[Now, this is interesting! When I tried to google who said, "If you tell a big enough lie often enough . . ." one of the first links to come up was a blog about false memory syndrome. Just hold that thought for a moment and the connection will make sense.]
And then, there she was. A woman I have encountered before who tells the story of an horrifically controlling husband before they both discovered the wonders of Egalitarianism. She makes it sound as if Complementarianism made him do it. Now, please, please, please don't go misconstruing me, again (you know who you are). The first time I heard this woman's story, I did have quite a bit of sympathy for her. But now, I've run across her telling it so many times in so many different places, I have to wonder if it has become her schtick, her calling card, her bid for another sympathy fix.
It did not take me long to find the blog Kamilla referred to. I also found the commenter, who is a facebook friend of mine. I e-mailed her about this. She verified that Kamilla was talking about her in her post, and that they had some private exchange to say so.
I do not wish to discuss the conflict between Kamilla and my online friend. But I have read the same places Kamilla has read, and I disagree that this woman is trying to get a "sympathy fix." It appears to me she is saying as little as possible about her life, whereas before she was very candid about most things going on with her and her family. My impression is she's trying to protect the privacy of her family and still have some outlet on the internet for what she's going through.
It didn't take long for people to react to Kamilla's assessment that all the commenter was doing was looking for a sympathy fix.
But what bothers me most is Pastor David Bayly's comment:
READ HERE
The knee-jerk criticism Kamilla's receiving here boggles the mind. And the misuse of Scripture by her detractors is equally dismaying. It's all cant, animus posing as argument.
Are we really to approach a woman's accusation of abuse acritically? Is this the one area in life where the accused has no recourse, where laws of civil society and scripture alike are suspended and the accuser reigns supreme? Those writing in opposition to Kamilla sound like Stalinist apparatchiks in their willingness to believe any accusation. Indeed, according to some, the truth of the matter should be no concern of ours.
But what if the woman has been seeing a counsellor for emotional problems, what if the counsellor specializes in the recovery of lost memories, what if together they dredge up childhood memories of Satanist rituals where she was ritually abused by her father and his friends? What if no one supports her story--not her Christian mother, not her siblings, not her father's Christian friends, no one. We're to believe a sole witness--whose memories of an event arrived 40 years after the fact? We're to acritically love her, despite the fact that her story of abuse is probably a family-destroying, soul-searing lie from the father of lies?
No. Woman would never fall for Satan's whispered accusations against authority. Woman, the great source of purity in the world, the life-giver, would never accept Satan's suggestions that her Father is selfish, egocentric, manipulative, controlling and abusive, would she?
David Bayly
What floors me is the jumping to conclusions people are doing. But not this woman's friends. It's Kamilla and David Bayly who are overreacting, saying and insinuating the worst about someone they don't know, someone who is hurting a great deal. As in, Kamilla saying this woman is looking for a "sympathy fix." David Bayly insinuating that this woman is lying, because we only have her testimony. All of them saying everybody is taking this woman's word for what happened to her, and are accusing her husband.
Sorry, but I'm not doing that. I really DON'T know this woman very well, but I'm praying for her family and her situation. I take her testimony to be true because I believe her, but I am very aware there is always more than one side to everything, and I don't have that side. Hence, I've said NOTHING against the other party online, or elsewhere. I simply don't have enough information.
What Kamilla and David Bayly don't seem to realize is they have not met this woman, yet David sets up a situation before us which is designed to make this woman's testimony out to be a lying sham ("We're to acritically love her, despite the fact that her story of abuse is probably a family-destroying, soul-searing lie from the father of lies?"), that the accused is condemned without a trial by this woman's friends, yada yada, yada, when in truth I can't recall anyone condemning this woman's husband or saying anything against him online.
The following comment is brilliant I believe, for it says that if this woman WERE enduring everything she claimed she endured, then the Bayly blog is pouring toxic acid on an open wound, and the effect would be to make true abuse victims clam up, for fear of not being believed. Whoever this commenter is, he or she said it better than I could, so I will close with the comment found HERE, and repeat the question asked in the blog entry title:
I've been thinking about the comp/egal issue a lot lately, but this blog post disturbs me, because it feels like it is calling out a specific person publicly, when, if anything, it should be done privately.
And I think there is a really dangerous element here- false accusations are a terrible thing, but were I a victim reading this, it would feel much worse. I would be afraid to tell the truth, or to seek help - because I would be afraid of not being believed. I would be afraid of not passing whatever the litmus test is -- an abuser may be an elder, or someone else with community clout. Some people only think abuse is real if someone is hit. It isn't hard to understand that many egal's have experienced abuse. Abuse is real enough, in all sorts of relationships. I've seen enough genuine cases. :(
Well, the Baylys think of their blog as an extension of their pastoral ministries. Since they have never met this woman who is having some pretty severe struggles, and it was obvious to many people who this woman is (ie- although she was not named, it was obvious to her online acquaintances whom Kamilla and the Baylys were referring to), does this qualify as spiritual abuse? Calling someone out like this, saying she's just looking for sympathy, and implying she's lying about what she's been through?
31 comments:
Is Bayly being sarcastic when he calls Woman the great source of purity in the world. I'm just wondering because that sentence is contained in a very snarky paragraph. That doesn't sound pastoral to me.
Okay, I just went to the post by Kamilla Ludwig. Some of her points are just not clear. First of all, is she saying that everything that is repeated often becomes a lie? What on earth did she mean when she asks if there is something in egalitarians that causes them to seek out abusers? Is she saying abuse begets egalitarianism or that egalitarianism begets abuse? Does she concern herself at all with how frequently complementarians are abused?
It really does sound like Kamilla was trying to prove a point by using anecdotal evidence (and possibly at the expense of the unnamed woman's feelings).
Bless your sweet sweet heart.
(((((hugs))))
It is all so very sad. I have had to avoid this controversy because it is so greatly distressing and because those who have been hurt by this sort of abuse are still reeling so much that it makes conversation with them (even about other matters) quite painful. And I have had to focus my energies in other areas, which did not allow me to give the time and patience needed for such conversations.
I'm glad there are people like you keeping this drumbeat going. It is very important.
To B. Knox: Bayly made up an extreme hypothetical example of unearthing hidden childhood memories that never really happened, but condemned an innocent man in the false memories. That was to make us all disbelieve the woman's claims, which have happened in the past 15 years or so.
Bayly also went WAY overboard in verbally savaging those who tried to explain to Kamilla it isn't proper to take a situation you don't know all details of, and make judgments against a person's claims the way she did. For that, the people who commented on the Bayly blog in defense of this woman were verbally shredded and dismissed.
And to repeat myself, I don't remember ONE person who has attacked this woman's husband online when they respond to her story.
On the blog Kamilla referenced, they were discussing Doug Wilson's book REFORMING MARRIAGE, which this woman and her husband had read, underlined, and applied in their lives. In that book, Wilson said a wife is a field and a husband needs to plow that field. He said a man faces the world, but the woman faces the husband. Someone asked if there was any emphasis in Wilson's book about a husband's sacrificial love, but nobody answered. I've not read the book, but it appears to be slanted in the direction of a husband lording it over his wife, and her need to submit to him. And I agree with the person who said that is not NT teaching on the husband-wife relationship, that it comes close to what Jesus warned about lording it over others in the gospels.
The woman who was savaged on the Bayly blog said it was teachings like Wilson's that hurt her marriage, and caused her to stop thinking and to mistrust her judgment as sinful.
And THAT, I think is what they are so angry with that they are denigrating her like this. Wilson is their close friend in these matters.
Re: this "unnamed woman." It was VERY easy for me to google some terms in her entry, find the blog, find the woman right away, and apparently, some other people recognized it right away too, and and made the connection. Kamilla did not hide the details at all, and if you read the Bayly blog, you find that the woman can't defend the comments they make about her over there, because she has been banned. That's fighting dirty, if you ask me!
At Molly: Hi, there!
At Richard: Hi, Richard. I haven't been very active on the boards where this sort of thing has been discussed much any more. But I saw this right away, saw how the blog owners treated anyone who would disagree with Kamilla, how they wouldn't allow this woman to defend herself when she was the object of a blog post (Kamilla told the woman she was - I have the e-mails now), and that is just plain fighting dirty, and I wanted to note it as yet another example of how the Baylys' treat those with whom they disagree.
Breaking bruised reeds, is a short way of saying it.
Whether it qualifies as "spiritual abuse" others may decide for themselves.
Those writing in opposition to Kamilla sound like Stalinist apparatchiks in their willingness to believe any accusation.
I wish he could provide some quotes of this. Criticism of Kamilla started out with the line of I don't think it's nice to call someone out like this, whom you don't know, and so on and so forth.
THAT kind of mild rebuke is "Stalinist apparatchicks?"
Sheesh! Methinks he has turned the tables big time and needs to look into a mirror.
HERE is an interesting comment left at the blog. It will be interesting to see Kamilla's answer. Right now, her post struck me as the reasoning of one of Job's comfortors (can't recall which one now), the one who said, according to all I've seen, you must be sinning. "My experience proves everthing" kind of an argument. Here is the comment:
"I read your post, and I read all the comments, and I think I'm still struggling to understand your premise. Are you observing that these egalitarians who come out of complementarianism are redefining reality to make claims of abuse? Are you saying that this "commenter," for instance, wasn't actually abused because what she described is not abusive, or because her ~perception~ of her experience is inaccurate, i.e., things didn't happen the way she describes them? Are you saying people (secretly) seeking to get out of complementarianism purposely seek out bona fide abusers so they have an excuse to do what they already want to do? And do your observations about egalitarians apply to all egalitarians, or only the ones who were formally complementarian.
I'm sorry if I appear daft, I'm really just trying to understand fully what you're saying."
Simplegifts3,
Your phrase "verbally savaging" is a very accurate description of what is going on in the brief part I read of the blog you referred to. It brings to mind Paul's admonition, "But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." I agree with Richard D. that it is very sad.
The analogy of a woman being a field to be plowed by her husband sounds like Muslim teachings to me. Samson, on the other hand, called his wife the heifer (not the field) with which the riddle-seekers plowed, which I hope everyone here will forgive me for finding humorous. (I even refer to myself as the ox that treads out the corn when I'm sampling my cooking, as in, "don't muzzle the ox." ;-) )
I don't know the answer to your question of whether it is spiritual abuse, but it is certainly very mean and unfair.
Hey SG3! How have you been doing lately?
I had seen the original Wilson/Driscoll post and then somehow followed a link to Kamilla's post. I also read the blog of woman Kamilla is talking about.
Sheesh! It still seems the biggest sin in the Bayly world is, well, disagreeing with the Bayly's. They have no problem calling into question the motives and intentions of anyone who they suspect might not be fully on board with their patriarchal views. But even asking for clarification from one the Bayly's or their cronies is disallowed.
The comment from "a pastor's wife" that you quoted is a reasonable and respectfully written request but I doubt that Kamilla has the desire to make herself better understood.
This is why I stopped reading the Bayly blog long ago. I don't mind reading stuff I disagree with but the haughty attitude and scorn dumped on those who are most deserving of compassion just give me a sick feeling for the rest of the day.
Hi Lynn,
Just stopping by to say I see nothing has changed with you and your habit of publicly discussing private correspondence.
Oh well, at least I can be thankful you spelled my name correctly.
Toodles,
Kamilla
P.S. Uh, Brian, you would be wrong. See my latest over there in that place you say you no longer read,
Kamilla, there is nothing wrong with what I have done here. It is only wrong in your eyes, and you aren't God (thank God).
Please stay off my blog.
The reason I am asking this is because I wrote to you once, asking some questions, none of which were meant to attack you personally, and I received a correspondence from you, asking me to stay out of your inbox, or you would ban my e-mail address.
What you are doing, after refusing to discuss things privately with me, now, by coming to my blog, is beyond me. You don't want to talk to me. So until you change your mind, please stay away.
And there is nothing wrong with me saying that HERE, btw. I don't care if the whole world knows what you said to me. Perhaps I somehow missed the Scripture that says public comments can't be commented on publicly, and allusions to private exchanges MUST be approved in writing by all parties in the transaction, and signed by a notary public before making references to them publicly.
The reason I alluded to the private exchanges before IN THE FIRST PLACE was BECAUSE I asked you questions, and you REFUSED a PRIVATE conversation, and snipped at me and told me to stay away from you. So I took the questions to my blog, did not name you, and continued the discussion publicly.
If you don't like that, tough luck. There's nothing wrong with you asking me to stay away from you, and I will. So now please stay away from my blog, and if you don't want me commenting on your public remarks, then don't make them where I have any ability to see them.
Lynn,
If publicly discussing private correspondence without the permission of the correspondents (me being one) which you have now done at least twice that I know if -- if this isn't wrong in your world, then you are welcome to it and you don't need to be concerned that I will be back. Ever.
Kamilla
I don't mind reading stuff I disagree with but the haughty attitude and scorn dumped on those who are most deserving of compassion just give me a sick feeling for the rest of the day.
Hi, Brian. This particular person, "commenter," goes out of her way to make people feel welcome on her blog. She always has. She knows I don't agree with her on a couple/three things. But I have learned a lot from her on gentle mothering, and some other things, and while I don't understand the details of her current situation, I know there is a lot of emotional suffering and decompressing still taking place, and will be taking place for a long time to come.
That is why I hit the roof when I saw that thread. If you want to gain an audience with someone, don't make a swipe at them by characterizing their motives as being nothing more than self-serving whining.
We don't know the motives of anyone else's heart, and we are awfully deceived about our own, so said Jeremiah.
To Kamilla:
Correct. It isn't wrong in "my world" when I am the subject of the correspondence, which is what happened in the first instance, which nobody would have known about had you not come here today.
I don't mind talking about what others have said to me, about me, publicly. And since "commenter" was a main subject in your Bayly entry, I asked her for permission to write a blog post about this. I didn't need your permission because you were not the subject - you were the one talking about her and her motives, and apparently, that is OK in "your world."
I'll tell you what's wrong in "my world." And it's wrong in my world because I think it's wrong, period.
It is VERY wrong in "my world" to take someone who has suffered physically from multiple childbirths too close together, emotionally, from either false or poorly balanced teaching, and is very confused about it all right now, read some of her current comments in various places and then say, "I have to wonder if it has become her schtick, her calling card, her bid for another sympathy fix."
It's very wrong "in my world" to slam someone when they're down, by speculating about them having immature, self-centered motives for talking about their problems from time to time.
I think "commenter" has handled things exceptionally well - as have you. Of course I can tell you're a little peeved :) but that's understandable given the circumstances. You're still being respectful.
Kamilla knows that that she has taken the bare allusion to a private exchange and turned it into "publicly discussing private correspondonce". To mention that it happened is not to discuss the contents. But for Kamilla its a leverage point that's useful for obfuscating the main point.
Grace & Peace.
Kamilla knows that that she has taken the bare allusion to a private exchange and turned it into "publicly discussing private correspondonce".
Well, I spelled it out today, after she said that.
Today I did leave out one of my favorite quotes from her, one where she described my blog in, shall we say, less than glowing terms. ;-) Oh, well, it probably deserves the description she gives it, from time to time.
The thread at the Bayly blog is degenerating into straw men:
I do believe that this is a very serious issue as it is a denial of the very nature of God as Father and the setting up of an idol in His place. Can one be saved with a refusal to submit to one's husband or a refusal to rule one's wife and home? I wouldn't say for absolutely certain "no," but I definitely wouldn't run to "yes" either.
In the first place, soft complementarians and egalitarians state there is to be mutual submission in the home - that each must place the needs of others above his or her own. That when there is a wife's submission to a husband who is laying down his life for his wife -- a husband who is commanded to be like Christ in his incarnation and not like Christ who rules the nations with a rod of iron -- there will not be such a lopsided emphasis on wifely submission and a husband as the overlord of the wife. Let me repeat - the Bible expressly ORDERS the husband to be like Christ in his kenosis, to live with her as one who serves and washes feet, and the Bible NEVER orders the husband to rule over his wife, in the NT teachings on the family. Sure, there are qualifications for elders to rule their own households well, just as women are commanded to rule the house. But that does not mean either is explicitly commanded to rule over the other. Sacrificial love works things out, not a pack order.
Hence, a soft comp or egal would not say that a wife is to deny that she is commanded to be submissive to her husband.
The comment is a straw man in the second place, because in cases of, say, pedophilia, assault and battery, or other sins of gross moral turpitude, or behaviors that would be harmful for children to be around, there is no requirement that a wife live with that, and certainly no requirement that she subject her children to such behavior, especially if there is no repentance on the part of the husband.
Hence, marital separation for a valid reason should not be equated with a lack of submission. Reporting a spouse for a crime committed should not be equated with a lack of submission or sacrificial love.
No biblical principle exists in isolation from other considerations. The same apostles, for example, who said Christians need to obey the government were the same ones who said they needed to obey God not men (the government of their day), when the government went against God's express will.
Same goes for marriage.
Finally, each of us must stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account for our words and deeds. I've already got enough to be ashamed of, without judging someone I've never met, from a distance, who is having some great struggles in her marriage. And I would continue to caution those who do continue to make such judgmental comments. It is God with whom each of us has to do.
Simplegifts,
I also appreciate very much that in "your world" it's wrong to slam someone who is down, and I've always admired the person who would stand up for one who is vulnerable.
Here is the CLEAREST example of why I won't post at the Bayly blog. Kamilla starts off by talking in about someone who is fairly well-known in the Christian blogosphere. Kamilla wonders if the reason this woman talks about her life is on account of looking for a "sympathy fix."
In this last comment, Kamilla then accuses the people these women are friends with of "gossiping.'" You have to keep in mind that the reason people objected to Kamilla's post in the first place is because they said, in essence, it isn't a good idea to be judgmental about someone like this from a distance.
For that, we are accused of "Stalinist" tactics, and note the latest comment from Kamilla:
Oh, I dunno. Haven't you ever noticed that everytime thise sort of thing flairs up a seemingly new set of agents provacateur shows up? I think they've merely done their work. They've stirred the pot, shaken their fists at God and now they've gone back to their dark little corners of the internet, gossiping amongst themselves and keeping a look out for the next opportunity to rale and wale.
All this for people not being happy with the way Kamilla talked about, in a very negative way, someone she hasn't met and doesn't know. Someone who has been hurt and is trying to make a recovery in her life.
Yeah, baby! We are the gossipers all right!
Sheesh! Table turning, table turning, and yet more table turning, in addition to the judgmentalism and added hysterics by David Bayly, with his references to Stalin.
David Bayly and Tim Bayly remind me of Franky Schaeffer and his rhetoric. Very much so. Over the top, inappropriate, and immature.
Can one be saved with a refusal to submit to one's husband or a refusal to rule one's wife and home? I wouldn't say for absolutely certain "no," but I definitely wouldn't run to "yes" either.
I must need to read my Bible more because I was under the impression that one's salvation was completely dependent on having faith in the work and person of Christ. Did the commenter at BB(who was not corrected, btw) just make salvation dependent on Jesus plus something else?
The commenter should be saying for absolutely certain that it has no bearing on salvation.
But then TB piles on :
Egalitarian feminists are heretics. Their heresy is an attack upon the the doctrine of God, the doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine of the Church, the doctrine of man, and the list goes on. Can a man whose name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life be an egalitarian feminist? Maybe a better question is whether a man whose name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life can deny the Fatherhood of God? After all, that's the heart of the matter.
This so-called heresy is so tightly intertwined in their patriarchal system that to tug at the thread just a little unwinds the whole thing. I'm pretty sure this is not standard PCA belief and cannot be found in the WCF either.
Its interesting that one so "adept" at rooting out heresy seems to have stumbled into it himself. I guess there should have been a 6th sola - Sola Patriacha.
It's unfortunate that you bring the Blayly's so much attention.
Why? You think they're not on the radar screen of the PCA's General Assembly with all their bashing of Tim Keller and Carolyn James? Plus how they treat fellow lay people in the PCA, such as Light Morton? My guess is this blog isn't adding much to the awareness out there, especially after looking at my sitemeter.
Lynn,
I read the post and the comments over at the BB. Oh dear... I wanted to reply to this little bit Brian brought over here:
Can one be saved with a refusal to submit to one's husband or a refusal to rule one's wife and home? I wouldn't say for absolutely certain "no," but I definitely wouldn't run to "yes" either.
I'll do so here.
If loving God is obeying God, then you could use Scripture to say that a wife who refuses to submit to her husband is in sin, and doesn't love God, which could lead to questioning her salvation.
But where in the Bible does God command men to rule their wives?
THAT little slip is what says it all for me. Patriarchy is based on the belief that God gives indirect commands, even commands that you must guess from the context, using human (fallen) logic, and those indirect and guessed commands supersede direct commands, like do unto others as you would like them to do to you, or esteem others as above yourself, or husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, etc...
Hi, Madame. I agree, except I think logic is about as fallen as mathematics, or the law of gravity. It is because they are being illogical, saying what the Scripture doesn't say, as though it does in fact, teach it, that is the problem -- saying that a husband is to "rule" his wife.
The ONLY place the NT commends men that "rule over" w/respect to the family life is in the qualifications for elders given in I Timothy, but it says he rules over his household, and qualifies that by saying he has children who are in submission to him with all reverence. The wife is not included there; it is the children the apostle had in mind when he said that (the wife is commanded also, elsewhere, to guide the house, by the way, so there is a sharing going on here between husband and wife).
You are very right. I think they are promoting a pagan conception of authority, and anything that strikes of mutual service and servanthood strikes them as unmanly, when in fact, it is what Jesus taught.
I also agree that a much softer version of complementarian teaching, which is what I believe the Bible actually teaches, does not mean that wives refuse to be submissive. It just says, very rightly,
"Whoa, there, you claim the men in the Church are commanded to 'rule' their wives, and there is not one shred of evidence for such a command to the Christian husband."
One of the theological differences here is Dispensationalists and New Covenant Theologians teach the Law of Moses was abolished and we are not under its authority any more. So when they appeal to anything in the Mosaic Law about a man ruling his wife, if they did that, we would just say,
"Our law code is the New Testament. That is why it is called the New Testament. Because it replaces the Old Testament. When you make a new covenant, the old one becomes obsolete, as Hebrews has taught. So we look for help in practical Christian living first and foremost in the New Testament, recognizing much of the OT agrees with the NT, but where they are different, we defer to the NT."
The Baylys are Covenant Theologians, and I think this is one of the big places of disagreement.
My view is that the Bible teaches male representation throughout, and so gives males the prominence in the Levitical priesthood, and elders in the Church. I don't think the language of the Bible is arbitrary, nor do I think the body Jesus had was done with a flip of the coin, nor his selection of apostles (all male), and so forth.
But Jesus, who IS our authority, said we were to follow in His footsteps in His Incarnation, and He expressly said those who would be great were to NOT be like the pagans around them, who aspired to rule over others and exercise authority over them.
The Bayly blog is unbiblical in much of what it touches on, when the gender discussions come up. I reject their notions of "sexual orthodoxy," precicely because they sound like what Jesus warned us about in the gospels. "Rule the wife" is but the lastest example of this. Instead of,
Can one be saved with a refusal to submit to one's husband or a refusal to rule one's wife and home? I wouldn't say for absolutely certain "no," but I definitely wouldn't run to "yes" either.
It should read this way, to be biblical:
Can one be saved with a refusal to submit to one's husband, to revere him, and guide the house, or a refusal to sacrificially love one's wife, laying down his life for her, and rule the home? I wouldn't say for absolutely certain "no," but I definitely wouldn't run to "yes" either.
I agree, except I think logic is about as fallen as mathematics, or the law of gravity. It is because they are being illogical, saying what the Scripture doesn't say, as though it does in fact, teach it, that is the problem -- saying that a husband is to "rule" his wife.
Lynn,
I meant logic as in fallen human's logic.
In my conversations (both online and offline) with complementarians, I've come to the conclusion that their beliefs regarding male "headship" in the home are based on Scripture and a dose of worldly logic.
It makes all the sense in the world for there to be a captain on a ship. That sense doesn't translate into there needing to be a captain in a marriage. Do you see what I mean by logic?
The other logic I'm talking about is "the Bible says a wife is to submit to her husband in everything, that means the husband is to have the last word in everything". Some will go as far as to say that if he doesn't rise up to that responsibility (or claim that right), he is in sin (like the person who made the comment on the BB).
And the final logical conclusion is that if God told Eve that women would be ruled by their husbands, that means that God is telling men to rule their wives.
I always get the same handful of verses when I ask the question, where did God tell men to rule over/exercise authority over/lead their wives? They are all verses that are directed at the wives and that admonish us to submit to our husbands or tell us that they will lord it over us. None address husbands directly.
I think the logic is flawed because it's applied where it doesn't apply, if you see what I mean. I don't think God's Kingdom is based on logic.
And the final logical conclusion is that if God told Eve that women would be ruled by their husbands, that means that God is telling men to rule their wives.
This has always puzzled me, in that we think nothing of trying to make the effects of the judgments against mankind less by improving farming and living conditions, trying to make childbirth as safe and painless as possible and trying to stay as healthy as possible until death.
But dag-nabbit, here is one judgment against mankind that has to remain in effect, according to Patriarchalists.
It is ludicrous even more so than the other judgments (the curse on the ground, Adam having to work hard, Eve having pain in childbirth) because they were external to their sin nature, but this judgment -- the stronger would dominate the weaker one -- appears to be a direct comment about their new sin natures and how they would play out.
IOW, God was foretelling the effects of what was to come -- that the stronger would oppress and dominate the weaker -- and we see this not only in marriage, where overwhelmingly men are stronger than women, but in society as well. The heathen who get power use it to lord it over others who must submit to them, Jesus explained, but He said it was not to be this way in His kindgom.
My understanding of God's judgment against Eve, when He spoke of the effects of the fall on marriage, was that she was going to see how the sin nature was going to affect the relationship, and it wouldn't be pleasant.
It strikes me, therefore, as ludicrous that we should rightly fight to improve the conditions of living, and of childbirth, but we shouldn't war against the sin nature, which is of FAR more eternal consequence than the other judgments.
And I agree. God NEVER told Adam to rule over his wife. He said that to Eve, along with the other effects of the fallen world. It happened as a consequence of sin.
"I don't think God's Kingdom is based on logic."
I'm not sure you understood what I meant, but it's tangential to the main idea. Thanks for your thoughts.
I was thinking about the judgments of God against Adam and Eve, and the curse on the ground, and had this additional thought:
Noah placed a curse on Cannan, and we see this played out in the conquest of Cannan hundreds of years later. But those (like Rahab) who placed their faith in God, were able to save not only themselves, but their households as well, so the curse did not come down on those who repented.
Hi Lynn,
I was just reading things here as usual and realized I haven't said hi in a while. I so appreciate all your help over the years here and at the discussion group. I'm usually lurking (I know you know how busy I've been lately) but wanted to say thanks!
BTW, the friend I was trying to find when I "found" you here (though I knew you as someone else on the discussion group, found me through facebook. Happy endings all around. :-)
Hugs,
Sandy
Hi, Sandy. Good to "see" you here. Glad you've found your friend on fb. I've missed your blog updates, but I know you are very busy.
Excellent discussion, Lynn.
"It is VERY wrong in "my world" to take someone who has suffered physically from multiple childbirths too close together, emotionally, from either false or poorly balanced teaching, and is very confused about it all right now, read some of her current comments in various places and then say, "I have to wonder if it has become her schtick, her calling card, her bid for another sympathy fix."
It's very wrong "in my world" to slam someone when they're down, by speculating about them having immature, self-centered motives for talking about their problems from time to time."
Amen! Kamilla should be ashamed of herself. I am very thankful that God, in His grace and mercy, spared her from the things "commenter" has had to go through. Too bad she doesn't have a compassionate bone in her body for anyone who doesn't see things her way. Of course it is easy to be a "know it all" when you haven't "been there and done that". I have often learned the most when I have had to walk in another person's shoes and it has put to shame the black/white thinking I used to hold so firmly to.
I am glad to see that the Baylys are consistent. :-) That is about the nicest thing I can same about them.
Corrie, I wish I could say more about this subject, but I can't. But if I could, or you could (I presume you know some more of the facts here, which are verifiable), it would shed a whole lot of light on why I got riled up at Pastor David Bayly for saying WE were the Stalinist apparatchicks who jumped to conclusions. Kamilla and those at the Bayly blog don't know some of the facts I'm pretty sure we both were made privy to.
I agree with you. And for those who have the patriarchal glasses on their eyes who read this, agreement with Corrie does NOT mean I understand everything about Commenter's situation, and that I agree with everything she writes online about egalitarian teaching. ALL I'm saying is, "Don't be so judgmental from a distance about someone who is suffering," and after I wrote this post I was given more information about the situation, which only makes my point more emphatic.
I'm sorry to have to write that last part, but some patriarchalists are very dense, it seems.
Post a Comment