I’m Still Here…and a Comment on the Bayly Brothers
I logged onto my blog to say to my one lone fan (hi Chewydad) that I really am not blogging much lately. As if you hadn’t noticed. I am not officially quitting, but I am finding that my time is being spent elsewhere. Like on Facebook, where I can type one-liners, instead of writing an entire post. And that is all I was going to say…
But then I checked out my comments that are being held for approval, and I found one from a post dated 2-1/2 years ago. If there is anybody still out there, besides Chewydad, you might find the comment interesting. I am posting it here, because there is no way most people will see it on a post from September, 2006.
Chewymom,
It’s unfortunate that all of you cannot know Tim Bayly personally because I think it would help you to understand his position. He does not suggest that women should be subject to anyone except their own husbands and the other authorities that we are under through God (acknowledged or not). Scripture does not require women to be subject to all men, just their husbands and other authorities which include their own pastors (through their husbands) and civil authorities etc.
My wife and I do sidewalk counseling at Planned Parenthood. Sadly, nowhere else on the planet is it more clear that if a woman doesn’t submit herself to her husband, she becomes subjected to the evil of all men instead of free from men’s tyranny. Last week a woman who decided not to kill her child was terrified that her boyfriend would leave her if she didn’t do it so she asked us for a ride home. He didn’t leave her but the next week she came back to have the abortion, because her boyfriend pressured her into it. This man who pushed his wife into abortion is not a godly husband - the “tyranny” of a godly husband is not pallatable to women who effectively love rebellion and death but the alternative is more rebellion and death.
Tim Bayly preaches freedom from tyranny of ungodly men but the fallen or mislead see only slavery but I ask whether Christian women who oppose sound biblical teaching truly embraced slavery to Christ or slavery to sin.
The post is here, if you want to read it.
And now I am going back to my regularly scheduled life. I’m sure I will post here occasionally, and who knows? The writing bug may strike me again. But for now, I may be a bit scarce….
Posted in This and That
February 25th, 2009 at 9:06 am
I’m a regular reader — have missed your posts. But if facebook is your place now, please friend me!
February 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Sorry to hear you’re not going to be posting much. I’ve been checking in to see if you’ve blogged anything as I really like your take on issues - the big ones and the family life ones - actually, come to think of it, family life issues are big ones too…. Best wishes to you & your family.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I’m another follower who will miss your posts. Thank you for all that you have shared on here–I find your posts both thought-provoking and entertaining. Blessings on you and your family!
February 27th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Hey, I read this blog, too! I love being your friend on Facebook (I especially loved it during the election, as I really valued your perspective.) But I also miss reading Chewymom! I hope you don’t give it up entirely…Oh, and I know my husband checks this blog regularly, too, so there’s another fan!
February 27th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Your public is calling for you!
February 28th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Hey girlie - I read here often too!!!! I love your outlook on life, so please try to stop by once in a while, kay?
February 28th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Thanks so much for all of your kind words! I really am not *wanting* to quit blogging, I just felt like I needed to post SOMETHING to let people know that I haven’t just vanished off the face of the earth! A lot of what has been going through my head and that I would normally blog about could potentially hurt the feelings of others, so I feel like I am having to guard my tongue (fingers) and limit what I post. I don’t know if that makes sense…but anyway, I’m sure I’ll be back to brain-barf all over my keyboard eventually, but for now I’m having to keep my mouth (fingers), ummm, shut.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Who the hell is this idiot who says that women should be subject to their husbands? That is a load of horse shit.
I love my husband tremendously, as he loves me. We are both attorneys and I worked to put him through law school. I did this not because I am in any way inferior to him or because I, as a woman, need to “serve” my man but because I wanted him to have a good career and law was his goal ever since he was a child.
We have a marriage of twenty years, two children and a very good lifestyle. We are EQUALS and we raised our children to respect all people of all genders, sexual orientation and racial and religious backgrounds. Crap like what this fool is propagating doesn’t fly in our house.
BTW, my husband and I are both elders in our Presbyterian church. We are aware, as everyone should be, that the Bible has had many translations,most of them done at the behest of whichever king or ruler was in power at the time. It was considered politically expedient to add stuff about obeying one’s king or employer/master. There were also those, St.Paul being an excellent example, who hated women and did everything in their power to prevent them from having any real role in church leadership.
I have much more to say about creeps who try and push women down. I’ll reduce it to two words: Misogynist assholes. “nuff said.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Hi Chewymom! It’s been a while. I posted here long ago as emmasometimes and I saw your link on Skerrib’s blog. I immediately thought of the Bayly posts and was surprised to see this post. (queue Twilight Zone music) They did not act toward you in love or authority, beating you with their version of scripture.
Being subject to my husband does not mean as a woman, I am his slave. God took the rib bone, not a skull bone (superior) and not a foot bone (inferior) but a bone from Adam’s side to make Eve. A wife is a helpmate, someone standing by his side, an equal…never a doormat.
and may the good Lord work in the marriage of the man (or woman) that does not understand this divine design.
I’m sure the Bayly incident has bothered you for years..even I think about it and cringe at how misguided this man was/is..even with it all being two years ago. I say pray for him. Forgive him and leave him to his own misgivings. God has His way of holding those people accountable to teach them grace, love, and in his case, tolerance of the female gender which appears to be lacking.
Anyway, my two cents. Good to read you again. And btw, I’m on facebook, chickie. Email me and we’ll hook up!
March 10th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
I hear you Karen, I am blogging much less often and am seeing that when I do find the time to blog hop many others not finding the time either.
Love you girlfriend!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Hey Jenn,
Just wanted to say that actually the Bayly brothers stuff has not bothered me at all for the last few years. Honestly, I just don’t go over there, and I don’t have much contact with people who believe/behave like them, even though we are still in the same Christian denomination. I posted that comment because I thought it so odd that someone is just now commenting on that post - just thought some of my readers from back then would find it interesting!
I’m glad to know where you are blogging now - I’ll have to check it out!
March 15th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Chewymom, I’d love to connect to you on Facebook.
But I’m not sure how to find you. . .
March 26th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
“He does not suggest that women should be subject to anyone except their own husbands and the other authorities that we are under through God (acknowledged or not). Scripture does not require women to be subject to all men, just their husbands and other authorities which include their own pastors (through their husbands) and civil authorities etc.”
Hi, Chewymom. Like you, I don’t read the Bayly blog much any more, and I’ve been hit or miss on blogging. This comment about the Baylys telling women they are not subject to anyone except their own husbands and the other authorities God has placed over them actually may be true, on the surface of things. Bayly probably does teach this.
What Bayly actually teaches is against women ever having positions of authority over men, because when that happens, so he says, the created order is violated.
It’s a subtle difference, but what it amounts to is not that women are subjects of all men at all times, but that no man really should ever have a woman as an authority over him, because that violates the created order.
I disagree with that, and don’t see how the prominent godly women in Scripture are doing any violence to Genesis chapter one.
It’s kind of like he’s saying Genesis 1 only applies to the wife’s husband in relation to her - not to all men being over her. But then he turns around and teaches Genesis 1 must apply to all women in relation to all men– that no woman should ever have authority over another man, not just her own husband.
It just doesn’t compute, logically, or Scripturally. He limits the application in one sense, but broadens it in another - in a way that Scripture does not teach.