Not running in such circles, I was not aware of the term complementarianism as used by Fundamentalists. It was just the day before yesterday that I came across it thanks to Bruce Gerencser of "The World According to Bruce weblog":
Well, today I came across an article,by Bob Allen, 06-27-08, explaining the position of one Bruce Ware, who is a professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.
Bruce Ware believes wrongly that in all cases it is the man that must lead the woman. He bases this on his interpretation of scripture going back to the Garden of Eden.
Well, here's the truth. There are marriages where the woman tells the man that he better get on and stay on the strait and narrow. If she means that he better be Christlike where she is being more Christlike than he is, he better do what she's telling him. He better follow her lead and example. That's just how it is.
The problem with Bruce Ware's position is ego and the desire to control regardless of whose position is the more righteous.
In the proper marriage, both spouses will function as one flesh. They will automatically look to each other to encourage one another to get on and to remain on the strait and narrow. Each will readily accept the truth spoken by the other and will willingly and readily change direction for righteousness' sake.
All men are not closer to God than are all women. All women are not closer to God than are all men. It varies, and can change with the circumstances and situation. The most important thing is open, honest, and direct communication. If both spouses keep in mind the New Commandment, they will always be able to see their way clear together as one.
They are equal and they are not. They are one and they are differentiated. There is nothing wrong with that aspect of complementarianism. The problem is when the wrongheaded male insists on having things his way when it is his wife who has the better grasp on the message Jesus brought to the world.
There are some really moral (bright) women in the world, and a husband should consider himself fortunate and not threatened to have one for his wife.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)