A couple of things that AinM readers might find of interest:
1. Are you a daughter raised by (or a woman/wife involved in) a quiver-full homeschooling patriarchal family?
Quivering Daughters…an intimate new book examining the spiritual, emotional, psychological, and physical effects that being raised in a Quiverful and Patriocentric household, have on women.
If you are a woman who was raised in, or who in the past contributed to, a quiverful, patriocentric/Biblical Patriarchal family, I would like to interview you. Please respond by telling me a little bit about your story; if it fits my criteria, I will contact you with more information.
Please visit Hillary McFarland at Quivering Daughters and see if you are interested in participating in a research project she’s involved with. Hillary is the oldest of eleven children.
2. Related to recent discussions on children and discipline, most Christian parenting books seem to believe that if you are a “good Christian,” you will spank your kids—-that behaviour change, make that actual heart change, can only come about through spanking, thus sayeth the Lord, the end. If you are like me and questioning that teaching, you might be interested in an in-depth study on what some believe the Bible teaches about spanking…a study that comes to a different conclusion than many of the typical books, yet goes much deeper into Scripture than those books. Please enjoy reading, “Thy Rod and Thy Staff They Comfort Me:
Christians and the Spanking Controversy,” written by Samuel Martin, which is available on Amazon for 11.29 right now, used, or you can download it for FREE, as of right now (no promises as to how long this special offer will last), if you contact Samuel by email here. Enjoy! I have the download link sitting in my inbox and hope to start reading the book this weekend.
3. My friend Eric at theoblogoumena waxes on the inappropriateness of the term, “complementarian.” Perhaps he’s right. I realize that the complementarian camp is trying to emphasize that they believe men and women’s differences are complementary, but the problem is that egalitarians believe the same thing! What truly distinguishes Christian complementarians from Christian egalitarians is the concept of hierarchy.
Complementarians believe that the complementarity is found in dominant (male) and subordinate (female) positions on a hierarchy chain—positions that are not given based on gifting or experience but based soley on sexual organs. Whereas egalitarians believe that the complementary aspects of male and female can operate without hierarchy. So, is a dominant and subordinate required for complementarity? Is that concept Biblical? Have fun pestering Eric with your thoughts, whatever they may be.
4. Have information that you think is newsworthy, good conversation-fodder, or a free offer for AinM readers? Shoot me an email and let me know.
5. I just want to say that it was -39F today. And I am currently questioning the sanity of anyone who purposely chooses to live in Alaska. I did not choose to live here, might I add, so I am safe from questioning. 
Posted by Trish on January 7, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Molly, I’m sorry you are a quivering at 39 below. Yikes!
Posted by Leah on January 7, 2009 at 6:40 pm
CJ, Remi and I had to spend the day in town and our toes never warmed up! The suburban died at one point and we looked at each other with sheer PANIC! It didn’t want to re-start, but after about 2 minutes it did. I think the old thing just didn’t want to move ANY MORE. I was so glad to get home to my heated floors! Plus, Tony found the last of the egg nog at the local market. YAY!
I think it’s time for this “cold spell” to BREAK already!
Posted by Deborah on January 7, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Leah, I just clicked onto your blog, and those pics might be a good argument for the sanity–still–of those who chose to live in Alaska.
Deb-momentarily-glad-she’s-in-Tennessee
(P.S.–Lovely Family)
Posted by molleth on January 7, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I know. Leah’s family is awesome. And so are her photos. And it really does look that way, too. We live in such a pretty state. But it’s so dang COLD!!!!!!!
Every morning when I leave my little house, the drive through the little lane with all the frozen over trees just grabs me. It’s just beautiful. I always tell the kids, “Look. It’s Narnia.”
But then again, I think that a tropical landscape would grab my heart. Especially considering I wouldn’t want to view it only through a windowpane.
And especially considering it could remind me of Lost.
(My best friend just got back from Kawaii… I just gazed at all her pictures with her…Oh…
*writhes on ground in fit of jealousy*
I swear, someday, SOMEday, someday I won’t live in Alaska)…
Posted by reneegrace on January 7, 2009 at 10:26 pm
i love the tropics, having grown up in them, because you can BE outside and enjoy breezes and warmth… etc.
BUT, I think the sand and blue sky and water and jungle green are absolutely beautiful and life giving but it doesn’t match… I don’t know… the magical beauty of ice covered trees and pink skies…
so its turning into a weather blog down here in the comments
oh, the Anchorage Lea called me… and I AGAIN mistook her for the peninsula Leah 
Posted by E on January 8, 2009 at 5:44 am
Every morning when I leave my little house, the drive through the little lane with all the frozen over trees just grabs me. It’s just beautiful. I always tell the kids, “Look. It’s Narnia.”
Narnia – with the White Witch still in charge.
Posted by madame on January 8, 2009 at 5:56 am
But E,
It was Christmas two weeks ago!
Posted by Scott in AL on January 8, 2009 at 6:04 am
“E” Are you saying molly is the white witch?
Scott
Posted by E on January 8, 2009 at 6:44 am
Scott:
Molly is a combination of Peter and Susan Pevensie, with a bit of Aslan thrown in.
Posted by molleth on January 8, 2009 at 8:48 am
E,
If I have to, I’ll ride my queenly carriage down to TX to straighten you out…
Posted by Hillary on January 8, 2009 at 9:25 am
If so, please let me know!!! I have to meet you!
Posted by Leah on January 8, 2009 at 10:19 am
Thank you, Deborah.
The pictures don’t do the scenery justice. It was such a gorgeous day! (but it was about -25*, so too cold to get out of the car much!)
Posted by madame on January 8, 2009 at 3:24 pm
When you all talk of minus temperatures, is that Celsius or Farenheit?
I’m a bit lost….
Posted by Leah on January 8, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Farenheit! And good news… it is warming up!!!
Yay!!
Posted by Deborah on January 8, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I hope this is ok. I’d hate to lose a long post, and I cannot seem to post at E’s page. The only account I have is Google, and that one’s screwed up:
E,
I usually throw my hands up after awhile and say “hierarchalists” because once I start talking about how I believe in gender complementarity, it gets confusing to call the “other” camp complementarian. And after all, many egalitarians still believe in authority (e.g., pastoral leadership) just not that one member is above another in marriage or that women cannot be in the upper tiers of Church leadership. The phrases used are really directly aimed at marriage and at gender-based hierarchy in church positions. So you could probably say “Subordinationism” if you wanted to. I love the bluntness of “Restrictionism” though!
I am sympathetic to where you are at, Eric, in part because I am really a lover of the OT and tend to want to transfer things over more than I should (e.g., the Hebrew word “head” for the Greek “head”). I love the scriptural metaphoric continuity, but it’s gradually sunk in that “head of the household” is a Hebrew word-idiom more than a metaphor, one that—like many other picture idioms, I guess—does not translate acceptably to the Greek. Exploring head as a picture metaphor in the Old yields different results. Far more than that, there are a lot of Old Testament concepts which we should be glad are discontinued or reformed in Christ; indeed, I keep coming back to too many compelling scriptural arguments for full equality. I am both convinced that this is equal co-leadership as the couple finds best, but I agree with the points both believer333 and Don make. Kinda goes with my next thought:
Even if some magic tablet appeared a year from now and convinced me “head” were leader, I still think–and it was actually something I felt God show me apart from her, so she was my confirmatory gal–that Sumner’s idea of a sort of mutual exaltation with the wife submitting from a place of vulnerabilty and the man sacrificing from his position of advantage serves, if followed to the full measure like the Father did the Son, to form a functionally egalitarian relationship. In other words, whatever leadership gifting or position a man might hold, either according to personality, society, or (as some would read the scripture) God’s will for his gender, it is meant to be sacrificially used (living in such a way as to relinquish his societal upper hand for her) to the end of affirming or calling forth, backing up, and exalting his wife to a place of mutuality of authority and dominion as the Father did Christ amid Christ’s season of greater vulnerability on this earth and as Christ does the Church (while additionally being its Lord and Savior, roles involving greater authority not shared by the husband in relation to his wife). This, I believe, is the metaphor set up in the parallel “head” relationships of 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5. I’m not necessarily theologically opposed to someone taking a head as leader approach and applying it to both the wife and the house (although I believe the New Testament points neither toward “leader” nor toward “house”) so long as they really apply New Testament headship behavior and attitude to such male family leadership.
My beef with this in our day is that this may confuse the isssue, generally be a poor cultural witness, with possible exceptions in some subcultures and foreign cultures, cause us to lose sight of the true head-body as one organism intent of scripture, serve to encourage the far less egalitarian and downright abusive renditions of male leadership which are, in fact, rampant in the Church and certainly in the larger world by not challenging the structure behind it, tend to spill over into the Church to limit a woman’s leadership there, and—while displaying more truthfully how the Father has treated the Son—still negatively affect our understanding of the Trinity and the Son’s equality (the hierarchalist doctrine resting on a false idea of Christ’s eternal subordination given the parallel headship analogies of God-Son, Christ-Church, Christ-individual male man, and Husband-wife). It seems like a clarion call break with marital hierarchy in any given church would clarify and assist relational and theological health.
Anyhow, it has been years of wrestling for me. I actually have a good deal of writing on this topic (appendices to books I’m working on) that could use eyes if anyone wishes to offer them. But I know that we’ve all got plenty to read here, there, and the other place. And E, enjoy the journey–wherever it takes you. I’ll be really interested to see where you end up.
Deb
Posted by Deborah on January 8, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Ugh! Started to reread and saw the grammar errors. Ah, well. Enough of that. If *Don* is reading, could you link me to a source on kephale as the fore of the army? Thanks much!
Posted by Deborah on January 8, 2009 at 9:29 pm
I don’t even have any grid to conceive of what it feels like to have temps that low. I vaguely remember some wind chills belows zero growing up in Ny./Nj., but that’s all.
I saw that even planes are grounded in places, and the cross-country skiers, who must be hearty folk indeed, canceled events!
Deb
Posted by Deborah on January 8, 2009 at 9:29 pm
wouldn’t mind visiting alaska in the summer though
Posted by Deborah on January 8, 2009 at 9:31 pm
P.S.–E, just to be clear, Sumner does not believe “head” means authority, but I was just creatively applying her concepts to head-as-leader.
Posted by molleth on January 8, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Deb,
I loved what you wrote. I am so on that same page.
On the weather, it’s Farenheit, not Celcius. Sorry if there was any confusion.
Funny thing this afternoon, speaking of weather. My 7 year old boy tried to run out and play outside in only boots and a coat. When his overbearing mother (or so he thought) made him come back in for snowpants and a hat, he protested with a very serious, “Aww, Mom! It’s *ONLY* five below zero!”
The things only an Alaskan kid would say…
Posted by E on January 9, 2009 at 4:29 am
And E, enjoy the journey–wherever it takes you. I’ll be really interested to see where you end up.
Deb
If only you knew the places I’ve been churchwise, theologywise, spiritually-wise, etc.
If past is prologue, I have no idea where I’ll end up – probably painting my body blue and dancing under the moon at Stonehenge.
I assume you’re mostly referring to my “Whence ‘Complementarianism’”? post, and not my very brief post on kephalê and authentein. I really don’t address the home/marriage relationship as much as the in-the-church situation, so I don’t think “headship/sourceship,” whether in Hebrew or Greek terms and understandings, is a major factor in what I’m currently thinking. The only place where headship currently rears its head for me in this is with respect to my thought that perhaps “Complementarians” have improperly imposed the husband-wife relationship on the way members of the gathered/assembled body/church are to function and relate to each other during the church meeting and as a church body.
Obviously you’ve put more time and thought into this than I, and if my Hebrew were any better, I’d take a look at your papers at some point.
Charis and Shalom! Sorry the blogspot comment posting didn’t work for you. You don’t have to register with Google to post – you can use OpenID.
Posted by madame on January 9, 2009 at 4:29 am
Molly,
In England they use Farenheit for temperatures above freezing
(0 celsius) and Celsius for below freezing. So they’ll talk about having
temperatures in the 80s in summer, and temperatures below 0 in
the winter. Just wanted to make sure Alaskans don’t do the same
thing.
I can’t imagine that sort of temperatures… FREEZING!!!!!! i thought
-10 was bad enough… Celsius, that is.
Posted by madame on January 9, 2009 at 4:34 am
E,
” I have no idea where I’ll end up – probably painting my body blue and dancing under the moon at Stonehenge.”
And then a certain Welsh preacher would fly over your head in some
dangerous looking contraption with the word REPENT on it, blasting
REPENT into a megaphone. ( The pastor of our former church in
the UK did just this)
I
Posted by Deborah on January 9, 2009 at 9:33 am
I’m laughing my head off (and needed to–a church leader here just committed suicide).
E, I don’t know a jot of Hebrew. These are introductory and cautiously exploratory thoughts of mine to present to thinking laypeople. I was referring to the post where you more or less say you’re leaning toward freedom for women in the church but some element of male leadership in the home (?) and were debating wht to call the inaptly coined “complementarian” camp. I’ll have to try to get back there and see what else you’ve written.
Thanks, Molly.
Posted by Deborah on January 9, 2009 at 9:34 am
That is, E, I was trying to say that I’m sympathetic about your thoughts on the home (what you’re reading into the Bible portions, as I sometimes–for whatever reasons–want to do the same), although I don’t ultimately agree (and realize you’re still chewing it).
Posted by april ibarra on January 9, 2009 at 11:27 am
I love the OT and I’m ready to go back to polygamy!!! no, I’m just saying that because I’m overwhelmed. But it does(I can’t remember if you mentioned this) apply to the world as it was. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law and showed that the law was made for man, not man made for the law. Therefore, Jesus himself remedied the brokeness between man and woman. We (as x-tians are live as those free from Adam’s curse) but we are to be aware that brokeness is the state of the world, and we are still members of it. Works in progress.
Hey, I just wanted to chime in and say hello! I like your blog!
Posted by Ruth on January 9, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Here in Anchorage it’s only -5 right now! It’s practically balmy…. Re # 2 I think I downloaded that book last year sometime but haven’t read it completely yet. This week I had the opportunity to hear from a sweet lady in her 80’s about parenting. Come to find out, she didn’t “apply the rod” with her own 5 children, and feels it often unnecessary. She told us (our church mom’s group) about one of her daughters, at 18 months of age, being told to “be careful” around the cups on the coffee table. With a little smirk, her daughter touched the edges of the cups. I said “some would say to spank her for that”, to which my sweet guest said “oh no, that’s not necessary. Just remove from the situation and talk a bit.” And all 5 of her children have followed God in their adult lives, even without being spanked! Gasp!
Posted by Valerie on January 9, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Oh my gosh that is so cold! I cannot even imagine that given that it is 35 degrees (celsius) here and will be 38 tomorrow – stinkin’ hot! We just spent a whole week at the beach – lovely! Much as I love cold weather, I’m just not sure how I would go with days of not being able to go outside.
Valerie
Posted by Dee on January 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I grew up in a fundamentalist, Chistian household. I’m here to tell ya, we were not “perfect”. But, I can honestly say, my parents “made” me go to church, “made” me read the Bible, “made” me visit nursing homes, etc. Yes, they preached hell, fire, and damnation to us kids all the time…..
But, I have friends, who, their mother was hooked on heroine, their parents divorced when they were two, they never went to Sunday School, etc., etc.
They love the Lord now – and so do I. Sometimes, Christ uses our good/bad situations, to bring us closer to Him. Even if our parents were strict Christian, Pharisee type parents, we know the Lord, regardless. That, within itself, is the Holy Spirit working. Blessings – Dee
Posted by Alisa on January 13, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Hey, would anyone happen to have the email address to request the download of the Rod book? I clicked on it, but I have a Mac with no Mac email, so it just opens iChat which is just a dead end for me. Thanks!
Oh, and Molly, I know I never comment, but I think of you and pray for you often. HUGS!!!
Posted by E on January 14, 2009 at 5:45 am
Re: the post at my blog that Molly refers y’all to:
Had I first read the introduction in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Editors, I might not have written my post, since in it the editors discuss the subject I address, though not exactly as I did. (I read it for the first time this morning.) And as the subtitle of the book indicates, egalitarians regard themselves as complementarians, but without the hierarchy that restricts church and home leadership to men.
Posted by Deborah on January 15, 2009 at 12:04 pm
biblechild gmail.com, alisa
Posted by Headless Unicorn Guy on May 21, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Complementarians believe that the complementarity is found in dominant (male) and subordinate (female) positions on a hierarchy chain—positions that are not given based on gifting or experience but based soley on sexual organs.
Then why are they drinking the watered-down Christian version of male supremacy when Islam can give it to them straight on the rocks, FGM, honor killings, and all?
So, is a dominant and subordinate required for complementarity?
Well, it is for BDSM, prison rape, and this one Blue Oyster Cult song…