This is what happens when you ignore or engineer scripture. Feminists feel belittled by the false assumption that God sees them as worth less then men. Jesus had no problem submitting to the father, and yet He is equal. Please feminists, God gave us scripture because He loves us, it is not to be engineered to please the world.

I notice Her-meneutics don`t even try to use scripture in their feminist doctrine. Is scripture really that offensive to them ? really, No, male leadership does not belittle women. Jesus was given his authority by God the Father (Matt. 28:18). He was sent by God (John 6:38). He said the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Did this belittle Jesus? Of course not. Women are of great value in the church and need to be used more and more according to the gifts given them. Scriptural guidlines for church office is God speaking, feminist ideology is the world speaking. Now, choose who you listen to.

I have often read article proclaiming that Jesus was not exclusive. In one sense He invited all to follow him. However He picked his own group of disciples. He turned away the rich young ruler. He set limits. He had an inner circle of 12, a larger group of 70. And then there were the women. Within the inner circle of 12 we find a few favorites. Mark 10:35-37. James and John the sons of Zebedee come seeking preferential treatment. Jesus turns them down. Basically Jesus said, everyone is invited but only those who do the will of my father will be allowed in. That is pretty exclusive and might eliminate a lot of us.

Tamara, Mrs. Groothuis' mistake is to forget that theology is the queen of the sciences and philosophy its handmaiden. Instead, she makes philosophy the sovereign of all. On her constrution of the argument, she is right. But there is no reason the argument must be put as she has it. Instead, we need to remember that men and women are ontologically equal yet teleologically distinct. Then we can see it is a paradox and not a contradiction -- and Christianity is chock full of paradoxes (the last shall be first, one God exists in three persons, etc.). When we remember that we understand that it is the feminists who are the true misogynists, being the despisers of women qua woman. Kamilla

:sigh: Bethany, in my neck of the woods the term "shut up" is not considered "violent" or "abusive." I'm sorry that my words came across as violent. But you're derailing the discussion to talk about my tone. And, honestly, that's a pretty standard tactic that gets taken whenever a woman gets vehement or passionate. I'm not going to conform to the patriarchal standards that say a woman can't get loud, can't be passionate, must always use "nice" language to get her point across, etc. I'm not going to apologize for being passionate and using the term "shut up" in response to people who won't stop talking long enough to listen to anyone else. With regard to whether you *personally* think that you should submit and whether you *personally* think that's because women are inferior to men..... You miss the point. This is about logic, not feelings. You *personally* could be suffering from cognitive dissonance. Everyone holds opinions that are logically inconsistent without having considered the ramifications of that. It's part of the human condition. So, the fact that *you* don't think women are inferior does not mean that complementarianism is not a system built on the underlying (though usually unspoken or denied) assumption that women are inferior. Logically, the complementarian position *necessarily implies* that women are inferior. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis has written an excellent essay which breaks down the logic and explains why the position "equal but with different roles" is a logically impossible position. You can find that essay here: http://www.ivpress.com/title/exc/2834-18.pdf

Shoot, I always do this. The long comment above is mine. And sorry rick, my wording was kind of confusing. But I was trying to say what I saw as being Tamara's perspective on Complementarianism, not what mine actually was.

@Tamara In response to your other comments, I currently still identify as a complementarian, but I don't happen to believe that women should submit because they are less capable of leadership or less intelligent than men. Neither does my husband, who is a male. I'm sure many complementarians would disagree with me, but personally, while I've read a whole lot of verses in the Bible commanding women to submit, I've never read a single verse that says women should submit because they are inferior human beings. It's a common fallacy amongst Christians throughout the centuries to take a difficult-to-understand command of God and come up with our own explanation of why God wants it followed. We feel this need to justify God to ourselves and the rest of the world, and it always creates problems. Virtually the only explanation I've read in the Bible for why women are supposed to submit is the whole "marriage represents the relationship between Christ and the Church" sort of thing. Which makes carrying out the command symbolic, rather than necessary-because-men-are just-better-and-women-would-screw-things-up. I don't think I'm sexist for believing I should refrain from preaching simply because I believe God says so. I believe that I'm fully capable of preaching and probably would be better at writing and delivering sermons than many men I've met. I'd say the same thing about any woman I know whose gifts are writing and speaking. So you can't tell me that I have "a hatred for, dislike of, or prejudice against women" (the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of misogyny). Because I certainly don't. And yet, here I am, submitting to my husband and thinking about grad school, not seminary. I guess it could be due to my subconscious underlying contempt for myself because of my biology. But I tend to think better of my capacity for self-awareness. As we've both been saying here, ability to carry out an action does not automatically make carrying out that action morally right. And that's what I find to be the heart of the complementarian vs. egalitarian debate. Other people may see the situation differently, but that's my personal perspective.

You finally got it Bethany. Complementarianism = sexism against women. I agree completely. Just as Complementarianism in race would equal = racism. Also note Tamara says, "Nor did I say he only thinks the way he does because he's male. Considering the fact that tons of men are egalitarian, that would be a silly thing to say." In fact I would say most men are egalitarian. It is only a small minority of backwards Southern Baptists in America who are "complementarian". Of course, in civil society sex based complementarianism would be against the law. The exception is religious organization as is their right.

Tamara, I'm not writing off your comments as emotional. If you don't want people to think you're angry, don't use the language and expressions of anger. On multiple occasions in the post of yours that I addressed, you used capital letters, the online equivalent of shouting, as well as the verbally abusive phrase, "shut up." I don't think I am unjustified in assuming that you were more that frustrated, or in pointing out that there must be less inflammatory ways of expressing mere frustration. I didn't say you specifically stated "men shouldn't post here". Your language and your attitude towards Matthew were clearly meant to silence him and other individuals who think as he do (Unless "shut your mouth" has some other, less offensive connotation that I'm not aware of. Imagine your reaction if a man had said that to you, in any context. I know what mine would be). You said "Trying to "persuade" women to just accept sexism is out of place on a "blog for women." Following your line of reasoning: Complementarianism = sexism against women. Therefore, it has no place on a blog about women. Complementarianism is to you, as you repeated many times in capital letters, the "male perspective" (which I take to mean the common male perspective, or the traditional male perspective). Therefore, anyone who shares the "male perspective" is a sexist against women, and is out of place posting on this woman's blog. I was wrong to generalize. You don't think men are out of place posting here. You think that anyone who shares in the "male perspective," is out of place posting here (or at the least is out of place debating here), and that would include a significant amount of females as well as males. "I am, however, saying that I find it disrespectful that whenever women are trying to discuss women's experiences, there are men who bust into the conversation and argue about how our experiences don't really count. That is when men - who have not had women's experiences of being disallowed, discounted and marginalized because of their gender - need to shut up and listen." Then you could have just said it like that the first time, minus the part about shutting up. Yelling at your opponent to get him (or her) to listen to you almost always ends up having the opposite effect. Or so I've learned from experience. And it has nothing to do with me trying to reduce you to just an emotional woman that I don't have to listen to. It's not about emotions; it's about treating another human being with respect, regardless of how distasteful his beliefs are to you or how disrespectful you think his behavior is. And I do not believe that you did so, whatever emotion you were feeling. You could be as calm as a cucumber and it still wouldn't give you a right to tell him to shut his mouth. Or rather, you would have a right because it's a free country. But it wouldn't make it the right thing to do, or the thing that's most likely to win him over to your point of view.

Bethany, I'm only going to respond to a couple of points you made. First, I'm not angry. I'm frustrated. Not angry. Please check that you're not just trying to write-off my comments as 'emotional'. Second: "Certainly, saying that Matthew N. only thinks the way he does because he's male and therefore his comments have no place on a woman's blog is offensive to the women readers who believe in gender roles" I never said that Matthew N's comments have no place on a woman's blog "because he's male." Nor did I say he only thinks the way he does because he's male. Considering the fact that tons of men are egalitarian, that would be a silly thing to say. Read my first post again. I said that I am in no way saying men shouldn't be able to post here. I am, however, saying that I find it disrespectful that whenever women are trying to discuss women's experiences, there are men who bust into the conversation and argue about how our experiences don't really count. That is when men - who have not had women's experiences of being disallowed, discounted and marginalized because of their gender - need to shut up and listen. To the claim that "misogyny is a very serious charge to level at someone".... First of all, the narrow definition of misogyny as "hatred of women" and the suggestion that someone isn't a misogynist or isn't doing anything misogynist unless that person hates all women is a muddying of the waters. Misogyny is also defined as "contempt for women." And that contempt need not be overt or even recognized by the person holding it. It is more often an unconscious and underlying thought pattern than an overt "I hate women" kind of thing. "just because you sincerely believe that someone's personal stance on church leadership is motivated by a hatred of the female gender, that doesn't make it so." That may be so but I'm not claiming that "someone's personal stance on church leadership is motivated by a hatred of the female gender." I'm claiming that complementarianism/patriarchy itself is rooted in misogyny. I'm not basing my opinion that complementarianism is misogynist on 'subjective feelings' about it. It's based on the concept of complementarianism itself. Objectively, compism says that men lead and women follow. It is objectively sexist in that it places men above women. It is built on an underlying contempt for women (the concept that women need men to lead us only works, logically, if women are lacking something that men have, making women 'less fully human' than men.) People's 'motivations' for believing in complementarianism/patriarchy are myriad and complex and probably has more to do with the human failing of wanting human leaders, rules and structure, instead of putting their trust fully in God. But that's really a whole other ball of wax. Of course Matthew N and anyone else has a "right" to post their opinions. But that doesn't make exercising their "right" the right thing to do.