I do think complimentarians are often self-deceived and I do think that, although every oppression is different, there is much patriarchal oppression going on in the name of “complimentarianism.” And, as long their women aren’t becoming feminists and demanding EQUALITY, I think that complimentarians with power in systems like the SBC won’t much investigate whose being physically or psychologically abused in the name of submission to “proper roles.” Just as “separate but equal” was a dangerous illusion, I believe firmly that “equal in status, but separate in God-ordained role (and power and authority)” is a dangerous illusion, too. But, it’ll take SBC women refusing to go along with it before the spell of illusion will be broken. That’s happened before–the SBC just exiled the women in question. Only a matter of time before it happens again.

But this does not mean that you, personally, are abusive in any way, nor that your wife doesn’t love you, nor that she deliberately deceives you or herself. And I shouldn’t be derisive. In a free and equal society some women WILL freely choose traditional roles.

Hmm. Have you never heard of the survival tactics of the oppressed–including “slave mentality” or “colonized mentality?” I mean, seriously, D.R., you sound like a white person in the South in 1960, “Our Negroes are good Negroes and happy. It’s only those outside agitators and Northern Commies who stir things up.” I’d be willing to bet that if an Egyptian asked a Hebrew slave what he thought of Moses 3 days before the Exodus, the reply would be something like, “O, most of us like it here, boss. We don’t pay no ‘tention to no wild-eyed mystics from the desert. Nosuh, we know we got it good right here, shonuff.” And the Egyptian would buy this line right down the line.

As for your statement, “I do hope he continues his 1980s position because I believe that view to be correct and because women in the SBC need all the voices on their side they can get!”, I disagree. Maybe you need to get out to SBC churches more (allusion to the post you wrote on my blog), but most of the women I know are pretty happy with Complimentarianism. As the Jerry Clower story about his encouter with the “she-coon of women’s lib” goes, “Momma don’t want you messin’ with the deal she’s got!” - meaning, most women who are adored for their femininity in raising children, staying home to take care of the household, and submitting to their husband’s leadership in the home are pretty happy (as my wife can attest). Feminism inserted into the SBC wouldn’t help, it would only bring about more disasterous results like what we saw in the 1960’s with “scholars” denying the Virgin Birth and Divinity of Christ. No, our women are just fine, thank you.

Sure, Dr. Page could have sincerely and honestly had a change of heart. I would like to hear more from Dr. Page on his change though.

What’s absurd to me is these conspiracy theories that other Baptist bloggers are floating around. It’s absolutely silly to think that Robert Parham and Bob Allen at EthicsDaily would join forces with certain SBC leaders in an attempt to bring down Dr. Page.

As we’ve seen for years, EthicsDaily is very Anti-Fundy/SBC. Publishing this recent article is nothing new.

On whether Frank Page legitimately changed his mind? If you mean, I really don’t know, you’re right. But my comment about closets doesn’t pre-judge on this. I do hope he continues his 1980s position because I believe that view to be correct and because women in the SBC need all the voices on their side they can get!

And Michael, you are all over the place on this. Come to think of it - so am I.

I hope Page has the courage to come out about his support for Women in Ministry and not treat the New-and-Unimproved BF&M as a creed that he now has to sign as an oath.