tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post3189139046144731609..comments2024-01-20T16:28:46.327-08:00Comments on Wordgazer's Words: Gender Roles and Responsibility – Part 2Kristenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-44972844299362619802012-06-12T22:19:12.157-07:002012-06-12T22:19:12.157-07:00Iseetheglory, I apologize that I was icy and unlo...Iseetheglory, I apologize that I was icy and unloving. I certainly didn't intend to come across that way! But please don't judge "the heart of egalitarianism" based on this one conversation. My response was not prompted by egalitarianism-- it came entirely from my own perception of our conversation and had a lot to do with past encounters of this kind, which, though I'm sure <i>you</i> didn't intend it, seemed dismissive of my point of view. I did not feel like you were hearing me-- instead it seemed that you wanted to fit my experiences into your prior assumption that the only thing wrong with the complementarianism that I experienced was that it wasn't "true" complementarianism, but was actually patriarchalism. I felt like I was being pushed into a box rather than heard for what I was saying. I admit that frustration over this resulted in my coming across as short. Again, I'm sorry. As for not wanting to share my church background, the reasons you gave for why you were asking, seemed to me to be more of the same. If you could understand my church and cultural background, it would be easier for you to dismiss my experiences as being "patriarchal" or in some other way not "true" complementarianism, which surely I would embrace gladly if I only understood it properly. <br /><br />I do understand complementarianism-- I lived it for years, in between my patriarchal period and my egalitarian understanding. To imply otherwise seemed-- and seems-- condescending to me. Perhaps it is largely an issue of not being able to speak face to face and see the nuances. I hope so. But that is how I felt, and feel.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-1910888598551214722012-06-12T18:28:13.099-07:002012-06-12T18:28:13.099-07:00Hi Kristin,
I found your last comment more reveal...Hi Kristin,<br /><br />I found your last comment more revealing about the heart of egalitarianism than any of the doctrinal lectures. If you believed I had a log/speck in my eye and you had the power to remove it with this blog then surely if you were acting in the love of Christ you would have wanted to? Surely context is a significant factor in formulating and undertanding a position eg. UK, US, NZ rather than trying to grope around in the vaccume of isolation of cyberspace. What is kept in the dark can't be accurately assessed and that is where you chose to keep the influences on your doctrine when I asked you in a friendly way to communicate them. It was a sincere attempt to understand the egalitarian position in the context of fellowship rather than competition. You were friendly until I came to a different conviction from you. Then the attitude became 'agree with me or I give you the cold shoulder'. hmm...<br /><br />I didn't realise we had been arguing but thought we were having a productive discussion until this comment which comes across as unloving and icy. Thought you should know. <br /><br />In Him<br /><br />PS Sorry if this got posted several times. I kept not getting a message saying if it had gone or notiseethegloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15812898794522646821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-965324090587174332012-05-17T17:31:32.079-07:002012-05-17T17:31:32.079-07:00As for what you're saying about the head guidi...As for what you're saying about the head guiding the members of the body-- that's actually a modern, anachronistic understanding of the function of the head, overlaid across the first-century thinking of the author of Ephesians. The way it was understood back then, it was the <i>heart</i> (which is in the chest, not the head), which was considered to be the source of the intellect and the will. The head had the eyes, which were the source of light for the body. It had the ears, which were the source of sound. It had the mouth, which was the source of food for the body. In short, they thought of the head as the source of nourishment and provision for the body, not as the thing that told the body what to do. Wives back then were completely dependent on their husbands for provision of life's necessities. That is what made the metaphor so apt. Would Paul use the same metaphor today? I don't know.<br /><br />The face value of the so-called "male headship" texts (though there is no word for "headship" at all in the koine Greek, any more than we have a word for "bodyship"), in the cultural assumptions 2000 years ago, meant that the Holy Spirit was leading Christian marriage out of the patriarchy of their surrounding cultures and into the freedom of the saints in the New Creation kingdom, in which there is not male nor female. Galatians 3:28 is absolutely against the idea that all males are made to be one thing (in authority) and all females are made to be another (under authority). Paul meant nothing different about males and females than he meant about Jews and Greeks and slaves and freemen. Those distinctions no longer matter, for all are "adopted as sons" with the rights and privileges of sons. No poor cousins hoping for a place at the table. No illegitimate offspring knowing they were just hired to clean up afterwards. <i>All sons.</i> <br /><br />What you say about "a form of freedom for women from their oppression" is telling. "Definitely not in all parts of the culture," you say. True-- because Paul was looking towards the New Creation Kingdom of God, not the worldly cultures his readers lived in. In the New Creation kingdom, ALL oppression would cease. That is the kingdom in which promoters of male headship want to perpetuate the subordination of women even after our modern, Western world cultures have left it behind. But that is the kingdom where it ought to have been eliminated <i>first</i>!<br /><br />Iseetheglory, my time of wavering about this is over. I have studied it for three years now and have become fully satisfied that male headship is a thing of the Fall, not of the kingdom. If you have made up your mind the other way, there is no point in continuing to argue about it. I don't think discussing our respective church backgrounds will change anything.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-31893427964488998372012-05-17T17:31:21.420-07:002012-05-17T17:31:21.420-07:00Iseetheglory, you want to see a straw man, and so ...Iseetheglory, you want to see a straw man, and so you're seeing one. But you say,<br /><br />"A good manager utilizes all the talents of all employees without ceasing to be the manager. The husband is the spiritual head, he needs to be the spiritual leader as Christ is our servant leader."<br /><br />But that IS just the way I thought of it back then. Just the way you are describing. Once we stopped the patriarchal idea that he should be doing the finances, and realized that I should be doing the finances-- I told myself that he was the manager, and I was just like the accountant or adminstrative assistant. I told myself that my husband was the spiritual leader and the one ultimately in charge of the finances. And I came to understand, over time, that I was telling myself a lie. My husband <i>wanted</i> me to be the leader in the area of the finances. <i>I</i> wanted to be the leader in the area of the finances. This business of, "He's the manager, I'm the accountant" was just giving lip service to the doctrinal husband-leadership requirement. But it was in name only. To claim he was the "manager" was denial of reality for the sake of correct doctrine. It was the denial of individuality for the sake of correct doctrine. We couldn't ultimately live like that. We had to be who God made us to be. <br /><br />And ultimately, it was un-submissive of me and not being his face-to-face strong aid (which is what "help meet" actually means in the Hebrew) to insist that he had to be the manager of our finances, and me the accountant. I <i>was</i> the manager of our finances. I was gifted and able, and I was effectively managing the finances. I was the one telling him what we could spend, and he was the one submitting. I always listened to his input (when he wanted to give it), and we always discussed what we wanted to do with our finances, but I really <i>was</i> the one in charge of them-- and to say otherwise was just trying to squeeze ourselves verbally into roles that didn't fit us.<br /><br />So please don't try to fit me and my husband into your idea of gender roles. They didn't, and don't, fit us. We don't believe God made us to fit into those boxes.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-16864102242475328202012-05-17T17:00:13.050-07:002012-05-17T17:00:13.050-07:00PS I couldn't resist having a look at what Mar...PS I couldn't resist having a look at what Mark D had to say from the link with the charts. So in this American context it seems he doesn't even describe a patriarchal relationship as one of the likely possible relationship dynamics in American marriages. This a major oversight! Either his oversight or patriarchy doesn't exist in the US. I don't believe its the 2nd! That means he isn't even distinguishing a difference worth mentioning between patriarchy and complimentary marriages. He did make me angry! <br /><br />If that kinda teaching was all I had to go on, I'd still be an egalitarian. lol<br /><br />In Himiseethegloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15812898794522646821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-66775939327580581842012-05-17T16:40:10.562-07:002012-05-17T16:40:10.562-07:00Hi Kristin,
It is surely a spirit of patriarchy t...Hi Kristin,<br /><br />It is surely a spirit of patriarchy that would make a woman feel guilty for using her talents to manage finances. That is demonic and a perversion of the concept of male headship. I have heard of this and it is no way an authentic expression of the complimentarian position any more than a manager hiring an accountant, according to her abilities means that the accountant is now running the business. A good manager utilizes all the talents of all employees without ceasing to be the manager. The husband is the spiritual head, he needs to be the spiritual leader as Christ is our servant leader. Christ doesn't manifest and micromanage church finances. He calls individuals to do so, so a marriage should similarly reflect this idea.<br /><br />Galations 3.28 is about the perpetuation of socially unjust privilege, disadvantage and division within the body so it relates to the male privilege perpetuated in patriarchy, not role distinction. Being an eye or an arm is not a disadvantage if that is what one is made to be. Being a head is not an unjust privilege if that is what one is made to be. <br /><br />What the face value of the male headhship texts meant within the cultural assumptions 2000 years ago, would have looked like a form of freedom for women in their oppression as I understand it for a lot, but definitely not all parts of the cultures. <br /><br />I like the nourishing and literal bodily interpretation of 'kephale' that you're saying Eph 4 illustrates, however I don't think that text also leaves out the guiding aspect that a head has over a physical body. ie an arm doesn't guide a head, but the other way round and this is universally and timelessly the case. I think the text is illuminating the unity of the head and body more than anything, but the unity and functionality within prescribed role/function for each member. In a human body, a head clearly isn't run by its members. That would be chaos. However the nourishing, vitalizing aspect of a head is appreciated. <br /><br />At this point you're tearing down a straw man when you're giving examples like the 'finances one' and calling that the biblical complimentarian position. And I'm not attacking you by saying that. I'm saying so much of what is called complimentary in the church, is actually patriarchal and this is what you're attacking. The Bible uses the metaphore of a shepherd, as a leader/guider/protector frequently (not as the only model. It certainly doesn't work taken to the conclusion that women are represented by sheep but it illustrates a form of absolute leading which is not self seeking or controlling so I relate to it and like it).<br /><br />I was wondering what nationality you are, and what country you live in to try to understand what some the cultural pressure you have, compared to what I have? And what the church is like where you are and where you grew up and how they tend to describe a complimentary role dynamic. It sound pretty similar actually, but maybe there are some differences...<br /><br />In Himiseethegloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15812898794522646821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-50916772293194031572012-05-17T09:45:03.992-07:002012-05-17T09:45:03.992-07:00Iseetheglory, do you have any thoughts on this?
h...Iseetheglory, do you have any thoughts on this?<br /><br />http://2hold.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/coming-out-of-complementarianism-and-becoming-equal/<br /><br />I'd be interested, specifically, on how you'd diagram your marriage, looking at the complementarian and egalitarian diagrams in that post.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-22005762406732521492012-05-17T09:05:50.650-07:002012-05-17T09:05:50.650-07:00Iseetheglory, it seems that your experience is qui...Iseetheglory, it seems that your experience is quite different from mine. You see, we lived the complementarian (not patriarchal, certainly) idea in our marriage for years-- and I always knew, deep in my heart, though I denied it to myself, that we were living a lie. I told myself my husband was leading and I was acting as his administrative assistant in the area of finances-- but I knew in my heart that I was really leading, and he deferring to my leadership, in the area of finances (this was after we tried hard to have him manage the finances and both of us were miserable with him doing it). There were areas where he was leading and I deferring to his leadership as well, and I felt good about those areas, but secretly guilty about the areas where I was leading. But trying to make our marriage function with him leading in areas where I was simply the better leader of that area, was just not working.<br /><br />When I began to study the egalitarian teachings, they made so much more sense to me. Now I was able to read Galatians 3:28-4:6 according to its face value, without watering it down with "this is only about salvation." When I looked at the scriptures that were traditionally used to support male headship, after coming to an understanding of the shared assumptions between the writers and the original audience, the face value actually looked different. What it would have meant to them was different than what it had looked like to me, 2000 years and half the globe distant. So in what sense was I reading the face value? <br /><br />As far as the word "kephale," I think the important point is that it means "that thing on your neck that has your eyes and ears in it." Paul could not have used a different word because he was making a metaphor of the unity of the head and the body-- and that metaphor of unity, along with an understanding of how Paul and his original audience understood the body and the head to function together, must govern our interpretation of the use of the word in Eph 5. I find that reading it the same way it is used a chapter earlier in Eph 4-- that the head is the source of nourishment and provision for the body (which is what they believed, and is the role Christ is fulfilling towards the church in Eph 4) makes the most sense, both in its literal and historical contexts.<br /><br />If your husband learned that he should be taking more leadership in the family and working to protect you, that's wonderful. I merely differ that this is directly tied to his Y chromosome.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-50681667646560761072012-05-17T04:14:40.479-07:002012-05-17T04:14:40.479-07:00PS Husband came home and said he doesn't mind ...PS Husband came home and said he doesn't mind if I put online more of our personal experience relating to this issue so even though it could be taken as anecdotal, I'll share some. The pastoral visit precipitated a crisis in my husband also. Like I said he is a very calm person, but when the pastor left, my husband cried and was broken. We only discussed some issues in the church with the pastor but it touched on the big point of contention, and of coarse it related to marriage as well. <br /><br /> Husband said he knew they were right about the complimentary roles because he knew there were responsibilities he had to protect and lead me, which he had not been carrying. It brought him to repentance and this turned things around for us. We started to learn that in order to lead he didn't have to have the gift of teaching or be the theological one. I had a 'vision' that he could lead us the way he ran a shop, and a good manager uses the talents of all employees to reach the common goal. I guess it is slightly different from the example in previous comment about the men who were amazing teachers/preachers in some ways but not in others. My Husband still opens scripture and applies it to our situations and mission and we have support from our church to work that way.<br /><br />Going down the egalitarian road was a way to escape the pain of not being gifted in traditionally male and female ways, but I never recognized it during that time.<br /><br />I truly hope that is helpful to someone. <br /><br />Also, having done a little study, I'm not sure that kephale can't have connotations of both 'authority' and 'source'. There was clearly an alternate word Paul could have used if he wished to convey solely authority, and another word if he'd meant to convey only 'source'. Could it be both?<br /><br />I think there is a form of authority, but is it more like that of a supervisor, who oversees and guides the work being done, and also does some of the work. Both ultimately have to report to the manager?<br /><br />Just a thought off the top of my head.<br /><br />In Himiseethegloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15812898794522646821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-79764094117533216462012-05-17T02:06:01.806-07:002012-05-17T02:06:01.806-07:00Hi Kristin,
I surely don't know ALL the argum...Hi Kristin,<br /><br />I surely don't know ALL the arguments about this issue but I have certainly explored it in my Christian walk using this blog and several other sites your blog is linked to plus Wayne Grudem's book and more. At one point, I was most persuaded, as in the Proverb, by the egalitarian argument.<br /><br />We convinced me 'back' (I say back because I was complimentarian then left it, and have truly returned to what I never truely knew before), is not what my pastor said - but what happened when my pastor and his wife came round was a profound experience than began the journey 'back'.<br /><br />I was SOLD on egalitarianism as the WAY OUT of the social injustice and patriarchal oppression and I put the reasons why to them clearly. For one thing, it was not about difficulty in my marriage that I actually went to them, but rather my struggles in the church with a 'spirit of patriarchy' and all that resulted in. So my pastor's wife recommended a great sermon series to listen to by the previous pastor of our church, on gender roles. The series is one thing that helped me come 'home' to a complimentary position again. I can give you a link if you're interested. It laid out the differences between a complimentary position and a patriarchal position in a way I just hadn't quite seen before.<br /><br />In my relationship we were struggling with TRADITIONAL leadership/'followership' roles at one point. We do NOT fit much church tradition. I am the theologian of us and he does not have a gift of teaching. He is extremely warm and empathetic but with a cool head. He is a very patient man and has the gift of faith - meaning a greater measure than normal in many situations which makes him pretty unflappable. He manages our home gently like a diplomat. He leads with the unique talents he has - and that is what God has blessed ever since we accepted that. <br /><br />So seeing that begin to work in my marriage has been good but what is even better, is being able to take what God says at face value again. I know from the experience that we're discussing doctrine but what it touches on especially for women has huge emotional and spiritual ramifications, so while there is a lot more I could say at a personal level I kinda don't wanna tell it all to he whole world or be pushy:/. But if you were interested in listening to those sermons flick me an e mail. Otherwise, I will probably leave it there. Thanks again, for the 'sharpening' :).<br /><br />In Himiseethegloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15812898794522646821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-77920554681164929212012-05-16T23:41:07.072-07:002012-05-16T23:41:07.072-07:00I also want to add, in case I don't seem to be...I also want to add, in case I don't seem to be painting my own husband in a very positive light, that he is a brilliant man with an amazing ability to cut to the heart of a matter and see what the issues are. He is strong and capable, a terrific father, and he has an excellent knowledge of the Bible-- I have learned a lot from him. There are many times when he has cleared a whole complex issue up for me with just a few well-thought-out words. He has an amazing knowledge of history and many other topics, and he often takes the lead, especially in areas where I lack strengths that he has. And we had a good marriage even when we believed in male headship. But co-leadership is really working for us in ways that male headship never did. <br /><br />I did say several times in my original post that not all complementarian couples were having problems like the ones I described. But I maintain that the problem is not just that male headship is being done wrong, and if it were done right, none of these problems would arise. I maintain that the potential for these kinds of problems is there whenever one person is given power over another based on a factor like gender. <br /><br />If you'd rather just agree to disagree and move on, I will understand and wish you well. But I'd encourage you to keep exploring these issues and hearing <i>all</i> the different arguments.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-89849093225490776232012-05-16T23:23:05.353-07:002012-05-16T23:23:05.353-07:00Iseetheglory, if I'm hearing you correctly, th...Iseetheglory, if I'm hearing you correctly, this is what I'm hearing. You were questioning the male authority doctrines, and this had come to a crisis in your life, and now your pastor has come along and given you his interpretation of the Bible, and based on that, you have gone from questioning to "deeply convinced" just on the basis of what this man said. Well, if you are deeply convinced, there's not a lot I can say-- but I might point out that the Proverbs also say that one person's testimony will seem right, until another comes along and cross-examines him-- and in another place, that "he who answers a matter before he hears it (meaning here's all sides), it is folly and shame to him." <br /><br />I understand the relief you feel from having this matter resolved in your own mind, in a way that relieves the conflict that was developing between you and your husband. And if your husband is a good leader and you like having him lead, as an egalitarian I have no quarrel with that. By all means, let your marriage work the way that suits the two you best! But I do feel that my husband and I should also be able to have our marriage work in the way that suits us best-- and quite frankly, we are much happier now that he (who is not gifted as a spiritual leader) no longer feels under constant pressure to be something God never made him to be. And I, who am not actually a spiritual leader either, but have strengths in areas he does not (and vice versa) can feel free to use my gifts to the fullest in those areas, even if it means I am sometimes taking the lead.<br /><br />You see, I have read the arguments of both sides and examined the scriptures too-- and I feel that male headship is not actually supported by the Scriptures and is not the "baby in the bathwater." The baby in the bathwater is the individuality of each man and woman, each with their Kingdom gifts-- and the used bathwater that needs to be emptied out, is the forcing of God's children into boxes according to what males and females are supposed to be.<br /><br />I do understand what you're saying about how good it is to have the scriptures expounded by a spiritual leader. But if what you're saying is true, that such leadership was designed by God to be male-- then why aren't all Christian males who don't feel called to celibacy, gifted with spiritual leadership? Why aren't all Christian women who don't feel called to celibacy, gifted with spiritual "followership," if you will? Why, for instance, am I actually much better at expounding on the scriptures than my husband is?<br /><br />Could it be possible that someone could teach the scriptures in such a way as to bless you as you describe-- and that person could be a woman? Is there something about being female that renders a person incapable of being a teacher like that? Is there something about being male that anoints a man for what you call "true Christian leadership"? When a man and a woman are really trying to have a marriage such as you described, with male headship, and they both feel like square pegs in round holes-- is it just that they're doing it wrong? That if they'd just embrace who God made them to be, it would work? Then what happens to individuality? <br /><br />Over the next month or two I will be reposting parts of essays I have written elsewhere, on male headship, the nature of woman, Bible interpretation, and so on. If you're interested in hearing both sides, and not just your pastor's, please keep visiting. And again, I'm not saying you and your husband have to change the way your marriage works best for you. I'm just saying it's ok to let other people's marriages work differently than that, without concluding that they're missing God's will.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-16562132768382684612012-05-16T02:14:24.162-07:002012-05-16T02:14:24.162-07:00I have found several posts and comments helpful to...I have found several posts and comments helpful to critique traditional interpretations and even traditions themselves. On the majority of stuff except the ultimate conclusion, we're on the same page.<br /><br />I don't believe my husband is the high priest of our home and I do not believe he or my pastor for that matter, is a go between between God and me or me and God - no way. They have responsibilities to lead me to solid spiritual food as shepherds. Shepherds lead - patriarchs control.<br /><br />Also if my husband and I have a common vision - a sense of how we as a family are called to serve God - and he makes a decision regarding how that vision will best be realised - even if he's wrong - is it not an act of loving service? He would consult me but take the ultimate responsibility off my shoulders. If, on the other hand, husband and wife do NOT have a common vision, especially one that takes into account both of their unique gifts, interests etc amongst other things and the husband is authoritative re making decisions which are foolish or selfish, what an empty distortion of true Christian leadership. I think we throw the baby out with the bathwater if look at proliferation of that dynamic and throw out the doctrine of male headship altogether.iseethegloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15812898794522646821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-38130611719428479522012-05-16T01:38:55.876-07:002012-05-16T01:38:55.876-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.iseethegloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15812898794522646821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-38878328430415890552012-05-16T01:31:54.925-07:002012-05-16T01:31:54.925-07:00Hi Kristin,
My pastor came to visit us (husband a...Hi Kristin,<br /><br />My pastor came to visit us (husband and I) recently when this issue came to a head for me. He said what you are saying, that each individual will be accountable to God and responsible for themselves and their choices, in the kind of examples you give.<br /><br />My understanding is also that rescuing a person from their responsibilities, or the consequences of their choice, is the essence of co-dependance, dysfunction or enmeshment - for a psychological term. Such relational dynamics are not of God. So your example about the ants in the breakfast cereal is exactly that. The wife would once have rescued the husband from the consequences of his choice to not close the cereal packet.<br /><br />I was also once in a relationship like that as a young Christian but we went to very good pre marriage counseling where the counselor pointed me to Proverbs 19.19 to break the curse of blindness for me about the situation. The verse is saying that if you rescue a bad tempered man from the consequences of his anger, you will do it again. The principle of rescuing someone from the consequences of their irresponsible behaviour was here exposed to me, to be folly. <br /><br />But now I am deeply convinced, that these dynamics, if justified from scripture represent an abuse of male headship - the doctrine and practice - not the authentic expression of it.<br /><br />Male headship, whenever I had heard it taught, until recently always added that little bit more - that little extra twist which would make it ever so slightly demeaning to women and justifying of male privilege. The teaching I heard always seemed to go beyond what scripture actually says and impose restrictions. And like a drip, drip, drip of irritating solvent falling on a layer of paint, the solvent eventually bore right through - to my heart and I reacted in crisis - questioning all this male headship hocus pocus - and rightly so because now my conviction that male headship is God's design, is now from scripture and not from traditional patriarchal interpretations being imposed.<br /><br />My pastor went on to say, that there are responsibilities he has in his home, which his wife will not be held responsible for. So if the home is a unit, greater than the sum of its parts, there is a role he'll have to give account for and he did summarize what that is and 're' embracing this doctrine from scripture has turned our marriage around.<br /><br />See I have sat under great lecturers in bible colleges and even some pastors. These men opened God's Word to me. They were instruments who revealed His truth. They inspired and propelled me into God's Word and they fed me. They brightened my mind and gave me theological tools to think with that I use all the time. They simply empowered me to know and love God more. I would be so excited to hear whatever they had to say next. It was always wonder filled. Do you know what I mean? <br /><br />See, they were leaders. They led me out of many forms of intellectual darkness and protected me from so many errors. They were protectors. If husband led their wives in this manner, if they opened God's Word to their wives and satisfied with good spiritual food as providers of it, would some other aspects of male headship seem so abrasive? <br /><br />It is this kind of leading I believe God had in mind when he designed leadership in the church and Christian home to be male. Well I read the bible for myself - every day. God speaks to me without any human intercessor - absolutely. But do I come close to what those how those lecturers were able to expose God's heart to me? No. They fed me in a way I have never been able to provide for myself and I am an intelligent woman with a gift of knowledge. It was simply the best thing out and would I submit to such a man who fed me in such a way? Apart from my sinful nature - no doubt.iseethegloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15812898794522646821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-15086130566391087222012-05-06T16:38:15.141-07:002012-05-06T16:38:15.141-07:00My daughter went through a depressed period too. ...My daughter went through a depressed period too. For her it was puberty-related; I think a lot of girls go through it. I love the way you handled it with yours, Shadowspring. My own church never shamed me about my daughter's lack of cheerfulness. We had long since left the fundamentalist group by then.<br /><br />I will say, though, that "avoid public shame" was really not my main motivation as a fundamentalist. It was "please/placate those in authority." For me this motive came from deep in my own child-of-alcoholics past. I conflated placating human authority with pleasing God. But the public shame thing was to me more of a consequence of failure, not failure in itself. Even without the public shame, I was ashamed enough of myself for any failure, that I hardly needed more than that to keep me in line. The shame was a symptom, not the source, of the problem. The source of the problem was that my self-worth was bound up in being pleasing. Add this "please authoriy" inner need to an authoritarian, hierarchical form of religion, and you had the perfect storm. I was a model fundamentalist-- stressed, fearful, and compliant. So I don't think "avoid public shame" as a prime motive fits. At least, it didn't fit me.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-70238689764598348232012-05-06T15:53:23.515-07:002012-05-06T15:53:23.515-07:00"If her children are not perfectly obedient, ..."If her children are not perfectly obedient, content and focused on God, guess who feels responsible? She does."<br /><br />I am mulling over a long post about the true motivation of those immersed in the American fundagelical culture (including home school). It seems to me that the main motivation in life for those who are completely immersed into Christian culture comes down to this:<br /><br />Avoid public shame.<br /><br />When my daughter did not fit the cheerful obedient smiley faced image of the fresh scrubbed Christian home schooled teen on the cover of whatever home schooling magazine, I felt shame.<br /><br />And if I ever managed to shake it, some well meaning home school mom would pout it on and rub it in, to help motivate me to try harder, no doubt.<br /><br />My depressed daughter, dressed in black, face expressionless, always lagging behind and dragging her heels, was unacceptable. Obviously we weren't very good Christian parents.<br /><br />People told me to come down on her harder, but I could see her heart was fragile and I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I had to make a choice: eschew shame by rejecting my daughter, or embrace my daughter and the shame the church poured on us both for her non-conforming life.<br /><br />I chose love, and shame. I chose to bear the shame, and the eventual ostracization that comes with it, rather than betray my child's fragile heart. <br /><br />In the long run, it was the best thing that could possibly have happened to our family. As Rob Bell wrote, "Love Wins!" =Dshadowspringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15172112981244682382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-47573278432425803252012-05-06T10:21:52.862-07:002012-05-06T10:21:52.862-07:00There is a lot of nice thought here--I will have t...There is a lot of nice thought here--I will have to read again and digest some more. Love the talk about responsibility. Courageous -- both the movie and the song -- has really bothered me for some of the reasons elaborated here.PLTKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12478918258931485604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-15341427115243027872012-05-05T15:15:08.547-07:002012-05-05T15:15:08.547-07:00You've hit many nails on the head in this post...You've hit many nails on the head in this post. I have often noticed the subtle message that men are called to be family people AND other things, while women believe that seeking callings outside the family is selfish.<br /><br />Double-standards, plain and simple. And not really based on anything Biblical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com