this "covenant" does is it takes away any and all potential freedom of the young woman forced - yes forced - to sign it. When the "choice" a young lady has is to either go through with this incestuous ceremony and sign this ridiculous contract or be ostracized by all in her world and be considered a slut, then I think I can safely use the word "forced". Don't you? Then, if and when the young woman ever determines, on her own, to critically examine all of this foolishness, this "covenant" and signed document is used against her as emotional and material leverage - and the spiritual leveraging (what with Jesus having witnessed it and all!), dear God help us. And it's all 99 and 44/100ths percent BS.
My ex wore one of these rings (I've no idea if she'd ever signed any kind of courtship contract). It was a big deal for her to make a gift to me of her "purity/promise ring" on our wedding night. While I value sexual purity, I'd have been a lot happier if she'd have honored the covenant that the ring I put on her finger represented. This WHOLE deal is SO hypocritical. I'd heard her dad go on and on about "honoring your commitments" (which I believe is a Gothard spiel), but apparently he's only concerned about honoring commitments that work out in his own favor - and the boundaries of these teachings definitely trickle down to the faithful subordinates - which ultimately rendered her as big a hypocrite as him. So much room for slithery snaky behavior in this whole stupid deal.
To any fathers who've made or are considering making your daughters do this...You ought to be ashamed of yourself for manipulating and controlling someone you should be nurturing into a healthy, autonomous adulthood.
To any pastors who have encouraged and officiated these ceremonies (and still do)...You suck at being a pastor. Stop. Now. Please.
Shame on you, Bill Gothard.
At some point, can you do a broad post on your issues with Gothard? I know my parents went to his seminars but I don't really know much about it. I know they loved it.
ReplyDeleteRebecca...A good place to do some reading would be at quiveringdaughters.com
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Cook has been posting some really good articles about the Gothard experience over there. A new piece every Tuesday.
Agreed. Love the Ivory insert.
ReplyDeleteRebecca. A great book to read about Billy Boy G. is "A Matter of Basic Principles" by Don and Joy Venoit along with Ron Henzel. I know Don and he is a thorough gentleman. The book not only exposes the fatal foundational flaws of god's...er...Billy Boy G's dogma, but it also exposes that the man himself is a complete hypocrite and worse. You know the type - do as I say not as I do.
You can find the book at http://www.midwestoutreach.org in the right hand column. Cheaper copies are on half.com but don't tell Don I told you that.
Anyway, you can also email Don and give him your phone number. He'll call and talk with you about any questions you have. As I said...good guy.
Gothard is the reason my (former) friend got married last fall at age 39 to a 44 year old man. First marriage for both. They'd been in love for 20 years, her parents said "wait, we don't have peace from God yet." The wedding was an exchange of property. They even had the GROOM'S mom stand up and state that she gives her permission and blessing for her 44 year old son to enter into this covenant. A good part of the marriage ceremony was listening to the father of the bride (a pseudo pastor) preach heavily about the joys of betrothal and the sin of divorce. I wanted to puke. When I wasn't laughing.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, a featured hymn, was Gothard's anthem "Trust and Obey."
Read the book mentioned above by my friend who knows the couple that I speak of, and who has read the book that I have read, and has seen the glory on the other side of gothard-ism as I have :)
LOL at your last comment!
ReplyDeleteLewis, I've loved your blog and never had the time to comment. I escaped Gothardism 16 years ago after a failed courtship. (To say it failed doesn't really describe it....more like it blew up in my face.) Afterward, I was asked to join the staff at headquarters. (I had been on staff at Indy) I didn't feel a peace about that and left the organization completely.
I remember sitting in my room at Indy with my girlfriends listening to Jonathan Lindvall's series on betrothal and thinking it was just SO romantic! I totally drank the Kool-aid! And for many years after my exit, I believed that courtship didn't work for me because MY family was so screwed up...unlike the other ATI families who were PERFECT!
Thank you for your courage to speak out! Your blog and others like it have brought a great deal of healing to me.
Jill. If the other side of Gothardism is being a food snob, as you are, I want no part of it!!!! j/k, btw...
ReplyDeleteYes. I was told that my mother was asked if I had repented of my sins yet (not sure what those were - probably that I didn't ask her permission to marry my awesome bride). I assume she did not answer to the affirmative because I later found out I was NOT invited to the wedding. I cried my eyes out. LOL!
Anyway, they're pretty lucky I wasn't because I would have made a flippin' scene.
What I thought was pretty hilarious is that I was not asked if I had repented but rather, my mother was. Huh?
Finally, the sad part is, at that age, child bearing is not a good idea - if that is what the woman wants. What a pathetic waste. And, if you knew the half of the background of this woman's mental imbalances due to his control (his wife was not blameless either), you would puke until you have nothing left but weeks of dry heaves.
Example: Her brother (whom has since broken free) was told by this girl that she was going to commit suicide because she hadn't been able to marry her lover for 10+ years at the time. So, her brother went to tell their parents. Their response to the son: "You need to repent of your rebellion." What the...???!!!!
'nuff said.
The brother that broke free is our very dear friend. He stays with us when in town. We are so glad to be on the right side of things.
ReplyDeleteLewis, you'd spend a good number of evenings shuddering over this really sad and sick family. They take BG's stuff and make it look like preschool. I ache for their circle of influence.
Oddly, they were kicked out of Gothard/ATI world for being to extreme. Hard to imagine.
While I didn't sign a contract, I had a weird special "date" with my dad where he gave me a pearl and diamond purity necklace and I committed to remaining "pure". I was 13 and I barely knew what remaining "pure" meant, and I felt uncomfortable with the whole situation and commitment, but what could I say? I certainly couldn't say no, and my dad obviously had loving intentions, but I remember as he put the necklace around my neck thinking that it was unlikely that this promise would be kept. (and it wasn't, and I lost the necklace)
ReplyDeleteMy brush with Gothardism was brief and merely a brush, my parents only sipped the kool-aid, but I did have a courtship, and wow, I can tell you that our marriage is super-screwed up thanks to it.
I've been reading the tragic saga of your relationship, and it's so familiar. While my dad wasn't/isn't an ass like her father, the culture I was in when I was courting my now husband is much the same and I'm so sad that things turned out so heartbreakingly for you. I'm just glad to be out, with my husband in tow, as damaged as we are, we are together, and thankfully he's not a patriarchal asshole - just like you, it was just me, sucking him into the patriarchy vortex while he was looking around going "what the hell?".
What I am wondering is how Gothardites can explain that on a contract between a father and daughter, the daughter promises to keep herself pure for her husband. In what way is their relationship connected to her purity? Unless of course they see women as being property of their fathers and husbands and their sexuality as worth. Or unless they see fathers are surrogate husbands. Either is very messed up.
ReplyDeleteI've got a lot of Gothard materials that maybe I'll send to people I dislike. Lifetime of bondage anyone?
ReplyDeleteOh, it's ALL messed up, Anna. Unless you're a man at the top of pyramid in your particular fiefdom, everyone else is tremendously devalued.
ReplyDeleteHer father and his patriarchal buddies treated my ex like she was a piece of meat up for auction, to be given to the bidder who most willingly jumped through whatever assortment of hoops their deviant minds came up with. The patriarse even once told me that "I think we're all looking in the same direction here, just for now, I might expect you to jump through a few hoops." Yep. The paradigm encourages sociopathy.
i can also recommend the documentary "Daddy I Do" that delves more deeply into the whole thing *shudder*. i was given a copy by the company [i mentor - or did, until this last surgery - teens. and sometimes work closely with their parents, and have showed some the doc...].
ReplyDeletehttp://jayebirdproductions.com/daddyido.html
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteThis is very wrong. You should not be dishonoring or attacking other people for their ways of attempting to protect their daughters. This is not inherently evil in and of itself. The Bible says we are to honor all men, and to let your blog be a center of attacking courtship and the Biblical principles to finding a mate is sinful. You should not be spreading your grudge and issue with these people to everyone else. I hope you will reconsider this stuff.
@Spencer -
ReplyDeleteI hardly think that Lewis is "spreading his grudge and issue with these people to everyone else." I was forced to live the lifestyle that Lewis speaks out against and I can honestly say that I take issue with it without Lewis needing to "spread his grudge and issue."
The way the patriarchal, quiverfull and fundamentals push courtship and their "biblical principles to finding a mate" is what's sinful. Lewis is simply exposing the sin and hypocrisy in it and THAT is what's biblical.
I hope that you'll take some honest looks at all of this and that YOU will reconsider it.
Lewis - all of this stuff gives me the heeby jeebies. It's all so sick and twisted and perverted.
ReplyDeleteSo, Lewis, I'm curious now. How did your ex's daddy justify her breeching her vows to you? If they consider a girl who takes off her 'purity' ring a slut, then what do they call a wife who takes off her wedding ring? Did they do the 'Catholic' thing and decide that the marriage was null, void as if it didn't happen?
ReplyDeleteI know these people design loopholes to cover their own inconsistencies, so I'd like to hear what they came up with for this one.
Cindy@Baptist Taliban Memoirs
Spencer,
ReplyDeleteLewis is confronting sin. Yes, that's right...SIN. Because all of this crap, all of these false teachings that place themselves above the knowledge of God, he is tearing down with the truth. (see 2 Cor. 10:3-7) As long as the simplicity of Jesus' gospel is being trampled upon by these people and their false teachings, we will not sit down, shut up, or stop fighting against them with Truth. As long as people are in bondage to these lies, we will not reconsider. As long as people turn their back on God because they think that these teachings represent the God who loves them, we will not reconsider. No one here is fighting against people. If only we were, perhaps our battle would be easier. No, we're fighting something much more diabolical than mere people. Lewis is one of many that are shining a light on a dark place that has stayed dark for far too long. Perhaps you should not be so quick to try and snuff his light out. You just might be mistaken for a friend of that dark.
Hey Spencer, I feel for you. Really, I do! One part of me wants to throw my head back and guffaw at the buzz word filled comment you posted, but my reaching side is getting the better of me.
ReplyDeleteTry coming to the Scriptures from a different perspective. Look at the Bible as a tool to see who Christ is going to be and why (OT) and the revelation of who Christ is, was, and will be, and of course, is currently. Then, study the way the Holy Spirit works in our lives.
That should give you a good start on realizing the realities of true Christianity. What is true Christianity? I am convinced that we can look at it through the eyes of Jesus Christ and come to the simple conclusion that he summed it all up for us as love God like you haven't loved a freakin' thing - ever!...and love others man!
Oh, as long as were looking to Jesus for our marching orders - let's look at how he put the beat down on some temple peeps. Yeah...he pretty much kicked the living daylights out of them (ok, maybe he didn't hit them, but who knows?). Somehow, those evildoers got the message that this man with no temple authority should be obeyed and they got the heck out of the temple.
That doesn't sound like not attacking, does it?
And finally, once you come to a truer understanding of real Christianity, understand this very simple point: "Biblical Principles" is a swear word. Don't believe me? Try studying Jesus' treatment of those who were the best at following what they perceived as "Biblical Principles." Its hogwash to look at the Bible as a rule book. That was NOT what it was written for.
Finally, as a father of four daughters, I can see first hand that the way this man treated Lewis' ex is not protection of his daughters - its protection of his way of life. I know. I've lived it. I was immersed in it for 19 years of my life. I'm ready to throw out the evildoers...you?
Oh...and Jesus said we should tie a millstone around the neck of any loser who messes with little children? I think exposing them is probably a better solution. Don't you? If not, you tell me the time and place and we'll practice these "Principles" together.
I love that you clarify that the Bible is not a rulebook, because it is all-too-often treated as one. Here is my question though- how WOULD you define it? A guidebook, perhaps?
DeleteI'm not IC, but if I may answer..."Supplement" is the word and application I use.
DeleteDear Spenser,
ReplyDeleteYou are very wrong. Bill Gothard should not be teaching men to dishonor their wives or attack other people who do not believe it is right for fathers to enslave their daughters. His twisting of God's Word is inherently evil in and of itself. The Bible says we are to submit ourselves one to another, as unto the Lord. This means husbands submitting unto their wives. Lewis's blog is a center of warning others about the evils of courtship, the principles of which are found in a group of cherry-picked verses scattered throughout the Bible. You should not be spreading your issues with Lewis on his blog. I hope you will reconsider your words.
Dear Spencer...I reconsidered it for all of about five seconds, and, I'm going to keep utterly blasting it. I don't take guilt-trips. The road's too bumpy for me.
ReplyDeleteI'd advise you to wear a seatbelt on future visits.
Cindy...They never tried to justify it. They'd just change the subject. Total hypocrites. I wish I knew what their justification was.
ReplyDeleteTrust me when I say I tried every approach and applied every standard...even to throwing their own legalism right back on them in spades. I suppose it only applied to me. I have absolutely no answers.
One part of me wants to throw my head back and guffaw at the buzz word filled comment you posted, but my reaching side is getting the better of me.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad someone else noticed the buzzword-laden comment.
Spencer...It's a surefire giveaway that you're in a cultic movement or cultic system of belief when your lexicon is founded on buzzwords. There are at least a half dozen, at a quick glance, buzzwords or buzzphrases in that one paragraph you wrote.
If you took the buzzwords and phrases out of your comment, it'd look a lot like the Vision Forum mission statement if you took out the authoritarianisms.
I hope you'll think about that. Long and hard.
Oh, Cindy, her grandpa did refer to our relationship as "just an emotional thing" for her (something I'll get into near the end of the story), so they probably came at it from the "null and void" view now that I think about it. That remark from her grandfather, though, was as close to a justification as I ever heard, and the patriarse did try to throw Numbers 30 at me once - proving he didn't really know what it says.
ReplyDeleteBut, really, I never got even a marginally below-average attempt at an explanation on it. Snakes that they are, they'd change the subject and make a new lie the truth.
Lewis. All this time you've been telling us he was a Christian and only NOW we discover he was actually Jewish? Hmmmm...
ReplyDeleteSeriously though: Guess he didn't want to obey Numbers 29. All that killin' and stuff. Can sure tire a guy out. And, of course, HIMSELF is what matters most.
Its amusing watching someone twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why we need to follow the law, but not the ceremonial law, and then act like they can easily separate the two. Not to mention, explaining what Galatians has to do with it all.
With regards to protecting our daughter-- I would hope that we would be raising her to be fully able to protect herself from "unqualified men." When she is old enough to marry, if she needs anyone else to screen the candidates, then we have failed in raising her to be a full, self-responsible adult. Which is supposed to be the goal of parenting.
ReplyDeleteWhen she is old enough to marry, if she needs anyone else to screen the candidates, then we have failed in raising her to be a full, self-responsible adult.
ReplyDeleteTrue...and she has no business being in any kind of serious relationship.
And, the funny thing to me is, monkeys will sooner fly out of someone's posterior than "Biblical principles" will be demonstrated in the contract pictured above, the accompanying ceremony, or the ostracization and abuse of a young woman who refuses the contract or ceremony...unless "slavery" is the "Biblical principle" relied on.
ReplyDeleteAh, buzzwords. I remember in my former marriage having buzzwords thrown at me left and right from the inlaws. So many, so fast, it was so hard to argue when they sounded so godly, especially for a young girl trying to do what is right. But I was never quite good enough, so those buzzwords got turned against me. I remember a particular evening where it was actually going in stereo. XFatherinlaw talking about my rebellious unsubmissive behavior while his wife screamed" Obey your covenant head! Obey, your covenant head!" repeatedly in the background. Good times, good times..... yeah, no. I reflexively cringe whenever I speak to someone who can't have a conversation without using Christianese.
ReplyDeleteIt's a little scary out here without all the rules and regulations but the opportunity to learn about Christ and who He really is as opposed to what someone else wants Him to be is so worth it.
Re:Post Topic - If my daughter ever brings one of those papers home from her dad's I might just blow a gasket. So gross.
It is very hard to come out of the darkness of that life and then pick up your Bible. Every single Scripture that has been twisted, misquoted, and taught out of context is burned in your brain.
ReplyDeleteIt should be a joy to read Romans, or Hebrews, or 1 Peter, but instead, you can hear the voice on the screen, see the words in the Red Notebook, and remember how you were taught to apply them to your life for "lasting success."
It has taken a while to learn to love Jesus for Who He is, and love His Word for the purity of what it is.
We all need to encourage people like Spencer, while calling him to the carpet as you've done here. There's a lot of love in the Body of Christ, and a lot of joy in the Bible. Just think of the testimony someone like him could have if he escapes the bondage of all this.
Keep on, Lewis. We're all in your corner :)
I appreciate your thoughts, and I'm sorry for those of you who have had to suffer wrongdoing and mishandling of these things. However, the abuse of a truth never negates the truth in and of itself. Also, how is "Biblical principles" a swear word? I think it wise to explain such accusations.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not about "enslaving our daughters" but about protecting them from the evils of the devil. This was the very nature of the fall, Eve left her head and was quickly deceived and fell to Satan's wiles. To deny the fact that young people need the wisdom and guidance of their parents and elders is very unscriptural, and I would be interested to see you prove that wrong from the Scriptures.
Spencer, if this "covenant" was between a child (MALE included) and their parents (MOTHER included), and if the contract wasn't so perverse (like, if the kid just promised to wait until marriage, and the parents only promised to pray for a suitable suitor for their child), then it would be okay. But that isn't the case, and it isn't okay.
DeleteIt's not about proving the need to have solid counselors in one's life being proven "unscriptural", Spencer. It's the idea that the young woman is to remain "under the authority" of her father until marriage, regardless of age. At that point, we're getting into domination, manipulation, control, and lording - and people who believe in this stuff are doing a whole heck of a lot of speaking where the bible doesn't. You're also negating the role and power of the Holy Spirit with the lives of individuals, and HIS counsel certainly would supersede that of a parent or elder, wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteThe irony is, in speaking where the bible doesn't, you're challenging me/us to disprove, biblically, something the bible never "proves" in the first place. You're speaking of "truth" as if it's something you've proven, emphatically, rather than presupposed, which is in fact what's been done.
Do you believe women are under the "curse of Eve"?
This was the very nature of the fall, Eve left her head and was quickly deceived and fell to Satan's wiles.
I can only hope you're being facetious here, because our boy Adam didn't come out so good on that deal either, and the only "head" he proved to be was a lunkhead. Presuppositions aren't "truth".
Also, you had several more buzzwords and phrases in your comment again.
This was the very nature of the fall, Eve left her head and was quickly deceived and fell to Satan's wiles.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at this a bit deeper...At the time of the fall, what scripture are you basing your idea that Adam was Eve's "head" on? Order of creation? Eve was created as an equal to accompany Adam, since nothing else in creation proved Adam's equal and suitable to accompany him. You've completely presupposed that Eve was "under the authority" of Adam. The bible tells you no such thing. Nor would any of the Apocrypha which deals with creation.
Order of creation doesn't equate to "headship" or superiority, either. Michael Jordan wasn't the first basketball player created. There were millions before him. Didn't stop him from being superior to them all, either.
Any system of belief that dwells, overwhelmingly, on who has authority over whom is a cult.
"To deny the fact that young people need the wisdom and guidance of their parents and elders is very unscriptural."
ReplyDeleteWho is denying that? What we're denying is not that a young person should seek good counsel. What we're denying is that she should be under someone else's control. Read 1 Cor 7:28. Is there anything written there about "if a father marries his daughter to a man, he does not sin"? No, it says, "If a virgin marries, she does not sin." It also doesn't say, "If a virgin marries with her father's permission, she does not sin."
"Eve left her head and was quickly deceived and fell to Satan's wiles."
Show me where the Bible says that. It doesn't. It never calls Adam her "head." It never says she "left" him. It never says she was deceived because of being out from under Adam's authority. It never says Adam had any authority over Eve before the Fall. All of that is reading words into the passage that aren't there.
I can explain the "Biblical Principles as swear word" statement.
ReplyDeleteGothard's ministry and entire existence is built around biblical principles. He takes 'ideas' or 'implications' or 'history' from the Bible, and turns them into his 'principles' which he then defines are non-optional and therefore must be obeyed as holy commands directly from God. And ultimately makes it an issue of sin vs. righetousness.
I haven't seen in Scripture where I need to meditate in order for God to be pleased with me. I don't see meditation a command, and failure to do so being counted as sin in need of repentence and forgiveness. I also don't see a list of steps in Scripture that I must follow in order to meditate "enough" to be good enough and please God enough.
Same with the 'principle' of authority. He leaves it wide open to include ALL children of any age, and under any type of parent, whether they are of sound mind and pure heart, or completely off their rockers. Where, oh where, is the chapter and verse that tells us this principle?
When an idea or story from the Bible becomes a command from a man, that is to be obeyed as unto the Lord at any cost, and is accompanied by a list of steps to complete, and is served up with a dose of the idea that we can gain favor with God and man if we do it all in the right order and with a cheerful smile . . . .
THAT'S when "Biblical Principles" becomes a swear word.
Beautifully stated, Jill.
ReplyDeleteThese people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
Exactly. They take a principle from the Bible such as "seek good counsel" or "honor your father and mother" and set up a whole manmade process and say, "this is what the obtaining of counsel must look like," or "this is what honoring your parents (although they really mean just the father, the mother is left out to all intents and purposes) must entail."
ReplyDeleteIt's law, not grace. And if you try to live under it too long, you'll come out smelling as bad as it does. I know. I did.
PS. And then when you challenge their manmade process, they claim you're challenging the Scripture itself. It's a bait-and-switch, and Spencer, you're buying into it hook, line and sinker.
ReplyDeleteLewis, you are saying that women remaining under the authority of their parents until marriage is getting into “domination, manipulation, and control.” Do you have scriptural basis for this? I see a lot of opinions and comments being made as absolute truth, but not a lot of scripture being put forth to support those views, which is something I was being accused of. I’m not sure what you are referring to when you say “something the Bible never proves in the first place.” What are you looking for?
ReplyDeleteAs far as Eve goes, Paul clearly tells us that Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Adam willingly chose his wife over God, whereas Eve literally believed Satan that she would become wiser. This in no wise “puts down women” but only shows from the Scriptures the different sinful tendencies between men and women. Men will choose something they know will never work simply because it (in this case) has their heart. Women are more easily deceieved by Satan than men are. Two different sinful tendencies, and both needing the blood of Jesus to deliver them from it. I’m also unsure as to your coments about Adam not being Eve’s head. That is completely contrary to the whole of Scripture. The very institution of marriage is that where God created a head (the man) and a helper (the woman). The creation itself is proof enough that anything with two heads is a monster. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 11:3 that the head of the woman is the man. This is not some evil patriarchial notion, but something right out of Scripture that has been true since the beginning of time, including Adam and Eve. To deny this is to deny the Scriptures. In conclusion, the Bible does call Adam Eve’s head.
“Any system of belief that dwells, overwhelmingly, on who has authority over whom is a cult.” First of all, to quote your statement, “You're speaking of "truth" as if it's something you've proven, emphatically, rather than presupposed, which is in fact what's been done.” And secondly, can you back this up from the scriptures? What is your definition of “dwelling overwhelmingly on who has authority over whom” ? It is not wise to make big statements and hold them as absolute truth, without backing them up Biblically.
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry you feel I am buying into this hook line and sinker Kirsten, but I believe these are very clear Scriptural principles I am standing by here, and I am curious to see them proven wrong. Again, the abuses of a truth or truths never give anyone license to throw the entire thing out and make claims that are not even in line with the Bible.
Spencer -
ReplyDeleteFrom CBE: "Both Adam and Eve knew not to eat the fruit (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:2), both disobeyed (3:6), and both were held responsible (Gen. 3:15-22). Nothing in the text suggests that the fall happened because Eve attempted to take authority over Adam. Also, nothing in the text suggests that Adam had authority over Eve before the fall. The snake challenged God’s authority, not the man’s (Gen. 3). The narrative makes it clear that the sin was disobedience to God (Gen. 3:11)."
Here's the link to the rest of the article:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/genesis-1-3
I would highly recommend you read this.
And here's another one that goes into the Hebrew and proves from the Hebrew text that God created man and woman as equals and not as a man as "head" and woman as "helper."
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/ezerkenegdo.htm
Spencer, God is frequently called Israel's "help" throughout the Old Testament, using exactly the same word ("ezer") used of Eve. Does this mean Isreal is the head and God is the helper? I think not.
ReplyDeleteYou said anything with two heads is a monster-- but that's exactly what your doctrines give women. She has two heads (by which you mean "rulers" or "masters"), her husband and Christ. Jesus said no one can serve two masters. But that's what you will have women doing.
Look again at the passage in 1 Cor 11 about "man" being the "head" of "woman." Read the whole passage, in context. The passage is all about the sources or origins of things. "Head" here means "origin." Man is the origin of woman because she was taken out of man-- but Paul mitigates any assumption of superiority that that might entail by insisting that ever since, woman has been the origin of man, through childbirth. But, Paul finishes, God is the Origin of all of us.
If you are buying into the idea that "get good counsel" and "honor your father and mother" entails the "courtship" pattern now used in patriarchalist churches, you are indeed buying into the bait and switch. What the Bible speaks of in general principles is being turned into systems of law. I am not throwing out "get good counsel" or "honor your father and mother." I am throwing out courtship and the mastery of women by men. And I do it without regret or apology, for these things are not of God.
Kristen - I was going to go into the 1Cor. 11 passage but you beat me to it. :)
ReplyDeleteSpencer...You've been shown that your idea about the fall (Eve operating out from under her "head") is, well, absolute presupposition and total bull - utterly and completely extra-biblical, yet you refuse to move away from the idea. Yes, you've bought into something unhealthy and extra-biblical hook, line, and sinker.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe I need to "prove" to you, scripturally, that a woman is to remain under the authority of her parents, regardless of age, until marriage - then prove to me that the scriptures demand and command this of them. It doesn't. I can't disprove something from scripture when that something doesn't exist in the first place. What I can do, and DID do, is show you where you have no scripture to support what you consider "Biblical principle" where no biblical principle exists.
If you refuse to acknowledge that the concept that, I believe I can safely guess, MUCH of your idea about gender and authority is based on isn't based on either scriptural command OR even an accurate and, heck, even literal, reading of scriptural account, then there's really nothing left to say. Eve was created as Adam's equal. There's no gray area in the scripture concerning that.
I'm curious...Do you have a daughter(s)? If your daughter refused to go through with the contract process in this post, and refused, as an adult, to allow you to sign off on her life decisions, particularly that concerning her husband, would you treat her as if she were "in sin" or rebellion? The bible is silent on such an issue - apart from speaking about those who wrongly attempt to lord over others, and apart from those who meddle and officiate in affairs not their own (even including that group in a list with murderers, thieves, and all sorts of scallywags).
If you removed the human authority structures you've bought into, would there be anything left of your faith? Would it alter who your Jesus is?
Those things could be a HUGE problem.
What is your definition of “dwelling overwhelmingly on who has authority over whom” ? It is not wise to make big statements and hold them as absolute truth, without backing them up Biblically.
My definition?...Gothardism. Vision Forum. Patriocentricity. The entire P/QF paradigm.
Jesus had some very direct words to his disciples about dwelling on authority...and how it was not to be so among them. Peter also had some very direct writing and warnings about the exercise of "power" among real and perceived leaders. But, if you took away the whole "umbrella of authority" concept from Gothard's teaching, he'd have nothing left to teach. It's the foundation. Same could be said of VF and most other authoritarian fundamentalist groups.
Only cults seek to control. Spiritually and emotionally unhealthy.
I’m also unsure as to your coments about Adam not being Eve’s head. That is completely contrary to the whole of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteWhat??? It absolutely ISN'T contrary to the account of Adam and Eve. The "whole of scripture", most of which deals with AFTER the fall, had diddly squat to do with what to perfect and equal creations did in the Garden of Eden.
The idea that women are more easily deceived is an ignorant one, and really had little to do with whatever Paul was saying in that passage. If women are the "weaker" vessel because of their emotional tendencies, yet we say that Adam sinned because Eve had his "heart", just which of the two is the weakest emotional sex? Self-defeating argument.
The very institution of marriage is that where God created a head (the man) and a helper (the woman).
Gross, gross misreading of the scriptures, considering that God created them both as equals.
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Men will choose something they know will never work simply because it (in this case) has their heart. Women are more easily deceieved by Satan than men are. Two different sinful tendencies, and both needing the blood of Jesus to deliver them from it.
ReplyDeleteEverything in this that preceeded your last comma is ridiculous and is total presupposition.
The scriptures are RIFE with COUNTLESS examples of men being totally hoodwinked by Satan - often leading to the deaths of a lot of people.
ReplyDeleteSpencer - Are you willing to tell us your age, marital status, and children? It would help greatly to know if you are a teen or young adult still under your parents. And are you a Gothard follower or graduate? Or do you learn from Vision Forum? What level of influence do both or either of these organizaitons have in your life?
ReplyDeleteI'll start - I am a 43 year old woman, married for almost 20 years, and a mom to 6 kids ages 4-15. We were deep into Gothard, went to a Gothard church, and followed the plan, for about 15 years. We got out fully about 2 years ago. Neither my husband nor I were raised in this culture - we were wooed into it when I came to Christ 2 years after we married.
It's helpful for us to have a frame of reference.
And, do you have a Scripture that says that adult children are under the authority of their parents until they marry?
Since this movement tends to lean heavily on the OT, it is interesting to note that God uses the "age" 20 and over many many times to describe what seems to be adulthood within the nation of Israel. Since they count a child to be one year old at birth, that brings the age to 19 for our present reference.
What say you?
This post and discussion is almost alarmingly relevant to my post on QD that's coming out tomorrow. I've been working on it for quite a while before, so the timing is interesting. All I'll say at the moment is that it has lots and lots of Scripture in it. Unlike the "doctrines of demons" (oops, a hint!) pictured above.
ReplyDeleteEric...When you post it, please put a link here in the comment thread for us...and also, over on the Water Cooler, if you don't mind.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to reading it.
I was always taught that, once I left the warm wings of Billy Boy G., that I would be out in the land of lawlessness and chaos. After reading through all the responses to Spencer, whom spits out the dogmatic prevarications of patriarchy as good as any I've ever seen (though has a bit of foot in mouth disease), I see that there is actually unity in the real Jesus Christ. Its quite refreshing that the supposed demonic hell we are all supposed to be living in has actually turned out to be a free and vibrant form of life.
ReplyDeleteI will qualify this by saying that it is obvious that all external to patriarchy peeps do not think alike and that is sweet as honey on a hummingbird's left leg.
You all did a great job with Spencer. I confess, my initial reaction was to picture a very earnest teenager/young adult and think, "Ohhhhh, sweetie..."
ReplyDeleteWow.
ReplyDeleteOne misses out on a lot when one is gone for a day.
I'll add my vote to the rest.
This stuff is sick, sick, sick.
I have clearly showed you from the Scriptures how God clearly established man is the head of the woman, and you have denied that. If 1 Cor 11 does not mean what it says, what word should God have used if he wanted to tell you that the head of the woman is the man? Apparently, saying that directly is not good enough for you. How does Gen 1:27 in any way shape or form prove that men and women are equal? It says that he created them male and female, and you are inserting your presuppositions into the text to prove what you want it to mean.
ReplyDeleteYou have also denied the importance of the OT in your doctrine. Whenever Jesus was asked a question in the gospels, what was his response? “Have ye never read”? and then he would refer back to the OT. Yet your line of reasoning does not allow for this. You deny the relativity and imperativity of the OT on NT Christians. Yet this was the essence of Christ’s ministry himself. He preached from an OT. It was the only Bible he had. The Bereans in Acts 17 were said to be searching the scriptures to see whether those things were so (after hearing the preaching of Paul and Silas). What scriptures were they searching? The Old Testament. There was no NT around. So your very premise goes against the tenant of the NT.
There was a comment made about how the passage in Gen 3 had nothing to do with Eve taking authority from Adam. Yet that is beside the point, and something that I never said. The point is, Eve was deceived, as the Bible clearly tells us. Adam was not deceived. The Bible also clearly tells us this. There is a difference there, and to deny this difference between men and women is to close your eyes to scripture.
Jesus also tells us in Matthew 24:38 “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,”. Note the phrase “marrying and giving in marriage.” Who did this? It was the fathers. Who started this practice? The Lord himself. He gave Eve to Adam, and Adam himself believed and confessed this: Genesis 3:12 “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” In essence, it appears quite evident that you have quite an issue with the order God has ordained in creation. If you cannot accept the fact that God has ordained Christ as the head of every man, and man to be the head of the woman as Scripture clearly tells us, you have an issue with the Lord, not with me.
Also, the history and track record of our nation is against what you are saying. The rampant divorce rate in our country today has nothing to do with parents jumping into their children’s lives and trying to control them, but with the exact opposite. Young people following your advice to a T and cultivating rebellion within themselves and running off and doing as they please. I do not deny that there are parents out there who misuse and yea even abuse their authority, but the majority of parents in our culture and nation today are doing the exact opposite and we are seeing the fruits of that today. Your teachings would have been thrown out as nonsense 100 years ago with saved or lost people. Encouraging young people to throw off their parents and do as they please once they hit 18 is found nowhere in the pages of Scripture. You find no one in the Scriptures that ever did such a thing and was blessed by God. We see an example of this in Gen chap 34 where Jacob’s daughter Dinah went out to see the daughters of the land and disaster struck and her brothers were furious. What Scriptural examples do you have to support your case? I have yet to see any scripture in your arguments. You have put forth your own opinions and held them as absolute truth without any scriptural basis for it, and used abuses of the truth to prove your case. This is very unsound reasoning. Matt 15:9 and Mark 7:7 do not address or support half of the opinions you have stated here.
So many thoughts swirling around.
ReplyDeleteA written, SIGNED, contractual document is just one more burden heaped on the backs of the young and the innocent. Even if this "agreement" was the conviction of a particular family, why make it so formal, so legal-like?
We don't even have signed commitments between ourselves and our Saviour who was tortured, betrayed, and murdered in our place.
Rather, we have the letter of the Spirit, not the letter of the law.
A good father doesn't need a document to 'protect' his daughter. A daughter interested in serving, loving and obeying the Lord doesn't need a practice-marriage agreement between herself and her father.
This is a blindfold to grace.
Spencer...Your last comment showed up in my spam folder (that happens from time to time to various commenters for no apparent reason). My apologies. Once I saw it there, I moved it here.
ReplyDeleteI have clearly showed you from the Scriptures how God clearly established man is the head of the woman, and you have denied that.
1st Corinthians, written after the fall, has absolutely nothing to do with the dynamic between two perfect and equal creations BEFORE the fall. Aside from the fact that I disagree with your literal reading of the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 (for instance, do you also agree with Paul that nature itself suggests the shame in a man having long hair?...because nature sure doesn't), it simply has nothing to do with any hierarchy in the Garden.
Nothing in the scripture teaches, or even suggests, that Eve was created to be a subordinate to Adam.
You're reading a whole heck of a lot into the scriptures, and doing exactly what others have been trying to warn you of - taking descriptions of ancient, pagan cultures (which just happen to be mentioned, often in passing, in the bible) and making them "biblical" prescriptions for Christian living as if the bible actually teaches those things. That's a slippery slope that could have us back in concubines and slavery and God only knows what else - if we chose the descriptive as prescriptive.
I wrote a piece which just barely begins to scratch the surface of religious addiction a couple of months back. If you're interested in reading...
http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/02/imbibling.html
What you SHOULD be comparing are your own views on authority with those of Christ.
Just trust Christ...and trust the Holy Spirit within you - and within your children. Legalism is just bondage.
Encouraging young people to throw off their parents and do as they please once they hit 18 is found nowhere in the pages of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteThat is perhaps one of the worst misrepresentations of this blog and its content that I've ever read. I don't really appreciate it.
You have put forth your own opinions and held them as absolute truth without any scriptural basis for it, and used abuses of the truth to prove your case.
Kinda hard to abuse "truth". When used in an abusive manner, it's moved into an area other than truth. In the course of writing here on this blog, I've used no shortage of scripture as either a reference for or basis for what I've written...and I've gone out of my way to avoid prooftexting.
If you can't see how Matthew 15:9 applies to, frankly, the majority of what you're saying and promoting, we're simply just gonna talk past each other continually. If the scriptures don't TEACH, COMMAND, or INSTRUCT it, yet men do...descriptive/prescriptive...commandments of men speaking where God is silent.
You find no one in the Scriptures that ever did such a thing and was blessed by God. We see an example of this in Gen chap 34 where Jacob’s daughter Dinah went out to see the daughters of the land and disaster struck and her brothers were furious. What Scriptural examples do you have to support your case? I have yet to see any scripture in your arguments.
I hear about Dinah a lot, but very little about Tamar.
We also have no scriptural examples of our eternity in heaven, but most of us believe in as much. Only promises. Sometimes we have to walk by faith where the bible is silent, following the leadership of the Holy Spirit (particularly since it was the Holy Spirit, not the "bible", that Christ promised to send to us as a comfort and guide), and sometimes we just have to use the good sense the Holy Spirit gives us.
Since you give so much weight to the OT and the Law, you should read the application of Numbers 30 as described in the Misnah.
Really, Spencer, you're making no argument that the majority of us haven't heard a million times before - with all of the same buzzwords, same examples (Dinah), and same elevation of ancient pagan cultural practices into "biblical principle". Be sure you're doing your own thinking.
Spencer: "Jesus also tells us in Matthew 24:38 “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,”. Note the phrase “marrying and giving in marriage.” Who did this? It was the fathers."
ReplyDeleteErm... Spencer, it is VERY unwise to hold up the actions of people in the day of Noah as an example to follow...
Spencer, you mention women being more easily deceived. First, where is there a place in the bible that says that, exactly? Second, what do you make of Sampson being deceived and tricked by Delilah, or the whole deception that Jacob pulled over Isaac (all males) per the hairy arm and the stolen birthright? Oh, and did Tamar not deceive her father-in-law? Let's see, I am thinking men are more easily deceived because there appear to be more instances of men being deceived in the bible than women.....hmmmm. (and there are more examples if you just begin looking and reading.)
ReplyDeleteSpencer: Encouraging young people to throw off their parents and do as they please once they hit 18 is found nowhere in the pages of Scripture. You find no one in the Scriptures that ever did such a thing and was blessed by God.
ReplyDeleteGod curse people for following their fathers: Luk 11:47-48 Woe unto you! for ye build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. So ye are witnesses and consent unto the works of your fathers: for they killed them, and ye build their tombs.
People are saved by God from following their fathers: 1Pe 1:18 being aware that not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, were you ransomed from your vain behavior, handed down by tradition from the fathers,
From reading the above, God can bless throwing off your father's ways.
Spencer said:
ReplyDelete"If you cannot accept the fact that God has ordained Christ as the head of every man, and man to be the head of the woman as Scripture clearly tells us, you have an issue with the Lord, not with me."
You claim that your interpretation is what "Scripture clearly tells us." Look again. 1 Cor 11:3: "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." First of all, so you see the word "ordained" there? Is there any word in that passage that even remotely means "ordained"? There is not. This is given as a statement of fact, not of God's ordination. You have already added something that isn't in the text, and claimed that it's the very truth of God.
Secondly, if this were really teaching a heirarchy of rulership as you claim, why is it not in order? Why does it not say, "God is the head of Christ, and Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman"? Paul is using a different order here, and thus it is very unlikely that he's talking about an order of heirarchy of rule.
Secondly, "authority over" was simply not a standard meaning of the word "head" in ancient Greek. Not every language takes the word meaning "that thing on top of your neck" and adds the same metaphorical meanings to it. The word for "head" in modern French doesn't carry the meaning "authority over" either. In ancient Greek, the most common metaphorical meaning of "head" was "origin."
You are carrying a modern English meaning of a word back into an ancient text and superimposing it as if this were a memo from the boss left on your desk yesterday, and not a letter written by the Apostle Paul in the first century, halfway around the world in a different language and culture. Paul told Timothy to "rightly divide" the word of truth. Imposing modern meanings of words over the top of the text is not rightly dividing it.
Making your interpretation equivalent to God's meaning, so that to argue with you is to argue with God, is a dangerous thing to do. We should all approach the Bible with humility, understanding that we are not He, and we don't have all the answers. In that light, I did not and do not present my position as "absolute truth." But I do think I'm reading the texts more accurately than you are.
You claim I have an issue with God. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To my own Master I stand or fall-- and stand I will, for Christ is able to make me stand. Romans 14:4. I don't claim to judge your heart or where you stand with God. Be so kind as to do the same for me.
Also, Lewis is right. I never said I wanted my daughter to grow up to "throw her parents off" and do exactly as she pleases. Rather, I want her to grow up to follow God and be led by the Spirit, not by her father or me. I want her to honor us, not be servile to us. I have already said this; I'm not sure why you haven't seemed to understand it. You seem to think that it's an either-or proposition: either she is obedient to and dependent on us even as an adult, or she's dishonoring us. But I believe our daughter is quite capable of honoring us without being under our thumbs. We are raising her to walk in the freedom with which Christ set her free.
My husband would be appalled at the very idea of a contract with our daughter like the one above. If anyone were to try to subject her to a yoke of bondage like that, it would definitely invoke the mother bear in me. And that wouldn't be pretty.
http://www.quiveringdaughters.com/2011/04/bondage-of-betrothal.html
ReplyDeleteThat is beyond disturbing.
ReplyDeleteHere (in the link below) is what this rigid control of fathers over daughters (as opposed to sons) is all about in Patriarchy and Quiverfull.
ReplyDeleteIt's not Biblical.
It's cultural with a smattering of Bible verses taken out of context and pasted together in a flimsy arguement while ignoring truck loads of books and chapters of the Bible that paint a different picture.
http://whitewashedfeminist.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/the-womb-of-woman-gateway-to-life-guardian-of-culture/
Spencer. Your last comment made me run around my large house, yelling at the walls. My wife gave me oxygen to settle me down. There is so much of it that is so blatantly incorrect, I couldn't fit it all in a comment. So, I posted it on my blog at the following link:
ReplyDeletehttp://incongruouscircumspection.blogspot.com/2011/04/my-open-response-to-spencer.html
I apologize for the length. It is 5,577 words long. But, I hope it cuts you to the heart and opens your eyes to real life.
I signed that very contract. No ring, but I have the pastor's signature to prove it. It caused me and my now-husband no end of misery, anxiety, and confusion.
ReplyDeleteOver the last 10 years we have discovered that God is so unlike the deity we were taught to fear...
There are two main points I will address here that I would appreciate a clear and specific answer on. I have seen a lot of “all over the board” answers here , and yet I must say, there are two main issues I see at the root of your statements here Lewis, and a major supposition you have convinced many on here of. You hold to the fact that men and women are equal, and especially, in the Garden of Eden. You quote Gen 1:27 as a proof text that Adam and Eve were equals, and yet this is total supposition. The verse states that God made two different genders. Since when does God creating two different things make them equal? Please prove this from the scriptures, and if you cannot, it is not profitable to discuss anything else unless you confess that you were wrong here. If men and women are equal, why is marriage compared to Christ and his church (the bride of Christ) ? Are Christ and the church equal? Hence, the next question logically follows….are husband and wife equal? The passage states, “male and female created he them.” To say this means they were equal is an entirely biased reading into of the text unless you can prove otherwise from the scriptures.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I showed you from 1 Cor 11 that God said the man is the head of the woman. The argument was put forth that this merely means “origin” and not truly “head,” as the passage explicitly states, and thus, man is really not the “head” of the woman, but merely her “origin.” Does this mean that Christ is not the head of the man, as the passage clearly states as well? These are the two important issues that you must directly address. If you deny the scriptures, that Christ is not the head of the man, then it is clearly evident that you are running from the very Book you claim to believe in. If indeed, Christ is the head of the man, you must also accept the fact that the man is the head of the woman.
Since when does God creating two different things make them equal?
ReplyDeleteSince there's absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, that any kind of hierarchy was established until the fall. Since then.
In the garden, ALL humanity was perfect, and NO humanity ruled over any other. To suggest it did is to speak on behalf of the bible - where the bible DOESN'T speak.
Secondly, I showed you from 1 Cor 11 that God said the man is the head of the woman. The argument was put forth that this merely means “origin” and not truly “head,” as the passage explicitly states, and thus, man is really not the “head” of the woman, but merely her “origin.” Does this mean that Christ is not the head of the man, as the passage clearly states as well? These are the two important issues that you must directly address. If you deny the scriptures, that Christ is not the head of the man, then it is clearly evident that you are running from the very Book you claim to believe in. If indeed, Christ is the head of the man, you must also accept the fact that the man is the head of the woman.
Do you believe in a co-equal, co-eternal Godhead - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? I think you need to figure that out, in the context of 1st Corinthians 11, before you start grilling me or anyone else about man and wife in the context of 1st Corinthians 11.
I also showed YOU from 1st Corinthians 11 where Paul says that even nature itself suggests the shame and dishonor in a man having long hair...but we know that's not true, don't we? So maybe it's not very responsible of you to handle ANYTHING from that chapter so literally and conclusively - unless your allegiance to a particular non-essential doctrine is such that your faith will fall apart without it.
Literalism usually leads to legalism, Spencer. It's not a nice neighborhood.
For the record, this is my last response to you on this subject. Debates are kinda like eating a rice cake in terms of appeal - and we measure truth by different arbiters. Dead horse, peeing contest, et cetera...and I've had enough of closed fundamentalist mindsets.
Kristen...I suppose you could go over the meaning of the word "head" in the original Greek with him again, but he seems hellbent on accepting the meaning as translated by men many, many, many centuries later in the King's english, and with no regard for the original language.
ReplyDeleteProbably a waste of time.
Spencer, I'll address 1 Cor 11. Nobody has said that Scripture doesn't use the word "head" there. But the simple fact is that the Greek word "kephale", which is translated as "head", does not imply authority (as the English word "head" often does; French is another language in which "head" implying "authority" is simply not present). In other words, you are reading your English implications onto a word which _simply does not have that meaning_ in the language Paul wrote it in. On the other hand, an implication "kephale" has in Greek (but not typically implied by "head" in English) is that of source or origin, and the context of the passage demonstrates that that was what Paul was aiming at when he wrote it - Man was created through Christ (as were all things), Woman was created from a piece of Man's side (so as to be of one flesh and not a separate creation), and of course Christ is eternally begotten of the Father.
ReplyDeleteI want to note for my readers the many attempts by Spencer to tell us what we MUST and MUST NOT accept - or where we MUST admit that we're wrong, et cetera. For those of you who haven't seen this kind of thing, this is the coercive mindset of fundamentalism, imposing it's buzzword-laden predetermined standards on you, with no regard for the boundaries of your own mind and critical thought.
ReplyDeleteSpencer's a jackass for doing as much.
A warning, Spencer, pull any of that crap again and it'll be your swansong in commenting here.
Insert 'squirrel' and 'pig' instead of 'male' and 'female'. Two different things. Seems to me a squirrel may be pretty darn equal to a pig. Though a pig tastes a heck of a lot better.
ReplyDeleteYou quote Gen 1:27 as a proof text that Adam and Eve were equals, and yet this is total supposition. Since when does God creating two different things make them equal? Please prove this from the scriptures, and if you cannot, it is not profitable to discuss anything else unless you confess that you were wrong here.
ReplyDeleteSpencer, the first person to make a statement about male and female (in)equality here was you. So: You quote 1 Co11:3 as a proof text that men and women are inequal, and yet this is total supposition. Since when can you assume that the English idiomatic meaning of head existed the same way in 1st century Greek? Please prove this from the scriptures, and if you cannot, it is not profitable to discuss anything else unless you confess that you were wrong here.
If indeed, Christ is the head of the man, you must also accept the fact that the man is the head of the woman.
(the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man-1Co 11:3) You claim head means leader. Prove, then, that Christ is the leader of every man: The mass murdering dictator, the violent rapist in prison, the psycopath con-man, the agressive Dawkins-quoting atheist and the Hindu priest. We say head, in the Greek Paul wrote in, was an idiom for something else than leader. Thus to us, Christ can be the head of the criminal, the dictator and the atheist, even though they are not led by Him.
I would think that you are insulting Christ by claiming Stalin and Hitler was led by Him...
Spencer said: "The verse states that God made two different genders. Since when does God creating two different things make them equal?"
ReplyDeleteI will address this in the same manner I addressed it on Incongrous Circumspection's blog:
You left out the part of the verse immediately preceding: "God created them in His own image." If I have two photographs taken of myself, each of which accurately represents my image, can one of the photographs be inferior in nature?
But the Genesis account goes even beyond the photograph analogy. Chapter 2 says God took the woman right out of the flesh of the man. If I take a lump of cookie dough and pull part of it off in order to make two cookies instead of one, can one of the cookies be inferior in nature to the other?
This is not a presupposition being read into the text. This is part and parcel of the meaning of the text itself. There is no way to read the Genesis accounts in a way that says the female is less than equal in nature and substance to the man, unless you ignore the image of God and the substance of Adam, both of which were Eve's very nature.
And Kristen, as my wife and I said on your comment on my response to Spencer, the image you write is very astute and pertinent. Thank you for your excellent thoughts. Much needed and appreciated.
ReplyDeleteAnd...you ALMOST got my name right.
Heh, heh. It was a typo-- I do know how to spell "incongruous." Though I'm not sure what could be incongruous about circumspection. . .
ReplyDeleteThanks to you and your wife for the lovely words!
IMO, we do not need to bend over backwards to show Spencer equality. He introduced the topic, The burden of proof is on him. He can proof text, we can show how he is wrong, and ask for better evidence, if he want to ground his notion. We don't have to give evidence he can criticize.
ReplyDelete@ Kristen: Your cookie dough analogy gets even better. God took the dust/ earth and made something vastly superior out of it, a man. If I wanted to read the Bible through a lens of one gender's superiority, I'd have been inclined to say He could make something vastly superior out of the man too... (Joke, apologies to Lewis, IC and other men here.)
Retha. Can you prove to me how you come to the conclusion that I am a man? Pretty assumptuous there, if you ask me. Clearly, you don't do your research.
ReplyDeleteIncongruous Circumspection,
ReplyDeleteI don't know about Retha, but I don't think that any assumptions need to be made at all.
This is from your Blogger "about me" page:
I am a 30 something husband of one and father of 6 dynamic and loud children. My wife and I are still madly in love - at least in my view. My world is exciting, tense, and full of life. I love to write and hope to one day, do it full time. Enjoy my blog!
Unless the incongruity is code that you are really a man, a 30 something wife of one and a mother of six...
Unless the incongruity is code that you are really a man, a 30 something wife of one and a mother of six...
ReplyDeleteOoops! Meant to write "really NOT a man" in my previous comment.
Sweet! Nice sleuthing, Cindy. I was being pretty facetious. Just trying to make an allegorical point about needing to "prove" the obvious and making it bite by utilizing the word "clearly". Just poking fun at Spencer at Retha's expense. I should have used Lewis's 'SA'.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, my profile is correct.
And here I am, late to the discussion. I got wind that a 'Spencer' had commented here.
ReplyDeleteTo CoM readers:
I am 99% certain that the Spencer who's been commenting here is the author of a blog that I've tried repeatedly to comment on. None of my comments have been published, because of weird Blogger issues I am positive. Emails are likewise greeted with a mail-delivery-subsystem error. I got really quite excited at the idea of contacting this person whose ideas I so much disagree with.
To Spencer:
If you are in fact the person I believe you are, you might double-check that you are receiving all comments on your blog. And I would love to engage in a full-on debate about, most notably, your support of the Botkin family's work, be it on your blog or mine, by email, anywhere. Please feel free to bring it on.
And if there's somehow two patrio Spencers running around the blogosphere in the same sphere that I inhabit, sorry for the confusion.
Well if males and females aren't created equal. If man is the superior, then why as sinners are we looked at equally? Shouldn't the MAN have to then answer for the sins of his unequal partner?
ReplyDeletemomma3...
ReplyDeleteYou have hit on a key "principle" in this dogmatic crap. The man IS responsible for the spiritual condition of the wife and kids. If he sins, then he opens the family up to all sorts of magical smagical medium activity. When pressed on this, using simple logic, the leaders of this movement end up hemming and hawing.
For example, if a man was responsible for the sins of his wife (due to his own acts of sinfulness), what if he is perfect, and yet she sins? Or one of the kids go off the deep end.
The fact is, when someone has to turn somersaults to explain their "theology", run the other way. God is simple, and yet His complexities are awesome, not restrictive.
I am currently in the middle of this whole story, and despite being very compelled to continue, I had to pause to comment here after reading Spencer's postings.
ReplyDeleteI have a pretty simple answer for all of this nonsense.
@Spencer- Reminder: there are 7 billion people on this planet, only about 2 billion of which are Christian. So you basing peoples' entire lives on following the Bible is just a freaking joke to begin with, because most people have never even read one. I am willing to wager a majority of those Christians don't attend church or read scripture either. You may think it is wrong that these people are not Christian, but I am pretty sure God would not "create" 7 billion people, just to purposely damn a majority of them to hell or whatever you believe in.
Not to mention, the idea of creationism is also a complete joke (no offense to any of you sane, lovely people who do truly believe in this, as you are of course entitled to your own beliefs, but I refuse to sit here and let this guy try and tell people how they should live when he is living his life based off of stuff that could potentially all be made up). Read a scientific text! Evolution is freaking awesome. I personally believe that a greater power (God, if you will) fancied games like Dominoes, so he set up this whole Universe and then simply knocked over the first domino... Guided evolution, if you will. If you really believe that people just suddenly popped up on this earth, you are so foolish and clearly never took a basic chemistry or biology course.
This entire issue is so BEYOND religion. Her father is devaluing her life, taking away her basic rights as a human being. THAT IS WHY IT IS WRONG.
PS, Adam didn't have to go along with Eve's stupid idea to eat the darn apple.
Finally, @Lewis, I am so enjoying hearing all of this from a male perspective. I had only read female blogs until now. You are infinitely patient and kind. It cracks me up every time you give a Church Lady Alert, because not once have I seen an actual curse word! Bless your soul for having so much courage. I haven't made it to the end of this story yet, but I hope your future contains an independent, free-thinking, loving woman who can give you everything your ex was never capable of giving you.
"Infinitely patient and kind" - you give me waaaaay too much credit, but I appreciate the kindness. Thank you.
DeleteAnd momma3, I so wish I could like comments. AWESOME point I had never thought of.
ReplyDelete