tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post4736772356697925131..comments2024-03-25T09:01:20.997-07:00Comments on Diary of an Autodidact: Control: The Reason The Gospel Coalition and CBMW Cannot Actually Condemn Spousal AbuseDiary of an Autodidacthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-24713935883660563412017-02-07T07:20:51.621-08:002017-02-07T07:20:51.621-08:00"An interesting discussion that I have listen..."An interesting discussion that I have listened in on in Christian circles these days is what parents desire in a spouse for a child. A bone of contention arises when someone says, “I would rather my child marry a non-Christian as long he treats her kindly.” Thence the discussion of whether it is okay to marry outside the faith, and so on.<br /><br />This is a red herring. What is really being expressed here is a legitimate fear that the abusive men are are a problem within conservative religious traditions - including Evangelicalism. Because Evangelicalism is one of the very, very few places in our modern Western culture where it is still okay to seek to control a woman. Abusers are all too comfortable here."<br /><br />Thank you for saying this out loud. It would be exactly the position I find myself in, as the mother of a beautiful, but excessively compliant daughter who has learned about the "role" of females from evangelical complementarianism. <br />It absolutely terrifies me. DSwankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06733228150692192516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-3266461947101690252016-09-15T11:28:34.432-07:002016-09-15T11:28:34.432-07:00I can respond a bit. I wrote an article about Pipe...I can respond a bit. I wrote an article about Piper and obedience. This is still up on DesiringGod. Piper says:<br /><br />Now, maybe this is the same point, but it needs to be said this way, too. Any man who says, “I do the thinking in this family,” is sick and has a sick view of his authority. I dealt with a couple one time. The wife said he demanded that she get permission to go to the bathroom. That really happened. I just looked at him and said, “You’re not well. You have an unbelievably distorted view of this fellow heir of the grace of life. You don’t understand the Bible. You’re taking a word like ‘authority’ or ‘leadership’ or ‘submission,’ and then you’re stepping away from the Bible and filling those words up with stuff you want to do. You’re not getting this from the Bible.”<br /><br />Piper's silence is deafening. While he tells the husband his command is unbiblical, he does NOT tell the wife she is free to disobey. In an article about what submission is NOT, this would be an easy point to make and very appropriate. So, what Piper is saying here, by omission, is that the wife DOES have to ask her husband's permission to pee. His correction is aimed at the husband - you have no right to require this, but if the wife said, "do I still have to ask permission or can I disobey my husband", he would say, "you still have to ask permission".BatteredRPSheephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801833784978156322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-58687176698266827122016-02-15T23:18:42.724-08:002016-02-15T23:18:42.724-08:00Thanks a ton! I limited the translation to the mai...Thanks a ton! I limited the translation to the main article (without the added notes at the end), mostly because the extra issues addressed wouldn't be so relevant to the Spanish reader. Also I changed the title to "Control: the Reason Some Evangelical Organizations Cannot Condemn Spousal Control" because here people aren't familiar with Gospel Coalition or CBMW. If you're ok with that, I'll post it.Emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07315747719489457961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-48613594541899826602016-02-15T14:46:25.018-08:002016-02-15T14:46:25.018-08:00I don't know if you are still following the th...I don't know if you are still following the thread, berlinpoet, but here is one more (which I also added to the body of the post. <br /><br />https://natesparks130.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/injustice-an-open-letter-to-the-gospel-coalition/<br /><br />In it, Nate Sparks compiles an impressive set of links to the primary sources for a whole set of cases where TGC affiliated churches covered up spousal and child abuse. This isn't just an academic problem. The doctrine leads to real world damage to victims. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-3763335244853775932016-02-14T14:39:14.509-08:002016-02-14T14:39:14.509-08:00I have read a number of articles on A Cry For Just...I have read a number of articles on A Cry For Justice, and I applaud the good you do. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-77166444665578094182016-02-14T14:38:19.070-08:002016-02-14T14:38:19.070-08:00As long as you link and attribute, have at it. As long as you link and attribute, have at it. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-51545696198584698662016-02-14T14:37:43.571-08:002016-02-14T14:37:43.571-08:00That is a rather disquieting thought. That is a rather disquieting thought. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-1462222550633567692016-02-13T01:10:21.994-08:002016-02-13T01:10:21.994-08:00Autodidact, may I have your permission to translat...Autodidact, may I have your permission to translate this article into Spanish and share on Facebook/Google+? (Linked to your blog, of course.)Emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07315747719489457961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-6076514589724038522016-02-09T02:56:17.171-08:002016-02-09T02:56:17.171-08:00Thank you for your thorough reply. I am certainly ...Thank you for your thorough reply. I am certainly not implying that no Christians are capable of moral development - many of them certainly are, and during the centuries they have stood on the side of oppressed and marginalized. That's undisputable. However, what I am suggesting is that *many* Christians are really unable to raise over the shallow morality of their literal Bible interpretations, and nothing short of the force of law can make them to change that. Of course it happens most frequently when they benefit from these shallow interpretations, sure, but not always - I have observed that fundamentalist women are often as vocal in depending the patriarchy as fundamentalist men, so it's not only (and maybe even not primarily) the case of who benefits.<br /><br />The problem I see that (as I said above) there are generally two possible approaches to the Bible (and to the holy texts in general). One is fundamentalist / literalist, where the holy text is searched for moral insights, and one is liberal, where the holy text is reinterpreted to adhere to the moral insights the reader already possesses. The liberal approach has the obvious advantage that its morality is not set in stone but can evolve and change according to social and moral development of humanity. But it also has a significant disadvantage that its morality must essentially come from elsewhere, not from the holy text itself - the holy text is only searched post factum for confirmation of moral insights already developed. While this is (like you pointed out) very important for many people to be able to maintain both their morality and their reverence for the holy text, for many others (like me at some point) it simply highlights the fact that if the holy text is not the source of our morality, it is simply not needed at all and can be discarded.<br /><br />This has, however, significant consequences - it clearly follows from the above that liberal churches will be shrinking fast, because the liberal approach to the Bible will show many people that the Bible is not really infallible / important / needed, and they will start dropping from the church at some point. Whereas the literalist churches will hold their ranks because they are centered around their interpretation of the Bible and thus strongly impregnated against any change.<br /><br />And I think that is exactly what is happening right now - fundamentalist churches, which include Evangelicals on one side, and Catholics on the other side (where the Bible is generally replaced by the Catechism, but a lot of thinking mechanisms are the same) while maybe not growing very much, are at least not shrinking fast either, whereas liberal churches are generally the ones who are losing their members the fastest.<br /><br />Which leads to a quite unsettling conclusion, that the religion in general has strong inbuilt mechanisms that favor its fundamentalist versions over more compassionate ones. This is a bit disquieting.<br />Michauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09048662629434272328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-16224497785472698792016-02-05T23:11:55.795-08:002016-02-05T23:11:55.795-08:00Hi autodidact, you and your readers may like to kn...Hi autodidact, you and your readers may like to know that the blog A Cry For Justice has heaps of stuff about domestic abuse in a Christian context. We are seeking to awaken the evangelical church to domestic violence and abuse in its midst. You can find us at cryingoutforjustice.com <br /><br />You are spot on about anger not being the abuser's problem! <br /><br />I'm glad to hear you see through abusers and support victims of domestic abuse in your legal practice. God bless and strengthen you! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12530236258021358131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-41330176637759433582016-02-04T14:14:25.327-08:002016-02-04T14:14:25.327-08:00Great point about the failure of Stalin and Mao in...Great point about the failure of Stalin and Mao in replacing institutions wholesale. (Starvation was one of the consequences.) Another example that comes to mind is the French Revolution, which ended up full circle in a lot of ways because there was an institutional vacuum. <br /><br />A great contrary example is the English Civil War, which ended up making revolutionary changes to society (including the establishment of a degree of religious toleration.) As G. M. Trevelyan pointed out, though, these revolutionary ideas were presented as a natural outgrowth of existing beliefs about the rights of Englishmen. As such, they were seen as fully compatible with the existing social and economic structure - even though they would change it significantly. <br /><br />Coming back to the issue of American Slavery, you are absolutely correct that the Southern Christians would not have abolished Slavery on their own. (In fact, even today, many white Southerners still think African Americans were better off under slavery.) <br /><br />However, the northerners were also Christians. (Again, I strongly recommend Mark Noll's excellent book for more on this.) Northern opinion changed, not because the north became atheist - it didn't, but because abolitionists reframed the discussion to be in terms of the other themes of the Bible. Love your neighbor, stuff from the Prophets, and so on. Thus, the US wasn't split on religious lines so much as on interpretive lines. It's really a very interesting bit of history, and one of the reasons why I think that it is worth working within a religious tradition to change culture and institutions. Obviously, some will remain unconvinced, and the force of law (or army) will be necessary to institute the change. <br /><br />(One can also note the history of the Civil Rights Movement, where Christianity was enlisted on both sides.) <br /><br />I'm not going to get into the whole same sex marriage thing here, but I agree with your point on that. In this case, though, most of American Christianity will probably be like the South on slavery and Jim Crow. <br /><br />In all of these cases, though, my observation has been that it usually requires a combination of factors for change to occur. Some make the moral leap first, then reconcile it with their existing beliefs. Others reject their old beliefs. Still others have change forced upon them by the law or other factors. (Typically, those who benefit from the old system are loath to change their ways...) There will always be those, however, who are reluctant to change because they believe their religion prevents them from taking a step they wish they could take. For those individuals, a little help in reconsidering the interpretation and meaning of their texts can be the difference. Just my opinion and observation. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-55728480226859620632016-02-04T13:55:39.675-08:002016-02-04T13:55:39.675-08:00Obviously we will disagree on this, but I think th...Obviously we will disagree on this, but I think the category error is actually in your argument, because you (and most post-slavery interpreters) have created a difference that was not there originally. This is where reading Aristotle's Politics was a revolution for me. Aristotle (and the Greco-Roman world he helped create) didn't see slavery and marriage as different at all. "Patriarchy" wasn't one approach to an institution, it was the one commonality for the governance of the Polis. Aristotle believed that the rule should be that the superior govern (and essentially own) the lesser. Hence, children (who are temporarily inferior) are ruled by parents, slaves (usually "barbarians") were born inferior to Greek freemen, and thus needed to be governed by them, and women, who were inferior to men, needed to be governed by males. Aristotle expressly states that slavery is as necessary to society as (patriarchal) marriage. The abolition of slavery was as unthinkable as the idea that women would be equal to men. And in both cases, the institution (slavery or patriarchal marriage) was ownership, legally and culturally. And Aristotle believed that such ownership was necessary to the proper regulation of society. <br /><br />Here too is where the American slavery experience can be of help. (If you haven't read Mark Noll's excellent book, The Civil War as Theological Crisis, you should.) Here too, slavery and patriarchal marriage were *always* considered to be different manifestations of the same thing: rule of the congenitally inferior by their superiors. R. L. Dabney (among others) linked the two, and predicted utter societal chaos as the result of the end of slavery and feminism - and for the same reasons. <br /><br />That's why, here in the US in particular, there had to evolve the concept that slavery and patriarchal marriage were somehow different. Otherwise, granting that slavery was wrong meant one might have to reconsider patriarchal marriage. Some took the tack that while all men were equal, women were still inferior. Others did what you do, which is to claim that there is a different category, and thus never have to address the underlying assumption behind the domestic codes, which is the rule of the inferior by the superior. <br /><br />On a related note, just like slavery doesn't exist in most of the world these days, neither does "marriage" as it did in NT times. Women are not bought and sold by their fathers and husbands. The institution of marriage we have now would be completely unrecognizable to a 1st Century person. Little but the name and the participants are the same. One might just as well label an hourly job as "slavery." So in that sense, we have abolished "marriage" just as we have slavery. The specific institution no longer exists. <br /><br />So then, the question becomes, do we have to resurrect the old institution (ownership of women by men)? If that is required, then why is slavery different? The 1st Century belief was that both were expressions of the same idea, and equally necessary to society...<br /><br />Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-8517429273124045752016-02-04T01:31:02.077-08:002016-02-04T01:31:02.077-08:00Yes, I think at this point it's best to agree ...Yes, I think at this point it's best to agree to disagree on Eph 5:21 and leave it at that :-)<br /><br />However, I should note that you are making a serious category error by equating slavery and patriarchy. You are comparing apples and oranges here.<br /><br />The Bible does *not* require slavery, but it says that when you find yourself in slavery, you are *required* to obey your master. In the same way, the Bible does *not* require anyone to be married (actually Paul is advocating against marriage in the famous 1 Corinthians passage), but it says that if you are a wife, you are *required* to obey your husband.<br /><br />Slavery and marriage are social institutions. Obedience and patriarchy are ways to engage in these institutions. These are two completely different categories. So again, the Bible does not require anyone to engage in the institutions, but it does contain requirements for you if you do engage in them. Therefore, while the Bible does not require slavery, it does require patriarchy. I respect your opinion that it's not so, but I cannot stop noticing that your opinion is based on a logical fallacy and therefore is unacceptable to me.<br /><br />Interesting thought about harmonizing morality with beliefs. It is indeed true that some people are unable to stop believing things even though they are demonstrably false, so it's better to accommodate moral and social progress within their belief systems instead of outside of them. I think the Soviet Union was a great experiment in trying to instigate new social and moral norms without referencing them to the preexisting belief systems, and it failed rather miserably. So that would bolster your point that in moral development, evolution is better than revolution. I need to think about it.<br /><br />Though again, it should be noted that such reconciliation is not always easy, and sometimes outright impossible (see for example the almost futile struggles of Indian government against harmful practices of Hindu religions).<br /><br />Also, I am not an expert on American history, and slavery was never prevalent in my country, but it seems to me that slavery, racial segregation etc. were not abolished because Christians found a way to reconcile its abolishing with their faith, but rather because it was forced on them by the rule of law and they simply had no choice but comply. Have you not waged a civil war, I am pretty sure the Christians in the South would not give up slavery voluntarily (at least not in the 17th century). Similarly, racial desegregation was forced by federal law onto Southern states, which otherwise would be reluctant to accept it on their own. Similar things are happening now with acceptance of gay marriage after the recent SCOTUS decision. So, it seems that for many people the ability to accommodate moral development into their beliefs is severely limited, which brings us back to the question whether it's a good idea to try such accommodation.<br />Michauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09048662629434272328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-14937169347025590832016-02-03T14:21:44.851-08:002016-02-03T14:21:44.851-08:00The stereotypes don't really fit, do they? I c...The stereotypes don't really fit, do they? I can think of a number of people like your family member. (Particularly from the time we spent in a Charismatic church, where female pastors are accepted.) <br /><br />Likewise, it is ironic that the women who I think of as being the most kind and loving to their husbands are typically strong, self confident, and in no way the "submissive ideal." In fact, the more the word "submit" comes up, the worse I know the marriage will turn out to be...Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-4681777649498734802016-02-03T14:16:04.458-08:002016-02-03T14:16:04.458-08:00Definitely agree, Michau.
It's a vision of &...Definitely agree, Michau. <br /><br />It's a vision of "goodness" which means absence of bad, not the active presence of good. Kind of like thinking of perfect beauty as the absence of blemish, rather than the presence of, well, beauty. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-87840505299564685182016-02-03T13:36:07.240-08:002016-02-03T13:36:07.240-08:00Just a couple of points. I disagree as to where Ep...Just a couple of points. I disagree as to where Eph 5:21 connects, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. <br /><br />As to the argument from generality to details, that is precisely how I interpret a number of things within the bible. <br /><br />Very much to that point, if the bible does not *require* slavery, then in the same way, it does not *require* a patriarchal system. It accepts the ownership of women as something normal, then describes how it should be conducted. Presumably, Paul didn't envision a world in which slavery was abolished or a world in which women were considered to be equal rather than inferior. That doesn't mean he forbid either the abolition of slavery or of patriarchy. I don't see how you can have one without the other, consider that both are in the same passages, and are a clear reference to the Domestic Codes of the time. <br /><br />That Paul explains how to live as a Christian in a Patriarchal (and slaveholding) society does not - in my view and that of many others - compel us to preserve those institutions, any more than the acceptance of polygamy and tribalism in the OT requires us to resurrect those institutions as well. <br /><br />You have a good point that there is a lot of time spent trying to harmonize the immoral parts of the bible with morality. The reason I don't think this is entirely a waste of time is that there are a great many people who can only be persuaded to change their morality for the better if they can find a way that harmonizes their existent beliefs. Abolition, for example, would not have occurred when and how it did, had not a great many Christians found a way to reconcile their faith with their moral conviction that slavery was a moral evil. Many today are unwilling to let go of patriarchy because they feel their faith requires them to. It is a worthy effort to change that belief without making it a matter of rejecting the faith altogether. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-57023638607394011922016-02-03T13:22:52.878-08:002016-02-03T13:22:52.878-08:00Thanks! Error noted and corrected. Dyslexic typing...Thanks! Error noted and corrected. Dyslexic typing strikes again ;)Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-50273137610028429512016-02-03T09:36:18.132-08:002016-02-03T09:36:18.132-08:00Well, the history of "complementarian" _...Well, the history of "complementarian" _is_ interesting (and laughable)! The origin makes a lot more sense considering the meaning of the word complementary. Thanks for the link. That was a very informative read. And, it clears some things up in my thinking. It just didn't make sense before. <br /><br />As a note of possible interest - one of the ladies in my extended family whom I loved and respected a lot was a deaconess in her church for years. She went to be with the Lord last year, but she was one of sweetest, most quiet tempered women I've known, though she was strong. So much for stereotypes. :-)Mary E. Stephenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09206071568335923658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-74875278140117071242016-02-03T08:59:50.306-08:002016-02-03T08:59:50.306-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mary E. Stephenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09206071568335923658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-30187560556843680162016-02-03T01:20:43.198-08:002016-02-03T01:20:43.198-08:00Thanks, good to know you enjoyed my nonstandard wa...Thanks, good to know you enjoyed my nonstandard way of thinking :-)<br /><br />I am afraid though that you are putting way too much weight on Ephesians 5:21. Yes, the passage on the hierarchy at home is preceded by this verse, which again is a part of a preceding longer fragment which starts around the beginning of the chapter and deals with conduct of people in the church. These fragments address different topics - Eph 5:21 belongs to Eph 5:1-21, not to Eph 5:22-33. Also, while this specific "marriage advice" fragment is preceded with an admonition to "submit to one another", the other ones (in Colossians and 1 Peter) are not, nor are other passages establishing "man over woman" hierarchies (in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy).<br /><br />Even if we claim that Eph 5:21 is somehow connected with the following verses (which it is not), about the only conclusion we can draw is that it establishes the _general_ principle, while the following verses establish the practical _application_ of a principle in a specific situation (marriage in this case). And the specific application should be that wives obey husbands and husbands care for the wives, not the other way around. This is a well known argumentation method "from generality to details" (I am not sure how to express it better in English). If anything, Paul is absolutely not trying to divert from egalitarianism to patriarchy, but the exact opposite: he very clearly (sorry! :-) diverts from egalitarianism back to patriarchy. So I still maintain the point that the meaning of all these verses is really clear.<br /><br />You write that you choose your conscience over your beliefs - I think that's a choice that many people in fundamentalist churches must face sooner or later. Some will choose morality, and some will choose Biblical literalism. But here are another two thoughts: (1) choosing one's conscience at such point implies that our morals should preside over the Bible and inform our understanding of it, exact opposite of Evangelical claim that it must be the Bible that informs our morals, and (2) if we start from our morals and then reinterpret the whole Bible in their light, why do we even do that? If morality trumps the Bible, why do we need the Bible at all? Instead of spending so much intellectual effort on this enormous task of re-interpreting or explaining away all its immoral parts, wouldn't it be better spent simply perfecting the morals we already have? That' a question I keep asking the progressive Christians I meet online, and so far no one of them could provide a satisfactory answer :-(<br /><br />PS. I don't think any verse in the Bible _requires_ slavery. The Bible _accepts_ slavery as something normal, then provides a description on how it should be conducted. During our moral development as human beings, we chose at some point to disagree with the Bible and stop accepting slavery as something normal.<br /><br /><br />Michauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09048662629434272328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-2929418819014871232016-02-03T00:51:50.784-08:002016-02-03T00:51:50.784-08:00"Focus on stopping divorce rather than buildi..."Focus on stopping divorce rather than building marriages" - that's a great insight. As a former Evangelical pastor I definitely agree, and moreover, I think that this approach applies not only to marriage, but also to other areas of life in fundamentalist churches.<br /><br />It starts with the fundamentalists' view of God, who is above all a God who is offended by sin. That's the primary attribute of God in these circles, and it colors their understanding of the whole Bible and especially Jesus's sacrifice as a means to appease God who is soooo angry because of all that sin in the world.<br /><br />Then from this view comes their obsession with sin, trying to categorize everything into being a sin or not, enumerate all possible kinds of sin and trying to prevent all of them, and so on. This way they focus not on leading a good life, but on preventing to lead a sinful life. <br /><br />I like to view Matthew 25:14-30 in light of this. The worker who buried his talent did so because he was so afraid of failure ("sin") that he thought it's better to do nothing good and not sin, than do lots of good and risk sinning from time to time. But as we see in this passage, Jesus did not approve of this way of thinking.<br />Michauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09048662629434272328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-707193297240615642016-02-02T23:37:31.955-08:002016-02-02T23:37:31.955-08:00Spot-on, Autodidact. I've been following your ...Spot-on, Autodidact. I've been following your blog for some time and this is one more post I'll be sharing. <br />Note, I think there's a small typo in the title. "Sposual" - pretty sure you meant "spousal".Emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07315747719489457961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-32565705727147642072016-02-02T18:51:07.950-08:002016-02-02T18:51:07.950-08:00A few more things. First, if you haven't read ...A few more things. First, if you haven't read it, Russell Moore wrote an interesting article (available in PDF) about why he believes Patriarchy is essential to the Gospel. (The article is notable for, among other things, admitting that "complementarianism" is in fact patriarchy, and for bemoaning the fact that "functionally egalitarian" marriages exist. He believed that "male headship," that is, men obeying women - as he makes clear - was a non-negotiable.) This article is regularly cited and quoted by various members of TGC as supporting their position. <br /><br />The other thing I want to mention is that the Piper quote above, "If it's not requiring her to sin but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, and she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church." Doesn't that seem to say that "mere" verbal or emotional abuse doesn't even warrant going to the church for help? She's suppose to sit there and take it...Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-1807656904181506682016-02-02T18:46:04.619-08:002016-02-02T18:46:04.619-08:00Also, another thing that matters to me on this: sl...Also, another thing that matters to me on this: slavery was also addressed in the same passages - it was part of the Domestic Codes too. Slaves were to submit to masters as to the lord as well. <br /><br />In our modern times, we do not view the Bible as *requiring* slavery. We rather chose to abolish it, and thus, the admonition to obey one's master (and, for that matter, be kind to slaves) is pretty meaningless. The relationship of employee/employer isn't analogous in nature to that of slavery. <br /><br />By a reasonable analogy, the abolition of "marriage" in the sense of the ownership of women has been abolished. Thus, to require the re-establishment of "marriage" with a hierarchy would seem to require the re-establishment of the relationship of slavery, right? To be consistent...Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-81644959574359405112016-02-02T17:37:59.257-08:002016-02-02T17:37:59.257-08:00Okay, finally had time to go back through the Pipe...Okay, finally had time to go back through the Piper video, and here is the exact quote:<br /><br />"If it's not requiring her to sin but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, and she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church."<br /><br />That sure as heck sounds like physical abuse. And note, she doesn't get to leave or call the police, she "seeks help from the church." Presumably, at that point, the pastor tells him to stop it, and for her to stop provoking him. (Ala James Dobson...) <br /><br />As to the interpretation of the video, I guess we just disagree. Let me add one thing in, however. Those who speak for TGC *themselves* have stated in other forums that they believe that gender hierarchy IS a core part of the gospel - and have linked the video as part of the argument. So THEY at least believe that the meaning of the discussion is that "complementarianism" is a "gospel issue." <br /><br />Here is just one, but there are plenty of others out there: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-is-tgc-complementarian<br /><br />Note that "gender roles" are also cited. An example of that is Piper's teaching that women should not hold careers that allow them to give orders to men. <br /><br />http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-women-be-police-officers<br /><br />That sure *sounds" like a directive that women should obey men, but never vice versa...Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.com