Monday, September 17, 2012

Since when has Phillip Jensen needed defending when he places complementarianism over concerns about domestic violence.

I wouldn't tell a Sydney Anglican ... especially the boys at Matthias Media's, 'The Briefing'...about this abuse ...because they'd make me feel WORSE!
Over at 'The Briefing' website, the male bonding continues. Craig Swartz, who has a passion for Christian cage fighting, has tagged teamed with Phillip Jensen, to silence any further discussion on the problems associated with wives vowing to submit to their husbands.

Actually Bill... In my mind, Phillip's article called 'Love and Subjugation', and Craig's comment were good examples  When Ministry Becomes a Mistress

Missy...I wouldn't tell them complementarian women about the abuse... cause they breed daughters who aspire to be submissive to men... within the home, the church and the work force... and even if their daughters remain single... and then they marry them off to men, regardless of the males' sexual orientation... and all that's required is that the men claim to be post-gay.
Well Calam ...the men are not much better...there's Lionel Windsor, who had no idea that in the real world where parishoners live, that submission is associated with oppression and bondage... and David Ould who says that Christians who express concerns about young women vowing to submit, and the possiblility of abuse associated with submission, don't really like the Bible...and then you've got Peter Jensen, who says men can't be real men unless inequality exists between the sexes...and Archie Poulos, who sees the marginalised as professionals who don't like their jobs...and Phillip Jensen who imples that women only tell stories of abuse to heighten arguments against submission...and Craig Swartz who supports  Phillip Jensen when a reader points out that Phillip Jensen's article prioritises complementarian philosophy, over the protection of victims of domestic violence.

And here's Tom Adam's point of view...over at The Briefing website...
I’m unsure whether it is so much a clash of cultures as a clash of priorities. Of course talking up the clash of cultures has much attraction in a rhetorical or polemic exercise, where the highlighting of differences serves to warm the hearts of the faithful, but little else.
Isn’t it the case that this piece is more about the prioritising of a wholly complementarian philosophy, over the protection of victims of domestic violence? This presumably has the perceived spin-off benefits of that system to the proponents of it, like keeping women out of authority in certain institutions. And little to do with such grandiose concepts as clashes of cultures.
While one can only agree with the author that ‘Christian understanding’ does not necessarily lead to domestic violence, it is still possible to at least propose that the creation and maintenance of any form of patriarchal system can contribute in a positive way to the prevalence of domestic violence. All the noble sentiments expressed in the bible about the treatment of women were not put in because the behaviour expressed in the verses was the norm in the community surely? They were put there to address the reverse, ie poor treatment of wives.
It seems a little ironic to quote such verses to perpetuate a system that even might be more likely to contribute to domestic violence. Rather you’d quote them to support the avoidance of any suggestion of subordinationism, the scent of which is so loved by the complementarian.
It also seems a little harsh to suggest that those who are interested enough to comment on this website and may well themselves be victims of domestic violence are simply raising the point to ‘heighten the argument’. After all, how do we know exactly what they have suffered or what their particular state is. They deserve the benefit of the doubt in my view. The heat and passion of their communication is more than likely to be a reflection of their pain.
Turning the entire issue into a sub-set of the so-called culture clash seems no more than an exercise in semantics. I doubt victims of domestic violence think twice about theological clich├ęs. It is about concrete realities that are seemingly a million miles away from transcendent concepts that only appear to go to fostering points of division.


  1. This post screams of libel...

  2. Oh come on Anon... The Briefing website promotes Matthias Media and it sells so much complementarian material... so why would the founder of the company need defending when someone feels that he is placing complementarianism (and possibly the sale of resources) over the problems some women face when some husbands do use subjugation as a way of teaching a woman to submit?

  3. Anyone who'd seriously claim this post is libelous knows as little about Australian defamation law as they do about the bible.

  4. Well, that sounds just like Dobby!