Ok, that quote at the beginning did my head in. It almost sounds kinky or something. A man who needs to be absolute boss of his own domain (and of his wife's body at her expense) but revels in being ordered around by an even-more-alpha male? Definitely unhealthy (to put it nicely) In fact, from where I'm sitting, it sounds .. creepy. The other thing — did I read it correctly that C j is saying he voted at Dever's church even though he isn't a member? huh?

@ Lynne T.:

“Ok, that quote at the beginning did my head in. It almost sounds kinky or something.”

Good – I wasn’t the only one who thought that.

OT Sorry

Where was the comment about Mahaney bragging about his wife servicing him while sick and throwing up afterwards? I’m sure I read it on TWW, but I can’t find it. I wanted to use it to make a point on my blog. Would the person who posted it with a link (I think?) post it here or show me where it is?

Thanks!

Thanks, Julie Anne!

Anonymous: I’ve been reading SGMSurvivors for years. The reason why there is no reaction from the attendees is this talk is/was apparently normal.

It’s Patriarchy. CJ is basically saying that wives cannot say “no” to sex if she is sick, etc. He’s using his own wife as an example for all to see. If she does reject him, she is in sin. This model is perpetuated throughout the whole SGM system on: how wives should serve their husband’s sex drives. I wouldn’t be surprised if CJ called it gospel-centered sex.

The focus is always on the Patriarch and any sin is always on the wife.

This is backwards. I think men are sinning when they make such a demand.

No problem Deb. I am concerned about “mainstream” evangelicals like Mark Dever, John Piper, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, and Ergun Caner building bridges between evangelicalism and cults like SGM and the IFB. Of course, the SBC isn’t really any better than SGM and IFB.

I did add the Mahaney link in a comment on my post about Mark Driscoll and his Esther the slut series.

http://sallieborrink.com/mark-driscolls-new-sermon-series-on-esther-the-whore/

Sometimes I think I should stop writing about this stuff because it makes me so angry. But there are SO MANY Christians who are simply not informed about these topics and my little blog is reaching some of them. I know from the comments and emails I get that it is really eye opening for many. They hear these prominent names, but don’t really inform themselves about what they are teaching or the impact they are having.

Ok, that quote at the beginning did my head in. It almost sounds kinky or something. A man who needs to be absolute boss of his own domain (and of his wife’s body at her expense) but revels in being ordered around by an even-more-alpha male? Definitely unhealthy (to put it nicely) In fact, from where I’m sitting, it sounds .. creepy.
— Lynne T

Just like in Left Behind, Volumes whatever. Whenever LaHaye’s and Jenkins’ Author Self-Inserts are in the same scene, Jenkins’ ASI always submits to LaHaye’s ASI (he of the bone-breaking Firm Manly Handshake) like a Sub to a Dom, a Bottom to a Top. And there is SO much Unintentional Canonical Slashfic Setup vibe every time the two come together you kind of wonder…

Men that have to publicly describe and brag about their sexual lives and experiences do so out of a feeling of insecurity.

Insecure people make bad leaders.

I have learned over the years that if you are picking a leader, it's often good to find someone who is very confident. They are confident enough not to have to talk about their exploits and accomplishments. They are confident enough to admit that they don't know something and will not be afraid to ask questions in a meeting. They are not easily offended when they are asked questions. And they are not afraid to work with other strong and accomplished people.

FormerCLC’er, praying for your recovery.

Thanks for your prayers, everyone. I’m pretty miserable off and on, but mostly just need sleep and I’m wide awake most of the time and bored stiff. 🙂

@Anonymous – I thought C.J. was controlling and people in the church worshiped the ground he walked on. He started out funny and I actually learned something and grew in faith from his sermons. But around 1988 or 1989 he got extremely serious and his sermons were very detailed and supposedly theological, but we didn’t really know because sometimes no one could understand them. He also started hanging out with Christian celebrities, which didn’t win any points in my book. I thought most of the pastors were yes men, and that C.J. himself was acting out of his upbringing and the trauma and hurts there. He was extremely obsessive, preaching on books or themes for a year at a time.

As for how long I stayed – too long! At the time, I was going through major family trauma and overcoming the shortcomings and difficulties of my own background. So I started going to Christian counseling and taking medication while C.J. was preaching against it. It messed up my head, but I told the pastors unless they wanted to earn my living for me, that’s what I needed to do, and I never regretted a day of it. So I lived on the fringes of CLC for awhile since my friends were there and I still wasn’t strong enough to cut any ties. I’m glad I stayed for a bit, because I still keep in touch with some folks I met during that time. I started seeing another counselor many years later, and ended up deciding to leave, but it took about ten years. I had that little faith in my gut feelings and my strength, but God was stronger than my weakness.

I had a good experience in the church after CLC, but eventually left because it was too big. I floundered for awhile, and ended up in a start up church and unfortunately that pastor turned out to be a narcissist. So now I am attending church and enjoying it, but it is difficult for me to deeply trust the pastor or commit to attending a small group. I figure the Lord knows where I”m at and will take me as I am.

FormerCLCer:

Thanks. That’s great of you to share all of that. Glad you are doing well now.

It is interesting how some ministries can start out well and have good intentions and then apparently get weird or more weird.

Glad you are in a good place. I definitely support counseling and medication when warranted and think that pastors need to be very careful speaking outside of their areas of knowledge.

Take care.

Haitch – Thanks for stopping by. I showed the Mahaney story to my husband and I wish you could have seen his face. I don’t discuss these aspects of my personal life online but I THANK GOD EVERY DAY FOR THE MAN I MARRIED. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. He could teach Driscoll and Mahaney a whole lot about what it means to be a loving husband.

Re: the Mahaney love for Dever and following him… I have never understood the whole “Follow me as I follow Christ” thing from SGM. (Someone correct me if I quoted it incorrectly.) I have always thought that was ridiculous. We are called to follow Jesus, not a man. Who in the world thinks to ask people to follow him rather than Jesus? Ugh.

I’m not quite sure, but I think when ‘ministers’ (Mahaney, Driscoll, etc.) talk like they’re porn stars they’re preaching an extremely bizarre Gospel from Hustler Magazine rather than the Bible, but that’s just me. A ‘Gospel according to Johnson’?

The problem, HUG, is that many of these leaders are no longer imitating Christ and should not be imitated. These same leaders don’t believe that members should make that determination for themselves and teach this very thing. Paul also commended believers to be like the Bereans and search the scriptures to be convinced of what is taught. Many of today’s leaders tell members that they are not capable of understanding the Truth without interpretation from leaders — Catch 22 — and a lie.

Nicholas said, “I am concerned about “mainstream” evangelicals like…Ergun Caner…”

Caner? Mainstream?
More like radical lunatic fringe, don’t you think?

Hester, All we know is that everyone from the DC Police to the FBI were looking for him. Mohler, Piper and other celebs were tweeting for prayer, etc. It was a huge deal. CHBC had people out handing out fliers and the church had aprayer vigil.
Then poof he is back and NOTHING. The ONLY thing the celebs said was “thanks for praying” There was a blogger who did a story on Hill and his quick rise to be at CHBC including info on his background because the blogger had attended CHBC and did some speculating because of the environment there. But now I cannot find it.

It is all very strange. No explanation that anyone was willing to share publicly to have all that man power and cost in looking for him. Only that he wanted some “personal time”. Even his parents came up to look for him. Now, where is he? Did they sweep him under the rug?

Hester, I was following the Matt Hill situation last year. This is one of the most comprehensive articles I have read on what happened.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/matt-hill-found-in-nc-left-for-personal-reasons–50644

To be fair, I haven’t listened to the audio, but if what Julie-Anne is saying is true, then that is the most preposterous thing I have heard for a long time. I doubt whether many men in my church would consider themselves feminists, but as far as I know most if not all of them treat their wives decently and provide for them, and the wives seem to have character of their own rather than being downtrodden clones.

This thing about making patriarchy a gospel issue seems to be one of this crowd’s favourite refrains.

Deb, what flabbergasted me is that all the men in that group seemed to go along with that thought as if it was right and normal thinking. No on said, “say what, brother?”.

And what does “gospel implications” mean? So, a woman who has a job outside the home might have a negative effect on whether someone comes to Christ? Is that what they are implying? If so, doesn’t that contradict their election belief with Calvinism?

That little bit was probably only 2 minutes of talk after the intro— it is compelling the blogger in me to listen to the rest if it, I’m going to have to pray for an extra dose of grace if I do. I don’t want to take my anger out on my innocent children. Lol

Deb – That is 100% true. The relationships through this lawsuit/blogging experience are priceless. That aspect really blows me away. What a gift.

To me, congregationalism is just about as looney as complementarianism. The claims of the congregationalist are nowhere prescribed in scripture. Crucial for the growth of Christ’s kingdom on earth? So episcopal and federal structured church bodies have contributed nothing to the growth of Christ’s kingdom? Give me a break. Then Dever turns around and talks about the benefits of the revival preaching of Wesley and Whitefield. The whole notion of congregational voting assumes democratic political ideals completely foreign to the first century.

Church polity is a means to an end, and not the end itself. That is the Lutheran position. I suggest that congregational polity is not an effective means.

Miguel –

If you believe this, “Church polity is a means to an end, and not the end itself. That is the Lutheran position.”
Then why do you say this, “I suggest that congregational polity is not an effective means.”

Why can’t congregational polity (there are several forms) be as effective as any other polity, if church polity is just a means to an end?

Regarding C.J. and his S-I-Z-Z-L-I-N-G sex life: How would he know the difference between a sizzling sex life and a wife-obediently-serving-her-husband sex life? How can people sit in their chairs and believe that a wife that is not allowed to turn down sex is “serving” up sizzling sex for decades? — Dana

Porn.

Specifically, “Perfect Porn Star Syndrome”. Because all the hotties in the porn flicks “serve up sizzling sex for decades” without any complaint or burnout in their barn-burning performance. Lotsa bad information out there traceable to porn tropes.

@ Julie Anne:

“…most of the people in our churches are in same-sex marriages right now…because you have people who have marriages in which you don’t have male headship, in which you do not have male protection, and you do not have provision for wives…”

Lack of male headship = same-sex marriage? To quote my grandmother: “Well, that’s just a damn lie!”

How does he know that the wives and children aren’t being provided for? Are all men who don’t practice Moore’s form of comp-patriarchy now automatically deadbeat dads? Even Mark Driscoll’s never said that (to my knowledge).

Clearly he’s trying to conjure up the specter of gay activists with the same-sex marriage statement, esp. when coupled with a mention of feminism (cue the bra-burning and rainbow flags)… But let’s try this little thought experiment for a moment:

1. A lack of male headship (meeting Moore’s criteria) renders a normal heterosexual marriage “same-sex.”
2. According to Moore’s understanding of homosexuality, open practice of same-sex relations is a sign that the individuals in question are hardened and given to “vile passions” (Romans 1:26-27) – i.e., they are deep in sin and are probably unsaved. Two individuals living in an open “same-sex” marriage would definitely qualify here.
3. Egalitarianism, according to Moore, necessarily leads to a lack of male headship.
4. Therefore egalitarianism is as grave a sin as sodomy and probably means the individual in question is not saved. (Also, a comp wife would likely be completely justified divorcing an egalitarian husband under this logic – a first step toward Paul Dohse’s concept of “gospel-driven divorce.”)

I hope the above is not what he was really trying to say (egalitarianism = unsaved). Though it would not surprise me. It would definitely explain the “gospel issue” comments.

@ Anon 1 & Deb:

I read that article Deb linked to. Only 26 years old and pulling a sudden disappearance that was “out of character”? There’s definitely a story there…though we’ll probably never know it.

Hester: Bravo on your comment!

This part: 4. Therefore egalitarianism is as grave a sin as sodomy and probably means the individual in question is not saved. (Also, a comp wife would likely be completely justified divorcing an egalitarian husband under this logic – a first step toward Paul Dohse’s concept of “gospel-driven divorce.”)

I’m thinking there are probably a number of disgruntled, tired-of-serving patriarchal wives who would love to take advantage of this logical conclusion.

In listening to the whole thing (thankfully it wasn’t a complete waste of time – I put my headphones on and was doing housework like a good dutiful wife), . . I did get the clear message that these men felt that the gospel was being compromised, that ministries would not be at their full potential if husbands/wives were not using their biblical roles properly. We’re talking foundational issue here, not just some secondary issue.

What are they going to do about husbands who are disabled and can’t physically work? Is that a work-around so that the gospel will be effective? I wonder if these churches exercise church discipline for stay-at-home dads?

Oh my . . . . I just had no clue that all of this stuff was so prevalent. To hear these men go on and on like that . . . . . . makes my head spin.

I’m sure someone from my former church is going to print out this comment and hand it to my former pastor saying what a feminist I am – cuz they stalk like that – – – ::::::waving hi to the peeps :::::::

Ok, the teen kid is begging to get her buy-one-get-one-free Starbucks holiday drink. I cannot deprive.

“Churches that reflect the character of God” will reflect the love of God, not the technical specification for God. Men who think that enforcing gender roles based on single verses of scripture, taken out of context, and then heavily interpreted, is central to the gospel – to my mind, those men are too young, or else too highly educated, to teach God’s people.

As for the “local church” thing, I think Bridget is right – that’s an idea that doubtless appeals to the “local church pastor” whose whole career is based around it. But what about everyone else? Quite apart from the fact that in just about every western towns above a certain size there are many “local churches” isolated from each other in every practical sense.

In January this year, whilst visiting relatives in London, I briefly saw the Holocaust Exhibition at the Imperial War Museum. It told, in detail, the history of anti-Semitism in Europe, the rise of Nazism, and the gradual emergence of the conditions in which Krystallnacht and ultimately the gas chambers were socially possible. I found myself wondering: Could the church, as it is in Britain today, have prevented this? I doubt it.

P.S. GBTC et al – I inadvertently submitted this comment in two parts under a mis-spelt email address which sent it into moderation. Could somebody, if time allows, possibly be so good as to remove the redundant posts from the moderation queue? If time does not allow, apologies to everyone for the mess… mea culpa

“To me, congregationalism is just about as looney as complementarianism. The claims of the congregationalist are nowhere prescribed in scripture. Crucial for the growth of Christ’s kingdom on earth? So episcopal and federal structured church bodies have contributed nothing to the growth of Christ’s kingdom? Give me a break. Then Dever turns around and talks about the benefits of the revival preaching of Wesley and Whitefield. The whole notion of congregational voting assumes democratic political ideals completely foreign to the first century.

Church polity is a means to an end, and not the end itself. That is the Lutheran position. I suggest that congregational polity is not an effective means.”

I will admit I do not understand this comment at all. perhaps defining what you think congregationalism entails would help. it sounds like you think it is simply about voting. Voting is just one method that can be used.

It is also about the beliefs that the Body of Christ is made up of “priests” in the priesthood. There is no laity. Therefore there is no divide between a clergy class and the laity. That does not exist. The outcome of that concerning functions, spiritual gifts and even being stewards of resources is very different than in a hierarchical polity.

Well, not all men make a nice 6 figure salary like Moore does so his wife does not need to work to provide health insurance or other things. And that figure does not include his speaking gigs or book advances/royalties. — Anon1

So what we’ve got here is an ARISTO going “Let Them Eat Cake!”?

IF you can create a valid enemy, then you can rally the troops for a valid holy war.

So alittle Gospel-spin, here and there, and it sounds like you are rallying the troops to recognize evil and/or heresy in the Christian church and there you have it! You give people something to be wary of, even to righteously squash at every turn, and then you are justified in what you believe and therefore preach.

After all, you are working hard to warn people of the insidious persuasions that are invading and infecting true Christianity. It is an imperative–one must stop the perceived wrong that is happening in Christ’s name by preaching against it.

Anon –

These members who choose to have both parents work for whatever reason are in a worse place. They have no excuse. The man is maligned for not providing for the wife and since the issue is elevated to “first importance,” the members are in sin, and often subtely shunned because, well, no one wants to hang out with people who are in sin. Members are then given “prescriptions” on how they can fix the sin — live in a trailer (and I have no problem with trailers) IF people have prayed and are convinced (not told to obey men or made to feel guilty) that is where God wants them.

Julie Anne, elsewhere CJ has stated that feminism is the ENEMY of the gospel. He sees it as public enemy #1. He says its like air pollution that people breath and are unwittingly affected and deceived by it. So, it is his task to keep the environment of SGM scoured of the filthy influence of the feminists.

Mahaney disagrees with Dever because congregationalism is a decidedly protestant quality, and Mahaney is a catholic.

Maryland was the perfect spot for CJ to get his start within the catholic charismatic movement, and with such a large catholic population, it was the perfect seedbed.

Now, with SGM’s move to Kentucky and its close proximity to the SBTS, the ultimate desire – to bed protestantism by getting her to compromise and finally give in, will be happening in earnest.

The dance will be taking place in the same way those who attempt to marry the law to grace. Or the old covenant to the new. Mahaney flatters and buys gifts in attempt to woe men like Mohler, Duncan & Dever into bed with him, until eventually they succumb to all his foreplay. He tries to hide his catholic agenda so as not to offend their protestant sensibilities. But with them all in agreement about ‘complementarianism’ (i.e. patriarchy) the trap is set and the bait is laid. Why? For two reasons. One, it connects them all to the law and the old covenant and two, it connects them all to each other.

It makes perfect sense that the 9Marks men would all be Patriarchs, and that those who identify with Protestantism would welcome a Catholic and all get yoked.

Problem is, the relationship is toxic. It’s characterized by the curse. What binds them together are not the principles that govern God’s Kingdom, but rather the structures men have built based on fallen principles.

God wasn’t establishing a new order when he pronounced the punishment for sin in Genesis 3. The man would wrestle against the element he was formed from: the earth. It would become a curse rather than a blessing to him. He would struggle against the thistles & thorns to make a living by the sweat of his brow. In the garden there was never the slightest hint of this dynamic. The earth produced amazing vegetation and was watered continually. There was never an issue with weeds or drought. It was a paradise of provision except for by himself Adam had been unable to produce community and alone didn’t represent the godhead. The godhead is the perfect community of Oneness. So with the creation of woman, the image was as complete as God willed it to be. By himself Adam couldn’t reflect that community, and now with Eve he could be fruitful & multiply.

So woman was formed by the same DNA material as the man, taken from his body. And just as the man would have unending struggles with his primordial element, so too would the woman.

There was never any hint in the garden of competition, hierarchy, or differing roles between Adam & Eve. They were one. Equals. United in purpose. It was only after the fall that the woman’s struggle with man would begin. What used to be a source of mutual love & pleasure would turn into a competition where the man would seek to RULE. Pregnancy & childbirth (consequences of her relationship with him) would be marked by sorrow & pain. The primordial element she was formed from (man) would become a curse to her, filling her life with hardship.

But praise be to God, Jesus Christ bore our sin and has set us free from the curse! The New Covenant that he established made the old order obsolete. The Spirit that was sent is what governs us, and no one has the right to assume kingship over Gods people. We are free indeed.

But men like Mahaney & Dever are not free men. They are bound up and as long as they hope to govern Gods people according to the curse, where man rules over woman, they will fail. And the gospel they claim to be basing their complementarianism on will never get married to their belief. They can never marry true Protestantism with Catholicism. The can never marry The Gospel to the law. And they can never marry complementarianism (patriarchy) to true Christianity because they are unequally yoked.

Seriously, these guys are all bad dates. Don’t ever let them put their dirty-gospel hands on you! Stay out of their car. Don’t accept their gifts or listen to their flattery. And by all means stay out of their beds. They’re full of compromise. Don’t let them bewitch you into thinking that by following them, you’ll be on the right path. They will lead you astray!

Anon –

What is OPM? (Sorry)

I see how it works for the Seminary students. Essentially, they get a pass. Unfortunately, most of these guys are out of touch with the resl world and have no idea what it is like with the average Jos and Josephine and their family. Thankfully, Jesus does know. He lived among the average Joes and Josephines.

My example was to show beyond the seminary student to the average member trying to live to these guy’s standards.

@ HUG:

“Flip a Y chromosome for an X and you have EDWARD CULLEN (sparkle sparkle sparkle) or the 50 Shades of Grey Guy (who started out as Sparkling Eddie in a fanfic).”

Yes – 50 Shades started out as a Twilight fanfic. So much for all the reverse-hate leveled at “haters” (like me) who pointed out that the entire series was a disturbing, thinly veiled stalker/rape fantasy. Looks like we were right (and it’s STILL selling millions of copies even in its bald-faced form).

@ Bridget~

I took OPM as– other people’s money?…but I could be wrong. (You have probably figured out what it means by now.)

“What is OPM? (Sorry)”

No, I am sorry! Diane is right it is Other People’s Money. A term used in many a business deal. :o) Christendom is full of it. Think about it, there would be no celebs if not for OPM. People have to fund them.

@ Anon 1 Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:30 PM said: [[What we desperately need are more independent logical thinkers coming of age. The young think they are but they were taught “what” to think. Not “how” to think. They have no grounding in logical conclusions (outcomes) concerning what they believe and what they do. And some of that comes from believing in a determinist god.]]

I agree. And while many these days proclaim that “Change is the only constant,” that doesn’t mean that the answer is in trying to turn all thought processes or decision-making into absolute rules. In fact, one severely damaging aspect of legalistic leaders is when they coerce disciples into thinking that all non-moral choices (i.e., what should be individual wisdom decisions, because the Bible does not give us a command on what is right versus sin) actually ARE rules. And of course, they are the leaders’ rules that others must obey. Hence, legalistic, authoritarian leaders put themselves in the role of the Holy Spirit. Such ministry demagogues actually act like demi-gods.

Anyway, part of the solution is personal discernment and taking responsibility for our decisions. But that also requires practicing common sense and applying critical thinking skills. This is part of why I’ve absorbed as much as I can about learning styles and creativity skills and such like over the past years, and try to pass along to others whatever I can. No one can surf the realities of a constantly changing world without these skills. Also, without critical thinking and creativity, it’s far too easy to fall into culture shock due to being overwhelmed by ongoing changes, resulting in passivity and craving continuity, and thus becoming more susceptible to absolutistic teachings that seem to provide security but actually are provide a false sense of safety.

On a sidenote about the changing landscape on legalistic bullying in churches, I should not be at all surprised if we see the infiltration and taking over of churches by authoritarian-type leaders to continue – – for the near future. However, I suspect that at some point a few such hijackers will do damage in the wrong place at such a time that they will have to bear the ethical and financial consequences of their legalistic system, and that the networks and schools and teachers who trained them will be called out for complicity.

Evie, Loved your insightful comment here!! I labeled it: Patriarchy in a Nutshell! You have summed up the main essentials, the roots, and the outcomes. It is all in the story of Genesis.

When you say: “Problem is, the relationship is toxic. It’s characterized by the curse. What binds them together are not the principles that govern God’s Kingdom, but rather the structures men have built based on fallen principles.”, you have nailed it.

When people want to pin their doctrinal point of view on the ‘characteristics of the curse’ we are in dangerous waters. Where is the liberty that Christ promised and the power to live a better and changed life on this earth? Cursed by the curse OR really set free by the One who triumphed over it?! That is the choice offered to individuals and of church groups.

Julie Anne, here are a few of the influences I’ve personally identified in my own life that made me susceptible to getting involved in a cult-like group(referring to what you mentioned earlier). Maybe you can relate:

1. A father who was involved in a secret group in which he attained the highest possible degree. Although for some, involvement with the Masons is a harmless activity, for others it shapes their worldview, and consequently affects their relationships within the family. My Dad was so secretive and closed lipped about it that I didn’t realize until recently what a major impact it had (and continues to have) on the family. He has been openly hostile of my faith.

2. An angry, verbally abusive mother who believed that SAHM’s were all lazy, bon-bon eating, soap opera watching, pieces of crap. She repeatedly told me I was a ‘non-person’ growing up, which damaged my confidence and self-esteem. Although after I became a Christian I knew by faith I wanted to be home fulltime after I had my first child, I easily fell prey to the rhetoric about biblical womanhood because of my mother’s example.

3. The early influences upon me as a Christian. Because of my upbringing & conditioning, I didn’t have the defenses or the proper knowledge to resist patriarchy, which came at me from all sides. I never heard anything about egalitarianism. Plus I had a strong desire for a happy family and was easily taken in by teachings which promised that if I conformed to a particular role as a woman, it would be my key to marital & familial bliss.

Also, Dever starts off with the question ‘what is feminism’? No one gives an answer. They say ‘its wrong’, its ‘anti-male’, ‘pro-abortion’, ‘an ideology that undermines biblical authority, the home and the church, etc.’

And Moore says feminism started in the garden of Eden with the idea of false equality.

They are ideologues who can’t even engage with what they critique.

Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
— fem·i·nist \-nist\ noun or adjective

Bridget,

I agree – they define it by what they think it has caused. I’d say, along with fear, the movtive is anger/hatred. They need to talk to Yoda.

I just think it would be nice, since all of these Calvinistas like to talk about how smart they are (we’ve heard Piper, Mohler, and many more say how much they love to study – and Mahaney always gushes over their smarts), if they acted as intelligently as they say they are. None of my first year undergrads would get away with that kind of a definition in tutorial – even their fellow students would call them on it.

Hey Caleb,

Don’t you come away with the impression that these men believe they must daily battle against women who represent a constant threat to their leadership? I know it’s Mahaney’s hill to die on. He must hold the gospelly ground and allow no woman to set foot on it…

Unless, of course, it were his wife’s foot.
Upon which she wore shoes that had received his kingly approval.
And she had wisely asked his permission beforehand to take a step…
A step upon the ground where he, Stinson, Dever & Moore wage the brave and bloody battle against feminism.

And did you catch the part when Dever turned to ask Mahaney a question and he deflected it? Strange how un-forthcoming CJ is, despite all his humility.

And yes, I do recall how they all laughed at the question, “What is feminism?” It was CJ that offered the brilliant answer of, “It’s wrong……hahahahhahahahah.”

Just another fine example of what John Piper would call “Muscular Christianity.”

I think the big deal for these guys is that feminism for them is a particularly radical form of second wave feminism (think Redstockings). They seem unwilling or unable to distinguish between different forms. You’d think that Protestants so used to saying they’re not the same kind of Christian as Joyce Meyers would be able to parce the difference. But alas.

Evie…I do get that impression. Sadly. The debacle with SGM is part of the fruit of that perspective. I agree…you could also see strains of the pushy, authoritarian, my way or the highway Mahaney that operates behind the scenes in this interview, too…

@ Bridget:

I don’t know much about the history of feminism, but I know enough to know that it had several “waves” and that a quick and easy, sound-byte definition of feminism is probably a wrong definition. None of the patriarchal critics of feminism ever mentions the fact that it has “waves,” which should tell us something. They either:

1. Are so uninformed about feminism that they don’t know it had “waves” (in which case, why are we listening to them since they are clearly ignorant?);
2. Don’t care about the “waves” because they are opposed to feminism in toto (as in, all the way back to women’s right to vote).

IMO, it’s usually a combination of both – 1 for the average conservative complementarian on the ground, 2 (and maybe 1 also) for the hardcore book-writing patriarchs (ala Wilson & Phillips).

N.B.: the pic is (supposedly) one of Ernestine Mills, English artist and suffragette, although I can’t verify that from where I’m sitting.

Hester —

Yes. I understand about the waves. I’m also of the thinking that even a simple and good thing can be turned into somethig entirely different by any party, depending upon their personal experiences and bents. That is why I wanted to use a simple definition of the word. When Feminism began, I don’t think the intention of “most”
who supported it was to rule the world. Maybe some, because of their experiences with men, thought that women would rule better. That wouldn’t be a fix for the issues we face though either. I believe men and women are actually meant to complement each other, with neither ruling over the other. That is why the simple definition works for me 🙂 Feminism simply brings equality. The video foursome are making it out to be something completely evil.

@ Bridget:

I get the impression that many of the effects Christians blame on feminism (promiscuity, men as evil/unnecessary, etc.) are more associated with the later waves than the earlier ones, which had more to do with securing basic rights for women than the sexual revolution, etc. Am I wrong about that?

Hester and Bridget – As someone who was growing up during the 60s and 70s… there was so much political and social change at that time. it’s totally off-base to ascribe to “feminists” and “feminism” – as these guys do – all of the ills they believe are prevalent in contemporary society.

Which all ties into the “benign slave-master” deal, since the 60s are when black people won through to full citizenship – and the right to vote without being subject to persecution and onerous “tests.”

Makes me think that they’d like to dress up racism and put a gift bow on it. : (

Hester – Exactly. It just adds to the total package.

blame it all on women, black people (including all the black women where were involved in the Civil Rights Movement), and – as George Wallace and others said during the 60s – “outside agitators.” (I’ll leave it to you to check on who Wallace was and what he stood for…)

Just a historical footnote for Hester regarding John Knox.

The First Blast was first published in 1558 and it was aimed primarily at Mary Queen of Scots and Mary of Guise. Elizabeth came to the English throne later that year and apparently never forgave Knox for taking a swipe at the monarchy. However that did not hinder relations between them as Knox actively worked with Elizabeth’s advisers against Mary who was ultimately seeking to return the throne and England to the Papacy.

Knox made a point in The First Blast of quoting the early church fathers to support his assertion that the teaching of scripture alone is sufficient to prove that women should not bear rule over men. So it is inaccurate to assume such views were first aired by the Puritans.

Nevertheless Knox also stated in a number of his meetings with Mary that rulers were to be resisted only if they exceeded their bounds and further declared that he would be content for her to reign in such circumstances.

And although he is best remembered as “one who never feared the face of man” yet his dying testimony was this “I know that many have complained of my too great severity; but God knows that my mind was always void of hatred to the persons of those against whom I thundered the severest judgments.”
Regards
Gavin

That’s okay Hester. I realise that you were referring to this new generation of pseudo Calvinists.
Regards
Gavin

Is the “second wave feminist/Redstockings” what Rush Limbaugh called a “Femi-Nazi” and what I call a “female supremacist”?

More on Knox:

He had a very unstable relationship with E1. It was sort of amusing looking back from our lens. A woman protestant leader of the church! It was hard for him. He had to ask her permission to travel through England,

Anway, he, along with a few others, plotted to murder Lord Darnley, Mary’s husband. Knox even prepared a sermon ahead of time outlining why it was not sin to do so.

In his 50’s he married a 15or 16 year old girl. Even his parishoners were creeped out about it.

The guy was another typical “lord it over” others in the Name of Jesus creep of history. We read their writings and tend to forgot their actions.

Problem with Multiculturalism (cue squeels of orgasm) is it is not a stable situation. You have a lot of cultural memes all in competition with each other in the mix. And no guarantee they will not try to dominate all the others (three words: Yu… Go… Slavia.)

The way is shakes out is the most dynamic culture in the mix absorbs all the others (“America! Whisky! Sexy!”) or the most aggressive culture destroys all the others (“Al’lah’u Akbar!”). Because One True Way is a very stable end state.

@ Haitch on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 01:35 PM said: “I was being a post-modernist feminist critiquing their critique.”

A quote on the post-feminist generations that may be of interest in that regard. The following is a slightly edited cut-and-paste section of a post I wrote in 2009. For the full post, see:

http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/helen-haste-quote-on-generations-and-measuring-change/

While at a conference on social transformation, I mentioned a quote on generational changes and paradigm shifts. My missional “global go-bee” friend Andrew Jones deftly whittled it down to a line of a mere 140 characters and Tweeted it. It may have been the most reTweeted item from the event. He also posted his condensed version on his blog: “You measure change, not by behaviors altered in the first generation, but by what the next generation takes as a given.”

Anyway, that paraphrase gotta lotta buzz, and the full quote is even better. In case people are interested in the quote I use about generations and change, and the original source, here it is:

In the long run, what counts is how the next generation thinks. How far new ideas permeate culture is not measured just by attitude change during one generation, but by what is taken for granted in the next. ~ Helen Haste, page 149 in The Sexual Metaphor: Men, Women, and the Thinking that Makes the Difference (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994, ISBN 0-674-80282-9)

Ms. Haste used that statement to begin a chapter on”The Next Generation” (i.e., the “post-feminist” generations), whose members grew up not having to fight the social and political battles of the feminist movement in the 1960s and ’70s especially, but who inherited the results of those who did. Since these younger generations of women and men live in a world that takes feminism as a given, what does that mean?

Whether we approve the worldviews and agendas of feminism or not, if we want to understand the context of the world we now live in, we’ve got to grapple with what is really there and not just with what we believe should ideally be there. If we don’t choose to contextualize for that real world, we shouldn’t really complain when everyday people are repulsed by our presence and/or presentation. We can’t blame their responses totally on their spiritual blindness when we prove ourselves to be culturally blind, can we?

[[A final add-on note: What might the future look like a generation from now when it is taken as a given that toxic organizational systems will be challenged publicly, and their leaders and activities will be called to accountability and consequences?]]

Gavin, Makes total sense and I agree with you. Just a side note: the real results of the communist form of feminism are pretty hypocritical. I have read quite a bit of Soviet history and bios of dissidents. Sure, women became doctors but they still had gender roles expected when it came to the home, marriage and society. So, they were just more tired and poorer. And contrary to many reports women were paid less than men there, too.

When the Taliban took over Afghanistan many doctors who fled were women and that is from the freedom granted by Soviet occupation for Muslim women to be educated. That means that all those years of Taliban rule, women did not see doctors because of modesty rules and no women doctors allowed.

What concerns me is that the pioneers of the 60’s/70/s in feminism are regressing. It is obviously more political than ideological. That explains their lack of public outrage over how Muslim women are treated not only abroad but here, too! YEt they are outraged by fundy Christians? Or try to make all republicans out to be patriarchal. Who got the Muslim vote for President?

Folks need to read Ali Hirisi Ayaan book to see how she was treated by the liberals (including liberal feminists) in Europe for speaking the truth concerning Islam. It boggles the mind. She had first hand experience and was hated by the liberals for it.

It seems to me that there’s a lot in common between the new-wave patriarchists and the extreme fringe of “second-wave” feminism. (I know the dungaree-clad, embittered man-hater is often applied as an unfairly broad stereotype, but a significant number of individuals like that did exist. They are widely believed to have been wiped out by an asteroid impact in what is now the Yucatan Peninsula, but this theory is not universally accepted.)

For one thing, both in some sense claim to believe in gender equality whilst demonstrating a very thinly-veiled hatred or contempt of one gender. For another, each has a critical core mass of people gathered together under an umbrella of self-amplifying groupthink. Movements comprising people who engage only with those who agree with them, and revile anyone who doesn’t, are not likely to be self-correcting. As Proverbs 9 puts it, whoever corrects a scoffer simply invites insults.

To C. J. Mahaney Covenant Life Church October 1996 Circumstances have compelled me to write this letter to you. Since our last encounter, I have been plagued by feelings of disgust at the way I let you treat me. Your constant pounding on my shoulders, poking your finger in my chest and puffing up due to your perceived reverence as a "Pastor over 12 churches….." and being a too busy man demand some response from a less than adequate individual with a less than adequate mind who lives in a world of suffering and not one so pleasant as yours. The Word says: ‘23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift before the altar and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come an offer they gift.’ Yet you choose to defy this at every juncture I try to deal with it. You tell me you don't have time that you are a busy man. And you also tell me that I am arrogant and I say that I am not but upset and angry that I cannot communicate with you due to YOUR arrogance and sense of self grandeur that you are so popular and important. The only reason I was coming there was because there were people who I thought were my friends, going there and the seemly, abundance of fellowship. But now I realize it was all a cleverly designed, deceptive ruse. You run a circus. The Apostles went to the Synagogues and were taught by the Pharisees, whom Christ called the sons of the devil. So people can be taught even out of the mouth of an ass, like Balaam was. All the while I was trying to speak to you, you made it clear you were uninterested and puffed up and postured in front of me relying on your greatness as a pastor. You told me that you hoped I wasn't being arrogant, in a threatening tone to me, as if to say if you perceived I was, you would have me removed by your lackeys. Yet you never stopped calling me disrespectful, surrogate names once it became clear I was not a major monetary contributor to your campaign of your quest for greatness. Are you trying to be another Billy Graham? You show one face on stage to tickle the ears of the listeners for money and one on one you show another. One of disdain for individuals who do not fit within your template of people you choose to associate with. You show respect of persons. The Bible says: If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 1John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? SO in essence, you have no love. You are basically a song and dance man. For years I have come to you; Matthew 25:24 Then shall they also answer him, saying Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a strange, or naked, or sick, or in prison and did not minister unto thee? And you have treated me like some base disgusting lout and not a man. I have implored your regard and audience and you have spurned me and treated me heinously. The last time was all I could endure. The name calling, went from "Sir," to once you felt familiarity and recognition of me, to "Buddy, Pal, Fellah, Guy…" etc. No regard at all. You are a flim flam man and you run a side show for money. You revel in the fact that you are revered, lauded, looked up to and can wag your tongue around in your head to the delight of the hearers. 2Timothy 4:3, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lust shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; I find no love, no charity coming from you. 1Corinthians 13:1, though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge" and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. You justify your position with your perceived gift of tongues to give you cause to believe you have the Holy Spirit and your ministers seem to gravitate to people who manifest this outward sign and wonder, and ignore those who don't in your Alpha class. Clearly you have an agenda and it is not Biblical. For the Bible says: Matthew 24:24, For there shall arise false Christ's, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders' insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Mark 13:22 , For false Christ's and false prophets shall rise and shall shew sighs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. The Word says: Hebrews 13:2, Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Yet you treat me with a severe heinous display of disregard. Yet the Word says: 1John 4:20 If a man says, I love God and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not hi brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? I have suffered your abuse and verbal degradation for years to be at a place where my friends were and to fellowship with them, even in their ignorance and I find I cannot tolerate your selfish abuse any more. You treat me with contempt and mock me every time I see you. Act as if I am insignificant and disregard me as a human being. Heathens who know not God treat me better than you do. You are a blight and a weed in the garden of tranquility. You seek the praises of men, clearly you have them. God is not the author of your life and actions, You have your own recipe for how to approach Him and it is through your works that YOU deem appropriate for the time YOU set aside to be allotted as you see fit. Anything that comes in between you and any other time, you address with scorn, disdain, arrogance, pomp, pride, egoism and you gnash upon it with your teeth as you did me in my humility when I came to you. Bragging about how many churches you over see and how I need to go to those under you to have them decide if the matter was worthy of your attention. I once knew of a man who approached you during the Montgomery County Fair with Gods business and you sharply rebuked him saying in my paraphrase, "I am with my family right now and I don't have time for this." As you did that first time I met you. You told me you were busy and didn't have time and told me why don't I go some place else. You, as a charade of a pastor. And you mock the very idea of basic human decency. To me you are a goat and your stage where you perform a circus. No doubt God can save those who come to Him through the mouth of an ass. So much more the man who is as pompous and arrogant as you are to me. I was accused of writing an angry letter the last time I wrote to you. That was the farthest thing from the truth. But this time I would agree. More like righteous indignation. I know I am no one. I know I am not the great C. J. Mahaney, pastor, author, father and friend to proselytes of hell everywhere? Matthew 23:15, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you? 19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies? This is what teaching for money means in case your brain isn't working right now. Ezekiel 13:22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: You are a circus clown of a pathetic man and a perpetual torn in my heart. You, and all the men like you who seek greatness in the eyes of men with money to build everlasting memorials in your name and establish YOUR congregations so you can say, "See? Look what I have done. All this I did for God," When you do nothing but lay stumbling blocks in front of the feet of men like me. Who doubt and waver, not able to stand due to ignoramuses like you who say one thing and do another and only do good in the eyes of all men to be seen of them but in private are abominable and Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. While you pounded on me, you smiled and stood me against the wall to give the appearance that we were having a nice friendly chat. All the while you scathed me and insulted me. Putting your hand on me against my will and poking me in my chest with your finger while you slapped me on my shoulders. For all points and purposes, you assaulted me. And you put your hands on me against my will, then blew me off to your reverence, said this conversation was over and you turned your back to me to talk to someone else that was new, with a snide smile on your face at the prospect of new money, tithes, coming in to your place to line your pockets and build more Synagogues of money laundering. I am swollen with hate. Hate you have cultivated in me. Hate you have planted. I struggle with is daily and I hate being under this burden. I struggle with trying not to hate you. I am not by any means retaliatory. And this is by no means a letter of threat. You should be so vain as to feel you are suffering for Christ's' sake you pompous hypocrite. This is not hate mail. This is my way of finalizing a 26 year ordeal to come in to a place that I had no business being in in the first place. And as far as my friends are concerned, no one is as important as I am going to sacrifice what I know to be grounded and true to have them as a friend. I can do without anyone who agrees with a two face farcical side show, snake oil salesman like you. You have your reward. You are the Reverend, Pastor, Author, Father C. J. Mahaney the great founder of 12 churches and noted Biblical scholar amongst our peers of men of notoriety. World traveler and Oscar Award performance nominee for his weekend antics on stage at his various show houses. But I know the real you. Puppeteer, liar, abuser, money launderer for a pretense making long prayers, abuser of the poor and homeless who come to him bedraggled and needy and sent away because he doesn't have the time and we have no money. He is about God's work when the simple fact of the Bible is not straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Not looking for things hard to see in the spiritual realm. But doing with what God gave you. Your surroundings, your community. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit your trust to true riches? 12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own? 2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile rainment 3 and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place' and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool. 3 Are ye not then partial in ourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 8 If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin and are convinced of the law as transgressors. Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. Luke 14:12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors. lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. Matthew 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Colossians 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 3John 1:5 Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; Luke 9:48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: And whosoever shall receiveth me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. Luke 12:26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you , Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. So let me ask you this. What book are you reading again? And what book do you teach from every weekend? You strain at gnats and swallow camels. Your gut must be huge for you cannot see the man in the mirror at all. I know I am a fool, but what are you? Sincerely Stephan A. Lewis • As of this date, C.J. Mahaney has a 700 thousand dollar home from all the work he has done, 'for god'. Living lavishly off all his tithes, offerings and books and efforts. {Malachi 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.} { Micah 3:11 The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the LORD, and say, Is not the LORD among us? none evil can come upon us.}