Mary Kassian Reviews “Year of Biblical Womanhood”

Mary Kassian has a helpful review of Rachel Held Evans’ “A Year of Biblical Womanhood.” At the heart of Kassian’s critique is Evans’ consistent caricature of complementarianism. Kassian writes:

Sadly, the complementarianism portrayed in A Year of Biblical Womanhood is just another tiresome straw (wo)man argument. I think Rachel’s publicity stunt confuses rather than clarifies the issues. Most complementarians who read the book are bound to feel gravely misrepresented, misunderstood, and even hurt by it.

A case in point of the straw man is the persons whom Evans chooses to interview for the book. Kassian writes:

In the book, Rachel chronicled her interaction with a woman who is an Orthodox Jew, a woman who is Amish, a Quiverful daughter, a Polygamist, a Catholic woman, a Quaker, and a woman who is an egalitarian pastor. But where are the evangelical complementarian women? She doesn’t interview us, talk to us, and she hardly even quotes us. To me, the omission is glaring. Even disingenuous. It strikes me as extremely odd that the book includes the perspective of everyone except the women who lie at the heart of its critique. I suspect the reason we didn’t make it into its pages is that we don’t fit the stereotype, and our presence would have ruined the whole charade.

This is a fair, but hard-hitting interview. Read the rest here.

36 Responses to Mary Kassian Reviews “Year of Biblical Womanhood”

  1. Suzanne McCarthy November 11, 2012 at 12:40 am #

    Yes, I have just finished the book and can’t find a reference to complementarianism. So I find it very odd that Kassian claims that she misrepresents complementarians.

    A couple of reasons that one might dislike this book is that Rachel cites Kristoff and WuDunn’s conclusions that female lead families ensure better health outcomes for children, and that Dan and Rachel present a very healthy marriage model, without the trauma of submission.

    I cite submission as trauma since that is how it was described by Kathy Keller, who I have read up on as well this weekend.

    • Suzanne McCarthy November 11, 2012 at 12:57 am #

      I have read a little of Kassian’s review now and can unsolder stand her difficulty. Held Evans does not interact with her in the main text of her book.

      I only read a little of Kassian’s review because I was so disappointed that she was unaware of the role that Edith Schaeffer’s book played. She seems unaware that both Wikipedia and the Girltalk blog list this book as a significant resource for the biblical womanhood movement.

  2. samueljamesblog November 11, 2012 at 1:00 am #

    I haven’t read the book, but I would like to.

    One thing I haven’t seen come up in any discussions is whether RHE was being totally honest with the title/publicity of her book. Of course, every review being written (from a complementarian perspective) levies the charge of straw man. And from what I’ve read in her blog, RHE’s answer across the board seems to be that her book was NEVER intended to be a real experiment in complementarian life. Her project was a tongue in cheek, provocative way to get people to ask questions about what biblical womanhood means by being over the top literal and exaggerating what Bible verses mean (by the way, RHE is borrowing this language from Brian McLaren and the Emergent church, whom she admires).

    The problem I have with her explanation is that the title of the book, and the material she has written on it for publicity, do not say this. The word “literal” does not appear in the title or subtitle of the book. If you think I’m nitpicking, then look at AJ Jacobs’s book “The Year of Living Biblically.” The subtitle, clear as day on the cover, says “One Man’s Attempt to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible.” RHE has cited Jacobs’ book as the inspiration for her. Why then did she not write her mission into the title/subtitle of the book, as Jacobs did? Again, if you dismiss this as mere cherry picking, then look at the book description (which I assume is supplied by the author/publisher) at Amazon. It says RHE was inspired by the women who left careers to assume “traditional gender roles,” and that the YOBW is RHE’s experiment OF traditional gender roles.

    This is a serious omission if we are to take RHE at her word that her book is not meant to equate sleeping on the roof with biblical womanhood. If someone can offer an explanation of this, I would be very willing to listen.

  3. Suzanne McCarthy November 11, 2012 at 2:30 am #

    http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/02/sbjt_062_wellum.pdf

    I highly recommend this paper from SBTS on the influence if Francis and Edith Schaeffer. I was there as at L’Abri, were many others of my generation.

  4. Margaret Mowczko November 11, 2012 at 2:50 am #

    I thought Mary’s review was poor. But I was intrigued by this quote from Rachel’s book that Mary had a problem with: “The elevation of homemaking as a woman’s highest calling is . . . a critical centerpiece to the modern biblical womanhood movement.” (p. 22)

    Mary claims that Rachel is wrong with this statement. Mary jokes, “Maybe I didn’t get the memo.” Mary may not have received the memo, but I did. Whether Mary and other Complementarians realize this or not, the impression that myself and others get is that there are plenty of Christians who believe that the wife’s primary domain is the home. Some Christians state as much and call it biblical womanhood. Others just imply that domesticity is a woman’s true calling. I honestly think that many Christians sound much more like Plutarch than like Jesus and Paul when it comes to voicing their ideas of gender roles and supposed domains.

    I also think it is unkind for Mary to call Rachel’s book a publicity stunt.

  5. Don Johnson November 11, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    RHE quotes many various people in her book about what Biblical womanhood is supposed to be. The problem is that there actually is no one speaker who is willing to tell you how to be a “Biblical woman”, there are lots of speakers and RHE (fairly) quotes from quite a few of them. This is true even among CBMW people, since they try to be “big tent” and allow among themselves a range of opinion on exactly what is and is not allowed.

    Just as one example, is complementarianism a synonym for patriarchy or not? Some claim it is and some claim it is not. What is one to do as a reader of this? It can seem like one has entered Wonderland where Humpty Dumpty gets to define a word to mean what he wants it to mean.

  6. Tom Parker November 11, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

    Denny;

    Don’t you think Mary K. is a biased reviewer?

  7. J.M. LaRue November 11, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    The comment on wikipedia about Edith Schaeffer’s book is a quote from Kathryn Joyce, author of a book exposing the Quiverful Movement and Christian Patriarchy.

    Hardly a reference from someone within the modern biblical womanhood movement citing Schaeffer’s book as being influential.

    If you can’t find Kassian or other CBMW founders citing Schaeffer, then its a pretty strong argument that Schaeffer actually didn’t play a significant role.

    Or maybe the issue is that Evans (and yourself) doesn’t understand that there is a difference between the Quiverful movement (as small as it is) and the CBMW-driven complementarian movement?

    This actually seems to be very plausible upon reflecting on it. Collapse the two together. Critique the Quiverful movement for its statements (that complementarians would also critique!) Then conclude that complementarians are wrong. It would make sense of the charge of patriarchy as well.

    So lets be clear, the CBMW driven complementarian movement does not support the Quiverful movement. They are not the same. They don’t support the same things. They aren’t lumped together. When you critique the Quiverful movement, you are not critiquing the complementarian position.

    • Suzanne McCarthy November 12, 2012 at 1:09 am #

      If you read the PDF that I linked to, you would see that Francis Schaeffer is considered to have a very strong influence on evangelical Christianity. And his wife’s influence went along with his.

      I was raised in a biblical home and we had this book, and we visited the Schaeffer’s. They were not associated with quiverfull but with mainstream evangelicalism, and were certainly precursors of complementarianism.

      Kostenberger and the Girltalk blog list this book as a resource for biblical femininity, and it is the book on the list with the earliest publication date. I am pretty surprised that Kassian does not know that there were people who were complementarian in belief before she helped coin the term.

      I will find more references to this book if you like. It sat on our living room coffee table for a long time.

  8. Suzanne McCarthy November 12, 2012 at 1:10 am #

    It is important to stress that Edith Schaeffer in no way supported the Quiverfull agenda.

  9. Suzanne McCarthy November 12, 2012 at 1:37 am #

    Okay, if you read Nancy DeMoss’s books, and if you read Frank Schaeffer’s books, you will find that the Schaeffer’s and DeMoss were friends, and Nancy DeMoss “loved” Edith Schaeffer’s books.

    This is in Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer, , and in Biblical Womanhood in the Home by DeMoss.

  10. Daryl Little November 12, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    I find it more than a little revealing that people will try to use DeMoss’s relationship to Edith Schaeffer to derail any critique of RHE, while at the same time seemingly ignoring RHE’s fascination with Brian MacLaren.

    Seems to me the latter issue is enough to write off RHE’s views of biblical anything seeing as she’s so enamoured with a non-believing false teacher like that…

  11. Suzanne McCarthy November 12, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    Daryl,

    Dorothy Patterson mentions that Edith Schaeffer was a personal friend and mentor. Susan Hunt mentions Edith Schaeffer as a personal friend and heroine.

    The point is that Mary Kassian is trying to make it look as if Rachel did not do her research. In my view, Rachel did her research and is accurate in her statement regarding Edith Schaeffer. Therefore, we have to examine Kassian’s review of Rachel’s book with a more critical eye.

  12. Daryl Little November 12, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    Suzanne,

    I don’t disagree, however given Rachel’s fascination with Brian McClaren, her work also needs to be read with a far more critical eye than many are doing.

  13. Suzanne McCarthy November 12, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    Daryl,

    I perceived this post to be about Mary Kassian’s review. I have not actually ever read anything by McLaren, is I can’t comment on that.

    I have read books by Held Evans, Kassian and Edith Schaeffer, so I feel qualified to comment on that. I feel that there is very little in Kassian’s review that is accurate and honest, so I want to work with that first.

    I know you regard some people as heretics, and that is important to you. To me it is important that we speak the truth in love to each other. When I feel that people are committed to interpersonal honesty, then there is the kind of atmosphere in which one can discuss doctrine.

  14. A W Sanderson November 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    Kassian appears to be out of the complementarian loop. She seems to be completely unaware that Patterson’s words quoted by RHE and included in her review are from RBWM ed 1991 AND *2006*. (Info can be found in an online search.) That is hardly “wiping the dust off” arbitrary antiquated quotes. If complementarianism is new and is not patriarchy as Kassian claims but a new ideology of only about 20 years, what else does one have to work with but their literature of the last 20 years or so? Regardless, the volume she quoted was republished with Patterson’s contribution in 2006? How is that not recent? Also, Kassian wants to disassociate with the term patriarchy and considers that isolated to the “fringe” groups like Vision Forum. She seems to be oblivious that Denny Burk, Owen Strachan, and CBMW all folks in “her backyard” equate complementarianism with patriarchy.

    Kassian writes, “I pointed out [to Rachel] that though complementarians agree on the principle of complementarity, we often differ as to its application in the home and the church. I emphasized that even those involved in CBMW have a divergence of opinion as to the specifics of how to apply the principles of manhood and womanhood. Even Nancy and I don’t land in exactly the same place on every point of application.” Isn’t this what RHE says is the point of the book?

    • J.M. LaRue November 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

      And the ridiculousness continues…

      “She seems to be oblivious that Denny Burk, Owen Strachan, and CBMW all folks in “her backyard” equate complementarianism with patriarchy.”

      No…. no…. seriously, no, they don’t.

      This is a tired old line that is completely false. And as long as this line is believed (and it is believed by pretty much the ENTIRE camp of RHE supporters), this debate will never move anywhere.

      Complementarianism is NOT equated with Patriarchy. Kassian rightfully represents this distinction.

      • Caleb W November 13, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

        According to my Collins English Dictionary, patriarchy: “a form of social organization in which a male is the head of the family and descent, kinship, and title are traced through the male line.”

        Or as wikipedia (not ideal, but can give a sense of popular notions) puts it: “Patriarchy is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.”

        Perhaps I am slow, but is not the concept of “male headship” essentially this same, patriarchal formulation? The CBMW statement of beliefs says that Adam’s headship in marriage is part of the created order (so there is a fixed order with the male at the top… “the male is the head of the family”). Mary Kassian’s “Complementarianism for Dummies” article says that “men have a responsibility to exercise headship in their homes, and in the church family…” She claims that this ‘headship’ is not a ‘right to rule’ but a ‘responsibility to serve.’ Interestingly, Mary goes on to say that the reason why CBMW rejected ‘patriarchy’ as their term was becaue 1970s feminists had changed its connotation to be negative (she says ‘redefined the historic use of the term’, but that is an inaccurate statement). This is key. The only reason complementarians don’t call themselves patriarchial, according to Mary Kassian, is because the term has a negative connotation that makes people think of the social oppression of women. They mean patriarchy, but without the oppression.

        But then Mary seems to backtrack a bit, ending her article with a much broader definition than the rest of the article suggests: “A complementarian is a person who believes that God created male and female to reflect complementary truths about Jesus.” The problem with this definition, of course, is that its application is not nearly as open to interpretation as Mary makes it seem. And so to understand complementarianism, you need to look at its real world manifestations. And I don’t see how you can escape patriarchy when male headship, authority in the home, lack of female teaching authority, etc. inevitably pop up.

        As far as I can tell, patriarchy – chauvenism = complementarianism. Egalitarians deny that you can have patriarchy/comp without chauvenism. Complementarians say you can.

      • A W Sanderson November 13, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

        J.M. LaRue,

        “For my [Denny Burk] part, I prefer complementarianism or biblical patriarchy.”

        “You’ll also find out that after all the feminist propaganda is stripped away, biblical patriarchy isn’t such a bad designation after all.”

        “As defined in the Danvers Statement, complementarianism is irreducibly hierarchical.As defined in the Danvers Statement, complementarianism is irreducibly hierarchical.” (In comments)

        “Biblical Patriarchy” would be a shorthand for the complementarian position–a moniker that emphasizes the hierarchy/headship inherent within that view.” (In comments) (http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarianism-or-patriarchy-whats-in-a-name/

        “…[Complementarians] must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical…Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.”

        “…patriarchy is necessary because the problem is not that evangelicals do not hold to “traditionalist” notions of gender and family, but rather where they find these notions.”

        “…the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to his headship—a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ…”

        “Authentic Christian patriarchy also has immediate implications for the welfare of the family.”

        “a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability in a family-fractured Western culture in ways that soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism never can.” Russell Moore, http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/49/49-3/JETS_49-3_569-576_Moore.pdf

        “For millennia, followers of God have practiced what used to be called patriarchy and is now called complementarianism.” Owen Strachan, writing for CBMW http://www.dennyburk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/5-Strachan.pdf

        “In this case it is not so much a particular term (patriarchy or complementarian) that TGC wishes to defend, as the theological stance (hierarchy) the term seeks to summarize, because we are convinced that the theological stance to which it refers is not only biblically mandated but also for our good—something to rejoice over rather than to rebel against.” Don Carson, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/08/14/whats-wrong-with-patriarchy/

        “Is complementarianism another word for patriarchy? Egalitarians and many complementarians agree: It is indeed.” Joe Carter, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/06/08/debatable-is-complementarianism-another-word-for-patriarchy/

        Complementarians affirm husbands have authority over wives. Complementarians affirm hierarchy (rule) in marriage though benevolent. Male or father authority or rule is patriarchy: patri (pater/father) arhcy (rule). Even Kassian and Piper, who both claim to have coined the term complementarian, acknowledge they declined the use of patriarchy, not on the grounds that the definition of patriarchy is not an accurate characterization of the movement’s theology but out of concern that negative connotations can be attributed to patriarchy. This is easily searchable on the internet.

        I think my point stands. Mrs. Kassian who says she helped coin the term “complementarian” seems to be out of the complementarian loop as people in her “own backyard” are not shying away from its use as a good descriptor of what their theology teaches, that is, male hierarchy.

  15. Henry Bish November 12, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    I’d like to ask dear Mary Kassian whether she is right in God’s sight to make hearsay judgments like this:

    Debi Pearl, whose abusive child discipline teachings have been linked to the deaths of several homeschool children

    I have never read the Pearl books, but to make a very serious charge like that, God requires us to be very careful in the evidence we provide. The CBS news report provided is a smear. If Mary Kassian was treated with such a level of journalism she would rightly feel wronged. As one reformed pastor has said: Stop and ask the question whether the Pearls commend the use of the rod by fathers and mothers to murder their sons and daughters, and even those who have never seen the book know the answer. And they’re right–the answer is no.

    It is a sad sight to see evangelicals be so quick to use fundamentalist types like the Pearls as a whipping horse to make evangelicals look less radical in the worlds eyes. To play like that is stooping low indeed. We’re so quick to be nice and gracious and reach out to God-mocking liberals like RHE, but when it comes to folks like the Pearls they are quickly consigned to the gutter without a care, they are sub-human and their reputations can be sullied with lies without a second thought. That is a double standard which we are too often guilty of. May we be more concerned to live according to truth for the praise of God than for the acceptance and praise of man.

  16. Karen Campbell "thatmom" November 12, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    Henry, it is not hearsay to connect the teachings of Michael and Debi Perl to the deaths of several children. Here is just one count: http://www.thatmom.com/2011/08/16/district-attorney-ties-death-of-lydia-schatz-directly-to-michael-pearl/

    • Henry Bish November 13, 2012 at 10:12 am #

      Karen,

      You are doing the same as Mary Kassian. Please deal with the point that was clearly made by the reformed pastor I quoted:

      “Stop and ask the question whether the Pearls commend the use of the rod by fathers and mothers to murder their sons and daughters, and even those who have never seen the book know the answer. And they’re right–the answer is no.”

      Do you know that the book of proverbs encourages the use of the ‘rod’ to discipline? Would it therefore be fair to link the Bible with the murder of children? If the Bible’s teaching can be abused, so can the Pearls.

      So demonstrate why the Pearls teachings on child discipline abuses the teaching of the Bible, or else keep all hearsay accusations to yourself. This is basic Christian charity.

      • Karen Campbell "thatmom" November 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

        Henry, all one has to do is read Pearl’s books and research can even be done online if you don’t have access to hard copies. I would encourage you to type “Michael Pearl” into the search engine on my blog for an extensive list of articles with real quotes. I have also written several pieces examining the writings of Debi Pearl and Stacy McDonald, having spent the better part of the past 7 years researching the patriocentric movement. To note: all these people consider themselves to be comps and, I believe, are pulling the CBMW crowd further down to their end of the gender spectrum, by the day…..one reason Mary Kassian’s review has missed the boat and has no credibility.

        • Henry Bish November 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

          People who have read the book tell me the Pearls do not commend or teach parents to murder their children with the use of the rod.

          I looked at the ‘Michael Pearl’ posts on your blog and you provide not a single quote that demonstrates that the Pearl’s advocate murdering children with the rod of discipline. So where are your promised quotes that show the opposite? Why not post the most damning quote here for all to see?

          I don’t think I am going to use any more time engaging with you as you are making it clear that you do not intend to argue honestly and in good faith.

          The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool. Prov 10:18

          • Karen Campbell "thatmom" November 13, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

            “t whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6

  17. Suzanne McCarthy November 12, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

    Karen,

    Thanks for that. My daughter, attending the same mainstream complementarian church as Jim Packer, came home one day with Created to be a Help Meet in her pocket. She tried to hide it from me, but eventually we had a good talk about it. She returned the book to her friend, who incidentally broke her engagement to her “complementarian” fiancé, and all ended well.

    But it is wrong to suggest that the Pearls are not responsible for adverse events, and also it is wrong to suggest that the Pearls are rejected by most complementarians.

  18. Don Johnson November 13, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    Exactly because the abuse of children is potentially involved one needs to err on the side of defending children in dealing with the Pearl’s book. It is a false application of Christian charity to defend the Pearl’s while not defending the children.

  19. Caleb W November 13, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    Denny, could you be specific about how this is a helpful review? It strikes me as very disingenous about complementarianism (all but one woman on the CBMW lists ‘homemaker’ as their first vocation; many, including Doug Wilson, Mark Driscoll, John Piper and Owen Strachan IN the CBMW journal, hold views that support Rachel’s characterization) and its history as an idea (as others have pointed out re: Edith Schaeffer).

    All I can see is a smear campaign by the Gospel Coalition against Evans. The constant references to June Cleaver strike me as a red herring – a stereotype of the egalitarian complaint about complementarianism.

  20. A W Sanderson November 13, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    J.M. LaRue,

    “For my [Denny Burk] part, I prefer complementarianism or biblical patriarchy.”

    “You’ll also find out that after all the feminist propaganda is stripped away, biblical patriarchy isn’t such a bad designation after all.” Denny Burk

    “As defined in the Danvers Statement, complementarianism is irreducibly hierarchical.As defined in the Danvers Statement, complementarianism is irreducibly hierarchical.” Denny Burk

    “Biblical Patriarchy” would be a shorthand for the complementarian position–a moniker that emphasizes the hierarchy/headship inherent within that view.” Denny Burk

    “…[Complementarians] must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical…Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.” Russell Moore

    “…patriarchy is necessary because the problem is not that evangelicals do not hold to “traditionalist” notions of gender and family, but rather where they find these notions.” Russell Moore

    “…the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to his headship—a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ…” Russell Moore

    “Authentic Christian patriarchy also has immediate implications for the welfare of the family.” Russell Moore

    “a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability in a family-fractured Western culture in ways that soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism never can.” Russell Moore

    “For millennia, followers of God have practiced what used to be called patriarchy and is now called complementarianism.” Owen Strachan, CBMW

    “In this case it is not so much a particular term (patriarchy or complementarian) that TGC wishes to defend, as the theological stance (hierarchy) the term seeks to summarize, because we are convinced that the theological stance to which it refers is not only biblically mandated but also for our good—something to rejoice over rather than to rebel against.” Don Carson

    “Is complementarianism another word for patriarchy? Egalitarians and many complementarians agree: It is indeed.” Joe Carter

    Complementarians affirm husbands have authority over wives. Complementarians affirm hierarchy (rule) in marriage though benevolent. Male or father authority or rule is patriarchy: patri (pater/father) arhcy (rule). Even Kassian and Piper, who both claim to have coined the term complementarian, acknowledge they declined the use of patriarchy, not on the grounds that the definition of patriarchy is not an accurate characterization of the movement’s theology but out of concern that negative connotations can be attributed to patriarchy. This is easily searchable on the internet.

    I think my point stands. Mrs. Kassian who says she helped coin the term “complementarian” seems to be out of the complementarian loop as people in her “own backyard” are not shying away from its use as a good descriptor of what their theology teaches, that is, male hierarchy.

    (Comment with links is held in moderation.)

    • Caleb W November 13, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

      Nice work!

  21. scottie truman November 13, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

    JM LaRue,

    Your response is requested. You insulted a commenter (as well as all others with similar perspective), calling their reasoning ridiculous.

    In response, ample evidence has been provided here in an objective fashion to justify the observation that CBMW & Co. do, in fact, equate complementarianism with patriarchy. Judging by the words which they have chosen to express their convictions.

    Please explain the basis for your statements, that Complementarianism is NOT equated with Patriarchy.

    Perhaps then the debate can move forward.

    • Karen Campbell "thatmom" November 13, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

      Another interesting fact: Nancy Leigh DeMoss has promoted Passionate Housewives written by Jennie Chancey (who does not believe in woman’s suffrage) and Stacy McDonald. In fact, they were guests on her radio program.

  22. Hannah Thomas November 13, 2012 at 11:45 pm #

    I pointed out that though complementarians agree on the principle of complementarity, we often differ as to its application in the home and the church. – Mary Kassian

    That is the only portion I really took out of her article as reasonable, and yet she has a really hard time applying it personally in this review.

    As was mentioned the term, ‘complementarianism’ wasn’t even referenced. Yet, for some reason she seems to feel it was an attack on the term. Sounds as if Kassian – along with others – seem to be taking this book a bit too personal.

    Also – lets face facts here. It wasn’t review it was a rebuke. Big Difference! It seems to me you can’t ask hard questions without the ‘strawman’ deal being throw out, and some manipulative statement about how you can’t seem to read ‘clear’ scripture. I just don’t understand why some don’t realize those types of approaches hardly stop questions, but only enforce suspension. I mean why wouldn’t it?

    Sigh. These type of approaches lack so much, and I thought the season with the political slime throwing was over already. I guess not.

    • Akash Charles November 15, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

      you do realise it is an attack on them, form someone who dislikes them, spend more time on RHE’s blog.

      The word does not have to be mentioned to critique it!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Mary Kassian on Rachel Held Evans’ Year of Biblical Womanhood « BLT - November 12, 2012

    […] a response to others parts of Mary Kassian’s review of Rachel Held Evans’book, A W Sanderson November 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm comments on Dennyburk’s blogpost, Kassian appears to be out of the complementarian loop. She […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes