ABUSE & VIOLENCE IN THE CHURCHThreat to the Gospel September 12, 2018December 3, 2018 Julie Anne ******* You really must click on this tweet and read the responses. In light of recent events, I’ve decided to call everything that annoys me “a threat to the gospel.” — Kelsey Lewis (@KelseyMLoo) September 11, 2018 Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterTumblrEmailPinterestLinkedInPrintLike this:Like Loading... Related
56 thoughts on “Threat to the Gospel”
Um … why? Doesn’t seem to be anything worth reading.
I’m sorry you don’t get it, KAS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I get it! It is much easier at times to look at the ridiculous rather than facing what is behind the humor. KAS- think about the rape victim who was told by seminary leaders not to press charges against her rapist, because it might “hurt the gospel” for the judge. There are times when church leaders try to keep abuse in the church private, because it makes their church look bad so they tell victims their public testimonies could hurt another’s faith.
The abuser is protected and the victim is shamed into believing that her public testimony will hurt the cause of Christ. These tweets reveal how absurd such thinking is, as well as dangerous.
JA, please correct me if I am off base.
Yes, that applies. I think it’s also in response to the recent talk about “Social Justice Warriors” sabotaging the gospel according to those who have signed the Social Justice Statement.
Ann – there is nothing new in churches or religious organisations trying to deal with abuse in-house. I can think of one personally known to me that occurred in the mid-90’s, although I have learnt a lot more about this in the meantime, not least that child abuse is a crime and should be reported to the police. Back then it wasn’t considered necessary to report it.
Covering up or appearing to cover up abuse in churches does more harm to the churches’ witness than the abuse itself, as any group can have those in it who let the side down.
JA – I do actually have a very dry sense of humour, but it was somewhat lost on me looking at the twitterati in full flow. I’ve been on vacation and taking a short break from what is going on in the world – I think it healthy just for a while to get away from depressing news, although generally we ought to keep up with what is going on locally and internationally.
I had hoped the responses were not flippant humour aimed at the recent Statement (which I have only just read), as this deserves more thoughtful treatment dealing as it does with serious in-roads being made into American evangelicalism by worldly thinking and analyses. Christians need to stop being led down the pointless guilt trip road over what their ancestors might have done 300 years ago, and stop using silly expressions like ‘white male privilege’, which is both sexist and paradigmatically racist. If you insert ‘old’ into the equation, it’s ageist too.
Although largely an American phenomenon, I get it that the word ‘gospel’ can be over- and indiscriminantly used, but its essence really can be lost amid well-intentioned but ultimately pointless attempts to undo the effects of the fall by social legislation.
Honestly, KAS, haven’t you seen MacArthur’s posturing and spotlight-hugging lately?
If you haven’t, then I’m not sure anyone can explain the joke to you.
Serving Kids – nope, I’ve not been following MacArthurville lately, indeed rarely do so.
As I said I took a break from news in general and the internet in particular over the last couple of weeks or so. Enjoyed watching the sun set over the sea, a Cornish cream tea (best experienced rather than talked about), and a trip on a steam train.
Looking at the twitter feed brought back memories of Team Pyro – my disillusionment with them came about in part because they and their combox moved from discernment into mockery of those with whom they disagreed. I saw some of that in the feed, one or two names being familiar as those who have abandonned the faith for a mess of worldly pottage, whose private lives are a public mess, and of course what appears to be the stereotypical modern feminist – unmarried and replete with pets instead of children.
MacArthur is a strange character – the sermon on ‘tongues’ being the worst I have ever heard, and yet movingly faithful in a sermon immediately after same-sex ‘marriage’ was made legal. So I can understand pocking fun at the pomposity if not arrogance of some of these big name ministries, but get uneasy when this comes from those who are caving in on issues that said names are standing firm on, and one day may well pay a cost for in terms of secular bigotry. Some critics, thinking tolerance is only ever virtuous, have opted to get back onto the broad road that leads to destruction. Even my dry sense of humour cannot find anything funny about that.
While not a liberal or a SJW myself, there is a grain of truth in some of their concerns, including the concept of “white male privilege”
We have a dude on another thread here who is a shining example of “male privilege” (have no idea of his skin color). He resists any studies or research about gender vis a via career choices of people, any time they conflict with his opinions and personal experience.
He won’t listen to or accept the personal experiences of women such as myself or Lea over his own, and he’s a man trying to educate us at to why women do what they do. Perfect example of “male privilege” mixed with “man-splaining.”
Sometimes the secular world gets right what the church gets wrong.
American slavery is one such example. Christians used to use the Bible to defend whites owning blacks.
There were a percentage of Christians who were opposed to slavery back then, but, they were said by the conservative Christians of that time to be capitulating to secular values, they were said to be “liberal,” etc.
How incredibly sexist.
I’m unmarried but with no pets.
Sexist attitudes such as yours is what drives women to leave the Christian faith and some into joining more woman-affirming religions, such as Wicca or Neo-pagans.
Sexist attitudes like that from Christians such as you certainly has played a role in it for me.
You lecture other people on this blog not to use demeaning rhetoric or insulting language, yet you think nothing of trotting out sexist tropes by which to attack women who don’t live by your sexist understanding of life or the Bible.
That makes you a huge hypocrite, so kindly stop Tone Policing and lecturing anyone else on this blog, or on any other corner of the web, on how to behave properly.
That person who you say is a “modern feminist” (I don’t go by that label myself) is probably ten times more content, fulfilled and happy now that she has left Christianity and has cats than she was when she was in Christianity
Christians by the way, have turned family, marriage, and child rearing into golden calves which they worship. Contra Paul who said in 1 Cor 7 it is better to remain single.
Daisy – have you not noticed this amongst modern feminists in real life?
If it helps, let me balance this up. The stereotypical modern male – marriage? No way, runs away from responsibility and commitment, and instead wastes his time on internet porn and computer games or watching sport.
I’m not remotely claiming these generalisations are universal truths, but they do contain more than a gain of truth. Ever noticed the way millenials act and think amongst the colleagues you work with? The eternal adolescent, pubbing and clubbing into their forties – go back slightly further than millenials and this is true in Europe, hence the demographic deficit in a well below replacement level birth rate, making necessary immigration mostly of those whose values are inimical to modern secular ‘toleration’.
Sexist attitudes such as yours is what drives women to leave the Christian faith and some into joining more woman-affirming religions, such as Wicca or Neo-pagans.
This is where the gospel can indeed be threatened – and lost. The Christian faith is about mankind being reconciled to God, and the means that God chose to bring this about. The person and work of Christ. It is not about personal fullfillment, affirmation, self-esteem or feeling good about yourself or having your unmet childhood needs met, material prosperity – nor, you rightly say, about marriage and children. The gospel may help in some of these areas as a side-effect, but that is not the centre of it.
It is the utmost folly to abandon a faith that puts you right with God and gives you a certain hope for the future for anything else, even things that may be good, because everything else will be annulled by death. To stand before a holy God unprepared and in a state of rebellion. Utter folly.
“This is where the gospel can indeed be threatened – and lost. The Christian faith is about mankind being reconciled to God, and the means that God chose to bring this about. The person and work of Christ. It is not about personal fulfillment, affirmation, self-esteem or feeling good about yourself or having your unmet childhood needs met, material prosperity – nor, you rightly say, about marriage and children. The gospel may help in some of these areas as a side-effect, but that is not the center of it.”
Amen to this KAS! You made my whole day as this is the message I received after bolting out of that abusive Baptist church with an Assembly of God/Charismatic/Pentecostal p’astor man…..and actually reading, studying, and meditating upon God’s Precepts for meself. And yes, the Holy Spirit, does live and is active in women as well as men, leading both into His truths. And after listening to this p’astor man’s pathetic sermon on the “Jezebels” amongst the pew sitters all the while he was “hustling his counselee women on the side for “relational favors” “, I have become increasingly dubious of the pastor as a “titled and entitled” role of leadership over me life. Jesus is now my One and Only true Pastor as He promised that He would never leave me nor forsake me, and He never lies.
And Jesus has never called me a “feminist” or a “Jezebel” for telling me husband, any p’astor man, church board leader, elder, important church busy body/meddling fool, or any other entitled or superiorly enlightened c’hurch folk, the word;
We must remember, KAS, that Christ is our Good Shepherd, our only Good Shepherd; perfect, Holy and True, and He cares deeply for His sheep (that is us!) Our Good Shepherd does care about us, spiritually, mentally/emotionally, and physically as we depend on Him for everything. Growing up on a small farm, I watched Dad care (and us as we grew older) for our sheep to the best of his ability, and wept every time he lost a lamb…..and it was good to see my Dad crying over the loss, for his compassion and empathy flowed from that loss. He fed, gave necessary shots (mainly for overeating as sheep have less discernment in their eating habits), manually kept their pens clean (pitched manure) and faithfully attended to our sheep (as well as a myriad of other Old MacDonald farm animals 🙂 ) as any human “good shepherd” would. And just to note here……my Dad was not a complementarian…..Praise our LORD Most High.
As believers, KAS, we are also called to present the Gospel and care for Jesus’ sheep, especially when they become “the weaker” or the “least of these.” We don’t share the Gospel with a needy, broken soul, then walk away feeling so “holier than thou or more spiritual” because we have done so, especially when they are in need in so many areas of this earthly life. Another words, we put on our manure stained gloves, dig in with the hard tasks of this life, and get involved in that other soul’s personhood, in sharing their burdens and mourning with those who mourn and rejoicing with those who rejoice.
It’s called “caring” for other individuals, truly caring about Jesus’ sheep and even those who do not know Christ yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is both inaccurate and rude, KAS. Do better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Gospel is a Threat to the Gospel.
That Rabbi from Nazareth is a Threat to the Gospel. “CRUCIFY HIM!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
My apologies, KAS. I didn’t refresh the page before posting my comment, so I didn’t see your comment to JA and Anne before mine.
That being said…
That thread wasn’t simply needling MacArthur for his arrogance — although he does seem to have that in spades. It was also lampooning something about him that a lot of observers (myself included) suspect: namely, that MacArthur’s hate-on for social justice has nothing to do with any perceived “threat to the gospel”. He’s ranting and co-authoring statements about it because it’s annoying and inconvenient to him personally. Part of social justice is bringing the deeds of darkness out into the light. And given recent accusations against him, I imagine that’s the very last thing that he wants.
As for your comment about “stereotypical modern feminists”: I agree with Daisy and Lea. That was simply gratuitous. You have no business dictating to any woman whether she should marry, or how many pets or children she should have. Nor is a single, childless lifestyle grounds for dismissing anyone’s voice or opinions. As a single, childless man myself, I take special exception to that.
FYI, your subsequent comment about “stereotypical modern men” did not fix things.
LikeLiked by 2 people
KAS, do you really think calling Daisy sexist is appropriate here? It’s not. Don’t make things personal. Just debate topics, please.
“and of course what appears to be the stereotypical modern feminist – unmarried and replete with pets instead of children.”
You are obviously a narcissist the way you do not have a drop of compassion and the way you can deliberately hurt people, (mostly women and rape victims) and not feel guilty about it.
I grew up hating feminist, and I wanted to be a stay at home mom and have twenty children, but because of repeated childhood sexual abuse I hate sex and do not trust men. It hurts me very much that I don’t have children. If I had children I would tell them every morning when they woke up that they are literally the best thing that ever happened to me and they make my life better.
I have been condemned, judged, and criticised by feminist hating men in my family who were horrible fathers and bullied raped children and protected the child rapist because I have never got married or had children. Never should these stupid selfish week men have to take a look at themselves, their friends, or their pure evil ideology that made me not be able to get married or have sex. They are too selfish and childish to do that. Their comp god does not give them the courage or intelligence to do that.
The man who repeatedly sexually abused me for years while I was a little girl hated feminist. He called any woman or little girl who told anyone a man was abusing them a feminist. My father and the man who sexually abused me hated unmarried women who did not have children. They were not the ones who had to suffer through the sickness of pregnancy, the pain of childbirth, or be the trapped slave/wife.
In my thorough homeschooled knowledge about stereotypical complementarian men, they are selfish, bitter little boys, wife and children beating, wife and child raping, protectors of child rapist and haters of rape victims, they are the dumbest of the dumb, pathological liars, running around pretending they know things they don’t, they always feel sorry for men like them and never abused women and children, they trash talk anyone who does not kiss their @sses. Because that is what Christianity is to them, really stupid, evil, unattractive, undeserving men getting their @sses kissed.
KAS, do you have it in you to go off someone where and sit and think about what it is that makes you want to hurt people? If you were a semi-decent human being you would be ashamed of yourself. You come across like a misogynistic, hateful, heartless troll. It is juvenile to troll. Reading the vile male serving garbage you write is like reading the vile male serving garbage Imams say.
The stereotypical modern male – marriage? No way, runs away from responsibility and commitment, and instead wastes his time on internet porn and computer games or watching sport.
People do not have to get married against their will to please you KAS.
My father and the comp men I grew up with had no more responsibility because they were married with kids. They worked just like unmarried men and women, and fifteen-year-olds do, then they came home to promote themselves kings of their castles and get their bratty childish juvenile spoiled @sses kissed.
Conservative, married with children, church going, bible quoting men are every bit if not more addicted to porn, and obsessed with sports.
“hence the demographic deficit in a well below replacement level birth rate, making necessary immigration”
White women should not have to breed against their will were you can have more white people.
Intriguing what economic realities and societal pressure will do. So, these kids go to college. Why? Because there are very few full-time jobs that don’t require a college degree. Because of economic policies, even public colleges are into the $20-30k per year range, so students graduate with $100k in debt with 5-7% interest rates so that they can get a job as a manager of the local movie theatre, which pays maybe $25k. Rent is $1k per month, car insurance is probably $200 per month, and their student loan interest payment is $1k, which pretty much is their entire salary.
So, not surprisingly, millennials “choose” to return to their parents’ homes to live. They aren’t getting married because, DUH!, getting it on in your childhood bed next to your sleeping parents probably isn’t a big draw for the women, and the women are just as saddled with college loans and low pay.
So, what do they do for fun? Let’s see maybe they go to Disney World. Well, a plane ticket is $200 and park entry is probably $120 a day, a hotel is $120 a day. So, DUH! they can’t afford to go on vacations. So, they do what is cheap… a few beers and a $10 cover into a night club, where they can forget that they’re 8 years away from being able to afford renting an apartment and moving out from their parents’ basement.
CH, Men who send this much vitriol towards women who simply have the nerve to be unmarried or without kids send up giant red flags for me. Otherwise, why would they care? It doesn’t affect them at all.
Welp. That gets right to the heart of it, doesn’t it?
Spoiler, our planet is not currently in danger of running out people, no matter how many children your neighbor does or doesn’t have.
Oh yeah, and meanwhile the millennials get to experience the generational hatred caused by Baby Boomers who had the advantage of working in an era where all of the super powers’ industrial capacity was bombed out in WWII.
Now, all the decent paying low-skilled jobs, those the Baby Boomers got when they graduated high school, are in China, India, Mexico and other countries. We’ve graduated to a “service economy” which means no shortage of minimum wage jobs, but if you actually want to be able to raise a family…
Not only that, but the Baby Boomers were emotionally vacant from their families because they put in long hard hours at work. So, the X’ers and Millennials were “latch key” kids with the parents bringing home takeout every night. Sports were just a cheap babysitter. My parents dropped me off at 8AM for baseball and picked me up at noon, which was the culturally acceptable thing to do (although today’s dragon-parents aren’t helping sports either).
So, you can bitch and moan about millennials, but they probably did an amazing job, all things considered, of RAISING THEMSELVES!
Mark, I’m not a millennial but when I was in college we went clubbing frequently because it was an incredibly cheap night out, you could go to clubs under 21 (as opposed to bars) and if you played it right you could switch off between college night free, ladies night free, before midnight free, etc. It was also a lot healthier to dance for hours imo than most other pursuits. So.
And my 30s, 40s and 50+ friends all enjoy a nice bar or brewery on occasion. I don’t know what KAS is on about.
“The Christian faith is about mankind being reconciled to God, and the means that God chose to bring this about. The person and work of Christ. It is not about personal fullfillment, affirmation, self-esteem or feeling good about yourself or having your unmet childhood needs met, material prosperity – nor, you rightly say, about marriage and children. The gospel may help in some of these areas as a side-effect, but that is not the centre of it.”
As someone who grew up with Christian men who complain about the same things you do and hate the same people you do, I think Christianity is not about a god at all. But is about selfish, childish, insecure, unattractive, dumb, pedo leaning, sexually sadistic men who are using a woman and child-hating man worshipping God to arranging for themselves to have trapped women and children under their thumbs they can degrade, use, demean, rape, and beat.
Without Christianity and Islam, so many men would not get sex or children to make miserable.
There was a man who used to post at ExChristian.net and he often wrote about how he and his wife were drowning in debt from college. Once he wrote that they were in such dire straits they called a Catholic Charity in North Caroline for food for their newborn and the church charity told them they don’t help none Catholics. I could tell the man was crying every time he posts there. It was sad he could not enjoy his newborn because of living expenses.
I think millennials are smarter and better human beings than my generation and my parent’s generation. No one is perfect but at least they seem to try to think and care.
“Sports were just a cheap babysitter. ”
In my town, many parents can’t afford sports for their little boys anymore and in our town, if a little boy does not play baseball, basketball, football, and Lacrosse he is called trash and a fagot. If I had a little boy I would get a second job where he would not have to deal with the abuse rhetoric of not being on the right sports teams.
Yeah, sports are crazy. There is a Y league where it’s pretty much here is a ball go have fun. There is a Parks & Rec league where there are coaches that are win win win and don’t really know the sport, plus the kids are a lot more vicious. There is a club rec league where the coaches are all over the map – some good, some vicious, but it’s basically a way for the club to get money for their competitive program. There are a bunch of competitive programs. The coaching is generally pretty good, the play is good, the refereeing is pretty good, but the difference in price is staggering. It’s like $250 a year for the rec league and $2000 for competitive. Plus, the games are up to 80 miles away – at the lowest level competitive. The higher level competitive teams are traveling sometimes 200 miles for a game or weekend tournament. In Michigan, apparently, there are competitive professionally-coached travel leagues starting at ~8 years old. I guess if there’s money to be had…
When I played baseball, it was something like $50 today. We got a baseball cap, team t-shirt and volunteer coaches who were mostly high school players and we just showed up one night a week for practice and Saturday morning for games. I played in jeans because my parents weren’t going to spend their precious money on baseball pants and socks.
“I think millennials are smarter and better human beings than my generation and my parent’s generation. No one is perfect but at least they seem to try to think and care.”
Completely agree. My wife is into Mr. Money Mustache, a millennial who decided that he didn’t want to work in an IT job for the rest of his life, so he saved up money, figured out how to live a cheap lifestyle, and now lives with his wife and kid off the interest of his investments. There are a lot of people like him who are intentionally buying cheaper houses, cheaper cars, biking to work, whatever, and experimenting with how to maintain a sustainable lifestyle. We do talk a lot about what it would look like to retire early, although I’m not yet convinced I would like that lifestyle.
JA KAS, do you really think calling Daisy sexist is appropriate here? It’s not. Don’t make things personal. Just debate topics, please.
I haven’t called Daisy sexist. The line above, namely Sexist attitudes such as yours is what drives women to leave the Christian faith and some into joining more woman-affirming religions, such as Wicca or Neo-pagans was a quotation of Daisy calling me sexist! I would hardly ever recommend getting into the demonic and occult simply to be ‘affirmed’.
You may or may not think I am a loss to the diplomatic corps, but I avoid making things personal as far as possible in discussions on the sort of topics raised here. Unless someone has the time to waste trying to prove otherwise, I don’t think you will find personal attacks on anyone here coming from me.
What in the world, KAS? Your words certainly implied she is. And now you are getting personal with me. This is your final warning.
BTW, did you really read your sentence above? The solution to prevent women from leaving would be to affirm them. That is the issue!
I don’t know if I have the time (or want to spend the time) responding to every obnoxious comment by KAS or not (or not today, maybe some other time).
For now, I wanted to address this (I saw Katy quote it):
I especially wanted to zero on in this remark:
Did you ever apologize for your sexist gender stereotype about all feminist women and/or adult single women being sans children and having lots of pets?
If you are trying to get me to re-consider and stay with the Christian faith, you’re going about it the wrong way.
You are doubling down or trying to justify your earlier sexist gender stereotype comment about feminists and/or single ladies having lots of pets and being childless. That kind of sexist garbage attitude only serves to push me further away from the faith. Is that what you are trying to accomplish?
Christians will say they respect single adulthood, but then we find Christians (such as KAS) being disrespectful of women singles, by drudging up tired, old stereotypes, like all of us supposedly hate all children or have a million pets (the specific stereotype is usually we single ladies have lots of cats).
Well KAS, going by your formula
(which is your cultural bias and preference, by the way; this formula is not “biblical”) of
“Healthy, normal and respectable adult = being married, no pets, and having children”
…would mean that…
Jesus of Nazareth was some kind of big loser or feminist who fell short of Godly ideals, because he never married and never had children,
and Apostle Paul had no idea what he was talking about when he wrote in 1 Corinthians 7 it is better to remain single than it is to marry.
The Bible does not teach that “good,” “proper,” or “Godly” womanhood should be equated with marriage and motherhood (having children).
The Bible actually doesn’t get all concerned about “womanhood” (or femininity or manhood or masculinity or gender roles).
Only conservative Christians, who typically adhere to Gender Complementarianism get this obsessed with topics that the God of the Bible Himself never gets worked up over.
The God of the Bible loves and respects me just fine, regardless if I ever marry or not or have kids or not.
If you think that the Social Justice as being debated about in the USA is primarily or only about things such as “personal fullfillment, affirmation, self-esteem or feeling good about yourself” etc, you clearly have no idea what the Social Justice topic is about.
(part 2) reply to KAS,
Anyway. I never said that stuff (e.g. “personal fullfillment, affirmation, self-esteem or feeling good about yourself,” etc etc.) was “at the center of the Gospel.”
That is your misunderstanding of what Social Justice is, as understood and as debated by Americans in America.
But to get into all that:
The Christian faith, as conveyed to me by preachers, churches I was dragged to as a kid, and by my Christian parents, yes, made me unhappy and did not make me feel as though God loved or valued me.
Christianity acted as a hindrance of me obtaining or achieving my goals in life, being happy, and standing up to bullies.
Christians often sell the Gospel to Non-Christians in this light:
Christianity will bring you inner peace, God will fill that empty hole in your heart (that only he can fill), acceptance of Jesus, and seeking his kingdom first, will give one purpose in life, God and/or reading the Bible will meet all your needs (including healing you of, say, depression, if you have clinical depression).
Well, Christianity doesn’t always work as advertised.
Christianity did not bring me personal fulfillment, happiness, self confidence, purpose, or inner peace, certainly not on a regular and consistent basis.
On the contrary, the Christianity I was exposed to taught me things like having self esteem is supposedly worldly and hence wrong, that it was selfish for me to ever get my own needs met.
-(None of this is really Social Justice, by the way, as you seem to feel it is.)
I was further taught by Christians (and this part is especially under the umbrella or odious “Gender Roles” teachings as addressed to girls) that having boundaries was wrong, un-feminine, and self-centered.
(I believe you, KAS, even mocked the concept of “boundaries” under a previous thread here.)
The out-comes of such bad theology and warped teachings is that I was made to feel like a piece of dirt, and that I have no value, and I do not deserve to be treated with respect, but should just quietly tolerate rudeness or abuse.
I was taught – via gender complementarian beliefs – that men have more value than women do, and that God values and respects men more than he does women.
I was taught under comp that I cannot or should not be a certain way or pursue certain things that may be of interest to me (hobbies, careers, what not) because they would not be “godly womanhood.”
Only men in Christianity get to have full agency and to flourish, not women.
I was taught, under Christianity, to sit quietly and do not so much as politely protest if someone was being rude or abusive to me.
Christianity as you are presenting it (which sounds like how it was taught me as a child, as a teen-ager, up through my adulthood) was harmful to my mental health, intensified what the Bible calls the “Fear of Man,” and it perpetuated my anxiety and anxiety attacks.
Now that I have rejected a lot of the Christian faith I was taught, I am in a mentally healthier place.
I now recognize that it’s acceptable (not selfish) for me to go after my dreams and goals and to get my own needs met.
People are no longer as intimidating to me, because I now realize, contra Christian teachings, I do not have to tolerate abuse or mistreatment, but it’s okay for me to confront wrong-doers or refuse to allow myself to be taken advantage of.
I’ve also learned that earthly life is important and that it matters, too, not just any after-life when we will supposedly stand before a deity to be judged.
Problems, prejudices, and biases in and out of the church need to be addressed in this life, not just ignored or brushed under a carpet while we are all waiting to die and enter a next life.
That would be kind of like saying that police officers should not bother chasing after and arrest gas station robbers and put them in jail, because God will deal with those robbers in the after-life.
(part 3) reply to KAS,
As to this comment by Kas,
blockquote>To stand before a holy God unprepared and in a state of rebellion
blockquote> I don’t see where in the Bible it says that disagreeing with the notion that self esteem is evil, sinful, or “worldly,” or no longer agreeing that getting one’s own needs met is selfish, nullifies a person’s salvation.
To put this another way:
I now realize it’s okay for me to get my own needs met – and KAS is apparently saying believing this will send me to Hell.
I now realize that there’s nothing wrong with having a healthy level of self esteem (it’s not “worldly”), nor is doing and believing things that help me maintain a healthy level of self esteem wrong or worldly – and KAS is apparently saying believing this, or doing those things, will send me to Hell.
I thought the Bible says that neglecting to put trusting faith in Jesus as one’s Savior was the only qualifier for going to Hell in an after-life, but I guess KAS feels that there are other qualifiers to be (or to remain) “saved,” which would adding to the Gospel.
I thought the New Testament says adding to the Gospel is a big No-No?
(part 4) reply to KAS,
At any rate, I am empathetic towards women who have been so put-off by the harmful doctrines and hypocrisy of sexist Christians – especially under the auspices of Gender Complementarianism – that they have renounced Christ or Christianity and joined what they perceive to be a far more “respectful- towards- women” faith, such as Neo-Paganism or Wicca.
I myself have not run out and joined a coven or a Pagan group, but I get why other women would find that appealing, if they’ve been burned by the ever-present sexism in Christianity, and which John MacArthur’s Social Justice Manifest seeks to defend.
KAS, you should be more concerned with rectifying what is causing some women (and men) to leave the faith, rather than just sit there and scold and shame them that they are leaving, or that they have already left.
You, KAS, want me to believe you are concerned about the souls and eternal destiny of women
~(but you insult us women with “childless and lots of pets” stereotypes?)~,
but you obviously do not care about fixing what women find harmful in Christianity in the first place that is causing them to reconsider, or to reject, Jesus.
I also get that some women are more concerned with the “here and now,” than they are with the afterlife.
To quote Johnny Cash lyrics:
“You’re So Heavenly Minded You’re No Earthly Good.”
(Read those song lyrics here:
_No Earthly Good_ )
Jesus told Christians to meet the earthly needs of those here.
Jesus said to be salt of the Earth, not salt of Heaven.
The author of the book of James tells you to meet the earthly needs of a hungry and cold man should you meet one in person, do not give such a man spiritual advice or just offer to pray to him and walk off.
If rejecting Christ Himself and/or rejecting 99% of bogus Christian attitudes about women, marriage, that secular psychology is worldly, etc, causes one to have inner peace while in this life time, and to finally have a modicum of self esteem and happiness, I’m okay with that.
People do have needs while they are here on earth. Telling them to just think about “Pie In The Sky” after they kick the bucket is doing nothing to meet the needs they have now.
Your version of Christianity, even with its promises of “Pie In The Sky When I Die,” did not bring me inner peace, meaning, joy, but made me miserable. It was constant suffering.
Regular life sans religion / faith is hard enough as-is, without also having to deal with a layer of self-esteem killing religious (Christian) beliefs and rules on top of things. And the insulting gender-based stereotypes.
I said your attitude was sexist, not you.
One of my big points of contention with that post of yours:
Your comment about feminists and/or women being childless and having a lot of pets was an insulting gendered stereotype.
This whole thing is not just a matter of “receiving affirmation.”
The Christian faith as taught and/or practices by many (American) Christians and churches these days is actively excluding, ignoring, hurting, or insulting people who are not straight, white, or male.
Of course, if you are a heterosexual, married, white man, you would largely have no problems with Christianity as it is being currently taught and practiced in evangelical / Baptist / Reformed / Fundamentalist churches in the United States (and I suppose the UK too),
because almost all of Christianity is being taught by other hetero, married, white guys and at that, to cater to the needs and world views of hetero, married, white guys.
You’re (if you are white / male / married / straight are) already getting all your concerns needs met already by churches, so of course, if women, homosexuals, or black people are saying churches are damaging them or ignoring their concerns, you don’t care because it’s not hurting you personally.
The system works fine for you as-is.
The church, and the church system, already works just fine for James White and John MacArthur as-it-is, and it works well for their complementarianism /gender-role indoctrinated female signers (such as White’s “Sheologian” daughter), so of course they’re not interested in fixing what is (not from their view) broken.
So of course they don’t want to listen to what non-white / non-married / non-straight/ non-males have to say.
Or, they want to dismiss this Social Justice stuff that affects women and people of color as being nothing but plain old belly-aching and grumbling, or as being liberal, worldly nonsense, which they therefore feel can be easily dismissed or safely ignored.
You, KAS, really do not give one iota if (American) Christianity is driving black people, homosexuals, women, and other groups away from the faith.
I would think if you are really concerned with people rejecting the faith or dropping out of church, that you’d want to listen to their side and try to rectify what is driving them away.
The funny thing is, too, I’m not even a SJW (Social Justice Warrior) myself, nor am I left wing. (I’m a moderate conservative.)
I’m not in total agreement with some of the SJW arguments, presuppositions, and/or manner of argumentation.
While I don’t agree with SJWs on every point, I can at least see where they are coming from and agree to an extent when they say “this or that element in Christianity is a problem,” unlike conservative Christians, such as J. MacArthur, James White, and the others who signed the Social Justice Manifesto.
I’m at least willing to hear out the SJWS and listen to their list of grievances with an open mind.
By the way, to KAS.
A faith being “women affirming” is not really the same thing as “personal affirmation” or topics pertaining to self-esteem.
It could possibly encompass such components, I suppose, but that is not what the phrase means, or not how I was using it.
I don’t think you understood my use of the phrase “woman-affirming.”
This is one of the tendencies of some men on blogs like this one I do not grasp, and it’s a counter-productive behavior.
You’re – (“you’re” as in KAS and guys like him, not referring to SKIJ here!)-
You’re already talking to women who have told you numerous times on older threads for months now that they’ve been injured by sexism in the faith (and/or secular culture), and yet, you go ahead and act sexist, or utilize sexist stereotypes on that same blog in your posts?
It’s as though some of the men who post here are intentionally acting inflammatory or offensive.
Additionally, if I or someone else gets (understandably) angry and shout back at them in response to this sort of behavior, they either accuse me of being the meanie,
or, they try to play the victim and expect empathy from me and others,
or, they fixate on some minute, trivial element of my (or someone else’s) post and discuss that for days and days instead.
Per Christianity Hurts comment to KAS /b> here:
There is definitely a tendency on the part of a lot of Christians to assume that if someone disagrees with them about a topic (especially one pertaining to gender roles, marriage, parenthood, the traditional family unit, etc)
that one must obviously be a feminist and/or be a man-hating, bra-burning, abortion-supporting shrew who owns 58 cats, hates children, votes Democrat, etc.
None of that applies to me.
I was always a Republican, until a few years ago. I’m no longer in any political party, I’ve never worn the “feminist” label (for different reasons), and I’ve so far in my life not voted Democrat, either.
I myself had hoped and expected to be married by my mid-30s at the latest, but I broke up with my fiance in my early 30s and just never happened to find a “Mr. Right” afterwards.
Had I had children, I only wanted it to be after married. I never really cared one way or the other if I had children, though.
Christianity Hurts said to KAS,
I agree. Complementarianism is similar to Islamic teachings about women, gender roles, marriage, etc.
But KAS, like many Christians, will want you to believe the Christianity is exceptional and nothing like Islam or any other world religion.
And yet, many women sure don’t see it that way and have left the Christian faith for either atheism, agnosticism, or for New Age, Wicca, or Neo-Paganism.
So obviously, (complementarian) Christianity is not going over well for women, who see right through the flimsy Jim Crow marketing that Gender Comp means “women are equal in worth just not in role.”
But no, not all women who reject complementarianism and/or who leave the Christian faith are radical feminists who hate men, hate marriage, refuse to shave their legs and arm pits and live with 43 pet cats.
Christians find it comforting to believe in that stereotype, though.
Christianity Hurts said (to KAS),
If you marry simply to get married, your marriage will probably not last and you’ll get a divorce anyway.
I was engaged to a man when in my early 30s, but a marriage to him would not have worked, so I broke up with him.
Your comment reminded me of this editorial:
_Fewer People Are Getting Married – And That’s A Good Thing_
Per Christianity Hurts comment to KAS /b> here:
There’s a whole host of reasons why single women remain single, even self-professing Christian women.
The phrase KAS should be considering is “Single by Circumstance.”
Many women, especially Christian women, would love to be married, but for a bunch of reasons beyond their control, they cannot marry.
For one thing, a lot of churches lack single men of marriageable age. It’s a demographics problem.
And this was the case even before supposed declining birth rates.
(There have been articles in the last few years saying birth rates in the USA are going up now, but this is of no help to women age 40+, such as me. I am not going to marry someone 40 years my junior.)
Single men in churches run child-aged up to age 25, then age 80 and up.
I’m currently in my 40s. Do you really think I want to marry a white- headed or bald man who is my father’s age whose already gotten an AARP card years ago? No, I do not.
The men between those ages (25 – 80) who do attend churches are already-married men. Such men already have a wife.
The single men who identify as Christian on dating sites I came across when I was on a few dating sites years ago had perverted or obscene jokes or references in their profiles.
No thank you, I’d rather stay single than date one of those crass horn dogs.
I’ve heard from other single women online that not much has changed on dating sites or in churches.
Also, the “Do Not Be Unequally Yoked” is limiting single Christian women who’d like to marry. These women may be able to find a compatible marital partner if they extend their dating pool to Non-Christian men.
In this economy of the last decade, it’s not just millennials.
_Am I Too Old to Be Moving Back Home With Mom and Dad?_
I am still scrolling down the page reading comments, and I saw CH quoting KAS comment back at him, this-
Droves of people are quitting churches and denominations.
Some are rejecting the faith.
The Gospel as being taught by guys like KAS is sure not addressing the reasons and causes of why people are quitting church or the faith.
Most churches today are keen on a business model.
Well, if Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, or Dial soap were losing as many customers as are churches losing members, their marketing departments would be researching why and trying to correct it, to draw the numbers back.
There is a disconnect with churches / the Gospel as it’s being taught (or mis-taught) and people quitting churches / quitting Jesus.
Shaking your fist at the sky while screaming about millennials and certain views being “worldly” or “liberal”, as KAS or J-Mac likes to do, isn’t going to bring those people back.
Christianity Hurts said,
That is sad.
I’ve seen the opposite from other posters on other sites, that Catholic charities don’t care if those who come to them for groceries or clothing are Catholic or not.
I used to volunteer at a Baptist-run charity place that gave out free food, medical care, and clothing (they also gave out stuff like free tampons and other personal hygiene stuff), and we never once demanded recipients to convert to the faith in order to be eligible to accept the free items or care, nor did we preach the Gospel at them.
Your friend at the Ex Christian site may be able to find such a food pantry in his city.
Also, and as much as I disagree with Pat Robertson (sigh), his charity apparently does a lot of good – his Operation Blessing charity has various food pantries round the nation where people can get free food, and you don’t have to be a Christian to receive the food.
The volunteers at such OB places may want to at least pray for you while you are there, but that’s about it. As far as I’m aware, OB food pantries don’t “force” Jesus on anyone nor do they require you to be a Christian to receive their help.
Could your friend check to see if there is an Operation Blessing food pantries in his area?
Current headline on Washington Post:
Disgraced Baptist Leader Paige Patterson Body Shamed A Woman In His Return to the Pulpit
Paige Patterson is a jerk.
Nobody does! Is there any other crime which, when reported, people spend more time talking about how they hate false accusations? This dodge isn’t even subtle and I’m not hear for it. Paige Patterson needs to go to the house.
Since the MeToo movement began around fall of 2017, has it created a single false accusation? No, I don’t believe it has.
I suspect that all the hand-wringing about possible false accusations in light of MeToo is an attempt to stop women from bringing up their experiences publicly of having been sexually harassed or assaulted, especially in a place of employment.
Also notice that almost any time women step forward to talk in generalities of male behavior that harms women, men (and their female allies) will immediately try to make the conversation all about men.
A conversation that should be about women is always turned around and twisted to become all about men, and how poor, poor men supposedly have life (and dating, jobs, whatever the topic is) so much more difficult than women ever will.
As a matter of fact, (some irony here), the MeToo movement helped a few male actors (such as Terry Crews) step forward to discuss sexual harrassment they faced by other men in Hollywood, and, at least one male stepped forward to talk about how he was sexually harassed by a woman politician (or film producer).
And some of these men specifically said it was seeing women during “MeToo” step forward that gave them the courage to publicly discuss their assaults or harassment at the hand of others.
Men have actually benefited from ‘MeToo.’
Paige Patterson is a tool who needs to crawl back under his rock and stay there.
This is on CT, by a guy who is somewhat defending the MacArthur SJS (Social Justice Statement):
_Evangelism Is a Work of Social Justice_
I’m not sure if I agree with the author’s position that just because “the world” supports something automatically means it’s at odds with Jesus, God, or the Bible and Christians should reject it or be suspicious of it.
Many times, churches and Christians have dropped the ball on topics that are of great concern to others, which leaves it up to secular culture to handle.
Many Christians live to treat their brick and mortar church like it’s an insular Culture Club where they go to hang out with those like them.
They don’t really want to help people in their community, certainly not people who don’t look or act like them or make as much money.
The author says:
But that same Bible also says this:
The author also says (sounding like KAS above):
People have needs and problems now. Right now. Telling people to just consider the future (an afterlife) is nothing but an attempt to by-pass responsibility. Such Pie In The Sky theology doesn’t actually do anything to help people where they are.
Even Jesus did not take that approach, and this is Jesus talking about confronting people in the afterlife – about what they did while in “this” life on earth:
The author also writes
blockquote>To not put too fine a point on it: Evangelism is our greatest work of social justice.
[He also talks about Christians loving neighbor as self, encouraging others to read the Bible etc, he’s arguing that Christians should be concerned about spiritual matters]
blockquote> Well, the Bible understands loving neighbor as self to be MORE than simply sharing the Gospel with people or getting them to read a Bible.
Loving one’s neighbor might just consist of eradicating sexism in culture and/or in churches.
The Bible itself acknowledges that people are PHYSICAL BEINGS with PHYSICAL / MENTAL needs and problems, and does not say that humans are spiritual beings only.
The Bible seems it as being a both-and, not mutually exclusive either-or.
It sounds as though the author is promoting Gnosticism a bit – Gnostics, if I remember correctly, believed that the physical was wrong, bad, dirty, and that people should only concern themselves with the spiritual.
They went so far as teaching that Jesus of Nazareth did not have a physical body but was only a spiritual being – the Bible corrected that view of Jesus and said Jesus was both.
Something else about that _CT editorial_ – the author, Mark Galli, writes,
Jesus was also concerned with how people and institutions treat each other (in this life time!)
Jesus is the one who was always yelling at the Pharisees and the Temple for putting heavy burdens on people and not helping them with those burdens.
Jesus is the one who issued the Golden Rule of ‘do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.’
So I’d say that Jesus was also concerned with how people treated each other. In his day, a lot of the Jews hated the Samaritans – but Jesus went out of his way to talk to a Samaritan women and treat her as an equal.
Jesus was confronted with questions and hostility of other Jews towards the ancient Romans and the Roman government.
The Jews asked Jesus if they should pay taxes to the Roman Government and so on.
Jesus did not just tell his hearers to “just preach the Gospel and encourage others to read the Scriptures, stop being so concerned with earthly problems.”
No, he responded to their specific, earthly concerns with advice on how to view it and deal with it.
I do agree with the CT author that some Christians either push their faith aside in favor of a political solution, or else, they try to use Christianity to change politics, and that this is not altogether a good thing.
But I really loathe this Christian theology that tells us the opposite: to ignore the physical, to ignore reality as it is now, to day-dream about how awesome wonderful it will be one day to be floating on a cloud in Heaven, strumming a harp.
There have been a few critiques of the MacArthur SJS.
Here is one:
_Response to “The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel”_
The overall page is very good, so it’s difficult to choose what bits to excerpt here.
_Gospel and Social Justice – Fundamentalist and Progressive Distortions_
Highlights from that page:
And…. there probably aren’t single males 25-80 in the church because the church thinks they’re perverts or pedophiles.
Pastor yesterday was talking about his church model, and brought up how the church does not know how to deal with single post-college people. I think it was the first time I’ve ever heard a pastor admit that.
Interesting. Did he go into much detail on that? I know many churches are more focused on families…I think churches with a broader age range, including lot of older members, tend to be better on this because there are widowers and so on. But you still get caught in that weird age range where you aren’t a young adult anymore and you aren’t a young family and that’s all the options until you get into older age groups. Depending on the size of your church, their might be an ‘older singles’ group around 50s for divorced/widowed people.
I think that age range is a bit too broad, but apparently men who are unmarried by 40 or so are sometimes also presumed to be gay, or so a (divorced) friend said.
Daisy said, “Paige Patterson Body Shamed A Woman”
I read that at the service in Washington D.C. after September 11 Jerry Falwell said derogatory things about Barbara Bush’s appearance loud enough for people to hear him. We all know Jerry Falwell was fat and bloated. These men lie to themselves that women are not interested in men having good young bodies. When old men said pervert things to my friends and me when we were twelve, thirteen, and fourteen, we always mocked him when we were alone for not understanding that we thought he was old and gross. And why would we want someone who looked like that and that age looking at us or talking to us? When we were that age any man older than twenty-nine was old.
It is lazy and totally stupid of these men to think women have to look good but they can look gross and old. And when they ad bitter insecure misogynistic rhetoric to their already lacking appearance they look twice as gross. I can not think of one man in the Gospel Coalition that looks good.
“There’s a whole host of reasons why single women remain single, even self-professing Christian women.”
And why men stay single.
At https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/ I read an article by a man who said when he was a little boy his father kept accusing him of being sexually aroused by his little sisters. It traumatized and creeped the little boy out and made him question himself and feel shame and guilt. So now he has issues with sex and women and he is single. I think the father was lusting after the little girls and wanted the little boy to feel bad about it. Dash has said the idea of sex turns him off. And we know how much KAS hates Dash.
KAS, being the comp man he is; he does not have it in him to think critically about other people’s pain or to have understanding. KAS wants people to do what KAS wants them to do; even if it causes them pain. KAS attitude is, it is other people’s job to have pain to make him feel better. A common trait among comps.
“I agree. Complementarianism is similar to Islamic teachings about women, gender roles, marriage, etc.”
Once I was reading an article about a thirteen-year-old girl who got gang-raped in Yemen and there were some men blaming her, trash talking her, and defending the rapist. Saying the same crap I have heard my whole life from comp men. I was thinking these are definitely Christian men saying all this. A few posts later they started talking about the great Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. I was like, wow, conservative Muslim men talk just like and have the same opinions as conservative Christian men.
After September 11 there was a website that compared vile things Christians say to vile things Muslims say. An Imam blamed women for an earthquake saying women were not being modest.
Other things the Imams were saying. If a man wants to have sex the wife has to stop everything she is doing and get scr*wed.
There is no such thing as wife rape. Women who say there is such a thing as wife rape are dogs.
A wife can not divorce her husband for beating her.
A girl posted, “It looks like these two religions were created by men who couldn’t get laid.”
Phyllis Schlafly had quotes on there next to the misogynistic Muslim quotes.
Seeing how much Christianity has in common with Islam like misogyny and child abuse. It helped with my deconversion. I read years ago that in Jordan a little girl cannot go to the police if she has been raped unless a MAN in her family says she can.
I have read that in the future Christians and Muslims are going to be on the same side united in their disdain for women’s right to be free.
Christianity Hurts said
Yes there is a double standard in a lot of American Christianity, especially among Southern Baptists, Fundamentalists, evangelicals, and I’d say even some Reformed.
Women are taught by Christians that men are supposedly designed by God to be very visual.
Growing up, I used to actually see pamphlets by Baptist churches we went to, or that were mailed to our house from local churches (these are usually complementarians), telling married women to stay slim and wear make-up and look pretty because men (their husbands) like pretty women.
(That is the same message secular culture sends women, too, that if you are a woman and want a date or a husband you must be physically pretty because men only care about the outward appearance.
-Complementarianism is not counter-cultural, despite their insistence to the contrary.)
Christianity Hurts said
Christian preachers and TV hosts have told women in their TV shows and blogs if their husband commits adultery, it’s because they are to blame because they are dumpy looking and not pretty and skinny enough
(see Mark Driscoll and Pat Robertson for that).
I remember as a teen and 20- something seeing Christian dating advice to single women telling them a contradiction that goes like this:
‘Your inner “you” is the most important, God loves you for who you are,
men (even Christian men!) do not particularly care about your inner you (your brains, talent, aspirations, etc) – men (even Christian men!) primarily care about what a woman looks like, so diet often, fix your hair, and look hot.’
(Even as an adult, I sometimes see that same, horrible, sexist dating advice addressed at grown women.
In one complementarian dating advice page I saw or excerpted online a few years ago, it really hammered single women (and teen girls) to diet, exercise, wear make-up regularly, and stay thin, but, it said, not diet so much you become anorexic or bullemic.)
I’m a very visual woman and really prefer a hot, studly looking man who has a nice bod and a great face, but,
In all my years of being a Christian gal, I really do not recall an instance where I heard from the pulpit or saw in Christian dating advice books or columns, where male or female Christians told single Christian men (or married ones) to stay trim, in shape, to look hot for women.
Nope, that sort of Christian relationship advice only goes one way: to the girls and women.
In Christian culture, men are not told or expected to stay in shape and look good.
Christianity Hurts said
I have many reasons why I resent the Billy Graham Rule (also know as the “Mike Pence Rule”) and one reason is its inherent egotism.
Christian men who agree to the BGR think they are really physically attractive hotties who women cannot resist.
Almost every Christian man I’ve seen on TV, or in their profile photo on their blogs, who teaches / practices the BGR, I find highly physically unattractive. Some are even, IMO, homely.
Those types of BGR supporters have a lot of nerve assuming that…
1. I’d (or most other women would) find them attractive enough to want to bang
2. that I’d (or other single women would) bang a married dude as though I (they) have no morals.
The Christian woman online (or on TV) who defend BGR are just as bad, especially the married ones.
I see their elderly and/or dumpy, out- of- shape husbands, and these married Christian women, who are very pro-BGR, assume their dumpy looking husband is someone I’d want to bed?
I’m like, oh please, get over yourself and get your eyes checked. Your husband is attractive in your imagination only, I sure don’t want him.
A lot of pro-BGR Christian men and their wives (and some single women who defend BGR, ugh) seem to think all Christian men are Brad Pitt movie star look-alikes that no woman could find resistable. – Such delusion.
Julie Anne wrote: What in the world, KAS? Your words certainly implied she is. [Daisy is sexist] And now you are getting personal with me. This is your final warning.
Hang on a minute. You posted to me personally, and so I have replied personally. Without any hint of personal attack – I will repeat, I don’t do personal attacks.
As for any accusation of Daisy being sexist, why would I ever think that? If she is in fact anything, she would lean towards feminism.
I’ll make two observations about Daisy. First, she tends to take general comments I make as though they are directed at her. They aren’t. Possible example: male white privilege being racist and sexist. Secondly, Daisy by her own confession often doesn’t read what I post. In the very next post after your post I quoted above she demonstrates this (Did you ever apologize for your sexist gender stereotype about all feminist women and/or adult single women being sans children and having lots of pets? – she clearly didn’t read my qualification of this that this does not apply to all feminists. And everyone is free to disagree with it anyway.). This is one reason why I try not to get bogged down in a posting exchanges with Daisy.
I had a suspicion, since confirmed on another thread, that Daisy’s e-mails to you were an attempt to have me sidelined, if not silenced by moderation. More than a little ironic, that. The free speech you rightly want surely entails having to put up with opinions you do not always agree with.
I could understand your ire if I were actually, whether directly or by implication, advocating doctrines or practices that cause abuse. Why I should I want to having been on the receiving end of this is beyond my understanding.
I have never intentionally transgressed any posting rules that you have here under blog info. Maybe spell them out in more detail would help? I looked up what rules there are when I was on the receiving end of what I consider out of order personal comments.