Thus far I've heard nothing but discussion about servant-modeling leadership and followership from Mohler and others, Shadowspring. Though I know some may have only ever experienced teachings of complementary husband/wife roles when they're tied to dominating and manipulation, one doesn't always lead to the other.

But even if Mohler did teach domination and disgusting attitudes, contrary to the servant-leader (but still leader!) demeanor Christ modeled, I wouldn't call that a "false gospel." That's very strong language for someone whose beliefs still align with Christian orthodoxy. I am not an egalitarian or patriarchalist, yet even those who accept those beliefs may be Christians (albeit wrong on some issues).

yea know that may come as a shock but females ARE human beings,
Jane, why on Earth do you assume that's my view, or the view of most Christians? (If you have truly only ever met Christians who treated women like trash, or stood by and let rape and abuse go on, let me assure you that is not the case for all Christians, and I think you need to do some checking about real Christian belief.)

Try searching this very site for a series of articles about "patriarchy" and false teachings, un-Biblical teachings, that lead to abuse of wives and daughters (and even sons).

Moreover, I am certainly not the only Christian man who, based on Christ's gift of grace to me -- a wretched sinner! -- wants to be like Him to my own family, starting with my wife, whom I love and respect and hope to serve in the same way Christ loved His Church and gave Himself up for her (Ephesians 5). Many others believe and act the same way. (And again, I very am sorry if, perhaps based on your location and experiences, you haven't seen this for yourself.)

I join Esther in wondering if you can condense what you're saying to a paragraph or two (though maybe Royce summarized it well).

From what I can understand, it sounds like you're saying that anything that looks like abuse or domination to you, such as the idea that the best marriages contain different roles for servant-husbands and servant-wives, must be bad.

I wonder if this isn't very similar to the way of thinking that anything that merely looks like paganism (i.e., borrowing a stretch from yoga) must be bad.

If you try hard enough, you can find something Wrong attached to anything in the world. For some Christians, it's deciding that they must not listen to certain music that was invented with wrong motivations. Apparently for you, the same thing occurs when you imply that no one should buy a cell phone, or anything else, made in an area where disgusting sins occur. Though we can protest, for example, cheap labor and nations rules by dictators, I'm sorry, there's no way to live with that ideal perfectly in a fallen world, and I don't see a need to adopt a standard God didn't ask me to adopt.

As I said above, in the Christian worldview, there is not just one Problem when it comes to yoga. There are several. And Christians have enough time to speak or act against one problem or the other. If you think most Christians are only wasting their time on trivial concerns like yoga, and not bothering about the slave trade, or abuses of women, or any of those other horrors, I think you need to pay more attention. However, just because some Christians do two things at once, doesn't mean they're ignoring other sins.

What causes such horrors in the world? I wonder how you would address them. Pass laws? Put the offenders in jail? But laws and jails already exist, and still sick people prey on young girls and abuse their girlfriends. I look at police reports in my town once every week, and I see what happens. (Also, something you haven't yet mentioned is the fact that some women refuse to get away from abusive relationships.)

Read Matthew 5: 27-30 to see what Jesus had to say about the "lesser" (compared with abuse and rape) sins of adultery. He doesn't make things easier for people, but harder. The sin starts in the heart, he says. Later he faults the Pharisees for missing that (Mark 7).

Where does sin begin? I go back to my question before, and again ask you more personally. If the standard is a perfect heart, as Jesus frequently said it was, and God applied that perfect standard to you and your life, how would you compare? Start with the Ten Commandments, in Exodus 20. Have you always only ever worshiped only God? Have you ever told a lie, or stolen anything (even something small)?

That's a much more important question to ponder, more even than my previous challenge to you about which true, mainstream Christians are out there constantly encouraging women to submit to unwanted sex with their husbands.

Again, I'm so sorry if a supposed "Christian" has only ever told you those un-Biblical lies, and I wish there was some way I could help you beyond simply writing comments on on internet website. But if I pretended that your conclusions do apply to all Christians, that would be lying, and it would be unloving to you. Moreover, where you seem to stop at condemning only actions, God has a greater issue: our hearts, and not just how we love other women and men, but whether we love and honor Him above all else.

Jane, I want to respect your comment, but did you read the actual column?

(You share first names with my mom, by the way, but you don't sound like her! :-) )

My perspective here is nowhere near the Let's Beat Hypocritical Christians Just Because. This is a debate among Christians. Those who are disgusted with anything Christian (or myths about Christians -- see below) will naturally be confused by the discussion at all. If any Christian's perspective on yoga bothers you, we'd need to stop talking about this secondary issue and instead focus on a more pressing question: would your beliefs, heart and actions be enough to impress the God of the Bible?

but now, here’s where it’s just Really amazing…women are told Constantly to submit to unwanted Sex with abusive husbands in Christianity

What are you talking about? Who is saying that at all, much less "constantly"?

Perhaps so, though I also kind of spoiled it in Thursday's entry.

Hey Seth -- ordinarily I wouldn't mind that, but since the discussion started on Becky's blog, I'll continue it over there, and not echo every response and re-response here. Thanks for getting back with me, and soon I'll have more to say, particularly in response to the baptism issue (most of which you seem to have admitted you couldn't firmly support without resorting to un-Biblical texts). I'd direct-link to your response here, but it seems Becky's new template doesn't support comment permalinks. ... It's dated Sept. 15, though.

Let me toss these into the mix, more involving the qualifications and practices of those called to overseas missionary work:

Paul told the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7) that it's okay to stay single, and it's okay to be married -- but if a couple is burning with passion, they should go ahead and get married. He didn't even mention Ministry Work getting in the way. From this one could also infer that if a person has the "gift of celibacy," one wouldn't have the issue of "burning" or falling in love in the first place. So for those of you who've read Passion and Purity (it's been a while since I read it -- or was that something else?): why, then, did Jim Elliot seem to assume his natural desires to marry were wrong or misplaced?

And given the qualifications for overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1: doesn't it make sense to care for one's family first -- even if it's forming a family in advance -- and having that be a qualification for Ministry, and not vice-versa? Or do these qualifications even apply to those who aspire to overseas missionary work?

Either way, it seems Elisabeth Elliot had many good things to say, and I doubt Christians should oppose her just because of her views on male/female roles, or even if she said something particularly dated, quaint or even wrong (such as the comment about women supposedly not having analytical minds). At the same time, as Amy and Esther have pointed out, it sounds like there have been some popular-level evangelical myth-conceptions in their life stories, such as the implicit idea that one must listen for some "inner leading" or nudge before making a big life decision like getting married.

God certainly worked in their lives anyway to accomplish His purpose and glorify Himself. Yet I do believe it's wise to read the testimonies of college students (who haven't necessarily worked through all their doctrine!) with discernment. Glad to see that here!

Correction appended — and thanks!

Joshua, great to see you here. One of the best sources for how the Problem of Evil can\'t really be called a problem without assuming a Biblical worldview (temporarily to slam the Bible!) is C.S. Lewis. I believe he wrote that was what helped him in his journey to Christ — before, as a professing atheist, he thought the Problem of Evil was the main argument against God\'s existence.

Well, I heard a whisper that all this \"listen to God\'s whisper\" teaching was bosh and bilgewater.

As Dan Phillips said at the end of his Blackabys\' view review, part 2:

I did ask God to guide me in writing this review. If you agree with the Blackaby position... how do you know He didn\'t?

Phillip, you likely know I\'ll have some thoughts to share about this -- yet at the moment I\'m out of town and thus far only have time to refer you here:

http://bit.ly/bpgLHa

The issue is not necessarily the Age of the Earth (though this is an important subtopic). Instead, was Adam a real, historical person? If he was, then we maintain vital theological constructs such as all of us being descended from him and thus having an inherited sin nature and needing a Savior. If not, then so much of our theology is called into question -- and the supposed \"objective\" scientists (who\'ve assumed Godless or God-minimizing origins theories from the get-go) are no more impressed anyway.

Another superb resource is the book Old-Earth Creationism on Trial. A chapter I read just this morning dealt with the common \"the church fathers were open to different interpretations\" objection. In short, some church fathers (such as Augustine) erred on the side of reducing the days\' length, not expanding their lengths, and many (such as Luther took the account as it was meant to be taken: history, not just poetry/framework/polemic/metaphor/whatever.

I\'ll likely review that book when I finish reading it, and of course offer some thoughts for you here as well. Another related fact worth looking into is the \"conversion\" of R.C. Sproul to take the Genesis account for its natural reading. Perhaps many theologians (including those you mentioned) are merely intimidated by supposed \"objective\" scientists who claim otherwise -- as if determining human origins is their exclusive domain and the Bible doesn\'t relate. Unfortunately this is how a lot of this got started, when theologians began to accept old-Earth geology ideas and add them to the Bible, even before Darwin originated his evolution notions.

Correction appended, and thank you.