A Cry For Justice

Awakening the Evangelical Church to Domestic Violence and Abuse in its Midst

Eternal Patriarchy? The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says, “You Bet!”

Deut 4:2  You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.

1Co 4:6  I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

Mark David Walton has gone and done it over at the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Walton’s Facebook page shows him to be adjunct professor of theology at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and senior pastor of Glenwood Baptist Church in Oak Ridge, TN.  You can view his article HERE.  Ooops!  No, you can’t view it. Because just one day after I wrote this, it disappeared!  Julie Anne Smith had been shining light on the same article (see here) and I guess they felt the heat.

A formal statement of apology and retraction would be good from CBMW rather than how they’ve handled it.

But although it isn’t available at the time I am writing this post, (CBMW claimed it was a technical glitch it was on their site), you can still see a cached copy on the WaybackMachine, and here it is at AwesomeScreenshot courtesy of Julie Anne. And here’s a shot of my printout copy:

photo (6)

Actually, Walton hasn’t just now gone and done it — the article was in the CBMW Journal back in 2006 and a precursor article by him in 2004. What is it he went and did? He went beyond Scripture. Way, way beyond Scripture.  Here are the main thesis points of his article, quoted from it:

1. Resurrected saints will be distinguished as male and female in the new creation [i.e., in the new heavens and new earth].

2. Given that gender identity will remain … will resurrected saints as male and female have gender-specific roles? [Walton says “yes.”] The paragraphs that follow will offer evidence for complementarity among resurrected saints. . . .  to deny the very concept of male headship in the new creation on the false assumption that it is incompatible with creation ideals is, at best, reckless theology.

3. Although Scripture does not speak directly to the question of the effect gender will have on the lives of resurrected believers in the new creation, it does offer sufficient evidence to affirm that gender will continue to be a significant aspect of our lives in the eschaton.

4. Given then that relationships between those married on earth will in some sense remain in the new creation, it remains for us to inquire regarding the nature of those relationships. To put it more directly, will husbandly headship and wifely submission still obtain in the new creation? The egalitarian response, of course, is that all traces of headship and submission will have been removed. The evidence however, argues to the contrary. . . . Because the new creation is, fundamentally, a return to the divine order that prevailed before the fall, it follows that male headship will remain in the new creation. . . . There is every reason to believe, then, that male headship will continue as the divine order for male-female relationships.

In his more brief discussion of the nature of society in the new creation, Walton leads us right up to the edge of understanding that he believes men will still be the primary possessors of authority in the new society.

Walton’s last paragraph actually summarizes the essence of what is horribly wrong with his teaching:

There is so much that we cannot yet know about life in the new creation. We can be confident though, that God must have some very profound eternal purpose for manhood and womanhood. There is every reason to believe that gender-based distinction of roles will remain.

The Scriptures we cite at the beginning of this post indict Walton’s teaching. He has indeed gone beyond Scripture and he has added to it. Why has he done so? To further his fundamental notion that men are to possess authority over women in all of life.

Other related Scriptures which would seem to oppose Walton’s thesis include the following:

Mat 22:29-30  But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Gal 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

However, it is not our burden to demonstrate that the Scriptures show that eternal patriarchy (which is really what Walton is teaching) is not in God’s plan. We only need to remind Walton, and everyone, that the things Walton is claiming to prove from Scripture are not addressed by Scripture. There are many issues that the Bible is silent upon, and when the Bible is silent, we should be as well. Incidentally, Walton’s primary source for his case (or at least one of his chief sources) is C.S. Lewis! He repeatedly quotes Lewis and then draws his conclusions from the conclusions drawn by Lewis!

Finally, one of the most harmful points that Walton tries to put over on us, is in his application of his inferences drawn from inferences that someone else inferred. Walton says:

To an extent probably unrealized by most of us, our attitudes, actions, and decisions in this life are profoundly influenced by our concept of life — or lack thereof — after death. . . how one understands life in the new creation guides our present-day preparations for the life to come. . . . if Lewis is correct, we would do well to begin ordering our lives in such a way as to acquire a ‘taste’ for things to come.”

So everyone in Walton’s church, and really all Christians, and hey, all human beings, had better get themselves in line right now. That is what he is saying. “Like it or not, this is how I am telling you it is going to be in the new creation forever and ever and ever, so you better start getting used to it now.” Which means of course, all of us embracing male-female relationships as Walton and CBMW see them. All Christians, whether they hold to a complementarian or egalitarian view, should be opposed to this kind of speculation paraded as God’s truth. And I have not even addressed in any detail here what this kind of teaching is going to do in the hands of abusers. “Golly, gee! I have her for eternity! Hear that, honey?” I should also mention that this business smacks of a Mormon new world in many ways.

Jesus said that he who is greatest here will be the least in the kingdom. And whoever is least here will be the greatest. Unless you are a woman? Does Walton’s teaching mean that the godliest woman will be under the authority of the Christian who barely snuck into the kingdom with the smell of smoke on his clothes just because he is a man?

We could have gone into detail regarding Walton’s very bad handling of the Scriptures. Actually he refers to C.S. Lewis as much as Scripture, it seems. But perhaps we should quote one paragraph here that is an example of Walton’s careless handling of the Word:

What, then, of marriage? Although the common assumption that there will be no marriage in heaven may be in error, it is most unlikely that marriage will continue in the new creation in its present covenantal and conjugal aspects. The covenant of which marriage is a type will be replaced in the new creation by the archetype, the marriage between Christ and his church (Eph 5:31-32). Likewise, conjugal relations as we now know them will end. Yet when it is remembered that the intimate relations between the first man and woman were part of God’s original-creation plan, we realize that it is not so much that such relations will altogether cease, as that they will be replaced, transformed into something befitting the new creation.

This is something Walton does several times to try to prove that male and female roles will continue in the new creation. He points to the original Eden and then goes too far in carrying what was true of Adam and Eve over into the new creation. And he speaks rather dogmatically as he delves into these nebulous regions of “ifs.”

If . . . if . . . if . . . C.S. Lewis is correct. If Walton is correct . . .   Doctrines built on “ifs” are built on a faulty foundation. Such doctrines can only be the tradition of human beings, not the Word of God.  Mr. Walton, God has not spoken to these things. You would do well to imitate Job’s learned wisdom and humility:

Job 40:4-5  “Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further.”

 * * *

If you want a good laugh, check out this brilliant post satirizing the foolishness of Mark David Walton and CBMW. A Letter to Our Sisters on Biblical Womanhood in Heavenly Places

68 Comments

  1. Heather2

    So many red flags here! In the end cult comes to mind as in Mormonism and other patriarchal and hierarchal groups.

    Such cults call themselves “Christian” and are quick to cite certain verses from Scripture out of context. That many men follow them is no real surprise. It strokes their egos. It would be my guess that women have been deceived into submission by various means and methods.

    Jesus made it clear. The Bible has given us what we need to know. We are called to leave the rest to God. And we are never ever to remove, add to, or change Scripture.

  2. Tim

    Nice job. They surely are adding to the word of God when they post articles saying gender roles will continue in the age to come with Christ’s return. It’s not surprising, since they add to Scripture when they say our present age has distinct gender roles too.

    A lot of the reasoning in that article was by extrapolation. “This is the way it is now, and that means it’s the way it will be too.” Nonsense, Jesus clearly told his listeners they had it wrong when it came to men and women and marriage in the kingdom of God. Paul explained there is no male or female with God. Paul said we are all priests, not just the men. Is there a single verse in Revelation that says men will have different roles in the new creation than women? None. So who does CBMW think it is to teach this nonsense?

    This is starting to sound like me venting, so I’ll just say end by saying that living in Christ’s kingdom is not about manhood or womanhood. It’s about Christ.

    Cheers.
    Tim

    • MeganC

      Good word, Tim. Living in Christ’s kingdom is not about gender . . . . they have made manhood and womanhood their Messiah. 😦 Oh, if only they would put Jesus back in the center!

  3. MeganC

    Jeff — This is excellent. And so profoundly true. I wish those at CBMW would read this. To further your bit about what this would be like in the hands of an abuser . . . I imagined, when I first read the article they put out (which has been scrubbed), how I would have felt, as a woman in an abusive marriage years ago, reading this article. At that time, I looked forward to death because I believed that, then, God would finally release me from my own personal hell. If I had believed their article (which I would have because I foolishly swallowed all that the CBMW put out there), I think I would have entered into a deeper depressive state, knowing that God would never release me . . . . that Heaven would be hell, as well . . . and that God was, indeed, cruel for keeping me in that state all of my life. I would not have wanted to live OR die. I cannot think of a more miserable hopelessness.

    Truly, the truth sets us free. I can only imagine God shaking His head over that original article put out by Walton. :What, in the world, will they contrive next to shackle My people?” He does not take these things lightly, for sure!

    I wish they would recant, for the sake of those women who are living under the oppressive yoke of abusers. They most definitely need to!

  4. Katy

    Wayne Grudem and Piper and all these guys need to just give up the charade and join the Mormons. Hallelujah Amen.
    They keep insisting on inserting themselves between women and God, over and over again – they just can’t let it go. Why would a man be so obsessed with his eternal dominance and spend loads ot time writing long essays like this?hmmmm

  5. Katy–

    Methinks tis a bit of over-compensation. If you have none, scream loudly that you do, point wildly in the general vicinity where you think they should be and demand that all who watch this performance agree or else.

  6. Bridget

    It’s rather concerning that we see professors of theology proposing such bizarre interpretations of scripture. Piper, Grudem, and Ware come to mind as well. Seems we shouldn’t give too much weight to titles. I find doctors to be the same way. All the schooling in the world still doesn’t mean one is right about whatever they happen to say. Many people don’t understand this. As Christians, we are all filled with the Spirit and are able to read scripture and pray for understanding.

  7. Carmen S.

    Their argument for patriarchy on earth revolves around their claim that if women will not submit all of society falls apart. This is a threat based on fear-mongering, as is much of their agenda. So, tell me, will the New Creation fall apart if men do not rule? Would they not have to use the same argument for continuing male domination in eternity that they use in the present age? They have made their impotent gospel of gender into a primary issue, while it should be a secondary one. Legalism disconnects us from the responsiveness to God, and plugs us into those who rule over us. Bottom line: The Lord Jesus Christ is the bridegroom of His church. Listen to Him….and fear not.

    On a side note: if churches would spend as much time addressing domestic abuse as they do pushing male headship maybe they would actually accomplish something for the kingdom. Patriarchy allows abusive men to be abusive. Where as when Christians are weak, Jesus is strong, this does not corelate to women must be weak, in order that men might possible, hopefully, be strong.

    • women must be weak, in order that men might possibly, hopefully, be strong.
      Snort, AMEN!
      I will be pondering this for a while. How I have to restrain my awesomeness because men cannot bloom when there is a strong woman nearby. tee hee 😛

      • MeganC

        Chortle!

      • Laurie

        Katy, the same was told to me as this, “He (husband) must increase and you must decrease. So back off of your relationship with God.”

      • Brenda R

        Laurie,
        That statement is so ridiculous and leading women away from God. There will be a reckoning for that one.

      • Katy, the same was told to me as this, “He (husband) must increase and you must decrease. So back off of your relationship with God.”

        What?! 😦

        That is soooooo out of context! 😦

    • “If churches would spend as much time addressing domestic abuse as they do pushing male headship maybe they would actually accomplish something for the kingdom.”

      THAT!

  8. Although Scripture does not speak directly to the question of the effect gender will have on the lives of resurrected believers in the new creation…

    …I’m going to for pages and pages and pages on end.

    I still can’t figure out why he claims that the idea that there’s no marriage in heaven might be “in error.” What could Jesus have possibly meant by that statement if not the obvious?

  9. Carmen S.

    Denny Burk posted March 6, 2014 on The Gospel Coalition…
    1. The Order Of Creation
    First, God created Adam before Eve. In the modern world in which egalitarian notions of humanity dominate, the order of creation would seem to make little difference for social roles. But that wouldn’t have been the case for the original readers of Genesis, for who primgeniture was a common feature of family life. The firstborn would often have special authority over those born after him, and Adam and Eve’s relationship is similar. Thus, Adam is given the position of authority
    .

    Primogeniture might have been a common feature of family life, but God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. God’s idea of firstborn in the Bible is often a position of pre-eminence, not necessarily meaning “first out of the womb.” Thus, Jacob chose to first bless Joseph’s younger son, Ephraim. David had the position of firstborn even though he was the youngest. Then there is King Solomon…enough said.

    http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2014/03/06/5-evidences-of-complementarian-gender-roles-in-genesis-1-2

  10. Brenda R

    Walton and those like him are what is giving Baptist’s a bad name. They are truly into themselves and not in what God tells us in His Word. They are making up their own Word as they go. It appears that Walton wants to be God in Heaven and has nominated himself in charge. I wonder if he even thinks about or dwells on what an honor it will be to meet the Savior face to face. Personally, I don’t care what God wants me to do once I’m there, I’m sure I will be happy to do it.

  11. thepersistentwidow

    One of the PCA pastors that I had trouble with was conducting a Sunday school class in which the topic was Heaven. During his teaching he said that he thought and hoped that marriage would continue in Heaven. One widowed woman said that although she dearly loved her husband, she thought that there was no biblical reason to believe that her marriage would resume in Heaven. One widowed man discounted this doctrine mentioning what a problem it would be for the remarried if this was true-two wives in Heaven? I wondered what if a person’s abuser spouse was in Hell? This is so ridiculous that it is hard to believe that the CBMW is taken seriously on anything.

  12. if Lewis is correct, we would do well to begin ordering our lives in such a way as to acquire a ‘taste’ for things to come.”

    First of all (first of all? Gosh. Where does one even start?) there is no need to “acquire a ‘taste’ for things to come” here. We will be glorified and that means something. We will no longer have sin nor clouded vision. We will not find God’s way repulsive or something to develop a taste for. We live in light of this, yes, by purifying ourselves and remaining steadfast and immovable knowing our labor is not in vain. But “acquiring a ‘taste'” is not necessary.

    Second, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 about how comprehensively different the resurrection state will be from this one: “And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be….So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption….It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

    And John supports this in I John 3 by saying “…and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.”

    When you put these two passages together with Jesus’ own words that address the very issue of post-life marriage matters by saying “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,” you know….

    And to say the new creation is a return to the divine order before the fall, my goodness. Adam was sinless but he was not glorified. The new creation order will be entirely different and far better than the mere stuff of earth creation we began with, even though that was sinless. “Behold, I make all things new” is not “Behold, I restore things to their former glory.” On the contrary, we find a whole lot of deliberate contrast between the two in Revelation 21.

    Good grief.

    Since “it has not yet been revealed what we shall be” I think Walton is foolish for even broaching this.

    • Katy

      Amen BIT, you put the scriptural smack-down as usual. 😀

  13. I might want to link to your blog post here at a later time. I wanted to mention that they place a lot of weight on women being married in the “here and now” and the author goes on to argue that woman will be married to the same guy in eternity.

    Problem for them: I was raised a Christian but have never married and am in my 40s now. I am not married to anyone now, so I will not be married in the afterlife (not that I believe there is marriage in the afterlife; Jesus taught there is no marriage).

    I can assure you there is a pretty big sub-set of Christian single women age 30 and up who are in the same exact position as myself. They had hoped to marry but are still single. I have a blog post on my blog called something like, “Gender complementarianism is irrelevant to adult singles,” because it truly is.

    For all their pontificating about “biblical womanhood,” what they REALLY mea is “marriage and parenthood.” Gender complementarians expend a heck of a lot of time opining about what a MARRIED MOTHER should be doing, or they define what femaleness looks like but 99% of the time, they do so only in the CONTEXT OF MARRIAGE / MOTHERHOOD.

    Gender complementarian teaching about biblical womanhood typically does not address childfree women, the childless, infertiles, the never married, divorced, or widows.

    Whenever I do see gender comps address single adult women, it’s to shame them or blame them for being single! They assume that Christian women are intentionally putting off marriage for career, feminist reasons, or because they hate men.

    Gender complementarians never seem to factor in that many Christian singles had hoped to marry and they are at a loss to understand why God never sent them a spouse.

    Anyway, if we assume that Walton’s teachings are true, I am not married here on earth, so to whom would I submit in heaven, since I do not have a husband here.

    In a post about this on Julie Anne’s blog, someone asked, in the case of Christian author Elizabeth Elliot (I think that is her name), she was married like three times, her husbands kept dying on her. So, out of Elliot’s three (or four, or however many she had) husbands, when she gets to heaven, to which one is she married, is she married to husband one, two, three or four?

    • Jeff Crippen

      Christianpundit- Now, really. You should know better than that. The Sadduccees asked the very same question of Jesus, don’t you know? And he said that in heaven there is no marriage……hey, wait a minute. That’s your point!! Ha!

      • Yep, that is a problem for their view.

        Also in my case, I have had ZERO husbands here on earth, so to whom would I be married in heaven?

        I don’t think most gender complementarians who push these really bizarre views stop to really think through some of their positions.

      • Hey Christian Pundit, oughtn’t you be rejoicing because you won’t have to submit to a husband in heaven? (sarc)

        But no, goodness me, I’m forgetting. . . if you have a brother, you’ll have him to submit to so all is well, you can submit eternally just like all the women who were married. And if you never had a brother, well never mind, Jesus is your brother so you can submit to him.

        Did I just go through a revolving door and get back where I started? Who spiked my drink?

      • Heather2

        I must say that all of this just boggles my mind. Oh I knew some families had many children, women refused to cut their hair, wore unfashionable clothing. Some, if not most, were homeschoolers. I don’t want to come down on all homeschoolers, as I was one for three years out of necessity when my son was struggling with ADD.
        But I went to the Christian homeschool conventions. It was rather amusing as I wore make up and earrings and had very short hair at the time.

        But I was never exposed to this system. I dare say that I would have rebelled! I am by no means a feminist and I believe what the Bible says about family relationships. It appears to me that all of this is cultural. And anyone who preaches and teaches otherwise is messing with God’s Word in one form or another.
        Women need to realize that we are made in God’s image. We are loved by Him. We have a place in this world and in the next. It’s something we cannot fathom. But, as was said earlier, it matters not what our position will be. Just to be with our Lord will bring us great joy. And that Lord is the King of kings and the Lord of lords; No husband, brother, or father from this life!
        This is pure machismo and any woman or girl who submits to it needs others to guide her gently into correct thinking or she will be in bondage for the rest of her life!
        Keep exposing the lies! Because then we can share the truth of the Gospel.

      • Brenda R

        Heather2, I am sure that in a cult such as this the only information at a woman or girl’s disposal is approved by the leaders. Books are scrutinized, tv may not be allowed, the Bible may not be something that is promoted to be read and the pastor translates what he reads and “God tells him what they need to know.” If a wife is manditory in Heaven and if a 24 year old is an oldmaid and a disgrace to the population, they are one step away from polygamy. Wait another generation they can easily manipulate the OT into saying that is acceptible practice. I’m all for a mission trip for us to make a visit to that church to spread the good news.

      • Heather2

        Amen. The problem is that many remain in their own home church with the husband as the teacher/leader. They keep tight reins on the family that way.

      • Brenda R

        Sounds like a prison church. No home in those circumstances.

      • Brenda R

        Is your head spinning, Barb? lol A bit o’ laughter first thing in the morning. Yes!!

  14. Carmen S.

    This is a comment by Peter Kirk. He’s studied Physics at The University of Cambridge, and also studied theology to the M.A. level at London School of Theology, after which he joined Wycliffe Bible Translators,UK. A link to his blog is provided in this 2006 comment.

    I just read the first half sentence of Piper’s book, and I think this gives the real key to his thinking. That first half sentence is “When I was a boy growing up in Greenville, South Carolina”. It was in that conservative environment, over 50 years ago ( according to Wikipedia he was born in 1946, actually in Tennessee), that his cultural values were formed. In the second paragraph we learn that they attended a Southern Baptist Church, and that of course further explains the formation of his cultural values. He goes on to describe supposed differences between men and women which he claims “go to the root of our personhood”, but which it seems to me at least very largely conditioned by the specific cultural and religious context in which Piper grew up.

    Piper writes, just after the introductory paragraphs:
    “Let me say a word about that phrase “according to the Bible.” The subtitle of this chapter is “Manhood and Womanhood Defined According To The Bible.” What that means is that I have made every effort to bring the thinking of this chapter into accord with what the Bible teaches.”

    I beg to dispute this claim. It is interesting that in the introductory section he already made that comment about differences which “go to the root of our personhood” BEFORE he mentioned the Bible at all–except to say that his parents loved the Bible ( but not that they loved God!) and that he later learned something from the Bible. He almost seems to be admitting that he first observed these differences between men and women and only later embarked on “an attempt to define some of those differences as God wills them to be according to the Bible.” It seems to me that he has not so much brought his thinking into accord with that the Bible teaches as brought his interpretation of the Bible into accord with what he had observed about the differences between men and women. And all this without realizing that the differences which he observed were in fact culturally conditioned.

    Concerning the kinds of exegetical arguments on which Piper relies, see my series on The Scholarly and Fundamentalist Approaches to the Bible. There I call this kind of exegesis “fundamentalist”, and I note that “it is possible to support almost any issue of current controversy in the church with this kind of interpretation of Scripture. ( Yes, I could even put together an argument for gay bishops if I wanted to!)

    To summarize, Piper is making the mistake which I am afraid is so common among Americans, especially conservative ones but not only Christians, of simply assuming their own cultural values are objectively and absolutely right.

    Are these rules supposed to be Christian and derived from the Bible? It sounds to me as if they come from a 19th century manual of etiquette. That doesn’t make them necessarily wrong, but nor does it make them right. Piper, Grudem and friends need to distinguish between Christian values and old-fashioned conservative values. A good course in cross-cultural evangelism, or some in depth first hand experience of a very different culture, would do them a world of good.

    http://www.betterbibles.com/2006/07/24/modes-of-communication-i/#comment3572

    • Laurie

      “To summarize, Piper is making the mistake which I am afraid is so common among Americans, especially conservative ones but not only Christians, of simply assuming their own cultural values are objectively and absolutely right.”

      This is SO true!

  15. Carmen S.

    Christianpundit,
    You don’t exist in their world. They don’t even notice you. They tell everyone to marry, but when that doesn’t happen, and you really would like to be married….you are accused of making an idol out of marriage. You should be content with your singleness and please support all the married couples in their marriages. If a pastor who has been married for 20-30 years lost his wife and children in a car accident, and after 10 lonely years God did not bring him a second spouse, you might see that man change his thinking. Too many people can only see others who look just like them. The body of Christ should be different on so many levels.

    • @ Carmen S.
      Oh yes, I know. Single adults don’t figure into gender complementarian roles. They define manhood to mean “guy who is married and a father,” and womanhood is defined to mean “woman who is married and a mother.”

      I blog regularly about singleness in Christianity, and yep, there are a host of double standards and other issues that go on, and a lot of hypocrisy.

      Christian adults singles are shamed for not being married, but if they say they want to be married, those same Christian marriage-pushers shame the singles for wanting marriage and for trying to get married. They get all the cliches such as, “be content in your singleness,” and, “Jesus is all you need,” and so forth.

      And I totally agree with you about the widow / widower aspect. I’m over 40 and never married, but a lot of the double standards, hypocrisy, etc, seem to come from married Christian men (sometimes women, but usually married preachers) who have been married for 20, 30, 40 or more years…

      They usually get married to their college sweetie when they are 22 years old, or their high school sweetheart. They have no idea what it’s like to having to face the dating world in your 30s and 40s and beyond and try to get married and be single for that long.

      And I agree, I bet you if their wife died in an auto accident and they found themselves single again at age 40, 50, 60, for five or more years, they would finally have their eyes opened to just how poorly most churches treat adult singles.

      Most preachers don’t even touch the topic of unwanted singleness. The only time they discuss it is to shame anyone over 30 who hasn’t married yet (they assume we have deliberately put off marriage when we have not), and to yell at the 24 year old to marry before 25. There is no practical support given to singles past 30 or any other acknowledgement that we exist.

      Many preachers and churches don’t care an iota about adult singleness or adult singles themselves but spend a vast amount of time and money ministering to married couples and talking about marriage, marriage, marriage.

      I hate to break it to such people, but biblical womanhood is not just about a woman being a wife and a mother. There’s more to being a woman than marrying a guy and having children. There are lots of women who desire marriage and/or kids, but it never happens for them.

      • Brenda R

        Christian pundit. Very true. I have been married, now divorced. All of the in home meetings are for married couples only. There is not one ministry for singles, divorced, widows. Not one. We now have a womens group once a month for all women in the church, but I asked someone why we don’t have something for single women. We have our own set of needs and don’t have a husband to change a burned out tail light or take off the old license plate that is rusted tight to the vehicle–my quandary for yesterday once a nice police officer pointed out my trouble. Single women need support of other single women whether they want to be married or not. The supply of eligible Christian men is extremely limited once you reach 30, 40 or 50. I myself am not looking, so there is one less woman looking. There is no sin in being single. There is no marriage in Heaven. We won’t care about that sort of relationship any longer. I don’t know why these men even bring it up, other than they want control. As far as, getting used to it now–what hogwash. I look each day to seeing my Savior. X used to say are you ready to go to Heaven with me. I told him I was going all on my own. I wasn’t going there holding his hand. Jesus would be taking me as an individual soul along with many other individual souls. I would no longer be under any mortal mans control. Amen.

      • Saved by Grace

        Oh my goodness. Yes Yes YES. Christianpundit, preach it sister. I have long felt that there is no room in the church (oops ‘c’hurch) for singles. Like you said, ‘c’hurches only minister to married folk and so we singles are left to the wayside or just flat out ignored and/or rejected.

        I would love to meet a real Christian man (key there is real, meaning Spirit-led) to court/date, fall in love, marry and have babies with. But God has not seen fit to put this in my life. So like those preachers have said and continue to say (ugh!), I have to be content whatever the circumstance I find myself……most days this is true I am content, other days I am lonely and depressed trying to keep myself busy so I don’t spend too much time in my head.

  16. Hey Jeff and Barb, look what came out in the wash under TWW’s article about Walton. This comment was in reference to a Piper-derived Sunday school curriculum for upper middle school and high school kids. I’ll excerpt the worst bit but you should go read the whole thing.

    Included was homework about sisters and brothers relating to one another. Girls: “Do you like to be ‘in charge’, rather than allowing your older brother to take the lead when appropriate? Are you growing in how you respond to men when they lead, provide, and protect? Are you encouraging the young men and boys in your life to be godly and servant-like leaders, providers, and protectors?”

    For boys: “Do you encourage your sisters as joyful submitters and helpers (e.g., do you demonstrate servant-like manhood to your sister in things such as opening the door for her)?”

    An example of how this lesson played out in one family: Younger brother comes in from sports practice, heaves his sweaty self onto the couch and yells for his older sister to bring him a drink. Sister yells back (from another room) that he can get it himself! Brother yells that she should have been paying attention in Sunday School, that she’s supposed to be submitting to him. Sister yells that he wasn’t paying attention because he’s supposed to be serving her, so he can bring her a drink when he gets his own. The parents were not amused. Siblings bossing one another is a common issue, only now they were sanctioning it with misapplied “Bible” teaching.

    So apparently now sisters are supposed to submit to their brothers somehow too, and well before heaven. And I can personally attest that I have heard several little boys tell little girls (and not only their sisters either) that “the Bible says boys rule girls” so they have to do what they want. The parents don’t stop them either.

    After this week, I’m having trouble seeing how these popular comps at CBMW are any different from Doug Phillips and VF.

    • Thanks for that Hester. I went to TWW and put a comment there; repeating it here for those who don’t go to TWW:

      Some time ago I read an example of this idiotic nonsense playing out in the real world. Scene: boys and girls from a church youth group were scheduled to get together to play volleyball. The girls are all there, keen to get started. The boys are there but lounging around the edges of the court goofing off amongst themselves. The net is not yet put up. Someone has to put up the net before they can get the game going, but no girl dares to. They know they can’t do it: that would be taking initiative, and that’s the boy’s job. The minutes tick by. The girls get more and more frustrated but don’t vent it out loud because that would mean they are being like feminists. The boys continue to goof off. Eventually some girls start putting up the net, and immediately some boys start telling them off because it’s the boy’s job to put the net up and get the game going.

      • Brenda R

        Then perhaps they should have gotten off their dead behinds and done it. That is so ridiculous, I could spit nails. They are teaching girls that they are inferior to boys. It would be nice if boys were taught to help when a girl is having difficulty, but holding her back from any task when she is perfectly capable is beyond utter stupidity. I see no where in the Bible where girls you do these tasks and boys you do these. Holding up a game because the boys are just being kicking back to hold things up is—just making me mad. When I was growing up my mother used to say “it doesn’t matter marry a doctor, lawyer or indian chief…..” My girls were taught get an education, have your self together before you even think about getting married. I would run, not walk from that form of cult.

      • Jael can drive a tent spike through Sisera’s head. But setting up a volleyball net without male prompting? Yeah, so not okay. 😉

    • Brenda R

      What in the world? I only read of the relationship between husband and wife in my Bible. No where does it say that women/girls are to submit to all men/boys. Wifes submit to their own husbands not to someone elses. Submitting doesn’t mean running and fetching either. This whole thing has gotten way out of hand with far too many people. People use the Bible for their own selfish desires rather than getting to know Jesus and knowing the heart of God.

      • No where does it say that women/girls are to submit to all men/boys.</i.

        Ah. That makes me think of where the prepping for heaven idea came from. These guys often teach the kids should be prepped for their future roles by their parents and home roles. The girls are prepped to serve their husbands by serving their fathers (in some really not OK ways like shaving them, but I digress) and also by serving their brothers. The idea of "acquiring a 'taste'" probably is an extension of that.

      • Heather2

        BIT, this is such madness! Surely The Lord is grieved. Not only have they misapplied His Truths, and lied, and put words in His mouth, but they are hurting His lambs.

      • Brenda R

        Good thinking, BIT. There is a method to their sinful madness.

  17. Forrest

    What is being taught by people like Walton is simply wishful thinking. As has been amply demonstrated here, their teaching can be shown for the error it is straight from the words of Jesus.

    The problem is that for many people, their religion is primarily cultural and/or politically based. They abuse scriptures in order to further their real objectives.

    It is sad that so few are willing to come out and condemn this sort of teaching.

    • Brenda R

      Forrest, If my pastor lost his mind and started preaching this junk, I would head straight for the elders with a “what is up with that? and when is he being replaced?” I’m sure it would not be long.

  18. Forrest

    Reblogged this on Tùr Làidir.

  19. Heather2

    One other comment is that some years back I read a very long article online called America and the Rise of Christian Imperialism. It was an e-book, I believe. It hit the nail on the head. Today, Dominionism and Replacement Theology comes from this camp. Heaven will be on earth, etc. Again, this belief has no Scriptural basis without mangling the Word of God. This is all about men, entitlement, and ego! Where else do we hear about that? Oh yes…..abuse!

  20. Laurie

    Jeff, thank you for exposing mohammedan in “Christian” clothing. First statement of Walton’s made me think, “Oh,no he DIDn’t!” Clear contradiction of the word of God.

  21. Carmen S.
  22. bluesinaminor

    in the Garden of Eden, apparently, woman submitted to the male who ruled over her. This was God’s perfect plan for all male/female relationships, for all of eternity. Then why did God make it part of the curse after they sinned?

    • The only explanation for that I’ve ever heard is that Adam named Eve, therefore he had authority over her from the beginning. I can see where they get this, but personally I’ve never found it very convincing. A plain reading of Genesis 1-3 has patriarchy showing up as a result of the Fall, i.e. you have to presume male authority and then read it into chapters 1-2 to find it there (which is of course eisegesis, which is frowned upon everywhere else). At least that’s my take on it.

      Also, I notice that no one ever complains about undoing / subverting the other effects of the Fall (hard work in agriculture and labor pains), even though they’re so determined to keep patriarchy. Why aren’t they condemning harvesters, combines, weed killer, etc. and epidurals too?

      • I think they did use to condemn the use of pain killing interventions during childbirth, back in the Puritan days. I thought there was also some “faith based” reason for condemning Edison’s lightning experiments and the like too, but I could be wrong about that.

      • I do think you’re right about there having been condemnations of painkillers in childbirth in the past, though I haven’t heard of anybody doing that recently. Certainly the CBMW folks are not, which is the main thing.

        I’ll have to look up that Edison thing…

      • Laurie

        Adam didn’t name Eve until after the fall.

        In the ESV: The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
        (Gen 3:14-20)

        Katherine Bushnell (Author: “God’s Word To Women”) also goes on to point out that woman was not at all cursed as was the snake or the ground for the man’s sake, plus woman was not driven from the Garden:

        ESV: He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.
        (Gen 3:24)

        Feminism in the Bible? No, righteousness. 1 Cor. 15 points out that ADAM is the reason sin entered the world, not Eve as so many are taught. I remember incidences in conservative churches where it was said (and you have heard it, too), “If it weren’t for woman, we would all still be in the Garden.” And if woman hadn’t followed man out when HE alone was driven out, we would all still be in the Garden sans the men. Which would equally not be a good thing. Bushnell points out that when one gender has exclusivity of interpretation it terribly skews the reality for the other gender.

      • Brenda R

        I hate to admit that John Piper is right about anything, but when I reread Genesis 2 a few times I can see one point in his book “This Momentary Marriage”. He said that if God had a problem with his family and came knocking on the door he may have issues with his wife, but God would deal with the husband first. The first responsibility is his. Perhaps if Adam had resisted the temptation to partake all would have been forgiven. I’m not sure of that, of course, but it makes sense to me. God directed the command to Adam directly. Eve wasn’t there yet. It sounds like niether of them realized they were naked until Adam took a bite.

      • His Child

        Right, Laurie, Adam didn’t name Eve until after the fall, and he certainly hadn’t been asked by God to name her. Until then, they were one, called Adam (like Mr. and Mrs. Adam). I once heard a preacher suggest that Adam named Eve in rebellion, just after God pronounced death on the human race. Adam called her, “the mother of all living things” as if to defy the sentence of death.

      • I once heard a preacher suggest that Adam named Eve in rebellion, just after God pronounced death on the human race. Adam called her, “the mother of all living things” as if to defy the sentence of death.

        Good grief! I’ve never heard that twist before. What people come up with!

  23. Carmen S.

    Adam did not name ALL the animals, only the animals that lived in Eden that he and Eve would come in contact with as they lived in Eden. “Adam gave names to all the cattle, and all the birds of the sky, and every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.” ( Genesis 2:20) Adam did not name the beasts of the earth, the fish of the sea, or every creeping thing, and yet God in Genesis 1:26 “and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

    Adam and Eve ( them) were to rule over animals that Adam never named.

    • Thank you for catching that. I never noticed that before. It only makes the “naming Eve” argument even less convincing than it already was.

  24. Laurie

    The following are known as the Ten Curses of Eve (note how they intend curse but never quite say it)

    Ten decrees were passed with regard to Eve.
    The first is menstruation, when she is driven from her house and banned from her husband.
    The second is that she gives birth after nine months.
    The third is that she nurses for two years.
    The fourth is that her husband rules over her.
    The fifth is that he is jealous of her if she speaks with any other man.
    The sixth is that she ages quickly.
    The seventh is that she ceases to give birth while men never cease being able to beget children.
    The eighth is that she stays in the home and does not show herself in public like a man.
    The ninth is that when she goes out into the marketplace her head has to be covered like a mourner. That is why women precede the bier, saying: We have brought death upon all the inhabitants of the world.
    The tenth is that if she was upright, her husband buries her. For we find that this was the case with our ancestors: our father Abraham buried Sarah our mother. Isaac buried Rebecca our mother. Jacob buried Rachel and Leah.

    as retrieved from: http://jewishbible.blogspot.com/2005/10/ten-curses-of-eve-unpublishable.html

    Yet somehow, I fail to see the word “curse,” or even these “decrees,” as appointed to anything concerning Eve. Warnings, yes, but curse or cursed, no. And these listed above are the summation of Pharisaic standards towards women, and are unbiblical.

  25. I’ve believed for a while now that the teaching of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) was closer to Mormon doctrine than Orthodox Christianity. This confirms it for me. How we understand Christ, the perfect Image Bearer, will have direct application on how we understand ourselves as image bearers. This teaching about gender roles in the new creation is not a fluke–it is the direct result of a faulty Christology which has led to a faulty anthropology. (Although in this case, I think the Christology was developed in order to bolster an already faulty anthropology.)

    Point being, the application of gender roles in eternity looks Mormon because the foundational doctrine of ESS is more Mormon than Christian. In ESS, Christ’s submission to the Father has become an essential part of His nature not an act of His will. Vis-a-vis, women’s submission to men becomes an essential part of their nature, not an act of will exercised in specific contexts.

    • Well said, Hannah Anderson. Thanks for commenting on our blog. 🙂

Trackbacks

  1. Additional Rebuttals to CBMW Gender Complementarian Heresy and Travesty That Declares All Females Must Submit To All Males In Heaven | Christian Pundit
  2. Wednesday Link List | Thinking Out Loud
  3. Eternal Patriarchy? The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says, “You Bet!”

Leave a comment. It's ok to use a made up name (e.g Anon37). For safety tips read 'New Users Info' (top menu). Tick the box if you want to be notified of new comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: