***
I received a private message on Twitter a week or so ago from an elder at a church. He reached out to me after reading Beth Moore’s letter to Christian men. You may recall that Beth Moore, in her letter, asked men to put away misogyny and act Christ-like towards women. Here are a few key paragraphs from Beth Moore’s letter:
As a woman leader in the conservative Evangelical world, I learned early to show constant pronounced deference – not just proper respect which I was glad to show – to male leaders and, when placed in situations to serve alongside them, to do so apologetically. I issued disclaimers ad nauseam. I wore flats instead of heels when I knew I’d be serving alongside a man of shorter stature so I wouldn’t be taller than he. I’ve ridden elevators in hotels packed with fellow leaders who were serving at the same event and not been spoken to and, even more awkwardly, in the same vehicles where I was never acknowledged. I’ve been in team meetings where I was either ignored or made fun of, the latter of which I was expected to understand was all in good fun. I am a laugher. I can take jokes and make jokes. I know good fun when I’m having it and I also know when I’m being dismissed and ridiculed. I was the elephant in the room with a skirt on. I’ve been talked down to by male seminary students and held my tongue when I wanted to say, “Brother, I was getting up before dawn to pray and to pore over the Scriptures when you were still in your pull ups.”
I’m asking for your increased awareness of some of the skewed attitudes many of your sisters encounter. Many churches quick to teach submission are often slow to point out that women were also among the followers of Christ (Luke 8), that the first recorded word out of His resurrected mouth was “woman” (John 20:15) and that same woman was the first evangelist. Many churches wholly devoted to teaching the household codes are slow to also point out the numerous women with whom the Apostle Paul served and for whom he possessed obvious esteem. We are fully capable of grappling with the tension the two spectrums create and we must if we’re truly devoted to the whole counsel of God’s Word.
Finally, I’m asking that you would simply have no tolerance for misogyny and dismissiveness toward women in your spheres of influence. I’m asking for your deliberate and clearly conveyed influence toward the imitation of Christ in His attitude and actions toward women. I’m also asking for forgiveness both from my sisters and my brothers. My acquiescence and silence made me complicit in perpetuating an atmosphere in which a damaging relational dynamic has flourished. I want to be a good sister to both genders. Every paragraph in this letter is toward that goal.
The man who contacted me told me that Beth Moore’s letter was read at their elders’ meeting. He asked me how men could practically put into place what Beth Moore was talking about. Yes!!! I will include his questions and expand them with some of my own. This is the kind of conversations we need to be having in churches.
- There’s a challenge – especially with some cultures within church that the issue stops at the question of sexual immorality and understanding that there were other issues about how men and women relate – especially how male leaders relate were maybe not so easy to grasp for some. How can male leaders engage in healthy relationships with sisters in Christ? How can men uphold integrity for themselves and women in their day-to-day dealings with women both inside and outside the church?
- That whole fear culture – how do we get beyond that?Is there a way to move beyond that in a healthy way?
- How can we talk helpfully and appropriately and honestly as churches in dealing with misogyny?
photo credit: SMBCollege SMBC graduates serve as cross-cultural missionaries and ‘tent makers’ in locations around the world via photopin(license)
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Christianity hurts, KAS is certainly not Reverend of Spiritual Sounding Board. No way.
LikeLike
Julie Anne – I going to repeat what I said earlier, as it is clear there are those who have not taken it in:
“The long-term effects of the abuse of one of my own children surfaced again last week, it’s heartbreaking to see, so I would never support or condone any system that in any way helped to perpetuate or enable this, believe me. And I’m afraid egalitarianism in this instance didn’t stop abuse”.
This was my younger daughter, and effects include hospitalisation after a second suicide attempt. We are not out of the woods on this one either. The perpertrator was the son of a leader in a militantly egalitarian church (Willow Creek follower, the whole package). The “ism” being followed neither causes nor prevents abuse of itself. He has since left the church and become a Christian, and changed dramatically (my eldest has met him and others from the church youth where this has occurred. Says it all really.). Almost certainly has no idea of what he set in motion. I’m glad that when he became a Christian, God forgave his past.
I have alluded to this before without spelling it out – I didn’t really want to now, it’s too personal. This has been ignored in the rush to heap condemnation. I haven’t made any snarky personal remarks to anyone here, despite the disagreements and somtimes being tempted, is it asking too much for this to be reciprocated? Views are fair game, but not the person.
I apologise if I have unneccessarly just stirred people up. That was not the intention. Your blog is not a theological discussion board as such. I loathe what some men do just as much as anyone, but I recoil from disregarding what the NT says just because some men abuse and twist it to justify abusing others.
LikeLike
Child raping, child marrying, pedophile Muhammad had an obsession with female submission just like comp men and Keith Ramiere.
“but I recoil from disregarding what the NT says just because some men abuse and twist it to justify abusing others.”
This is always the excuse selfish misogynist use. It is never the comp man’s fault. It is God’s fault, the Bible’s fault, women’s fault, or children’s fault. No! It is insecure sadistic selfish heartless comp men’s fault.
Comp is the same ideology as Ariel Castro, ISIS, and Keith Ramiere.
Comp is part of rape culture and slavery culture. Rape and slavery of women and little girls.
LikeLike
““It’s not about winning an argument”. Then why not shut up about it?”
We won’t go read the word of Doug Wilson or Bill Gothard, so KAS is going to bring their word to us.
LikeLike
No. Context is important. The only time I’ve heard women described as emotional was as a way of discounting what they say. That is not a compliment.
LikeLike
Hi Lea,
I don’t dispute context. Irrational and emotional have two different meanings. So those particular men you are referencing need to read a dictionary.
I want my wife to be emotional.
I’ve heard that men are tagged as more physical and women are more emotional. (not irrational) In my view when a man and a woman are nurturing each other, they become one and both tags merge and they are a little of both.
A man or woman referring one another as irrational whether they are or aren’t being irrational, is insulting.
When two people verbally collide in a very aggressive way (yelling and swearing) they are being irrational in an emotional way.
A lot of the times, it is the man who is being irrational in an abusive way, unable to control his emotions, more so than a woman.
But even on this thread I see it.
When a man or woman refer one another as an “asshole or full of shit”, is it exposing their inability to express themselves in an rational way and I’m sure if they were speaking the words to each other in person it would not be pretty.
They are in fact retaliating when they shouldn’t be and are exercising a form of verbal abuse to one another.
The way people communicate their views in a toxic way, in a forum like this makes me wonder why they aren’t getting a time-out?
If I “cursed” (or anybody else of any gender doing the same) at a man or woman in a discussion toward the person they don’t agree with on this thread, I would hope Julie Anne would put a stop to it.
We wouldn’t want our kids (or future kids) to talk this way having a conversation, which means both adults aren’t being very good role models and both are being irrational either with their opinions (and or) on the way they are retaliating.
LikeLike
Christianity Hurts said,
Yes, complementarianism is an Atheist Factory for many women who were once in the Christian, not gender egalitarianism.
I am still conservative politically now, even though I rejected complementarianism years ago.
I did not embrace liberalism and then consequently reject complementarianism, as KAS is assuming or suggesting.
But complementarians such as KAS need badly to believe that it’s either secular liberalism and/or secular feminist that caused a Christian woman to leave the faith (or consider leaving it), or,
Complementarians such as KAS want badly to believe it was Christian gender egalitarianism that causes women to leave the faith or to turn liberal.
Not so.
And complementarians (like KAS) need to own this. Your complementarian beliefs have real-world consequences on girls and women, your comp teachings and views are not merely abstract for us.
LikeLike
All caps are used below for emphasis, not for yelling.
I take it KAS said this
(I saw it quoted by someone else above):
The New Testament does not teach unilateral submission of wives to husbands, or of all women to all men.
(Some comps cannot even agree on this, btw. Some say only wives to husbands, while others say, no, all women to all men.)
This teaching of female submission and complementarianism in general is sexist at its core, even if it does not always result in a man using it to beat his wife.
Let this sink in KAS:
The very same interpretation of “wifely submission,” “women should be silent” etc. etc. verses you use to justify your views of women and how you think women should behave is the SAME EXACT one that abusive men use to abuse girls and women, or to deny them opportunities.
Abusive and sexist men appeal to those SAME Bible passages as you do to deny equal opportunity to women, and those abusive and sexist men are interpreting those biblical passages the SAME WAY YOU DO.
That you personally do not hit and punch your wife does not change that.
I would argue you that you, KAS, and a lot of other complementarian men, are actually living a functionally egalitarian marriage, and you are not carrying complementarianism out to its logical conclusions, as are the abusive men are.
You, KAS, are non-abusive to your wife (or other women) IN SPITE OF complementarian teachings and views of the Bible, not BECAUSE OF IT.
Your complementarian views on womanly submission are the same, or a bit lesser of what Islam teaches.
I see no difference between Islamic teachings on women, certain Mormon teachings on women, and Christian complementarian views and teachings.
And yet, you’d likely have me believe that Christianity is “counter cultural” for women and treats them better than other religions – no, not as taught by complementarians it’s not.
LikeLike
KAS said,
What does that have to do with anything?
I do not have the gift of conciseness.
Further, you manage to fit in so many bad points or wrong assumptions in your short posts, it takes ten by me to explain why yours are so wrong.
I get the feeling you’ve not even bothered to read all of my posts.
And you actually counted them?
Regardless of if I post 98 times about this, and you post only 5 times, why, (as I’ve wondered before), do you always chime in on these posts, and at that, to be a contrarian?
On this post, one asking how to fight sexism in the church, you keep arguing for the very thing – male headship – that is causing or perpetuating abuse and sexism!
“Be even more complementarian!” is your only solution, and complementarianism has been in place for ages now, and it’s not stopped abuse of women, but only perpetuated it.
KAS said,
I asked you on the prior page “what does that mean.” I’m not sure what that means.
Egalitarianism does not provide a framework or handy basis for abusers to justify their abuse, as complementarianism does.
Complementarianism didn’t stop me (or the poster “Christianity Hurts”) from being emotionally and verbally abused by my complementarian family, and it left me wide open to being targeted by dishonest people outside my family, like my ex fiance who financially screwed me over.
LikeLike
By the way. Regarding my last post,
KAS said,
And I replied,
“Egalitarianism does not provide a framework or handy basis for abusers to justify their abuse, as complementarianism does.”
I wanted to add:
Nine out of ten times, when a Christian woman goes to her church pastor to seek help because her husband is abusing her, the pastor, never ever says, “Just be more egalitarian that will solve things!”
No, the bum advice pastors give – and these are usually complementarian pastors – is to feed the poor victim even more complementarian swill such as,
“Just give your husband more sex! Submit more! Pray for him!”
There may possibly be egalitarian pastors out there who are ignorant about domestic abuse dynamics and may give poor advice,
But, only complementarians intentionally point to their warped biblical interpretations to tell women to put up with abuse, because supposedly, God demands it of them, it’s “biblical.”
LikeLike
KAS said,
I pointed out several times over the last week that your presence on this thread has not been producitve or helpful, because you are not answering the OP which is “how can men stop sexism in church.”
“Male headship” (a component of Complementarianism) done right has not helped stopped abuse in church, KAS, but only perpetuates it.
There are men who do not “love their wife as Christ loves the church,” but instead abuse their wives.
What do you do about those men, KAS? How do you help their abused wives escape such a marriage?
What makes those men think they have a right to abuse their wife in the first place?
(Hint: it’s not egalitarianism in the church – it involves the messages they get from complementarianism, which tells them, among other sexist things, that a wife must always submit, and the man has God-given authority to do with her as he pleases).
LikeLike
Christianity Hurts,
My mind is numb and I’m awe stuck by the amount of pain you endured.
Your testimony is powerful and I admire your strength for sharing to all of us your own first hand experiences.
LikeLike
Lea said,
Yes, agreed.
Most of the time when a man says women are emotional (notice they lump all women into this, they make no exceptions), it’s code speak for, “Women are not as logical and rational as all men are, so disregard and dismiss anything women have to say, especially if they are showing you wrong in a debate, or it’s a subject we don’t want to study too closely.”
The other instances I’ve seen it brought up is in general terms, where sexist men try to defend their sexist views by pointing to dubious scientific studies showing that supposedly, all men are better at “X” then all women, or men prefer “Z” and women do not prefer “Z” (used to bar women from certain professions, or to explain why there are more men computer programmers than there are women programmers).
It’s easier and lazier to chalk up job discrimination for these people to supposed biological differences, than to maybe consider it’s due to systemic sexism in culture.
Because then they’d have to actually admit to how wide spread sexism is and then do something about it.
LikeLike
Christianity hurts said,
That’s certainly what it felt like to me.
I occasionally step out of this blog to visit complementarian sites, to read the latest stupid thing complementarians are saying first hand, straight from the horse’s mouth.
However, this blog, as I understand it, is primarily meant to be for people who have been wounded by the faith or by certain churches, doctrines, or preachers, to be able to discuss it openly.
Guys like KAS seem to want to use the blog to only, or primarily, promote or defend the very doctrine(s) we’re saying hurt us and caused us a lot of grief.
If this is not about ‘winning an argument’ for KAS, it must be that he views himself as “Defender of Complementarianism” or an “Evangelist for Complementarianism,” and he doesn’t want to see more women (and men) reject Complementarianism.
Sometimes Christians lurk at atheist blogs and forums to try to “Re-Convert” atheists back to the Christian faith.
There are Roman Catholics who participate at blogs for spiritually abused and disgruntled Baptists and Protestants, to try to convert them into Roman Catholicism.
Maybe that is KAS’ goal here with Complementarianism, is to convert us back to Complementarianism. It feels that way at times.
(continued in part 2 – sorry KAS, I don’t know how to be concise)
LikeLike
Daisy,
The way to stop misogyny is stop attending churches that practice hatred and aggressive heavy handed doctrine.
The majority of these churches would fail relatively fast, some faster than others.
But also, we need to some serious social changes in our society. Re-define what free speech is and stop unlawful protesting from Alt left and right groups who are vandalizing and force feeding their will on us. (or any group breaking laws) Eliminate the porn industry, bullying in the classroom.
Abuse happens in many forms. My daughter was relentlessly bullied so severely growing up (of all people), by all the girls in her class. When the school failed to address it, we had to move. They were so mean, they use to spit on her hair which she didn’t disclose until much later.
The people that relentlessly bullied or took advantage of my wife were women, who had some alpha-female problems, not against men, but against women, comparable to some of the alpha male issues. (except there wasn’t sexual abuse)
So you have to forgive me for not exclusively focusing on men abusing women, but also women abusing other women and it happens with great frequency. In churches, schools and in the work place.
LikeLike
(part 2)
Believe you me, I already know, quite well, that complementarians interpret the Bible differently, they see and assume “Male Hierarchy” in all verses, even when it’s not there.
Of course complementarians refuse to see or admit that _the Bible teaches mutual submission_, even for husbands to wives.
I grew up in this stuff.
I still sometimes read the occasional pro-complementarian essay by complementarians.
I really don’t need KAS on here arguing every time I log in to see a new post on here about Male Headship, Sexism, Comp, or Domestic Vilence, that gosh golly, the Bible “clearly” teaches one-way, wifey submission to a man!
I’m well aware of how and why complementarians believe this way, but I rejected this interpretation of the Bible and saw through it years ago.
It’s tedious to be subjected to more of their propaganda on a site such as this, where I’m not really expecting it to be.
LikeLike
KAS said,
Not everything in the NT was meant to be followed by all Christians today. A big nope.
You don’t greet other men Christians with a holy kiss, do you? Well, in the NT, one of the male writers told another man to greet the other men with holy kisses.
You’re applying the NT incorrectly to today’s readers:
_Identity Mapping_
LikeLike
D said,
I personally decided to stop attending comp churches years ago, but that does not stop misogyny.
Me not going to comp churches is just me avoiding subjecting myself to it.
Perhaps if enough women drop out of comp churches and let them know they are quitting due to comp, that will hurt the church’s financial bottom line, and they MAY reconsider complementarianism at that point, but I don’t know.
d said,
Maybe Julie Anne can one day do a post entitled, ‘How to fight women on women sexism I the church,” but to bring that up under a post like this is to derail it.
I actually believe that Male Sexism plays a role in why women pick on other women.
When you’re a woman in a man controlled society or job, your only way of avoiding being Bottom Woman is to practice male approved sexism on other women.
I have been bullied by women bosses, women friend, and a sister. But woman on woman bullying is not the topic of this thread, and still, the problem (even for woman on woman abuse) is patriarchal concepts and social conditioning.
I’ve already argued with KAS enough, I’d rather not get into it with you.
LikeLike
Daisy,
I don’t argue. But if you’d rather not respond, it wouldn’t offend me. You do make good points.
I’m sure there are instances where some women abusing other women are a result of them being surrounded by abusive circumstances either growing up or married to an abuser.
But I’m going to give the women who abused my wife and the girls who bullied my daughter way more credit than that.
There are actually some females that can think and act on their own. In the case of my wife and daughter, those female bullies and abusers stood on their own 2 feet.
You made the choice to stop attending churches that practice misogyny but I wonder how many have the option of leaving and would rather leave but choose to stay anyway?
LikeLike
Daisy said,
Yes I’m quoting myself there.
That is just one or two ways in which Complementarianism affected me as SINGLE women (I have never married), which KAS was asking earlier.
Complementarianism teaching consists of more than just yelling about, “no women preachers, wives submit to a husband.”
What complementarians do to girls from a young age is instill a certain set of beliefs and values in them, and tell them these values are “godly.”
These complementarian values they teach girls and women to have are identical to CODEPENDENCY.
Among values complementarians teach women and girls:
Be passive, non-assertive, non-confrontational, getting your own needs met is “selfish,” women should lack boundaries, always be deferential, quiet, sweet, and do not communicate directly.
All such behaviors make girls and women easier prey and target for abusive or dishonest people. And so complementarianism impacts widowed, never-married, and divorced women, not just married ones.
I explained why and how about all this in posts on my Daisy blog.
LikeLike
d said
Those girls and women act on their own due to social conditioning they received in a patriarchal culture.
Boys and men in most cultures are permitted to be openly angry, hostile, and direct. Ergo, their disputes with one another get settled openly and quickly.
Not girls.
Girls are taught that females should not have anger at all, but if they do have anger, they are encouraged to take anger and be subtle about it, so they will be passive aggressive.
Ergo, girls are not taught healthy conflict resolution skills, due to a sexist culture that says only men can be open and direct, and that it’s okay for men to have relationship problems and anger.
Congratulations, D, on derailing the thread, just like KAS has been doing.
The question of the Original Post is, “How can men stop sexism in Churches,”
Not, “how or why do some girls bully other girls.”
The worst bullies of me in my life have been girls and women. But you don’t see me dragging that up in the midst of this thread about male on female sexism, do you? Nor do I think female on female bullying is do to inherent cattiness in women, but is largely driven by the male created sexism in our culture. And there can be other factors. Some women are born sociopaths, for example, and that may influence why they bully other women.
But this isn’t the thread for that.
LikeLike
Daisy,
This paragraph was written right before the one you isolated:
“I’m sure there are instances where some women abusing other women are a result of them being surrounded by abusive circumstances either growing up or married to an abuser.”
But even so, whether a women acts on her own or was mentored by an abuser to be an alpha female and bully another women, I fail to understand what the difference is.
If a man is mentored to be an alpha male, does that mean he is off the hook because he was surrounded by abuse? Of course not.
Both men and women who grow up in either circumstances, when they bully, do it with their eyes wide open.
LikeLike
Daisy,
The original question on this post is: What Can Men Do to Help Remove Misogyny from the Church?
The definition of misogyny is hatred of or hostility toward women. My wife and daughter is a woman/girl, they were treated in hostile ways by other women/girls. Like in a pack. Trust me they had their eyes wide open.
It goes on in churches, schools and the workplace.
LikeLike
D said,
I also wanted to add that this was a very condescending reply.
It’s also a prime example of Man-Splaining.
(At least I assume that D is a man and not a woman.)
I’m a woman. I grew up a girl.
I’ve been subjected to sexism from men at times, and bullying and abuse from girls (when I was a girl) and from women.
I think I know better than you do about why girls and women abuse and pick on other girls and women, and what it feels like. I am a female, and I’ve been abused by other females.
But then, I’ve also received sexist comments or behaviors from men over my life as well.
LikeLike
Daisy,
You aggressively implied, that most women who abuse other women, that it is usually the man’s fault. Like they can’t think on their own or assume personal responsibility for their actions.
I say most women can think on their own, hence that is why I made that comment.
The women/girls that abused my wife and daughter had their eyes wide open.
LikeLike
Daisy,
You wrote “(At least I assume that D is a man and not a woman.)”
Your assumption is correct, though I guess in this day and age, having a wife, doesn’t always mean that the husband is a man.
LikeLike
D said,
<
blockquote>“But even so, whether a women acts on her own or was mentored by an abuser to be an alpha female and bully another women, I fail to understand what the difference is.”
<
blockquote> You seem to be wanting to shift the topic from men abusing, exploiting, or denying opportunity (which is my understanding of what this post is about) to women,
… to blaming women.
-By saying, “But look, women are just as bad as men. Girls abuse girls, too.”
Men need to be examining the logs in their own eyes, but they (you) keep wanting to point to specks in the eyes of women.
Male- on- Female abuse tends to be more common, especially in personal relationships (ie, domestic violence).
Male on Female sexual harassment seems to be more common in jobs (glance over “MeToo” trend on Twitter and google “Harvey Weinstein” and “Morgan Freeman”.)
That it’s more common does not mean there is no female on female or female on male sexual harassment because there is (I just saw a news story the other day about a lesbian make-up artist or whatever she was who was drugging and sexually assaulting female actors backstage on their TV show).
But the bulk of news stories I see about sexual harassment on the job are male on female.
Bullying at the job (minus a sexual aspect) is more female on female, according to surveys.
But our culture is patriarchal, not matriarchal.
Our patriarchal culture breeds male on female abuse, and it teaches women to abuse other women (to keep patriarchal norms intact).
Girls and women are learning this bullying garbage from a sexist culture, one that favors men over women, (unless they were born sociopaths, in which case the sexist culture affirms their inborn tendencies. Other females are conditioned to behave like this.)
I don’t see how pointing to female- on- female abuse is helping to pose solutions to “how to stop misogyny in the church”.
Misogyny is usually male on female, not female on female.
If you want to stop female- on- female abuse (short term), you teach your daughter to be assertive, have boundaries, and stand up for herself, if another girl is bullying her. That is one immediate fix for that particular issue.
To fight misogyny in the long term:
You have to teach men to stop harboring sexist views and assumptions. They do have male privilege, which I know some of them claim does not exist, but that is because they want to believe male hierarchy is normal and is their right.
Men in American culture generally have more power in jobs and other spheres of life than do women.
This is especially true of churches, where they do not allow women into positions of power and influence.
This may answer some of your questions:
What we get wrong about Misogyny
,
Sometimes, some women re-enforce sexism and misogyny by lashing out and stomping on other women.
Why Women Bully Each Other At Work
LikeLike
Daisy,
you wrote: “I think I know better than you do about why girls and women abuse and pick on other girls and women, and what it feels like. I am a female, and I’ve been abused by other females.”
You may know your own situation better than me, but you don’t understand the circumstances more than I do about the abuse my wife/daughter endured from other women and girls.
LikeLike
D said,
I did not say women cannot think on their own. But, they are conditioned by churches, parents, the culture they are in, to think girls can and should only be or act a certain way which influences how they view othe girls and how they choose to behave.
I said barring a psychological issue like sociopathy, women are socially conditioned to bully other women because we live in a sexist culture that punishes women from dealing with conflict in a healthy manner.
Girls are discouraged from expressing anger opening, unlike boys and men. That contributes to why some females bully other females.
LikeLike
D said,
“You may know your own situation better than me, but you don’t understand the circumstances more than I do about the abuse my wife/daughter endured from other women and girls.”
You don’t understand the social conditioning girls and women receive to act in certain ways. That plays a part in why girls bully other girls, and how they go about it.
LikeLike
Daisy,
You are putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say,, isolating sentences and ignoring others,,
It’s on me for this getting this far. I’m sorry you endured what appears to be some serious abuse from other women/girls.
I have acknowledged that some women vs women abuse is environmental, but in the case of my wife and daughter, it wasn’t. They looked upon their kindness as a weakness and pounced. They know what they were doing.
I apologize for offending you.
LikeLike
From Wiki:
Notice it mentions terms such as “male privilege.”
Not “female privilege.”
Part of that above also mentions:
Androcentrism = Androcentrism (ancient Greek, ἀνήρ, “man, male”) is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing a masculine point of view at the center of one’s world view, culture, and history, thereby culturally marginalizing femininity.
Most of the other stuff is also more male- on- female, such as “religious text.” Most “religious texts,” such as the Koran / Hadiths or Bible, etc, give men power over women.
You, D, are using the word “Misogyny” in a very peculiar way.
Most people most of the time use it in terms of sexism against women by men.
LikeLike
Daisy,
You know what happened to you, on whether it was the man’s fault.
There are some places where woman aren’t controlled like that. Which means they have to assume personal responsibility.
Especially outside of churches but even inside churches where Patriarchy isn’t being practiced. That was the case for my wife and daughter it happened on the job and at school. Though some of the women/girls, were self-proclaimed borderline Christians.
So the abuse is carrying over, back and forth throughout much of society.
LikeLike
Daisy,
Then apparently, women/girls who isolated their abuse on other women/girls are being sexist.
LikeLike
D said,
No, I am not.
I also do not quote entire posts all in one posts, not with you, not with KAS or anyone else on here.
I zero in the one thought or comment I want to comment upon and only paste that one part into my post, as I’m doing now.
I’ve been directly quoting you (pasting words directly from your posts!) when commenting in mine, so I’m not putting words in your mouth. I’m not into straw men arguments.
You said,
I have no idea what you mean by Part 1.
You have offered no specifics or explanations.
Part 2 – I too was raised to be “kind.”
Being sweet, kind-hearted, and gentle, and too naive and too trusting of other people, left me wide open to being bullied by other females and by males.
It was part of complementarianism, too (secular culture also conditions girls to be kind hearted and “nice,” which leaves them vulnerable to being exploited by other people).
I was taught to be kind and nice and sweet, to never, ever defend myself and be assertive, even if someone was abusing or being mean to me, because that might hurt the bully’s feelings (I was taught my feelings do not matter).
I was taught that being sweet and kind meant, “Do not have boundaries. Girls aren’t allowed to have boundaries, only men are, because it would not be feminine.”
And this stuff is taught both in and by churches and in and by secular culture. It leaves girls wide open to being targeted by bullies and abusers.
Bullies typically chose the person they perceive to be the weakest in a group to prey upon, because they want someone who requires little effort to push around.
If you don’t learn to develop boundaries and learn to be assertive, you will be abused again in the future, by other people (men and women).
LikeLike
D said,
“Especially outside of churches but even inside churches where Patriarchy isn’t being practiced. ”
Patriarchy is every where in our culture, it’s in magazines, TV shows, movies, rock music.
Please read a copy of the book ‘Why Does He Do That’ by Lundy Bancroft to learn what I mean by that.
We are all fish swimming in the patriarchy water, which is what makes it hard to recognize sometimes.
LikeLike
D said,
I never said that girls who bully other girls should not “assume personal responsibility.”
They should also be held accountable for their behavior.
That cow woman who bullied me at my job was reported by other people to the HR Department for creating a Toxic Work Environment.
She had to take sensitivity training, as a result.
Good, I say. I was glad she faced some kind of penalty for her workplace abuse.
I did not say when I heard about the abusive boss getting into trouble with HR,
“Oh me, oh my, don’t hold The Horrible Cow responsible for her actions. I blame the patriarchy, let it slide, let it go!”
No, I did not say that or think that way. I don’t think that way now.
But it remains that a lot of women are influenced by our sexist culture to act out. And sexism is all around us, not just in churches that teach comp.
Some of the sexist Incel men who have been killing women (one just killed a bunch of people by driving a van into a group of people), so far as I am aware, are not religious types.
Those violent Incel men who hurt people get some of their toxic ideas about women and dating from the internet, where they chat with other sexist men. From the rap and rock music they listen to. From the video games they play
LikeLike
Daisy,
More and more churches are dealing with less men being involved and more women. In fact in the church I attend, it is the women who are complaining about not having enough men in leadership roles.
LikeLike
D said,
I am not totally sure what this means.
As we are living in a patriarchal culture that favors men to women, and the masculine to the feminine, some girls may learn to hate their own biological sex and those who belong to it, due to male- against- female sexism, yes.
One reason I hated being a girl when I was a girl and became a “tom boy” was that I perceived as young as age four or five that the culture frowns on “girly” things like dolls and being sweet, yet at the same time, that same culture tries to socialize females into playing with dolls and being sweet, etc etc.
I didn’t want dolls when I was a girl. I wanted to ride bikes, climb trees, and play with toy cars (all considered more “masculine” pursuits).
Sexism can make girls dislike girly, feminine stuff, or resent being a girl, and to find other girls annoying… and a lot of this goes back to men, which you are reluctant to hear, because you are mis-hearing it as “so you don’t think girls should be held responsible for female on female violence”
We live in a culture that favors men over women, and that values masculine traits to feminine ones.
Any time a boy throws a ball poorly, his father or male coach is apt to say to him, “You throw like a girl!”
You never hear a coach tell a girl who throws a ball poorly, “You throw like a boy.”
LikeLike
KAS, “Mark – there is a fundamental difference of opinion here. The NT was written to the early church, but for us as well.”
Yes, but we don’t put adulterers and homosexuals to death, and we don’t kill belligerent children. We don’t put fences around our roofs. We don’t measure the distances between where a murder was committed and the two nearest towns.
The OT was also written to a group of believers and is also for us as well, yet we understand that those laws are not applicable to us in the same way as they were for the Israelites.
So, it’s you that is backwards. You want us to build a fence around our roof because the Bible commands us to do it. You want us to pull out the measuring tapes.
You want to interpret the OT and NT in completely different ways – the OT through the lens of the culture and the principle of general equity, yet you want to reject that very interpretation when it comes to the culture and general equity of the NT. Isn’t that hypocritical?
LikeLike
D said,
More and more women have been quitting church in the last decade (links below).
Even in those churches that lack men, if they are complementarian in doctrine, women are not permitted to work as pastors or to be in leadership.
Women who are raised or brought up in complementarianism will defend it including its beliefs that only men should lead and preach.
Such women will argue with you on the internet, or in person, that they agree with comp doctrine, that only men should lead.
They are brainwashed from the time they are girls, under complementarian preaching, that men should be the “spiritual leaders” in a marriage, so yes, sometimes women will say, “I sure do miss male leaders! We need more male leaders.”
Single adults of both sexes have been quitting churches as well.
Headline from Christianity Today, 2015:
“Why Are Women Leaving the Church?”
From 2016:
_Women Are Leaving Church, And the Reason Seems Clear_
LikeLike
I did not mean to make all of my post above into bold face type. I must have forgotten to put an ending slash in the HTML for the “b” tag. Sorry.
LikeLike
Daisy,
Misogyny is hatred and hostile treatment to women, you equated misogyny as being sexist toward women.
The women/girls that were hostile to my wife/daughter who happen to be a woman and a little girl.
LikeLike
Daisy,
Bold print or no bold print, it’s all good!
LikeLike
KAS, “The long-term effects of the abuse of one of my own children surfaced again last week, it’s heartbreaking to see, so I would never support or condone any system that in any way helped to perpetuate or enable this, believe me. And I’m afraid egalitarianism in this instance didn’t stop abuse”
Maybe the truth will slap you upside the head one day. I grew up with a lot of abilities. The comp church system insanely took advantage of those abilities, took credit for those abilities, yet treated me like garbage, and singled me out for every mistake I made to apparently help me understand my depravity. The comp church was like a vampire. They sucked and sucked on my gifts, removing my joy, and then blamed me for not having joy and not freely using my gifts to the benefit of the church.
I probably only escaped suicide because I knew that would just prove to them everything that they were already telling me – that I was unworthy, joyless and faithless. Instead, I played the game and then when I was free I ran far far away. That was just my family and my childhood church. It took about 20 more years for me to have my fill of seeing my wife, family and myself be spiritually and emotionally abused by our church.
That said, my family still embraces the comp church, even though I see the same joylessness and worthlessness permeate their lives.
LikeLike
Mark,
Wow,, sounds like it was a combination of Comp, but also an aggressive form of Reformed Doctrine when you wrote: “The comp church was like a vampire. They sucked and sucked on my gifts, removing my joy, and then blamed me for not having joy and not freely using my gifts to the benefit of the church.”
I asked leaders in the SBC who are going through an doctrinal identity crisis, “Why would the secular world want what Christians proclaim to have, when every time time they are coming out of a Reformed Church, they have less joy than the world, after hearing the word of God?”
LikeLike
D said,
I’ve addressed that point many times in post above.
Yes, girls can abuse other girls – but usually because male-on-female sexism has taught them to do so, particularly in a passive aggressive fashion. (Google the phrase “patriarchal bargain”)
Which is not to say girls should not be held accountable for their abuse of other girls.
Please see my post at MAY 27, 2018 @ 2:08 PM
(Link to that Post)
LikeLike
_Why Women Tread (Bully or Abuse) On Each Other: ‘We get in charge and act like b-tches’_
And:
LikeLike
Daisy,
I was responding to a direct question you asked me.
I haven’t dismissed bad mentoring as part of the culprit.
In a state like California where much of the politics is dominated by women, male sexism isn’t tolerated, unless they want to lose their job and get branded. That is the location where my wide endured abuse. Women aren’t afraid to tangle with men or women.
My wife was surrounded by mean women even though she was nice to them. She was actually recognized as a very good employee with high production and friendly to the customers. Probably made those younger women sick, because she was so genuinely nice.
After getting t-boned in the parking lot by another driver estimated to be going 30 mph and 20 at impact. (male/female doesn’t matter, many Californians of all gender drive too fast) She went to the hospital with a back injury. The driver who hit her was a woman who meanly then tried to pin it on my wife. (luckily there were witnesses)
She could’ve worked through the injury, but by then I had enough and suggested she quit as we will find a way to get by on my salary.
LikeLike
D,
Sorry to hear about your wife’s injury. How is she doing?
LikeLike
D, want to clarify that the blaming for not using my gifts was not a personal attack, but a general sermon topic. The pointing out mistakes was generally in the form of a personal attack – sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle.
The end result was more joyless paralysis, and yes, conservative, Reformed, comp.
The point for the KAS-ites is that despite the theological claim that comp isn’t about superiority and inferiority, the church and church leadership tries to force every relationship into a superior/inferior mold.
So, if you are a woman with superior gifts than a male church leader, you will be squashed. If you are a wife with more gifts than your husband, you will be squashed. If you are a non-ordained member with more gifts than the ordained leaders, you will be squashed.
I would speak up in a meeting only to hear a cacophony of leaders shoot my idea down based on the sheer stupidity of it, then only to find out later that my off-the-cuff idea was the solution suggested by experts. Many times, the experts told them the exact same thing I did six months later, and it was the greatest idea ever.
Same thing in church classes – I would disagree with some point of theology, be told that I was wrong, and then find one or two of the major Reformed commentaries had the view I was trying to argue.
To reiterate, comp theology, on the surface is about “roles”, but regardless of the worthless theological fluff that is put into the “equality, but roles” argument, the result is that complementarian roles translate to an assumption of inequality. The church leader is superior in any way he deems important to the ordinary member. The husband is superior in any way deemed important to the wife. The father is superior in any way deemed important to the child. The male is superior in any way deemed important to the female. That is reinforced through theological tricks – emphasizing the importance of the “superior” and emphasizing the weakness of the “inferior”.
I thought in my comp church that women ought to be encouraged to take on non-authoritative roles in the church, but it turned out that even when the church doctrine was explicit that only certain roles were authoritative, the men in the church still squelched women whenever they could, and if they couldn’t, they were assumed to be incompetent and in need of constant supervision and direction by the elders.
LikeLike
Avid Reader,
Before she got t-boned the parking lot, she never had headaches or backaches. (with exception of having our children) Now she gets them a regular basis and her back pain flares up when it is chilly or wet.
Amazingly, she doesn’t complain. “Never” been a complainer. We have been married over 35+ years. Lucky to have her.
What really annoys me, is the way people take her for granted and the way they have walked on her. The mean ones also can’t believe that she is so nice, like it is a front or something or they are simply jealous of her demeanor.
Thank you for asking.
LikeLike
Mark,
If that particular preacher was from south of the Mason Dixon Line, maybe they went to a similar seminary as the Reformed (whatever he was) pastor that preached at my church a few years back.
Some of whom focus strictly on a law and sin centered doctrine which may explain the joylessness of attending that particular Comp church you attended.
The aggressive one’s use their doctrine interpreting scriptures like an elite having the ability to keep the Congregation bound in sin, hence robbing the joy of knowing Christ. Without joy, we have a hard time witnessing others, again why would the lost want to go to a church with zero joy? (as in 0 joy)
The Pharisees used OT law to do the same to population as well.
LikeLike
D, it’s not one particular preacher, it’s a doctrinal and cultural system. I’ve had about ten pastors in five churches and they mostly exhibited this same behavior. Most of them were taught north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Because the worthlessness is so ingrained in the church culture, I think that part of the seminaries’ work is deprogramming the pastors from that worthlessness, but that tends to create pastors who think (and preach) that they are God’s gift to humanity.
As I said, the problem then comes when someone who is not an elite shows the same or superior level of intellectual ability. At that point, the pastor (whose “value” is in the ability to read and understand scripture) needs to prove their worth in a system where those worthy are superior to those who are worthless. Since they cannot out-intelligent someone with superior intelligence, they are forced into a role of emotional and/or spiritual abuse. At the base of this is spiritual insecurity – they’ve convinced themselves that they are gifted, on the surface, but either seeds sown by the enemy, or their own understanding that they’ve deceived others leads them to be insecure about their position. When they see “evidence” (and it’s not evidence, but they’re deluding themselves) that they are not superior to the congregation, then they feel they have to establish themselves as the alpha.
This is one part of the complementarian system – the clergy – laity distinction. The other part, I believe, is the same root of insecurity. The men who consider themselves gifted look around and see women with superior gifts. If they were secure, they would acknowledge those gifts, but instead, they want to hold on to their position and power in front of the congregation, and that has to be done by tearing the women down.
And there’s more. In the complementarian system, part of the pastoral call – probably the primary part of the pastoral call is an internal call. Men go to seminary because they feel the Holy Spirit pulling them towards ministry. The church and seminary acknowledge that this internal call is a valid thing. Yet, when a woman feels the same call (and I know women who claim to have felt that call), the church says that the call is invalid. It’s intriguing that the comp. church interpretation of “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” is saying that something from the Holy Spirit came from Satan, yet the church feels empowered to say that any call on women towards being a pastor or elder must be Satanic.
LikeLike
Mark,
Makes sense.
In the abuse we experienced, the pastor had a level of academic intelligence that was superior to those to whomever he was preaching to.
He immaturely used his intelligence as a tool or leverage as he used that intelligence to covertly keep his doctrine a mystery only to refer it as “Truth”. Which to me he was camouflaging his meaning of “Truth” never disclosing TULIP as the basis of his belief, after he was confronted 2 years into his ministry.
Even then he never fully disclosed what branch of Reformed theology he believed which I find odd as was so relentless into indoctrinating the Congregation into his exclusive brand of Reformed Theology, If you questioned what he was doing, you were severely rebuked.
Back to the term “Truth”. With so many dialects and beliefs within the Calvinist school and each proclaiming their brand as “Truth”, that would mean the Calvinists can’t agree on what absolute “Truth” is and have colliding views themselves.
LikeLike
Worthless theological fluff is a fun way of putting it. I just see it as lies.
LikeLike
KAS,
So sorry to learn about your daughter’s trials….. a very lonely place to be. Please share with her that many folks are praying for her well being, healing, finding a strong support system, and fully knowing how much our LORD Jesus truly loves her.
Tender mercy and prayers for her and all of those who love her.
LikeLike
I saw JulieAnne talking about the ‘women are emotional’ nonsense and how it is used against women on twitter. Here is a helpful example I saw from some dude:
“It’s biology, not theology. Some men control their biology more civilly than others. Some women control their hormone-fueled emotions more civilly than others. Only this and nothing more”
This was a “defense” of complementarianism btw.
LikeLike
Many American churches are complementarian (they believe in Male Hierarchy, Female subordination) – i.e., male power and control over women
I believe that this blog is primarily concerned with that issue – not just complementarianism, but how complementarianism harms women – particularly this thread.
So, I thought this would be relevant here – under his, “Three reasons I’m an egalitarian,” portion (which I will not copy to this post), his reasons can also serve to act as solutions on how men can help remove sexism from the church, which is this thread’s OP:
_On Gender, Power, and Sin: The Evangelical #MeToo Moment_ – on Experimental Theology Blog
Also from that blog:
(and this is something I’ve been pointing out at the other blog the last few years I’ve been on there):
That post raises some other good points as well.
You can use the link above to visit his blog post to read his “three reasons” which I think can maybe act as possible solutions to helping men remove misogyny in churches (the second point on his list in particular). Also, his point three is somewhat applicable.
LikeLike
Lea said,
Using supposed biological differences, quoting (or mis-quoting scientific studies), is one way these groups try to justify their sexism, or to deny male hierarchies exist in the United States and other cultures.
Jordan Peterson and his fan boys are big on this – evolutionary psychology, too.
Peterson also makes appeals to mythology and archetypes to explain, as I understand it, that because mythology has historically shown men have always ruled women, that this must be good, right, natural, and to veer away from that is wrong and bad.
Peterson has apparently not considered the Christian egalitarian position that the book of Genesis predicted that men would seek to dominate and control women from Day One, which God said was a CURSE of the FALL, and many men have in fact sought to dominate women for centuries, in many cultures – so NO DUH many archetypes and mythology depicts women in a negative way – (as creators of chaos), etc.
-Just as God predicted in the book of Genesis – but God said that was a BAD THING, not to be desired.
Remember when that hideous, sexist,James Damore Google Memo came out around a year ago?
The Damore doofus used (misquoted and so on) various scientific papers to make his case that women are biologically unsuited to work in tech, and that if left to their own devices, women naturally prefer to work as say, maids, instead of computer programmers (Peterson also mentions this sort of thing in his lectures).
(BTW, when approached by a journalist about the Damore bru-ha-ha, at least one of the scientists / researchers Damore quoted from to make his point that women are not suited for tech positions told the journalist that Damore quoted his study wrong and misunderstood it, that his study was NOT saying what Damore was saying it was saying in his Google Memo.)
I found a Finnish study that showed that this was not true in Finland. And I posted that study to my Daisy blog.
Part of the Finnish study I found about gender roles and career choice said that Finland, while being a more gender egalitarian society than many others, still has traditional gender role norms in place, so many Finnish women may be influenced to stay away from careers considered traditionally masculine due to that, and due to the pressure placed on them by men to stay out of such professions (because women aren’t supposed to want to be programmers, or whatever). I put the link to that study on my blog.
LikeLike
@ Lea
Men and boys have always thrown outrageous public tantrums in my small deep south town. Oh, because they did not get their @sses kissed and they are having a bad week.
LikeLike
@ Lea
I was asking about the mass shooters in the past 20 years. My post did not show up right.
Are these men/boys mass shooters not hysterical, emotional, and irrational? I sincerely wonder this all the time.
LikeLike
Donald Glover has a standup about why every guy has a ‘crazy ex’ story and women don’t. Answer? Because if you have a crazy boyfriend you’re going to die. And that’s no longer a fun story to tell.
So yes, emotional men are deeply dangerous, generally speaking.
LikeLike
Daisy, I think I struggle with his main argument.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why Kas has been vilified here. Are you all saying that if one believes the Bible teaches that men should lead, that is sexist? And you are confident enough in your position that there is no room for another interpretation?
LikeLike
Irene said, “I don’t understand why Kas has been vilified here. ”
This article asked a question. How can churches minimize misogyny? KAS came on here promoting it.
Do you understand why victims of rape, wife beating, and misogyny do not like hearing the opinions of Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, Doug Phillips, Bill Gothard, Matt Chandler, and Jack Schaap?
“Are you all saying that if one believes the Bible teaches that men should lead, that is sexist?”
I was born and raised in comp. It ruined my childhood and teen years. It ruined my mother’s whole life. When I was sixteen I told my mother I wish she had aborted me, she told me she wish her mother had aborted her. We both wished we had never been born because we were born in and lived in Christian misogyny, comp.
I will say it, comp is pure misogyny. Does the bible actually say men should lead their wives? Why? What if the mother is smarter and less perverted? What if the father is a selfish, know-nothing, ridiculous, immature, dope?
In the men-should-lead-ideology, I was taught that I would be condemned if I did not get married. Once married I had to have sex against my will, never refuse my husband sex, if he raped me it was not rape, I could not call it that and could not divorce him for raping me. I would have to submit to him like a child sex slave and canine. If he beat me it would be my fault for not being submissive enough and I could not divorce him for beating me. This is comp, and Ariel Castro, and ISIS.
I was sexually abused as a child, by the time I was 10 I never wanted to have sex again. I was desperate to one day be able to say “no” to men, not have to have sex against my will. One day have a life where I did not have to be used, demeaned, and trapped for a man’s ego and pleasure. Comp says, “oh hell no!” You will be trapped, used, scr*wed against your will, and degraded.
Do you believe a woman can tell her husband no?
Do you believe a woman has the right to divorce her husband for beating her?
LikeLike
It doesn’t. Everybody gets there basically in a circle, or using ‘head’ as ‘lead’, which is dubious.
LikeLike
Maybe I can offer a unique perspective. I grew up complementarian and was a complementarian in my marriage. Now to be precise, I was complementarian in the sense that I felt it was my responsibility to make sure there were “standards” decided on and followed, and I felt it was my responsibility to be an example of service and sacrifice (to the point that it nearly broke our marriage, but that’s not what I’m getting at here).
Even within complementarian philosophy, there are at least two streams. The first stream is the “gotta have a boss” stream. That is the stream where marriage can only work if the husband and wife fit into rigid roles where the husband is the boss and the wife is the servant. If the marriage isn’t working, it’s because one or both are shirking their responsibility – the husband isn’t leading or the wife isn’t serving. This is, I believe, what Christianity Hurts grew up with, and it’s what KAS seems to be advocating. That is that the church has more interest in preserving the authority structure than preventing abuse.
The second stream is the husband as servant model. That’s what I was taught, although what was modeled for me was the first stream. In this model, the husband’s authority comes from leading in love and respect towards the wife and the wife responds to that. I was pointed towards Christ – he modeled the second stream more than the first, in genuine love towards those he discipled and those he taught.
I have no real theological problem with the second stream, but I find that those who have a strong opinion on complementarianism tend to be in the first camp. The most important thing to them is preserving an authority structure.
I can make somewhat of an analogy to what happened with church leaders in my former church. When they were involved in adultery or theological sin, they would typically be disciplined publicly and removed from office. When they abused their authority, if it ever became an issue, they were quietly told to cease and desist, but those they abused were never told that they were victims. Instead, they were told to obey and let the church take care of it. See that the first priority here is preserving the “honor and authority” of the office and the church structure. Second priority is correcting the errant leader. The last priority is dealing justly with the victim.
This ultimately has a theological root, and that is why we state that complementarian theology (especially the first stream theology that CBMW and many Evangelical and Reformed institutions practice) is anti-Biblical. We believe that they are turning Jesus’s teaching and leadership model upside down and returning to a Pharisaical, spiritually abusive model of leadership, and that is a minimum. Looking at it through those eyes, I, at least, started seeing that the “husband as leader” model has very poor scriptural support.
LikeLike
To Christianity Hurts,
No. I don’t believe any of those things are right, and I am really sorry that you endured them. I don’t believe we are loyal to any particular viewpoint, but instead that Jesus would have love rule the day. I agree that much of what goes under title heading of complementarism today is wrong. But do you think that closes the discussion here and requires it to only include one viewpoint? If so, I may not belong here because I like to consider many sides of a discussion.
LikeLike
Christianity Hurts,
You asked: Do you believe a woman can tell her husband no?
Do you believe a woman has the right to divorce her husband for beating her?
The answer in my view, is yes to both of your questions.
LikeLike
Irene, “If so, I may not belong here because I like to consider many sides of a discussion.”
I don’t think that’s the problem. I think the concern is that there are people who are not using the discussion to refine their viewpoints. I came onto this board as a soft complementarian and as I’ve wrestled with the viewpoints of women who lived this doctrine, and women who have theologically wrestled through many of the arguments on both sides, I learned that I couldn’t remain as a comp.
But, there are people on this blog, on both sides, that are so deeply entrenched in their viewpoints that there can be no refinement. Conversations go nowhere, and post after post, the same arguments get rehashed.
LikeLike
re: “I have no real theological problem with the second stream”
I have no PRACTICAL problem with the second stream. My theological problem with the second stream – “gentle authority” is that there are unique characteristics discussed in the Bible about authority relationships and marriage does not fit those characteristics.
LikeLike
“But do you think that closes the discussion here and requires it to only include one viewpoint?”
People can promote their viewpoint and so can I. As comp people promote comp I will tell them they are pro-slavery of women, care more about men than women, and are part of the slavery/rape culture. And they will tell me I am an unsubmissive c*nt, a Jezebel, and feminist for not kissing male @ss. That is what I have always heard from them for hating rape, wife beating, and wanting the right to say “no” to men.
“If so, I may not belong here because I like to consider many sides of a discussion.”
More than one side of the discussion is taking place here and people can say the comp side is selfish, degrading, hurtful, and misogynistic.
I was thoroughly submerged in the comp side as a little trapped, self-hating, sexually abused girl. It is crystal clear to me that the quality side is better for little girls.
I am a free adult now and tell my story hoping it will make people care what all the female submission, wives have to have sex against their will, wives cant divorce their abusive husbands do to the emotional health of little girls. We hear, see, and are learning this vile soul torturing evil. As a little church going girl I NEVER had good feelings towards God. He always made me sick of my stomach. I thought he was an extream, sexually-sadistic, misogynistic monster. In comp, I learned that he loved my rapist, wanted my rapist to have everything, and not me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ D
Thank you.
People say misogyny is about power. In my experience, it is about insecurity and sexually abusive fetishes.
In my opinion men like you, Mark, and most of the other men who post here are confident women and girls will like you and not want to get away from you. And hurting and degrading them does not give you pleasure.
It is impressive and respectable when men care how they make women and little girls feel. To me, it shows he is mature and confident.
Spiritual Sounding Board is a wonderful place. Most of the men hear think, care, and listen. My favorite thing about Spiritual Sounding Board is most men and women here (((HATE))) child sexual abuse. The Christians I grew up with hated sexual abuse victims and coddled sexual abusers.
Everyone here doesn’t agree on everything, but at least most everyone here agrees child sexual abuse is abhorrent. I wish I could get my younger cousins to start reading here. It would be good for their faith and help them protect their kids.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Christianity hurts,
I’m glad you feel safe here. That is important to me.
LikeLike
CH, “… Mark, and most of the other men who post here are confident …”
Not really, I’m trying to reconcile my theology with my own experiences and those of others who post here. I’m trying NOT to pass on patriarchal works-based worthless to my daughters and hoping to teach them they deserve respect and what respect looks like.
But, the broken record of worthlessness is still playing loud and clear.
LikeLike
Mark, I hope you are getting some good therapeutic help with this. Because none of us is worthless. That is the whole point!
All I ask for of other commenters is that they share and engage honestly. I am not looking to be told what to think or to be talked down to. I am not going to suddenly agree that women are inferior if you post enough bible verses either.
LikeLike
And complementarians such asKAS might want to pay close attention to the part of this I am excerpting
(this is a point I’ve raised on my own blog and here on this one, about why and how complementarianism is dangerous for girls and women):
_6 Principles for Guarding Churches Against Predators_ By Gricel Medina
Yep.
Complementarianism conditions girls and women to think that lacking boundaries, being passive, afraid to say no, that it’s wrong to consider their OWN feelings, needs and safety, is “Godly” and “biblical.”
Teaching girls to be passive doormats with everyone all the time is in fact one of several facets of Christian gender complementarianism – and it sets them up to be easier prey for abusive men and the perverts.
And it’s not just complementarianism that does this. Secular culture (at least in the United States) also pressures girls and women to be compliant, agreeable, and sweet, even if they are being mistreated.
But it’s doubly disappointing that Christians (usually under complementarianism) turn these harmful behaviors into a virtue, give it a stamp of approval, and say God designed girls to be this way and expects them to be this way.
LikeLike
“Mark, I hope you are getting some good therapeutic help with this.”
It wasn’t really going anywhere, so I took a break.
LikeLike
(part 1 – “Nice Complementarianism Vs. Abusive Complementarianism”)
After having skimmed several posts above, I just wanted to ensure that everyone understands that complementarianism is harmful at its core, even the variety of complementarianism that is supposedly “biblical” and has good intentions, and is “warm and fuzzy” and is supposed to cause men to treat women with respect (as comps claim it should).
You can see in this thread how poster “Christianity Hurts” endured some severe abuse (sexual assault and so on) in part due to complementarianism.
I myself was raised under complementarianism, but I did not experience sexual abuse or physical abuse.
I was raised under the nicer, gentler sort of complementarianism – complementarianism done right, as how it should be done, according to “true” complementarians.
Complementarians would argue that the men who abused a woman such as “Christianity Hurts” when she was a girl were not “true” Complementarians, or, they’d argue that the sort of complementarianism those abusers were were practicing was “distorted.”
However, even when complementarianism is practiced correctly, as complementarian say it should be practiced, it STILL creates issues and problems for girls and women, because it is based on sexism, it supports authoritarian attitudes, a hierarchy among people (based on biological sex) and unilateral submission (of females to males).
I go into more detail on my Daisy blog about how complementarianism hurt me, and how I was brought up under the nicer, kinder type of complementarianism, where I was NOT beaten or raped, but it still harmed me.
(And I’ve never married. Contrary to KAS, Complementarianism harms and impacts all girls and women brought up in it, NOT just married ones, though lord knows comps are obsessed with marriage and motherhood.)
Not all complementarianism results in rape, child molesting, or physical abuse, or leaves physical scars.
The sort of complementarianism I was brought up in created (and/or contributed to) all sorts of psychological problems for me, insecurity, low self esteem, left me vulnerable to being financially exploited (by an ex fiance of mine), left me feeling as though God did not love me, God loved boys more than girls.
(I could go on and on but will skip it.)
LikeLike
(part 2 – “Nice Complementarianism Vs. Abusive Complementarianism”)
Now, in a round about way, even the “nice” type of complementarianism I was raised in left me vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse, because it stripped me of boundaries, taught me that I do not matter (only men matter), it’s “mean-spirted” to say “no” to people, it’s wrong to resist, or wrong to be assertive.
However, at a very young age, I determined that nobody had a right to touch me physically. (I was also very determined since a very young age to refrain from sexual activity until I got married, so I was NOT going to put up with any man trying to grope me or rape me.)
I tolerated a lot of verbal abuse off people as I grew older, I allowed people to take advantage of me at jobs, etc, but I didn’t care what my church and parents taught me about all this, because in my mind, I always drew the line at the physical.
So, had a guy ever tried to molest me or rape me, I would’ve kicked his testicles up to the roof of his mouth and broken all his teeth with my fist. This was because I knew deep down, even when I was still a complementarian myself, that NOBODY had the right to touch me physically, without my permission.
I had correct, protective boundaries in place regarding physical or sexual abuse IN SPITE of the complementarian garbage I was raised in, not because of it, because complementarianism does NOT promote girls / women having safe, healthy boundaries.
Not all complementarian men rape, physically beat, or molest girls and women, but that does NOT mean that complementarian beliefs and actions, based on complementarianism, are not harmful – because they are.
LikeLike
Daisy, SO TRUE, and there is so much corrupted theology wrapped up in this.
I’ve pointed out that the Westminster standards don’t even acknowledge abuse of authority, and the western Reformed church simply doesn’t know what to do with abuse of authority. They try to correct the authority with kid gloves because preserving that authority is somehow more important than protecting the victims of abuse.
I’ve also pointed out that the indoctrination of the weak to obey the strong without question does not produce godliness, but it does produce codependency and preserves an abusive culture. It also produces a “god-complex entitlement mentality” among the authorities, especially in the church, where they cannot differentiate between members worshiping them and members worshiping God, and thus interpose themselves as mediators between the members and God.
The same thing is taught to boys as is taught to girls. Be an obedient, submissive person and God/the church will reward you with position and title – we sang “humble thyself in the sight of the Lord and he will lift you up”. For men, it’s being a church leader, for women, it’s being married to a church leader and/or a leader of women’s groups. (yes, I know this part is different for men and women and demeaning towards women)
But, then the gigantic, corrupt bait and switch is that the obedient, submissive ones just get subjected to more abuse and worthlessness, while it’s the rebellious and insubordinate ones who get the time, attention, love, admiration, whatever, and get sent off to seminary to lord it over some flock somewhere. (There are exceptions, but this seems to be the rule)
LikeLike
(part 3 – “Nice Complementarianism Vs. Abusive Complementarianism”)
You, if you are a complementarian man, may not be molesting or punching your daughter or wife, but via the complementarian teachings…
You are never the less sending the women in your life a message that they do not have as much value as boys or men, (and other negative messages), etc., which in turn leaves the women in your life wide open to attracting men who WILL rape and abuse them, or leave them vulnerable to other women who may try to take advantage of them emotionally or financially.
I cannot get complementarian men to understand these things at all.
The complementarian men who are not beating women and so on live with this delusion that complementarianism “done correctly and biblically” will solve problems, erase sexism, and ensure respect for women, as KAS has said in this thread.
And it’s wrong, wrong, wrong.
Complementarianism, even the “gentle,” “nice” variety, sends harmful messages to girls and women and instills behavior in girls and women that will leave them vulnerable to being abused or exploited by other people – by dates, boyfriends, future husbands, bosses, co-workers, neighbors, other women, etc.
-Again, that is referring to “nice” complementarianism practiced by “nice” men who do not rape or abuse.
The “nice, sweet” type of “servant leadership” complementarianism that complementarians say is the “real” type of complementarianism, as opposed to the sort that produces or enables abusive men, comes with its own set of problems that harms girls and women, and is no better than the other sort.
The abusive complementarian men use the same exact interpretative method of the Bible, and the same Bible verses, to justify their dominance and abuse of girls and women that the nice, loving complementarian men do to prop up their “nice” form of male headship and male hierarchy.
The abuser complementarians and the nice complementarians both use the same Bible verses and hermeneutic methods to justify how they treat women and to say why women should submit to men, etc.
-You complementarian guys who defend complementarianism, but who aren’t raping or beating girls and women, need to really grasp that. Your complementarian set of beliefs is rotten to the core, even though you are not personally slapping or beating your wife, or are not being overtly un-kind and mean-spirited to girls and women.
LikeLike
I’d like to apologize for all the posts of mine, or for the frequency and length of posts. The complementarianism topic gets me worked up, because I despise complementarianism. I was raised under it, so I’m very familiar with its flaws and dangers to girls and women.
If I do a lot of posts about this subject (and they’re long), it’s because I lack a talent for being concise, and I feel strongly about about the topic. I don’t mean to appear as though I am trying to “run” the comment box, or anything like that.
(On other days when I visit this blog, if I am in a chatty mood, if I may post a lot, I can be very talkative. I’m sorry if my posting habits are annoying to anyone.) 🙂
LikeLike
It is also deeply condescending, Daisy.
I grew up with mildest of mild ‘soft’ comp in church, by which I mean men were deacons and pastors and were supposed to get some sort of ‘tie breaking vote’ in marriage. But whatever other harmful messages I got were filtered through better family influences. Of course as an adult, I see even the mildest stuff is wrong. For a lot of reasons, which have been articulated many times.
From a personal level, I can only say that being in a church that does not restrict women in any way, and in fact encourages them, is deeply calming to my soul. There is no way I am going backwards on this front.
LikeLike
Mark said,
I agree completely. All good points.
Mark said,
In Christianity, there seems to be two streams of how men are taught or expected to behave.
I did read chapters from a book by a Christian guy (Paul Coughlin) who talked about his experience. (You can read some of those chapters for free online, from the book “No More Christian Nice Guy.”)
Some types of Christians (or churches) tell Christian men that being “good” means being “nice,” and “nice” is often conflated with codependent behaviors – lack boundaries, be passive, don’t speak your true opinions, etc.
Then, I’ve observed another set of behaviors and teachings where Christian men are taught that being a good Christian means being cool, tough, dominate women, maybe dominate other men, take an interest in stereotypical manly-man pursuits (such as NFL, NASCAR watching, etc).
Pastor Mark Driscoll comes readily to mind, on that score. He was promoting an incredibly, stupid, Macho, tough guy version of Christianity.
I think Christian girls/women get a way heavier does of “be nice” from Christian culture and churches, and nice is always conflated with codependent traits. (The same is true of secular culture on that.)
But I do see how some churches or Christians tell Christian men that being a ‘good’ or ‘nice’ Christian means acting like a door-mat and automatically deferring to anyone in a position of authority.
I’ve seen enough Christian men online say they find complementarianism exhausting. How they are expected to be stoic all the time, and, if they’re married, they have to do all the heavy lifting in the marriage. They say it’s a lot to live up to and live under.
Ironically, I believe one reason of a few God “invented” women was to help men carry the burdens of life – we women are to be interdependent with men, and to help you when or if you fall. (And if a woman falls, you, as a man, are there to help or pick her up, too. It’s a mutual thing.) If you’re a man able to lean on a woman in a time of trouble, that would reduce your workload and stress.
But do complementarians accept this notion of why God created women? Nope.
LikeLike
Correction. Last post I typed,
“I think Christian girls/women get a way heavier does of “be nice” from Christian ”
That “does” should read “DOSE” – “women get a heavier DOES of…”
LikeLike
Oh boy. Even in my last post meant to correct the previous one, I still messed it up. The word was “DOSE” not “does.” (If we had edit buttons, I’d edit stuff.)
LikeLike
Lea said,
Yes, that too.
I think a lot of complementarian men, even the ones who are not overtly sexist or not abusive, are guilty of Benevolent Sexism, which is why I sometimes link to articles that describe what that is.
If you are a complementarian man, just because you do not beat women or rape girls does not mean you’re not harboring attitudes that are still sexist, and which can in turn limit women in some capacity.
A lot of the nice, sweet type of complementarianism done correctly and biblically, is chock full of Benevolent Sexism (and gender essentialism).
_Women are Kind and Men are Strong: How Benevolent Sexism Hurts Us All_
(continued in a part 2)
LikeLike
(part 2, continuation of my response to Lea)
Another related topic: complementarians seem to think men are better leaders, smarter or more capable than women, and so ideal to lead women.
Complementarians never factor in men who are inept, barely literate, or irresponsible weenies – men such as my ex fiance’.
That guy (my ex) was so clueless, that had I married him, in order not to starve or receive eviction notices and so on, all leadership would have fallen to me by default or of necessity.
I would’ve made sure any and all rent and bills were paid on time, we had groceries in the fridge, etc. Some men cannot or will not lead the way comps teach or tell them to do.
In some cases, all complementarians do is yell and scream at the men, the men who are not living up to gender complementarian ideals.
For example, years ago, complementarian pastor Mark Driscoll would scream and yell at his still-single, 20- or 30- something male congregants at his Mars Hill church to get steady jobs, get a driver’s license, get a car, then marry and support a wife.
Clearly, not all men are cut out to be leaders at all, or to lead women specifically, and clearly, God did not inherently gift men with leadership- of- women abilities, if a complementarian pastor has to scream at them to get in line with being leaders and explain to them they must take charge of women!(*)
*(And P.S. – all sorts of other things are wrong with that lecture by Driscoll – such as – assuming it’s wrong for a man to stay single, as though marriage is better than singleness, or marriage is a necessary marker of adulthood; his not recognizing that the economy has been such for over a decade now that a lot of people are having a hard time getting a job that pays well enough to support two on one pay check, etc.)
LikeLike
Mark, Understand. Just remember self-care in the meantime and that if you choose to resume, you can always try a different therapist, therapy, or books.
I don’t think your worthless.
LikeLike
I went to business school, and whenever they start talking about ‘leadership’ I think their understanding of it is incredibly poor. They don’t know what they’re talking about at all. Pft.
LikeLike
Irene said,
Do you visit this blog that often?
If you did, you would surely notice a pattern to KAS’ behavior and posting habits, and it would not be a mystery why he gets the reaction from some of us that he does.
My understanding of this blog is that it’s a safe area for people who have been wounded by churches, Christians, or certain doctrines or pastors, to vent and discuss their painful pasts.
Along comes KAS to turn almost every thread into a sterile theological debate, where he gets to discuss issues in an abstract manner, which must be a nice luxury, to sit up in an ivory tower to discuss complementarianism in such a dispassionate way because it’s not affected you so personally.
This overly logical, analytical behavior – in a thread of all places where the wounded are talking about how comp has hurt them personally – in turn minimizes and ignores how the doctrines he is defending (usually complementarianism) has had real-life, negative consequences on the people he’s posting to, or who may happen to skim across his posts, such as myself or the poster called “Christianity Hurts.”
The main question of this particular thread, the original post, was,
“What can me do to help remove misogyny from Churches or Christianity,”
-but KAS manages to derail that to, “I want to defend complementarianism and refute egalitarianism.”
Not only that, but complementarianism is part of the very reason sexism and misogyny exists in Christian culture. It’s part of the problem, but KAS keeps wanting to defend “doubling down” on complementarianism as being the cure.
(continued in part 2)
LikeLike
part 2, to Irene.
Irene said,
Speaking only for myself, yes, I am saying if one understands the Bible to say that only men should lead, and/or men should lead women (as in unilateral submission of a wife to a husband), yes, that is sexism, it is sexist.
(I understand that some that view the Bible in that way think they are just “obeying God,” and going by what they think “the Bible is clearly teaching,” but at the end of the day, it’s still a sexist interpretation, even if the person adhering to it has no evil intent.)
How can such an interpretation not be sexist?
Switch out race for biological sex:
Does any of that sound racist to you? (I would hope so, because it is pretty racist.)
That’s the same exact reasoning complementarians use regarding women, men, marriage, church leadership positions, etc.
But they claim to see it in the Bible, so it MUST be acceptable for one group to wield all power and authority over the other side, they just say, ~wink wink, nudge nudge~, the other side is “equal in worth,” so it doesn’t sound as offensive as it obviously is.
(continued…)
LikeLike
Daisy, I think core to complementarianism is a backwards view of God’s relationship to Christians.
We were taught, essentially, that we were “blessed” by active obedience and submission, that God sat back and watched us fail only to then step in and give grace, or stepped in to punish us for our lack of abilities. We were taught that God delighted to show us our failings (and likewise his servants were wise about showing us our failings – ACBC anyone?) to drag us through the mud until our wills were finally beaten down enough that he could do some work in us without our rejecting him.
So, when you put that into perspective, it is the “role” of the servant-leader (gag!) to serve in the sense of pushing us beyond what we are capable of and removing support so that we feel beaten down, unloved, whatever so that we can turn to the leader/God for support. There were many, many campfire conversion stories of people who were beaten down to nothing only to “find God”, and pastors who stood by and watched some teen thrash around helplessly until he could swoop in at the last minute and point the teen to Jesus. Many who talked about God’s purpose for their life was the opposite (God, let me do anything, but that…) of what they wanted for themselves.
I think that is the core of why complementarians can’t see the light of day. I couldn’t really see that until I was out of my abusive church. They think that the “purification” aspect of these authoritative spiritual relationships is about beating the person – ABUSING the person – until they feel completely worthless, and then and only then can they do the work of the gospel.
As a child of complementarianism, we are taught, essentially, that having a will, a purpose, even boundaries, is at odds with the purpose and will of God, because, of course God’s purpose for our lives is not OUR purpose, so having a purpose (i.e. self-worth) is somehow automatically opposed to what God wants for us.
LikeLike
(part 3, reply to Irene’s post – and with this, I think I am out of here!)
Irene said,
I don’t think this is the appropriate thread for a debate about interpretation.
I said above I hoped Julie Anne would make a new, separate permanent page on her blog called “Debate Complementarianism / Egalitarianism,” or something like that, so that guys like KAS, who adore complementarianism, can defend comp and question egalitarianism, all live long day, but I don’t have to be subjected to it every thread, or ones like this one, where I think it’s very much out of place.
According to complementarians, there is no other true or biblical way of interpreting that Bible but theirs.
Complementarians assume there are only two approaches to the issue, which are:
Complementarians don’t recognize a person can reject Complementarianism and yet not fall into group 2, or not all of group 2, mentioned above.
They wrap their view up in a false dichotomy.
(BTW, I’ve voted Republican thus far in my life, I am hetero, and I’ve never been married, ergo, I’ve never been divorced.)
I was brought up in a complementarian family and church, Irene, so I already know how and why complementairans interpret the Bible as they do, because I used to be just like them, until I realized later in life they are interpreting or applying the Bible incorrectly.
But you cannot convince most complementarians of that, because of how they choose to approach the Bible:
(which is, e.g.,
–assume a male hierarchy was God’s intent and that male hierarchy is “good,”
-read that male hierarchy back into Genesis ch. 1 -3 and other passages,
-assume instructions from apostle Paul meant for one church at one point in time, to tackle one specific church’s, or one person’s problem, was meant to be prescriptive for ALL Christians for ALL time in EVERY culture forever and ever, etc)
Complementarians are too rigid and narrowly-focused, this is their manner of biblical interpretation. They zero in on the bark on the trees. As someone who rejected complementarianism, I zoom out and see the forest.
Complementarians don’t want to zoom out to see the bigger picture. They think focusing myopically on a handful of Bible verses (such as “I forbid a woman to teach, yada yada”) is the only true, good, correct way of understanding the Bible.
I see little point in getting into tedious debates with complementarians like KAS who want to go on and on over the same set of verses, because there will be no progress made, unless they change how they approach the text. And that may require a paradigm shift, one that I cannot provide them.
As long as complementarians keep assuming their approach to the text is air-tight, there’s no possibility it’s incorrect, and there’s no other way to understand it in an equally correct and conservative manner (all other forms of understanding the text is deemed “liberal” by them), they’re not going to budge. I used to be one of them, and I used to be where they are.
So when a comp like KAS wants to come on to almost every thread to argue the same points or same biblical verses over and over again, I’d rather not be exposed to it. It’s an exercise in tedium. He already has his mind made up that his way of understanding the Bible that his way is the only true, right, godly, or conservative way of understanding it.
LikeLike
said,
That sounds very cult-like, and it sounds like a lot of emotional manipulation.
I don’t think conversions created due to emotional manipulation will last. Several months back (sorry I don’t have the link for this, cannot remember where I saw it), I read a few articles by a guy who attended some Protestant men’s retreat type thing, out in the woods, there were cabins, camp fires, etc.
In his case, it was a more “warm and fuzzy” emotional manipulation, if I recall correctly, rather than a negative type, of being told what a good- for- nothing worm he was.
He said during this retreat, he accepted Jesus as his Savior.
Years later, though, he became an atheist, due to several factors.
He said in retrospect, his conversion was based on feelings. The Christians at the camp ramped up the emotional appeals.
I just finished re-reading a book called “The Sociopath Next Door” a few weeks ago. One thing I can tell you is sociopaths cannot be emotionally manipulated like that. About the only emotions they experience (according to books I’ve read on this), are anger and boredom. Trying to guilt them into feeling bad about a sinner or trying to give them the warm and fuzzies to convert won’t work on them.
I sometimes wonder what Christians do in cases such as that.
Mark said,
I’ve seen that sort of thinking before. There’s also a demonization or vilification of self-esteem from a lot of Christians. You’re not supposed to feel good about yourself or have self-esteem.
I’ve never understood the animosity of the concept by so many Christians. I can guess as to why so many are against it – they are into the worm theology and think only nice things should be said about Jesus, not any human being.
Some of us never had a strong will or any self esteem to be beaten down in the first place.
LikeLike
I think the problem is that we’ve heard all of those arguments and already rejected them. There are only a handful of verses they can use, afterall. We have a ton, but they don’t say a+b=c so they are rejected. Or even when they do, they get interpreted differently, because that’s the only thing that fits with verses 1-3 to them. So as you say, it is tedious.
Get off those verses and have a real conversation. Accept that you might not know everything and might even be wrong. Also accept that the men (and it’s mostly all men) who wish to argue in favor of these various interpretations like no divorce in teh face of abuse, are going to be looked at sideways because they are basically jumping on an interpretation that benefits them, and hurts women. And unless they accept and truly admit this, no one wants to hear it again, for the 80th time. Because we know the results.
LikeLike
Lea, “I went to business school, and whenever they start talking about ‘leadership’ I think their understanding of it is incredibly poor.”
My business school’s understanding was better than the church’s interpretation, but their base assumption was that everyone was good and wanted to be a good employee, which I think is better than assuming every employee is a wicked person who must be contained, but it has its own issues.
LikeLike
Daisy, “The Christians at the camp ramped up the emotional appeals.”
I noticed that pattern – that church camps/conferences are a pretty intensely emotional experience. First off, it’s “just us Christians”, but then the whole time tends to be about pushing certain messages. For the high schoolers, especially, there is an enormous amount of energy spent on “commit to …” whether it’s marry within the church, go to college at the church college or at least near a church, commit to lifelong ministry. It was a common experience for people to “crash” after the intense emotional high of the week.
“There’s also a demonization or vilification of self-esteem from a lot of Christians.”
This is much of why I left. I started realizing that there was an equivocation between “Total Depravity” and “self-esteem”. Of course, no one would go on record saying that, but someone who had self-esteem must not understand how unworthy they were in God’s eyes. And that’s why everyone was taught to destroy self-esteem at all costs, because (apparently), only then could someone understand their need for a savior.
My argument flipped this on its head – I said that as humans, we have a basic dignity as image-bearers of God. As such, I ought to be ANGRY if some person is treated in a way that denies that basic dignity, EVEN IF THAT PERSON IS MYSELF! My church leaders were like, no, no, you don’t understand, it’s never right to be angry! So, here’s a church that refuses to defend basic human dignity, all in the name of helping people understand Total Depravity (which has nothing to do with basic human dignity).
As I’ve argued elsewhere, Evangelicals, in general, confuse emotion and spirit, and, as such, they make stupid circular arguments about things like joy, anger and self-esteem because they take passages that are clearly talking about spiritual matters and try to force them into emotions. Like, “if you’re not happy, you lack joy”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Irene said, “I don’t understand why KAS has been vilified here.”
Dear Irene,
If you have been following Spiritual Sounding Board for any length of time, without a doubt, you will have noticed that KAS is the antagonist to the hurt, shame, and guilt thrust upon innocent victims of apostate Christianity. His comment threads are self righteous and hurtful in many ways to the innocent victims of complementarian (false) theology and has offered little or no concern to those who have suffered from a religion that poses as Christianity.
Misogyny will never be eliminated from the visible church (I know I sound negative here) because it is one of the “marks” of apostasy, which infected the NT church long ago, complete with mis-translations of the Bible, to ensure authoritarianism and hierarchy. How many “pastor” will defend the fact that Paul had a job, working hard with his hands to support himself, all the while sharing the Gospel and ministering to Jesus’ sheep.
To date, I have not heard a good sermon on “pastors” working their butts off for the LORD, so to speak. The apostate church is all about leadership, leadership, and servant-leadership (I gag too, Mark, when I hear those words coming out of church leadership’s mouths), of which complementarianism prostitutes itself very well. Misogyny has become one of the “fruits” of a false holy spirit and the pew sitters are required to worship its leadership instead of our Holy God……and when you choose to worship Jesus alone, and follow Him alone for it is He that has all authority (Matthew 28), the c’hurch leadership will come after you, with an insatiable appetite to destroy those faithful sheep who have left their “c’hurch/religious system.” And complementarian churches are by far, the most wicked and vindictive organizations to be involved in……for both complementarian men and women desire followers after themselves for they love to be seen by men, so to speak.
Christianity Hurts, Daisy, Mark, and Lea……thank-you for bringing up so many truths regarding complementarianism. My spouse is a complementarian and my former abusive Baptist c’hurch is complementarian to its core…..to note here, complementarian women are equal with complementarian men; some of the most meanest, vilest, despicable, and double minded folks out there, due to their apostate view of the Scriptures. I agree with everything you have stated and I pray it ministers to those who need to hear your words/experiences in breaking free from their abusive situations.
And KAS, if you are still viewing this comment thread, my heartfelt prayers for your daughter are sincere……for long ago, seven years into my complementarian marriage, that was me, seeking to end my life due to the “thy must submit to me in EVERTHING” false theology. Living in complementarianism is literally, “Living in the land that’s never good enough,” whether in a marriage, in a c’hurch system, or in any social venue…….and it is not of Jesus, at all. At all!
My Hope was and still is found in the Gospels, in knowing how Jesus treated women, and how He loves us, and no amount of comp preaching and teaching will ever draw me away from the One and Only true Gospel/Jesus……ever again.
Been there, done that, and NEVER going back to the slough hole filled with religious leeches.
LikeLike