Pastor Preaches: “Brother, This is a Man’s World”

Pastor William Lytell: “But brother, this is a man’s world.”

***

Long-tLook at Me. Show Offime readers may remember that a kitty adopted us a few years ago. Marbles grew up and went on to have kitties of her own – four kittens. We kept the orange kitty and named him Pumpkin. He was pretty cute as a kitten.

He grew up to be a very handsome cat. Look at him high up on his scratching post as if he is the King of the Castle.

Earlier today, I found Pumpkin “playing” with a mouse two feet from where I was sitting at my computer desk, but outside, on the other side of the window. The mouse was still breathing, quite heavily, as I could see his little tummy move when he inhaled and exhaled. My cat kept licking his paws. It was not going to go well for this little mouse.

I find it interesting that Pumpkin likes to play with his live toys right in front of me, as if he needs to have an audience. Puh-lease, Pumpkin! This was not how I planned on spending my Friday morning.

IMG_2191

What is it with my cat? Why does he need to do his dirty deeds in front of me? He could have picked any other place around our large house, but pretty much every morning, this is what he does – catches, plays with, kills, and eats mice, birds, and snakes. It grosses me out. I really don’t enjoy it, although my boys do (and they love to tell me in great detail about the insides of the victims). Boys!

I’ve seen a video making the rounds and some have shared it with me. It’s about a pastor who also likes to be in the limelight, and for some reason, this pastor reminded me of my cat who puts himself in my field of vision so I’m forced to watch him. The very beginning of the story is detailed at WINK news, but here’s a summary:

Last month, a 9-yr old boy came home from Gospel Baptist Church in Bonita Springs, Florida, with a gun he found in the restroom. His mother notified authorities, and thankfully, nobody was hurt. Later, the long-time pastor of the church, Pastor William Lytell, was contacted by media about the incident. Lytell shared with his congregation about how a reporter came to him wanting more details of the story:

“But I got a kick when the guy came to interview me, I knew, I knew what was going to happen. I know how those news people think. They are looking for a story. They are desperate for a story. Their job relies on having a story.  . . . I felt led to do it – to give the guy a story.  I bet they go out there and film that sign, “male leadership” and that’s going to go out throughout the whole county. Do you know what we’d have to pay to do something like that?  That’s probably a $100,000 gift. I’m not going to thank the person that left the weapon, however.” (JA transcription)

Well, just like my cat, Pumpkin, who insists I watch him conquer and destroy his play toy and acts like the king of the castle, Pastor Lytell seems to have a need to draw attention to himself as he relays the story about the gun and then uses the gun story to get on his pet (pun intended) topic of men and male leadership. He thinks God was merciful in giving him a free media gift valued $100,000 by having the opportunity to share about “male leadership” throughout the community via the media report. No, I don’t think it’s about God being merciful, I think it’s Lytell taking advantage of his lofty position on his own scratching post, aka his pulpit.

Thanks to Bad Preachers who uploaded this March 29 sermon to their YouTube account, we can hear this man in all of his pompous male glory spouting off.

H/T to Rawstory transcribed more:

“Don’t you be ashamed you go to a church with male leadership,” Lytell said. “Every church that’s right with God oughta have a sign: ‘Male Leadership.’ Because that’s the only kind of leadership, both from Adam all the way to the last part of the Bible. It’s all been male. This is a man’s world!”

“And all the men said, ‘Amen!’” he continued. “There aren’t many places were men can ever rejoice anymore without feeling about half-ashamed because they try to put you down or sue you or something, but brother this is a man’s world. You can say what you want, you can do what you want, but God made Adam in leadership and it’s going to end with a man in leadership. It doesn’t make men better, it is just God’s way.”

 

 ***

***

***

There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galations 3:28

***

I feel bad for the women who walk in those church doors each week and subject themselves to that sign, the words of their, pastor, husbands, and men in the church who devalue women and their personhood and claim that it’s Biblical. I don’t think Jesus would be pleased.

57 comments on “Pastor Preaches: “Brother, This is a Man’s World”

  1. If it’s so scripturally clear, why would a church need a sign proclaiming male leadership; it would be a given, right? But it’s not clear. In fact it’s not scriptural to insist on male only leadership. So he needs to post a sign as his badge of authority. Poor guy. What a sad man.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. Well let me be the first man in this ” man’s World” to say I think this guy has a screw loose, a big one too, somewhere in the deductive reasoning quadrant. If our pulpits could just get back to line by line Bible teaching instead of this crap he is doing.

    Secondly as someone that Carries a firearm daily leaving a weapon in a public bathroom is inexcusable and I would be for that individual being charged with reckless endangerment of a minor, a felony in most states. Man’s world or NOT if that kid would have shot someone or himself someone would be looking at a first degree manslaughter charge. Not exactly a situation I would like to see my pastor making jokes about from the pulpit. He should have issued a rebuke, ” hey guys you have to keep better track of your weapons, we don’t need the media coverage”.

    Apparently the idiot thinks this is good advertising. Reminds me of when this criminal / FAKE prophet at a church I once attended confessed to a rape & murder from years and years ago. Our fruit loop pastor let 20/20 come in and film the service saying from the pulpit , ” we just thought this was a great way for people to hear about Fairfax Assembly “. I knew then that this new pastor was too stupid for me to listen to on anything important, and promptly found another church where the pastor was slightly more intelligent. He turned out to be somewhat of a crooked guy, but atleast he wasn’t falling down dumb.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Scott, regarding Pastor Lytell welcoming the media coverage: I wonder if the media coverage led to a lot of people learning that his church is not a safe place to bring their children if the pastor’s joking about guns being left in bathroom stalls where kids can find them.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. I’m with Scott. Arguments over male headship aside, to transition from a possibly lethal and completely avoidable situation to hop on one’s soapbox proves beyond a doubt that this “pastor” is not “apt to teach” and is rather callous towards the congregation’s spiritual needs–not to mention, per Tim’s second comment, callous towards the basic issue of physical safety for congregants.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. “but God made Adam in leadership”

    How’d that work out for him? After Adam screwed up royally he blamed it all on Eve and God. Some things never change. What manly leader leaves a gun in a church bathroom? Must be some woman’s fault. Or God’s.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Goodness, all you need to do is look at his face in the still of the video to see how arrogant he is!

    Is that too judgmental?

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Gary, don’t forget the husbands here, too. Again–I’m leaving aside the issue of male headship here–but let’s think this through a bit. Here is a situation where the pastor decides that a colossal screw-up that could have gotten people killed is his invitation to expound on male headship.

    It’s a huge non sequitur. Now, do you trust a pastor with logic like this to parse out any portion of the Bible, or would you expect him to once again hop on his hobby horse and start tilting against windmills?

    You know what I’d expect. Not a safe place for man, woman, nor beast.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Daisy, I love you. You crack me up without trying. Cher, LOL. Now that puts it in prospective brilliantly. As soon as I read that I heard , if I could turn back time playing in my head. Only with different lyrics.

    If I could turn back time, I wouldn’t leave my gun in the potty…….

    and I probably wouldn’t go to church with people who do.

    Like

  9. That guy looks like a villain off of an episode of the X-files. Why doesn’t he just rub mud on every post he passes, like boar pigs do.

    Whenever anyone (especially a man in church leadership) says, “I felt led…”, my listening ears shut off automatically. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never heard anything good come after that statement.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. This pastor is right ‘This is a man’s world’ but the bible teaches, as Christians, we are ‘in the world, but not of the world’. This man’s world that began at Adam and in his view still continues, does not continue for us who are saved by the Grace of God.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. You are quite right, Bike Bubba, that we ought not to forget the husbands. They are doubtless being misled. Yet I have more compassion for their wives, many of whom I fear are suffering from psychological, spiritual, and possibly even physical abuse, as a result of attitudes engendered in them by this “pastor,”

    Liked by 1 person

  12. If it were native American tribe it would read….. this is a buffalo’s world…..we live among the buffalo…. we are his brother……

    I don’t like to mock what he is stating but it is true that the bible talks many times about the godly man vs. The ungodly man. I am thankful this is not a ‘man’s world’ Only with no holy spirit.

    Like

  13. According to the WINK news feed, ‘If the gun turns out to belong to a church member, “then I will very specifically, and we as a church will very specifically, tell that individual not to ever carry a weapon at Gospel Baptist.” ‘ I suspect leaving your loaded handgun laying around is a crime, but the good folks at this church will cheerfully overlook offenses, as long as a woman never attempts to teach.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. “Every church that’s right with God oughta have a sign: ‘Male Leadership.’ Because that’s the only kind of leadership, both from Adam all the way to the last part of the Bible. It’s all been male. This is a man’s world!”

    “And all the men said, ‘Amen!’”

    Because the women were forbidden to speak…

    Like

  15. @BikeBubba:

    Again–I’m leaving aside the issue of male headship here–but let’s think this through a bit. Here is a situation where the pastor decides that a colossal screw-up that could have gotten people killed is his invitation to expound on male headship.

    “What an opportunity to Advance MY Agenda!”

    “Never let an opportunity go to waste.”
    — Rahm Emmanuel, Mayor of Chicago and Dem Party Machine Enforcer

    Like

  16. This MAN reminds me of my grandfather. My grandfather took great pleasure informing his wife, two twenty-something daughters, and his little girl grand daughters on Christmas Eve how God making women out of Adams rib was symbolic of the fact that women are half of what men are. This grandfather got a thrill out of under age girls getting raped, getting married, getting pregnant, and having sex.

    These men or always going out of their way to inform women and little girls that we are crap, created by God to kiss man bottom. The god these men talk about remind me so much of my rapist.

    The man who sexual terrorized me the first ten years of my life LOVED male headship and female submission to men, so did my wife beating father.

    These men want female slaves that have to kiss their male bottoms. As a little girl I felt like god and my father were my pimps, I was scared of them, but I did not love or respect them.

    These men go on about women being Ladies, I have never encountered a Christian man that was a gentleman.

    Like

  17. Tears, tears, and more tears, many of which are profound. Dear Guest, please know you are still loved by God, our Father who art in Heaven and also, Praise God, through Julie Anne’s courage to post a blog for born again believers;

    you are loved here as well. Jesus loves and values you as a woman and His child.

    This deeply disturbing pastor reminds me of these truths.
    John 8:1-12

    “But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again to the temple, and all of the people came to Him, and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery.

    And when they had set her in their midst, they said to Him, “This woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.

    Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say? This they said, testing Him, that they might have something to which to accuse Him.

    But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw the stone at her first.”

    And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

    Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

    When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?

    She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

    Then Jesus spoke to them again saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

    As I viewed the video pertaining to this pastor’s(?) small portion of the sermon, I have to wonder if this leads people to Christ in any way. Questions arise here and red flags are raised.

    (continued)

    Like

  18. Questions for the day:

    1) What if the gun packer in his church was a woman instead of a man? Would he address the situation in a darker, more abusive way? After all, are not women who conceal and carry guns, a far greater threat to society than a man?

    2) What if a man called the authorities instead of a woman? Would this situation be handled differently, or does it not matter which “gender” called the authorities?

    3) And were the authorities involved men or women, or does not gender matter when it comes to police intervention? After all, their belief revolves around “boy meets world”, correction “man meets world.”

    4) Were any other women involved in this crisis other than the woman who called the authorities, or did they take it from there, dealing only with men/male leadership in this city, excluding women from any type of participation; was the office assistant who typed up the report a man or woman?

    And then there is Jesus, precious Jesus. What in the world do we do with Him in all of His Glory? Should we condemn Him for letting this filthy, pitiful woman go for she was caught in this sinful act called adultery. And if that pastor were standing amongst the scribes and Pharisees on that accusatory day, would he have fired that first stone at her, or would his conscience have convicted his own being of the gross sin that lies within?

    And if this is truly a man’s world, why then did not Jesus let this woman be stoned by the men? After all, the “scribes and Pharisees standing there were men,” were they not? And why didn’t Jesus say that “man is the light of the world,” after all, does not our faith, as women, revolve around the men teaching us and leading us into all truth? For as a woman, I must not be equipped to rightly divide the truth of the Scriptures for myself, led by the power of God, the Holy Spirit; there must be a human man here on this earth as my mediator between our Father and me.

    But instead, Jesus said, “I am the light of the world, and he who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” This bold statement is not gender specific here.

    Oh, how I love Jesus and His ways.

    And the love of Jesus, a love of which no man can truly and completely fathom in this physical world, for this great love is but a mystery until we see Jesus face to face in Heaven, Only then, shall we completely understand the greatest love ever shown and told to mankind……for all eternity.

    To sit under this preacher man’s preaching, for me, would be to deny Jesus and His truths, for according to our Scriptures, those who truly love Jesus’ sheep are humble.

    Praying for all who are under “his” male leadership, LORD, have mercy.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Dear Guest, I am so sorry for all you have endured in your life. I just want you to know that the Bible never says that women are crap. Rather, it says that the woman is the GLORY of man. I entitled my website http://www.womanthegloryofman.com to let women like you know that a woman is not inferior to a man, but rather, that she is his glory. I hope you will check out my website. God bless.

    Like

  20. I have run out of words for this sort of thing but I appreciate what you all are saying about it. You represent me.

    Like

  21. WOW – This guy is a good example…
    Errrrrrr – This guy is a bad example…
    Hmmm – This guy is the perfect example – yeah, that’s better… 😉

    This guy is the perfect example…
    Of why Jesus taught His Disciples NOT to call themselves leader.

    Mat 23:10-12 NASB – New American Standard Bible
    Do NOT be called leaders; for “ONE” is your Leader, that is, Christ.
    But the greatest among you shall be your “Servant”.
    Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled;
    and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

    And, in the Bible, NOT one of His Disciples called them self leader.
    And, in the Bible, NOT one of His Disciples called another Disciple leader.

    Seems, In the Bible, ALL His Disciples called themselves “Servants.”

    Being called leader seems to “Corrupt” many in Christian-dumb…
    And they become Screwy-Louie like this guy. 😉

    Power will do that to anyone. 🙂

    In my experience…
    Leaders become Deceivers…
    Church Leaders become Deception Breeders…

    Isa 3:12 KJV
    …O my people, *they which lead thee* cause thee to err,
    and destroy the way of thy paths.

    Isa 9:16 KJV
    For *the leaders* of this people cause them to err;
    and they that are led of them are destroyed.

    I have decided to follow -The “ONE” Leader…

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    Liked by 2 people

  22. This “pastor” does nothing more than parade himself around on stage, attempting to make himself look important, boasting about how men are in charge, thinking he is as wise as a serpent by taking advantage of the free advertising for their Bible based church….I wouldn’t be surprised if he licked his paws before he headed behind the pulpit to preach God’s word.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. The preacher in the original post doesn’t realize that this being a “man’s world” is a result of the Fall, not an intention of God’s.

    When God said that a husband shall rule over his wife, this statement was God pointing out what one of the outcomes of the Fall would be, not that God intended for man to rule over woman. Prior to the Fall, God gave equal power and responsibility to both the man and the woman.

    By the way, the Bible does not say all men rule over all women, or that all women are to submit to all men. There is basically only one verse that discusses this topic, and it mentions only married women (wives) submitting to husbands (the verse in Ephesians).

    Not that I agree with how this verse is interpreted (the verse prior to this says all believers are to submit to all other believers), but if we are going to put that verse through the complementarian (sexist) filter, it’s being applied only to married women.

    A woman such as myself who is middle aged, who has never married, is not called by the Bible to submit to any man.

    There is no verse which specifically states “a never-married woman who is past the age of 35 shall submit to male authority and every man she encounters.” So, I am accountable to no man in our out of the church, even going by their own interpretation.

    Further, even if one wishes to misinterpret the Creation Account from Genesis to argue that man rules over woman, I’d say that the sacrifice of Christ un-did that situation. Christ removed sin from woman. Women are, in and under Christ, equals to men.

    The New Testament says (1 Corinthians 11):

    Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

    -so men cannot harbor these sexist, arrogant, condescending attitudes that they are more entitled than women or are above women. That passage is saying neither gender is above or below the other.

    Galatians 3:28 says there is neither male nor female in Christ. Christ said that his followers are not to “lord authority” over each other – but this is what complementarians calls for; they believe that men are to lord authority over women.

    Five Myths About Adam and Authority: What Really Happened in the Garden, by Bob Edwards | (link is to Junia Project blog, a Christian site)

    It’s really quite troubling to see male preachers or male, Christian lay persons who distort and twist the Scriptures for their own selfish, sexist purposes. They start out with the premise, I take it, that women are lesser than men, so they choose to read the Bible through that perspective. (Some Christian women also buy into these views and encourage other women to believe in them as well.)

    Much like American Christians back in the 19th century swore up and down that God was fine with white Americans owning dark-skinned people.

    You can use the Bible to affirm your personal preferences and prejudices all day long. That is what many of these complementarian or patriarchal “Christians” do – they start from their cultural and personal views that women are below men, so of course they read the Bible in that light.

    Like

  24. I love cats, and I’ve had a few pet cats (one recently died not too long ago, and that was hard on me), but please, the next time Pumpkin the kitty is on the attack, please intervene and save whatever little mouse, bird, lizard or whatever he’s pouncing on.

    I used to have a cat when I was a kid. I loved her, but she would go after other animals, especially lizards, and that bothered me. As much as I loved my cat, I love other animals too and will always stop and help one if I see one in trouble.

    If I saw my cat trying to kill one of those lizards (or other animals), I would always rescue the lizard and set it free in the rest of the yard, and take her back inside so the lizard could escape safely.

    My other pet cat was totally the opposite of this first one. He would sit back all chill and watch apathetically while birds, frogs, and other critters out of of his food dish (which I kept on a walkway outside – this second kitty was an outdoors kitty). He would not lift a paw to attack anything.

    He would watch these critters snack out of his food dish, watch lazily for a moment, then roll back over and resume napping.

    My first pet cat never, ever would have stood for that. She was a ferocious, confrontational beast. (She would even attack dogs three times her size, such as German Shepherd dogs who came into our yard, even if these dogs were friendly. Though they were much bigger than her, they were scared of my cat!)

    Like

  25. From the OP,

    Thanks to Bad Preachers who uploaded this March 29 sermon to their YouTube account, we can hear this man in all of his pompous male glory spouting off.

    I kind of feel bad for men who are Christians who see how wrong this theology is.

    It has to be difficult to be a Christian man who sincerely believes in the equality of women, but who gets lumped in with the sexist ones all the time, never-the-less.

    There are unfortunately women who have been very seriously abused or offended or treated unfairly by complementarian (or patriarchal) views or persons holding those views, who then go on to assume all of Christianity is bad, all Christian men are awful.

    So, the Christian men who disagree with comp (or pat) have to battle those perceptions too, and not just the bad gender theology and mis-interpretations that comps and pats use. They’re having to fight a two-pronged war. It has to be exhausting.

    Tim said,

    If it’s so scripturally clear, why would a church need a sign proclaiming male leadership; it would be a given, right? But it’s not clear. In fact it’s not scriptural to insist on male only leadership. So he needs to post a sign as his badge of authority. Poor guy. What a sad man.

    Very good points.

    It’s true that this topic is not as clear-cut as conservatives (and I consider myself a conservative) tend to believe or maintain.

    I think that the complementarian view, which gets into male authority, women cannot be preachers, men are the bosses of wives, etc, comes from a very lazy, shallow study of the Scripture, and at that, based on male entitlement, cultural conditioning, and assumptions, and not on the Bible itself. So, I agreed with this, when I saw it a few days ago:

    “I can see how a simplistic reading could lend toward complementarian thinking” / Three Reasons I Beleive Men And Women Are Equal Co-Laborers in God’s Kingdom (link is to Christian site Junia Project)

    It’s very easy if you are a Christian man not to question, struggle with, or deeply examine and ponder the passages that mention men, women, marriage, etc, since you are not on the short end of the stick, having those verses being thrown at you to “keep you in your place,” and to stay in abusive marriages, or putting your goals and dreams in second place to those of some man (father, preacher, husband, whomever).

    Men totally benefit from the complementarian set- up and system, women do not.

    So of course most Christian men are happy to just pluck a few Bible verses out of context about women submitting, or women not teaching anyone, close the book and say, ” ell that settles things!,” and not to question further.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Part 1 / Post Script.
    I said,

    Men totally benefit from the complementarian set- up and system, women do not.

    At least the sexist, power hungry men benefit from it, the ones who WANT and desire authority over women.

    I think that men who intutively realize there is something wrong with complementarian or patriaracal views – who believe in spite of those teachings that the women in their lives are every bit as equal – also struggle with these teachings, and it hurts them too.

    For one, I’ve seen some of men who attend complementarian churches say they find it stressful to be a comp or pat husband, because it’s as if they are expected by their Bible teachers, preachers, etc, to be super men, to fulfill a God-like role to their wives.

    They say it’s draining and exhausting, they cannot always live up to the “God role,” so it makes them feel like failures.
    They want to be able to turn to their wives (or sisters, mothers, whomever other women) for support and guidance, but these pariarachal and complementarian teachers keep telling them no, no, no, “real” and “biblical” men do not lean on women at all or seek a woman’s input.

    (continued in Part 2)

    Like

  27. Part 2.
    By the way, gender complementarian double standard here I’d like to point out!

    As to that last comment of mine from Part 1:

    but these pariarachal and complementarian teachers keep telling them (men), “no, no, no, “real” and “biblical” men do not lean on women at all or seek a woman’s input.”

    I was just listening to the Janet Mefferd show (she is a conservative Christian radio personality) a few days ago.
    I like Mefferd but don’t always agree with all her opinions on everything. Anyhow.

    Mefferd was, just this last week, or the one before, interviewing some guy who I think was from Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family, or he had just written some pro-marriage books, or whatever. He was promoting the notion of marriage on her show.

    Like many conservative Christians, this guy is worried that more and more people, Christians including, are not getting married, or, if they are, they are not getting married until they are 35 or 45 years old, not when they are 21 years old. So, he’s trying to convince people to marry, so he’s listing all the benefits of marriage.

    Now, Mefferd is a Christian complementarian (though I don’t know if she’d go by that label or not). But she does believe women are to submit to men, and that this position is biblical.

    Well, the guest guy on her show was saying one reason Christian men (or any man) should consider getting married is that marriage makes men more responsible and mature, and their wives (if they marry) can and will give them valuable wisdom and insight, and that having a wife, or the wife herself, is what makes a man more mature and godly.

    This male guest said, if I recall correctly, that his own wife has “saved his tacos” a time or two by giving him some great input on career or life choices when he was confused, lost, stumbling about, was unsure, or was about to make a very stupid decision.

    You see the double standard, here?
    Some Christian gender complementarians tell men to never, ever to turn to a woman for wisdom, leadership, or advice, but, in pushing marriage, comps will tell single men, “Oh you really must marry, it is to your advantage, because your wife will be a great source of input and advice, she will be great to lean on.”

    BTW, as much as I like Mefferd:
    I wish she would stop giving air time to these Christian authors and organization spokespersons who keep perpetuating the MYTH that marriage and parenthood are vital to make a person mature, responsible, and godly. But she has one of these jokers on her radio show at least about once per month.

    That view that marriage or parenthood is necessary to make a person better or a full adult is not true and is an insult to adult singles, the childless, and the childfree.

    The Bible does not say anywhere that marriage and having children are necessary to develop morals, maturity, compassion, or intellect.

    And Mefferd frequently expresses frustration with Christians who hold extra-biblical views on other issues, who do not check their beliefs against the Bible, yet, she keeps allowing people who believe in this un-biblical stuff about marriage vs singleness to be on her show.

    I’ve seen too many stories of married couples or parents who abuse their own children, who use prostitutes, who murder their own spouses, etc.
    If marriage saved people and made them better human beings, Jesus would have only died on the cross to save the childless and single adults, but the Bible says he died for EVERYONE’S sins; that includes married people. Marriage does not make people pure, nor does it erase sin.

    Anyway. Double standard:
    Complementarians say, “Men lead women, it’s biblical that men should always lead women, and never turn to a woman for support or for advice.”
    However, complementarians then they turn around and tell un-married men, “Men, you need to marry; your wife’s wisdom will serve you well, and you will be able to lean on her in times of trouble, and single men will not have that advantage, so you should consider getting married.”

    Christian gender complementarians cannot make up their minds if men should lean on women and go to women for advice and leading or not. They preach two views simultaneously.

    Complementarians cater one set of views to one group of men (those already married) and the opposite set of views to another group (men who are not married). This is an indication to me that Christian gender complementarians (and patriachalists) are pushing a cultural agenda based in personal prejudices, and do not really care what the Bible says about men, women, marriage, or singleness.

    Sorry to be wordy about this, but these sorts of hypocritical views by Christian gender complementarians and patriarchalists really burn my biscuits.

    And a lot of complementarians have the audacity to claim their views are based solely on the Bible, and that anyone who disagrees with their positions on these things must be a liberal, secular- feminist- loving, man- hating, God-hating, power hungry shrew.
    That is the icing on the cake for me. The insult to the injury. The salt in the wound.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. A. Amos Love,

    Pressing the “Like” button a thousand times over. Always love the ministry of Christ that you share on this site. God’s Blessing to you.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. What I’d like to know is, who’s the perp that left the gun behind? I mean, don’t these things have serial numbers nowadays? Don’t they have to be registered or something?

    Plus, why is it that somebody feels so insecure they thought they had to bring a gun to this preacher dude’s church? To be sure, I’ve been ill-treated in more than one church, but I never felt like I needed to be prepared to defend myself with deadly force.

    I’m just a thinkin’ this preacher Lytell’s male leadership thing ain’t workin’ out so hot. Bad fruit, bad root.

    Oh, and one more question. How does one pronounce this preacher’s name. Does “Lytell” sound like “lie-tell?” (Not suggesting anything, just wondering how the name is pronounced.)

    Like

  30. By the time Pumpkin brings his trophies to my window, they are in their final stages of life. My 2 little guys just bought a pet gerbil today and they also said they saw Pumpkin caught a mouse. This could be interesting.

    Athena and Marbles

    Like

  31. How does one measure if it is a “mans world” these days? The stats for who is entering the professions in droves are interesting. Girls are out performing boys like crazy in school and are scoring higher on entrance exams for college and are being accepted in higher percentages to med school, law, police, etc. Ironically, the IT profession has been one of the most male dominated but even that is changing rapidly.

    I think this pastors world is very small and he might want to step out into the real one every now and then.

    Like

  32. “This is a man’s world”? Well Pastor know-it-all, how is that working out for you? I guess that means ISIS, sex trafficking, computer porn, violence on television, poverty, hunger, war, warlords, drug dealers, murder, incest, slave trade etc. are all part of this “man’s world”. So, this is a man’s world? Pastor, you have just condemned half of the world’s population! (men) Pastor, the Jesus of the Bible preached grace and love. I will take that any day over the selfish desire to be in charge!

    Like

  33. A rape occurred on our church several years ago, both the rapist and target were younger members. Amazingly, leadership decided it was the female target’s fault and went around the congregation, gaining support for the male rapist and his family. Our family was also solicited by a female “deaconess” in defending the rapist and his extended family’s honor, for they all held some form of leadership positions within the church and were “yes” men and women to the abusive charismatic pastor. The pastor also disgraced this young lady by allowing the rapist to return to his leadership position without any remorse nor repentance. I was to learn later, how much this woman/pastor/leadership team literally hated this family as it became increasingly clear in how they ignored the needs of this young lady and her family.

    We were shocked in how the congregation took sides, and especially shocked in how the pastor did nothing to defend the female target. Stunned! Would he react this way with his own daughter, we wondered. And would those involved in leadership positions, completely side with the rapist if their own daughters were the recipients of such wickedness and evil?

    The true character and nature of the pastor and leadership are revealed during times of testing and trials within congregations, and I have found that none are worthy to be trusted after what we have witnessed.

    Like

  34. Dear Katy.

    I have had issues with Christians about rape my whole life, I finally got tired of their hateful and heartlessness about rape in May 2010 and washed my hands of them. Until I found Julie, Deb, and Dee I hated all Christians with a passion because of their mocking, belittling, and dismissing of rape victims. My own father told me when I was a young teenager that rape is not that big of a deal.

    My father was a deacon and Sunday school teacher, his father was a southern Baptist preacher, my father hated rape victims and he was outraged that they would let anyone know they had been raped.

    “Would he react this way with his own daughter, we wondered.”

    There was much little girl rape in my family, we were told to get over it, and keep our mouths shut. These kind of people do not hate rape, but they do hate rape victims.

    I am sorry for you and that girl.

    Like

  35. Guest, discovering the high number of self-professing Christians who reveal in one way or another that they are essentially child rape apologists, continues to horrify and anger me. No surprise, though, considering the god they worship thinks these crimes are a good idea, even necessary i.e. that children need to be raped, and is the very one who betrays children the most by designing every detail of every second of their torture. I was just ranting about those who perpetuate this, about James White, Piper and Burleson, and others, on YouTube a few hours ago.

    Christendom = Night of the Living Dead.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. A kid finds a gun left in the male restroom, and this is, to Lie-tell, a opportunity to say: “We have male leadership! Wooh-hooh, praise God!”
    I’d say a man leaving a gun in the bathroom is evidence of irresponsible males. It is an example of a man making a potentially terrible oversight in a place (the men’s bathroom) where a woman cannot oversee or help him remember what he forgot. If men forget such crucially important thing when women are not involved, it is evidence that men need women in decision making. God made both men and women to rule – Gen. 1:26-28.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Daisy, you have sifted through the Comp./Pat. foolishness and have discerned many weak spots. Their flawed interpretation of the Bible is appalling. Equally, how they view singles, presents a huge problem to their model of male dominance.

    Yes, agreed, there is much ‘DOUBLE SPEAK’! You have delineated that factor very well. It is important to keep restating how ridiculous their belief is in order to confirm to others that they are on the right track too.

    History compels us to rethink male dominance with the facts and not the fanciful illusions that have been spawned to suit a comp. view.

    In her book, ‘Women Caught in the Conflict’, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis asks this question: How Traditional Is Traditionalism? She proceeds to give some insights into history and how we got here from there.

    “During the church’s history, one feature of the woman’s role has remained constant: her subordination to male authority. But the social institution of patriarchy (the rule of men over women, especially within the family) did not originate with the Judeo-Christian tradition. It has prevailed both within and without the church, in virtually all cultures through all recorded history.

    The “Traditional” Family
    Traditionalists believe that their understanding of biblical gender roles is corroborated by church tradition and that all “feminist” thought is a direct reflection of modern culture and ought therefore to be resisted. However, that which is culturally contemporary is not necessarily opposed to biblical truth, nor is the traditional necessarily in line with it. But this is not the only problem with an antifeminist argument that pits tradition against modern culture.

    Much of what is billed today as traditional is not really traditional at all. The agenda of those who espouse “traditional family values” does include the traditions of male authority and biblical standards of sexual behavior. But the traditionalist agenda promotes just as vigorously the features of a family model that did not develop historically until the nineteenth century.

    According to this model, the husband works outside the home and provides sole financial support for the entire family. The wife has no role in earning income; she attends to the household and cares for the children. The wife is dependent on her husband for her financial wherewithal and her personal identity and social status. Motherhood is deemed the primary calling of every woman and is regarded as essential to the preservation of the social order. Being a wife and mother is viewed as a full-time occupation; if a woman has her own career, it will deprive her husband and children of the attention they require for their well-being and proper function in society. . . .

    These features of family life, which developed in middle-class Victorian society and were revivified in the suburban domesticity of the 1950s, are anomalies in history. In clinging to this model of gender roles and dubbing it the “traditional” biblical ideal, the contemporary church is misunderstanding the message of history; it is also deviating from the church’s “tradition” of accommodating to current cultural norms concerning a woman’s place in society. But the church is still looking to secular culture for guidance—that is, to the culture of Victorian society as “reincarnated” in the American society of the 1950s.”

    Like

  38. Interesting assessment. Many homeschooling curriculums feature Victorian literature, art, ideals, and educational style. I was always curious about that. I LOVE Victorian literature and studying the culture, not to mention the costuming, but live it? No thanks! Why would you want to? No toilets, lots of diseases, dying young was common…

    I have seen a trend with some church groups being culture-centric but with other cultures they never actually experienced. Is it a case of knowing just enough to be dangerous?

    Like

  39. Loura, I think you are on to something: “I have seen a trend with some church groups being culture-centric but with other cultures they never actually experienced.”

    From what I gather, from those who have looked into history and especially around the place of women in the church and in the home, that there is a rampant fear of many things from within the culture–so retreating back into history seems to be a safe place, with a safe ideal, for them to go.

    Another thought from R.M. Groothuis:
    “Few Christians, it seems, are aware of the impact of culture on their theology. Those who attempt to be “separate from the world” often end up only being separate from the contemporary world, while cultural values from the secular society of an earlier era are adopted without question.

    Like

  40. Anyone want to go back to the 1950s? Is the ’50s ideal what we need to go back to in order to preserve society? What can we learn from McCall’s Women’s Magazine during that time?

    R.M. Groothuis gives us a glimpse into what makes traditionalists tick:

    “As an antidote to the perceived evils of feminism, traditionalists have advanced the “Victorian” family of the 1950s, billing it as the biblical ideal that prevailed throughout history until it ran afoul of modern feminism. Traditionalists have overlooked or perhaps are ignorant of the fact that “the family type they envision is ‘traditional’ only in a limited sense. What is in fact at stake is a certain idealized form of the nineteenth century middle class family: a male-dominated nuclear family that both sentimentalized childhood and motherhood and, at the same time, celebrated domestic life as a utopian retreat from the harsh realities of industrial society.”

    It is striking how the marriage advice literature in evangelical bookstores today reflects that of the entire society of the 1950s. For example, the Easter 1954 issue of McCall’s proclaimed: “For the sake of every member of the family, the family needs a head. This means Father, not Mother.” McCall’s did not support this proclamation of husbandly headship with a Scripture reference. This type of thinking in the fifties was not derived from Bible verses, but from purely cultural values that exalted the home as a have, the woman as its keeper, and the man as its chief executive.

    The anxiety fueling the traditionalist movement seems at least in part to be due to the fact that, for the first time, the possibility exists for women to be economically independent from men. Society has moved from a pre-industrial situation in which both men and women worked at home, to an industrial situation in which men worked outside the home, to a post-industrial situation in which both men and women have the option of working outside the home.”

    Times have changed.

    Like

  41. So, what motivates ‘keeping the little woman at home’? What fears lurk in the traditionalist’s mind? What historical backlash is in play? What really keeps married couples together these days?

    “The traditionalist response to the modern economic situation has been to lobby vigorously for continued wifely dependence upon husbandly provision. Perhaps traditionalists fear that if women no longer need to be married in order to be provided for financially, they will no longer bother to remain married, and this will unravel the family, especially the institution of full-time motherhood. . . . While the Victorian economic roles may keep couples married perforce, a union based on mutual respect and affection will keep them married by choice.

    The traditionalist backlash has resulted in the polarization of the issue of gender roles. Those who don’t buy into twentieth-century Victorianism are identified with the advocates of “abortion rights” and sexual “freedom.” Kari Torjesen Malcolm sums up the situation nicely:

    “Just as the feminine mystique was a reaction against the war years, so the backlash against women’s liberation was society’s way of reacting against the unknown changes that feminism might bring. With the tension between the two sides, evangelical Christians found themselves trapped in a corner between two bad choices. Should they join the radical feminists or the anti-feminists? Many did not realize that both groups were inspired by human culture, not Christianity.”

    The analogy between the post-war backlash and the present-day backlash against feminism is helpful. Both were impelled by similar motives. As all of America felt in 1945, so the evangelical church has been feeling in recent decades: under siege by social change and nostalgic for days gone by. Because many of today’s traditionalist leaders came of age in the 1950s—a time of national stability and prosperity—there is a natural tendency to enshrine the family values of that period with an aura of sanctity and security.” (R.M. Groothuis)

    All makes sense to me. How about you?

    Liked by 1 person

  42. You know, I’m a little surprised this didn’t happen in Heath Mooneyham’s church…

    I know what it’s like to have a pastor that explicitly teaches the husband/provider and wife/homemaker model as the only Biblical (TM) way to do things. Who would tell a financially struggling couple during the height of the great recession that whatever they do, the husband should always make more money than the wife, no matter his employment situation (or hers). Who directly equates a husband’s leadership with his relative earning power.

    Oh, and don’t forget the desirability of having as many kids as they can manage, who must be kept out of the government schools, regardless of the co$t. And try not to wind up on welfare, either; it’ll totally kill the husband’s initiative to try and make more money. But the wife better not work (unless she has a home based business), not even to help the husband go back to school. If he winds up in an early grave from decades of working multiple jobs, not to worry–somebody among all those adult kids will take care of mom in her dotage.

    Ok, time to step off the sarcasm wagon.

    Barb, I think a lot of your analysis is spot on.

    Like

  43. Exactly, NJ! Wear out the poor ol’ husband, after all, this belief is based on male dominance in the home and in society, so he better get with the plan!! This is an echo of the Victorian culture. I am indebted to Rebecca Groothuis [Grote hice] for her excellent research and presentation.

    Going back to the roots of things in both the church and society give us a better understanding of what and why things are being heralded today as biblical. When you go down a few layers–into both history and theology–a new world opens up for the enquirer!

    Here is a look back into the social weight placed on the Victorian ‘man of the house’ and the shame of not living up to/providing that standard. Sound familiar???!

    “Fundamental to the social change that brought about the historically unique Victorian home was the fact that the financial wherewithal for the family was earned solely by the husband working outside the home. All other aspects of Victorian home life were accommodations to this central socioeconomic fact. This was the “Victorian heritage,” historian Andrew Sinclair observes, “that a man’s work alone should support his family, and that the self-respect of his wife should depend upon his status, not upon her own. This idea was, in fact, a new one in terms of human history—that one sex should support the other entirely.” This arrangement did not come about from a chivalrous concern to relieve women and children of arduous labor; it happened simply because of the economic necessity created by industrialization.” (R.M. Groothuis)

    This is an economic insight into how Victorian’s saw things. Again, the focus was not on relieving women and children, but because of economic necessity. It is plain to see that the man was and is also ‘held captive’ to culture–both then and now! Then, it was the social culture while today, it is the Christian Evangelical culture in all too many churches!

    As a teaser: Looking at the Victorian culture’s view of education for women, now that is downright hilarious. Again, there may be reverberation of such today in some circles. Maybe save that for another comment.

    Like

  44. Victorian View of Women’s Brains and Education

    “Men and women occupied such totally separate realms in society (befitting their supposedly totally opposite natures) that they remained quite a mystery to one another. . . .

    Women were not considered to have brains any more than men were considered to have wombs. The womb was a female organ and the brain was a male organ. From this belief derived not only the notion of woman’s irrational, unpredictable, and mysterious “feminine” nature, but also the idea that childbearing was every woman’s ultimate fulfillment while intellectual pursuits were the fulfillment of the masculine nature. . . .

    Much was made of the supposed smaller size of the female brain and the dire effects (everything from disease to insanity) that would befall a woman who undertook to receive a “man’s education.” Education for women was feared, lest it induce women to abandon their divinely-ordained profession of motherhood. The term “strong-minded, which had formerly been used to praise men who had vigorous and determined minds, began to be used in the 1850s to describe women who, because of the vigorous and determined minds, were not really women. . . . A strong-minded woman was the opposite of a true woman, who was weak-minded.”

    But when Victorian women began to go to college and prove themselves as healthy physically and as capable intellectually as men, the notion of the True Woman was severely strained. Men in positions of leadership gradually began to realize that women had brains just as men did. Vassar Female College opened in 1864 because, said Matthew Vassar, “It occurred to me that woman, having received from her Creator the same intellectual constitution as man, has the same right as man to intellectual culture and development.”. . .

    “The new Freudian social religion effectively recapitulated the Victorian emphasis on totally separate social and economic spheres for men and women. All the authority of psychoanalysis was invoked to label as psychologically maladjusted any deviation from the prescribed pattern. “Women were to find their mission at home, as mothers and as the intelligent, emotionally sensitive companions to their husbands—and if they did not accept this mission, the psychologists were ready to treat this reluctance as a neurotic ailment.” So while post-war nostalgia sent women home, pseudo-Freudian psychologizing kept them there. . . .

    Educators and family specialists then began to say that when women are given the same type of education that men receive it educates women to be like men, and this throws women out of sync with their destiny as housewives. A woman’s career, after all, is determined by her body, not her brain.

    Therefore, a woman having difficulty “adjusting” to the homemaking role should simply renounce her “masculine” college education and celebrate her uniquely feminine qualities—those abilities which she possesses and men do not. The solution, in other words, lay in defining womanhood as consisting solely of those characteristics that are absent in manhood. Such thinking renders woman equivalent to child bearer, and strips from a woman’s identity all that is not part of her sexual identity as man’s sexual opposite.” (R.M. Groothuis)

    It would seem that many aspects regarding the way the Victorian culture considered women are very much still with us today–neatly woven into a Christianese package and peddled as ‘biblical’ and orthodox! Blech!

    Like

  45. Barb Orlowski,
    Thank you so much for your comments. I intend on reading the rest of your posts later.

    Some years ago, I read a book by Rebecca Groothuis (spelling), though not the very same one you are quoting from, which I am finding very interesting.
    I will have to come back later and read the rest of your posts, as I have a few chores around the house I have to take care of first, go jogging, take a shower, etc.

    One of the things I noticed on my own the least few years, and I guess this is due to being a never-married 40- something woman who’s never had children, a lot of the gender complementarians are too fond of the 1950s decade, they use so-called “biblical gender roles” not so much because they care about men, women, or the Bible, but as a weapon to fight against their perceived social enemies of homosexual marriage, feminism, etc.

    I am conservative myself on social issues, but I am so tired of how other conservative Christians regularly make secular feminism into the “bad guy.” I think they need to look inwards and pluck the beam from their own eyes rather than constantly call out what they see as motes in the eyes of secular feminists.

    Complementarians make much too much out of the “nuclear family,” they push the notion that every Christian should marry by 25 and have three or more children.

    Well I am sorry, but the Bible does not spell out that marrying and having children at all, or by any age, is a commandment of God’s, not even the Genesis “fruitful” verse applies any longer. Paul and Jesus were single, celibate adults. There is no law under the New Testament era to marry and/or have children.

    If you don’t fit the comp’s very narrow ideal of what it means to be a Biblical woman – which they define as “married woman with two kids” – you are SOL (crud out of luck). There is no room in their universe for never married, celibate, childless, divorced, infertile, or widowed people.

    You have to be perpetually 28 years old, with a living spouse (your spouse cannot be dead, have dementia, but must be young and in health), and kids with said spouse, and those kids have to be age infant to teens still living at home, to count with these people, to be considered worthwhile.

    Almost all their teachings assumes you are married, youngish, and have kids. I hardly ever see gender comps or pats expend any energy or time discussing adult singleness, childlessness, and celibacy.

    Right now in the USA, over 50% of our population is single, not married. They keep ignoring (or else insulting) a large chunk of the American population. (When I say “insulting,” I mean I have actually read some gender comp Christians “bad mouth” adult singleness and say all sorts of horrible things about being single.)

    And Christian gender complementarians do tend to take cultural trends of years past (such as the husband working 9 to 5, while the wife stays at home) and they read this back into the Bible….

    Christian gender complementarians claim secular 1950s societal norms are “biblical,” yet they have the audacity to assume anyone who rejects their views, or who is a Christian feminist or mutualist, is a secular, Bible hating, man hating louse who reads secular feminism back ito the Bible. They are guilty of the things they accuse others of doing, but they remain blind to this.

    I will try to come back later to read your other posts, and I may comment on them later (or not, if I can’t think of anything to say), but based on what I’ve seen so far, your posts are very interesting and reflect a few things I had kind of noticed on my own the last few years.

    Like

  46. Daisy, Good to hear from you. I, too, have gained much from your many insightful comments over time. You have done your own homework and have discerned much through that exercise.

    I invite you to contact me via my website email and we can chat that way too.

    People can reach me at: info@churchexiters.com

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s