Young, Restless, and Complementarian
by Motte Brown on 06/26/2008 at 2:53 PM
Steve's post about ideological "moments" extends beyond politics. Over at Reformation 21, Rev. Richard Phillips writes about a shift in doctrine he's seen in his own church among twenty-somethings toward "gender complementarity."
... I think there is a misconception on the gender issue, namely, that if we want to be considered relevant by the young then we cannot afford to be openly complementarian. The great majority of my experience (and admittedly, this is among people who are attracted to a church like ours) shows exactly the opposite. The young people I meet are fed up with the egalitarianism of their upbringing and yearn for counter-cultural biblical authenticity. I would suggest that the examples of younger preachers like Josh Harris and Mark Driscoll, both of whom are in-your-face complementarians and draw in flocks of young people argues in the same direction. Based on these examples, I suspect that the gender debate is much more of a baby-boomer issue.
Could this be the beginning of what Longman predicts will be a comeback of "patriarchy and other traditional values"?
1. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:32 PM on Jun 26:
Lol. Maybe not in the way he thought it would =p
Hey, I'm ok with it.
2. Craig said the following at 3:56 PM on Jun 26:
It's amazing how these things ingrain themselves into your mind and heart. I had a deep, powerful relationship a few years ago--in my mid-20's--with a woman I was strongly attracted to and who I cherished. I wound up ending the relationship for several reasons, but one of those was our differences on roles, family and traditionalism--things about which I had at one point thought myself too modern and cosmopolitan to get all "wound up." But when push came to shove, I had a real problem with the idea of my wife keeping her name, or demanding that her career take equal precedence to mine, or expecting that decision-making authority would be a constant 50/50 split. In reality, this played out as an endless, low-intensity conflict, and I couldn't help but feel that my deepest beliefs about how a family ought to work were somehow just beyond the pale of discussion with her. In the end, tradition mattered to me greatly. I'm deeply grateful for that now, as I look forward. I think more of us than maybe even expect it are finding that a desire to live according to the dictates of nature and tradition is compelling.
3. Dr. Ransom said the following at 4:03 PM on Jun 26:
Complementarian beliefs are very distinct from the un-Biblical and neo-misogynist "patriarchy" system espoused by some Christians (i.e. Doug Phillips). Thus, I'd prefer not to equate the two.
Compare the Biblical doctrine of different roles, yet mutual servanthood (in leadership and followership) and sacrificial love laid out in the early-90s Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to the father-centric, resistance-is-futile-you-will-be-assimilated mechanism of "patriarchalist" views. The difference and view of God-centeredness, versus man- (literally man-) centeredness is incredible.
Certain videos accessible on YouTube, for example, show camps in which clone-appearing daughters, all in similar shirts and khaki skirts, are shown serving their fathers by playing with them, shaving them, et cetera, and this type of view extends until some brave (or not so much) soul penetrates the father-headed hegemony and receives his approval to take over in authority of the young woman from where the father left off. It's a skewed use of Scripture, a bothersome (at best!) opposition of women's individualities, and a grossly foreign import of ancient customs as if they were commanded in Scripture, not merely mentioned, and rather personally repugnant besides.
However, Harris and Driscoll, and Recovering editors John Piper and Wayne Grudem, espouse (pun intended) a far different view, in the recognition that human marriage done right brings glory to God, and serves as an echo of the love and relationship between Christ and His church and the roles assumed by each.
4. Em said the following at 7:56 PM on Jun 26:
I feel that the word "complementarian" is bunk in a variety of ways. In my readings at least, traditionalists as well as egalitarians use this term to describe the beautiful differences intrinic to male and female. No eglaitarian (that is in the evangelical Christian sense) denies that there are definitely differences in the sexes...how could one? It is obvious that there are sexual differences in sexually dis-similar beings...and these differences are present in order to complement one another. Howver, these sexual differences, I don't think, are meant to define our roles in society. Each of us in Christ has recieved the Holy Spirit and different giftings by which to serve Him.
I also feel that the term "traditional" is being misused quite often in the evangelical realm--and in this blog, in fact. Since when did tradition equate Biblical tradition? Patriarchy was the culture of Biblical times, and God worked in and through a flawed, human cultural system to recieve Glory. It is so often just assumed that Biblical culture equals culture of Biblical times (and all this assuming usually done with a distinctly American Christian perspective). Didn't Christ come to change the old system? Isn't that what freedom we can enjoy in knowing Him--as is stated in Galatians 3:28?
5. Chris said the following at 9:01 PM on Jun 26:
Craig writes:
I had a real problem with the idea of my wife keeping her name
I often wonder why people have a problem with this. My wife kept her name. Big deal. The whole name-taking derives from property and passing on the male lineage anyways. Hardly anything that has to do with two people in a committed relationship, raising children, establishing a family, and so forth.
I had a friend who implied that she loved her husband more than my wife loved me since she took his name. I didn't bother to ask her if it meant he loved her less since he didn't take hers.....
6. Kellie said the following at 9:26 PM on Jun 26:
I think (or hope?) that gender complementarity and patriarchy are two different things. I would not hope to see a renewing of patriarchy on a large scale. In the way it is praciticed by extreme conservative christians today it appears very limiting of women.
7. Allan Eckols said the following at 7:16 AM on Jun 27:
"Could this be the beginning of what Longman predicts will be a comeback of "patriarchy and other traditional values"?" Traditional values, good. Patriarchy, bad. Very bad.
Complementarianism, good, but only good so long as the Patriarchists like Doug Phillips don't get in and screw it up with all their legalism and misogyny.
Dr. Ransom mentioned the personally repugnant practices of the Patriarchs at their droid training camps. "Daddy shaving" is one such popular activity.
8. Lauren said the following at 8:40 AM on Jun 27:
Wonderfully stated Dr. Ransom!
9. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:33 AM on Jun 27:
Em (#4),
Your right. There is a difference between general tradition and biblical tradition.
Patriarchy, as is understood my modern society, bears a lot of connotations that are not what defines Patriarchy. Yeah, lots of horrid things have been done to women within a patriarchy, power has been abused. Women are not above such power abuse, either, though. You get power abuse no matter who's in power.
There are things that are un-biblical that have been done simply because its traditional. This is why I have a hard time with people claiming conservatism is all biblical, because that means upholding ALL tradition with very little change, even if the change is necessary.
Conservatism can be anti-biblical, as well.
However, complimentarianism, as defined biblically, does highlight that men and women DO have different roles, not only sexually.
But there's a big difference between my saying that and my saying that men have the right to do whatever they want (which isn't necessarily patriarchy, either). Its a matter of authority, not tyranny.
Yes, you can get tyranny within authority, but authority does not imply tyranny. Just like patriarchy does not imply mysoginy.
10. Briana said the following at 10:07 AM on Jun 27:
Very creepy video, Allan. That's really weird the way they show blindfolded girls having to follow their daddy's around (by voice command?).
A site linking to that video talks about some of the other Vision Forum "unity games" like "daddy-dressing". http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=107
11. Rachael said the following at 10:23 AM on Jun 27:
re: the "name" thing...
While I plan to take my husband's name if I get married, it would be kind of cool to keep my last name since it's a rare one. I think some people make it their middle name, but, I like my middle name as that's my mom's name. All in all it's not a huge deal, and it's likely I probably wouldn't keep my current last name, but, it will be kind-of sad to see it go if I don't retain it in any way. Just because it's unique and would be fun to keep in history for my future generations, if I have future generations ;)
12. Rachael said the following at 11:05 AM on Jun 27:
(oops quick clarification...I wouldn't want to keep my last name instead of my husbands or in a hyphenated way, but, just thought it could be neat [though inconvenient] if it ended up as part of a middle name or something...)
13. Dr. Ransom said the following at 11:07 AM on Jun 27:
At first I wasn’t sure how far to go in critiquing such bizarre and cringe-inducing activities such as those perpetuated by Phillips and “Vision Forum.” But it seems others have gotten there first! :-)
I wasn’t sure, either, whether to link to the video itself. Unintentionally hilarious, that, but moreover it’s decidedly freakish, and grossly un-Biblical. That neo-“slavery” to fathers at this camp is hideously contrary to the Biblical truths of servant leadership and husbands and fathers humbling themselves and even giving their lives for those they love — for crying out loud!
Eesh. Yet this perversity (frankly, calling it “weird” or “wacky” wouldn’t be strong enough) fits with legalists’ worldviews. If your relationship with God isn’t so much loving Him, getting to know Him and His truths, and rejoicing and delighting in His nature and Grace, then this will carry over into how you view human relationships as well. In the Vision Forum universe, God is little more than your Authority, with little intermediary human “authorities” in between Him and us. (This, by the way, is just recycled Bill Gothard-ism, the same kind of “chain of human spiritual authority” view that the Reformers fought to abolish centuries ago.) Thus, families behave the same way, especially between husbands and wives, fathers and daughters.
Quite literally, fathers own daughters in the Vision Forum universe (which has its own parallel-world terms such as “vision-casting” and even “dominion,” which immediately brings to my mind the evil empire across the wormhole in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). This is not a reactionary exaggeration. Read their websites. See the cheerful proclamations their young women make about having their hearts “belong” to their fathers until a potential husband comes along for the arranged property transfers. Note the hegemonic, attack-of-the-clones dress codes in the above-posted video and elsewhere on the internet.
All of this twisted theology results from a low view of God, an exalted view of man and man’s righteousness, and terrible eisegesis and skewed reading of Scripture. Like Gothard and other legalists, they equate practices that described in the Bible, such as arranged marriage, and ascribe these as having just as much value as direct commandments from God.
It’s bad enough that daughters and families are suffering the loss of freedom and Grace because of this false teaching. Far worse is the fact that God Himself is not glorified, and Grace merely is thrown into the grinding machine of Moralism.
As His Utter Subliminity Screwtape told us in intercepted secret demonic correspondence, (from C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters), if people must be Christians, Hell’s best tempters need to make sure they are at least believers in the religion of “Christianity And.” As I wrote elsewhere, regarding Phillips’ mutant strain of spirituality:
Meanwhile, EM, Galatians 3:28 is often cited in an effort to downplay husband/wife roles in the family … yet you may find in the following that the verse’s meaning isn’t what you seem to think it is.
Context is very important, and this verse is far too often divorced from the clear meaning of the Apostle Paul’s material and intent.
In Galatians 3, Paul is not referring at all to gender or gender-role issues. He is talking about the inheritance in Christ available to all who are His children, whether they are Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. You will notice, too, that Paul writes that all are “sons of God” — furthering the concept that both men and women are treated equally by God in terms of beneficiaries of His promise.
(Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary explained this well and more effectively, in a DVD made available by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood — another little free souvenir I brought home from New Attitude 2008 last month. :-D)
Again, gender roles aren’t in view here at all -- much less dismissing our differences because we’re all one in Christ. Rather, Paul explains very clearly in passages such as 1 Corinthians 11 the differences between men and women (following different dress standards according to the cultural methods of that era). And the last section of Ephesians 6, the apostle is even clearer about the different roles for husbands and wives (not just generic men and women, Vision Forum!).
The beauty and harmony of this arrangement eases more clearly into mental and emotional place when one considers the great, sacrificial love given by Christ to His collective Church. He leads it, loves her, pursues her, and even died for her. Human marriage is a pattern for the future ultimate union between Christ and the Church, just as the Old Testament sacrifices foreshadowed Christ’s death. And that truth is best reflected symbolically in a marriage based on mutual love and cooperation, with a husband’s overall leadership and wife’s overall “followership.”
If love, not Legalism, is the basis, and the true Christ and His example of a humble, servant leader is in view — then any abuses will be minimized, if not obliterated entirely in favor of truly Grace-based marriages and families.
14. Craig said the following at 11:12 AM on Jun 27:
I guess that was a bit of my point--I was surprised at how much the name change thing mattered to me. Upon reflection, I found that I was troubled not just by the lack of unity and permanence implied by a double-named or hyphenated marriage, but also by its utter rejection of traditional Christian ideals of family leadership. I think we moderns--even Christians--are too eager to ascribe whatever aspects of Christian discipline and doctrine that we happen to dislike to the benighted and backwards "culture of the times." I do this as much as anyone, of course. But Christ and St. Paul were not talking to morons in a state of arrested mental development, and we should be careful in assuming that their instructions no longer apply simply because there are differences between 1st century Corinth and modern America. A form of feminism was alive and well in the Greek and Roman worlds, and ideological combat over the appropriate form of the family was a constant then as now. The early Christians weighed in strongly with substantive teachings.
My original point was that I myself was surprised at how deeply ingrained my committment to these traditional Christian ideals really was, despite a long (and really illegitimate) effort on my part to distance myself from "those" people. Of course, no one wants to be associated with the creepy, borderline incestual folks described above in the "Vision Forum" games. But that's no excuse to pretend that there is NO Christian model for family life--and I found that I knew that reflexively once I was pressed by circumstances. I wonder if anyone else has had a similar experience?
15. Samuel PG said the following at 11:25 AM on Jun 27:
Chris (5),
I am not sure, but I think the taking on of the surname also symbolizes the two becoming one flesh. I could be wrong, but that is how I have always looked at it.
Rachael (11),
You could always add your last name as a second middle name!
16. John said the following at 11:45 AM on Jun 27:
Christina,
Your definition and understanding of conservativism is incorrect.
17. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:08 PM on Jun 27:
John, that is not MY definition of conservatism.
That's dictionary.com's definition.
18. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:13 PM on Jun 27:
Rachael,
To preserve ur current last name, you could also give one of your children your current last name as their middle name.
I've seen that done to :)
19. Lauren said the following at 1:02 PM on Jun 27:
Again Dr. Ransom, wonderfully stated!
20. Rose Mallard said the following at 1:06 PM on Jun 27:
"This, by the way, is just recycled Bill Gothard-ism, the same kind of “chain of human spiritual authority” view that the Reformers fought to abolish centuries ago." Good comparison, and odd that Doug Phillips calls himself Reformed while holding such an autocratic world view.
This got me thinking about an article I saw recently, "Doug Phillips -- New Paganism?" It ties in perfectly with what's being discussed here.
21. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:49 PM on Jun 27:
Rose Mallard, I'm actually the webmaster for that site. You can find my contributions in the comments there, as well, under the pen name E. Stephen Burnett. ;-)
And thanks for the further
I'm sure proponents of this view would be among the first to respond in righteous indignation. But with all the perverse, anti-individualist, neo-slavery, mysoginist stuff they do -- well, what else does it look like?22. John said the following at 2:15 PM on Jun 27:
Okay Christina,
The definition you keep using AND your understanding of conservativism is incorrect.
23. Rose Mallard said the following at 2:31 PM on Jun 27:
I'm very impressed with the work of your group, Dr. Ransom.
I was curious about the other article mentioned, "Who Will Be The First in the Kingdom?" I couldn't figure out how to find it on the Midwest Christian Outreach blog, but doing a web search I did find it here. Another excellent article by Don Veinot!
24. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:20 PM on Jun 27:
John (#22),
If your so smart and all-knowing that you can contradict the dictionary, why don't you tell me what conservatism REALLY means instead of just saying I and the dictionary are wrong?
25. Dean Murphy said the following at 3:31 PM on Jun 27:
Rose, that article is on the MCOI blog, although not real easy to find. Who Will Be First In The Kingdom? (in pdf).
26. Tigger said the following at 4:12 PM on Jun 27:
Some of what we assume to be "the way" is based more on culture than we realize. For example in many Spanish-speaking cultures, a person has two last names, one from their father's family, and the second from their mother's family. If you have the name Jose Garcia Rodriguez (where Rodriguez is from his mother) and he marries Cristina Alvarez Suarez, then their child will be [Insert-First-Name] Garcia Alvarez (father's family, mother's family), in order to preserve the identity, and I assume in the past, the heritage and bloodlines, of families and that it requires parts of two different people to make a child.
I don't have a problem taking my yet-unmet husband's name. But I think the system is fairer in countries that we typically perceive as being more patriarchal and "traditional," which, of course, is always subject to cultural context.
And - I honestly thank God every day men and women complement each other. I don't think I could deal with another woman. I'm more than enough some days.
27. san soo said the following at 5:57 PM on Jun 27:
I think Frederica Mathewes-Green has a great take on all this. Check out her website for an article she wrote on the subject.
IMHO men and women both exist to serve God. Women can do everything men can do except be priests.
28. Rachael said the following at 12:22 AM on Jun 28:
Samuel/Christina,
Thanks for the responses :). Fun ideas. Earlier I just totally had a random idea...the idea of giving a child a last name and a name that marks where they are from (I was specifically thinking of the name where I live, but a) I probably won't be living here when married, and b) it would be so strange and open for twisting to be made fun of in a bad way)...but that would make for one odd name :). It's kind of like the person with the name would be taking a sacrifice for future generations who might think, "Oh, that's cool. This person was named after this person's last name and this location..." :)
Anyway, names, names....not sure if "name games" should be played on the kids though, unless they're tame ;)
29. John said the following at 9:11 AM on Jun 28:
Christina,
Don't get mad or upset. It's okay. Lots of people make mistakes. You just have to understand that the dictionary isn't as objective as you might think and word meaning is a little more fluid than you realize.
I already explained conservativism on the other blog.
30. Kellie said the following at 9:19 AM on Jun 28:
Can Boundless clarify what exactly they think on this issue? I would rather not be reading Boundless anymore if they are thinking Vision Forum and Doug Phillips are a good thing.
31. Em said the following at 9:51 AM on Jun 28:
Christina (#9)stated "However, complimentarianism, as defined biblically, does highlight that men and women DO have different roles, not only sexually."
I think that this view is very commonly and widely accepted in the evangelical world, without further scrutiny as far as WHERE it says this in scripture. (And I don't just mean proof texting.) Is it specifically stated in light of cultural context as well as literary context in the Bible that men and women are to have different roles that are God-ordained? I believe this is one (very traditional)interpretation of the information available in scripture and a reflection of a patriarchical society of the times...but it is not the only interpretation and in my option, not an accurate interpretation. As Rebecca Merrrill Groothuis states in her book, Good News for Women, "The debate (traditionalist vs equalitarian) is..a theological and hermenutical disagreement over what the Bible teaches about gender roles." I think there is a lot of truth in her statement, as so many think that the Bible clearly relays this message of "role" differenciation in a black and white manner--when it is not.
When a man and woman complement one another, is it always in the same way? Not at all! Relationships are all so very wonderfully different. If a husband is better at cooking than his wife (and enjoys it more than her), is it "unbiblical" for the husband to prepare meals most of the time? Where do these "roles" begin and end--what can be equated to an inate (sexually, or gender) determination and what can be equated with (spiritual) gifting? It's not so easy.
Dr. Ransom (#13), shares a traditionalist interpretation, I assume, based on his commentary. It still does not sit right with me that this interpretation is so obviously backed in scripture. As far as Galatians 3 goes, isn't Paul stating that " There is now neither Jew nor Gentile, slave or freeman, male or female," in reference to the Old Testament covenent where priest prayed a prayer of thanksgiving for having not been born a Gentile, a slave or a woman (in order to be able to serve God in the capacity of priest, who was required by the old law to be a Jewish male)? The New Covenant allowed for ALL (Jew, Gentile, slave, free, men and women) to experience salvation and relationship with God through Christ and have access to Him. Clarence Boomsma states in His book, Male and Female:One in Christ, "The equality of people's potential for worth, function responsibility and authority lies in their unity with Christ, which is not restricted by their ethnicity, social status or gender. Of course, equality does not mean that the capacities of all are the same, that all are biologically alike, that there are no dissimilarities in character and personality, in intellectual, emotional and physical endowments, in spiritual gifts and talents. All such differences in individuals have a bearing on a person's suitability for a particular service in the church as is taught in 1 Cor. 12. But the point of Galatians 3:28 is that no person is unsuitable because of his or her nationality, social status or gender."
Is it possible that God enables and gifts women, as well as men to do service in similar capacities (ie leadership)? What if those giftings don't agree with our cultural interpretation of "roles"?
32. Louise said the following at 11:58 AM on Jun 28:
Comment 26 raises a very good point that naming customs are cultural.
In China, women do not change their surnames after marriage.
I have spoken to native Chinese people who emphatically state this custom has nothing to do with feminism, and that English speaking countries, where the custom is use the husband's surname, are much more "feminist" than China!
Re comment 15, upon marriage comment 11 also has the option to drop her birth middle name and replace it with her birth surname, for example if she was born Rachael Ann Smith and married a man with the surname Johnson, she can use the name Rachel Smith Johnson, where Smith is her middle name and she would use "Rachel S. Johnson" as her formal signature.
33. Sarah P. said the following at 11:05 PM on Jun 28:
Can I just say how encouraged I am to see other people who vocally share my opinion on Vision Forum? My mother wrote a book a few decades ago entitled The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality. This book was very influential in the early homeschool movement. I have met a double handful of Vision Forum-ites in my time, all of whom give me that perplexed look that asks, "How can you, of all people, be working outside your father's home?" I have an ongoing argument with one young man where I work, in which I am constantly re-explaining the truth that fathers do not own their daughters' hearts. Then I give my father a call and thank him for being my dad. :D
The homeschooling movement is very interesting in this regard. The book Kingdom of Children makes some wry observations that homeschool families tended to be the most vocally complementarian, while in reality possessing some of the strongest-willed women.
Hey, anyone want to help me start a major Christian film festival that is unassociated with Vision Forum? :D
34. kyra said the following at 12:51 PM on Jun 29:
As a woman there is always a part of me that feels uncomfortable whenever gender roles are mentioned. This may be unfair, but when Christians speak of men and women "complementing" each other, I often feel that they are breaking it down like this:
men= leaders, women= followers
men= out in the world, women= in the home
men= make the decisions, women= accept the decisions
I often feel as though saying I as a woman "complement" a man is meant in the same way as a side dish or a sprig of parsley "complements" a steak.
Well...what if I want to be the steak?! What if I as a woman have some great ideas and want to be a leader, as a CEO or Senator or President or whatever?? Not that raising children is a lesser job than any of those things, but I guess what I'm asking is in the Christian worldview, do Christians want all men to be leaders, and all women to wipe the bottoms of their sons (the future leaders)?
What if I enter a marriage with a much higher-paying, more successful career than my husband's...is it out of the question we would move for my job, yet perfectly acceptable to move for his? Why?
Supposing I were a financial advisor for a living...does "complementing" my husband mean I should hand over control of finances to him and just pray to God that he does it right, even if he's out buying lotto tickets every day and wouldn't know a budget if one smacked him in the face?
I hope I don't sound flippant because my comments are coming more out of my own confusion than anything. In terms of being a Christian wife and submitting to the authority of my husband, what is acceptable and what is unnacceptable?
35. Em said the following at 3:57 PM on Jun 30:
Krya (# 34):
You raise some good questions! I often feel the same way. I am concerned about what the actual belief of men=leaders women=followers implies (so extreme!)...should women pursue college educations, if their TRUE role as femninine beings is to rear children? Should women be doctors? Or should we leave that all up to men? What would the hierarchicalists of today thought about women's sufferage...is THAT Biblical? Where is the line drawn?? I feel like claiming male authoritarianism and female subordination implies such extreme views--views that lift patriachry up and fail to recognize the reality of cultural shift and flow (and the positive benefits of culture being dynamic!).
36. Tara said the following at 6:07 PM on Jun 30:
I love the complimentarian idea...that men and women were design to compliment each other. Yet I really don't think it means the 1950s white suburbia ideologies. I am very, very grateful to live in a culture where I have opportunities to education, a career and am considered an equal both politically and socially. And I'm glad that my male, Christian peers (including my fiance) have also been raised in such a worldview.
I think men and women compliment each moreso in spiritual and emotional ways than strictly gender roles. We approach issues from such different angles that, together, we can see more of the bigger picture. We can also encourage each other to develop the skills that don't come naturally to us. For example, a wife could help her husband develop his ability to voice his thoughts and feelings (at least, to her) and he can help her to develop her leadership skills.
I often feel as though saying I as a woman "complement" a man is meant in the same way as a side dish or a sprig of parsley "complements" a steak.
Well...what if I want to be the steak?! What if I as a woman have some great ideas and want to be a leader, as a CEO or Senator or President or whatever?? Not that raising children is a lesser job than any of those things, but I guess what I'm asking is in the Christian worldview, do Christians want all men to be leaders, and all women to wipe the bottoms of their sons (the future leaders) (kyra, comment #34)
I get what you're saying and I agree that women can and should have the same opportunity to be a CEO or President. And men should share the weight of keeping their priorities straight (God and family before career). But I do question the steak analogy. I don't think any marriage should be seen as the steak and side dish no matter who takes on what role. I don't see how a relationship can remain healthy viewed in such a light. A family is not the ultimate goal...it's not a world unto itself. I believe that a godly family is striving TOGETHER to serve God's Kingdom. For it's in God's eyes that we're all equal. Remember that God chose women to be the first witnesses to Christ's resurrection.
Gender roles change with the culture. What doesn't change is how husbands and wives are charged to love and submit to one another and to encourage each other and their children to be more like Christ and to serve Him with their whole hearts.
37. Alison Brown said the following at 6:19 AM on Jul 1:
"Hey, anyone want to help me start a major Christian film festival that is unassociated with Vision Forum?"
Someone really does need to do that!
Doug Phillips' ambitions of becoming a major film mover and shaker through his San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival is just bound to bring even more shame on the name of Christ than he's already done.
Aside from promoting his misogynistic agenda, Doug Phillips has a very bad reputation in films too. He has a bad reputation for stealing other people's ideas and taking credit where he isn't due any. Anything to make a buck?
Here's a frightful story about Doug Phillips' character. Doug Phillips' Raising The Allosaur
38. Sylvia said the following at 3:24 PM on Jul 1:
I just wanted to add a thought on the last name thing. We tend to jump to assume that something in a marriage that differs between the husband and the wife is something dismissive of her.
One thing that occurred to me is that, if a woman and a man have a child, it is obvious to everyone that the child is HERS. Its seems to me that having the family take on the last name of the father has something to do with protecting the wife and children, and demonstrating the "sperm donor's" responsibility to the family.
I'm not arguing that this is or is not an overly archaic tradition, just that the original intentions in it may well have been very good.
39. Denise Clairmont said the following at 3:41 PM on Jul 1:
Talk about frightful stories! Doug Phillips Poses Threat To The Lives Of Home School Mothers
40. John said the following at 10:02 AM on Jul 2:
men=leader (or head) in the home.
Ultimately meaning, when it comes down to a final decision, he has to make it. It is the man's responsibility. This way he can't be like Adam and blame his Eve.
Dr. Dobson said it well, Two captains sink a ship.
By nature, men are more suited for leadership, while women make really good managers.
Men are usually single minded, but in the good way. They can focus on 1 thing very well. While women are very good at multi-tasking.
The notion of "out in the world" and "in the home" is very recent.
Remember, prior to the industrial revolution, world and home were one and the same. Work was done in and around the home. Men only started to go out of the home for work when the industrial revolution began because the work was so back breaking. This is why women stayed home. If you want to learn more about this, I highly recommend Nancy Pearcey's book, "Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from it's cultural captivity".
Lastly, it isn't "men make the decisions, women accept the decisions", especially as it relates to the home. They make the decisions together, but where agreement cannot be reached, the man must make the final decision. Not a fun place to be in sometimes, but our biblical duty.
41. trying to stay balanced said the following at 10:11 AM on Jul 2:
#37 Alison,
Speaking of films,
I just found this in the current issues of Sojourners Magazine. (my fav)
http://www.sojo.net/
Check it out:
http://compasscinema.com
They have a series called Modern Day Parables.
http://www.modernparable.com
It looks pretty good, they even offer a trial. I am off to watch it now.
Blessings