Chewymom

I just finished reading Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse. It is an interesting read if you are working through the biblical arguments for or against egalitarianism. Before I come to any definite conclusions of my own, I still need to mull over some things. But I have had this thought.

For each viewpoint–egalitarianism or complimentarianism–what if they’re wrong? If the egalitarians find out one day that they were wrong, what has ultimately been the consequence? I guess you could say it has resulted in an inaccurate portrayal of Christ and His church, since marriage is a picture of that. What else? Too much freedom has been given. Women have been allowed to do things that biblically, they ought not to do, like preach. Or maybe they have been allowed to serve communion. Or hand out bulletins. All in error.

What if the complimentarians are wrong? Then they have been guilty of oppression. They have held back an entire people group–half of the population of the earth, in fact. Not only have they kept women silent who may have a gift of preaching, which is the most obvious example of what women are currently not allowed to do, but they have not allowed women to hold the office of deacon, or to serve on committees, or in some cases to even hold certain jobs outside the church. Some take it so far as to treat women almost as property of the men they married.

Clearly I am not God, and I do not presume to be. I don’t want to sound like I know how He would react to any sin. But in my feeble human mind, I can’t help but think that the sin of oppression would be viewed a lot more seriously than the sin of granting too much freedom. In Jesus’s earthly ministry, He spoke against those who would oppress–the Pharisees. I wonder if my own denomination, the PCA, is going to find one day that they were guilty of oppressing women unbiblically? I don’t know. I’m still thinking through the issue. And for now, I’m wondering if one or the other view is in error, which is the most or least Christ-like?

By the way, for further reading, it is always interesting to visit Bayly blog and see how some PCA ministers treat and think about women. (Thankfully this in no way resembles the way my own pastor and session treat women.) Then be sure to check out Indelible Grace to see a discussion that includes comments that Tim deleted from his own blog.

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.

you are being disobedient to the word of God. Repent, and ask for God’s mercy on this issue.

The “name” of the commenter was written as “God is a “father”. Deal with it!!”

There you have it. Just in case you wanted to see a fine example of Christ-like love coming from within the evangelical Christian community. My Bayly brothers posts seem to bring out the best in their buddies, even months after the fact.

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?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Donna L. Carlaw Says:
February 13th, 2007

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?

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?

A lot is said within conservative Christianity about submission and what that looks like. I had a really interesting picture of submission presented to me the other day.

My friend S was showing me a tattoo she had recently gotten. She went on to say how her husband M really did not want her to get one. She was relaying how she didn’t at first, because she knew that it would always be there, he would see it, and it would be a source of stress and contention for them in their marriage. M’s real issue with tattoos is that it reminds him of a not-so-great period in his past, when he was rebellious and just a different person than he is today.

As S told us, M finally became comfortable with her having a tattoo because he understood her reasons–that she was celebrating motherhood (she just had her second, and last, baby) by getting a motherhood heart tattoo, she was celebrating getting back into shape, and she wanted to put a “normal” face on the art of tattoos. She is a nice, respectable mom, not some rebellious, dark teenager, and she wanted to show that tattoos aren’t all about rebellion and weirdness. She got the tattoo with M’s blessing and approval.

I love the picture of respect that this scenario shows. S, out of love and respect for M, was willing to not get a tattoo because she knew it would bother him. Later, M was willing to accept S having a tattoo because he listened to and understood her reasons.

By the way, M and S have never been involved in a church in their lives. They are not Christians. They are a couple in our neighborhood who are hippie-types–lots of tie dye, not into conventional southern things like dressing up and wearing makeup (her). They met at a camp and got together because of a hook-up. Not exactly a picture of biblical submission, right?

I think that often, Christians get caught up in the semantics and rules and obligations of submission passages, like the one in Ephesians, and we miss the whole picture. We miss the love and respect and joy. As a result, we may do submission, but not happily. We do it because we believe we are commanded to. And yet, here is a picture of a woman practicing what she would never in a million years call submission. To her, it is just a way to show love to her husband.

Compare that picture of submission to the one you find here, at Tim Bayly’s blog. Especially notice the comments, in which Tim and others reveal more and more of their own hearts in regards to the Ephesians passage. Let me just ask you: Which picture do you think reflects God’s desire and design for a marriage??

HT to Rebecca for pointing out Tim’s blog post.