Why I Left an Evangelical Cult

[Paidiske]

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.

Exactly.

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.

Hmm. I wonder, then, why they officially positioned themselves as complementarian, and what they meant by it.

 

[bèlla]

Hmm. I wonder, then, why they officially positioned themselves as complementarian, and what they meant by it.

They're on the liberal end of evangelicalism (if that even exists). They've taken a lot of flack for not adhering to 'traditional' ideals. Interesting question when I consider their behavior.

~Bella

 

[WolfGate]

Pulling from my Blue Bible app. Referencing the KJV.

"Submit" used in Ephesians 5.
hypotasso - This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

Which of those circumstances is most consistent with the image of marriage portrayed elsewhere in the Bible? Was the audience Paul wrote to most likely based in military or non-military culture?

I know which marriage I prefer to live in and which I think is most consistent with what Christ modeled for us.

Same definition at biblestudytools, a few others. I do note that some concordances leave out the non-military use.

 

[bekkilyn]

Pulling from my Blue Bible app. Referencing the KJV.

"Submit" used in Ephesians 5.
hypotasso - This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

Which of those circumstances is most consistent with the image of marriage portrayed elsewhere in the Bible? Was the audience Paul wrote to most likely based in military or non-military culture?

I know which marriage I prefer to live in and which I think is most consistent with what Christ modeled for us.

Same definition at biblestudytools, a few others. I do note that some concordances leave out the non-military use.

I think a lot of this perception is heavily cultural, at least here in the West. We have been conditioned to view leadership as very authoritarian, just like the military model you mentioned. There has to be one and only one person at the top and everyone else must obey without question, and if the "leader" allows question or discussion, that person still must make the final decision.

I've heard people numerous times (even here on CF) make comments like there absolutely must be *a* person to make the final decision or everything will simply fall apart into chaos.

We are so strongly conditioned to believe in this way that many cannot even remotely perceive of any other way. It just sounds utterly ridiculous to them.

There is a time and place for this type of military leadership. In a crisis situation where a snap decision must be made as lives could be in danger is a very good example, but it really isn't a good model for other situations, and in a marriage relationship, it can be incredibly destructive.

But since we are so conditioned to view leadership as authoritarian, we can't perceive that leadership in Christ isn't about power, but service. Leadership in Christ isn't about control, but submission.

If a man (or woman) wants to "be a leader" in his household or anywhere else, then he must first learn to submit.

 

[Gregorikos]

******PLEASE TAKE NOTE******* Before posting a reply, please take note that you have entered the realm of the EGALITARIAN forum. If you are not an Egalitarian Christian, please read this group's statement of purpose before posting. Thank you.

Watched this TED talk video a couple of days ago and really speaks frankly of the abuse and the dangers of "biblical" male dominance and fundamentalism. While she was part of a particular group, the abusive values of the group her family was in does not seem any different at all than conservative Evangelicalism in general and their twisted, contorted views of complimentarianism and male "headship".

Good video, and very relevant. Of course it isn't representative of mainstream Evangelicalism, but only due to degree, not due to kind. The SBC and Sovereign Grace churches have been full of abusive scandals too.

Two quotes that stood out to me:

"I could not be in a group that sacrificed women and children so that a few men could stay in charge."

"I believe that I'm a feminist because women are humans."

Amen!

So sorry I missed the good discussion.

 

[Pathfinder627]

So I just imagine all of those threads that pop up here on CF practically ALL the time promoting the submission of women to men (there is yet another one going on right now in fact that I have been ignoring), the numerous threads about "female modesty" in dress, speech, and action, the ever-present, "Should women _________" sort of threads, the "different roles" excuse, the anti-feminism threads, and the list goes on and on and on.

So while most conservative Evangelicals do not live in closed communities like the one described in this video, the values that are promoted by conservative Evangelicals are in practically every way identical, so do not come in here and pretend that these values are not in any way representative of conservative Evangelicalism as a whole when there is proof practically everywhere on this site and elsewhre that they are practically the same.

Well, I would just point out that Evangelical is a pretty big umbrella. One that (I'm assuming) you and I belong to as well, when it comes down to it. We're both Methodists (or at least, your profile says so). Which is historically more favourable to women. And this is well before there was a 20th century division between "traditional" and "mainline" Methodists. It's the same across the board.

 

[lismore]

If we were to define leadership in the same way Jesus defined leadership it would greatly reduce the number of people seeking 'leadership roles'

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all" (Mark 10:42-44)

 

[bekkilyn]

Well, I would just point out that Evangelical is a pretty big umbrella. One that (I'm assuming) you and I belong to as well, when it comes down to it. We're both Methodists (or at least, your profile says so). Which is historically more favourable to women. And this is well before there was a 20th century division between "traditional" and "mainline" Methodists. It's the same across the board.

I typically distinguish between "evangelical" (which would apply to Christians in general who are interested in bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to the world) and "Evangelical" which has become much more of a conservative political faction. Since the term has been poisoned so much due to these politics, I tend to avoid the term because (at least in the U.S.) when someone thinks of an "Evangelical" it basically means you're a politically conservative religious fundamentalist. And nowadays we could even add Trump-worship into that mix and many wouldn't even blink an eye at the description because the Evangelical faction tends to be his strongest political supporters.

 

[Pathfinder627]

I typically distinguish between "evangelical" (which would apply to Christians in general who are interested in bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to the world) and "Evangelical" which has become much more of a conservative political faction. Since the term has been poisoned so much due to these politics, I tend to avoid the term because (at least in the U.S.) when someone thinks of an "Evangelical" it basically means you're a politically conservative religious fundamentalist. And nowadays we could even add Trump-worship into that mix and many wouldn't even blink an eye at the description because the Evangelical faction tends to be his strongest political supporters.

Fair enough. I do think most evangelicals are conservative at least. It's almost a requirement. I know I am. Just not fundamentalist and not necessarily politically conservative. I'm probably a Euro style Christian Democrat (Merkel's party?). There isn't any place for that in American politics though. Closest was the Blue Dog Democrats (i.e. socially conservative, but supports social welfare). You can blame the DNC for that. They've pretty much left all of these people politically homeless and are now catering to the far left. I didn't vote for Trump the first time around, and I'm still undecided this late in the game. I'll give him credit for not starting any new wars. For such a blowhard, he surprised me here. That's more than I can say for just about everyone else.

 

[bekkilyn]

Fair enough. I do think most evangelicals are conservative at least. It's almost a requirement. I know I am. Just not fundamentalist and not necessarily politically conservative. I'm probably a Euro style Christian Democrat (Merkel's party?). There isn't any place for that in American politics though. Closest was the Blue Dog Democrats (i.e. socially conservative, but supports social welfare). You can blame the DNC for that. They've pretty much left all of these people politically homeless and are now catering to the far left. I didn't vote for Trump the first time around, and I'm still undecided this late in the game. I'll give him credit for not starting any new wars. For such a blowhard, he surprised me here. That's more than I can say for just about everyone else.

The DNC is pretty center-right or centrist at best, so they aren't really catering to the left either. Progressives are homeless as well! I don't particularly like Biden but I'm certainly not voting for Trump for a vast multitude of reasons that I won't go into here, so there we go.

 

[Pathfinder627]

The DNC is pretty center-right or centrist at best, so they aren't really catering to the left either. Progressives are homeless as well! I don't particularly like Biden but I'm certainly not voting for Trump for a vast multitude of reasons that I won't go into here, so there we go.

They aren't socially. Far from it. Economically, yes. They're too corporate friendly, at least since Bill Clinton.

But yeah, maybe we're both homeless.

 

[bekkilyn]

They aren't socially. Far from it. Economically, yes. They're too corporate friendly, at least since Bill Clinton.

But yeah, maybe we're both homeless.

I guess I could agree if you're talking about identity politics and all that, but since I tend to focus more on economics, I don't consider the DNC very left at all, and yes way too corporate friendly.