Mary Kassian wrote a review of Rachel Held Evans new book, and it seems she is taking things a bit too personally. First I want to point out one GREAT comment she wrote, and show you how she sadly doesn’t apply it there after.
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. 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. – Mary KassianSo why OH why is she getting so upset about Rachel Evans mentioning the different groups that call themselves complementarian?
Can she not see that maybe it was not her personally that the book represented entirely, but those that use applications differently? I mean she already admitted even her and Nancy Leigh DeMoss don’t agree on all fronts. Note: there is nothing wrong with disagreement, but the way you disagree? That is where the trouble begins.
She starts by playing games with quotes from the book itself:
A few sentences later, I had my first and best laugh of the whole book. “Evangelical complementarianism,” claims Rachel, “[is] a movement that began as a reaction to second-wave feminism and found some of its first expressions in the writings of Edith Schaeffer (The Hidden Art of Homemaking, 1971) and Elisabeth Elliot (Let Me Be a Woman, 1976).” Rachel goes on to explain that complementarianism rests on the “uncompromising conviction [that] the virtuous woman serves primarily from the home as a submissive wife, diligent homemaker, and loving mother.” (p. xix).Just for a giggle here…The Feminine Mystique by Betty Freidman (1963). Notice Mary loves to reference this 50 year old book ALL the TIME in her presentations. What does that say? Moving on…….
Seriously? “The Hidden Art of Homemaking???!!” I just about fell off my chair. That book was written seventeen years before the inception of CBMW and about twenty years before we adopted the term “complementarian.” I have never even heard of it. I highly doubt whether John Piper and Wayne Grudem—the founders of CBMW—have read it.
Now Mary Kassian just as Denny Burk both used sections of whole paragraphs out of context to make their point. We can all admit they are both educated people, and that is why I assume they know what they are doing. I don’t think they are counting on others to check the entirety of the quotes they write about. If they did? They may have a number of comments and questions.
I think they are counting on people NOT checking the sources…lets be honest here!
I don’t view either of them as dumb, so what else can I possibly assume? Well people that tend to do this – take things out of context – maybe don’t have such a strong point after all. That is what most people feel when others take on this tactic.
Mary took parts of the introduction in the Rachel Held Evan’s book. Now, lets look at the statement in its entirety.
Over the next few years, I found myself drawn into more and more of these conversations, especially as my girlfriends and I began getting married and starting families of our own. Many were influenced by evangelical complementarianism, a movement that began as a reaction to second-wave feminism and found some of its first expressions in the writings of Edith Schaeffer (The Hidden Art of Homemaking, 1971), and Elisabeth Elliot (Let Me Be A Woman, 1976). Hailed as the model wives and homemakers, these women are highly esteemed in the Reformed tradition, where the oft-repeated saying is, 'As many people were brought to the Lord through Mrs. Schaeffer's cinnamon buns as through Dr. Schaeffer's sermons." But behind the winsome prose lies an uncompromising conviction: the virtuous woman serves primarily from the home as a submissive wife, diligent homemaker, and loving mother.Now, CBMW may not have been started out of the expressions or writings of the author’s (that Mary never heard about) mentioned, but the ‘winsome prose’? Ahh. Yeah – its in THERE! I realize she wants to ignore that point. Anyway…