Why I Left an Evangelical Cult

[NBB]

The examples from a society that was fighting it’s way up from being considered by satan as just fed animals that would only be participants by privilege, yes. That would be where might is right and the devil smiles in satisfaction. "See I told you” said satan. But Job, even his own integrity needed replacing to be of God’s righteousness. His integrity wasn’t what God approved of.
So what changed in the story of Job? His sons and daughters shared the inheritance rather than the daughters relying on the brothers to feed them.

I'm ok with women doing whatever they want, but the role of leader and protector is something men had going on, and women might want to consider if this roles are something they want too, because with this greater responsability comes also greater requirements and effort etc.

 

[bekkilyn]

I'm ok with women doing whatever they want, but the role of leader and protector is something men had going on, and women might want to consider if this roles are something they want too, because with this greater responsability comes also greater requirements and effort etc.

Women have always been leaders and protectors, even if at times their efforts have been diminished and/or gone unrecognized. It is not a new or greater responsibility. It's also not necessarily about "want" but much more about who God created them to be and what he calls them to do. Many women have carried much larger life burdens than many men and survived and thrived, so "math is hard" type arguments against the idea of women being capable adults just like men really isn't a good one.

 

[NBB]

The bible says no such thing, but does of course address men who were already, according to the ancient culture of their times, lord and masters of their extended family structures. In ancient Rome, only certain men were legal citizens and had rights as such, and the legal rights of everyone else was much more limited. These sorts of harmful social structures are of the world and not of God. Fortunately, we do not live under such a governmental system and our more egalitarian ways are much closer to the intention of how we are to live as citizens of God's kingdom.

Husband submitting to wifes and wifes to husbands at the same time is not biblical.

"For the husband is the head of the wife"

There is no much room to interpret different the bible here, If you don't like it and discard it because of feminism, well your choice i guess. THere is lots of peolpe with 'modern' philosophies that twist the bible because they see something they don't like.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Husband submitting to wifes and wifes to husbands at the same time is not biblical.

"For the husband is the head of the wife"

There is no much room to interpret different the bible here, If you don't like it and discard it because of feminism, well your choice i guess. THere is lots of peolpe with 'modern' philosophies that twist the bible because they see something they don't like.

The head leads the body just as Christ led the church. I’m not seeing a correlation between reality and truth in that everyday use of the word accomplishing anything but a vague idea of what Christ wants but nothing of who Christ is without mutual submission as Christ gives and takes with us on a daily basis.

 

[bekkilyn]

Husband submitting to wifes and wifes to husbands at the same time is not biblical.

"For the husband is the head of the wife"

There is no much room to interpret different the bible here, If you don't like it and discard it because of feminism, well your choice i guess. THere is lots of peolpe with 'modern' philosophies that twist the bible because they see something they don't like.

Ephesians 5:21

ALL Christians are to submit to one another. Husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church was one example of how to do so. Think of Ephesians 5:21 as the topic sentence to everything that Paul describes after he makes that statement.

Please discard all notions of "the bible clearly says" because many people look at scripture through faulty lenses that end up doing great harm to people who God dearly loves.

Does the head of a river have authority and power over the rest of the stream? No, it's simply the source of the river just like Adam through his rib was the source of Eve's creation. However, God gave them mutual responsibility in tending to the garden. If you cherry pick out verses like "husband head of the wife" or "man head of the woman" and not take into consideration who Paul was writing to and why, and instead put in a modern English interpretation of what you think it all says, then you risk oppressing and harming real, living people who God loves.

We cannot take a legalistic view of scripture, but rather look at the entire message of the gospel which is GOOD news of Christ. Living in God's kingdom is both for the here and now (even if not fully realized) and for the time to come. We are not to use scripture as a weapon to enslave and persecute others because that's not its purpose.

 

[NBB]

Ephesians 5:21

ALL Christians are to submit to one another. Husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church was one example of how to do so. Think of Ephesians 5:21 as the topic sentence to everything that Paul describes after he makes that statement.

Please discard all notions of "the bible clearly says" because many people look at scripture through faulty lenses that end up doing great harm to people who God dearly loves.

Does the head of a river have authority and power over the rest of the stream? No, it's simply the source of the river just like Adam through his rib was the source of Eve's creation. However, God gave them mutual responsibility in tending to the garden. If you cherry pick out verses like "husband head of the wife" or "man head of the woman" and not take into consideration who Paul was writing to and why, and instead put in a modern English interpretation of what you think it all says, then you risk oppressing and harming real, living people who God loves.

We cannot take a legalistic view of scripture, but rather look at the entire message of the gospel which is GOOD news of Christ. Living in God's kingdom is both for the here and now (even if not fully realized) and for the time to come. We are not to use scripture as a weapon to enslave and persecute others because that's not its purpose.

Yes the bible says we should submit to one another, but makes an special case for the order of the family, when it says 'wives submit to your husbands in everything', this is pretty clear, and the husband is the head of the wife. There are other passages too.

It's not 'legalistic'... people before this modern rebellion against traditional values did this without even being christians and they didn't even complain. Now in this modern view of things you say the bible is a burden on this topic and is 'legalistic' to try live like it says we should. I think this is an spiritual situation going on because love has dwindled, there is more rebellion going on in our hearts. Wives were happy with their husbands in a traditional way before, if the husband was good, what changed??

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. ...

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ...

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes the bible says we should submit to one another, but makes an special case for the order of the family, when it says 'wives submit to your husbands in everything', this is pretty clear, and the husband is the head of the wife. There are other passages too.

It's not 'legalistic'... people before this modern rebellion against traditional values did this without even being christians and they didn't even complain. Now in this modern view of things you say the bible is a burden on this topic and is 'legalistic' to try live like it says we should. I think this is an spiritual situation going on because love has dwindled, there is more rebellion going on in our hearts. Wives were happy with their husbands in a traditional way before, if the husband was good, what changed??

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. ...

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ...

Please follow the guidelines of this forum if you don’t want posts deleted.

Members of this forum may come from all denominations, and may hold a range of positions on the ordination of women as leaders, pastors, or sacramental ministers within the Church. These differing views may be explored within this forum, but that women are called to share in the work of the church alongside their brothers may not be debated.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think the real point that many miss is that if a spouse is not treating their spouse the way Christ directed then prayers will not be answered. So leave your gift on the altar and come again another time

 

[bekkilyn]

Yes the bible says we should submit to one another, but makes an special case for the order of the family, when it says 'wives submit to your husbands in everything', this is pretty clear, and the husband is the head of the wife. There are other passages too.

It's not 'legalistic'... people before this modern rebellion against traditional values did this without even being christians and they didn't even complain. Now in this modern view of things you say the bible is a burden on this topic and is 'legalistic' to try live like it says we should. I think this is an spiritual situation going on because love has dwindled, there is more rebellion going on in our hearts. Wives were happy with their husbands in a traditional way before, if the husband was good, what changed??

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. ...

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ...

No, scripture does not make any special cases or exceptions to Ephesians 5:21. ALL are to submit to one another. Period. Then he gives a few examples of how people already living within the context of an ancient Greco-Roman household can accomplish it. Perhaps you might try coming back to the EGALITARIAN Christian forum after polishing your lens and looking deeper into scripture within the appropriate cultural context.

See, this is part of the big problem I have with much of conservative Evangelicism and why it so often leads to stories of abuse such as with the woman in my OP. Simplistic and unthoughtful views of scripture that lack a great deal of critical thinking. If anyone's in the mood for some real horror, check out the hashtag #exevangelical sometime.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My view is that the only real ecumenical reconciliation between ALL who truly follow Christ will occur only upon Christ's return. I'm not suggesting it's not a worthy ideal to pursue whenever possible, but I simply don't see it happening on a widescale basis. The values of all people who claim to be Christians wildly vary and are often in complete opposition. Could there be *some* common ground? Sure. But one could say the same about, for example, Christianity and Buddhism.

Bekkilyn, I can understand your frustration somewhat, even as a man since I've been bullied at times in my younger years, more than just once or twice. However, where our common Christian faith is concerned, I do that that more often than not, it's not that difficult to love the brethren even when we don't see eye-to-eye on every jot and tittle in our common Scriptures. There's always room within the kind of ecumenical relation I'm talking about since "admonishment" is a typical part of the Christian praxis taught by Jesus and by Paul and Peter. Sure, we're to watch out for "false brethren," but I've often found that it is false brethren, like the 'super-apostles' whom flouted Paul and Paul's teaching who were the upstarts and trouble-makers, not the orthodox Christians who sided with Peter and Paul and onward from them.

So, in my view, castigating and even disconnecting with others who claim Trinitarian Christianity as their model of spiritual practice should be a last resort and not the 1st or even the 2nd thing to move too simply because there are those Christians who can't seem to take into account additional necessary contexts that may affect how we under various tropes in the bible, one of which is of course the treatment of women by men. And it is very true that a number of Christians have a more conservative view on this issue, but I think it takes more than that to disconnect with them and claim that we don't have fellowship with them.

I also think it's a bit of an equivocation to say that the common ground that various Trinitarian Christians have in various denominations is more more and no better conceptually than Christians do with Buddhist.

No, I think you might need to slightly pull back on your position just a bit, even if not completely. Sure, we need to be on the look-out for false brethren who introduce disruptive, un-Christian social patterns within the Church of Christ, but we also need to be on the look out for ourselves and avoid dismantling our solidarity which we have in Christ with fellow Christians who may disagree with us over certain, select issues, too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, scripture does not make any special cases or exceptions to Ephesians 5:21. ALL are to submit to one another. Period. Then he gives a few examples of how people already living within the context of an ancient Greco-Roman household can accomplish it. Perhaps you might try coming back to the EGALITARIAN Christian forum after polishing your lens and looking deeper into scripture within the appropriate cultural context.

See, this is part of the big problem I have with much of conservative Evangelicism and why it so often leads to stories of abuse such as with the woman in my OP. Simplistic and unthoughtful views of scripture that lack a great deal of critical thinking. If anyone's in the mood for some real horror, check out the hashtag #exevangelical sometime.

What are your sources which inform your hermeneutical praxis, Bekkilyn?

 

[bekkilyn]

Bekkilyn, I can understand your frustration somewhat, even as a man since I've been bullied at times in my younger years, more than just once or twice. However, where our common Christian faith is concerned, I do that that more often than not, it's not that difficult to love the brethren even when we don't see eye-to-eye on every jot and tittle in our common Scriptures. There's always room within the kind of ecumenical relation I'm talking about since "admonishment" is a typical part of the Christian praxis taught by Jesus and by Paul and Peter. Sure, we're to watch out for "false brethren," but I've often found that it is false brethren, like the 'super-apostles' whom flouted Paul and Paul's teaching who were the upstarts and trouble-makers, not the orthodox Christians who sided with Peter and Paul and onward from them.

So, in my view, castigating and even disconnecting with others who claim Trinitarian Christianity as their model of spiritual practice should be a last resort and not the 1st or even the 2nd thing to move too simply because there are those Christians who can't seem to take into account additional necessary contexts that may affect how we under various tropes in the bible, one of which is of course the treatment of women by men. And it is very true that a number of Christians have a more conservative view on this issue, but I think it takes more than that to disconnect with them and claim that we don't have fellowship with them.

I also think it's a bit of an equivocation to say that the common ground that various Trinitarian Christians have in various denominations is more more and no better conceptually than Christians do with Buddhist.

No, I think you might need to slightly pull back on your position just a bit, even if not completely. Sure, we need to be on the look-out for false brethren who introduce disruptive, un-Christian social patterns within the Church of Christ, but we also need to be on the look out for ourselves and avoid dismantling our solidarity which we have in Christ with fellow Christians who may disagree with us over certain, select issues, too.

I think you are over-intellectualizing what I have been saying. I made no claims about not loving them or refusing to fellowship with them or any of that. My claim is that it often seems that we practice different relgions, that is all. Let me give you the most recent (out of many) example.

There are a number of Christians (typically conservative Evangelicals) who have been out protesting demanding that churches be re-opened because of "religious liberty." (In my local area, so I am witnessing it...it's not just an internet troll sort of thing.) They have made such statements that since the old people were going to die anyway, everyone else shouldn't have to suffer. All in the name of God of course.

Makes me wonder just which god it is they are worshiping because I can't see a resemblance to Christ there, and if I could, I'm not sure that's a Christ I'd wish to follow.

I don't see the local Buddhists out acting and speaking in this manner and I have no expectations that they will. I've gotten to the point of expecting that large groups of Christians will behave badly on many of these public occasions because it actually happens that way more often than not.

Everyone can mouth words about doctrine that we're all supposedly in ecumenical utopian fellowship with, but of even more interest is how are people actively living out their spiritual lives, their walk with Christ, each and every day.

What are your sources which inform your hermeneutical praxis, Bekkilyn?

Do we even need to get to actual sources because anything other than opening up an English translation (perhaps even the KJV) of the bible and reading what it "clearly says" could be an informative source, or might I suggest that being open to at least the idea that there ARE multiple interpretations of scripture out there (including many Egalitarian ones) would be a good start.

But I can't even count the number of times someone has posted Ephesians 5:22 (completely ignoring 5:21 of course) as if we here on the Egalitarian forum have never once seen it before, as if just posting it and saying "the bible says so" explains it all.

And if you have to question that, then I'm not sure you really do understand the frustration, but perhaps are just seeing this as another intellectual exercise.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Bekkilyn, I can understand your frustration somewhat, even as a man since I've been bullied at times in my younger years, more than just once or twice. However, where our common Christian faith is concerned, I do that that more often than not, it's not that difficult to love the brethren even when we don't see eye-to-eye on every jot and tittle in our common Scriptures. There's always room within the kind of ecumenical relation I'm talking about since "admonishment" is a typical part of the Christian praxis taught by Jesus and by Paul and Peter. Sure, we're to watch out for "false brethren," but I've often found that it is false brethren, like the 'super-apostles' whom flouted Paul and Paul's teaching who were the upstarts and trouble-makers, not the orthodox Christians who sided with Peter and Paul and onward from them.

So, in my view, castigating and even disconnecting with others who claim Trinitarian Christianity as their model of spiritual practice should be a last resort and not the 1st or even the 2nd thing to move too simply because there are those Christians who can't seem to take into account additional necessary contexts that may affect how we under various tropes in the bible, one of which is of course the treatment of women by men. And it is very true that a number of Christians have a more conservative view on this issue, but I think it takes more than that to disconnect with them and claim that we don't have fellowship with them.

I also think it's a bit of an equivocation to say that the common ground that various Trinitarian Christians have in various denominations is more more and no better conceptually than Christians do with Buddhist.

No, I think you might need to slightly pull back on your position just a bit, even if not completely. Sure, we need to be on the look-out for false brethren who introduce disruptive, un-Christian social patterns within the Church of Christ, but we also need to be on the look out for ourselves and avoid dismantling our solidarity which we have in Christ with fellow Christians who may disagree with us over certain, select issues, too.

I think, right off the bat, that terms like castrating others, is extremely sexist in mindset.
This forum is frequented by abused men as much as it is abused women, with the main traffic being middle of the road.
What is the equivalent of castrating a female? Barren. And when the mainstream Trinitarians want to move to kingship and make sure that women are left barren then what’s to step back from?

oops it was castigating not castrating used. anyway the point still stands.

Trinitarians have their own problems if they think hierarchy is an option.

 

[Paidiske]

In this power hungry and desire to rule over world, few people, even Christians know that our service is not a place of dominion, rather a place of undoing one self.

Essentially us women are fighting to serve? Well just do it then. Why do you need a pulpit to preach, just preach, in your home and your sphere of influence.

The problem is that we are not fighting for the church as Jesus had left it, we're fighting for what we have now made the church into, with our titles and buildings, we want significance.

Jesus said go and preach, not set up a church and then be the Pastor, then you can preach.

Whether Christ intended the Church to be what it is now (and I think there are aspects of it that he does intend and aspects of it from which repentance would be a good move), the reality is that the Church is what it is now.

And some women are called to minister in it. Not for "significance," (far out, I've been more bullied as a priest than I ever was in a secular workplace), or the like. But because in the Church as it is, some are called not just to preach but to weave the complex strands of contemporary ministry; to pray for and with people, to care for them and offer wise counsel, to preach and teach the Scriptures, to shape communal worship, and to lead communities in mission.

And if that is your calling - as it is for some of us - then "just preach in your home" is not going to fulfil that vocation. I mean, my cats have never complained about my sermons, but they're also not really the intended recipients of the gifts God has given me for ministry.

Willow Creek came very close to it and they were admittedly complementarian. They were very good about nurturing and recognizing gifts. Women weren't restrained.

If they were complementarian, then by definition, they weren't egalitarian. You say women weren't restrained, but what did complementarianism look like in practice for them? What did they expect of women in marriage and in the church?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you are over-intellectualizing what I have been saying. I made no claims about not loving them or refusing to fellowship with them or any of that. My claim is that it often seems that we practice different relgions, that is all. Let me give you the most recent (out of many) example.

There are a number of Christians (typically conservative Evangelicals) who have been out protesting demanding that churches be re-opened because of "religious liberty." (In my local area, so I am witnessing it...it's not just an internet troll sort of thing.) They have made such statements that since the old people were going to die anyway, everyone else shouldn't have to suffer. All in the name of God of course.

Makes me wonder just which god it is they are worshiping because I can't see a resemblance to Christ there, and if I could, I'm not sure that's a Christ I'd wish to follow.

I don't see the local Buddhists out acting and speaking in this manner and I have no expectations that they will. I've gotten to the point of expecting that large groups of Christians will behave badly on many of these public occasions because it actually happens that way more often than not.

Everyone can mouth words about doctrine that we're all supposedly in ecumenical utopian fellowship with, but of even more interest is how are people actively living out their spiritual lives, their walk with Christ, each and every day.

I'm sure there's going to be a few people out there who make an overture toward Christianity but don't actually understand the bible or follow it, preferring instead an immediate answer to their own 'felt needs' at the moment over the long-term commands that Jesus has given us. And they sometimes call themselves "evangelical," but I think they misconstrue the original meaning of the term, as well as the identity that supposedly goes with it, which they are attempting to inhabit.

I hear what you're saying, and while I don't think I'm "over-intellectualizing" what you're saying, I don't think we need to say "they" practice a different religion. In fuller biblical terms, we might actually say "they" simply don't practice Christianity rather than saying that they indeed do have some form or other of Christianity.

I know you remember what Jesus said to people in Matthew chapter 25, so in my estimation, if some man claims to identify with the Christian faith yet consistently thinks it's 'right' to manipulate, cajole, control and/or otherwise abuse women, whether verbally, socially, or physically, then I think it's safe to say that that particular guy, whether he's a so-called "evangelical" or not ................ is just not a Christian. And you, as a Christian women, have the right to tell him that.

Do we even need to get to actual sources because anything other than opening up an English translation (perhaps even the KJV) of the bible and reading what it "clearly says" could be an informative source, or might I suggest that being open to at least the idea that there ARE multiple interpretations of scripture out there (including many Egalitarian ones) would be a good start.

....well, yeah, you kind of 'do' need to get to actual sources to show that you're being accountable for the form of your thoughts; you need to show how you got them and from where. As in school, even as in the bible, we all have to 'show' from where, and how, we've gotten our ideas. Besides, we both know that the Bible really doesn't interpret itself and some parts of it are actually difficult to understand (such as those parts regarding the various treatments of women and wives), especially if one doesn't have additional insight about the biblical languages or the cultural histories from which it was produced. And this is one reason that where 'egalitarian' issues between men and women are concerned, I'm always referring back to the late Catherine Clark Kroeger as one of my main 'sources' for figuring out at least some of the nuances of this Women's Issue that women are constantly being accosted by.

But I can't even count the number of times someone has posted Ephesians 5:22 (completely ignoring 5:21 of course) as if we here on the Egalitarian forum have never once seen it before, as if just posting it and saying "the bible says so" explains it all.

Well.....yeah. I've been berated by that form of 'interpretation' from some conservative type Christians here and there, too. But it's obviously been for other issues on which I'm deemed to be a liberal (whatever that really is and means these day [I say this in jest, of course!).

And if you have to question that, then I'm not sure you really do understand the frustration, but perhaps are just seeing this as another intellectual exercise.

Oh, maybe. But I think that because I've changed my avatar many times, you may have forgotten the more egalitarian things I've said in my past history here on CF.

Anyway, when I encounter these kinds of instances with other people who claim the Christian faith, but yet have seemed to feel that they must badger me silly with their own overly simplistic reading(s) of the bible, I just stand my ground and insist that they better engage the field of hermeneutics.

 

[bekkilyn]

....well, yeah, you kind of 'do' need to get to actual sources to show that you're being accountable for the form of your thoughts; you need to show how you got them and from where.

It's a bit of a waste of time on CF. There have been many well thought-out posts with good sources with detailed support and explanations and practically each and every time the response is something to the equivalent of, "No, the bible "clearly says" along with the obligatory Ephesians 5:22. To me, it would actually be a miracle if that scenario were to ever play out differently.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a bit of a waste of time on CF. There have been many well thought-out posts with good sources with detailed support and explanations and practically each and every time the response is something to the equivalent of, "No, the bible "clearly says" along with the obligatory Ephesians 5:22. To me, it would actually be a miracle if that scenario were to ever play out differently.

Then, we can both agree that the bible DOESN'T clearly say that women are to be subservient---in fact, I think we both can read it and come away from it understanding that it doesn't---and it's time for people (mainly men?) to be responsible enough socially and spiritually to get out of their ignorance and become more educated about the bible (which will require they engage the fields of hermeneutics, among other fields).

 

[bèlla]

And if that is your calling - as it is for some of us - then "just preach in your home" is not going to fulfil that vocation. I mean, my cats have never complained about my sermons, but they're also not really the intended recipients of the gifts God has given me for ministry.

The sense of fulfillment is the tipping point. I would be miserable. My calling adds a depth and joy to my life that can't be replicated. I know I'm in the right place. Nothing compares.

If they were complementarian, then by definition, they weren't egalitarian. You say women weren't restrained, but what did complementarianism look like in practice for them? What did they expect of women in marriage and in the church?

Women were involved in all aspects of ministry and leadership. They weren't relegated to shepherding or children's ministries. They taught as well and the elder board is mixed. From my recollection the marriage teachings were balanced.

~Bella

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I'm sure there's going to be a few people out there who make an overture toward Christianity but don't actually understand the bible or follow it, preferring instead an immediate answer to their own 'felt needs' at the moment over the long-term commands that Jesus has given us. And they sometimes call themselves "evangelical," but I think they misconstrue the original meaning and of term, as well as the identity that supposedly goes with it, which they are attempting to inhabit.

I hear what you're saying, and while I don't think I'm "over-intellectualizing" what you're saying, I don't think we need to say "they" practice a different religion. In fuller biblical terms, we might actually say "they" simply don't practice Christianity rather than saying that they indeed do have some form or other of Christianity.

I know you remember what Jesus said to people in Matthew chapter 25, so in my estimation, if some man claims to identify with the Christian faith yet consistently thinks it's 'right' to manipulate, cajole, control and/or otherwise abuse women, whether verbally, socially, or physically, then I think it's safe to say that that particular guy, whether he's a so-call "evangelical" or not ................ is just not a Christian. And you, as a Christian women, have the right to tell him that.

....well, yeah, you kind of 'do' need to get to actual sources to show that you're being accountable for the form of your thoughts; you need to show how you got them and from where. As in school, even as in the bible, we all have to 'show' from where, and how, we've gotten our ideas. Besides, we both know that the Bible really doesn't interpret itself and some parts of it are actually difficult to understand (such as those parts regarding the various treatments of women and wives), especially if one doesn't have additional insight about the biblical languages or the cultural histories from which it was produced. And this is one reason that where 'egalitarian' issues between men and women are concerned, I'm always referring back to the late Catherine Clark Kroeger as one of my main 'sources' for figuring out at least some of the nuances of this Women's Issue that women are constantly being accosted by.

Well.....yeah. I've been berated by that form of 'interpretation' from some conservative type Christians here and there, too. But it's obviously been for other issues on which I'm deemed to be a liberal (whatever that really is and means these day [I say this in jest, of course!).

Oh, maybe. But I think that because I've changed my avatar many times, you may have forgotten the more egalitarian things I've said in my past history here on CF.

Anyway, when I encounter these kinds of instances with other people who claim the Christian faith, but yet have seemed to feel that they must badger me silly with their own overly simplistic reading(s) of the bible,

I just stand my ground and insist that they better engage the field of hermeneutics.

Food for thought ... according to the statement of purpose for this forum.

 

[bekkilyn]

Then, we can both agree that the bible DOESN'T clearly say that women are to be subservient, and it's time for people (mainly men?) to be responsible enough socially and spiritually to get out of their ignorance and become more educated about the bible (which will require they engage the fields of hermeneutics, among other fields).

Absolutely.