I agree that telling people that it is God’s will for them to marry (specifically a man telling this to a woman) is problematic and manipulative, because truly God-honoring women may worry – sometimes because of complementarian theology, admittedly – that their refusal is disobedient to God and to their supposed-to-be husband, instead of listening to the part of them that doesn’t want to marry this guy.

You addressed your comment to me and in the body of your comment you used the pronoun “you”.

I hope that you shifted the antecedent of your use of the “you” and directed it toward the “male theology people” and it was not directed at me as the antecedent of “you”.

I do not hold to the concepts that you seem to attribute to “male theology people”. I was raising the question to see if the strict complementarians could provide a reasoned out response to calling the above incident “manipulative” while at the same time holding to a hierarchical concept of headship.

It would seem consistent for the strict complementarian position to hold that hierarchical headship guidance can precede marriage in the courtship arena. But that is not what the strict complementarians here seem to be saying. I was interested in a formulated reasoning as to why they would reject such a practice.

Adam offered a reasoning but he does not claim to be a complementarian.

I would still like for a strict complementarian to respond to the questions:

Why do complementarians consider this manipulative?

How is this not progression toward “headship” in marriage?

I once again offer to TUAD the opportunity to DODGE the questions by re-stating them in an egalitarian phrasing, while still hoping that strict complementarians will respond.

Having heard 30 years of teaching that women are “easily deceived” and conversely men are not, that God speaks to men and they are under God’s direct command and women are to obey their husband’s, it is no wonder the young woman had to consult a male pastor whether God was speaking to the suitor about her future.

I had that one laid on me as well, and although I had no interest in the male suitor, assumed that God of course was speaking to him because I had long been brainwashed that God speaks to men first and foremost and men tell women what God says. So lets be consistent here. You reserve that men are God ordained in leading a wife, or a daughter as they are the head of the house. And if a son watches decades of his father telling his mother what God wants the family to do because of his superior ability to be lead by God, why is it inconsistent to think he can start that dominating process before they are married? You know get a head start on headship. Sometimes I think of women standing in front of the throne of God in the judgement day condoning a life being a bondslave of their husband and saying, but I obeyed my husband wasn’t that ALL I was supposed to do?

In the meantime the child prostitutes and other victims of male lust did not get rescued because all the godly women were busy ironing their husbands shirts and saying yes dear, whatever you say dear, whatever your weak ego demands in terms of my total subjection to you.

I wish you male theology people spent as much time opening opportunities for women to use their gifts to reach this world as you do tyring to keep them all in their place, ironing your shirts. You all forget we are in a war of light and dark, women better learn to be warriors instead of weak silly girls lead around men prone to deceive them–in the name of submission and “god talk”

Would actual complementarians agree?

Would you add anything else?

And did any here actually use that methodology in their courting of their intended?

Because it is.

I’m going to take the comp’s side on this one, because fellowships that are intentional about male headship in the courting process have the young man go through the woman’s father or pastor. The idea of male headship puts the woman under the authority of father/pastor, and any kind of romantic interest must be approved or disapproved before the courtship process can follow.

So while I would not subscribe to this since I am egalitarian, I certainly would not want to take such an inane “revelation” to a young woman’s father… especially if it was Mr. Hutchens.

Um. . . Okay,

So, back to the question.

Why do complementarians consider this manipulative?

How is this not progression toward “headship” in marriage?

(Please note: I do consider it manipulative. And I think if complementarians can formulate a good response it only strengthens the comprehensiveness of their position.)

Now, TUAD, I leave you to now convert this into an equivalent egalitarian question rather than actually formulating a complementarian response and thus showing that complementarians can formulate actual responses to legitimate questions.

Very well. Here’s a slight rewrite of Dr. Hutchens opening paragraph:

“A young pastor whose family I have known for years called me for advice. He had just been told by an influential woman in his congregation that after long and earnest prayer, after seeking the face of God for days, the Holy Spirit had informed her that it was God’s will that women serve as elders in the church. With little deliberation and equal gravity I informed him he could tell his influential parishioner and her Spirit to go jump in the lake, and add a boot in my name to their collective backside with his good riddance.”

Quenching the Egalitarian Spirit.

Perhaps some clarification might be helpful. I am assuming the post involves a young man who had never previously spoken to the girl, right?

Or are you saying that a young man, regardless of the length of time he has been dating a young woman should not make the statement in the post?

Can you perhaps fine-tune the discussion please.

Thanks!