Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Remembering Journey

I had an Internet friend. I knew her real name, but then she had to divorce her husband and pull back from being an Internet figure and began using a Pseudonym: Journey. I've lost track of her but always think good thoughts when I remember her.

Another Internet friend had used part of her testimony in a blog post. Retha's most recent post quote Journey here: When Soft Complementarianism is too Hard.

Her full testimony is found here under her Internet name Journey.

Dear Happy Full Quiver-er

Those of my readers who are not familiar with this part of her testimony, please take time to read it. It is very eye opening.


Nick Bulbeck said...

Hi, Mara; sorry I've not dropped in for a while. And btw, thankyou for your gracious plug over on TWW the other day!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I propose an answer to Retha's question:

Can a complementarianism be developed that is not a source of oppression for the wife of a demanding, degrading, unwise or selfish husband? A way of understanding submission that will not encourage the husband’s worst qualities?

I think it can.

My own pastor/mentor is not patriarchal - indeed he strongly supports the involvement of women in all areas of ministry. Anyway; a few years ago he was approached by a young newly-married man who brought his equally young and newly-married wife along with him, and said words to the effect of: Tony, I want you to tell her she needs to submit to me. Without even thinking, Tony responded: submission is a response to love.

Nowhere in scripture is a husband commanded to rule his wife, as you know. Now, if complementarians really believe that the husband is given responsibility for leadership, because (in some sense) he's inherently strong and she's inherently weak, they should stop teaching a woman to submit to her husband whether he loves her or not. Instead, they should teach a man to love his wife whether she submits to him or not. As it is, they seem to want to have their cake and eat it. They want to call a woman weak and incapable of teaching and leading, such that it is a sin to do so even if appears she can. But then they want to demand that she be strong and take responsibility for upholding the Gospel™ in the home through submitting, even in circumstances that would destroy most men. Including her husband, if he's a bully; because if he's a bully, he's also a coward.

Again, suppose that "equal in value but different in role" does NOT mean, "equal in value but lesser in role". Lesley and I bring different strengths to our marriage. I don't want this comment to get too long, but suffice to say we operate a complementarian marriage and it challenges us both to be everything we can possibly be! I think I should probably write a blog post on this sometime...

Mara Reid said...

Are you blogging yet, Nick?
You should be.
You have a lot of good things to say.

As far as the comp/egal debate, it really is a secondary issue. I can co-exist with easy going comps any day of the week. I would consider my own church to be soft comp, truely soft comp. They get so many other, more important things right that I can overlook their take the on comp/egal debate.

I only get testy when certain teachers and individuals talk like anyone who holds to an egal view is doing violence to the the gospel, denying the sovereignty of God, and may be in danger of hell-fire etc... With those people I let them have it with both barrels.
I'm afraid I'm not nearly as gracious as you.

But then, I've seen the damage done by such teaching. I've see men and women completely fall away from the faith because of their encounter with the ugliness of totalitarian compism/patriarchy.

Above all, Jesus, His love, His mercy, and His justice, these things need to be made clear. They are far more important than positions, roles, or anything else related to gender.

Gem said...

I think of Journey too.

Flippant replies to her experiences bother me (saw some at TWW recently). People don't understand what a trap those doctrines are, even to strong intelligent women.

So good to be free!

Mara Reid said...

Flippant replies on TWW?

The Wartburg Watch or somewhere else?

How dare they.

It's a good thing I missed them or I would have gone in with both barrels. May still do it if I stumble upon them.

It's nice to see you check in from time to time Gem. I like knowing how people are.

(Nick, and example of someone who used to be Christian but now rejects it is in my blog roll. Incongruous Circumspection was Christian when I put him in my role. He now rejects Christianity.)

Retha said...

Nick, can you blog your answer at my blog at the comments on that post too? It will greatly add to the subject. Thanks in advance.

If I read flippant remarks about Journey, I'd have gone in with both barrells too...

And unlike Mara, I never even personally corresponded with her.


Mara Reid said...

Nick, I was going to suggest this too. Retha is cool. It's a safe place. You won't get trounced over there

Nick Bulbeck said...

Comment posted... and I managed to throw in a few typos and fluffed html tags for good measure. Never mind...

Yup, I am blogging, at Although I don't especially crave safe places; if I did I wouldn't be a "none" among churchgoers! Still - at least most of them mean well; which I do as well.