How To Love Your Loved One, Wife, Daughter, and Mom

It’s About Respect: 15 Signs He Treats You The Way You Truly Deserve

http://elitedaily.com/dating/he-treats-like-truly-deserve/1007416/

by Paul Hudson

April 21, 2015

The trick to a happy relationship is seeing each other as complete equals.

Now, before you all go on about how you treat all people as equals, especially your lover, let me say this: bullsh*t.

People don’t see all people as equals – in fact, we just about never see anyone else as an equal.

The only time we really do is when we love that individual. When we don’t love someone, we are basically saying he or she isn’t our equal and deserving of our love.

It’s difficult seeing other people as complete equals, as we are egocentric beings living a reality from a single perspective, a single point of view.

As far as we’re concerned, we’re really the only people in the world who matter.

Unless we’re in love. 

When we’re in love, the most magical thing happens: We find someone who we believe may be even more important than ourselves.

Ladies, this is the only sort of man for you. If he doesn’t see you as his equal, then he won’t be capable of treating you the way you deserve to be treated.

How do you know he’s treating you the way you deserve to be treated?

1. He gives you attention from the moment you wake up.

He’ll roll over, give you a hug or a kiss on the forehead. Or just plop his heavy arm over you, giving out a groan to show his disdain for the sunrise forcing him to wake from his dreams.

Whatever his morning routine, it involves him recognizing you’re laying there with him.

2. He feeds not just your body, but your mind.

He might buy you dinner; he might make it for you. A man who’s in love lives to satisfy his woman — and that’s equally through her stomach as it is through her passions and soul. He’ll just as easily buy you chocolates as he would books because he knows enriching you is his favorite hobby and it makes the both of you better.

3. He loves surprising you.

Maybe he’ll buy you little gifts. Maybe he’ll pick you some flowers. Maybe he’ll clean your apartment while you’re away at work or running errands. Maybe he’ll book you a trip around the world or simply pack the two of you a surprise picnic. When a man makes a point to surprise you, he understands the importance of keeping the excitement in a relationship alive.

4. He spends time with you because he wants to, not because he feels obligated to.

You don’t need to beg him to hang out, to see you, to spend time with you. In fact, he often finds himself having to hold back from seeing you too often, from coming off as overly eager.

He feels an urge to spend just about every waking moment with you, but he knows better. He gives you the space you need and takes the space he needs, but never fails to be there for you.

5. When he makes plans, you’re a part of them.

As far as he’s concerned, you are the plan. The life the two of you will create together is all the planning he needs. Everything else you’ll deal with when the time comes, together.

6. He consults you before he makes big decisions.

In a relationship, it’s important to share the decision-making. If the man you’re with treats you well, he’ll not only include you because he knows you want to be included, but because he values your opinions, your input.

7. He doesn’t lie to you because he doesn’t have anything he needs to lie about.

Not all men are scumbags. Not all men will lie to you, cheat on you and break your heart. Some, most even, certainly will. But not him. He refuses to treat you the same way every other assh*le in your life has treated you. He won’t lie to you, and he will never have a reason to.

How can he be so sure? Because it’s a choice, and it’s a choice he’s already decided to make.

8. He tells you that you’re beautiful when you feel your worst.

I’d say that to him, you’re always beautiful – which may very well be the case – but when you look like hell, you look like hell. It happens to the best of us. But do you know what? He refuses to tell you that you look like hell because he doesn’t want you thinking yourself to be anything but beautiful.

9. He tells you about his day and asks you about yours.

He wants to know about your life because he feels by knowing your day, he is, in a sense, becoming a bigger part of your life. He enjoys telling you about his day, telling you interesting stories or some issues he has been dealing with. He wants to share with you and wants you to share with him.

10. The only time he makes you cry is from happiness.

There should be nothing in the world that breaks his heart like watching you cry – really cry. He hates the thought of you feeling hurt and even goes as far as to share in your pain. It’s not that he’s trying to, although given the chance, he’d change places in an instance; it’s just that he can’t help it. He hurts when you hurt. It’s out of his control.

11. He tells you he loves you, but he doesn’t have to, because you already know it.

This is where most men – to be fair, women as well – make a big mistake. If you love someone, it matters less that you love that person than it matters that you make him or her feel loved.

People seem to have it backward. They are under the illusion that the way they themselves are feeling is how to best define love.

On the contrary, love is defined by actions – not by emotions or theories. Unless he knows how to make you feel loved and does his best to do so, he’s being selfish and egocentric. How can that be love?

12. He’ll give you the bigger half.

It’s the little things. It’s those little moments when he thinks about you before he thinks about himself. It’s giving you the bigger half of the sandwich, the bigger half of the bed, the bigger half of the closet, the bigger half of his heart, the bigger half of his life.

People are egocentric by nature – they will always think about themselves and will think about themselves first, most of the time. It’s not something that can be helped.

Look out for these little acts of selflessness because they are, in true sense, proof of his love for you.

13. He makes you feel safe.

He may not be the tallest, the fittest, the fastest, the strongest guy in the world, but if push comes to shove, he will sooner die trying to save you than to allow you to be abused, hurt or harassed by another.

In your heart you feel he would risk his life to save yours, if it came down to it. And although you would never ask him to do that, pushing him out of the way as he protects you from the incoming bullet, knowing he would makes you feel like the luckiest girl in the world.

14. He keeps his promises.

He may not make many of them – if only to lessen the chances of having to break them – but when he makes a promise, he always delivers. He knows you trust him and have faith in him – he doesn’t want to disappoint you. He just wants you to be happy.

15. He makes you feel like a woman.

You may be his best friend. You may be his partner, his confidante, his advisor, his better half, but first and foremost, you are a woman – his woman. And he wants you to feel like a woman. He treats you with respect. He makes you feel sexy. He makes you feel loved.

He makes you feel like he wants you – every part of you – because he does.

*For More Of His Thoughts And Ramblings, Follow Paul Hudson On TwitterAnd Facebook.

Love, Marriage and Mutuality

In place of rules, an atmosphere of

respect and mutuality has developed.

Love gets the duties done
http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/rabbi_albert_lewis_columns/index_2.html

by Rabbi Albert Lewis
The Grand Rapids Press
June 7, 2012

In the year 2000, Shirley and I bought and designed a new condo.

We looked at model A and model B and created model C. We picked each fixture and nob and were fortunate to build just what we wanted.

Over the years, we have done some remodeling and added to our dream home.

While talking recently, we realized there are no rules about how we live in our home (except the very clear ones when the grandchildren come and have to be reminded about their responsibilities). In place of rules, an atmosphere of respect and mutuality has developed, and tasks are accomplished more out of love than assignment.

Laundry and the dishwasher, two unexciting tasks, are addressed by both of us. If one of us sees washing that needs to be dried or sorted, we do it.

The dishwasher is unloaded by whoever gets up first in the morning or is least hu rried. We love to cook together and to share the responsibilities of the kitchen — including the cleanup. We even thank one another for what the other has done. It isn’t necessary, but always appreciated.

And it sends a message that we appreciate one an other.

Of course, there are occasions when there are tasks I don’t see as clearly as Shirley, but we accomplish them because we have chosen to make a house into a loving home. That didn’t happen overnight.

In this home, there have been hours of conversation, agreement, understanding and misunderstanding to reach a place of deep respect. Everything that happens in our lives is worth talking about. We even have certain places we prefer to sit to talk about issues that are most important to us. Fears, disappointments, joys and dreams all find space in our home and in our hearts.

And, after almost 50 years of marriage, we continue to find ways to be more sensitive to one another.

Love and deep mu tual respect evolve, but they are not simply the results of time. My experience has taught me that a truly deep and intimate marriage takes work and a willingness to examine oneself. Over the years, needs, desires, abilities and interests change. All this needs to be brought to the place where we sit and talk.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: “The best friend is likely to acquire the best wife, because a good marriage is based on the talent for friendship.”

Shirley is my best friend, strongest supporter and most trusted critic. In this home we occupy and sanctify together, all emotions and thoughts are shared and weighed.

Sometimes, it’ s painful to hear about how we may have disappointed one another, yet it is thrilling to know that we have made one another happy — that we know in our deepest selves we are loved. An anonymous writer noted, “A house is made of walls and beams; a home is built with love and dreams.”

With much gratitude and appreciation, we live in such a home.

Albert M. Lewis is rabbi emeritus of Temple Emanuel in Grand Rapids and author of “Soul Sounds: Reflections on Life,” available at soulsoundsbook.com. Email him at albertmlewis@att.net

Biblical Leadership Roles and Supporting Your Partner

Dan on Roles, Leadership, and Supporting Your Partner
http://rachelheldevans.com/mutuality-dan

by Rachel Held Evans
June 5, 2012
Comments

This afternoon I’m thrilled to introduce you to my amazing husband Dan. Dan is a loyal friend, a wise and supportive partner, an entrepreneur, a videographer, and a professional out-of-the-box thinker. He’s also one of the most creative, funny, and intelligent people I’ve ever met (though I suppose I’m a bit biased). You can thank Dan for the fact that this Web site exists and runs so smoothly, as he’s the one who works behind-the-scenes to keep all my technology afloat. Some things I respect most about Dan include his uncompromising integrity, his seemingly natural inclination to "rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep," and his ability to identify obscure actors in movies without checking IMDB.

Earlier today, we examined the concept of submission in the context of Peter and Paul’s Christian remix of the Greco-Roman household codes. This afternoon, Dan shares a little about what a pattern of mutual submission looks like in our marriage. Last year, during the infamous “year of biblical womanhood,” Dan kept a journal. The following post is adapted from an excerpt he wrote during the last month of the project. (You’ll be able to read more from his journal when the book comes out!)

Enjoy!

* * *

Recently, my mom made note of how proud she was that I’m able to support Rachel in her successful career, something she said that “many men couldn’t do.”

When viewed in the context of the yearlong "Biblical Womanhood" project, it highlighted a strange absurdity. During the experiment, I acted as the hierarchical leader of our relationship, but at the same time, I continued to play a supporting role in Rachel’s career. At first, I didn’t know how to respond to my Mom's compliment other than, "Thanks Mom." But after processing it a bit, trying to resolve my cognitive dissonance, it hit me:

Our roles aren't static. Our roles change depending on context.

At its core, (yearlong projects aside), my relationship with Rachel isn’t a hierarchy; it’s a partnership. What kind of person doesn’t want success for their partner? A weak, insecure, person. What kind of man doesn’t want success for his wife? A weak, insecure man.

I’m not supporting Rachel like a passive piling supports a dock. I’m supporting her like the Saturn V supported Apollo 11. I want her to succeed in her pursuits, and will do everything in my power to make it happen. And she wants the same for me.

When I’m working on a film project, who’s taking the supporting role and feeding everyone? Rachel. When I took a year to buy, renovate and sell an investment property, who supported me throughout? Rachel. When Rachel’s working to finish a writing project by deadline, who’s supporting her by keeping the house clean and the laundry done? Me. Our life decisions are made in tandem. We’re the ones leading our lives. We aren't battling over who's leading who.

To be “a leader” is meaningless without context. A leader of what?

Too many of us have succumbed to the idea that “leaders” are a specific type of people or that “leadership” is a character quality to be obtained like political capital - the more the better. But I view leadership differently. Leadership isn’t a goal. Leadership is a role that comes and goes. Wisdom and strength are what we should pursue. Not leadership.

In the context of roles, wisdom is discerning when to lead, and strength comes from consistently practicing wisdom. Leadership is a role that changes hands depending on context. In that light, it's important to learn how to lead, not because you want to be “a leader”, but because when wisdom and strength have placed you in a position of leadership, you don’t want to screw it up.

* * *

What do you think? What does "leadership" look like in your marriage and relationships?

What about "support"? Are they static positions you hold or versatile roles that you play?

Yes, Relationships Between Equal Married Partners Does Work Better (And it's Biblical!)

It’s not complementarianism; it’s patriarchy
http://rachelheldevans.com/complementarians-patriarchy

by Rachel Held Evans
May 3, 2012
Comments

Russell Moore is concerned that too many evangelical marriages are complementarian in name only.

The dean of the School of Theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Seminary recently said this at the Together for the Gospel Conference is Louisville, Kentucky:

“What I fear is that we have many people in evangelicalism who can check off ‘complementarian’ on a box but who really aren’t living out complementarian lives. Sometimes I fear we have marriages that are functionally egalitarian, because they are within the structure of the larger society. If all we are doing is saying ‘male headship’ and ‘wives submit to your husbands’ but we’re not really defining what that looks like...in this kind of culture, when those things are being challenged, then it’s simply going to go away...”

He’s right. Whenever I speak or write on this topic, I hear from men and women who say that they went into their marriages expecting to impose upon them the hierarchal structure advocated by the complementarian movement, but who found that, practically speaking, a relationship between two equal partners just worked better than a relationship between a boss and a subordinate.

“It just didn’t fit,” they often say. “Hierarchy felt awkward and imposed. It made so much more sense to work together as a team, to settle into roles based on giftedness rather than gender.”

This is exactly what happened to us. Even though Dan and I were both raised in a complementarian culture, our marriage was “functionally egalitarian” long before we began reevaluating our interpretation of those passages of Scripture so often used to support hierarchal-based gender roles.

We make decisions together. (No one holds a trump card.)

We share household chores. (No one gets out of doing the laundry or helping with the yard work based on gender.)

We don’t impose gender-based absolutes on one another. (I like football more than Dan, and nobody’s particularly concerned about that. Roll Tide!)

We don’t have a single leader. (Dan likes to say that “leadership” requires context. It’s not something you are; it’s something you do. So depending on the circumstances, sometimes I lead, and sometimes Dan leads. Sometimes I support, and sometimes Dan supports. We see our gifts, particularly our spiritual gifts, as complementary. We function best—as individuals and as a team—when we do what we’re good at and what we love, and when we cheer one another on. We also function best when our leadership looks more like service than authority, just like Jesus said.)

Moore is right. Complementarians are losing ground. And they’re losing ground for several reasons:

1. They are losing ground because more and more evangelical theologians, scholars, professors, and pastors are thoughtfully debunking a complementarian interpretation of Scripture and doing it at the popular level through books like The Blue Parakeet (by Scot McKnight), Discovering Biblical Equality (by Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Gordon Fee), How I Changed My Mind About Women in Church Leadership (by a who’s who of evangelical leaders), through evangelical colleges and seminaries that celebrate women’s giftedness to lead and are producing record numbers of female graduates, and through organizations like Christians for Biblical Equality.

2. They are losing ground because their rhetoric consistently reflects a commitment to an idealized glorification of the pre-feminist nuclear family of 1950s America rather than a commitment to “biblical manhood” and “biblical womanhood”—terms that many of us recognize as highly selective, reductive, and problematic. This reactionary approach often comes at the expense of sound biblical interpretation. (I touched on this in a post about Mark Driscoll’s interpretation of Esther and Vashti a few months ago. We’ll be talking about this a lot more in the weeks and months to come.)

3. And they are losing ground because, at the practical level, evangelicals are realizing that complementarianism doesn’t actually promote complementary relationships, but rather hierarchal ones.

Complemenarianism is patriarchy—nothing more, nothing less. (Though sometimes it is referred to as "soft patriarchy.") This was made crystal clear when John Piper announced months ago that Christianity is inherently masculine. Such a view can hardly be described as “complementary” when it excludes one gender entirely! We experience the same discomfort when we realize that, based on the “complementarian” understanding of gender, Fred Phelps would be more qualified to speak to your church on Sunday morning by virtue of being a man than someone like Lois Tverberg or Carolyn Custis James or Christine Caine. When a man with no biblical training whatsoever is considered more qualified to teach than a woman with a PhD in theology or a woman whose work in New Testament scholarship is renowned the world over, we are not seeing complementariaism at work, but patriarchy. (And, I might add, we are missing the Apostle Paul’s point to Timothy about teaching entirely—but that’s a topic for another day.)

Furthermore, as Russell Moore himself has observed, even married couples who identify as “complmentarians” are functioning as equal partners rather than forcing a hierarchal pattern onto their relationship that is highly prescriptive regarding gender. This should come as no surprise seeing as how a truly complementary relationship is one in which differences are celebrated, but not forced. If your marriage is like mine, this means that the complementary differences between you and your spouse often fall into gender-influenced norms (I am more emotional; Dan is more even-keeled), but not always (Dan is better at nurturing relationships than I am; I am more competitive). Rather than trying to force our personalities and our roles into prescribed molds based on gender, it just makes more sense to allow our natural difference to enhance and challenge one another. We lead where we are strong; we defer where we are weak.

Complementarianism isn’t working—in marriages and in church leadership— because it’s not actually complementarianism; it’s patriarchy. And patriarchy doesn’t work because God created both men and women to reflect God's character and God's sovereignty over creation, as equal partners with equal value.

In June I’ll be running a more in-depth series on the Bible and gender in which we will tackle some of those passages of Scripture that are used to promote hierarchy in the home and in church leadership, because I realize and respect the fact that that, particularly among evangelicals, it’s not enough to say that hierarchal-based gender roles don’t work; we must also be able to show that they are not required by Scripture. So stay tuned for that discussion!

See also:
Complementarians are Selective Too
Esther and Vashti: The Real Story

What do you think? Are complementarians losing ground? Should it be called “complementarianism” when it’s really just patriarchy?

What I want to say to my daughter someday...

If I become the father of a daughter someday this is what I want her to know...

http://nearemmaus.com/2012/02/02/if-i-become-the-father-of-a-daughter-someday-this-is-what-i-want-her-to-know/

by Brian LePort

Posted on February 2, 2012

My beautiful, intelligent, strong wife

and I in front of Notre-Dame de Paris.

For many men our earliest interactions with women are from our grandmothers, mothers, aunts, sisters, and cousins, along with peers at school. Some of these relationships include being nurtured for a time, but eventually we go through the process of finding our own identity as adolescents. Our mother’s kisses cause us to blush in front of our friends. Other relationships are competitive like sisters and peers at school. Some day we will compete with them for scholarships, jobs, raises, and the like. Even our relationship with our wives can be quite complex. We are nurtured, we nurture, and there is always the day-to-day challenge of learning to live with each other. Some men assert that they are the final authority in the home and that may make things easier on them but it often is not received well by their wives. Others work to share authority and responsibility in the home, seeking to understand our roles in relation to each other, not in relation to the predetermined standards of our society.

When it comes to the role of women in the church of God many men bring the experiences of these relationships to the discussion. I’ve heard men say they can’t imagine a woman as their pastor. Often they think of the woman as being “overbearing” like their mother, “competitive” like their sister, or the uniqueness of their relationship with their wife is projected onto said woman pastor.

I wonder if we men would be better at this discussion if we asked, “What would I want for my daughter in this world?” Sometimes we men do not realize that we are playing games for power with our spouses, yet there is something in us that creates a different posture toward a daughter. I say this as a man without children, but I imagine that if I become the father of a daughter someday this is what I want her to know: you can be anything and do anything a man can do in society.

Now I hear some complimentarians chirping about how women and men are different biologically, emotionally, this and that. I am not denying that we are not the same. I am denying that these characteristics mean a woman can’t be a CEO, or a senator, or the pastor of my local church.

When I realize that I want this for my future daughter it forces me to rethink how I treat my wife who is another man’s daughter. Do I want her to be everything she can be? Yes! My wife is intelligent, she is talented, she is charismatic and personable. I want her to know that her gender doesn’t prohibit her from being fully human. (She knows this already; she is strong!) If I had a sister I’d want her to be everything God has called her to be.

If I have a daughter and she tells me, “Dad, I think I am called to be a pastor,” and someone with their Bible in hand tell her that she cannot follow that calling, let me tell you it will be a bad day for that person. I won’t stand for men using their Bibles to tell a daughter or wife of mine that she can’t be what they can be for the simple reasons that she is a woman. When Scripture was written it was written in a patrilineal society. I won’t allow someone to tell my future children who will be part Latino that their race prevents them from being what they want to be. I wouldn’t allow someone to use Scripture to tell a victim of human trafficking that “you should obey your master like Scripture says.” I know people have their portions of Scripture to quote, but this is where it is essential to stand against misguided biblicism.

If I become the father of a daughter someday I want her to know she is equal to me. She is fully human. She is loved by God. She is called by Christ. She is a vessel of the Holy Spirit. I want to be the type of man that Philip must have been to cultivate not one daughter who was a prophetess, but several!

So dear Christian pastor, scholar, theologian–if a few decades from now I have a daughter who says she is called to the pastorate you can give her your opinion, but tread lightly, she’ll have a father whose been telling her for years to follow God’s calling no matter where it leads.

Continued: Part 1 - Christianity began in a patrilineal society...
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/02/christianity-began-in-patrilineal.html

Christian Hierarchy - Complementarianism vs Egalitarianism

The subject of Christian egalitarianism should seem a moot point by now but because all men everywhere love (or lust for) power, and especially God-ordained power (as self-appointed magistrates  of religious hierarchical power within the Church of God), this subject will never cease to be untimely nor unduly spoken.

Just recently a friend I know was teaching a Sunday School class presuming that there is a God-ordained mandate for the view of hierarchy within the church and family that requires the church board, preacher, priest and husband the final word on any-and-all matters pertaining to direction in the life of church or family. He was expressing a complementarian point of view. And when reading this past year through the many Evangelical articles submitted by theological heads-of-state (presidents of associations, seminary leaders, popular pastors) I discovered that to digress from their opinion was to digress to one's harm and destruction (in moral terms of slander, judgment, condemnation).

But this is not simply an Evangelical problem for we see it occurring time-and-again throughout all forms and expressions of Christianity denominationally, institutionally and personally. Even in my own Emergent church and movement it appeared from time-to-time (though I thought at the time this was more due to youth and frustration than purposefully but God only knows the real truth of the matter...). Though Emergents wish to speak the party line of egalitarianism woe be to those should a dissenting voice "against emergency" ever be expressed. Rather than taking a gracious position to discuss a matter and determine its legitimacy it was overruled out-of-hand and the dissenting voice disallowed either publicly or privately. Consequently, we all sin regardless of the Christian branch we have fallen out from, or have chosen to remain bonded to... the Church is no less immune than any other parts of society.

So then, the topic of power and autocracy never seems to grow old. One can find it anywhere. The man-on-the-street who works hard for his living sees it more than most and is ever disposed to its rejection. However, when raised into power and authority those same folk nearly immediately forget their ancient complaints and arguments from "down below." It takes an exceptionally humble man or woman to remember that we live-and-breathe by God's all-gracious gift of life. That it is God who lifts-up or takes-down men and women from positions of privileged leadership.

And it is to this view/topic of leadership that Dr. Olson in his several articles below expresses the wish, hope and prayer for better leaders - and for that matter - better followers to help their leadership become godly, humble leaders. There are too many who wish for power and authority and not enough who should wish to help support those in power and authority to become better egalitarian leaders. For power and authority is a two-way street and the principal of egalitarian leadership will always be mindful to empower those around us through the practice of mentoring and discipleship to become better leaders in their own right. At the last, power should be given, not taken. This is true empowerment. One that God has exampled to mankind and to His Church specifically.

The best examples of leadership that I have found have been those seeking to empower those around themselves. Seeking to lead others towards fully-functioning decision making. Towards the formation and creation of independent will that is given back over to the whole of the organization (or family unit) and for everyone's mutual benefit. Towards trusting the ability of sincere congregants to the management of their ministries while offering supportive leadership in teams of mutual respect. Towards creating an atmosphere of consensus government beginning first in the ranks of the leadership proper.

And these principles MUST be affected within our daily lives - as fathers with mothers, husbands with wives, parents with children, children with parents, and friends with friends.... By definition all organizations will have a kind of hierarchy to them but in the postmodern world of global communications, mutual cooperation, and tolerant respect, such organizations will work best with a flatten hierarchy that has learned to become servant-minded, sacrificial, and focused on love, respect and integrity as it can be reproduced within itself.

To those who would take advantage of such organizations and family environments be mindful that the lust for power and sin's nearness can destroy many a Camelot, many a good endeavor, and what is destroyed may never return as it once was. It behooves all of us to seek God's will and not simply our own. To lift up those around us and not ourselves. This is wisdom. A wisdom wise men and women do well to heed and mentor towards others. But those who refuse such wisdom will find ruin and destruction.

R.E. Slater

January 17, 2011

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Truth, Authority and Roles

Part 3/3

(Parts 1 and 2 will be found further below)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/01/truth-authority-and-roles/

by Roger Olson

January 10, 2012

Truth, Authority and Roles

“He who begins by loving Christianity, better than truth, will proceed by loving his own

sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.”

 - Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Aids to Reflection

Consider this little essay background explanation of why I am against complementarianism and hierarchy in general. Hierarchy, including complementarianism, emphasizes roles and “authority over” and “submission to” based on them. In other words, to put it bluntly, hierarchy is the manner of organization of a social unit (especially the family) so that assigned (or assumed) roles matter more than truth.

Hierarchy is more than an organizational flow chart. Hierarchy exists where a person’s authority over others is independent of truth.leadership without hierarchy. Hierarchy is when the leadership’s power over those led is independent of accountability to truth. Hierarchy naturally inclines toward abuse because of our fallen nature. Its social structure encourages abuse and subjects truth to power-over.

Christians claim to be concerned with and committed to truth. And yet we betray that concern and commitment when we insist on hierarchy. Hierarchical Christians, like all hierarchical people, show by their organizational theory and behavior a preference for power and control over truth.

Let me illustrate. In 1633 Galileo, a faithful son of the Catholic Church, was brought before the Inquisition and found guilty of being “vehemently suspect of heresy” and was put under house arrest and forbidden to publish. The church hierarchy knew that Galileo was right about the heliocentric solar system. (Technically, they knew Copernicus was right and Galileo was right about agreeing with it!) What Galileo was really punished for was disobeying the church that had ordered him in 1616 to abandon all attempts to demonstrate the Copernican system publicly. (He was allowed to write about it as a mathematical fiction only.) This is a clear case of truth being trumped by power, i.e., hierarchy.

The second illustration is Luther. In this case, the church did not know that Luther was right about justification, but Luther stood up to role power and refused to bow to the authority of those above him in the hierarchy of church and empire. At Worms he clearly believed, however temporarily, that truth mattered more than roles. As a lowly monk he faced off against the pope and the emperor on the ground that truth was on his side.

The irony is that many people who consider Luther a great hero nevertheless talk about hierarchy as if Luther was wrong. During his controversy with the pope and the emperor some of Luther’s counselors strongly advised him to bow to their (the pope’s and emperor’s) authority even if he knew them to be wrong.

This is all very personal to me. Over my years of involvement in Christian organizations I have observed (and been involved in) many situations where truth was put second to role-power (or ignored altogether for the sake of sustaining hierarchy). I taught theology at Oral Roberts University for two years. It was my first full time teaching position. There I observed and heard of many examples of this. (ORU is now under entirely new management and I trust [and hear that] nothing like that is happening now.)

My point in all this is a simple one. When a person in a position of authority is manifestly wrong and a person under his or her authority is manifestly right, true authority belongs, in that instance, with the “underling.” For a Christian, especially, to assert the “rightness” of the authority of the person in the wrong just because he or she holds a position, is a betrayal of truth. It is the job of all lovers of truth to hold others, including those higher in the “chain of command,” accountable to truth. And it is the job of all lovers of truth to bow to it even when it is being communicated by someone lower in the “chain of command.”

When my daughters were children I followed this policy with them. When we disagreed, if they were right and I was wrong, I admitted it and allowed their truth (the truth) to prevail.

This is one reason I am a Baptist; true Baptists have no chain of command. We have leadership, but no hierarchy. There is no Baptist person who has authority over other Baptists simply by virtue of his or her role. There are Baptist persons who are recognized as leaders because of their spiritual depth, higher knowledge and wisdom, education and training, etc. However, only God is considered infallible and always to be obeyed. And just because a person holds a certain position or role in the church or convention does not make him or her automatically “right.” (Note: I am not saying only Baptists have this polity.)

A good biblical example is Peter and Paul at Antioch. Peter was over Paul in the early Christian “flow chart.” And yet Paul stood up to him and criticized him when he refused to eat with gentile converts. The truth was on Paul’s side. In a hierarchy Peter would have been considered functionally right even if truth was on Paul’s side. Another biblical example is from the Old Testament—David and Nathan. The prophet Nathan confronted the king about his sin; truth was on Nathan’s side even though David was most definitely above him in the hierarchy. At that moment, hierarchy was suspended for the sake of truth.

I suspect that many people, including many Christians, prefer hierarchy to truth because hierarchy makes things more orderly, controlled and predictable. Authority-as-truth can be messy. But anything else is a form of idolatry (or at least an opening to idolatry) because God and truth are inseparable. To prefer power to truth is always wrong.

Questions such as “But how do we know the truth?” are irrelevant to the case I’m making unless one denies truth altogether. Then, of course, all we have is power. Whether anyone can know truth as God knows it (completely and perfectly) is not the issue. The issue is simply this: When I believe someone has the truth, I should follow that person in that instance even if it means going against authority. (Of course a person has to take prudence into account.) But even more importantly, the issue is: This holds true even and especially when I am the person “officially” over the person with truth in the organizational flow chart. If I believe he or she is speaking truth, I should bend to that truth even if the person discovering it and presenting it is the lowliest person on the organizational flow chart. To do otherwise is a form of idolatry.

When I was growing up in certain Pentecostal circles, a favorite biblical verse quoted often by my parents and mentors was 1 Chronicles 16:22 (echoed in Psalm 105:15): “Touch not mine anointed.” To them it meant “Never criticize or question those ‘in authority’ over you—especially in the church and denomination.” People who dared to criticize or question those “in authority” were labeled “negative” and ostracized. It wasn’t just a matter of how one did it; simply doing it was considered unspiritual. This mentality led to all kinds of abuses in our church and denomination and movement.

This is why I am adamantly opposed to so-called “complementarianism.” No matter how much they say that the husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church, they (the leading complementarian preachers and scholars) are handing husbands the right to ignore truth when it is his wife who has it and he doesn’t—that is, when his wife is right and he is wrong. I am waiting to read or hear a complementarian say to Christian husbands: “When your wife is right, she is right and you must obey the truth.” (I don’t expect them to say “You must obey her;” that would be expecting too much!)

Nothing in the New Testament contradicts this. In fact, I think it is everywhere assumed there. I cannot imagine Paul or any other apostle saying to anyone “I’m right and you’re wrong even though you’re right and I’m wrong.” To Timothy, a young apostle-in-training, he said “Do not let anyone despise your youth.” (1 Timothy 4:12) Clearly what he meant was “Don’t let anyone ignore or oppose your truth, when you are right, just because you’re young.”

In my opinion, “complementarianism” is an open door to abuse and idolatry. (I am not saying it is abuse or idolatry.) At the very least I insist that complementarians admit and teach that truth matters more than role—even outside spiritual matters pertaining to salvation and morality. If the husband believes his wife is right about something, that is, truth is on her side in a disagreement, he ought to let her decide. It shouldn’t even be a matter of “letting her decide.” A mature Christian person should automatically follow the truth wherever it may be found. But when I say “let her decide” I am talking to complementarians in their language (even though to egalitarian ears it sounds patriarchal).

I began this essay with a quote from Samuel Taylor Coleridge. I would very much like to see it displayed on church marquees and carved into the marble above the entrances to Christian organizations. The point it is making is one of the most important points ever made. Truth matters more than anything else—even love. Ephesians 4:15 does not say “Let love over ride truth.” It says “speaking the truth in love….” This does not mean license to hate! It means that love should never allow truth to be denied. Love may hide the truth for a while, depending on how important the truth is. But truth that matters to the well-being of people, whether individuals or communities, must not be set aside but communicated in a spirit of love.

I’m afraid that “complementarians” love authority and roles more than truth. If so, they may end up by loving themselves “better than all.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Earlier Articles on Complementarianism

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

And now…on the other side (critique of extreme complementarianism)

Part 1/3

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/01/and-now-on-the-other-side-critique-of-extreme-complementarianism/

by Roger Olson

January 4, 2012

And now…the other extreme from “Christian feminism”

Recently here I critiqued contemporary radical Christian Feminism while applauding egalitarianism. By “radical Christian Feminism” I mean the approach to theology that begins from women’s experience and resymbolizes God away from the predominantly male images of scripture to female images treated as superior to male images for their social value (e.g., in promoting equality rather than hierarchy). I regard the theologies of Rosemary Ruether, Letty Russell, Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza and Elizabeth Johnson as pernicious to biblical Christianity insofar as they reject scripture as normative and consider women’s experience (as defined by them) as normative for theology.

Radical Christian feminism, however, is not the only extreme form of reflection on gender in theology that I criticize. Just as strongly (and from the “gut,” so to speak, even more strongly!) I reject so-called Evangelical Complementarianism as that is worked out, defended and promoted by some fundamentalist theologians. (Not all complementarians are fundamentalists; my objection here is mainly to those who seem fundamentalist to me in that they appear to adhere to “maximal conservatism,” elevate secondary matters of doctrine and biblical interpretation to the status of dogmas, and reject fellow evangelicals who disagree with them about biblical interpretation with regard to matters about which evangelicals have disagreed for the past century or more.)

So what is Evangelical Complementarianism? I agree with the definition given in a news article by Bob Allen of the Associated Baptist Press published in Baptists Today entitled “Abandoned his leadership: SBC professor says Adam’s sin was in listening to his wife” (November, 2011, p. 8). The article says that “complementarianism” “holds that men and women are both created in God’s image but assigned different roles.” But this needs supplementation (just as a definition of “Christian Feminism” that mentions only gender equality needs supplementation). Mention “complementarianism” in any evangelical theological circles and most people know immediately it is more than merely the belief that “men and women are both created in God’s image but assigned different roles.” For example, even feminists believe men and women have different roles insofar as only women give birth!

A complete (or at least more complete) definition of “evangelical complementarianism” (is there any other kind?) must mention that it holds that women, though created in God’s image, are meant by God to be permanently subordinate to men at least in the church and the family. From there complementarians go off in somewhat different directions, but on that they all agree. (Personally, I think “complementarian” is a misnomer because it does not sufficiently describe what these people really believe. The emphasis is not on males and females complementing each other but on females being submissive to males. Therefore, whenever I hear the label “complementarian” in an evangelical context I think of it as an example of “newspeak” as in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. I put it in the same category as “Patriot Act”—a name for a very controversial law implying that anyone who disagrees with any of it is less than fully patriotic.) [and in that case, it is an oxymoron, which is a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in "a cruel kindness" or "to make haste slowly." - res]

Some complementarians believe women should not hold jobs where they have to give orders to men. Others restrict female subordination and submission to spiritual contexts and the family. But all place the emphasis on female subordination and submission in such a way that adult women have pretty much the same role as children vis-à-vis adult men. So far as I know, all (or virtually all) complementarians believe women should not preach, should not be pastors (except perhaps “Childrens’ Pastors”), should not teach men in church settings or Christian organizations, and should obey their husbands unless they command them to sin. (I have heard some complementarians argue that women should obey their husbands even if they command them to sin, but that is, I believe, a fringe view among evangelical complementarians.)

This has been, for the most part, a civil and respectful disagreement among evangelical Christians. “Christians for biblical equality” (whether members of the CBE organization or simply those evangelicals who believe that men and women should have equal roles in church, family and society) strongly disagree with Evangelical Complementarianism but, for the most part, anyway, embrace complementarians as fellow evangelicals. (I’m not sure they have any choice as complementarianism seems to be the “default” view among most evangelicals.)

Increasingly, however, the views and language among some evangelical complementarians has become shrill and extreme. Some are making it a litmus test for biblical fidelity and orthodoxy. According to the article cited above, one evangelical complementarian argued at a recent meeting of The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that Adam’s sin was listening to his wife. According to the article (and the statement is placed in quotation marks in the article) “Eve was cursed on her God-given role before the Fall. She is cursed on her role as a mother and as a helper.” Now this is something new; I have never heard anyone make such an argument until now (assuming the article is correct). Taken at face value, what that Southern Baptist theologians and seminary dean and professor is saying is that just being a woman is to be cursed by God. Also, apparently, insofar as the article quotes the scholar correctly, it is a sin for a man to heed the voice of his wife.

Now, I think there can be legitimate debate about women and men and their respective roles in the church and family, although I am settled about it on the egalitarian side. I can at least see where evangelical complementarians are “coming from,” so to speak, because of their literalistic approach to hermeneutics (which is never really consistently literalistic). I do think most of them are inconsistent insofar as they applaud women missionaries who, of course, evangelized, preached to and taught men in non-American contexts (e.g., Lotty Moon—a Southern Baptist saint!). And I suspect that in the privacy of their own homes many of them actually have functionally egalitarian marriages.

The very ideas that Eve was cursed by God “before the Fall” and that Adam’s sin was heeding the voice of his wife (as opposed to disobeying God’s command not to eat of the tree) seem to me bizarre and weird if not downright unbiblical. They also seem dangerous to me. Such a teaching may be interpreted as giving men permission to be misogynists and to abuse their wives. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the view itself is misogynistic. In preference to such a church (where this is taught) I might be tempted to run to the nearest “Feminist Church!” (Although I suspect I would find somewhat the same view, only reversed.)

Back to the seminary dean and professor in question. According to the article, he claimed that he believes there cannot be “more important debate” (than the conference topic) (viz., gender roles) and “contends that if we lose the battle over the gender debate, we lose a proper interpretation of God’s word,… We lose inerrancy. We lose the authority of the Bible, and that is detrimental to the gospel.” Others have said the same about: premillennialism, creationism, restrictivism…you name it. (This is how I identify a fundamentalists—as someone who takes one side of a legitimate debate among evangelicals and elevates it to the level of status confessionis.)

So what is going on when an evangelical seminary dean and professor of theology makes such outrageous statements that go far beyond garden-variety complementarianism into outright misogyny? First, it seems to me there is a competition among especially Southern Baptist theologians (I’m not saying all SBCers are guilty of this, though, and SBCers don’t hold a monopoly on it!) to outdo one another in discovering and promoting conservative views on the pet issues. Second, conservative evangelicals are so driven by fear of liberalism that they tend to tolerate, if not applaud, extreme views that, even if outrageously nonsensical, are perceived as helping hold back the forces of liberal darkness. Third, many fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals have no sense of accountability to a larger religious, spiritual, theological context. Everyone outside the safe and narrow (not necessarily small!) confines of their own hermeneutical and doctrinal circle is unworthy of a hearing.

I suspect such extreme views on the left and on the right have been around a long time. In fact, as a historical theologian I know it. (Not necessarily these particular views but extreme views on doctrinal subjects and matters of biblical interpretation.) Usually, however, moderating voices prevail. That hasn’t been happening so much in the last twenty-five years. People are de-populating the center and rushing (or at least gravitating) to extremes. I look to evangelical leaders, opinion-makers to condemn such extremes (as were expressed in that article in Baptists Today) and make clear they do not represent the mainstream of evangelical theology. I listen but only hear only silence.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A challenge to “evangelical complementarians”

Part 2/3

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/01/a-challenge-to-evangelical-complementarians/

By Roger Olson

January 8, 2012

Following up on my earlier post about evangelical complementarianism…

I now see that it is possible to interpret the evangelical seminary dean’s comments about Eve being “cursed in her role before the fall” as NOT implying that she was cursed before the fall. The syntax of his sentence is tricky. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt here because it seems to me to say that Eve was cursed before the fall would be very strange indeed (if not a bit crazy).

As I said in response to one comment here, however, it does seem to me that at least SOME evangelical complementarians’ view of women implies that Eve was cursed before the fall. What is permanent, docile, subordination and submission if not a curse? To any doubter of that, let me pose a question: Suppose you knew that, in your life, you would always be like a child in relation to someone else no matter what your IQ might be, no matter what knowledge you gained, no matter what skills you acquired, etc. You would forever (at least in this life) be required to obey UNQUESTIONINGLY someone else. What is that but a curse?

I have held discussions with complementarians many times over the years. I’ve been immersed in evangelicalism and Christian higher education; I’ve pastored, taught, edited a scholarly journal, served as deacon and church board member, interim pastor, etc., etc. Throughout those 30 years of deep immersion in the evangelical subculture I have had many opportunities to dialogue with informed complementarians. I have read many of their articles and books. I have listened to them speak. There is ONE QUESTION they have never even seriously attempted to answer. I have posed it to many of them and the uniform response has been “Well, I’ll have to think about that and get back to you.”

They never do.

So here’s my question. Feel free to pose it to your complementarian friends, family, teachers, pastors, whatever, and let me know what they say. Or maybe you have an answer. Feel free to offer it here. But what I’d really like to know is what do the leading evangelical complementarian theorists say?

THE QUESTION:

"Suppose a married couple comes to you (the complementarian pastor or counselor or whatever) for advice. They are both committed evangelical Christians who sincerely want to “do the right thing.” They are trying to live according to the guidelines of evangelical complementarianism. However, a problem has arisen in their marriage. The wife acquired sound knowledge and understanding of finances including investments before the couple became Christians. The husband is a car mechanic who knows little-to-nothing about finances or investments. A good, trusted friend has come to the husband and offered him an opportunity to make a lot of money by investing the couple’s savings (money for their childrens’ college educations and for retirement) in a capital venture. The husband wants to do it. The wife, whose knowledge of finances and investments is well known and acknowledged by everyone, is adamantly opposed to it and says she knows, without doubt, that the money will be lost in that particular investment. She sees something in it the husband doesn’t see and she can’t convince him that it is a bad investment. The husband wants to take all their savings and put it into this investment, but he can’t do it without his wife’s signature. The wife won’t sign. However, after long debate, the couple has agreed to leave the matter in your hands. The husband insists this is a test of the wife’s God-ordained subordination to him. The wife insists this is an exception to their otherwise complementarian marriage. You, the complementarian adviser of the couple, realize the wife is right about the investment. The money will be lost if the investment is made. You try to talk the husband out of it but he won’t listen. All he’s there for is to have you decide biblically and theologically what she, the wife, should do. What do you advise?"

I have posed this or a similar scenario to many complementarians without definite response. My thought is this: IF the complementarian says the wife should sign in spite of her knowledge, just because the husband says so (and she is obliged by scripture to obey him), he is simply being unreasonable because where would such obedience stop? If the complementarian says it stops at the line of Christian conscience (i.e., wives are not required to obey their husbands if they command them to sin), he has to define “sin” in such a way as to exclude from it the wife’s knowing participation in financial ruin for their whole family. If the complementarian says this is an exception and the wife is not obligated to sign, he is ripping complementarianism to pieces. He is then admitting that obedience is tied to knowledge and not to role.

I think this is a defeating dilemma to rigid complementarianism such as I hear it taught and read it promoted in much of conservative evangelicalism. I’m not at all surprised I’ve never received a definite answer to it from any complementarian. It’s a true conundrum that exposes the impossibility of consistent complementarianism.

I fully expect some complementarian to say the wife should sign and trust God to honor her obedience. I seriously doubt any adviser would actually say that to the wife in the counseling situation. If so, then I can only consider that an example of the kind of legalism Jesus countered in the Pharisees. Jesus said the “the law” was made for man not man for the law. Jesus had no trouble “working” on the sabbath when it was a matter of healing someone or finding food to eat for his disciples.

So, there’s my challenge. Please let me know your thoughts and those of your complementarian acquaintances.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A final comment (for now) about complementarianism

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/01/a-final-comment-for-now-about-complementarianism/

by Roger Olson

January 12, 2012

Egalitarianism (with regard to marriage) is the view that in a marriage husband and wife should agree before any decisions are made or actions taken that affect the family (whether that be just them as a couple or includes children). Whether one or the other is called “the leader” of the family is irrelevant (although, of course, most contemporary egalitarians do not like that designation especially for the husband!). I judge that a couple has an egalitarian marriage insofar as neither one makes any decision or takes any action that affects both without advice and consent of the other.

If a person thinks he or she is a “complementarian” but agrees with that, I judge that he or she is not truly a complementarian IN THE CONTEMPORARY sense of that label in Evangelicalism–unless one can be BOTH an egalitarian AND a complementarian at the same time (which would seem ridiculous to me).

If a person does NOT agree with that, then I worry that he or she is in a hierarchical, dysfunctional relationship that both subjects truth to power and will lead to abuse (not necessarily physical, but not all abuse is physical). I suspect that MOST conservative evangelicals who think they are complementarians, when push comes to shove, will agree with my stated thesis above and then, at least in that moment, be really more egalitarian than complementarian (if complementarian means anything different from egalitarian).