male female

I'm a complementarian. I understand egalitarians - I just don't agree.

But there's another group I don't understand, for conversation, let's call them "morons". These can be found in both of the aforementioned groups. One of these guys, who happens to be in the egalitarian camp, recently wrote, "And my bullshit detector went off because I couldn’t help but think, 'It’s kind of convenient that all the book[s] about submission are written by guys?'"

I don't know which irks me more, that this guy equates complementarianism with some kind of perverted male dominance position or that because books are written by men they should be discounted. Interestingly he lists several great books on the topic but clearly hasn't read them because he thinks they are talking about male over female rule. As with other distortions of truth this guy makes elsewhere in his blog, he cites his unfortunate upbringing as proof that the positions he opposes must be wrong. He's convinced that his sad childhood accurately reflects these positions and he ignores any reference by those on the other side which confronts the kind of error he grew up with.

Of course his commenters aren't much brighter, one writes, "Unfortunately, there *are* books by women promoting the 'male headship' weirdness. That's always seemed tragic to me - women encouraging other women into such dysfunction."

But why am I on about this now? I just read Jeff Robinson's Q&A with Dorothy Patterson. You can go read that if you'd like but the point is that here's an intelligent woman who is part of my "weirdness" crowd ... and it's easy to see why ... she thinks Scripture means what it teaches. I guess she doesn't understand that the experience of the blogger I'm referring to above, especially with his fine-tuned bullshit detector, should trump Scripture.

Technorati Tags: women