Complementarianism, Women in the Church, Gender Roles, Proper Church and Family Roles
This series is a review of God’s Design, a children’s book which teaches children about complementarity. For an introduction of the book, click here. All of the underlined subtitles below are chapters from the book.
Today, children, we will talk about God’s design for the church and how to learn God’s ways (as if this hasn’t already been said enough).
Men and Women in the Church
The above diagram is the start of this chapter. The idea is that since there is an order and design to the family, there is an order and design to the church. We can discuss in the comments whether the design of the family looks like a “team.” For now, let’s talk about the church.
For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Ephesians 5:23 (ESV)
Those who believe in Jesus and make up the church are a part of the “Household of God.” Just like a family, we are adopted in to this household. And, like a family, since the man is the head of the home, a man must be the leader of a church.
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 1 Timothy 3: 2-5 (ESV)
But there is even better news! Women are not to be pastors! Woo hoo! Because of:
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. 1 Timothy 2: 11-15 (ESV)
Why is this good news? Because this means that men have the responsibility for leadership of the church and women can “enjoy church ministry just right for them.” What is “just right” for women? Teaching other women, helping other women, ministering to the sick and poor, teaching children, being a missionary, musician or Bible translator. I’m guessing the missions and Bible translation is good for you single women out there.
Learning God’s Ways
Maybe you have wondered ‘Why do I have to know this? I am just a kid!’
Oh, don’t we all wonder why kids need to know this!
This chapter is pretty much rehashing what the book promotes. There are three paragraphs that focus on girls learning from older women on how to be a woman. There is one paragraph for boys that tells them to learn from dad on how to be a man. This book continues its trend of making sure that girls absolutely know their place.
The authors admonish children to not be like Peter Pan and just play all the time. Children are encouraged by a story of a 15-year-old boy in the book, Do Hard Things. The boy raised money for water wells in Africa. He is a shining example of not being Peter Pan.
For goodness sake! Who exactly is the audience of this book? I’ve said before that I think that this is a book meant for 6-10 year-olds. These are children we’re talking about! Children are meant to play and learn from play. They are using an example of a 15-year-old to tell 6-10 year-olds how to live. Are they really expecting young children to start a non-profit business? I know some young kids have been able to do that, but to push this on a young child who may not be ready is too much. Let kids be kids. Encourage kids to follow their passions when they arise. I’m afraid that parents will read this book to their kids and then expect incredible things from them. Not all kids are able to do that, and that’s okay.
The final activity for this chapter is:
Talk with your family about how you can take responsibility or learn to be a godly man or woman. Make some definite steps this week to walk in biblical manhood or womanhood.
If you would like to read prior reviews on God’s Design, here are links in the order of the book chapters:
Headship, Helper, and an Answer We Already Knew
Rebellion, a.k.a. It’s All Her Fault!
Teachings on Homosexuality as a Distortion of God’s Design
Examples of Complementarian Manhood and More Doublespeak
Purity and Honoring God’s Design
71 thoughts on “Review of Children’s Book “God’s Design” – The Church and Learning About Things We Already Know”
“The boy raised money for water wells in Africa”? I choked on my munchies and nearly pulled off my purity ring.
By the time the poor girls who are criminally exposed (in my opinion, please note) to this rubbish book reach the age of 13, they will already know these things:
We are not our own;
We are useless;
We are fair game;
We are inferior;
God must love boys more than he loves us;
We are just worms;
We’re here to make babies for our godly husbands;
We are not really needed in church; our “church” is our home and there we can do what we want (with the church’s and our godly husbands’ permission, of course);
What is a childhood?;
Being single is not good; in fact, I think it is a SIN!
Where can I donate money for those water wells in Africa?
I must not forget to buy the ESV Bible that Mom and Dad and the Pastor call the “only true Bible ever”?
Who is God really?
This book is criminal, in my opinion. This book is ungodly, in my opinion. I will say it every time.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Not just the girls, but the boys too, except replace “boys” and “husbands” with “church leaders”
It is sinful to say “no”, no matter what excuse you have, as long as it’s not sin to obey.
The people who truly did great things were the people who obeyed xxxxxx no matter what the personal cost was.
I find there’s an interesting cycle taught in this book and other similar ones:
1) God designed women to be helpers and not leaders
2) If a woman feels called by God to lead, then she must be sinning, because…
3) See #1.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The amount of brain washing that is going on in the name of Jesus, these days, is becoming overwhelming. Leadnet has told the megas they MUST get to the children in order to stay afloat, so they go after them hard.
Many kids, both male and female, will latch on to this teaching and hold and defend these values for life. We factually know this can happen, because the above post describes the Mormon Church. For 170 years the Mormons have taught that females must submit to all males and they are relegated to the role of humble servant. In their theology, it is the male who gets his own planet and becomes his own god after death, so even in the afterlife Mormon women must still serve and obey the men. It’s a pretty sweet deal for the guys who hold all the power.
People who assume that kids are smart enough to see through this and not buy into this, should take a closer look at the Mormons. Complimentarian cults are pretty good at silo-ing themselves off from the world. The people on the inside feel they are the special, chosen ones – the anointed few who truly understand and obey God’s truth. Those outsiders simply don’t understand because they either don’t know how to read and understand the Bible, or they selectively ignore the parts about submission.
For some, this arrangement may work out. But looking at the Mormon model, one of the areas the Mormons are obsessed with is the couples’ sex lives. That obedience in the kitchen and church pew extends to the bedroom and it is monitored and discussed regularly. Infamous complimentarian, Mark Driscoll, shares this similar obsession. Models like this attract controlling men, especially those obsessed with sexually dominating women. It’s the perfect set-up for them, in the modern world. Listen to how fervently Mark Driscoll pushes The Trinity Church men to only date women within in his tiny church.
Unfortunately, the kids who see through this Beaver Clever return to the 1950’s, will realize it’s a power grab, conclude that religion is a bunch of baloney, then leave the faith for good. In that respect, it is no different than the outrageous, sexy nightclub, rave party worship of the Pentecostal set, with the kids flinging cows’ tongues at each other and kissing pigs inside the church photo booth. Both systems go to extremes, making a mockery out of Christendom, and both drive kids away from God permanently. We need to stop this insanity for the good of the next generation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kathi, I cracked up so much at your
The rest of it is sadly typical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I should mention the other circle:
1) God created women with a natural desire to serve their husbands and stay home
2) Women who don’t desire to serve their husbands and stay home are sinning because…
3) See #1.
The point is that IFF God truly created women to be submissive to men in the way the complementarians envision it, then women would be truly happy in comp. marriages and comp. churches. But we see that is NOT THE CASE because even the comps acknowledge that a significant enough number of women are unhappy with their church-assigned roles that comps now have to hammer point #2. And now we see that they’re trying to teach parents to brainwash their kids. I think that was another post here.
That is, that parents and churches should try to make submission as fun-looking and rewarding as possible so that kids are drawn to those relationship. It’s like the leadership trying to paint Tom Sawyer’s fence. If they make it look as attractive as possible, maybe people will forget that it’s still menial labor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lea – Glad to make you laugh! 🙂
When I saw this and read that this is what makes a good team, I laughed to. It’s something about the verbs. While I know technically these are all active verbs, the women’s roles seem more passive to me. For instance, how does one really complement? Does this mean that I pick up the slack on something my husband lacks strength in? In that case, why isn’t that word on the husband’s side too? Why is it she complements him and he doesn’t complement her?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Off the top of my head, there are maybe just two things I wanted to say about the OP or comments by visitors…
As to the whole thing about the book shaming 5 year old kids for not building water wells for kids in Africa, like the 15 year old kid was doing….
I know I mentioned this at the WW blog some time ago, but there was this teen-aged Christian boy who was strongly indoctrinated by Christian culture (and I think his particular church) to think that living a “regular life” for Jesus was not enough.
So, he signed up to work with some missionary group in Africa (I think – sorry, some details are hazy for me on this story now).
Once this teen boy got to the nation where he was meant to help out, the organization spiritually abused him. They ran him into the ground. He never got a break. He was over-worked.
And, if I remember right, just the whole mind-set this kid got from his church (or Christian culture) made him feel like he was obligated to constantly serve God, do “big” things for God, etc, or else he was a failure or was selfish.
He ended up feeling spiritually bankrupt and empty, and I think may have considered leaving the faith. (I just recall the whole thing messed this boy up badly.)
This kid wrote a book about his experience with about all this, and he was interviewed on a few Christian TV shows about it (about one or two years ago).
I can’t remember the name of the kid or his book now. I know I mentioned his name and links to interviews with him over at WW blog months ago. His name escapes me now.
The point is, if you guilt trip people or pressure them to feel as though only “big” things for Jesus count (such as building water wells in Africa), you end up hurting their faith badly, making them feel terrible, etc.
Per LT’s remarks above about Mormons and marriage.
While looking up articles about Christians and marriage / singleness, I’ve come across a lot of articles in years past about the lack of single men in Mormonism (which is similar to Christianity). A lot of single Mormon women who would like to marry cannot because there is a man-shortage of single Mormon guys.
TIME magazine did a big article about this topic around 2 years ago:
_What Two Religions Tell Us About the Modern Dating Crisis_
(from TIME magazine, discusses the severe man-shortage in conservative Judaism and Mormonism)
Mormonism is very similar to Christianity in this laser-like focus on marriage, which tends to disparage or neglect adult singles. The result is that a lot of singles feel excluded, and either leave the faith (whether Mormon or Christian), and/or leave their church, and/or marry atheists (or whatever type of Non-Christian / person outside their faith).
I think if you want your church or denomination to thrive and grow, you need to ditch the hyper-focus on marriage and the nuclear family, or else risk losing the many singles you have in your faith community.
If you lose over half your congregation due to this emphasis on marriage, that is a steep price to pay for not only over-valuing marriage but being obsessed with gender roles. And gender roles in these faith communities generally means for women, “You must marry and have kids, or you do not count.”
You raised some good points. If this gender role stuff was so obvious and God-designed, why do complementarians constantly have to hit women over the head to think one-way submission to a husband (even a jerky one) is awesome and great? It should be self-evident if it were true, one would think.
But comps are always having to try to convince women that one-way submission (women to men) is great, wonderful, what God wants for women, etc.
Sometimes the women complementarians try to convince other women of this. I think it was Mary Kassian (or some other comp lady) who wrote a blog post I saw years ago where she tried to argue with women that being fenced in was more liberating than being liberated.
She used the analogy of putting a horse in a pen (with a fence around a field), as opposed to letting the horse run about in open fields. She was trying to tell women that they might THINK being fenced in is limiting, but it’s actually more liberating than being a fence galloping around an open pasture. It’s Orwellian, where Up means Down and Black is re-defined to mean White, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“but it’s actually more liberating than being a fence galloping around an open pasture”
That should be,
“but it’s actually more liberating than being a HORSE galloping around an open pasture”
“Talk with your family about how you can take responsibility or learn to be a godly man or woman. Make some definite steps this week to walk in biblical manhood or womanhood.”
It’s awfully hard to imagine having this conversation with a 6 year old… “Be a biblical woman today and pick up your brother’s toys for him”?????
AND… where is Jesus in this “religion”? Anyone reading this book would think that the central theme of the Bible and of Christianity was “biblical roles” instead of Jesus Christ. Where in the Gospels does Jesus talk about “biblical roles”? This is like the Pharisees obsessing about tithing their spices and forgetting the most important law of all… the law of LOVE and compassion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No wonder so many children, young adults, and adults are leaving Protestant Christianity and becoming “The Dones”, done with church. They are selling another Gospel.
And no wonder that unbelievers mock the church when they promote this drivel.
What does the church have to offer unbelievers when unbelievers know and do better than this?
Even conservative women have “had it” with complementarian teaching and are leaving the churches in droves. Comp churches have the highest divorce rate in the nation, surpassing even atheists who manage to keep their marriages together.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Sometimes the women complementarians try to convince other women of this. I think it was Mary Kassian (or some other comp lady) who wrote a blog post I saw years ago where she tried to argue with women that being fenced in was more liberating than being liberated.” – Daisy
You read my mind about Mary Kassian. She with the fake Ph.D. She who flits from conference to conference to speak and doesn’t stay at home to take care of her man.
A “team” ….. really??? Let me compare that to a football team. A football team has 22 players: 11 offense, 11 defense. Okay, if half of those players are not allowed onto the field, what kind of team is that? Will that team win the game?
I haven’t attended church since Feb. 28, 2016. If what they teach is correct, then God keeps women at a distance. God doesn’t want anything to do with us, doesn’t want to get too close to us. Everything concerning women is all about how we can serve men, not God. It’s like women are some sort of glorified, hybrid brood mare/ Labrador retriever – just another animal that God told man to take dominion over. How can we actually have souls if what they teach is true?
………….. If what they are teaching is wrong, then it’s heresy.
In either case, why would I want to go to church.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good comments. It is almost “cultish” – for a woman to even question this, is sin! That is controlling and manipulative – cult like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me thinks Lori Alexander would disagree with y’all. 😉 Oh yeah, she’s griping about those evil Feminists again who work outside the home. Her message: Leave the workforce and get back in that house! Then, and only then, will you be happy. I think this lady has a One Track Mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Darlene, I told my boss apparently I wasn’t supposed to be working yesterday and he laughed at me.
Kathi, I totally read this as compliment the first time! So I was thinking a lot of ‘good job leading, honey”s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just read the following last night:
“…the female sex is forbidden on apostolic authority to teach in public…all women’s teaching, particularly formal teaching by word and by writing, is to be held suspect unless it has been diligently examined, and much more fully than men’s. The reason is clear: common law – and not any common law, but that which comes from on high – forbids them.”
Sounds familiar? It was written by Jean Gerson, chancellor of the University of Paris, probably with Christian mystic Catherine of Siena in mind, in THE 14th CENTURY!
“He who dies with the Most Overachieved Child Wins” in Christianese?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds like the Christianese equivalent of the secular guilt trips for “big” things like World Peace, Global Warming, Nuclear Disarmament, Saving the Planet, Racism, Sexism, Ageism, Ableism…
HUG/Daisy, it does seem that simply being kind and good is not enough.
(I personally am skeptical of all these charities by children, which often come off as an attempt to have something big to write on a college application. Where does that leave teenager who have to actually get after school jobs and pay for stuff themselves, in addition to studying. Is that not supposed to be enough?)
With Benefits (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean…)
We know the FLDS’s solution to that one.
From the notes at top, we have the husband supposed to LEAD, PROVIDE, and PROTECT the wife. I know Piper had these together as early as 1984 in “Desiring God” (he brilliantly substitutes “lead” for “love” in the Eph 5 passage).
But has anyone heard of those 3 specific terms together as if they were scripture, any time pre-Piper?
Darlene – Lori would also say that women should defer to their husbands when it comes to understanding the word of God. But, it’s okay for women to teach other women. Sigh…. There’s a lot of hypocrisy over there.
I’ve thought about doing Lori’s book next. I saw that No Longer Quivering has done a series on her book, but I think it would be great to shine the light on this book even more.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kathi, another review on Lori’s book couldn’t hurt. I think the more women in Evangelicalism who are exposed the dangers of that sexist, misogynist system – the better. Oh, and as far as women teaching other women, that’s even off limits in some Fundy circles. Here, I point you to Timothy J. Hammon’s blog article, “Protecting the Weaker Vessel.” Notice the reference to “our women.” That’s Fundy-speak for possession. The warning against women teaching women starts around the sixth paragraph. Here’s the link:
I submitted a comment just now on Lori’s blog post about “a day without women in the workforce” (under a differ pseudonym). I’m curious to see if she will publish it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wary Witness – Good luck with that! Sometimes you have better luck getting comments on the FB page.
My comment on Hammon’s blog article is still awaiting moderation. Let’s see if it goes through. These guys don’t like push back from wimmenfolk. 😉 By the way, I commented on a different post, his most recent criticizing National Women’s Day.
Here’s my comment on Timothy Hammon’s blog in case it doesn’t get posted.
*Having once been an Evangelical Christian, I can look outside the confined walls of that system to recognize many ways that women are squelched. And single women?…….fuhgeddaboudit! They’re barely a bleep on the radar. That’s because their worth is seen through being a wife and mother. Professions or careers be d_m_ed. I’m thankful for the strides that women have made in the medical field, law, finance, education, just to mention a few. Due to those advances, I can choose a woman physician. I can also seek a female lawyer should I ever need one. I can count on a jury of my peers instead of one limited to all white males. Oh, and let’s not forget nurses, who have mostly been women for the last century. I suppose all of them just abandoned their calling to stay at home in order to become Feminists.
In the Fundamentalist, Evangelical World, all women would be relegated to the confines of house and home. Of course, where does that leave single women? Shamed and made to feel as though something is wrong with them that they aren’t married. Of course, it’s an implicit, insidious shaming. News Flash: There are more women than men in our society. So inevitably some women won’t marry due to statistics alone.*
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh no, there is a book?
Knowing there is a book by Alexander is a sinking feeling. It puts the “dis” in disappointing. Knowing there’s a blog is even worse.
Look at this 100% certified drivel by said author: https://thetransformedwife.com/divorcing-a-persistent-porn-addict/
Her ignorance astounds me. Maybe not, knowing her roots.
Boston Lady, I’ve seen some stuff at the blog. Pretty much all awful. There was one the other day written by a man that was pretty terrible.
Since the authors of God’s Design recommend books by Joseph Nicolosi, I thought I’d mention that he passed away on Wednesday. I only wish his ideas would die along with him.
From the OP:
I wanted to say something else about this part. I’m sorry this is rather long, but this has been a long standing pet peeve of mine for quite some time now.
I don’t have an issue with American Christians wanting to help Africans – like folks in Africa who need water wells, or with helping African orphans. I don’t have a problem with Christians in the United States who want to help the homeless, crack addicts, human traffic victims, or domestic violence victims.
My problem is with Christians who help such groups (African orphans, DV victims, etc) to the exclusion of anyone else.
What I mean is, after my mother passed away, I had a hard time coping with that loss, and I kept getting the same several negative reactions from Christians I went to, one of which pertained to…… African orphans (or starving Africans).
In the third or so year after my mother’s passing, I was still having trouble dealing with the grief. So, I read books and blogs by psychiatrists that said I should talk about the grief with friends and family, because it was unhealthy to keep it bottled up.
Out of the several negative, unhelpful reactions I repeatedly got from Christians I went to (family, church people) was to dismiss my grief by referring to it as “self pity,” shaming me for having grief, shaming me for coming to them for help with the grief, and to compare my grief and emotional pain (and diminish it) by comparing it to starving orphans in Africa.
I was told things by Christians I went to, like,
“Well, it’s sad your mother is gone, but hey, you’re not a starving orphan in Africa, so cheer up… (or, “…count your blessings,” or a nicely phrased version of, “…shut your cry-baby pie hole, suck it up, and get over it already”).
I was stunned, angered, and saddened by those sorts of reactions, so I went on the internet to look this sort of thing up. And I found out it’s not just me who went through this.
I found commentary online by other people who had endured some sort of pain and tragedy in life, who, when they went to Christians for comfort, encouragement, or guidance, got some variation of a comment such as this:
Where “X” = whatever ‘Pet Group’ that particular Christian or church prefers (it is usually African orphans, homeless people, domestic violence victims, people sold in human trafficking, etc).
I’ve not been able to find any where in the Bible that says only group X is worthy of a Christian’s or a church’s time, affection, compassion, or help, but a lot of Christians out there sure behave as though that’s what it says.
African orphans seems to be one favored group among American Christians.
I cannot comprehend how so many people can be such weepy, bleeding hearts for one type or group of people (and often one they’ve never met, never will meet (such as African orphans)), but be so dismissive, heartless, unresponsive, apathetic, and unsympathetic towards the person standing right in front of them who is coming to them saying,
“I’m having a hard time right now because my loved one died (or, I’m going through a divorce, or, I was fired from my job, or, my loved one has been diagnosed with cancer, ~insert whatever calamity~), and I could use your support.”
There is just a really weird fixation a lot of American Christians have with helping African orphans, but these same Christians who cheer on helping African orphans, will turn their noses up at helping the-
Elderly, hungry, divorced mothers, disabled, etc, who live right next door to them (or just anyone who may be in need of a word of encouragement or some type of practical help.)
It’s as though most American Christians only prefer to aid “exotic” groups or especially heart-tugging, Hallmark- Channel- movie- worthy victims, the “extreme” cases out there. I don’t get it. It really bewilders me, and it angers me quite a bit.
Jesus said in the Bible that anyone in need, trouble, or pain is your neighbor and is worthy of your attention. Jesus didn’t say limit your time, compassion, and help to only African orphans or the homeless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Surprise! Ms. Alexander didn’t publish my comment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Surprise! Timothy Hammon did. So we’ve had a back and forth. As to convincing him of his distorted views, I’m skeptical. But, miracles happen everyday. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Darlene – Wow! I’m impressed by that exchange on Timothy Hammon’s post. I have to give him some credit for leaving your comments up. Lori would definitely shut you down with the first comment.
C.S. Lewis recognized this, too. He depicted it as one of the devil’s little tricks (or, if you don’t believe in devils, a trick of our own minds) to make us feel as though we’re righteous and loving, but without doing any real good in the world.
“Do what you will, there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patient’s soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to the people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary.”
— “The Screwtape Letters”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daisy, you are right. The biggest kindness we can show someone is to listen to them. When people dismiss others as being “too negative” and then want to randomly fund a project, I believe they miss the opportunity for showing love that is right before them. I hope you are doing better now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What should be gender roles in a church? In a family? Should a husband and wife submit to each other?
Some would say the Woman at the Well was one of the first to preach Christ teachings.
Husband’s and Wives are suppose to love each other, like Christ love the Church..
What is your opinion of what should be gender roles?
This thread has been a valuable resource to me regarding the abuses by those that retaliate to those that don’t embrace the same Doctrine. My case as some of you know is the abuses I endured were from a preacher trying to indoctrinate our Congregation to one the grosses form of Hyper-Calvinistic Theology.
This thread has been pretty thorough and continues to be thorough on mostly Christion based abuses,,
Just wondering if you are going to expand outside the Christian realm and maybe go into other more toxic forms of abuses practiced in Sharia Law.
My tweet re: Hammon’s blog article:
Good night! That original tweet…they might as well tell women don’t bother coming round their church if they don’t fit the mold. Because they aren’t ‘godly’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because if they go all out for “exotic” groups on the other side of the world, they NEVER need to meet them in person and maybe have to get their hands dirty. Like a secular activist proclaiming Concern & Compassion Solidarity with the Minority-du-Jour/Cause-du-Jour/Poor-du-Jour without ever having to set foot outside their Gated and Guarded Upscale Community(TM).
That and “Missionary to Darkest Africa” has always been a prestige posting in Christianese. Shows how Godlier than Thou I Am, and that’s what’s truly important.
I have donated to supposed “exotic” groups for some very good reasons.
*First, because many people forget about them. (My Presbyterian grandmother had women medical missionary friends (doctors) who practiced in remote parts of the world and taught people the Gospel.)
*Secondly, because my other grandparents fled communism in Stalin’s Russia and came to America. I knew the enormous hardships they faced in America and all they left behind. They never saw their families again. I developed empathy.
*Thirdly, because it’s my money. We’re all called to do different things with our money.
Mark – My opinion on gender roles and marriage is that the couple decides what works best for them. If a couple decides that what works best is for the wife to stay home, then go for it! If a couple decides that what works best is for the husband to stay home, then go for it! If a couple decides that both need to work, then go for it! Marriage is a team effort. Both need to work together and need to figure out the strengths each has to make it work. I think assigned roles causes too much unnecessary stress on each person. They either feel like they need to perform a certain way or they think that the other is not performing properly.
I also think that those who focus solely on gender roles are often too rigid to make allowances for the fact that many families are not able to live on one income. I’ll correct myself, they may be open to it if the husband agrees that the wife needs to work outside the home.
I’m so glad you have joined us in these discussions. I have learned as much from you as you have from us. As far as other religions, I’m not sure. I know this site tends to focus more on Christianity because that is where our experiences have been.
That being said…to anyone who might be reading here and is not of the Christian faith, we welcome you and welcome your input about your experiences.
Timothy is starting to wear thin from wimmenfolk giving him push back. I think we struck a nerve.
From what I’ve seen, the exotic or super- heart- tugging- groups (such as homeless, DV vics) are seldom forgotten by American Christians (and Africa seems very popular with Christian ministries that have TV shows).
I’m not sure if you caught all my post or not, and I can’t cipher if you were upset or offended by my post, but I do believe I said in my post above I don’t have a problem with Christians who donate time or money to charities.
My issue is that a lot of Christians I kept running into after my mother died would shame me for going to them asking for compassion and a friendly shoulder to cry on, but these same people would often send checks in the mail to Christian charities that aid African orphans.
One Christian lady who shamed and scolded me (and she knew my story, I had talked to her a lot), regularly went to a local domestic/homeless shelter in our city and volunteered there. (I also volunteered there for awhile.)
How is it that these Christians, will, on the one hand show compassion to people they don’t know at all or very well, but turn around and brush me off, who was someone they knew well?
I was basically being told by these types of Christians that my feelings and needs do not matter (not even in a time of grief), but the needs/feelings of homeless, DV vics, African orphans, etc., do matter. That is a mind set I find offensive, and I highly dispute.
When I did research online, I came to find out I am not alone on this. A lot of Christian forums I lurked at had stories similar to mine, only some of the people who were brushed aside by “African- orphan- loving” Christians were going through other painful life situations (such as cancer, job loss, divorce, or what have you).
I no where in my post dictated to people how they should spend their money, nor did I say they should not send them money to charity. I’m not sure if folks here were interpreting it that way or what.
What I do believe is that it’s very hypocritical to show compassion and offer aid to “group X” but to also thumb one’s nose at the individual standing right before you needing some type of help. I do not understand that mindset at all.
It’s funny you should say that, because Christian gender complementarianism, depending on its flavor and severity, can and does resemble Islam and Sharia, (as well as the Hindu caste system, and in other respects, Mormonism).
There used to be this funny (yet sad and scary) online quiz page by some guy, called “Who Said It, ISIS / Imams or Christian Gender Complementarians,”
which had quotes by various Christian complementarians and by Muslim Imams, and you had to guess which group was behind which quote.
And often it was hard to tell who said which quote, because both groups have similar views about gender roles and marriage.
That guy eventually took his blog post down, so I can’t really link to it any more.
But I did find this article about Islamic ISIS, which sounds like it’s describing Christian gender complementarianism:
Married at NINE and brainwashed into thinking beauty parlours are the work of the devil: ISIS manifesto aimed at recruiting women reveals the misery they can expect to endure – on the Daily Mail site
See, those Muslims are teaching girls and women that it’s their duty to marry, have babies, and be Islamic June Cleavers – they were designed by Allah for nothing more or better, that’s their womanly, Koranic gender role.
Just like Christian gender comps, only Islamicized. And there is a percentage of gender Christian complementarians who believe in “early marriage” (that Christians should marry before hitting age 25).
That “Duck Dynasty” (Christian) guy even said a few years ago that he thinks all women should marry by age 16 (because they’re easier to control at that age or whatever. I forget his exact reasoning).
Sometimes I cannot tell a big difference between Christian gender complementarianism and Islam.
I firmly believe if some of the sterner Christian complementarians could get away with it in the U.S. (e.g., the patriarchal / Reconstructionist / Doug Wilson types) they would stone “impure” female or rape victims to death if they could. I honestly believe that they would do that.
Your run- of- the- mill complementarians, no, wouldn’t support that sort of thing – but the extreme kooks in their camp, yes.
I can see Doug Wilson, for example, writing inflammatory blog posts defending the notion that America should allow for the stoning to death of women who’ve had affairs, had pre-marital sex, or who have been raped, because he feels it’s godly and would make our nation a better place, yada yada. Because he’s a sick puppy. And he’s sexist.
A link from CNN:
Marry girls when they’re ’15 or 16,’ said ‘Duck Dynasty’ star – CNN, January 2014
Some people find it easier to ‘love’ people they don’t have to actually see or deal with. There is nothing wrong with donating to any good charity for anywhere in the world, but that doesn’t mean you are exempt from the obligation to love people who are sitting next to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for responding. The abuses occurring in Christian Churches are documented.
But if we allow Islam to infiltrate our society like many elected officials are wanting., then Sharia Law will be practiced and even allowed. Just wondering how many Liberal and Conservatives are over-looking this fact?
My last opinion on Sharia Law wasn’t allowed on this thread, But if we are going to ignore or not pursue with the same energy what is will mean if we vote for candidates that allow Islam in our society or accept monetary support from them as we have going after Christian abusers, then abuse is going to expand far worse and with greater intensity.
A woman resisting rape could be put to death, under Sharia Law.
Lots of energy going into Christian abuses, With the expertise of those that manage this thread, they could never run out of things to right about when is come to women’s suffering under Sharia Law, even in this. country
I don’t care for either Islam / Sharia* -or- for Christian gender complementarianism.
It’s my view that Christian gender complementarianism is watered-down Islamic Sharia.
I don’t know why some Christians support gender comp but reject Sharia. To be consistent, you would have to object to both.
Both are wrong. Abuse in American Christian churches is bad, as is Sharia.
The fact that Sharia is bad does not erase the fact that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing in the American church, or false teachings that hurt Christians. Someone needs to expose the abuse going on in American Christianity.
The lady who started this blog, Julie Anne, started this blog, if I remember right, because she experienced abuse at the hands of a Christian church and pastor, not under Sharia, so it’s understandable she chooses to focus on abuse in Christianity.
If you feel this strongly about abuse of women under Sharia, you could start a blog of your own, where you feature that issue.
= = = = = =
*(exception: I don’t agree with Islam, but if the Muslims practicing it are peaceful, they can worship freely in the United States).
LikeLiked by 1 person
“But if we allow Islam to infiltrate our society like many elected officials are wanting., then Sharia Law will be practiced and even allowed. Just wondering how many Liberal and Conservatives are over-looking this fact?” -mrdotinflation
I suggest you enroll in a Constitutional Law class at your local community college.
You obviously don’t know how the U.S. Constitution works, the appellate courts, and case law. Once you have a good academic grasp of how it all works you won’t be overcome by fear.
The constitution allows freedom of faith, The practice of Sharia Law and its abuses is part of Islam, Where do you draw the line?
This thread is about abuse.
It’s a Catch-22
Thanks Daisy,, I’m not minimizing the abuses being practiced by self-proclaimed Christians. I just think that abuses are not only occurring but accepted in other faiths, being part of their theology.
If the constitution allows freedom of beliefs, and Sharia Law is part of a belief system that is practiced we have ourselves.
I have followed Julie Anne since she started her original blog and admire her courage to expose the abuse she endured.
Rightfully the courts in a America backed her, Under Sharia Law, she would be put to death.
I work in law.
I am sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about in your fears about “Sharia Law” taking over the United States. Please sign up for a Constitutional Law class. It’s incredibly hard work but well worth the investment.
I know the constitution allows freedom of religion. But you didn’t answer my little question. I wrote to you earlier.
“The constitution allows freedom of faith, The practice of Sharia Law and its abuses is part of Islam, Where do you draw the line?”
Islam is expanding and more acceptable in America, which has to mean the practice (thought secret) of Sharia Law will expand.
I’m sure maybe a good defense attorney would find constitutional reasons to defend a client who practices the grossest form of Sharia Law being practiced.. give it some time.
Are you a defense lawyer? I bet you are really good lawyer. Maybe for the ACLU?
It seems like the parents who would read and follow this book are taking themselves too seriously. I recommend the book “The Home School Sex Machine” to balance and put things back in perspective. Kids are kids and they are also just human beings. Give them a break. All this heavy indoctrination and unrealistic responsibilities make me think families trying to live this out are going to be under a lot of stress and a lot of pressure to develop a fake public image that’s not in sync with the private reality.
“people can be such weepy, bleeding hearts for one type or group of people (and often one they’ve never met, never will meet ”
Daisy, I think that’s exactly it, ithey are people they will never meet or interact with. It’s easier to talk about compassion than show it. I remember reading about a Christian missionary who spent all her time and money helping orphans in another country while seriously neglecting her own children. Maybe it’s also a case of ‘familiarity breeds contempt’.
You know what, I think some Christians keep their finger pointed at Islam as a way to keep the focus on a ‘worse’ group and avoid scrutiny of their own group. If Islam is truly repressive and oppressive, maybe the best thing we can do is serve as a welcome alternative instead of emulating the same kind of oppression and calling it “Christian”. Briarwood church wants its own police force. That worries me more than Sharia. We are ignoring what is happening with separation of our own churches with the state which will be just as oppressive as any other religion joined to political power.
““The constitution allows freedom of faith, The practice of Sharia Law and its abuses is part of Islam, Where do you draw the line?” – mrdotinflation
Criminal acts are not protected by the First Amendment and freedom of religion.
Hi. I didn’t see your comment to me, about overseas donations, until tonight.
You and I have known each other on this board and TWW for a long time. So I think we can pretty much trust the other person and where they are coming from.
I didn’t take any offense to what you wrote. I only gave a different perspective that is my own. I only speak for me.
There are plenty of people, as you know, who are good at empathy from afar but not close up when it counts, like when your mom died and you needed comfort.
I don;t dispute what the 1st Amendment says when you proclaimed “Criminal acts are not protected by the First Amendment and freedom of religion”
I’m sure as Islam expands, (and it is growing) the acts practiced in Sharia Law be those that embrace Islam would not be considered criminal, but instead freedom of faith.
I don’t know what to believe when it comes to media reports from both Liberal and Conservative, But there are reports that certain powerful Political figures (including Obama) think the Constitution is outdated.
Islam/Sharia Law is growing and expanding and America is becoming more tolerant. But political correctness is causing many to turn a blind eye.
When you see a woman wearing veil in America, we don’t know if it is forced or choice, not wearing a veil in Islam could be tragic. In an article I read titled “Islamic State stones five women to death for not wearing the veil”
I work in law and know a lot about the topic, including constitutional law and criminal law. I don’t know what that sentence is supposed to mean “But there are reports that certain powerful Political figures (including Obama) think the Constitution is outdated” as the appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights, even if your average person on the street doesn’t understand what has just been done and why.
Headscarves. I think it’s easy for us to be racist, and not sit with that, and instead point out differences like headscarves as being un-American. But we will defend women from various Christian nations who wear headscarves as part of their cultural traditions. My grandmother wore a headscarf that was typical of her homeland and she was a Christian. We will defend other groups — like nuns — who cover their heads. I will defend them. (We will defend men wearing ball caps and cowboy hats.)
I also have many Muslim friends and I have for decades, including as roommates in college. My dentist is a Muslim woman (who doesn’t wear a head covering). She is top-notch at what she does with a faithful and large group of patients. One of my attorney bosses is a Muslim who wears a headscarf, although she didn’t always. She is the best and brightest at what she does. She is a wonderful person and boss.
I have friends who are doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, and teachers — all Muslims and all wonderful, wonderful human beings. The nicest people you could ever meet.
It’s easy for us to dislike people that we don’t know. That’s why it’s best to get to know folks to inoculate ourselves from the culture’s wider prejudices.
Hi, Velour. I’ve been following your conversation with Mr. Dot Inflation for a few days now. I have a few thoughts, and I hope neither of you mind if I jump in.
To some extent, I can see where Mr. Dot is coming from. As you say, the Constitution guarantees freedom of belief, but doesn’t allow us to commit illegal acts in the name of religion. And ideally, that’s how it should work. However, I’ve heard a lot of stories of people committing horrible acts, and claiming the right to do so vis a vis “freedom of religion”.
Some christianese groups who emphasize faith healing have tried to get away with denying medical care to their dependents. When the SGM scandal broke, Mahaney attempted to claim that he and his cronies had the right to counsel parishioners as they see fit — which apparently includes “counselling” them not to report crimes to the authorities.
And then there’s L. Ron Hubbard’s House of Horrors. That group is accused of some of the worst human rights abuses in the U.S., but they’ve escaped prosecution in part because so many in law enforcement are reluctant to lock horns with something that calls itself a “church” (especially one with Scientology’s deep pockets).
So, I sort of understand Mr. Dot’s concerns regarding Sharia law. It’s possible that some Muslims could try to sneak it in and practice it, and cry persecution if anyone objects. I could see it happening. On the other hand, I can’t agree with him that the solution lies in excluding Muslims and Islam from the U.S. (which is what he seems to be saying). I’ve learned more than I care to know about groups like SGM and Scientology, but I still won’t call for either of them to be banned, from your country or mine. If we’re going to solve this thorny problem, it’s not going to be by excluding those who are different from us.
I’m sure there are many women in America that practice Islam that aren’t subject to abuses of Sharia Law. But Sharia Law is part of Islam. I fail to see anyone who professes to be Islamic but openly dismiss Sharia Law,
I am aware that there are woman who embrace Islam but don’t wear veils, they aren’t living in fear of the penalty of not wearing a veil under Sharia Law. There are however those in America that are in fear for not wearing a veil, but it is more widespread globally and expanding in America,
Sharia Law, doesn’t stop with veils, it is the brutality toward those (mostly women) that are forced to live under Sharia Law and fail to meet the abusers expectations that is faith driven.
If I suggested (though I don’t remember specifically saying that) that we round of the Muslims and get them out of here, then I mis-quoted.
What I’m saying those that embrace and practice Sharia Law, have no business in this country.
There is a fine line between Sharia Law and Islam, and I fail to see how one can exist without the other.
State Government in Montana voted to ban Sharia Law 56-44 mostly party line, Pubs voting for the ban and Dems mostly voting against the ban, Why would Dems oppose a ban on Sharia Law? Is it because they feel that Muslims have a right to practice Sharia Law?
We are covering abuses in the Christian Faith which I feel is necessary, but we are not exposing abuses in the Islamic Faith for fear of racism, which are far more severe and we have politicians opposing the ban, or accepting funds from Nations that practice Sharia Law.
All is it would take is a Liberal Supreme Court to over-turn a ban, if we elect a Liberal President who is not opposed to Sharia Law being banned, Mostly of Dems in Montana and other states are opposing the Ban.
Give it 20 years.