9Marks, ABUSE & VIOLENCE IN THE CHURCH, Clergy Misconduct, Clergy Sex Abuse, Complementarianism, Failure to Report Crimes, Fred Butler, It's All About the Image, John MacArthur, Safe Churches, Sexual Abuse/Assault and Churches, Women and the Church

Fred Butler, #MeToo and the Worldly Culture

***

 

Who is Fred Butler?

I saw this tweet the other day. Long-time blog readers will recognize the name, Fred Butler, an employee of Grace to You, the radio ministry of Pastor John MacArthur. Butler’s tweet references another tweet from the @9Marks Twitter account which quotes from an article recently posted on their site. The article is about the church’s response to the #MeToo movement.

***

***

The Problems

I have a number of problems with Fred’s tweet.

Firstly, in general, I believe the “worldly culture” has done a better job of addressing the issue of sexual abuse than the Church. Having attended many churches over the years, I don’t recall any that dealt specifically with the topic of sexual abuse in an ongoing fashion. I don’t recall hearing about churches that have a ministry focused on this topic since blogging, either.

In full confession, I have difficulty with 9Marks because of hyper-authoritarian teachings which can lead to spiritual abuse, but I wanted to see what Fred Butler was reading when he tweeted his criticism of the article, What the Church Can and Should Bring to the #MeToo Movement. What problem did Fred find?

The article was written by a woman, so there’s that. Did Butler have difficulty because the author is “teaching” a man as he reads it? I’m not sure, but whatever it is, at the time of this screenshot, 28 people “liked” and 4 people retweeted Fred’s tweet.

Here is the author’s bio:

Whitney Woollard is a writer, speaker, and women’s Bible teacher in Portland, Oregon, where she and her husband Neal attend Hinson Baptist Church. She holds her M.A. in biblical and theological studies from Western Seminary and loves sharing her passion for the Bible and good theology with others.

Back to the Butler’s tweet – the world may hate God, but there are a lot of people in the world who hate abuse as well. God also hates abuse (Ezekiel 34). So, because many in the world hate abuse, we must dismiss #MeToo because it’s now a cultural thing? I can’t buy that logic.

So, what did Ms. Woollard say in her article that Fred Butler would find difficult to stomach? I’ll share some quotes which give the overall gist of the article, which by the way, I found quite good.

Like any movement, #MeToo is imperfect, but that shouldn’t prevent us from appreciating it as an expression of God’s common grace. He restrains evil and pours out graciousness on all people, enabling even those outside of Christ to do good, carry out justice, and promote human flourishing. It’s not salvific, but it is good.  

I agree with this overall thought. Evil is evil, and it is not only Christians who can identify it. I believe that Christians should be leading the way on shining the light on evil, but sadly, this has not happened; and thus, we have the #MeToo movement. This should be a wake-up call for the Church.

Ms. Woollard discusses the following topics:

    1. #MeToo is dragging wickedness into the light.

 

    1. #MeToo is forcing a conversation everyone would rather not have.

 

  1. #MeToo is teaching women that abuse and harassment is real and wrong.

***

Once again, I found myself agreeing with Ms. Woollard. I appreciate how Ms. Woollard shared a recent personal experience she had. Women are regularly gawked at sexually, and I do not think men understand how pervasive this is for women. Many women cannot walk anywhere in public without fear of receiving some sort of sexual comment or catcall.

Don’t believe me? Yesterday I left my house for one hour and encountered a man in a semi-isolated spot who told me “if women don’t watch out, white men are going to start fighting back against #MeToo” and we should “fear the force with which their wave would hit us.” Then I was cornered at a crosswalk by a man who yelled sexual obscenities at me, saying, “I’m sorry but I have to because, God, you’re so (bleeping) hot.” (I was wearing a baggy sweatshirt and loose jeans.) I felt uncomfortable and unsafe, yet unsure of how to respond without calling more attention to myself. I grew up thinking you just smiled and laughed that stuff off. But now I rejoice in a new era where that speech and behavior are unacceptable and where women are taught to stop inappropriate comments or “playful” touches and say, “Stop right now. This is making me uncomfortable.” This is common grace at work.

See?  One hour. She got all of that in one hour! Ugh!!

***

 

Healthy Churches

Further, in the article, Ms. Woollard describes what happens in healthy churches. Again, I have yet to see this for myself, but it is my heart’s desire to see this take place:

THE CHURCH HAS ANSWERS THE CULTURE NEEDS

They need hope, healing, and restoration. In other words, they need the church.

Assuming we’re talking about a healthy church with good structures and policies in place, what does the church have to bring to #MeToo

    1. The church has the gospel.

 

    1. The church has a biblical bias.

 

    1. The church has member care.

 

    1. The church has corrective and formative discipline.

 

  1. The church has a theology of imago Dei.

 

***

Sadly, here’s a tweet I sent out nearly 3 weeks ago before the article was posted. If Twitter had an edit feature, I probably would have added the words “in general.”

***

Rachael Denhollander and Unhealthy Churches

Back to Fred Butler – he is wrong. The world is exposing sexual abuse and harassment. It’s here and it is now in all places/business/industries. The world is ahead of the Church in drawing attention to the problem and forcing a response. The Church now has a responsibility to deal with it, not play theological word games about collecting “action points” from the world. This is not about action points, this is about the hearts of women who need healing, and most likely, their souls do as well if they were harmed by someone in the Church.

The mishandling of sex abuse cases in the Church is not only causing survivors emotional harm, but I strongly suspect it has led to many abandoning their faith. That’s why I would rather survivors seek secular mental health help from trained and licensed professionals who understand the dynamics of sexual abuse. I’m not alone in this thought. Read the words from Rachael Denhollander, the brave woman who took down Dr. Larry Nasser, the pedophile who sexually assaulted hundreds of young girls while “treating” their injuries:


When asked, “How can people trust the church and Christianity?” in the wake of sexual abuse, Denhollander simply said, “Don’t.” ~Rachael Denhollander


***

In case you hadn’t heard, Rachael Denhollander was selected as one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People in the year 2018. She is a conservative Christian. Big names in Christendom talked about Rachael, even wrote blog posts about her and her victim’s impact statement. Because along with sharing how the abuse affected her, she offered her evil perpetrator forgiveness and presented the Gospel to him. But even Rachael cannot recommend that sexual abuse survivors get help from the Church.

Denhollander said that while she is a “very conservative evangelical,” she believes the Church has a long way to go when it comes to dealing with victims of sexual abuse.

“That’s a hard thing to say, because I am a very conservative evangelical, but that is the truth,” she said. “There are very, very few who have ever found true help in the Church.”

Fred Butler and his “liking” buddies need to read this article from Dr. Diane Langberg before spouting off on Twitter about the #MeToo subject. #MeToo is not just a “worldly cultural” issue, it’s an issue prevalent in evangelical churches.

***

***

I will close with part of Dr. Langberg’s letter to the Church:

God calls us to the truth and light of transparency. Transparency protects both alleged victims and alleged predators from the horrific burden of lies. A transparent process protects truth for all. When those in power attempt to dissemble in order to protect an institution they are no longer accomplishing damage control. They are causing damage – damage to God’s precious sheep and damage to the name of our God –this, in the name of protecting the house of the Lord. That is what the Israelites said in Jeremiah – “the Temple of the Lord” – all the while throwing their children, the vulnerable ones, into the fire of Moloch.

 

***


Fred Butler, #MeToo, Rachael Denhollander, Sex Abuse, Worldly Culture

197 thoughts on “Fred Butler, #MeToo and the Worldly Culture”

  1. Lea said,

    And some rape other women and children as well. The most extreme anti-divorce folks would say their wives should stay married to them.
    And when they do divorce, would count stats about these women filing as ‘women file X% of the time, ergo women hate marriage and blahblahblah’. Which is nuts.

    Oh jeeze, yes, one of my pet peeves.

    One usually sees embittered, misogynistic men – especially ones who hang out at “Men’s Rights” or “Incel” reddits, and/or angry divorced guys – who bring that point up.

    They always say, “In X percent of cases, women initiate divorce, see, women hate marriage!”

    And you see there the total lack of introspection and self awareness from those men.

    Hmm, maybe (in those sorts of marriages), if your wife divorces you, it’s because you’re a selfish or abusive jerk-face.
    Could that possibly be it? Could you and your behavior maybe have driven your wife to seek divorce? Did you not play a role at all in her choice to leave, maybe? rolls eyes

    The men who complain about women initiating divorce never seem to think that the women doing so have good reasons (or good enough) for wanting to break things off.

    From what I’ve seen in discussions about such topics, what typically happens is that the woman expresses dis-satisfaction to her spouse for weeks and weeks or months on end, warning him she may be packing her bags and leaving for good…

    But the man does not want to change anything, so he changes nothing, or maybe promises to change to placate the angry wife, but makes no actual changes.

    He is happy as a pig in a mud puddle with the status quo of the marriage. He likes to sit in his boxer shorts drinking beer watching NFL all day, ignoring his wife and her needs…

    Then he has the nerve to run to Reddit forums, blogs, or MRA groups, and cry into his beer about he just cannot understand how his wife just up and divorced him, he never saw it coming, by golly (even though she warned him for months she was unhappy).

    Like

  2. Lea said,

    I said above, but there is an element, to me, of threat in many of the ways these things are discussed. Oh, so you want to be treated as a person? Then men will just sit at home and never marry.

    Yes, I’ve seen that awful attitude in many people’s posts or comments – as in, how dare women expect or ask to be treated with respect, or not to follow legalistic or sexist rules?

    Like

  3. Lea said,

    Daisy, I see many people who don’t like this movement sort of jumping ahead to ‘what if’s’, and asking about people being falsely accused. It’s almost as if no one should be allowed to tell their story, because what if one person lies?
    We don’t treat anything else in society that way! (not to mention, that many if not most of the stories I have seen have not had names attached, so there could be no possible harm there).

    Yes. Many of the anti – Me Too-ists continue to bring up all those points (and other criticisms), and paint the movement as a “witch hunt.”

    I blogged about this over on my Daisy blog at least once, but I am miffed at how critics of the Me Too movement are wanting to take a hash tag started by women for women to discuss abuse of women have tried to hi-jack “Me Too” to turn it into a “Pity Poor Men and their Problems in Life” discussion.

    I kept running into one “Me Too” critic on Twitter who sometimes posts at T.W.W blog and used to post here.

    She was also big on defending James Damore’s horrid, sexist ‘Tech Bro Meme’ that suggested that women are born too stupid or bored by tech to be hired at tech companies (I’ve blogged about the Damore meme on my Daisy blog a few times). I had to ask her to stop tweeting me to argue about all that.

    Like

  4. Mark said,

    The counter-cultural argument is that women get to consent, but what is pushed in the media is not really consent, but that women should be sleeping around regularly, and if they are not, then they are not attractive enough, or perhaps they are victims of Victorian-era morality.

    Yep, that is a good summary of the situation.

    As a lifelong celibate, I can testify that many – not all, but it seems a majority – of secular feminists respect, embrace, and celebrate consensual fornication, and they demand others to do so as well, but they do not respect the choice of any woman, such as myself, to remain sexually abstinent.

    I’ve actually seen, from time to time, a few editorials, here and there, on liberal, secular sites by liberal, secular feminists who mock a woman’s choice to stay a virgin until marriage.

    Making this even odder is that in the last approx. five years, I’ve seen a shift or trend where secular feminists have come to defend or embrace Asexuality, but they will NOT respect or defend or accept a woman’s choice to voluntarily abstain (i.e., be celibate or remain a virgin until marriage).

    (For anyone reading: asexuality is not the same thing as celibacy or virginity.)

    I have no idea how it is so many secular / liberal feminists are fine accepting or defending adults not having sex in one capacity (i.e., asexuality) but not in another (i.e., celibacy or virginity).

    But yes, many secular, liberal feminists (and the secular culture) do promote fornication quite a bit, they make anyone who chooses to opt out of rampant sex or casual sex, out to be a repressed freak or an odd-ball.

    (And, btw, a lot of Christians, even the conservatives, do this very thing as well – they act as though anyone who is still a virgin past age of 25 is a freak, weirdo, or odd ball, or is not obeying or following God enough.)

    Like

  5. Mark said,

    Neither is correct, but it’s pointless for us (i.e. KAS) to say that it’s either-or. Either women agree to marital rape, or they agree to give themselves up as a reward for a good date. That’s a false dichotomy. We can say that marriage is not a consent to rape, and giving women the ability to consent doesn’t mean they are obligated to do so regularly whether inside or outside the bounds of marriage.

    This is spot on, and I felt it was worth repeating.

    I find KAS’ attitude about all this very disturbing.

    KAS acts as though because some women (and let’s not forget, some men) promoted casual sex in decades past, that somehow, this means that women deserve to be raped or groped at a job, and it’s their fault if they are.

    Meanwhile, you have women like me who were born after the 1960s, I’ve never been a liberal feminist, and I’m still a virgin over 45 yrs of age, yet KAS is seemingly saying I do not have a right to make choices about my sexual behavior, other men get to rape or grope me if they so choose, and I am to blame for the choices or arguments made by men and women in the 1960s. All very troubling and weird views.

    Like

  6. Serving Kids in Japan said,

    KAS, I cannot believe for the life of me that you wrote this:
    – – –
    It’s not Christians who cannot think and have reason, it’s secular man who has futile, debased thinking.
    – (KAS quote)
    – – –
    Yet again, you’ve insulted all non-believers with these words, and you seem not to have any idea how arrogant you sound. All the thinking of secular people is “futile”!? No one has any ability to think or figure things out without becoming Christian?

    Doesn’t the Bible say that God granted humanity with a conscience?

    I recently finished re-reading the book “The Sociopath Next Door.”

    That book discusses how at least four percent of the American population is sociopathic (born without a conscience, or at least, these individuals are born with a 50% hereditary predisposition to developing it).

    Anyway, I don’t see evidence that the Bible says all humanity is devoid of any and all moral reasoning.

    My understanding is only that it says that un-saved persons remain spiritually ignorant, because they do not have the Holy Spirit giving them spiritual life – which does not mean that un-saved persons lack an understanding of moral right and wrong.

    Most Non-Christians know that robbing a store is wrong and bad, that mugging a person is wrong, that having affairs is wrong, etc. And they know this instinctively, or they were taught as such by a parent or teacher growing up.

    And I’m sorry to beat a dead horse, but so why if Christians have reasoning and know right from wrong, when this blog (among other sources) has daily or weekly examples of self professing, church attending, Bible believing Christians, who have been arrested or outed for adultery, using child pr0n, beating their wives, or stealing money from congregants?

    Here’s one such recent news story from NBC news:
    _Former Cape Coral pastor accused of stealing church funds_

    There you go, KAS. A Christian preacher who stole money from his church. Look at where his higher moral reasoning got him. There are probably some atheists out there who are more honest than that Christian.

    Like

  7. Serving Kids in Japan said,

    Impressive, KAS. Everything you just wrote was wrong.

    (Apologies to Mark Hamill for poaching his line. 😉 )

    Would that be a quote from Last Jedi? I like Star Wars, honestly I do, but that movie had a few scenes that were un-Star Warsy and made me cringe. Luke milking the alien cow on his island planet was one such scene, and the other was the shirtless Kylo Ren.

    Hey, I appreciate seeing a shirtless guy who’s in shape as much as the next woman, but I don’t want to see that in a Star Wars movie!!

    Here’s to hoping the third SW installment will be better than Last Jedi, and I may be seeing “Solo: A Star Wars Story” after it comes out next month.

    Like

  8. SKIJ said,

    Have you given any thought to how Christianity Hurts might view these words of yours, KAS? Based on your reasoning, she has “no basis” to object to rape, incest or child molestation, because she rejects the Christian faith. This in spite of the fact that she has suffered all of these crimes, and continues to suffer from their effects.

    Are you seriously attempting to share Christ’s love with her, while at the same time demeaning her intelligence and sense of morality? Somehow, I don’t think she’s going to appreciate it.

    That has me concerned as well.

    If CH is still reading this thread, I can only imagine how insensitive, hurtful, and/or infuriating KAS’ obtuse commentary must be. KAS is doing a fine job of driving CH away from the Christian faith, not towards it. I only hope that CH will focus more on the positive comments from the more supportive commentators….

    Like

  9. Serving Kids: in a spirit hopefully of a soft answer turning away wrath, may I briefly respond to your comments?

    You object to my criticism of secular man’s futile, debased thinking. In Rom 1 Paul discusses the pagan society of his day under God’s wrath because they have suppressed the truth by their wickedness. He goes on to say they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened … And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. Some versions say debased mind.

    This is the language of the apostle Paul in his diagnosis of the human condition. It applies just as much today in a society turning back to paganism as it did then. I think it fair to use it. It’s not flattering to us, but the bible is at least honest in what it says.

    You cannot possibly not have seen discussions on TV where highly educated intelligent people come out with utter foolishness in what they say, especially over religious or moral issues.

    Do I really have to repeat that this is not everything the apostle has to say on man and sin though? He deals with the moral man and the religious man too, culminating in all have sinned.

    Like

  10. Secondly, you object to my saying secular man cannot make moral judgements.

    I been here before with this on my secular forum, where an atheist got very angry with me accusing me of accusing him of having no morals. I wasn’t, I had to spell out that atheism provides no basis for morals, it cannot account for them. It cannot underwrite human rights or morals, certainly you can only base absolute morals on religious grounds. Dawkins agrees. He writes “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”. No evil, no good.

    Most atheists baulk at this, but that’s because they have a God-given conscience that informs them of right and wrong as they see it the world around them. If atheism is true or you embrace it as true, it comes with a price tag. You cannot declare anything to be absolutely wrong, and there is no justice. Every abuser and tyrant and criminal who is never tried in this life just plain gets away with it at death. This doesn’t mean God exists or Christianity is true, but it does show the reality of where atheism takes you.

    Dawkins virtually acknowledges you cannot say rape is absolutely wrong if you are an atheist, whereas the Christian can. The Christian knows the wrongs will be put right. After death, the judgment.

    Like

  11. Thirdly, you think my views in number 2 could be hurtful to Christianity hurts. They were not addressed to her, and she is free to argue against them.

    I specifically addressed on post to her, and if there is anything hurtful in it, please highlight it. I made every effort not to be hurtful or personal, and certainly not to make a bad situation worse.

    I stand by what I wrote about how husbands should treat wives if they are followers of Jesus, are biblical Christians: The kind of language the NT writers use to describe how a husband should do this is: loving your wife, where love means putting her interests first; not hating her, giving, nourishing, cherishing, living considerately with her (knowing her, her needs and aspirations and taking these into consideration), bestowing honour on her as the weaker sex

    This is what I aim to do in my own life and marriage. Most believers I am familiar with would do the same. I am painfully aware of my weaknesses and failures. I would like, however, and explanation from those who have heaped criticism on me as just how you get abuse from this. How I could be tolerant in any way of mistreatment of women. In particular, how you can get ‘biblical Christianity’ as being a source of abuse, so that you can simultaneously be a believer and abuse wife or children. You can’t. It is the enemies of the faith who claim following Jesus entails this, and it is moral wickedness to say so. Neither Jesus, his apostles or his word in the bible ever leads anyone into doing evil.

    I’ll add something: growing boys will learn how to treat women with respect and love when they see their father doing this with their mother to whom he is faithful. For better for worse, for richer for poorer, till death do us part. They won’t learn it from men who abandon them for someone else through easy divorce, nor from Hollywood films and TV.

    I hope Christianity hurts will continue to reject the false, the abusers, the fakes, but not the Jesus of the bible or those who try to follow him in sincerity. She needs her own sins to be forgiven, by faith, just like the rest of us, and I have no doubt he would want to heal her as well. If he did this for my mother, he can do it for her, give her a hope and a future.

    Like

  12. Kas: You said:”I stand by what I wrote about how husbands should treat wives if they are followers of Jesus, are biblical Christians: The kind of language the NT writers use to describe how a husband should do this is: loving your wife, where love means putting her interests first; not hating her, giving, nourishing, cherishing, living considerately with her (knowing her, her needs and aspirations and taking these into consideration), bestowing honour on her as the weaker sex.”
    I would love to hear your explanation of–her as the weaker sex.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Sorry to keep you waiting, KAS. Saturday was one busy day at work, and I finally have a bit of time to respond to you. It’ll require a few comments, though.

    …in a spirit hopefully of a soft answer turning away wrath…

    Soft answers are all well and good. But it’ll take more than politeness to lower my temperature, I’m afraid.

    In Rom 1 Paul discusses the pagan society of his day under God’s wrath because they have suppressed the truth by their wickedness. He goes on to say “they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened … And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.” Some versions say debased mind. This is the language of the apostle Paul in his diagnosis of the human condition.

    I don’t see it that way. To my mind, this is Paul’s commentary on the wicked and depraved individuals in pagan society, not on that society as a whole. If he had wanted to write off all non-Christians (and non-Jews) in the world as senseless and debased, he wouldn’t have commended those Gentiles who live according to the law. In fact, he does so in the very next chapter:

    “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”

    How can the law possibly be “written on the hearts” of any Gentiles “by nature”, if their minds are hopelessly debased and they’re incapable of rational thought?

    The psalmist says that the thoughts of the wicked are futile. Not the thoughts of people who are upright and decent, regardless of what they know about God.

    You cannot possibly not have seen discussions on TV where highly educated intelligent people come out with utter foolishness in what they say, especially over religious or moral issues.

    Sure, I’ve seen some. But it doesn’t follow that all educated non-believers are utterly senseless on moral issues, or that they have nothing to say that’s worth listening to. After all, I’ve heard nonsense aplenty from the likes of Piper, Grudem and Wilson, who paint themselves as the cream of educated christendom. D’you think I’d like for everyone to assume that I’m just as foolish as they are, just because I call myself a Christian?

    Like

  14. I had to spell out that atheism provides no basis for morals, it cannot account for them…If atheism is true or you embrace it as true, it comes with a price tag. You cannot declare anything to be absolutely wrong…

    Again, KAS, you are just plain wrong here. Plenty of atheists and other non-believers are more than capable of declaring things like theft, rape and murder as absolutely wrong, and can have any number of reasons for doing so. Some might have suffered terrible crimes, or know others who have, and have seen the horror they bring to human lives. Some might simply be capable of great empathy, and can imagine such crimes being committed against themselves. Belief in God isn’t necessary to “underwrite” moral certainty.

    You seem to think that the only possible valid reason for any moral judgement is, “Because God sez so”. I don’t see it that way. From what I can tell, we’ve always known, at least on a basic level, what the words “right” and “wrong” mean, since long before God chose Moses or Abraham. C.S. Lewis pointed out on more than one occasion that, although systems of morality might differ somewhat in the details, they’ve always been broadly alike, even between cultures and between eras. I also agree with Lewis that things aren’t right or wrong simply because “God saith”. Our Lord doesn’t decree what righteousness and sin are, as though by pure fiat; He knows what they are in His perfect wisdom, and passes that knowledge along to us. And on the most basic level, we already agree with Him.

    Judgements of right and wrong don’t come to human beings as a series of conclusions, based on the accepted theological doctrines of any one religion. They are the premises — the axioms of Practical Reason, as Lewis called it. And the majority of the human race knows what those axioms are, regardless of whom or whether they worship.

    Dawkins agrees. He writes “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”.

    Meh. Dawkins was a geologist and biologist. It’s probably worth remembering that, when he talked philosophy and metaphysics, he was straying into subjects in which he was an amateur. On those topics, I take him with a grain of salt.

    Though I’d like to note: Even though Darwin wrote that the natural universe provides no basis for judging anything good or evil, I’ve heard of no reports that this idea ever caused him to beat his children, abuse his wife, or molest any women.

    Like

  15. Thirdly, you think my views in number 2 could be hurtful to Christianity hurts. They were not addressed to her, and she is free to argue against them.

    Yes, they were addressed to her — indirectly. She isn’t a Christian, and you specifically said that no unbeliever has any basis for moral outrage towards pedophilia. Which means, by extension, that she has no basis for calling pedophilia morally wrong, regardless of how much she has suffered as a victim of precisely this crime. I’m still disgusted that you’d say such a thing, even if you didn’t say it directly to her.

    And of course, Christianity Hurts is perfectly free to tell you how or whether your thoughtless words have affected her, if she so chooses. I’m not trying to speak for her, KAS, and I doubt I’m a good enough man to do so anyway. God knows I’ve never experienced anything like the house of horrors that her childhood must have been. But I will stand up for her, if I suspect you’re forgetting that this blog is meant primarily for people like her. If she thinks I’m overstepping myself, I hope she’ll tell me so. (Or that Julie Anne will, for that matter.)

    I’d like to take on your other points as well, but it’ll have to wait. I’m worn out from this week, and it’s already well past midnight here. If JA doesn’t decide to cut this thread short, I’ll try to continue sometime tomorrow.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. (part 1)
    I actually dropped by to link to an article I found, but I skimmed SKIJ’s responses to KAS’ latest posts (which I’ve not read myself, because if I do, I may get sucked into making more replied, which I’m kind of trying to avoid).

    So, going by SKIJ’s quotes of what KAS said…

    Serving Kids in Japan replying to KAS:

    Again, KAS, you are just plain wrong here. Plenty of atheists and other non-believers are more than capable of declaring things like theft, rape and murder as absolutely wrong, and can have any number of reasons for doing so.

    The Bible says God gave all humans a conscience, so it is false for KAS to argue that non-believers don’t know right from wrong.

    However… KAS should read the book “The Sociopath Next Door.”

    That book discusses how up to four percent of the American population is comprised of Sociopaths, and one characteristic of sociopaths is that they lack consciences.

    The book spends a few pages discussing how even centuries ago, theologians noted that some people seem to lack a conscience, and they had a hard time explaining that away.

    I find it interesting that if a God exists, and He created people, that he would permit some of them to be born with a condition (sociopathy) that may make it impossible for them to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior…

    Unless, that is, the Judeo-Christian God would permit someone (a sociopath) to accept Jesus as Savior on mere intellectual assent, and not due to any emotional sensation or sorrow or remorse involved with repenting from sin (sociopaths are incapable of feeling sorrow, remorse, empathy, compassion).

    Like

  17. (part 2)
    I actually dropped by to link to an article I found, but I skimmed SKIJ’s responses to KAS’ latest posts (which I’ve not read myself, because if I do, I may get sucked into making more replied, which I’m kind of trying to avoid).

    So, going by SKIJ’s quotes of what KAS said…
    Serving Kids in Japan replying to KAS:

    Again, KAS, you are just plain wrong here. Plenty of atheists and other non-believers are more than capable of declaring things like theft, rape and murder as absolutely wrong, and can have any number of reasons for doing so.

    One point I raised numerous times above that I don’t think KAS ever addressed (if he’s read any of my posts, I do not know), is that there are plenty of Christians who commit adultery, molest children, using adultery web sites to find affair partners, etc and so forth.

    The “Bind Torture Kill” serial killer was a long-time elder or deacon at his church, as a matter of fact.

    Police caught the BTK killer because they traced the fonts or inks or what not on his printed letters to them to the computer at the church where he attended.

    I could cite example after example (with links) to news articles about Christian preachers who have been arrested and/or forced to step down for things ranging from rape, using child pr0n, having affairs, for soliciting sex with animals in online advertisements, molesting children, being busted in prostitution rings, selling illicit drugs, to treating their wives like sex slaves.

    Being a Christian or believing that God is the final arbiter or creator of morals is not a guarantee that the person who believes this will behave morally or compassionately.

    There are some Non-Believers, including atheists, who live more “godly” lives than some Christians I’ve read about or have met.

    In years past, in my time lurking at various Christian forums, I’ve seen any number of Christian women saythat they divorced their Bible-believing, church attending Christian husband because the Christian husband was abusive.

    These same women say that when they married again, their second husband was an atheist. These women say their Atheist husband treats them more kindly and more “godly” than their Christian husbands ever did.

    Jesus acknowledged this sort of situation when he said, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ but do not do as I say.”

    A person can believe in a God and have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and even live a life of outward piety (known to be a regular church goer, etc), and yet, in private, be having affairs, sexually abusing children, etc.

    So I have no idea why some Christians, such as KAS, keeping harping on the apologetic point that Atheists do not have an objective standard by which to determine morality. Christians claim to have one, but some of them do not live by it.

    Like

  18. SKIJ said,

    Again, KAS, you are just plain wrong here. Plenty of atheists and other non-believers are more than capable of declaring things like theft, rape and murder as absolutely wrong, and can have any number of reasons for doing so.

    One need only to visit sites known to attract a lot of atheists or other Non-Christians – such as the comment box under any _‘Raw Story’_ article – to see how the atheists sometimes show way more sense than Christians do on some subjects.

    Visit Raw Story any time, find articles about things on that site, such as stories about churches who fail to deal with child sex abusers in their midst in a responsible manner, and the atheists point out how morally depraved and incompetent the average church or Christian is on those matters, and they’d be absolutely correct.

    Most Christians and churches, when they are made aware of child sex abuse or domestic violence by someone on their staff or membership, rather than help the victim, they will attempt to cover-up the crime, make excuses for the abuser, and they will sometimes victim-blame the afflicted.

    Some Christians get tripped up in wanting to support doctrine, so they twist the concepts of grace and forgiveness to defend the perverts (e.g., the pastors who are caught molesting kids in their churches).

    Of course, your average Atheist on those sites see how horrible and ridiculous that is, and they won’t have it. They are disgusted (and rightly so) to see how some Christians support perverts but shun victims, when it should be the other way around.

    Like

  19. I thought this was relevant to some of the conversations in this thread.

    The root of the matter, which the article explains, are attitudes by some men that involved an entitled attitude towards women. The men have misogynistic hearts and beliefs.

    The problem with gender- based violence is not “free love,” promiscuity, consensual casual sex, or “feminism” or whatever else KAS was going on about above.

    _Canada’s ‘Incel Attack’ and Its Gender-Based Violence Problem_

    … Alek Minassian, the 25-year-old suspect in the van attack, has been charged with murdering 10 people—mostly women— and injuring several others.
    In a Facebook post published shortly before the attack, he lauded “incels,” or involuntary celibates, and declared, “The Incel Rebellion has already begun!”

    The so-called rebellion aims to punish women for denying incels sex, which they view as a basic right for men.

    On online platforms like 4Chan, some of the group’s more extreme members discuss the desirability of carrying out gruesome misogynistic crimes, including mass rapes. Several quickly celebrated Minassian’s rampage, with one user on the site “incels.me” saying he could be their “next new saint.”

    …. “And Canada’s law is based on British common law, which was very permissive about violence against women and girls,” Bourgeois continued, pointing out that marital rape was legal as late as 1983.

    Nowadays, some critics say that Canadian law is still not equitable when it comes to sexual violence, arguing that the courts often go too easy on men accused of it.

    …The Canadian government has poured money into supporting those who have experienced gender-based violence (for example, by funding rape crisis centers), but its efforts don’t seem to be doing much good when it comes to prevention.

    Bourgeois said that’s because they haven’t targeted the root cause: misogynistic thinking, and the persistent belief among some that men should dominate over women.

    Like

  20. Serving Kids: Thanks for the reply. I don’t think, however, there is any real disagreement going on between us. I don’t want to get bogged down in this by writing war and peace replies, but let me give two example from your replies.

    You complain I am saying atheists cannot call things morally wrong. The atheist on my forum who got angry with me thinking I was saying he had no morals, if you look at what I wrote, I replied I’m not. Surely for the sake of brevity I don’t have to spell out what that means: I don’t think atheists have no morals – and by extension cannot say and mean something is morally wrong.

    Secondly, you say not all of Roman society was covered by Rom chapter one. I already agreed: Do I really have to repeat that this is not everything the apostle has to say on man and sin though? He deals with the moral man and the religious man too, culminating in all have sinned. Chapter 2 deals with the moral man who would be aghast at being included in Romans 1, and later the religious man, the Jew, who has God’s law yet doesn’t keep it. The latter is particularly relevant to evangelicals!

    I’m no fan of Dawkins – he’s actually a bit of a gift to Christian apologists, isn’t he. But I have to grant him he does take his atheism to its logical conclusion when it comes to moral issues, which is at best moral relativism. He is, incidentally, a serial adulterer (doesn’t believe then in ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’), but when Christians point this out it makes me uneasy that they are judging those outside the church. He does, though, live out his unbelief.

    Like

  21. @KAS

    Christians most definitely do not think pedophilia is wrong. Some do many do not.

    Conservative Christian preacher Matt Chandler protected a pedophile while getting p*ssed with the pedophile’s wife for divorcing him. No one who hates child sex could live in the same house with, have sex with, or be married to a pedophile.

    Conservative Christians far and wide took up for poor sicko pervert Josh Dugger.

    Doug Wilson is so pro-pedophile and misogynistic he arranged for a pedophile to get married and have a baby. The pedophile then proceeded to no intelligent informed persons surprise to be sexually aroused by his own newborn son.

    Doug Wilson also protected and defended a child sexual abuser while throwing the sexually abused teenage girl under the bus.

    Prominent and celebrated by conservative Christians Paul Pressler is a serial pedophile and many conservative Christians have known about it for decades.

    The conservative Christian pedophile is so special to other conservative Christians they made a stained glass window of him in the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s new chapel. More proof conservative Christians do not worship Jesus Christ but do worship misogynistic child raping pedophiles.

    It is conservative Christians that fight against laws that say a man cannot marry an underage girl.

    Conservative Christian misogynistic pervert Phil Roberts promotes men marrying underage girls.

    C.J. Mahaney consistently proved that he did not have a problem with pedophilia the way he protected child rapist and pedophiles and the way he pooped all over every raped child he heard about. The POS deserves to spend the rest of his evil vile life in prison. But, the huge conservative Southern Baptist Convention has his back. They too prove they do not have a problem with pedophilia

    My Conservative misogynistic Christian father married an underage girl he was too big of a loser to marry an informed impowered grown woman. But, at least the man was happy and got what he wanted. And that is what conservative Christianity is about; abusive, selfish, sadistic, unwanted men getting what they want and it always involves having trapped miserable women and children under his selfish thug thumb.

    Kas you have proven with what you complain about up and down this board what I already think about conservative Christian men. Conservative Christianity is not about Jesus, God, or love. it is about unwanted, selfish, heartless, hateful, sadistic, sexually-abusive “men” You give it away talking about women not breeding as much as you want them to, women being able to divorce and escape their jerk husbands, women having sex that makes them feel good physically and emotionally instead of toxic miserable married conservative Christian sex.

    The two men from my childhood that convinced me there is no God; my father and the man who sexually abused me hated and complained about the same things as you. Women not being pregnant against their will, women not being married against their will, women being able to divorce their husbands, and feminism.

    If you were a good person (which I do not believe you are) you would be concerned that you sound like and hate all the same things as such evil child marrying, teenage new mother beating, child raping men.

    Like

  22. “I’ll add something: growing boys will learn how to treat women with respect and love when they see their father doing this with their mother to whom he is faithful. For better for worse, for richer for poorer, till death do us part. They won’t learn it from men who abandon them for someone else through easy divorce, nor from Hollywood films and TV.”

    KAS you sound like a cult member. You repeat repeat repeat lies that have been being told by conservative Christian men( very bad child raping wife beating conservative Christian men) at least since the early nineties.

    Like the conservative Christian men I grew up with you don’t seem to be able to think, care, or listen. You hear or read something that does not flatter your ego or benefit your agenda and you pretend it wasn’t said or heard.

    In my thorough experience with Conservative Christin fathers and conservative Christian husbands, everything is about THEM. What they think, what they want, how they feel, what they need, their fears, their insecurities. Their wives and childrens needs, fears, wants, thoughts, and insecurities, are irrelevant.

    I have seen much nicer loving fathers on TV then I ever did at any church. All but two church going, bible reading, bible verse quoting churchmen I have known were selfish dumb lying sexually sadistic thugs. No, they did not love their wives or their children. They used them to feel more important, more powerful, more manly. They were just misery spreading thugs.

    My father never listened, he was too spoiled like a child and dumb to think and care when he heard another person talk. I never respected him.

    Delta Force listens to old people, women, and say they get some of their best intelligence from children, but Delta Force has been trained to get over themselves and not many of them need to disrespect women and children to feel more manly.

    Conservative Christian families remind me of North Korea. Women and children are trapped minions who do not matter except to make the embarrassing selfish unattractive dictator feel better about himself; everything is about Kim Jong-un- Christian father-Christian husband. Your Christianity is about men being worshiped and never having to feel bad. No, feeling bad is for women and children.

    As someone who grew up watching the way conservative Christian men treat their wives and children I strongly believe any woman who marries a conservative Christian man hates her self and hates her children.

    You can keep lying and pretending your selfish ideology is good while survivors of your ideology tell the world how miserable, toxic, and sexually abusive it is. And that it is all about “MEN” (not Jesus) women and little girls want to escape.

    Like

  23. @Serving Kids in Japan

    Have you seen the movie Memoirs of a Geisha? The story is very depressing but it is the most beautiful movie I have ever seen. Asian gardens are my favorite and I wish my yard was saturated with cherry blossom trees.

    KAS doesn’t say anything I have not heard a million times from my father and a child rapist.

    Your post are always thoughtful and compassionate. Atheist cant say you are a dumb hateful Christian. Much Love.

    Like

  24. Thanks, Julie Anne. I have a few more thoughts to share.

    And Christianity Hurts, thank you so much for your kind words. It’s a relief to me that I haven’t added to your pain.

    I haven’t seen “Memoirs” yet. I’ve no doubt that Spielburg made a beautiful movie, even if the story is sad.

    Like

  25. P.S. The cherry blossom season has ended just last week in my part of Japan. They don’t last long, but they are indeed gorgeous while they’re in bloom. Spring is my favourite time of year, especially in this country.

    Like

  26. I would like, however, an explanation from those who have heaped criticism on me as just how you get abuse from this. How I could be tolerant in any way of mistreatment of women? In particular, how you can get ‘biblical Christianity’ as being a source of abuse…

    I don’t think that believing in the Bible, or attempting to obey it, is abusive in and of itself. If I thought that way, I wouldn’t be a Christian. However, the kind of doctrine for gender relations which you consistently promote here as being required of all believers, can very often be used as a means for abusive men to mistreat women and girls, and to claim that God condones their behaviour.

    Remember, KAS, in the gender comp framework, husbands are supposed to instruct their wives and lead them. Also, parishioners are supposed to obey their pastors and elders (all men, of course) and abide by their teachings and their interpretations of the Bible. In such a system, there’s nothing to keep all the men from teaming up to keep their wives in “godly submission” to them, by supporting each other in abusive behaviour. And there’s nothing to help the women get out of such a system, except by disobeying their husbands and pastors.

    Personally, I find nothing wrong with the kind of husband you describe above. (i.e. “loving your wife, where love means putting her interests first; not hating her, giving, nourishing, cherishing, living considerately with her… bestowing honour on her…”) Unfortunately, all too many churches and husbands that call themselves gender comp will redefine “a husband’s love” to include controlling and domineering behaviour. But the pastors and husbands will claim that they have their interpretations are “biblical”, and that women have no right at all to gainsay them. And even if pastors of such couples admit that husbands aren’t loving their wives, many will insist that the Bible doesn’t acknowledge as valid grounds for divorce. Their only counsel will be for the wives to “submit more”. This keeps women trapped in marriages that are harmful to them and their children, being told all the while that God wants them to suffer for the sake of that marriage.

    And apparently, this is exactly the kind of closed, toxic system that Christianity Hurts grew up in, and from which neither her nor her mother had any chance to escape. It’s all well and good to realize that husbands and pastors in such an environment are “enemies of the faith”. But that acknowledgement does very little to help wives and daughters trapped there, or to heal the trauma they endure.

    I hope Christianity Hurts will continue to reject the false, the abusers, the fakes, but not the Jesus of the bible or those who try to follow him in sincerity.

    In that case, she’ll have to reject most of those who are call themselves leaders in modern American christendom. She has given numerous examples of modern gender comp leaders who have either supported or enabled abusive men, and I can think of many more. And they all claim to follow Jesus “in sincerity”. (Her own childhood experience, though, probably leaves them all in the dust.) So if these are the leaders in Christianity, where is she supposed to learn of “the Jesus of the Bible”?

    Like

  27. Thank you for responding, KAS.

    I don’t want to get bogged down in this by writing war and peace replies…

    Fine by me. But remember, you started it.

    You complain I am saying atheists cannot call things morally wrong… I don’t think atheists have no morals – and by extension cannot say and mean something is morally wrong.

    Well, thanks for clarifying that, but I got that message. My complaint was your claim that atheists (and homosexuals and feminists) have no basis for protesting abusive and vile deeds. (Direct quotation from you: “One thing everyone still agrees on is that paedophilia is wrong. Yet I have to point out to them that this is arbitrary, they have no basis on which to hang their objections to it.”) This is patently false and ridiculous.

    Also, I should apologize for my mistakes in talking about Dawkins. I misread your comment, and thought you were talking about Charles Darwin. (In my defence, I haven’t read enough of Richard Dawkins to be familiar with his quotations, and I was very tired at the time.) What I wrote in my reply to you was what I read about Darwin’s life, not Dawkins’. Sorry for the confusion.

    Like

  28. In a Facebook post published shortly before the attack, he lauded “incels,” or involuntary celibates, and declared, “The Incel Rebellion has already begun!”

    Daisy, I have been reading up on this subject but hadn’t heard that. Misogyny and entitlement like this kills. All the time, through domestic violence or something more dramatic like this. Rodgers had somewhat similar thought processes…he thought women should throw themselves at him and ended up murdering a bunch of people because they didn’t. People who promote these views about women are encouraging, directly or indirectly, violence and I have no patience for it anymore.

    Like

  29. Christians most definitely do not think pedophilia is wrong. Some do many do not.

    I want to disagree with you, but you laid out a very convincing case that some prominent men in a certain subset of Christianity certainly do not view pedophilia, and the abuse of children, with anything like the seriousness I would expect from a decent person, let alone a Christian.

    Many do, of course. But maybe they aren’t being listened too by the people who have put themselves in positions of power in these organizations. This is something this site and others similar have been examining. I wonder why anyone would act this way, and I think your conclusion is as reasonable as any other.

    Like

  30. I wish my yard was saturated with cherry blossom trees.

    CH (and SKIJ), I used to live in DC and the cherry blossoms are one of the things I miss most about it.

    Like

  31. My complaint was your claim that atheists (and homosexuals and feminists) have no basis for protesting abusive and vile deeds.

    It is almost as if he believes atheists can have morals but all of those morals are irrational? Which is not the case obviously, although I don’t feel like getting into an extended discussion about it, especially as I don’t believe KAS listens to anything, let alone anything a woman would say. Perhaps if you said it he would listen, but continue not to hear, which would be equally useless.

    in the gender comp framework, husbands are supposed to instruct their wives and lead them. Also, parishioners are supposed to obey their pastors and elders (all men, of course) and abide by their teachings and their interpretations of the Bible. In such a system, there’s nothing to keep all the men from teaming up to keep their wives in “godly submission” to them, by supporting each other in abusive behaviour. And there’s nothing to help the women get out of such a system, except by disobeying their husbands and pastors.

    Indeed. One of the great failings of this system is that it has NO answer to men behaving any other way than loving. And as you pointed out, it redefines loving in many cases into controlling and abusive behavior, in a way that is not biblical, but is proclaimed as such.

    In the face of terrible behavior, and many, many examples of ways in which this type of teaching leaves women trapped, proponents of comp go back to all manner of ‘no true scotsman’ fallacies (those men are ‘not christian’), combined with the ‘thou shalt not divorce no matter what’, and in many cases combined with some sort of ‘don’t even tell him what’s wrong because you are supposed to be winning him without a word’. All of which encourages abuse and leaves women trapped in it, if they want to be a good Christian.

    If I thought that was what Christianity was, I would pass, just as CH has passed. As it is, I have left anything the patriarchal side of things and have no interest in going back. Women are full adults, fully human, and should be treated as such. I will accept no less from men or from church.

    Like

  32. KAS, I think you misunderstand the Romans passage.

    In the new covenant, the law is written on the hearts of all – all understand right and wrong, rather than the Spirit being poured out on select few. For example, when the elders prophesied and Joshua asked Moses if he should forbid those outside the tent of meeting from prophesying, Moses said, “I wish all could prophesy”. Joel later prophesied that the Spirit would be poured out on “all flesh” – not just the elect. Jeremiah prophesied that in the new covenant, all would know God.

    So, what Paul is talking about isn’t that non-Christians are without any moral direction, like what happened in the old covenant, but that they have a moral compass that they are actively suppressing. However, that suppression is progressive, so we see that the world often has a good sense of right and wrong, especially when it is 3rd party. More often, when people suppress right and wrong, it is about refusing to feel guilty for their own actions and rationalizing them instead.

    So, in light of that, it makes sense that the “world” correctly understands the right and wrong of #metoo, that is those who are observers rather than the perpetrators – the Weinsteins and Cosbys will perhaps never see anything wrong with what they did. Where we have to be careful is that the world will often turn to inadequate and incomplete solutions – the quick fix so they can call it solved and move on to the next crisis, but we as Christians know that there is a much deeper issue going on.

    As I said, you misunderstand Total Depravity. That misunderstanding leads you to condemn everything coming from the “world” as another skirmish of God-haters. It leads you to assume that every last non-believer Paul is talking about has progressed through every stage of depravity in Romans 1.

    I still have the emotional scars of that viewpoint from the conservative evangelical church. I won’t ask for help because everyone is just waiting to beat me up and rob me. I used to think that every “liberal” politician was trying to maliciously rob from the rich and keep the poor in a constant state of poverty. I used to think that there was no such thing as a “competent” non-Christian, or an “incompetent” Christian (boy was I wrong!). All because the church taught such a bastardized, one-sided view of the human condition.

    Like

  33. “Indeed. One of the great failings of this system is that it has NO answer to men behaving any other way than loving. And as you pointed out, it redefines loving in many cases into controlling and abusive behavior, in a way that is not biblical, but is proclaimed as such.”

    So true. As I commented in a later post, this is because the theological framework of most conservative, evangelical churches (e.g. Westminster, London Baptist) ignores abuse of authority. Then, when a member complains or presses charges stemming from abuse of authority, the church, at a minimum, has no grounds for charges against the authority, and at worse, based on the lack of theological framework, turns it into something that IS chargeable, namely lack of obedience.

    A former elder claimed that virtually all excommunications he was aware of were based on the charge of “insubordination”. I wonder how many of those charges stemmed from church leaders overstepping their bounds.

    Like

  34. As I commented in a later post, this is because the theological framework of most conservative, evangelical churches (e.g. Westminster, London Baptist) ignores abuse of authority.

    I don’t agree that this is the reason. Many churches that reference the Westminster confession seem to have avoided this issue. I don’t have time to dig through my book of confessions right now to get into it though.

    I think these men try to make god like them. And when they are not good men, we see the results.

    Like

  35. Lea, “Many churches that reference the Westminster confession seem to have avoided this issue.”

    I haven’t found one yet. I’ve been to multiple NAPARC churches including OPC and PCA and other related Westminster and three forms churches, and it seems pretty consistent that they elevate the pastor and elders to some sort of quasi-papal-infallibility position, and lower the members to essentially babies who can’t be expected to understand right from wrong and must take any and all direction from the church leadership.

    When I was looking for a church after leaving an abusive one, I listened to sermons from pretty much every Calvinistic Presbyterian church within 20 miles and I heard the same thing in each one. Of course, I knew which sermons to look for to hear that view. Like one church that apparently was having an elder election and preached a series on the role of elders in the church. Very EYE OPENING to say the least. Not much about protecting the sheep from the wolves, but a lot about telling the sheep what they need to do and beating them when they don’t do it.

    But, I’m amazed at churches/elders that I thought “avoided the issue” when I had a disagreement with an elder, I found that instead of saying, “well, this is my interpretation and…” they resorted to “I’m the authority and…” I think that is a huge red flag that when these men are challenged on their interpretation on some Biblical text that neither the Confession nor the church have taken any official position on, they resort to “obey my authority or else”.

    That said, I did find a Reformed church that is not abusive in that way, so they do exist, just questioning how common they are.

    Like

  36. “And when they are not good men, we see the results.”

    I really have struggled with this. Are these “evil” elders who have found themselves in positions of authority, or are these “good” men who have been raised and cultivated in a culture of authoritarian leadership.

    Three specific examples I can think of are men who are really amazing people when they are not in an ecclesiastical position. However, when they put their “elder” hat on, then the pointer finger comes out and all the sudden the conversation is not about having a rational discussion about why a passage may mean one thing or the other, but about what how I must submit to the “truth” of the passage (i.e. their opinion). They stop listening and they start preaching.

    Like

  37. MOT – I would love to hear your explanation of–her as the weaker sex.

    Sorry for the delay in replying to your fair question.

    The average man is about one and a half times as strong physically as the average woman. There is a reason why the Olympic games has men’s and women’s events. The downside of this for women doesn’t need spelling out. It places a responsibility on men not to abuse their strength.

    It is also true women are more emotional than men. It may not be politically correct to say so, but I think it obviously true. I would suggest, but put it no more strongly than that, that women may be more prone to being manipulated by unscrupulous men as a result. I’ve certainly seen that happen more than once.

    I also think women are vulnerable during and shortly after pregnancy. It is a time imo when husbands should step up and take off more of the load. Go the extra mile.

    Bestowing honour on wives means no husband should think of his wife as second class in the kingdom of God, let alone treat her that way. Husband and wife are joint heirs of the grace of life.

    Husbands who do not treat their wives in this way will find God ceases to hear their prayers, and will turn away from them. They lose fellowship with God. Disobedience always comes at a price.

    Like

  38. “It is also true women are more emotional than men. … I would suggest, but put it no more strongly than that, that women may be more prone to being manipulated by unscrupulous men as a result.”

    I think one of the biggest failures of the modern church is to push men and women to suppress their emotions, both positive and negative. As such, it is the “rationality” of men and women that is a bigger path to manipulation than being emotional. For example, Jimmy Hinton talks about people who had a “gut feeling” about a child sexual predator, but who suppressed that feeling because rationality suggested that an elder, pastor, church leader or another faithful member would never do that sort of thing to a child.

    I had a spat with my former church that ended up with me leaving. The disagreement was in the role of negative emotions. For me, anger is an emotion that tells me that something is wrong and needs to be dealt with. For my old church, anger is an emotion that no one can have, except if you’re Jesus or a church leader.

    I also think that it is hard to truly discern whether emotional differences between men and women are as significant as they appear, or whether it is driven primarily by the fact that men in our culture who show emotion are considered weak or effeminate. Whereas women who show leadership and other “masculine” traits are considered to be mean and vindictive.

    Like

  39. Interesting comment thread here with respect to the last few posts. For what it’s worth, here’s three cents from my world/worldview/experiences regarding stereotyping genders.

    KAS, “The average man is about one and a half times as strong physically as the average woman………It places a responsibility on men not to abuse their strength.”
    Clear, concise, I appreciate this observation, and for the most part I believe this is true. There are always exceptions to this belief system, for in the natural, there are a few women here and there that are actually stronger, physically speaking, than some men. From my agricultural perspective/experiences, my husband and sons, ARE much stronger than me physically and I witness this day to day during the working season. They are able to lift heavier objects, apply more pressure when working with machine tools, and most days, have a longer endurance level than I. This is a fact I have accepted as the “weaker vessel” physically, allowing me the freedom and liberty to know my limitations and embrace them. I do not consider myself to be the “weaker vessel,” however, when I ask for one of them to help lift that flattened chisel plow tire into the pickup for a quick trip to town to get it “fixed in a hurry.” Nope. The guys are more than happy to do that for me (I always say a hearty “Thank-You for the help!) and we don’t even think about the Biblical words of “the weaker vessel.” Our main goal is “getting the job done,” whoever does it.

    KAS, “It is also true women are more emotional than men.” This is where I will disagree with you until the cows come home. Well, we don’t have cows anymore, so I will reiterate, until my precious dog turns into a cat…..will never happen! Smile! In my Biblical studies, I don’t see any Scriptures where Jesus states this stereotypical observation. In fact, before my surgery, I cherished those Scriptures where Jesus was in the Garden, literally weeping to His/our Father Who art in Heaven, before His crucifixion. Jesus’ “emotionalism” gave me such comfort, for I was scolded/corrected by my former Baptist woman prayer chain leader for beginning to share with her, my fears of having cancer. So I turned to the Scriptures instead of wicked folks like her, the hardened religious hearts (Baptist men and women leadership), for comfort, strength, and peace in my life during a very trying time. And He was merciful unto me.

    To stereotype “emotions” as a gender issue, I believe, is a blatant lie used against women. I don’t buy into it for one single minute and frankly, never heard of this until I entered the charismatic/Pentecostal/Baptist plan of religion during my married years. It is in these sects, I was told of the gender gospel, thus pitting men and women against each other through “role” theology. Never heard any of this garbage growing up in a poorer, rural Lutheran church……..every body pitched in to get jobs done within our church system……and I had the privilege of playing softball on our church “co-ed” team…..good and wholesome days within our church……and “the gender thing was NEVER, ever preached on because we were/are all “one” in Christ Jesus. This is where that unity thing amongst believers comes into play….and I praise our LORD that I had never heard the “gender bender false gospel” growing up, for it would have stereotyped my faith into apostasy.

    Jesus was full to overflowing with emotions, was He not? And He was a man as well as God in the flesh. Pretty profound if you would ask me. And in my life experiences, I have to admit, KAS, that there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE with regards to “gender emotions” in my neck of the woods. I cannot even begin to share with you of the times that I have on the receiving end of a “man’s” anger with regards to water rights, property rights, gun rights, religious issues (including the topic of “should a woman be a pastor), etc. It’s no fun to have a perfectly wonderful day, until the farmer “man” down the road shows up and royally YELLS at me for close to an hour because he is flooding from “our water” running across his land. Yep…….this has happened many times in my farm wife life……and these cowards never have the guts to approach my husband in such a way……must be easier for them to take out their frustrations on the “weaker vessel.” This is only one example for I could easily write a book regarding “The Emotionalism of a Man 101…….even for dummies!)

    So nope, no siree, KAS. I don’t buy into the emotionalism thing and thus I don’t consider myself “the weaker vessel” with regards to me mind and me soul. I am just as strong as a man in those areas of me life and find that liberating. I am not greater nor the lesser vessel there. So after receiving the vengeance/raw negative emotionalism of men in our farming community…..when they are done blowing off their anger onto me…….I can now calmly state, “are you done now?,” and actually have a rational conversation (in most cases) after their “emotionalism” has calmed down a bit.

    And as far as the “tear” thing goes……I have the privilege of witnessing my “boy” grandchildren cry just as much as my “girl” grandchildren…..and I love it/them to pieces. And both Granny and Grandpa experience the emotion of “great joy” in being a part of their precious lives…..so much for the gender bender “emotionalism” thing.

    And Mark, you make some reasonable points in your comment thread. Thank-you both KAS and Mark for your input. Appreciate that!

    Like

  40. And for the record, speaking the truth in love of course, it would be telling if you, KAS, could be on hand here, walking alongside of my work boots, regarding the concept of “emotionalism.” Conservative Christian (?) men burst into anger/temper tantrums when little women like myself, disagree with their unscriptural viewpoints. I witness the phenomenon of “red faced man syndrome” quite often (all too often 😦 )within our rural community ……and most of them are “c’hurched” men :(.

    ’nuff said.

    Like

  41. To stereotype “emotions” as a gender issue, I believe, is a blatant lie used against women

    Absolutely. Although I expect nothing less from kas.

    Expression of emotions is a cultural thing anyways, but the emotion themselves are there no matter how they are expressed. I read an interesting thing about there only being four emotions that have been identified but I will have to look it up…

    Like

  42. In agreement with you, Lea. It has been my observation throughout the years that the 501c. church has digressed into apostasy with their men verses women, women verses men philosophies disguised as Biblical teachings (depending which on which side of the political conundrum the institutional church supports, ie,, liberal or conservative, for politics plays a huge “role” in their version of a jesus of sorts). No longer are institutional churches about the Jesus of our Holy Scriptures, for that would make them truly “radical” as John the Baptist was in his day, or even far, far greater, as Jesus was in His Day. Now churches are into how “women are built…….especially the sixteen year olds”…….coming from a man disguised as a pastor/theologian……out of the heart the mouth speaks…..Scripture speaks truth on these matters. Wow…..wonder what kind of “emotion” was going on inside that human body?????

    Preaching jibberish concerning “emotionalism amongst the genders” has transformed many a church into prostitution against women, religious prostitution, from a harlot religious system. Indoctrination into these false belief systems, actually cripples women into believing they are the lesser/weaker of the genders (in every area of this earthly life) and cannot function without the “religious instruction of a man.” For God, the Holy Spirit, has now been reduced to indwelling only in men, emotionally driven ones at that, and not women, as the apostate church seeks to create division amongst the genders…….and actually “loves it so.”

    This is precisely why it is so important for the Ecclesia to focus on the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, for He speaks truth, with great “emotion” I might add. His teachings lead us into all truth and more freedom than we have been led to believe by lordship leaders, for both women and men. It is when I read His words, that I can experience great “joy,” spoken with resounding “emotionalism.”

    Like

  43. I have the privilege of witnessing my “boy” grandchildren cry just as much as my “girl” grandchildren

    Yes. Because children are still learning the way they are allowed/expected to express their emotions and they are not nearly as good at hiding them as adults.

    Anyone who has been around small children would realize these things are not gendered.

    Like

  44. Katy – thanks for your reply. In saying women are more emotional than men, the word ‘more’ means that men are emotional too. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with emotion as such, nor do I think men need to suppress their emotions.

    Your point about men getting angry is well made, and very telling! There is of course a righteous anger in the face of evil, but I assume you have in mind men who explode when they can’t get their own way.

    There is a balance to be had here. Not showing emotion for example during a bereavement because of how others would think is silly, yet can put unnecessary pressure on men. Jesus wept: if it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for me.

    On the other hand, bursting into tears when the letter arrives telling you you haven’t got the job you wanted or you don’t win the talent competition does show a certain weakness in the face of everyday life.

    You won’t find any problem with me if you don’t agree with me and say so. If you don’t expose your thinking to other viewpoints, you are unlikely to learn anything. But that cuts both ways!

    There is, incidentally, a fascinating amount of criticism of me on this thead for views I don’t actually hold, which I think I have made clear I don’t hold.

    Like

  45. Mark – regarding total depravity. I do believe in this (although the term is not used in the NT), understanding it to mean no part of us in our unregenerate state has not been affected by sin. This includes our thinking as well as actions. It does not mean were are all as bad as we could be, nor that we never do anything good. That is patently false, yet a common misunderstanding of the phrase.

    Worse than this, there is a heresy abroad I think confined to the US that total depravity continues after conversion. If it did, then it would mean no conversion has ever taken place. It is a complete denial of the gospel. If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

    A faith that doesn’t change is a dead faith. Bogus. This is not instant sinless perfection, but just as there is a minimum amount of doctrine to be accepted to be authentically Christain (such as the apostles’ creed?) there is a minimum change in behaviour to show authentic faith and conversion. New birth. Law of God written on their hearts, now flesh and not stone.

    The mark of a Christian is not that he doesn’t sin but that he can no longer be happy doing so. Has to confess it sooner or later and deal with it.

    In the end, God alone knows those who are really his, but from our perspective ‘sound’ doctrine is not enough without a life that reflects it, even if the doctrine comes from a Big Name supposedly evangelical or ‘charismatic’ celebrity, or is even found in the MacArthur constituency …..

    Like

  46. “It is also true women are more emotional than men.

    It makes feeble inadequate men feel better about themselves to say this about women. You do a lot of repeating misogynistic slop conservative Christian men have been peddling for decades to make themselves feel superior to women. It speaks volumes about them that the number one thing that makes them feel good is belittling women and girls.

    My grandfather was a Southern Baptist preacher and he was always having meltdowns; hysterical, emotional, irrational, temper tantrums. He would throw stuff, kick stuff, hit stuff, tear stuff up. My grandmother would have to go behind him and clean up his juvenile mess. His idiot son, my father, would also have outrageous meltdowns. He was a church-going, bible quoting, bible reading, conservative men.
    If the restaurant did not put lettuce on his burger he would holler at the top of his lungs making sure everyone looked at him and knew he was not getting his way.
    Is this not emotional?

    If someone cut him off in traffic he would try to run them off the road. Is that not emotional?

    My church-going, comp, conservative, Christian father beat his teenage wife in her face because his sick baby was crying and it got on his nerves; he is the one who forced the teen girl to get pregnant. Was he not being emotional?

    My teenage male cousins punch trees when their girlfriends’ breakup with them; breaking their fist in the process. They punch their truck windows breaking the window because their parents won’t let them stay out all night.
    Is that not hysterical, emotional, and irrational?

    I have a male cousin who trains people in gun safety and martial arts; he has trained with the IDF. His friends tell him if World War Three starts they are coming to his house because they know he can keep them alive. He cries when he sees something awful happening to children on the news. He is trained in EMT and took perfect care of our two great-grandmothers when they were dying. He is a tough fighter, skilled shooter, phenomenal hunter and he gets emotional over bad things happening to children and over sick seniors.

    KAS, you are peddling insecure misogynistic man’s lies. My father said all the same things you say. He would like you.

    Like

  47. KAS: “It is also true women are more emotional than men.
    CH: It makes feeble inadequate men feel better about themselves to say this about women.

    I think you bring up something I have been thinking about here…these claims are all about pride. Men like to say that women are more emotional, because they are proud for some reason that they think they are less emotional.

    There is not a shred of evidence for this belief, and when you bring up men’s emotional expressions like displays of anger they turn it around to ‘righteous’ anger. I guarantee the random dude who got angry that a teenage girl passed him and tried to fight at the intersection was not ‘righteously’ angry. That dude that murdered a bunch of people was not ‘righteously’ angry.

    The truth is that they are proud of their own emotional expressions and belittle women’s. This is not about anyone being ‘more’ emotional. Katy rightly pointed out that that is nonsense, even if KAS ignored her point entirely.

    Like

  48. He is a tough fighter, skilled shooter, phenomenal hunter and he gets emotional over bad things happening to children and over sick seniors.

    Your cousin sounds like a wonderful person.

    You know who doesn’t get emotional over bad things happening to children? Sociopaths. That is nothing to be proud of.

    Like

  49. Thanks for your reply KAS. Appreciate your feedback. My worldview believes that women are not “more” emotional than men, but rather, “emotionalism” depends upon the make-up of the individual, regardless of gender. I don’t buy into the theory that one gender has the patent on “greater or lesser emotions.” Nope, just doesn’t cut the mustard here.

    And your point regarding “righteous anger.” YEP, I truly understand that version of anger, studying the Scriptures meself to show “thyself approved.” Had to even memorize Psalm 4 as a defense against the wicked/evil/unrighteous anger from c’hurched men in my area……to protect andcalm my mind and soul while on the receiving end of “men’s anger.” Believe me, so called “christian men” have some of the most degrading and disgusting anger that I have experienced in my adult life…….so please, let us not even go there, for these evil men would boast, “but, but, but…..it’s my “righteous anger” that I am beating you up with.” Oh, those male emotional tongues can deliver a beating………….and then turn around and make “pseudo religious excuses” for their behavior……and it doesn’t even affect their conscience for they are “entitled.” Unfortunately for them, these emotional men consider the “woman” to be the weaker sex, so they fell entitled pouring out their anger onto me, and barking out this comment before they leave, “Now you tell your husband what I said.” It’s the all too popular “male red faced syndrome” that is alive and well in my neck of the woods……I experience this often.

    And true to life, KAS, I receive phone calls as well as meeting with women in person, to minister (at times we minister each other for I need comfort and healing as well) to share, pray, and assist with healing due to the fact there are many a christian man who is far more “emotional” than his wife. “Yelling in anger” has been turned into a “fruit” in the false christian church with the “righteous anger” quip commonly used against women, with the “women are more emotional then men philosophy”…..so thus men can verbally and emotionally abuse any Christian woman they want because all women are to be submissive unto all men, especially with regards to the leadership, leadership, leadership mentality so blatantly enforced in the Nicolaitan religious system, and with the “woman are the weaker vessel in all areas of life”……thus women are nothing and men are everything……..the gender bender false gospel is a product of all of this nonsense.

    So KAS, my religious worldview says, “The concept of emotionalism depends upon the make-up of the individual regardless of gender.” My belief in this area of my faith cannot be changed due to my worldview and life experiences, but mostly with regards to reading/studying/meditating upon the Scriptures for eternal validation. Jesus’ words and actions are my “go to source” concerning such matters.

    It would love it if you could hunker down in your kickin’ work boots and stand by my side when the “angry man syndrome” graces my doorstep, or calls via the phone to “express himself,” or takes out his anger on me while working in the field…..yes, angry men have yelled and yelled and yelled at me in the field while working, more often than I care to admit (one angry man lives closer to home). It may prove educational to your mind/soul in witnessing the wicked and evil pouring out of yet another christian man……and if our pride, yours and mine, were left outside of the gate, and we approached these situations in honestly and in truth, I truly believe that your “emotional philosophy” may indeed, be altered a bit. At least I would hope so.

    But then again……pride is the key issue of the heart and mind here. And at the end of the day, it is so important to be a Berean, both genders, to test the Scriptures daily as to exactly what is true, and what is not…..philosophies of man aren’t always the truth, for darkness doesn’t always hide at night…..in my daily life on the farm…..there is much darkness lurking around by day as well. Ephesians 6:10-18……committed to memory as well, because of the “red faced angry man syndrome.”

    Blessings to you KAS. May your eyes see and your ears hear the truth of God’s Word.

    Katy Girl!

    Like

  50. Christianity Hurts,

    THANK-YOU for ministering to me, each and every time you post. I am so grateful that you are here to put things into logical and reasonable perspective from your worldview. I literally HATE what happened to you with a righteous anger and am tenderly praying for your soul……not because I believe that I am more spiritually evolved and a Christian elitist, rather, because I truly respect and admire you as a person. You are created in His image as we all are.

    You are a courageous, brave, and good woman. And I value you here. Praise God, that Julie Anne developed a forum where we can be ministered to and encouraged in our every day lives.

    Blessings to you CH.

    Liked by 1 person

  51. Thank you, Katy. I am sure you are more spiritual than me. I only feel spiritual when walking in the woods and I don’t get to do that as much as right now.

    Much Love 😉

    Like

  52. Dear Christianity hurts,

    Much love back to you too. 🙂 Just wanted to reassure you that I am not more spiritual than you, as I am not a 501c. church member any longer and will never have my name on an institutional church roster the rest of my days here on earth. Frankly, can’t find any evidence of the early ecclesia/congregations keeping a membership list accompanied with a score care of how much money folks gave for offerings to our LORD. The Scriptures just aren’t there to prove such evidence…..Jesus sure knew what He was/is doing in building up the Body of Christ.

    You mentioned you feel more spiritual when walking in the woods……cannot think of a better place to worship Jesus, talk to Him, or simply just rest in Him all the while enjoying His creation. Best place to clear your mind and arrange your thoughts in order……and to actually be happy and rejoice! Good for you! I rejoice with you in that!
    And a most peaceful place to be yourself and ENJOY yourself.

    May be surprised to know that I “do church” at the local state park, which is a dammed up river turned into one huge slough; the geese, the ducks and the pelicans love it there…..and white tailed deer, as well as the squirrels. Can read/meditate upon the Scriptures in peace and sing aloud me hymns and memorized psalms with my awful singing voice…..and the birds and squirrels don’t even give me the proverbial eye ball rolls or shake their heads “no, no, no” over my rotten voice. I am accepted and loved out in the wild…….sure wish Baptist churches were as loving and as accepting! And there is an old Indian Mission there, where missionaries long ago, ministered to the local Native Americans, even translating our Holy Scriptures into their native language…….it is a special place for me to worship and fellowship with Him.

    I’m just so thankful that you are free to witness, and minister to all of us here…..as well as educating us. Please keep speaking. We need to hear your truths in opening the eyes to our own hearts as I truly believe there is a genuine fellowship of the saints here…..you included CH, because you are making a difference.

    Enjoy your spring!

    Like

  53. Lea even if KAS ignored her point entirely.

    Well, could you in turn not ignore my request for those being crticial of me to explain where you get abuse out of the following, for the third time of asking:

    The kind of language the NT writers use to describe how a husband should do this is: loving your wife, where love means putting her interests first; not hating her, giving, nourishing, cherishing, living considerately with her (knowing her, her needs and aspirations and taking these into consideration), bestowing honour on her as the weaker sex

    The point I am really getting at is you have said a couple of things above along the lines or ‘KAS is one of those who’ … and I read it and think I believe the precise opposíte. It’s prejudice. Identity politics. It is the end of discernment. Because some men who claim a complementarian understanding of scripture turn out to be hypocritical bullies doesn’t mean they all do. And you can never derive abusive behaviour from a study of the bible itself.

    Any effective critique of say the Fred Butlers of this world has got to avoid this kind of prejudice.

    Like

  54. It’s prejudice. Identity politics

    I don’t judge you on anything but what you actually say, KAS.

    “women are more emotional” isn’t prejudice? It isn’t identity politics? Please.

    Like

  55. Lea – I phoned my sister for her opinion on something, and she actually was the one who said ‘women are more emotional’. I suppose she ought to know. It’s part of being created male and female. I don’t intend saying this as a put down of women. A lifetime’s observation shows this in general holds true.

    In a fallen world though, this can be a weakness, a vulnerability, especially in view of abusive men who use this to manipulate in a cold-hearted, unfeeling way. Some men use women appallingly.

    ‘Men play at love to get sex whilst women play at sex to get love’ may be a clichee, but I think there is a lot of truth in it. In this regard, I am very critical of men and their attitude to women.

    You can overdo anything, including male/female differences, but I think today the opposite is increasingly the problem. I’m thinking of feminists whose ideology has blinded them to how men think.

    Like

  56. Well, could you in turn not ignore my request for those being crticial of me to explain where you get abuse out of the following, for the third time of asking:…

    KAS, I responded to this request of yours a few days ago — it’s on the first page of this comment thread. Here’s a link in case you haven’t noticed it:

    https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2018/04/24/fred-butler-metoo-and-the-worldly-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-385046

    No, you don’t seem to be a hypocritical bully, and when you say that the vile and abusive behaviour of such men horrifies you, I take you at your word. However, you do more than simply “claim a complementarian understanding of scripture” — you seem to insist that it is a necessary understanding for all serious Christians to have. And (as I pointed out in the linked comment), the kind of household and worship system that you consider normative for all believers, is one in which domestic abuse and oppression of women can fester very easily.

    I imagine that when Christianity Hurts and others here read some of your words, they hear echoes of just the kind of teachings that once kept them enslaved. And the system of church and home that you propose is very like the environment that trapped them in misery. I think that’s why they look at you with suspicion, KAS. If I’m mistaken, I hope someone will correct me.

    I accept that the Bible doesn’t teach abuse, but the sort of framework for gender relations that you preach can make abuse easy to propagate, and very difficult to escape.

    Like

  57. Serving Kids: thanks for your reply, but I didn’t have you in mind.

    I fully understand the term complementarian raises hackles, which is why I try to define what I mean by it. We agree that scripture doesn’t lead to or justify abuse, and if I or anyone else has a ‘complementarian understanding of scripture’, this cannot mean such complementarian views are abusive in any way.

    It does get frustrating when people clearly do not actually read what you write, but make assumptions. That is what I am objecting to. I certainly wouldn’t lump all egalitarians together, there is a range of opinion. The same is true of complementarianism, although I dislike both words a lot. It’s also not true that both ‘sides’ have nothing in common, although you could sometimes be forgiven for thinking so.

    Complementarian men who only seem to concentrate on a wife’s submission (and they do exist) can create a system of abuse or control-freakery, but if you look at what the NT actually says to husbands, this in and of itself rules this out. No abuser has ever seriously read the bible.

    Egalitarianism can have its besetting sins too.

    Wives should concentrate on what the NT says to them, which isn’t much, and husbands on what it says to them – which is a lot!

    I think egalitarianism is a wrong answer to a real problem. The real answer is to read mark learn and obey the distinctions the NT makes, neither adding nor subtracting to them. It may be hard to live it out, but it’s not rocket science to understand.

    Like

  58. KAS, re: Total Depravity

    I agree with what you say. My concern is that when I listen to your arguments, you seem to be applying a different view of Total Depravity.

    Let me explain. You claim that the #metoo movement is evil and wrong simply because it came from the world. Yet you claim that Total Depravity doesn’t mean that every thought and every action of the world is as bad as it could be. That is a contradiction, and I would say that it questions your definition of Total Depravity.

    If the world is “broken” in Total Depravity, then we would expect that the #metoo movement is “broken”, which I do believe. I believe it’s going to be a pendulum swing in the opposite direction where men get victimized based on whether something is unwanted. That said, I think the movement is really a great challenge to the patriarchal rape culture we’re living in – the kind of rape culture where there is actually a “discussion” in our society about whether Paige Patterson can represent the SBC taking the positions he has taken.

    If the world is “uncontrollably evil” in Total Depravity, then we would expect that the #metoo movement is, at root, a child of this uncontrollable evil. That is essentially the argument you’re making, that we as Christians ought to question and ultimately condemn the #metoo movement simply because the world is its origin. I think you have yet to offer any concrete examples of how the movement is turning the world against God.

    Like

  59. ” this cannot mean such complementarian views are abusive in any way.”

    Obviously, a complementarian “MAN” would say this. Women do not get anything out of complementarian except slavery and drudgery. The man gets a trapped female slave.

    Yes, complementarian is degrading/demeaning and abusive to women and their little girls. I was raised in complementarian.

    Telling a woman she has to be submissive to a man is dangerous and extremely abusive. My wife beating pro-rape father did not think complementarian was abusive either and he hated women who did.

    “Egalitarianism can have its besetting sins too.”

    Egalitarian means equal. Small, misogynistic, sexually sadic men who are insecure with not only their personhoods but also their 14-year-old boy manhoods hate being equal with women. They have decided they deserve more than women.

    KAS, complementarian hurt me as a little girl living in sexual abuse. It contributed to my sexual abuse. A child felt like she had to be submissive to her rapist and kiss his @ss and make sure not to hurt his male feelings. All because complementarian teaches women and little girls that men’s feelings, fears, needs, and wants matter. Women’s feelings, fears, needs, and wants do not. We were put here to kiss male @ss.

    A little girl being raised in the Ariel Castro ideology that is complementarian knew men matter and deserved to have their btts kissed and women were created to be submissive to men and kiss their btts. I was nothing! I was put here for men. That is complementarian. A good man would feel guilt and shame over it. That is yet another reason I know complementarian men are not good men; they do not allow themselves to feel guilt or shame over anything. Even little girl rape.

    As someone who grew up in the misogynist, man worshiping, pervert, complementarian world I have complementarian men in the same category as incels, Ariel Castro, Keith Raniere, Phillip Garrido, ISIS, The Taliban. Selfish, misogynistic men who think the deserve trapped female sex slaves. All of these groups of men want to believe they deserve to have trapped submissive females under their thumbs. How embarrassing and gross of them all.

    In comp world women are not allowed to go to college, have a job, they have to be married against their will, they have to have sex against their will, be pregnant and give birth against their will, be subject to a man. This is the same life Ariel Castro’s victims had. That unattractive putrid selfish man made sure that is what he got out of women. It is the same thing complementarian men make sure they get out of women.

    You have proven you cant slow down and think or care about anything any woman here says. This is a place created for abuse victims. You really think we haven’t heard your insecure selfish misogynistic slop before? You think we are going to say, yes, I want to go back to that?

    Like

  60. CH, even within complementarianism there are multiple camps, from the pure patriarchal types to those who are essentially egalitarians with the “final say” clause. Even within an abusive church, what I heard was more of a pedestal-raising sort of complementarianism where wives follow their husband because they are so honored and cherished and desire to follow their husbands, rather than primarily out of duty and obligation.

    Where the true abuse came out was when some marriage was in trouble and the church picked sides and started imposing the more patriarchal sort of complementarianism.

    I think saying “I was raised in complementarianism” is somewhat akin to saying I was raised in an abusive Christian home. Whatever the theology is in its purest form, people will take that theology and apply it any way they want to. I think point blank, your family was abusive and dysfunctional and NOT Christian. They picked and chose what parts of theology they wanted to apply only to justify their sinful actions. True complementarianism (I was one, but am now egal.) places a lot on the Christ-likeness of husband and father, which your father was not interested in – the sacrifice aspects, that is, not the worship aspects.

    With any theology, there is a tradeoff – there is a benefit and there is a cost. However, in most abusive systems, the authorities want to take all the benefits and they want to reject all the costs. So, for example, in my authoritarian ex-church, the leadership wanted to be responsible for all church teaching, but they didn’t want to take the time and effort required to actually fulfill that responsibility, so they decided that the sermon was the only “valid” church teaching. With authoritarianism, that’s the tradeoff, generally. They want the power, the respect and the, may I say, worship, but they don’t want to expend the time and energy to be as involved in peoples’ lives as they have to in order to truly serve and display that authority, so then it’s simply a dictatorship.

    Like

  61. Bike Bubba,

    There’s a reason that Jesus NEVER told women to submit.

    Jesus gave us the best marriage advice when He taught us to treat others the way that we should be treated.

    Pull your Stong’s Concordance and KJV off the shelf and look at all the words of Christ in red—-Jesus NEVER taught Comp theology. NEVER. NOT ONCE.

    Plus Jesus directly attacked the idea of entitlement mentality when He said “I didn’t come to be served but to serve and to give My life as a ransom for many.”

    Then just in case we missed it the first time Jesus attacked their entitlement mentality again when He healed the woman in the synagogue. Read that passage closely, Jesus put her needs on the same level of value as the Pharisees who prided themselves on being sons of Abraham. Jesus elevated her to having the same rights and privileges as a daughter of Abraham. (Luke 13:10-17)

    in the NT—the Apostle Paul also directly attacked entitlement mentality. He had studied in the best schools where they liked to pray this prayer “Thank you God that you haven’t made me a Gentile, a slave or a woman.”

    That’s why the Apostle Paul ripped that entitlement mentality to shreds when he twice (not once) made the point that

    “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:28 (NLT)

    Obviously those social classes still existed in Roman society. Obviously the barriers and advantages/disadvantages still existed. But Paul was making the point that Christ had ripped apart the entitlement mentality, by putting all of us on the same equal level.

    Like

  62. Comp theology is deeply rooted in entitlement mentality. It says:

    “Because I’m born with different parts that gives me the right to override your decisions whenever I want.”

    Nope. Jesus gave us women the power of “no” in Matt 5:37 (NLT). Jesus warned women NOT to allow anyone to override our “no.”

    Jesus told women “Just say a simple, ‘Yes, I will,’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ Anything beyond this is from the evil one.”

    Let that sink in for a moment. Jesus is saying that allowing someone else to override our ability to make our own decisions—-that doesn’t come from God. That comes from the devil!!

    Like

  63. Avid Reader, I like a lot of what you say. I’m not sure the context of “yes” and “no” supports your argument. Jesus is talking about making vows and how the Pharisees were coming up with “crossed fingers” rules for making vows.

    Other than that, I don’t think we can discount the rest of scripture by focusing only on what Jesus was recorded as saying. I struggle greatly with passages, primarily Corinthians where Paul seems to be enforcing structure and roles on the church. My current conclusion is based on Jesus’s explanation of divorce. Whereas the people of the day saw the Law as a perfect list of “do’s and don’ts”, Jesus said that, in fact, the Law was designed to restrain the sin of people with a hard heart.

    So, I would propose that Paul’s exhortation of the Corinthian church is essentially a “law” written to restrain their hardness of heart, not a perfect reflection of God’s will for all believers everywhere. As such, it is not a message geared to a patriarchal and legalistic church (that’s what Galatians is about), but a message to a church that is so anti-legalistic that they won’t stand for anything. I believe it is possible that Paul’s message about family order is contradicting the pagan religion of the day, which was woman-centric, woman-led worship of a Greek goddess.

    I would make an analogy to a toddler who runs ahead of the parents into a dangerous street. The parents will make a “rule” that the child must hold a hand when crossing the street. The parents might even write down a list of house rules for the children that includes such things as making their bed every night and holding hands while crossing the street. Now, let’s say an adult is reading those house rules. Is the adult required to hold their parents hands while crossing the street? Is the adult required to make their bed every night? No, the adult (hopefully) understands that those instructions were given to deal with a specific situation, and not necessarily universally applicable.

    Like

  64. CH:You have proven you cant slow down and think or care about anything any woman here says. This is a place created for abuse victims. You really think we haven’t heard your insecure selfish misogynistic slop before?

    Man: Comp is great for women, because men will do xYZ.

    All the women: Men don’t do that because the only ones that go crazy headship on you are abusive. the church supports them. This is a problem

    Man: Comp is great for women, because men will do xyz. That ‘wasn’t comp’.

    All the women: This is a problem.

    Man: nope. That’s not comp, so there is no problem. QED.

    Endless frustrating loop.

    KAS says egalitarianism has sins. I disagree. Egalitarians can sin, as do all people. The simple concept of equality of people does not have besetting sins. It is inherently biblical. There is no male or female, we are all one. That is not sin.

    Like

  65. Lea,

    Great points.

    The whole idea of Egal theology is that we yield to truth. We don’t yield to status. We don’t yield to someone because of their place in society.

    There’s a lot of examples of this in the Bible—for example God had to tell Abraham to yield to Sarah because Sarah was right that it was time to get rid of the polygamous situation and let Hagar go free.

    Like

  66. Hi Mark,

    I understand where you’re coming from on this. You like to really think through things. That’s a good thing.

    Now there’s three main groups of thought on this topic:

    Group #1: They say that the Apostle Paul wanted women to sit down and shut up and that still applies to us today.

    Group #2: They think that the Apostle Paul put those limits on women but _________ (insert reason), those verses don’t apply to us today.

    Group #3: They believe the Apostle Paul NEVER put those limits on women in the first place. Paul was actually trying to shatter the glass ceiling for women but that got lost in translation from Greek to English.

    Guess which group of thought—-I’m in 🙂

    Keep in mind that I reached this conclusion after years and years and years of heavy duty research.

    It was a huge lightbulb moment for me to realize that Jesus was speaking to women too in Matt 5:37. Because the KJV translators kept inserting the word “men” whenever the Bible was referring to both women and men, now we often forget that freedom in Christ applies to women too.

    Plus, Jesus was speaking to a culure where any vow made by a woman could be easily overrode by men. So women weren’t allowed to have ownership of their “yes” and their “no.”

    It was a huge thing for Jesus to throw the old rules out the window and announce that women had power in their own lives to decide “yes” or “no.” Think about all the implications of that.

    That’s the one thing that Comp theology refuses to allow women to do. Ask any Comp guy this question—what happens when a wife is led by the Holy Spirit to go a different direction? What should she do?

    Comps always reply that the Holy Spirit only leads through the husband, but that’s actually putting a mediator between us and God. There’s a reason Bible repeatedly tells women (and men) to be directly led by the Holy Spirit. The Bible NEVER tells women to be led by anyone other than the Holy Spirit. Chew on that for a while.

    So as you can see, the issues are really complex. People are quick to deny the words of Christ in Matt 5:37 simply because it doesn’t fit what we’ve been taught for years in church. But if you really take the time to think about it—-we begin to understand there’s a reason that Jesus said, “If you abide in My words and My words abide in you, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

    Like

  67. KAS wrote,

    “Egalitarianism can have its besetting sins too.”

    What sins? Be specific.

    Like

  68. Mark – I don’t know where I had said or even given the impression I think #metoo is evil. I fear it won’t do much good, time will tell. This is because we live in an increasingly godless society.

    It’s difficult to take Hollywood actresses seriously on this subject when they have been taking their clothes of in front of the cameras for decades. This is the objectification of women, yet if you try suggesting (as I have) that porn is of itself destructive and evil, you will be greeted with the reply ‘we don’t believe in censorship’. Both men and women have colluded in propagating this stuff, but then there is money to be made …

    People have always committted adultery, but it used to be regarded with disapproval despite this. With the decline of Christian influence in the West, I don’t really think you could say in general that is true today. The underlying attitude of wanting a free for all and self-control to be exercised at the same time has got to change.

    You don’t need to tell me that the church needs to get its act together on this as well!

    Like

  69. KAS, you said:

    Fred is right as far as it goes in that the genuine church cannot take a cue from the world around it, because that world is hostile to God and his revelation. It is hostile to the sex ethic of the bible, it doesn’t want it kept to a man and the women to whom he is married and committed. The whole world lies in the power of the evil one. I would include ‘churches’ that systematically cover up abuse that has gone in in their midst in this.

    What I see in the #metoo movement is world and culture that has rejected any kind of biblical morality, now complaining at the effect of what it has sown, at the consequences.

    Just to not put words in your mouth: the #metoo movement comes from a world that is:
    “hostile to God and his revelation” and “has rejected any kind of biblical morality”

    As such I do not think it is a stretch to say you are claiming that #metoo is bad. That is what Fred is saying. 9Marks seems to be saying that #metoo has a right thought but can’t bring about true redemption (which I would agree with), and Fred is saying, no, we can’t even say that #metoo has the right thought.

    You said: “It’s difficult to take Hollywood actresses seriously on this subject when they have been taking their clothes of in front of the cameras for decades.”

    This is pure-and-simple victim blaming. That’s like saying a victim was asking to be raped because she was wearing a skin-tight red dress. We can say that “taking their clothes off in front of cameras” is wrong and also say that being sexually assaulted is wrong, and we can even say that taking clothes off breeds objectification, but rape is, by definition, non-consensual. I think it’s very hard to take this argument seriously, because the ultimate conclusion is either, blame God for rape for making women so attractive, or that women must wear burqas. The problem is not modesty, it’s lust.

    Like

  70. “Ask any Comp guy this question—what happens when a wife is led by the Holy Spirit to go a different direction?”

    A comp would say that a wife would never be led by the Holy Spirit to go a different direction, just like a comp would say that a women would never be given the gift of being an elder or pastor.

    But, I have this same struggle with cessationism. My pastor says that people are still given the gift of prophesy, healing, etc., so what happens if a person, in the Holy Spirit heals me, then tells me God said I should sell all my possessions and move to sub-Saharan Africa.

    I think we have to believe that God is a god of order and not confusion, and that God is not going to screw around with us that way. That’s why some OT passages are sooooo confusing. For example, in some passage God appears to change his mind (e.g. Abraham and Isaac, Hezekiah) but then there is this prophet who is told not to eat in Israel, but then a lying prophet comes out and says, “God told you to eat dinner with me.” Of course, the prophet eats and dies.

    Like

  71. “Egalitarianism can have its besetting sins too.”

    I would say that there can be a tendency towards indecision. My wife and I have, as of late, run into many situations where one of us thought we had made a decision and the other of us thought no decision had been made. So, we can talk about things and assume one way or another that something is going to happen, but they don’t happen. Or one person acts and the other is annoyed because they thought no action was agreed upon.

    Like

  72. “Group #3: They believe the Apostle Paul NEVER put those limits on women in the first place. Paul was actually trying to shatter the glass ceiling for women but that got lost in translation from Greek to English.”

    I would LOVE to be in that group, but I just don’t see that in scripture.

    A great argument for #2 is meat sacrificed to idols. Both Jewish and Muslim ceremonial laws require their meat animals to be killed in a specific manner. Halal meats are (if I understand correctly) killed by slitting their throats facing Mecca and saying Allah’s name over them.

    So, Biblically speaking, we see two things:
    #1 DON’T EAT MEAT SACRIFICED TO IDOLS! (This is commanded multiple times)
    #2 There is nothing inherently evil about eating meat sacrificed to idols.

    So, if we didn’t have #2, Christians today would not be able to eat meat at a middle eastern restaurant, or buy meats from a Muslim butcher. Yet, I have yet to find any Christian who has this sort of issue.

    I think the whole discussion is there to say that this command (and it was a command) was based on the present circumstances of the churches – that is churches where eating meat sacrificed to idols was a BIG DEAL and could cause harm to believers who were still recovering from their pagan rituals.

    Just because we don’t have this level of detail of instruction for every last one of Paul’s commands doesn’t mean that Paul’s commands weren’t just that – meant as temporary crutches for churches in cultures with pagan rituals (such as female cult prostitution).

    There is a significant amount of instruction for Jews coming out of their ceremonial laws – some observe the day, some do not. Some are circumcised, some are not. So, there is a lot of leeway given Jews who might feel they had to observe the Sabbath or observe Kosher laws, while at the same time perhaps acknowledging that those laws are no longer in effect.

    Like

  73. KAS said,

    It’s difficult to take Hollywood actresses seriously on this subject when they have been taking their clothes of in front of the cameras for decades.

    When you say “this subject,” I take it you mean sexual harassment of women generally or of actresses in particular?

    First of all, it does not matter if an actress dresses scantily for a movie role or not – she still deserves to be treated with respect. Directors and her male co-stars do not have a right to sexually harass or abuse her.

    Secondly, Hollywood is largely a male-run enterprise. The men write most of the scripts, direct the pictures, etc, and the women, if they want employment have to put up with this sort of thing if they want work.

    Conservatives and Christians are no better. They look at Xrated sites, movies, and have joined adultery sites such as Ashely Madison.

    Pastors such as Mark Driscoll are obsessed about sex and make every third sermon revolve around the topic of “How to have a hot married sex life.”

    As a celibate, single woman, I tire of conservative Christianity’s obsession with sex.

    The Mark Driscoll type preachers also contribute to the sexualization and objectification of women and girls, as do Christian “Modesty” teachings, which tell men and women that women are sexual objections, so they say, women must dress a certain way to supposedly keep men from stumbling. They make men’s sexual failings into a woman’s responsibility and reduce a girl or woman to nothing but sexual body parts.

    Like

  74. Should be “sexual objects” in last post, not “objections”

    Also, per, KAS said,

    It’s difficult to take Hollywood actresses seriously on this subject when they have been taking their clothes of in front of the cameras for decades.

    Not that I condone prostitution, but, sometimes prostitutes – who get paid to have sex with men – are raped and abused by their clients, which is not moral or acceptable.

    Just because a woman works in the sex trade, whether in the dirty movie biz or as a street walked, does NOT give men a right to take sex from her by force or to hit her or murder her.

    Like

  75. KAS said,

    Fred is right as far as it goes in that the genuine church cannot take a cue from the world around it, because that world is hostile to God and his revelation. It is hostile to the sex ethic of the bible, it doesn’t want it kept to a man and the women to whom he is married and committed. The whole world lies in the power of the evil one. I would include ‘churches’ that systematically cover up abuse that has gone in in their midst in this.

    What I see in the #metoo movement is world and culture that has rejected any kind of biblical morality, now complaining at the effect of what it has sown, at the consequences.

    KAS, let it sink in that I am over 45 years of age and still a virgin. I was engaged but told my finace there would be no pre-marital nooky, and he stuck by that.

    And I’m telling you that your views about women, sex, and the ‘MeToo’ movement are wrong and sexist.

    I’m not some over-sexed harlot who bangs a different dude every other day who has a dog in this race… and you’re still wrong.

    Sometimes the world is in agreement with the Bible, or vice versa, by the way.

    Most Americans – even of the Non-Christian variety – are against mugging, stealing, bank robbing, scamming elderly, and child pr0n.

    I’m pretty sure the God of the Bible is also opposed to mugging, stealing, bank robbing, scamming the elderly, dog abuse, and child pr0n.

    The Bible is against sexism (it says that there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, for example, and God chose women to lead men, such as Deborah), but Christians these says (the complementarians) attempt to say that God endorses sexism, and they slap the “complementarianism” label on to this and try to back it up with cherry picked Bible verses.

    I agree with the aims of the ‘MeToo’ movement (those who use the tag are simply speaking out against the sexual harassment of girls and women, which is entirely compatible with the Bible), ….and…
    I’m not one of them thar nasty liberal, secular, feminists you treat with such suspicion and disdain.
    I’m a conservative, used to vote Republican until a few years ago (am no longer GOP, I also don’t agree with Democrats), and again, I’m a virgin over the age of 45.

    Like

  76. Kas said,

    People have always committted adultery, but it used to be regarded with disapproval despite this. With the decline of Christian influence in the West, I don’t really think you could say in general that is true today. The underlying attitude of wanting a free for all and self-control to be exercised at the same time has got to change.

    Conservative Christians also don’t take hetero sexual sex sins seriously…
    They are either defending sexual sins, ignoring them, or are complicit in them.

    Every other day I see news articles of married male Christian pastors who are “outed” for using prostitutes, using dirty web sites, or having affairs on their wives.

    Why are you so concerned with what Non-Christians are doing?

    Paul says you are not to do that. Here is what Paul said:
    Paul in 1 Cor 5:

    9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

    11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

    12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

    13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

    You’re supposed to be policing your “own” (other Christians), not so fixated on pointing to the sins of the Non-Christians.

    Like

  77. I take it that Mark was quoting KAS here(?)-

    “Egalitarianism can have its besetting sins too.”

    Like what?

    Only complementarianism, with its wrong-headed application and insistence on unilateral female- to- male submission, makes abuse of women much easier than it does under egalitarianism.

    Like

  78. I would say that there can be a tendency towards indecision

    That’s not a ‘sin’ mark!

    That’s just freedom. It’s not as easy as a man just making all the decisions, but it’s so much better.

    Like

  79. Daisy, to add onto that, it’s a hierarchy of submission where each higher tier is given essentially carte blanche to do whatever they want to the tier below and each lower tier is told to bend over, submit, obey, shut up, whatever.

    So, as an 8yo boy, I knew that I would get nowhere talking about how my father physically and emotionally abused me. As a 30+yo, I confirmed that to be the case when I mentioned a single instance of that abuse to a pastor and the response was to tell me that I “must have done something to deserve it”.

    Lea, true, but the indecision does lead to arguments about the results of the indecision.

    Like

  80. A couple of besetting sins of egalitarianism if people insist. Taken from observation of egalitarians over the years.

    The first is, ironically, a sense of entitlement. If some men are allowed to teach and have authority in a mixed group, then women must be as well. This is treated as a kind of right.

    Yet we have no enforceable rights against God, and ministry is a gift from God, and given by grace and not as due. We are all hopelessly in his debt. This is true for men as well. God has appointed in the church first apostles … etc. The sinfulness in this is that it betrays a heart attitude that won’t recognise it is God’s church, not ours. We don’t get to decide what the glass ceiling is or whether there should even be one.

    Secondly, it gradually dawned on me over the years that the objections to Paul in 1 Tim 2 were all too frequently along the lines of this ‘denies my personhood (whatever that means), makes me feel second-class, women have a right to personal fulfillment and the church mustn’t hold them back’ (as opposed to discussing the text).

    The objections are not that if you implement Paul’s restrictions today you are denying women the chance to bless others. This is conspicuous by its absence.

    A ministry is not for the benefit or fulfillment of the person who has it, it is for others. This is true of all spiritual gifts. My objection is to ‘servicing the self in the service of God’. (Willow Creek is chock full of this kind of thinking, and exports it round the world.) The focus is not on God but on man – or usually in this context, woman.

    Now I don’t deny that service in the church can be fulfilling and personally encouraging, but that is not its purpose. Jesus died on the cross to save us from sin, and bring us to God and give us a future hope, not to feel good about ourselves or have our best life now or build our self-esteem, or even have a complementarian marriage! The sinfulness in the kind of thinking I am talking about is that is subtly changes the focus away from loving God and your neighbour to the love of self. It is quite extraordinary how much some egalitarian women I have read are centered on themselves, it all revolves around them and their ministry.

    The dictum “status seekers keep out” applies to everyone who seeks a ministry or aspires to some kind of leadership in the church. Sadly, …

    Finally, as a disclaimer, I believe men and women can exercise and should exercise all the gifts and ministries of the Spirit on an equal basis except were scripture says otherwise. Every member ministry. I’m all for it. There is not much of a limitation in practice. I have massively benefitted from women with gifts in the church.

    So I am very far removed from the John MacArthur version of complementarianism, if we have to use this ghastly word. Unbiblical church structures – e.g. a one-man ministry at the ‘front’ – probably squash more gifts and ministry from both men and women than Paul’s restrictions.

    Like

  81. KAS,

    Seriously? The call of God on someone’s life is not entitlement. It’s called obedience. Let’s see. So you’re saying that Corrie Ten Boom felt entitled to preaching to men? (Bang head here in frustration)

    Nope. God called her to bring a message of hope to people who had deeply suffered in the war. It would have been much easier for her to just retire instead of traveling and ministering around the world. She obeyed the leading of the Holy Spirit and touched many lives.

    “For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!”
    1Cor 9:16 (NIV)

    Like

  82. KAS wrote

    “It is quite extraordinary how much some egalitarian women I have read are centered on themselves, it all revolves around them and their ministry.”

    Question—Are there men that do that too?

    Question—If you’re saying that women doing that must prove Egal is wrong then does the men doing that too prove that Comp theology is wrong?

    Like

  83. A ministry is not for the benefit or fulfillment of the person who has it

    As we see constantly in complementation spaces?

    Greed is a universal sin. Pride. These are not limited to egalitarians.

    If the only egalitarian women you are thinking of are the ones who desire a ministry, and you then judge them for wanting a ministry, then you are going to think this way. Most egalitarian women have no interest in being the ‘preacher’. I certainly don’t. But I still want to be treated as a human being, with god given freedom. And that is why I am egalitarian.

    I see no sins listed here that are not either universal or imagined.

    Like

  84. KAS,

    Wanting to obey the will of God for your life is called “obedience.” It’s called “faith.” Not entitlement. Sheesh. Talk about labeling good as evil and evil as good!

    Who do you think wants to silence the call of God on women’s lives? Not God.

    Like

  85. “With the decline of Christian influence in the West, ”

    KAS, children born and raised in conservative Christianity are getting raped up one side and down the other at church by church going, bible quoting, comp men and boys. Then, they are being mocked and bullied to get over it and not tell anyone it happen, especially the police. These conservative churches are protecting, pitying, and coddling the child rapist and treating the raped children like trash.

    C.J. Mahaney and his conservative comp church friends protected child rapist and saw to it that in their churches child rape was not a crime and was not prison worthy.
    Sovereign Grace Church
    http://time.com/4226444/child-sex-abuse-evangelical-church/

    Conservative comp Doug Wilsons protecting and advocated for two child sexual abusers. A pedophile who was sexually attracted to his newborn baby boy. Steve Sitler. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/09/04/pedophile-supported-by-doug-wilson-molests-a-baby-christians-there-is-no-excuse-this-must-stop/

    And this sicko. https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2015/09/08/the-jamin-c-wight-story-the-other-child-molester-in-doug-wilsons-closet/
    “The child abuse survivor’s pastor, Doug Wilson, sat on her abuser’s side of the courtroom during the trial.” No surprise there.

    Christianity does not seem to be preventing child rape, or protecting and helping women, children, raped women or raped children. So pretending the problem is the decline of Christianity is an obvious (((LIE))).

    Liked by 1 person

  86. KAS, “The first is, ironically, a sense of entitlement. If some men are allowed to teach and have authority in a mixed group, then women must be as well. This is treated as a kind of right.”

    I think you are putting the conclusion ahead of the argument here. You are presupposing that women do not have the gift to teach or have authority to then accuse them of a sense of entitlement when they feel they do.

    If you want to talk about a sense of entitlement, I have a relative who felt he had the gift of eldership. He was at a church in a non-elder leadership role and when there was an elder election, he was not nominated by the elders. So, he left that church and joined another church where they desperately needed elders, and became an elder there. Would you say that he had a “sense of entitlement” as a comp. person, and then it would seem that the sense of entitlement is not unique to egalitarians.

    If I were to argue against 1 Tim 2, I would say that 1 Tim 2 is taken as binding and 1 Tim 3 is taken as aspirational. Meaning that an elder wannabe who has been proven not “able to teach” or not “respectable” is still to be considered for office because “no one truly meets all the qualifications”.

    So, then why do we interpret 1 Tim 2 as being rooted in the fabric of the universe, and then the very next chapter talk about how Paul really could not have meant what he said because our leaders are human and fallible and can’t meet that standard. But, that is the presuppositional argumentation. We pick and choose what instruction we want to listen to because we’ve already closed our ears to the truth. What if it’s the other way around? What if 1 Tim 2 is a temporary fix “I (Paul) do not permit…” and 1 Tim 3 is binding (An overseer MUST)? What would our churches look like if only one in 1000-5000 men were qualified to be elder rather than 1:100 or even 1:20? That’s the way it was in the New Testament. At Pentecost, 12 apostles, 5000 converts. A few days later, 12 apostles, 10000 converts, and it’s probably 2-3x that number because they only considered “men” in their counting. 12:30000 elders to congregants and the church was growing. We have a 1:20 ratio because we deny the work of the Holy Spirit and instead, growing the church is about having enough leaders so that they can micromanage the lives of the congregants to can grow in holiness (act the part).

    Like

  87. KAS,

    The whole point of Egal theology is obedience to God. You can’t obey God if someone else is making your choices for you. That’s why we had to let go of Comp theology in order to obey God’s command, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

    Like

  88. Mark: If I were to argue against 1 Tim 2, I would say that 1 Tim 2 is taken as binding and 1 Tim 3 is taken as aspirational. Meaning that an elder wannabe who has been proven not “able to teach” or not “respectable” is still to be considered for office because “no one truly meets all the qualifications”.

    I think people are misunderstanding Timothy in general on this issue, but yes, there is a whole lot of picking and choosing going on on which qualifications are important.

    Mark: I think you are putting the conclusion ahead of the argument here. You are presupposing that women do not have the gift to teach or have authority to then accuse them of a sense of entitlement when they feel they do.

    What is actually happening is that men are feeling ‘entitled’ to these positions, and then accusing women of ‘entitlement’ when they ask about it. Neat little circle, that.

    Like

  89. Avid Reader, “The whole point of Egal theology is obedience to God. You can’t obey God if someone else is making your choices for you.”

    Yes, when I started considering “reality” as part of understanding scripture, I realized that two egal. women that were trying to change my comp. church were showing more and greater fruit than many of the men (seminary-trained pastors) who were opposing them. As I put more weight on how the theology works in practice, I saw that these man who were teaching comp. theology were also silent about all sorts of abuse, especially when it was the “authority” doing the abusing.

    Like

  90. KAS said:

    Secondly, it gradually dawned on me over the years that the objections to Paul in 1 Tim 2 were all too frequently along the lines of this ‘denies my personhood (whatever that means), makes me feel second-class, women have a right to personal fulfillment and the church mustn’t hold them back’ (as opposed to discussing the text).

    The objections are not that if you implement Paul’s restrictions today you are denying women the chance to bless others. This is conspicuous by its absence.

    I’m struck that you said “whatever that means” to the expression “denies my personhood.” Perhaps you should ask what this means rather than dismiss it. You do not hear men complaining of anyone denying their personhood – that is because they have personhood, meaning, fulfillment, and opportunities to use their gifts. You noted that it is conspicuous that women are not saying that it denies women the chance to bless others. I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but as far as I’ve seen, this is the basis the complaint. I watched a video yesterday in which it was said that Dorothy Patterson is very well-learned. She’s on staff at SWBTS teaching women home-ec classes, but she has the education to teach high level theology classes. What a waste.

    Today, Steve Camp tweeted that his wife was “ordained” for godly ministry teaching women. At the end of the tweet, he said “Amen?” with a question mark and tagged, Dee, me, and another woman. He’s wanting us to “get on board” with the idea that only women should teach women – they should never teach men.

    Like

  91. KAS,

    Personhood 101 is the understanding that we each have ownership of our own lives, thoughts, feelings, resources, behavior, etc.

    The Boundaries book gives the example of let’s say a wife wants to remodel the house. That’s her desire, not necessarily everyone else’s. So the husband can say—I’ll devote ten hours a week to home remodel projects.

    Now hypothetically if she gets upset that he’s not devoting every full weekend to remodel projects, that’s a type of trying to take ownership of his time instead of respecting his boundary.

    Of course real life is much different than hypothetical examples. The point is that God gave us ownership of our lives. We get to decide how much time we volunteer to helping other people fulfill their wishes. That’s something that Comp theology won’t allow.

    According to Comp theology, someone else has ownership of your time. There’s no boundary line between their wants and your needs because Comp theology allows them to cross your boundaries whenever they feel entitled to do so.

    Instead, the Bible teaches the idea of personhood because God holds us accountable for what we do with what we are given by God. Read the Parable of the Three Servants if you still don’t believe that.

    Liked by 1 person

  92. Yes, and as I’ve said before, there is a subtle shift in complementarian theology. Comps say that the authorities are “federal” representatives of God, yet when they start taking ownership of others’ time, they are shifting into the god role themselves.

    For example, I was taught to obey my elders. My elders told me to attend a monthly board meeting. I got abused at the meeting month after month, but because I had to obey my elders, I had to not only be away from my family for 3+ hours, but then subject myself to emotional abuse for those 3+ hours.

    In the comp. mindset, I had to obey no matter what because my authority told me to, but in an egal. mindset, even my leaders do not have the right to force me to give up my time, and especially when that time puts me in an abusive situation.

    If I had initially rejected their request, I probably would have gotten the lecture about obeying my elders and God wanting us to give our “gifts” in service to the church. But really, what this is about is these men who want to claim our time for their purposes, because they think that whatever their purposes are, they’re “God’s purposes(TM)” It’s very easy for that to become idolatry.

    But suppose the model of leadership is that a leader cannot tell me to do something that God has not already commanded, then I think the temptation to become mini-Popes is much more restrained.

    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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s