Over on a blog where I'll simply say I am not well-liked, this comment was left in response to a comment I had left elsewhere:
The majority of people are egalitarians and soft comps.
On a different thread from the same blog, also discussing me and some of my friends, this comment:
Sad really, that the world is so small for the Patriocentric. It is a world that will continue to get smaller
Well, certainly the majority of the "people" may very well be egalitarians or soft comps. However, I was speaking specifically of Christians in Christ's Church. Down throughout history and still today, the majority of Christians have followed the Biblical prescriptions for father-rule in marriage and family life and male rule in the Church. You will not find a single female presiding over a Eucharist or a congregation in the Orthodox church, the Roman Catholic church or in the orthodox and catholic churches outside those two communions. Nor will you find any support for the heresy that likes to call itself egalitarianism.
Now that's a whole lot of Christians who have preceeded us and who are living now that do not belive or practice what these women say "the majority of people" believe and practice.
And they say my world is narrow?
19 comments:
> The majority of people are egalitarians and soft comps.
What of it? The majority of people are not Christians, either. The majority of people may be egals, but women are still women, and quite different from men.
> Sad really, that the world is so small for the Patriocentric. It is a world that will continue to get smaller.
The same can be said about the Christocentric. Spoken like a true egal, who must think going with the flow is a virtue, and the majority must be right simply because it is the majority. It's like blindly keeping up with the current fashion. Not too smart.
What a bleak world the egals have, what a different gospel! Marriage is designed to represent the Gospel, Christ leading His Bride and the Church obediantly following Him. They want a gospel that liberates them from the Biblical one, and have the nerve to be arrogant about it as well.
> Now that's a whole lot of Christians who have preceeded us and who are living now that do not belive or practice what these women say "the majority of people" believe and practice.
Good perspective -- the great cloud of witnesses. Egalitarianism is an artificial aberration.
> And they say my world is narrow?
They're welcome to the broad and crooked way. Keep on the straight and narrow!
--Michael
> The majority of people are egalitarians and soft comps.
"Everybody's doing it!" Maybe I need earrings and a tattoo, then? I'm so out of touch...
"What a bleak world the egals have, what a different gospel!"
Actually, we're quite happy. You're right that we believe in a different Gospel, though: we believe in Christ's Gospel of brotherhood and fellowship, not hierarchy. Perhaps you should try reading Frank Viola's book, "Who is your Covering?" which explains Christ's true plan for His children with almost too much Scripture to keep up with.
"It's like blindly keeping up with the current fashion. Not too smart."
Neither is keeping up with an old-fashioned trend. The reason for that particular comment was that people on the opposite side kept spouting about how the majority of churches in history barred women from authority; so what? They also burned women as witches, used priests in place of God, and stoned adulterers. Not a smart argument; not at all.
"Down throughout history and still today, the majority of Christians have followed the Biblical prescriptions for father-rule in marriage and family life and male rule in the Church"
Thank you, Kamilla: that was my point exactly. If history does it, it must be kewl and Biblically sound. And thanks for visiting our website; it's nice to know that you noticed us, dear lassy.
Well, my dear anonymous friends, once again you engage in your adventures in missing the point.
The point is not that patriarchy is old or has been practiced by the majority of Christians throughout history and still today - the point is that it is practiced by Christians because it is what the Word teaches. It is shot through the Holy Sriptures from the first wedding to the last, from the first Adam to the last.
It is a remarkably arrogant heresy to think that only an enlightened few (by no means the majority your blog friends claim) have now gained access to knowledge that has been hidden from generation upon generation of Christians.
And third, the point is that if you want to count majorities, let's really count majorities. Let's embrace what Chesterton called the "democracy of the dead".
It's not "kewl" because history does it, history does it because it is "kewl".
You reject that to your eternal peril.
"It is a remarkably arrogant heresy to think that only an enlightened few (by no means the majority your blog friends claim) have now gained access to knowledge"
But that's what you claim: that your interpretation is flawless and all others are wrong, with no question. The truth was never "hidden" from churches in history, dear Kamilla: it was deliberately ignored. Men wished to keep women under power, just as priests wished to keep their flocks under their thumbs.
"It's not "kewl" because history does it, history does it because it is "kewl". "
What a sweet foundation for conviction. I suppose female mutilation, burning witches, and stoning were kewl too?
"You reject that to your eternal peril."
There's that Christian spirit we all love about you, Kamilla: if we reject your personal interpretation, we're in danger of hell. I wouldn't speak against arrogance if I were you, dear sister. You will certainly remain in my prayers; in fact, the more venom you share, the more I'll pray for you. With all these prayers, I have no doubt at all you will be uplifted very soon.
"Let's embrace what Chesterton called the "democracy of the dead".
I am not interested in the democracy of the dead; I am interested in the doctrine of the LIVING God. But if that works for you, enjoy fellowship with your companions of dust.
Kamilla,
Someone somewhere said something about the righteous getting more righteous yet, while the filthy get more filthier yet. If anyone wanted an example of this, all they'd have to do is check out egals having a freak out at the prospect of their hearing the Lord say to them, "I never knew you."
Anonymous (Anonymouses?) -- are you ashamed of your name?
"If anyone wanted an example of this, all they'd have to do is check out egals having a freak out at the prospect of their hearing the Lord say to them, "I never knew you."
I have no fear of my Lord saying this to me, especially since He is my only master and no man will ever supplant Him. You too think that those who believe differently than you will go to hell, Bill?
"Someone somewhere said something about the righteous getting more righteous yet"
Do you consider those who threaten dissenters with hell "righteous", Bill?
Dear Anonymous (or Anonymouses, as the case may be),
You prove my point. I've not threatened anyone. And your differences aren't with me, but with the Lord you claim to serve.
"If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored."
I never accused YOU of threatening anyone, Bill; I asked you if YOU consider anyone who threatens to be righteous. You should heed my words more carefully.
I could just as easily accuse you of having differences with the Lord rather than me, since I disagree with your doctrine, but I prefer to avoid this bullying tactic.
Just as a last note, Kamilla, we would be genuinely happy if you ever felt like visiting our blog and speaking personally; anyone here would be welcome. If you would ever like to speak to me privately about your convictions, I would welcome that too. I hope, or wish, you realize that while we are as solid in our beliefs as you are in yours, we do not fear hell for you. I believe that as long as your belief in Christ is secure and true, your soul is firmly in His hands and I hope one day you will reflect this belief for other dissenting Christians, for your sake more than theirs. If I were as worried about hell for people who didn't agree with me as you seem to be, I would never have rest. It's kind of you to fear for our souls, but I hope you recover from this apparently constant worry; it can indeed be a burden if it becomes too consuming. Whatever your beliefs, I'll continue to pray for you.
Ah, but Kamilla, should we judge what is right based on what Christians before us have done, or based on the word of God that gives us equal inheritance in Christ?
For the record, I'm one of the bloggers at the blog you mentioned, and I don't dislike you at all. I just disagree with you.
I have no fear of my name, and post it here openly. I don't believe that disagreeing with father rule means that one is not a Christian. Period.
"If you would ever like to speak to me privately about your convictions"
Oh, I just realized I didn't give you any way to do that! lol I won't be around this blog much longer, but I'll email you if you decide to visit our thread.
I've been reading the Bayly blog about that poem. I'm on the CCC forum but I lurk there. I've also read some of Molly's writings on her blog. I also like Spunky's writings very much.
I wish we could rewind this tape and take a look at the issue. Molly was burned by patriarchal teachings ala Michael and Debi Pearl and Vision Forum, both of which, in practice are far more legalistic than what we hear are descriptions of the church Tim Bayly is pastor of.
Molly, online, I believe it was on Spunky's blog (Spunky is a staunch complementarian) used to defend the teachings of the Pearls. She has since done a 180 degree turn.
It is very true that down through the centuries, and in the pastoral epistles, the office of overseer or elder was given to the men.
It is also true that the Bible admonishes wives to be subject to their husbands.
What the Bible doesn't teach is that it is sinful if a woman goes to college, if she goes anywhere to live that isn't with one of her male relatives, if she works outside the home, that any kind of birth control is strictly forbidden, ever, even if a woman is very ill, that Abigail was an evil woman for going against Nabal because women always and everywhere have to strictly obey what their husbands decree, and many other extreme teachings such as this.
Like it or not, there are many ministries who've made inroads into the homeschooling movement, and they identify themselves as "patriarchal," and they are legalistic to the core. I know, because I've been part of the homeschooling segment of American life for many years.
If you were to tell me, just from what I know of those homeschooling ministries, that patriarchy is biblical, all I could summon myself to respond with is, "So were the Pharisees." They tied up heavy loads back then, and do many groups that call themselves patriarchal. Vison Forum being the main one.
When I said I wish you'd rewind the tape, what I mean by that is how do you define patriarchy?
Do you insist on breaking up churches that don't family integrate everything?
Are you prepared to talk about how evil age segregated Sunday Schools are?
Are you of the mind that a woman cannot receive communion from those serving it on her own - but a male relative must get it for her? Even if it's her four year old son? She cannot go up and get it, but he must get it for her?
Some patriarchal churches practice that. Not all, but some, especially in the family integrated scence.
Do you believe that it is a sin for a woman to even so much as ask for prayer in church meeting?
I doubt very much that you would believe any of that, but that is precicely how many ministries apply their views of patriarchy.
And that is what Molly came out of.
Do you understand what I am trying to say? It seems to me that you are talking past each other, and things are escalating very badly.
Carole
For what's worth, I love the Pearls. Other than their belief that wives should obey their husbands, they're really not patriarchal at all and discourage the oppression that the Vision Forum promotes.
Just a few comments before I close this thread:
Thank you for spelling my name correctly on your blog and for actually quoting me. It's a shame you then proceed to misunderstand nearly everything I have written. Please convey my thanks to your blogging friend, Jeanette, for giving my dear friend Tony Esolen just a bit more publicity. Yes, not only do I gladly and publicly count Fr. Bill Mouser, Pastors Tim and David Bayly among my friends - but I also claim Tony Esolen and Steven Hutchens as friends. I thank my God for their gracious advice, encouragement and support.
Regarding my "companions of dust", I am glad of their company as well, glad of the witness, sacrifice, and faithful teaching of the communion of saints. Sadly, on this point you also reject not me, but the plain and clear words of Scripture which have been believed and taught by orthodox Christians, now and always.
Regarding private communication - I am afraid I prefer a public record in these matters.
I wish the Hound of Heaven on you - that he will grab you by the nape of the neck and hold you up so your rebellion stares you dead in the face and you crumble in repentence, as I have done. You speak of my world as small. It is wider, deeper, more fruitful, more satisfying, more joyous as well as more convicting, chastening and humbling than anything you who are held in the grip of gnostic heresy could ever begin to imagine. I have been in the pit you inhabit. It may seem to have its moments of happiness, but they are false and hollow in copmparison.
Feel the hound's breath on your back. He is calling you to turn back, to repent while there is yet time. There will be hurt, shame and countless regrets if you do, as I well know, but there is joy unspeakable to replace every tear.
Kamilla
Carole,
I know nothing of the Pearls or the Vision Forum folks so I cannot speak to what they teach.
As far as what you say Molly has suffered - I don't doubt a word. However, that does not excuse her rebellion, which is in plain view on her own blog and on the blogs where she has commented recently. It is this, and this alone, to which I speak.
Thanks for visiting but I have chosen to close this post to further comments as I see no good fruit coming from continued conversation.
Kamilla
Post a Comment