Kassian compares men’s leadership in the Church to a husband’s leadership in marriage. She says if men’s leadership is functioning well you will see unity in both a church and a marriage. Allen counters that the problem is that it rarely functions well, and because of this women are frightened and feel that men being in authority “steals something from them”:Translation: Kassian is an arrogant feminist heretic who is hurt by men who fail to ask "how high" when she orders them to jump. These are strong independent feminists who desperately need to be shown the whip hand by stronger Christian alphas, but instead have been pedestalized and catered to by foolish Christian gammas.
And I think that the problem is that it rarely functions well. Just really honestly. And I think that that is where it feels scary is women feel like that authority that often gets put upon men steals something from them. And so what would you say to those women that maybe have been hurt by either men or the church and feel like it is just really difficult, even if biblically they can see that view, to regard that as something they would ever live out.
Kassian confirms that she has experienced the same resentment as a “strong woman who has leadership giftings”, and the cause of this feeling is sinful men who aren’t loving enough*:
Well I don’t think there is any woman who hasn’t bumped up against it, and particularly if you have a strong woman who has a leadership giftings and teaching giftings–as I do– and so I have bumped up against that. I have been hurt by it. I have encountered men who are sinful men and who do not interact with me in a godly loving way.
It is of course true that men are sinful, and also true that unloving men can increase a woman’s temptation for feminist rebellion. But the temptation exists either way; they are both denying this by framing it as strictly a reaction to sinful men, and overlooking the fact that it is rebellion either way. In fact, Christian men (and women) are far more likely to encourage rebellion today by pretending it doesn’t exist than by being harsh and authoritarian. The love we are failing to show is overwhelmingly the failure to rebuke women for a sin our culture teaches is a virtue.
Needless to say, disaster awaits, for them and for any church of which they are a part.
14 comments:
Was sitting in a ladies bible class once when a self identified feminist described herself as "a woman with a brain in the church, so you know I'm having a hard time keeping my mouth shut". I don't think she realized how insulting she was to every single lady in the room.
Later, she took over leading a combined Sunday morning bible class without asking anyone. It was a good litmus test for our church. While many were bothered by what she did, it was mostly because they didn't know about it ahead of time, rather than actually witnessing a woman usurp leadership.
We're now looking for a new church. The elders did not sit her down to set her straight or publicly denounce this behavior. They swept it under the rug!
What is the biblical term then if not complementarianism? Is it "male headship"? Or do we just call it "biblical"? I cannot keep up with the pace of terms changing this last decade. It would be great to read an article / debate between "whatever-the-true-biblical-term-is" vs "complimentarianism". Link?
This is definite proof of why women shouldn't be able to vote. They correctly identify a problem(men don't lead perfectly) and then come up with a solution that is many times worse than the problem. When that doesn't work they double down, someone should write a book about this. Oh wait, they already did.
What does it mean when I can't wait to engage with SJWs, CUCKservatives, liberals on the internet AND with Moslem jihadis in the coming war and revolution. . . but I can't even get through a single article on the battle for Truth raging in the church?
The very thought of engaging with the people leaves me weak with ennui. I just can't care what foolishness they succumb to.
Thank you Vox, both for the linkage and for the kind words.
@CDM
What is the biblical term then if not complementarianism? Is it "male headship"? Or do we just call it "biblical"? I cannot keep up with the pace of terms changing this last decade. It would be great to read an article / debate between "whatever-the-true-biblical-term-is" vs "complimentarianism". Link?
Complementarianism is a term the founders of the CBMW coined, and in the same link as the video Kassian says she was there and helped coin the term:
If you hear someone tell you that complementarity means you have to get married, have dozens of babies, be a stay-at-home housewife, clean toilets, completely forego a career, chuck your brain, tolerate abuse, watch Leave It to Beaver reruns, bury your gifts, deny your personality, and bobble-head nod “yes” to everything men say, don't believe her. That's a straw (wo)man misrepresentation. It's not complementarianism. I should know. I'm a complementarian. And I helped coin the term.
I wrote about their creation of the term here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/supplicating-to-rebellion/
I have a post in the works based on the history given by one of the founders. It is a case example of what Vox warns against with moderates always trying to appease SJWs. That Kassian (a Woman's Studies professor at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) has been and continues to be embraced by the complementarian leadership should give you an idea of how far down the road of appeasement they have gone. Actually Kassian shows you where they started. Jen Wilkin shows you how far they have gone.
Here is the link to the page where Kassian explains the origin of the term Complementarian. The same page has the video the quote in the OP is from, and it also contains Kassian's explanation of why they rejected the term Patriarchy (it would offend feminists). http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/complementarianism-for-dummies
What is the biblical term then if not complementarianism?
If not? Where is complementarianism in the Bible?
Where are the christian alphas? Of course christianity needs them but the few which were still there until recently seem to have left the church, have converted or disappeard somehow.
http://freedompowerandwealth.com
"It is of course true that men are sinful, and also true that unloving men can increase a woman’s temptation for feminist rebellion. But the temptation exists either way; they are both denying this by framing it as strictly a reaction to sinful men, and overlooking the fact that it is rebellion either way"
Whatever happened to being honest with oneself about the individual choices one makes? If one chooses and sinful or unloving man or woman, that's on them. Their decision, nobody elses. Improvement starts from within.
The perversion of your scriptures is so blatant its such an obvious misinterpretation of the source material that it is amazing anyone takes these feminist Christians seriously.
"Where are the christian alphas? Of course christianity needs them but the few which were still there until recently seem to have left the church, have converted or disappeard somehow."
Yeah. Where are those men? Why won't they attend America's prot-pastor 'churches' and take their beatdowns like they get at work, school, home, and so forth? I just don't get why men would reject churches and cultures that despise and destroy masculinity, and instead hew to America's corporate-cuck model of 'religion'. Why won't men allow women and ludicrous 'elders' to guide their lives, and interpret God's Word? Why won't men attend God's House, where What Women Want is worshipped and cucklings inhabit the pulpits, from sea to sludgy sea?
Sheee-it's all such a Mystery!
Dalrock's series is a first-rate postmortem on how American churches were conquered, and how they remain conquered. The information is concise and free. Christians have no excuse for ignorance or rebellion in this hour, and no excuse will be accepted.
Amen...
Complimentary is a heresy because It makes the wrong organ Boss
We used to have rational discourse and passionate kisses.
Now we have passionate discourse and rational kisses, and those kisses have to show respect to the Boss.
The Christian home was another original "safe space" in which the men would go out into the rat-race but the wife and mother would be safe at home, and their role and image could be fully realized. To deny June Cleaver is to deny there is a telos to having a hymen, womb, and breasts that produce milk. They aren't useless vestigial organs. God put them there. But it doesn't end up well to try to achieve their purpose except in a traditional marriage. Kassian is the one saying to "bury your gifts, deny your personality,..." - no feminist sees Motherhood as a gift and personality.
She says but denies the reality of "We do not get to dictate what manhood and womanhood are all about. Our Creator does."
If complimentarianism can mean anything, it must mean what the physical, anatomical facts, and the differing feelings and psychology mean. But they say it doesn't. It says they can be rats running in the rat-race too - but always careers in air-conditioned offices, never construction or some physical or dirty job. So they coined the term as a mask for radical gender feminism.
Traditionalism works and always has worked. It is also known as orthodoxy. But it has no room to smuggle feminism in. That is why they don't like it.
There's Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Gnosticism. ... and now Complementarianism.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.