Another Thought About Bayly Blog
If you followed my link the other day to Bayly Blog and read the post and especially the comments about submission, you were probably scratching your head. Either that or wanting to run and hug your pastor for not being as mean-spirited and rude as Tim Bayly. Truly, it is a wonder that his congregation puts up with him.
Ephesians 5, the passage from which Tim draws his conclusions, says:
22Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because we are members of his body. 31″Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
This Ephesians passage, ironically, spends two verses (or, since the verses aren’t in the original text) 2-1/2 lines instructing women. It then goes on and spends nine verses (or seven lines) addressing men and their responsibilities toward their wives.
In the comment section, there is a person named “Light” who makes a good point and who is taken somewhat seriously until she is addressed as “Mr. Light,” at which point she corrects the person and says she is a “Mrs.” Mrs. Light Morton, to be exact. At that point, Tim Bayly feels free to be quite rude, and he says, “No, I’m not suggesting women should be silent on this blog. But deferential to our office and teaching authority? Yes. And characterized by a certain modesty when addressing men here? Also, yes.”
I suppose that Mr. Bayly figures that since he has a certain piece of anatomy, all women should defer to him? And because he is an ordained minister, everyone should respect that office, whether or not they are in his denomination? I wonder if he would expect Mrs. Light to show the same respect to a homosexual Episcopalian priest–he also holds an “office” and has “teaching authority.” And has that same piece of anatomy.
Tim goes on in the same comment and says, “And for the record, the rebellious false witness, Mrs. Light Morton, has only once (so far in this discussion) had any part of her false witness removed–a quite short phrase, at that. So don’t be bamboozled into pitying her because the big bad blog bully is keeping her from making her case from Scripture. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s Scripture itself, and its Author, the Holy Spirit, that denies her this opportunity. Of course, I might be convinced to change my tactics in dealing with her impiety and silence her completely. But to this point, Light has been given almost complete freedom to express her rebellion and darkness.” Elsewhere, Tim goes on to say, “Finally, I have not treated Mrs. Morton with contempt. Rather, I have accused her of being an agent of the Evil One in seeking to spread rebellion against God and His Word. This is objectively true whether you see it or not, and to avoid this point by claiming that my making this accusation is not Christ-like, that it is unloving, that I am treating her with contempt, etc. is to avoid the issue.”
Okay, so Light is to treat Tim with respect because Ephesians 5 says to respect your husband, and that somehow carries over to all men, especially those who are ordained, right? So logically shouldn’t Mr. Bayly be required to love all women as Christ loved the church? Shouldn’t he treat Mrs. Light with the utmost loving respect and be willing even to die for her? Somehow I’m not seeing Jesus in Mr. Bayly’s comments, are you?
September 18th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Ahhh, but that would require the good Mr. Bayly to be consistent with his application of scripture. Unfortunately, he is so entrenched and convinced of his viewpoint that he sees no problem with calling people “an agent of the evil one”, “rebellious false witness”, “impiety”, “rebellious against God”. Of course, he doesn’t like it when someone does the same to him…
I’m so glad that you and some of the other blogs have picked up on what Tim is doing. I’m sure that it helped in garnering the apology for Corrie(half hearted though it was).
Many blessings!
September 18th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Hi Chewymom. I find it ironic that Tim Bayly talks about “avoiding the issue” when that’s exactly what he did with Corrie and me. Instead of answering our comments with an explanation from scripture, he resorted to name calling both of us because we didn’t agree with him. He’s apologized to Corrie, but still hasn’t addressed her original question - which was where was it that I said I didn’t submit to my husband. He couldn’t answer honestly and end up looking good, so he decided attack people’s character instead. I’ve asked for an apology twice now, and Tim has been silent on the matter. I think it’s safe to say that Tim’s pride won’t allow him to admit he was wrong on this. I’m glad there are places like here and Pooh’s Think that are shining the light on this dark underbelly of Christendom. Christians shouldn’t be treating anybody with this much contempt, much less their brothers sand sisters in Christ.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
I am so with you on this!
(I especially enjoyed the last paragraph in your post!)
September 19th, 2006 at 12:29 am
This whole thing makes me so very broken. I just can’t figure it out. Ask a question, get called a name. Ask a question, get accused falsely. What in the world is going on in our Christian circles when patriarchy (and much if it being taught under the guise of patriarchy is EXTRA-biblical like the pharisees and their “hedges” around the Law) is the main focus to the exclusion of all other scripture passages? The mere notion of love is laughed at and it is likened to feminine weakness. Anything bad or weak is feminine even though God calls what He made “very good”. I really think that Jesus, Himself, would have been raked over the coals for not being “manful” enough for some of these guys. After all, Jesus spoke about LOVE more than anything else. Jesus’ words were more “mushy” than not. All that talk about love and humility and meekness…YUCK!!! Just more feminist propoganda. Proof that Jesus was a feminist? After all, the mere mention of love by Mildred Jones is proof that she is feminized.
Follow the logic for a second…If God is love and love is feminized then ??????
“Manful” is a term I coined from a pastor who took Mrs. Jones to task for bringing love into the dialogue. After all, what has LOVE got to do with any of this Bible stuff?
Here is the quote:
Manful religion doesn’t paint metaphorical butterflies all over Christianity and put the soft-focus lens on everything we do. Rather, we are firm but fair, stern but sympathetic, and rugged but respectful. Nothing Tim said is out of place.
Now, I am NOT making this up!
This is what Mildred said to get such an assinine comment:
“The contempt you displayed towards L. Morton is un-Christlike. People should be able to look at Christians and see charitable treatment and loving behavior. Don’t you understand that your mysogeny and hatred drives people away from the Christ you claim to love? What are you going to say to Jesus on Judgement Day about the people you drove away from him with your hatred? Jesus asked us to love each other. I don’t see that love in your treatment of Mrs. Light Morton. Why should her comments be invalid and immodest simply because she is a woman? Why is she full of rebellion and darkness for making a reasonable point that was worth discussion when it appeared that a man had made it? Unlike you, Jesus treated people with compassion under all circumstances.
Please examine your own heart and try to emulate the Saviour you claim to love. Honestly, in your heart of hearts, do you think he would treat a women the way you did?”
This pastor claims that Mildred is a good example of the “feminization” of the church! That Mildred was expecting men to act like women by being gracious, kind, loving, meek and humble! When even Christ, Himself, told us that he was humble and meek.
Well, I suppose when patriarchalists totally cut out the verses about loving their wife as Christ loved the church in favor of spending all of their time constructing a doctrine out of a command to their wives. When is the last time you saw any of these guys urging other males to sacrifice for their wives (except in butterfly, metaphorical Titanic sort of ways?) on a daily basis to her needs? When was the last time you heard these guys debating about the bible verse written to husbands to HONOR/RESPECT their wives? Hmmm? Where is all the debate on how to cherish their wives? Where is all the heat about men not treating their wives as fellow heirs? I suppose the word “fellow” sounds way too equal and feministic. They spend all of their time constructing a doctrine out of NOTHING. They have built their little empires on a small sentence written to WOMEN that tells the wife to submit herself to her husband. Where does it command the man to lead his wife and even to enforce discipline when she refuses to submit? Well, it is there and I am told I am a feminist for not seeing it!
It is mind boggling to think of the inordinate amount of time they spend on that one tiny verse to their wives but laugh and mock whenever the commands to husbands to love and honor are brought up! That is just proof that you are feminized if you bring up a verse that applies to them, they will retort. They won’t engage in a conversation about love and honor but will talk about giving their wife a seat on a lifeboat if the cruise ship would go down.
How nice to only have to obey the Lord in hypothetical situations that will probably never even happen.
Men sacrifice. Women submit. It is dark and rebellious to even think that a woman loves her husband sacrificially! The reason, I am told, that I go to Menards with my husband even when I am dead tired and big and pregnant and would much rather lie on the couch with a book is not because I love sacrificially but that I have to go because the Bible tells me to submit. That is why I do anything for my husband. It is not out of love. My sexuality dictates that all the things I do as a woman for my husband are out of submission. I am hard-wired to submit. My husband is hard-wired to sacrifically love.
But I won’t hold my breath waiting for the scripture to back this all up.
I wonder what examples they would come up with for the ways they sacrifice themselves for their wives on a daily basis?
How does 1 Cor. 7 figure in where a wife has authority over her husband’s body and vice versa? It is pretty clear to me that she can command him and expect him to obey her in the bedroom. A man is submissive to his wife in the bedroom. I wonder why we aren’t hearing more of these “manful relgious” types to be preaching about a man’s submission to his wife according to 1 Cor. 7? Men never submit? How can that be when authority over someone means that they submit to you? I know this is probably like fingers on a chalkboard to some but the very BIG implication in 1 Cor. 7 is that husbands DO have a duty to submit to their wives. If I am wrong and saying something evil, please let me know. I just want to be consistent with the usage of the word “authority” here. If a man has authority over his wife, she is to obey him. 1 Cor. 7 tells us that a wife has authority over her husband’s body, so he has to?????? Sacrificially love her?
September 19th, 2006 at 12:32 am
P.S. I have yet to see this respect, sympathy and fairness that the pastor of the “manful religion” boasts about. If I have missed it would someone kindly point it out for me?
September 19th, 2006 at 8:35 am
There certainly wasn’t the fairness there, Corrie, toward you. There wasn’t the respect for Light, because she was, after all, “only a woman.” What kind of respect is that? That is denigration. As I said to you on your blog, Tim only apologized to you after pressure from your husband and from the blogosphere, and even in his wording, he made it sound as though he had been trying to reach you back for a week, when in truth, he was ignoring the situation. He was ignoring your e-mails, ignoring your husband’s e-mails and phone calls, and there was at the least a five day lapse before he made any kind of contact. Meanwhile, on the internet, he was writing fairly prolificly. And, as I’ve said before, if he wants me to respect him as a man and as a minister, he is going to have to make some major changes in the way in which he deals with people.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Our pastor talked about these verses just a few weeks ago. He showed slides to help make his point and the one that caused the biggest stir was the one of HIM doing the dishes. Wives are called to submit to their husbands but husbands are called to sacrifice and that includes things like the dishes, taking out the trash, leaving down the toilet seat and changing diapers; real, daily sacrifices. Letting my husband have the final say is much easier when I see his sacrifices for me in the little daily things of life.
September 22nd, 2006 at 6:20 am
Corrie and Light,
I am amazed at the kindness and patience you two have shown. Every time I’m tempted to comment over there, it is something very rude and snippy that runs through my head. Any person with half of a brain, whether they agree with you or the Baylys or fall somewhere in between, can see that at the least, you are proving yourselves to be kind, temperate, self-controlled….The Baylys, however, are being rude, unkind, unloving, harsh, and making a mockery of Christianity, themselves, the PCA, and their views. They are digging their own grave, right on their blog, for the world to see.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:08 am
Girls, are you ready to show me love? That would be nice. Set the example of how Christians are supposed to act.
What’s that Scripture about beams and moats? You take my beams out and then you can deal with your little, itty bitty specks? How does that go?
Somehow you have a hard time convincing me that you are innocent victims of male oppression. I certainly don’t see what you see, but then I have those huge beams in my eye…or is it because of my black eyes from encounters with you dearies?
At least you feel a certain kinship…that’s nice…it’s nice to think alike…
Yes, this is from quite awhile ago. I’m behind on my reading…
…somehow I know that I will regret this, …
Do you ladies know what a Drama Queen is? …or a martyr complex?
February 15th, 2007 at 7:29 am
[...] I received a comment the other day on a post about the Bayly brothers that was from way back in September about the Bayly brothers and their ill treatment of women. I decided to post it below because first, I didn’t want it to get lost in the shuffle, because I think she is addressing some of us (Light, Corrie, etc.) specifically. Second…ummm…I don’t even understand it. Anyone want to take a stab at explaining what Donna Carlaw is getting at? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Why don’t I give you a blank book, so you can rewrite scripture. The bible is patriarchal. period. end of story. you don’t like this.
you are being disobedient to the word of God. Repent, and ask for God’s mercy on this issue.
March 25th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
[...] Well, since I used Angelina Jolie as an example of Christ-like love, I thought I might as well point out this comment I received on an old post about the Bayly brothers. Why don’t I give you a blank book, so you can rewrite scripture. The bible is patriarchal. period. end of story. you don’t like this. [...]