speakers at Christian conferences are predominantly MALE.

Sometimes even at women’s conferences, it seems.

I think this would be a much clearer issue if there were’ millions of dollars at stake. The way to gauge a person’s truly ernest interests is what they do when they haven’t got a stake in the outcome.

Of course T4G, DGNC, RC, LC & another RC are all male only.

Duh. Piper told us in all authority that Christianity should have a masculine feel and that women should joyfully submit to that and feel safe, satisfied and well cared for.

Except that we don’t, the sinners that we are…

Has anybody checked the inside of the women’s restrooms at these Male Dominated Christian Conferences? It’s condition might be interesting…

@ Teri Anne:

Teri Anne, I love how you write. It is clear and to the point and I get it. I am so sorry that that mess happened to you. There is no way to handle getting slapped down and come out of it unscathed. Some people try to do the right thing and get hurt that way and have trouble thereafter. I handle it by getting aggressive, and then I feel guilty for being that aggressive. I was never a total “none” but I have been a conscientious objector toward the church, and been seriously mad at God and how he fails to solve things like I think they ought to be solved. But here is what I don’t know, and maybe you do. Of the “nones” who did not used to be a “none” do you have any stats on why they became nones? For example, for you it seems to have been church experience, and for me it was not specifically about church.

If you have some information on that I would like to know. Thanks

Ole Aunt Nancy

Hmm–somebody better tell Joyce Meyer, Beth Moore, Phyllis Shirer (sp?), Kay Arthur, and a whole host of ladies doing conferences that they aren’t doing them.

Are there a ton of male dominated conferences? Absolutely!

And there are a lot of female dominated one’s also.

When I look for a Bible teacher, I look for a good one. I will go no matter if it is male or female dominated. Not gonna go looking for a female teacher if she isn’t as good as a male one, or a male teacher if he isn’t as good as a female.

But outside of one little subset of evangelicalism there are plenty of female led seminars.

frankly, I am sick of conferences — male OR female! The hype, “banter,” and totally manufactured emotional ride (thanks to the “choreography” of many “worship” leaders) are repulsive. So many of them have that Disneyesque quality—neat, slickly packaged and well-planned “experiences” designed to part you from your money while you are supposed to be grateful for all they have done for you. Big business is just big business, in this case, wrapped up in Christian-ese.

@ Nancy:
Why should not the man of a household have responsibility for his children while his spouse goes to a conference? Three times in my life, I have taken primary responsibility for the day-to-day care of my two children, seeing that they got to daycare or school, taking them to the doctor (including getting a clean catch urine from my under 4 yo daughter at the direction of the nurse!!!), ensuring groceries were bought and brought home, etc., all while starting and running my own business, b/c mom was teaching school which provided health insurance and most of our income, due to the start up nature of my business.

What is wrong with our christian communities that they cannot see the advantage to men from being responsible for their children so mom can go to a conference and be educated and inspired?

Teri Anne wrote:

The unspoken rules of high demand (cultlike) churches are very subtle and a member often does not find out he has violated a rule until after the fact. Then he or she will get shunned and slapped down hard for violating unspoken rules such as never disagree with the pastor. This is exactly what happened to me, and because I am unsure of how to spot an abusive church I am very reluctant to risk getting involved in another church only to be slapped down again.

Lots of fellow travelers with you Teri Anne. God understands where we are on our journey. After playing the game for awhile now I understand most of the unwritten rules, but I just don’t care to abide by them. My problem has always been “I calls em as I sees em.” Never have been much of a brown-nosed, nor do I care much for those who are.

==================

“At this time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” So he called a little child to him and set the child in front of them. Then he said, “I tell you solemnly, unless you change and become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. And so, the one who makes himself as little as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1-4)

In the competitive game of one-upmanship, the disciples are driven by the need to be important and significant. They want to be somebody. According to John Shea, “Every time this ambition surfaces, Jesus places a child in their midst or talks about a child.”

The sharpness of Jesus’ answer in Matthew 18 has not always been appreciated. Jesus says there is no “first” in the Kingdom. If you want to be first, become everybody’s lackey; return to your childhood and then you will be fit for the first place. Jesus leaves little room for ambition; and He leaves no more room for the exercise of power. “Lackeys and children are not bearers of power.”

The power games the pharisee plays, gross or subtle, are directed toward dominating people and situations, thereby increasing prestige, influence, and reputation. The myriad forms of manipulation, control, and passive aggression originate in the power center. Life is a series of shrewd moves and counter moves. The pharisee within has developed a fine radar system attuned to the vibrations of any person or situation that even remotely threatens his position of authority.

What a friend of mine calls “the king-baby syndrome” – the emotional programming that seeks to compensate for the power deficiency we experience as infants and youngsters – may lead to a preoccupation with status symbols, whether material possessions or cultivating people with economic or political clout. It may motivate a person to accumulate money as a source of power or to acquire knowledge as a means of achieving recognition as an “interesting” individual. The pharisee knows that knowledge can be power in the religious realm. The expert must be consulted before any definitive judgment can be made. This game of one-upmanship prevents the exchange of ideas and introduces a spirit of rivalry and competition that is antithetical to the unselfconsciousness of the child. Anthony DeMello explained, “The first quality that strikes one when one looks into the eyes of a child is its innocence; its lovely inability to lie or wear a mask or pretend to be anything other than what it is.”

The power ploys of the pharisee are predictable. However, the will to power is subtle. It may go undetected and therefore unchallenged. The omnivorous pharisee who succeeds in seizing power, collecting disciples, acquiring knowledge, achieving status and prestige, and controlling his world is estranged from their inner child. He grows fearful when an underling swipes his baton, cynical when feedback is negative, paranoid when threatened, worried when anxious, fitful when challenged, and distraught when defeated. The impostor caught up in the power game lives a hollow life with considerable evidence of success on the outside, while he is desolate, unloving, and anxiety-ridden on the inside. King-baby seeks to master God rather than be mastered by Him.

The true self is able to preserve childlike innocence through unflagging awareness of the core identity and by steadfast refusal to be intimidated and contaminated by peers “whose lives are spent not in living but in courting applause and admiration; not in blissfully being themselves but in neurotically comparing and competing, striving for those empty things called success and fame even if they can be obtained only at the expense of defeating, humiliating, destroying their neighbors.””

-Brennan Manning, “Abba’s Child: The Cry of the Heart for Intimate Belonging” pages 81-83

If I’m going to attend a conference, it’s typically going to be on a topic I’m interested in, such as healing or intercessory prayer. The conferences I attend aren’t known for their slick presentations, nor are the speakers engaging in backslapping or trying to get rich.

Maybe it’s time for a moratorium on conferences like the Nines, Together for the Gospel, Resurgence, etc.

About those “NONES.”
*
The Gospel of John notes that Jesus himself created his own “NONES.”
*
When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see wthe Son of Man ascending to ywhere he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
*
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
*
Their is nothing new about the “Nones.” A number of people would be pleased to blame the YRR crowd for the “nones,” but the “nones” have always been there. Even Jesus’s perfect teachings drove people away.

@ TedS.:
I agree with you with respect to some conferences. But they can also be good places to network, get CEUs (CLEs for me) and accomplish other things that advance a person. Not all are rip-offs. The Baptist WMU holds state level conferences that once were great, inexpensive, and very inspirational for women. Have not been around one in 40+ years. BTW, men were always welcome, and I occasionally went along as a driver after my mom’s neck problem got to where she could not drive for very long at a time.

@ JeffT:

Just so you did not misunderstand me. I tried to be specific that I was not talking about the church but rather about “cultural attitudes” in general. Mostly what we heard was at work, but also some out in the community. I have no idea, nor do I much care, what some church thinks about it one way or the other. At any rate, I think that people pick up attitudes from elsewhere and then take them to church with them, and that is one reason why we have so much diversity in church beliefs and attitudes. I know this blog is about church abuse, but I keep raising the idea that it is not just the church–not by a long shot. And that is one reason why I think that arguments from scripture are sometimes a waste of time.

@ Nancy:
At work and in the community? Wow! I thought that was pretty much dead in most of secular society. My glasses must be rose-colorered.

@ dee:
Bleh. I spent some time in Dubai. It is the most free Middle Eastern state you can imagine, and more capitalist than America. The thing is, it is a fascist state. As long as one keeps that in mind, there will be no trouble at all.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

@ Seneca:

I believe you are missing several major premises. Would you care to try again, couching your argument in logical syllogisms?

*
DO dazzle me with your brilliance Doctor.

Seneca wrote:

Their is nothing new about the “Nones.” A number of people would be pleased to blame the YRR crowd for the “nones,” but the “nones” have always been there. Even Jesus’s perfect teachings drove people away.

I’m turned off to Christianity these days thanks in large part to Christians (and a few other reasons, but that’s a big one).

I’m barely clinging on to Christianity mostly only due to Jesus Christ. So you have it backwards on the nones, or some of us, at least.

I hate it when people try to tell the nones why they’re nones.

Why not let the nones tell their own stories, rather than make assumptions about them, or attributing motives to them that you make up which they may not hold?

numo wrote:

@ singleman: Just another way of saying “Shoot the messenger,” I think…

I’ve got no interest in shooting anybody. I was simply pointing out the reception may have been different had someone else raised the point.

An Attorney wrote:

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist: As opposed to “illogical syllogisms”???

One can never be too sure ?-)

I mentioned this Caine lady on a thread about a week ago. She’s been on American Christian TV quite a bit over the last couple of years, as a guest on “Life Today” and other shows:
Christine Caine: Trust God to Open Doors for Women

She’s become one of the best-known Christian women speakers around the globe. Caine has preached at megachurches in the U.S. (including Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church and Steve Furtick’s Elevation Church). She’s spoken at the major conferences: Catalyst, Women of Faith, Passion, and yes, The Nines.
One of three women on a lineup of over 100 speakers this year, Caine focused her message on Isaiah 43:19, “Behold I do a new thing….”

@ singleman: Your 1st post on this seemed pretty strongly worded – as if her message was/is invalidated by the fact that you do not agree with her on some things.

That’s unfortunate; she has some excellent points and if people were a shade more open-minded, they wouldn’t have shut her off because of those differences.

I get tired of seeing these guys find 50 reasons to invalidate what a woman says when she has a good response, or just good ideas, period.

It happens a *lot* in the so-called “christian” blogosphere, and on Twitter and Facebook. Either we act like grown-ups and realize that we can agree to disagree on certain things while at the same time *listening* to what the other person has to say, or else we default to childish ‘You’re not part of *my* clique, so I’m covering my ears” mode.

Somehow, I think the latter is not consonant with how Jesus enjoins us to treat each other, and it certainly doesn’t work in professional settings.

Back in July, the Gospel Coalition announced that they would “develop a series of books written specifically by women addressing cultural issues, as well as other unique resources focused on faith and work.”

Since they are complementarians, I wonder what a TGC book on women and work would look like.

Probably this:
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm216/darkdanny15/Blank-Book.gif

Deb wrote:

I believe it’s a matter of economics – supply and demand. There is a demand for conferences and books, and the leaders are great at manufacturing a market for them.

If the demand dried up, so would the supply…

Yes, I agree. Also, it’s important to remember that “rock star” conference speakers have to be careful how their personal behavior may appear to the public. I recall many years ago (the 1970’s) I heard Reverend Jimmy Swaggart speak here in upstate New York. He explained why there were no women in his crusade, tent meeting, etc. He said that he wanted to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety. Even at my former place of employment, we were instructed to not even accept a free cup of coffee from a potential customer. Pay for everything, to avoid any appearance that the transaction may not be on the up and up.

Ken wrote:

He said that he wanted to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety. Even at my former place of employment, we were instructed to not even accept a free cup of coffee from a potential customer.

Yep.

Billy Graham did the same thing during his career. He refused to be seen alone or left alone with a woman while staying in hotels on his crusade tours.

I’ve read of more examples of this in books by Christians about adult singlehood.

It may sound sensible at first glance, or even noble, but it really only supports the conservative evangelical, fundamentalist, and Baptist stereotype that women (especially the unmarried ones) are dangerous harlots out to tempt married men.

Unmarried women have become somewhat akin to the lepers of the Bible days – people avoid us, shun us, or keep us at arm’s length, because we are unclean, shifty, untrustworthy, and dangerous. It ends up being a damaging view to single women and hurts the overall church (body of believers).

It’s also common relationship advice in Christian books and blogs: men are told to stay away from women. Even in books for and by adults, about dating.

I’ve seen it in Christian dating advice to teens, but it also comes up in material for adults.

Adult, single (heck, even married) men, have been instructed by preachers and Christian authors not to even meet an adult single woman for a cup of coffee, or to talk too much to her (and this is in books by and for singles who want to get married).

How in the heck are a couple supposed to marry if they can’t even spend time alone, getting to know one another? It’s self-defeating.

Then Al Mohler and other Christians wonder and worry why many Christians aren’t marrying at all anymore, or not marry for the first time until they are 35, 40, 50+ years old. It’s not a mystery to me and other adult singles.

@ Daisy: RHE has been unfairly attacked since the publication of A Year of biblical Womanhood.

I don’t think any of us, including her, are above criticism, but it does seem to me like there are people just waiting to pounce on anything she says. (Not singleman or you, but *lots* of others.)

___

“Pastorally Golden?”

What?

How to avoid ‘any’ possible appearance of impropriety?

hmmm…

Pastoral Golden Rule #1: Watch your faith and practice. (doctrine)

Pastoral Golden Rule #2: Avoid personally handling money.

Pastoral Golden Rule #3: Avoid being alone with the opposite sex at all cost. Run.

Primary Potential Pastoral Problem(s) Prognosticated.

-snark-

—

Next Big Box is up. Doug talking about putting and women and children first. Gag me with a spoon.

http://scarletlettersblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/women-and-children-first-tbb/

numo wrote:

but it does seem to me like there are people just waiting to pounce on anything she says

I agree.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

I don’t believe for a minute that Billy Graham believed all women were temptresses or harlots, nor that he was guarding himself against women. It’s more or less impossible to pursue any course of action that can’t be construed (etc)

The results, as I said above, have been harmful to single women, and it needs to stop.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

That’s what Patriarch-Arranged Marriages are for.
It’s called Christian Courting(TM).

I know, but we are talking mainstream Baptist and evangelical attitudes, dating books, dating advice blogs. Some of these attitudes are not confined to the very far out patriarchy / courtship groups.

A lot of conservative Christian ((*)as in, Baptist, evangelical, fundy, and some Neo Calvinists – I really should not have to keep qualifying which exact groups I mean, but I get jumped on by various Protestants if I do not) teaching about relationships and the genders also makes women distrustful of men, too.

Men are portrayed as only interested in sex and nothing else, and are also depicted in Christian(*) teachings and preaching as being apt to sexually assault you at the drop of a hat.

Not only does that type of teaching mess up women and make it hard for some women to trust guys enough to form a relationship (and hence to marry), but I’ve heard from single males across the ages (20s to 50s) that this idea that they are 100% sex obsessed potential rapists creates various problems for them too, not only in terms of them getting dates, but how they feel about themselves.

I traveled extensively on business, teaching seminars and chairing conferences for a trade show enterprise. Between the other presenters and the show company staff, there were about 30 of us who were together for up to a week at a time as many as eight times a year, with some small variation in who was at each place. The group was of mixed gender, and it was generally the case that the women were single and a bit younger than the men. Most of the men made it a rule that not to be alone with one of the women except in a very public place, where we would meet, coming to the place separately and leaving separately, not wanting to compromise the reputation of the women, most of whom worked for our sponsor-employer year round, while most of the men were episodically employed. It was not because we thought the women would throw themselves at us, but because we respected them and did not want scurrilous talk about them getting back to their corporate bosses. It was our way of protecting both their reputations and ours.

Ken wrote:

Yes, I agree. Also, it’s important to remember that “rock star” conference speakers have to be careful how their personal behavior may appear to the public.

Yes, one of my personal favorites – Dinesh D’Souza after being caught sharing a hotel room with a young woman last year while still married to his first wife, “I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/nyregion/dinesh-dsouza-is-out-as-kings-college-president-in-scandal.html?_r=0

This has to be the silliest “debate” of the year.

People put conferences together and select the speakers they prefer.

The people who attend chose to hear those speakers.

People who object have a remedy. Host their own conferences.

@ Daisy:
Huh. I’m married, but I go out with other women all the time. They are my sisters in Christ, and we trust each other. I noticed an unhealthy infatuation with sex when I was in fundamentalist circles; I fear it is spreading.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

@ Daisy:
Huh. I’m married, but I go out with other women all the time. They are my sisters in Christ, and we trust each other. I noticed an unhealthy infatuation with sex when I was in fundamentalist circles; I fear it is spreading.

I don’t go out with other women, even sisters in Christ. To be perfectly honest, I always KNOW they are women and I can too easily feel attracted to their femininity. Doctor, you may respond differently.

Seneca wrote:

Their is nothing new about the “Nones.” A number of people would be pleased to blame the YRR crowd for the “nones,” but the “nones” have always been there. Even Jesus’s perfect teachings drove people away.

There’s just so much wrong with what Seneca’s written here.

First, I’d note that we don’t know if Jesus actually said what the gospel of John reports him to have said. It doesn’t match anything said in the Synoptic Gospels.

Second, I’d note that the specific teaching (that is, “eating his flesh and drinking his blood”) has been used by Catholics for centuries as a cudgel against Protestant beliefs regarding communion. It’s a proof-text for transubstantiation, basically. (I question whether a first century Jew would have said something like that, but that’s just me.)

Third, ripping a text out from its context so you can beat people over the head with it just reminds me yet again why I bagged the church. It certainly wasn’t because of hard teachings. It would be a heck of a lot easier in my family if I was a good church attendee instead of an annoyed former churched person.

Anonymous wrote:

This has to be the silliest “debate” of the year.

People put conferences together and select the speakers they prefer.

The people who attend chose to hear those speakers.

People who object have a remedy. Host their own conferences.

I don’t know that conferences are necessary. I’d rather see the money go towards real needs, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, etc. To me, conferences are a way to separate out the elite (with money) from the hoi polloi (who have to work, and work very hard to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads).

Yeah, I’m saying conferences are elitist.

@ Ken:
And what good did that do Jimmy Swagart? He too was found in an affair.

Notice how the ones so obsessed with appearances (Swagart, Doug Phillips of VF) keep falling into sexual sin, despite layers of law around their interactions with women. Paul (apostle) is clear, the Law (any law to make you Holy) will bind you. Make laws and you will fail.

I look at Paul and Jesus, in a society a million times more segregated than ours. They hung out with women all the time and didn’t give a hoot what the Pharisees said behind their backs. Maybe we need more dedicated celibate leaders out there. Mother Teresa, John of the Cross, basically most of the great Christians were celibate, and they all had no trouble with opposite gender friendships (Teresa of Avila save John of the Cross many times, till she couldn’t, from death), Paul had numerous female partners in his ministry (he was even in jail WITH Junia), Jesus had women with him his whole time ministering. Yet we keep choosing leaders who are burning with lusts most secular men can manage (female co-workers).

@ Janey:
An attorney actually said ” It was our way of protecting both their reputations and ours.”

I would have said that was sensible, and hardly sexist as it was applied mutually – where has the wanting ‘equality’ suddenly gone?! Don’t you like being shown respect, the stated intention?

Christians do have to maintain higher standards than the world in avoiding the appearance of evil, the world doesn’t care what you do sexually but the church has to be seen to be holy.

@ Ken:
Ken,

A lot of disrespect is handed to women using the phrase “avoiding the appearance of evil.”

What’s the definition of “appearance of evil”? I would say, touching, kissing, gazing longingly into each others eyes across a room, and standing within 12 inches of each other.

But sexist Christians define it in insultingly broad ways: sitting in the same room, walking out the door at the same time, having a conversation.

Sorry, I don’t buy that. It just shows the world how pathetic we Christians are. It gives a message to the world that we are weak, unable to control ourselves, and put appearances above real respect. We are laughable.

Jesus didn’t act that way, and I’m sorry that some of my Christian brothers do.

@ Janey:
I’m glad you clarified that. I did the ‘touching’ etc bit, eventually we got married! Avoíding the appearance of evil then means not behaving in such a way that could be misconstrued that I’m extending my interest to a different woman.

I would not include normal female friendships in this. That’s hopelessly legalistic and simply not practical. I would not, however, whether single or married, regularly visit a woman alone, as however innocent it might actually be (helping with a language course or something) it could look to a watching world as though ‘something was going on’. That and putting yourself where you might actually be tempted is what needs avoiding, not women themselves. It’s actual concrete evildoing that needs avoiding (which is what the Thess. expression is really getting at in context).

Temptation is, of course, and equal opportunities employer!

Ken wrote:

Temptation is, of course, and equal opportunities employer!

So is submission if you start in Eph 5:21 (or maybe 5:15) and “keep it in context” as you so eloquently pointed out in your previous post.

Leaving heaven and death on a cross to redeem mankind and birth his Church wasn’t a form of submission?!

@ An Attorney:
And I make my professional friendships on the basis of personality, competence, capability, and character, and my personal friendships on the basis of personality. I am good professional friends with a number of women who are lawyers and recruited one to help me with a complex case because she knows that part of the law better than I, and I gave her the lead on those issues, since I was designated as the lead attorney on the case. I make referrals of cases I cannot take, for a variety of reasons, to the person I think can best handle that case, without regard to gender. I have been an advocate of equality of rights and treatment of persons without gender for more than 50 years, having reached that conclusion as a teenager, and on race for longer than that; and with respect to gender preferences not being a reason for differentiation of rights, for more than 30 years. There is no reason in our society to discriminate against anyone with respect to the law and to the civil and economic rights.

@ TW:

Todd I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to read your posts. When I read your comments, analysis, and discernment it encourages me. As for your comment made at the missions conference about Christians “don’t hang out their dirty laundry” I think of my personal experiecne. I used to look up to John Piper and admire him, however I felt so sick when he taught that women endure abuse. I went to the largest atheist ralley in the United States – The Reason Rally on the National Mall here in Washington, D.C.; and heard atheists attack and decry how Christianity is a cancer becuase of Christian pastors who teach that women endure abuse. As I heard that I thought of John Piper.

There is one word…ONE word only that comes to my mind when I think of the modern reformed community. And that word is…..corruption.

Sometimes an avoidance of females, rather than a view of them as tempters, actually reflects their own weakness in the area of sex. Kinda like a person avoiding bars…not because they serve beer, but because of his addiction to alcohol.

Could it be?

Victorious wrote:

Sometimes an avoidance of females, rather than a view of them as tempters, actually reflects their own weakness in the area of sex. Kinda like a person avoiding bars…not because they serve beer, but because of his addiction to alcohol.
Could it be?

Don’t forget the “I have X Problem, so all the rest of you must have X Problem” factor. With the corollary of preaching to remove their own temptation in a form of covert self-treatment.

Like recovering alcoholic Billy Sunday compulsively preaching against Demon Rum. Or Ted Haggard preaching against homosexuality. Or Rush Limbaugh fanboying the War on Drugs while fighting a secret Oxycontin addiction. Or the married elder automatically assuming a single HAD to have a problem with Internet Porn (from a single’s reminisces on either here or a similar blog).

Eagle wrote:

I used to look up to John Piper and admire him, however I felt so sick when he taught that women endure abuse. I went to the largest atheist ralley in the United States – The Reason Rally on the National Mall here in Washington, D.C.; and heard atheists attack and decry how Christianity is a cancer becuase of Christian pastors who teach that women endure abuse. As I heard that I thought of John Piper.

Eagle, wasn’t the Reason Rally a catalyst in your journey? Before you went to it, you used to rant about how Christianity was a cancer because of your own Evangelical burn job; afterwards, not so much.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG, I’m sad that you had such wretched experiences with women that you’ve lost all trust. Like Daisy, I had the same in reverse. What awful things we do to each other and how deeply it gets etched into us!

I have male friends now, mostly (not all) married, and no one has a problem with it because we are trustworthy friends. It took time to develop but these guys can come over and their wives might appear later, or not; we are free with each other. I hope you can find same with a few women someday.

@ TW:

I did not understand the power plays because I did not understand Protestant culture, which was more bewildering to me than the culture I encountered in Africa. I converted from Catholicism a week after my husband died 11 years ago, and I was not sure how friendly Protestant churches were supposed to be. It took me a long time to realize I was being shunned.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

And burqas, locked harems, honor killings, and FGM have already been tried by others. All it does is supercharge the Forbidden Fruit effect into some really kinky paraphilias.

You have a point here.

I don’t get these preacher guys at all. As a teacher, about 70% of my colleagues are female, and if I never could be in the same room alone with a female colleague that would put a rather abrupt end to all forms of cooperation. (Being in the same room alone with a female student, now that is not something I would do. At least not without an open door in an area where lots of other people come and go.)

It must be the extreme purity thing that makes these preachers’ minds so one-track minded.

A nice anecdote from a few years back: fundamentalist Egyptian clerics declared that stuffing eggplants was improper for women, lest they be tempted by impure thoughts.

Ken wrote:

I would not include normal female friendships in this. That’s hopelessly legalistic and simply not practical. I would not, however, whether single or married, regularly visit a woman alone, as however innocent it might actually be (helping with a language course or something) it could look to a watching world as though ‘something was going on’. That and putting yourself where you might actually be tempted is what needs avoiding, not women themselves. It’s actual concrete evildoing that needs avoiding (which is what the Thess. expression is really getting at in context).

Ken,
I am sure you are a good guy and I’ve agreed with many of your posts on this blog, but I find there’s double-speak and crazy-making on this topic.

Excuse me if I get really fired up. It’s a sore spot.

If concrete evildoing is the thing that is the real sin and needs to be avoided, and normal female friendships are fine, then “avoiding the appearance of evil” is something that is merely a crazy-making term that is used to exclude women, belittle women, and treat us as if we are lower than men are.

I would say that men and women’s platonic relationships fall into the Apostle Paul’s comments about liberty.

If a man cannot be alone with a woman without attempting to rape her, he should avoid contact with women.

If a man is a predator, he should not spend time with women, even in the context of language training. Or if he finds out that the woman he is instructing has a history of drugging men or blackmailing them into sex with her, then he needs to discontinue the lessons. It’s character not gender. It’s real sin, not always worrying about what other people might think. Having Christians disapprove of you doesn’t mean you’ve sinned. Jesus was disapproved of all the time, but he never sinned. In fact, he rigorously defended his relationships with women. He went on attack mode against Pharisees and others who deigned to judge him.

Jesus didn’t buy into the “appearance of evil” stuff when it came to male-female relations. He talked with women alone quite often, and he even discussed their sex life with them. One might infer from his response to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection that they had hugged in the past. Jesus always treated women as intelligent, honorable people.

My father was the first Christian feminist I ever met (far more so than my mother). On the job he promoted women, treated them with respect, and woe to anyone in his company who called them “girls.” And that was in the 1970s and 1980s. He loved his own mother and he was always a model of support and encouragement to women. And no, he never stepped over the line with them. He would talk with them and spend time with them, but he was a man who wasn’t a predator. He didn’t use people. And no one ever censured him for his stance.

I don’t think we should worry so much about what Christians think. I no longer care. As an executive, I have business to do, and I’m going to do it. The world, on the other hand, sees Christian men treating women as Muslim men do, and think we’re stuck up little prigs.

We need to be like Jesus, not like the Pharisees.

/end rant/

@ Janey:
I think because this is a sore spot, you are seeing things not in my post. It’s standard feminist rhetoric that all men are potential rapists, but I didn’t have that in mind. It’s simply that believers must be aware of how their actions can be misconstrued by an unbelieving world only too keen to believe the worst. What outsiders think does matter. Our liberty is further restricted in not violating another believer’s weak conscience.

I also coupled this with advice I heard more than once, and I think good advice, that no-one should ever think they are temptation proof, so use a bit of savvy in what they do.

__

The Southern Baptist Convention of Churches (SBC) teaches that a church’s pastoral leadership team consisting of women is incompatible with that organizations understanding of scripture. Those women who do not believe that this position is consistent with scripture are strongly encouraged to attend religious services elsewhere.
Individual Baptist churches are not bound by this convention however, yet may suffer consequences should female leadership be engaged. This ruling and subjacent penalties for non-compliance are currently being challenged in certain quarters. -snark-

—

Ken wrote:

It’s standard feminist rhetoric that all men are potential rapists

Nah. It’s standard “pastoral” rhetoric that all women are potential seductresses out to do a godly man in – particularly single women.

It’s standard “pastoral” rhetoric that all men are potential victims of overwhelming carnal desires to engage in inappropriate behaviour with said seductresses – so overwhelming, that this behaviour can’t be stopped and is hardly the man’s fault.

Ken wrote:

It’s simply that believers must be aware of how their actions can be misconstrued by an unbelieving world only too keen to believe the worst.

Ken,

You’re not understanding my comments. Please re-read them.

The unbelieving world doesn’t think the worst, it’s the Christian world of finger pointers that does. In the working world it’s common to have a male buyer and a female VP Sales working behind closed doors negotiating a major business deal.

Unbelievers are very accepting of women in the workplace, and they have had years of business training on sexual harassment. For the most part they treat women as equals, not insultingly as Christian men sometimes do.

Let me give this another try:

Some Christian men would leave the door of their office open slightly if they had an attractive 20-year-old woman meeting with them. But those same men would close the door if the woman was very high ranking, for example, Shirley Dobson or the late Bill Bright’s wife, Vonette.

Why? Because they wouldn’t dare insult Shirley or Vonette. A door left ajar says one thing to good women: “I don’t trust you.” It’s a slap in the face.

WHAT DID THE FIRST CHRISTIANS BELIEVE?

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST HAD ITS BEGINNING ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST 33 A.D.. WHAT BELIEFS AND ACTIONS DID THE THREE THOUSAND CONVERTS TO CHRIST HAVE IN COMMON? DID GOD APPROVE OF EVOLVING BELIEFS, DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SALVATION? IF THAT WERE TRUE, THEN WOULD IT NOT BE FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES?

Acts 2:41 So then, those who received his word were baptized; and there were added about three thousand souls. Acts 2:47….And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

All three thousand believed the apostle Peter’s message and were baptized in water. Then they were added to the Lord’s church by the Lord Himself. The Lord did not add the unsaved to His church. They had to believe and be baptized in water prior to being added to the body of Christ.

1. Acts 2:22 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—

All three thousand believed Jesus was a miracle worker.

2. Acts 2:31-32 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. 32 This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.

All three thousand believed in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

3. Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”

All three thousand believed that Jesus was Lord and Christ.

4. Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

All three thousand repented in order to have sins forgiven. (repentance meant that they made the commitment to turn from their unbelief and sinful lifestyle and turn toward God).

All three thousand were baptized in water in order to have their sins forgiven.

All three thousand received the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit after they believed, repented, and were baptized in water.

5. Acts 2:40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, “Be saved from this perverse generation!”

All three thousand were saved after they believed Peter’s message: They believed, repented, confessed, and were baptized in water. (Mark 16:16, John 3:16, Acts 3:19, Acts 2:38, Romans 10:9-10, Acts 8:35-38) THEN THEY WERE ADDED TO THE LORD’S CHURCH! (Acts 2:47)

WHAT THINGS DID PETER NOT PREACH AND WHAT THINGS DID THE THREE THOUSAND NOT BELIEVE.

1.Peter did not preach that men were saved by grace alone.

2.Peter did not preach that men were saved by faith only

3.Peter did not preach that God had selected a few to be saved and that all others would go to hell.

4. Peter did not preach that water baptism was not essential to salvation.

5. Peter did not preach that Jesus was just one of many Saviors.

6. Peter did not preach that once you were saved, that you could continue in a sinful lifestyle and still be saved.

7. Peter did not preach that God did not have the power to give us an inerrant translation of the Scriptures.

8. Peter did not preach that God would provide hundreds or thousands of different Christian denominations, and that they would teach different ways of being saved.

9. Peter did NOT preach that you had to speak in tongues as evidence that you were saved.

AS BELIEVERS IN CHRIST, MEN SHOULD USE THE BIBLE AS THEIR GUIDE FOR SALVATION. Looking to man-made creed books, Bible commentaries, denominational statements of faith, and church catechisms, is looking in all the wrong places for the absolute truth!

YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com

You’re invited to follow my blog as well, btw. Which is so brilliant etc etc etc.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
LOL.
Yeah, then there’ll be something for us to follow 😉

dee wrote:

How do you do everything in such a manner not to cause anyone to stumble?

You become a hermit. 🙂

Ken wrote:

That and putting yourself where you might actually be tempted is what needs avoiding, not women themselves. It’s actual concrete evildoing that needs avoiding (which is what the Thess. expression is really getting at in context).

I disagree with your contextual interpretation of 1Thess. 5:22.
It is in the middle of the verses asking us to allow prophesy, and the workings of the Holy Spirit but testing those signs of the Holy Spirit. The word for appearance is a noun, not a verb.

Your interpretaion = Do not appear to be doing evil. This interpretation leads to legalism. Almost everything we do has a pagan origin, even wedding rings and pink for girls and blue for boys. There is no end to legalism, that is why it is too difficult to pinpoint how to practice this interpretation.

My interpretaion = Do not get involved with what HAS appeared on the scene like a new teaching or sign or wonder. Test it first to see whether it is good or bad. Going back farther in the chapter we get a clue of what could be one bad teaching, the teaching of peace and safety so let’s just think like those who party all the time rather than paying attention.

Ken wrote:

It’s standard feminist rhetoric that all men are potential rapists,

No, I actually see this sort of thinking crop up in a lot of Christian material about dating, marriage, and how the genders are different.

I’m not the only one. I’ve been to other blogs by people who have noticed it too.

Christians behave as though all men are rapists.

If I were a Christian man who does not hate women, who does not condone rape, and would not ever even consider using force on women, I would find these views deeply insulting, but they are there in gender complementarian teachings among Baptists, evangelicals, Neo Reformed, and Baptists.

Gender complementarians don’t usually blurt out directly “all men are rapists!” and “all single women are temptresses!” but those thoughts never the less under-gird a lot of their teachings and dating advice to Christians.

It’s very common in Christian publications, sermons, and TV shows, to uphold the gender stereotypes that men are interested in sex and women are not (at least, it is said or assumed that married women are not interested in sex).

I grew up reading a lot of Christian magazines, books, and watching Christian television programming, about life in general, some of these shows or books were about dating in particular.

In the past few years, I’ve read books by Christians about Christian views on singleness.

Conservative Christians, by the way, are so alarmed by secular feminism, which they assume teaches that there are zero differences between the genders, that Christians go the other extreme and erect very narrow gender role views, and assume that men and women are polar opposites, all the time, on every trait, which is just as bad.

Anyway, one assumption that is brought up in Christian books and blogs about dating and how men differ from women -and even teen-aged Christian females are told this in books and blogs by Christians- is that all men (and teen boys) want all the time is sex, sex, sex, and more sex. And you know what else males want, according to Christians? Sex.

I just watched a Christian show the other day about marriage.

On that show, the Christian hosts, many of whom are marriage counselors, dragged up the old gender role stereotype chestnuts, including:
“Women, men want respect. You wanna know one way you can show your husband respect? Sex. Have sex with him.”

Evangelical, fundamentalist, neo Reformed (from what I’ve seen the last few years online from them), and Baptist attitudes are that all men are supposedly visually oriented and want non stop sex…

So, women are instructed by Christian writers and preachers, do not be left alone with a Christian man, do not wear “revealing” clothing, etc.

The underlying assumption is that Christian men cannot or will not control their sexual urges and will rape yo, the woman, if you are left alone with them, or they will sweet-talk-manipulate a female into sex.

Hence, group dating is encouraged in Christian books on relationships, don’t- be- left- alone- with- a- man type thinking is encouraged.

Even more baffling is that I’ve seen this same advice handed out to adult singles in blogs and magazine articles, and I mean adults who are over the age of 30. Adult singles are treated by Christian dating book authors as though they are teenagers.

Not that adult singles are usually discussed in Christian circles often, but when they are, we get the advice that men are sex obsessed monsters whom you cannot trust.

It is said that a man cannot help himself if he sees a woman in shapely figure wearing a nice dress.

As I’ve said before, there are Christian dating books that tell adult, single Christian males, who wish to date and marry, not to so much as meet a single woman alone for coffee, because such an encounter will end in sex. It’s ridiculous, and that sort of attitude is insulting to both genders.

So it’s not just feminists who think every guy on the planet is a rapist, but some evangelicals and other Christians, too – Christians from certain denominations train the women to think of men in this way.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
I should have said: something more to follow. Rereading what I wrote earlier seems a bit harsh where I was trying to be lighthearted.

@ Ken:
Ken, I’m not against what you are saying, but look at church culture. If a woman, single women esp., wants to do something with her giftings – say, start fundraising for adoptions for Christians a church, or start an Alpha group or get on the summer sermon line-up, etc. (all things women have done in churches), then she usually needs to meet with the pastoral staff and work to get things done, ball rolling, etc.

When pastor’s and pastoral staff say they can’t meet with a woman alone, then making the meeting work is multitudinally more difficult. Does the pastor’s wife drive in from home to sit in on the meeting? Does the secretary stop her work to come sit? Does the pastor or staffer have as much time to leave his building and go to a coffee shop (would that meeting have to also include driving time?). Do they tell the woman just to meet with the office staff and she can “pass on” the message? It would add to the hassle, so less meetings, and less time at the actual meeting would result, or the right people would not be involved to make these things happen. This means it would be less likely for women to get their idea/plan off the ground, the plan would be given a lower priority when many ideas/plans are competing in a larger church.

Add this up over the years, and certain women, with gifts are just dropped from using them because of some idea of “appearances”. I go back to this again and again, and it is radically counter cultural, but I think we need more celibates in leadership in the churches. The early church had no problem with women leaders until the structure changed about 200 A.D. But, long after the church became more “Romanized” celibates remained in charge. During that time women had phenomenal roles in the early (pre-Great Schism) church. I won’t boar you with who and what, but women were leaders in making hospitals for the sick and rejected in cities. They were the ones who organized orphan care (and had Christian families take the orphan to their homes). We tend to think the early church was all Middle-class married couples with kids, but it largely wasn’t. It was single men and mostly women. They dedicated their lives to the church, raised abandoned kids while serving others. Eventually they organized into communities and gave rise to Abby’s and Convents.

If we are soooo concerned with appearances then the church must hire a senior man and a senior woman pastor – each with 50 % of the budget and 50% of the deciding vote. Then, women could go to her to get their ideas in and men could go to him. They (via their budgets) would each have to financially help with kid’s ministry. This would allow everyone to have their ideas heard and responded to. If the church isn’t large enough, then only a celibate pastor of either gender should be hired, or a pastor who can meet with women as well as men. If a man is scared of himself in this situation, he isn’t fit to lead a church. Better he go an a spiritual leave and pray for that issue than stay in his current position and oppress (unintentionally) half the church. Or, set up a committee/board of 50/50 men/women who make all the decisions about church life (no more all male-elder boards) and make them the true leaders/decision makers (as the – non-sexist – Mennonites do).

Daisy–I think the comps would just figure we are all, married and single, male and female, human. Sometimes we just do incredibly dumb things that we never thought we would do. So why place ourselves in a place of temptation?

But honestly, I don’t think most comps have all that much trouble with single women around married men alone unless the single woman is just by golly determined to be alone with the guy.

Then that does and should raise a red flag.

In the scenario you described, why would a single woman in a mini skirt and heels (not that all guys find that attractive) seek to be alone with a married man anyway? I would think if it just happened by accident both would prefer to end the situation quickly, no harm no foul. If it were not by accident, yeah, it does lend to the question who instigated it and why?

Val wrote:

If we are soooo concerned with appearances then the church must hire a senior man and a senior woman pastor – each with 50 % of the budget and 50% of the deciding vote. Then, women could go to her to get their ideas in and men could go to him.

That’s the most reasonable solution I’ve heard! If comps believe women should only teach women, give them the same privileged positions and let them get some jobs done in the areas that provide strong role models for women. I’ll second that motion anytime!!

@ Ken:

Regarding women as so subservient that a woman cannot be held responsible for sin might well be in line with Driscollian gender politics, though of course it is not in line with scribsher.

@ Ken:

Well, we really don’t know if the pass was because she was female or because she was connected to a VIP. Could be either . . .

Wrong to come down on only one party no matter what way you look at it.

@ Nancy: As someone who was sexually harassed and grabbed by a doctor who was *very* practiced at such moves (I only saw him once; this was in the mid-80s and nobody else was present in the examining room), I am very grateful for the changes in laws and mandated reporting. People abuse positions of power in order to sexually harass patients and employees, and this guy was a pro at it. (I came out to the appointment desk in tears, saying that I never wanted to see this guy again, and the secretaries looked like they’d heard it all before…)

As for “dirty old men,” I think they’ve always been with us, Nancy.

V and n:

It is so difficult to hear reports of abuse by medical personnel or pastors or whomever. I am really sorry for what happened to you two. I have never been abused or harassed as a patient, but I have surely had to deal ummm forthrightly with my share of bad boys on the job–back in the day, of course.

I never had any trouble with the professionally religious, but then I tend to avoid them like the plague.

As to the Hippocratic Oath, it is great fun to read it. It talks about financing a medical education, sexual behavior, avoiding gossip–interesting stuff. My class at my alma mater was the last one at that school to use that oath–at least they told us that at the time. Medical ethical behavior is determined by the law of the land, the regulations of the medical licensing board, the opinions and advice of ones specialty “colleges,” the ethics committees of the hospitals and institutions where one has privileges, and maybe something else by now–I have been retired for a while. But the Hippocratic Oath was a ritual for historical purposes only, at least by my time. You ought to check it out on Wikipedia. I do swear that I never cut for stone.

Haven’t had time to read any and all posts since last here.
Nancy wrote:

Sex-seeking behavior is acceptable in our culture, and lots of people do it, appropriately or not, some half-heartedly, but the idea that it is not prevalent? Folks, it is.

Yes, we live in a sex saturated society, but it’s baloney that every one acts on sexual urges all the time, or that people are incapable of controlling their behavior…

Did you know that one excuse abusive men use is that they “just lost control” and “couldn’t help” but beat their wives, and that is bogus? They very well can control their actions, but they choose not to.

(See the book Why Does He Do That?, by Lundy Bancroft, who has been counseling abusive husbands and boyfriends for over 15 years.)

Christians need to stop maintaining these stereotypes that all single women are harlots and all men are sex- seeking weirdos.

The Bible talks about not bearing false witness against your neighbor, and in my book, acting like I, who am unmarried, but who am a virgin past age 40, due to waiting until marriage (I was engaged for several years and had plenty opportunity to have sex had I wanted), it’s a very grave insult.

The Bible says that one reason of several for the existence of the church is to provide community and support for one another.

How is an unmarried Christian woman supposed to get support if most of the church treats single women like potential man-stealers?

The single men are told to stay away from us single ladies because we might fornicate, the married ladies view single women as a threat, and the married guys assume we single ladies want in their pants and will do so at every opportunity.

It’s more than “hurt feelings.” It’s cutting people off from community.

Where in the Bible does it say that a preacher, or any male, should never meet alone with an unmarried woman?

Jesus met alone with the woman at the well, and he also met with prostitutes.

The Pharisees wagging their tongues in disbelief that a rabbi (Jesus) would meet with women of ill repute did not stop Jesus from meeting and talking to them.

Also, as I said on another thread, another reason Christians adhering to these views that all unmarried people are sex fiends has other ramifications, such as-

Unmarried men are barred from serving as Sunday school teachers, preachers, etc, even ones who were previously married, but who are now single due to death of wife or divorce.

Churches refuse to hire unmarried people or even permit them to act as teachers.

Some of these single men are not so much as permitted to even teach singles classes at churches (the churches get married people to do this).

I’ve read blogs, books, and articles about people, usually men, but occasionally women, who testify about how their denomination or particular church discriminated against them due to the sheer fact they are single, with the particular stereotype at play being that single people have unbridled sexual appetites (so they cannot be trusted around teens, kids, married people).

I provided links to various articles in one thread on this blog about three or four days ago with such testimonies and links to similar articles.

This particular prejudice pops up often enough it has been discussed on various church sites I’ve visited, or books I’ve seen.

Some of the same stereotypes play out in other nations. This, for example, is from Britain:

Isolated: single Christians feel unsupported by family-focused churches
source, independent.co.uk

The survey found that older people were more keenly aware of their single status and that women not in a steady relationship were treated as “threats to couples”. Singles said they often felt more valued outside rather than inside their church.

American sources:
nytimes.com
Unmarried Pastor, Seeking a Job, Sees Bias

Single Adults Why They Stay and Why They Stray
by Dick Purnell

Number 6: There is a perception that single adults are morally loose.

If a person is not married by mid-twenties, there is something wrong, it is generally thought. A particular church was in the process of trying to hire a youth pastor.

Since they could not find one for over a year, they held a congregational meeting to explain the progress they were making.

The elder in charge presented all kinds of reasons for the delay in locating the right person for the position. At the end of his explanation, I stopped up and asked, “Does the person you are looking for have to be married?”

[discussion ensues where he exposes their bias against considering an unmarried because they are afraid an unmarried person will hit on the students]

Finally some lady in the very back said, “What we need is a role model for the young girls. So I think he should be married.”

“You mean to tell me, in this entire congregation there is not one woman who’s a role model for the girls?” Silence.

“I tell you what I think the real reason is. You are afraid that a single pastor would be sexually frustrated and have sex with one of the teenage girls. Out of all the pastors I have known personally, four have had affairs and left the ministry in disgrace. Each of them was married….

… Some churches won’t allow singles to teach Sunday school for fear these men and women will succumb to sexual temptation. That is unfounded fear.

There are other books and blogs which have other examples.

@ Ken:
I think both men and women should wear burkas. Because lust. Children too, because pedophiles. Serious Christians accommodate morally weak brothers and sisters. We know they have a tendency not to strengthen their weaknesses and it is not our job to help them do so—that’s between them and God.

Burkas are how we reflect, in our daily lives, the covering mercy God has laid over every one of us sinners.

Plus it would create more jobs, which we need. /s

Ken wrote:

We are not made sin-proof after conversion, the battle is then against sin, and how some women dress in church can cause real problems for men. Too many feminists, not knowing how men think or the power of sin, just don’t get it.

How did Jesus manage to be around prostitutes?

How does “how some women dress in church” become . . . “Too many feminists” . . . ? Why the harping on feminists? I’d love to know what your definition of feminist is.

The problem is lust . . . and considering the high percentage of Christian men (more women these days as well) who entertain pornography, they are training their minds and bodies well before they get to church on Sunday. The problem is not merely the feminist women in church?? (whatever that means to you)

Ken wrote:

We are not made sin-proof after conversion, the battle is then against sin, and how some women dress in church can cause real problems for men. Too many feminists, not knowing how men think or the power of sin, just don’t get it.

I am not sure this is a blanket truth. I lived in a culture with huge class ( caste) distinctions, and people of different casts just knew they could never marry. When the converted to Christianity, they knew they couldn’t marry a Hindu. They worked casually with members of the opposite sex that were of lower caste without fear. Their houses were full of lower caste servants of both sexes, and no one in the world gossiped or thought anything of it. If you go back to Europe or even racially divided America, you see well-to-do women living in the same house with many, many men (none of whom were eunuchs) and no one thought of reputations – butlers, cooks, stable boys, chauffeurs, guards, etc.

But, lets look at men and women of the same social status. If it is true women don’t get men, then it would follow men don’t get women. And, what gets many women annoyed is that men, who can’t control their urges despite claiming to be transformed by the Holy Spirit, then insist on leading in churches. If men are too weak, as you say, then it is women who should be senior pastors, and make all the final decisions, that way both men and women could come to the church leadership without the senior pastor fearing reputation or temptation. Now, I know everyone will scream ‘sexist’ – But women are just as bad! – but you have said women just can’t understand men, meaning they must be worse than women, otherwise women would understand.

So, using your argument, that feminists don’t understand men’s thoughts or the ‘power of sin’ (which Christ conquered btw), that must mean that women just don’t think that way. Therefore, they would be the choice leaders of a congregation.* Since, they, unlike men would not fear meeting with a man and listening to his ideas. They would not be so tempted by his presence they would too distracted to listen to him.

Or, we could just hire men or women who can work with both genders. And have a respectful relationship with any gender in their congregation who wants to talk to them about church matters, and doesn’t preach, “run-away” or shut women out of leadership when confronted with sexual temptation. A better solution is to go to a monastery for a spiritual weekend of prayer if temptations keep raging. Catholic monasteries, who run these spiritual retreats, will take Protestants at their monasteries, so it is always an option. Also, I am sure a Catholic monk could give some pretty good advice to men on how to live with temptations yet serve Christ and not let temptations master someone.

* (Now, I don’t buy any of this, from the excuse Christian men are ‘under the power of sin’, so strong they can’t overcome it or manage it, and just have a working relationship with women, and so on. Among today’s 20-somethings it is the woman who are more into ‘Friends with Benefits’ then the men -at least according to one article- so who knows what direction society will go as more women begin to make as much, or more, than men and become more career focused and less relationship focused, as men begin to make less, which is beginning in the twenties generation, women will have less and less incentive to be in a relationship with men, and many characteristically “male” or “female” sexual responses will begin to disappear. In Viking Europe, where women were the leaders, their sexual patterns (both genders) were drastically different than the southern, Roman-influenced, patriarchal societies.

Agreed, Dee.

My comments were addressed to protecting reputations. An individual Christian may desire pastoral counsel (male pastor, female counselee or female pastor, male counselee) all they want, but the smart pastor simply will….not….put….him/herself in that position.

And when you get right down to it, it does send up red flags if the counselee will not see a same gender counselor or allow a person of the counselee’s gender in the room.

And seriously, if the pastor calls in his wife and she spreads what is said to the whole church, that is a much bigger problem.

Yep, glass, open doors, multiple people present, the whole nine yards.

I’m old, overweight, and married but my pastors that were male while I’m old, overweight, and married wouldn’t have considered one on one counseling or discussion behind closed doors no glass.

I appreciate their firm protection of both their and my reputation.

And again, would find them perfectly justified in running screaming from me if I were to try to insist on it.

It isn’t that “single women are harlots.” It IS that believers still have to use some common sense.

@ linda: err, how about psychotherapists? Male therapists regularly see female patients, and vice versa.

I think that glass (as someone else suggested upthread) is far better than total avoidance, as you propose. For some people, yes, avoidance may well be a good thing, but as a rule? I think it goes too far. (Just my opinion, though…)

@ linda:

What if there is no same gender person available?

It’s more than that, though.

It is false to assume that any and every unmarried woman is a temptress who will try to get into the pants of a married man.

Daisy wrote:

@ linda:
What if there is no same gender person available?
It’s more than that, though.
It is false to assume that any and every unmarried woman is a temptress who will try to get into the pants of a married man.

We haven’t been talking about just unmarried women here. We’ve been talking about women in general, married and unmarried. For that matter, the precautions would be wise for certain professions no matter what the sex of the professional is, if the patient/counselee is the opposite sex. It simply helps avoid any false accusations or attempts of inappropriate actions on anyone’s part.

@ Bridget:

But the notion of being a saucy little minx with no sexual boundaries generally falls more heavily on UN-married women (single women), not married ones.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that men cannot or should not be alone with single women, and at that, because single women will actively try to tempt the man, or because men lack self control.

@ Daisy: the issue, imo, is about voluntary abstinence not virginity.

ask the many, MANY women whose 1st sexual experiences were NOT exactly optimal…

@ numo:

I am talking about deliberate sexual choices.

I am not discussing sexual abuse victims.

The fact is a lot of people are not, contrary to biblical instructions, choosing to wait until marriage to have sex.

Which is not to say it’s 100%, because, again, there are those of us who are still virgins as we have not married yet.

dee wrote:

… And what about women who are heavily endowed?
… Should they get surgery to prevent their brothers from experiencing lust?
… We must first let jesus change hearts.

A mostly off-topic long story here, but, Dee, do check out the link– even though the church in question is now irrelevant,  back in the day it had EVERYTHING.
    Long ago and far away, my Christian friend Bill and I worked at a large office for a very large corporation. He must have weighed close to 300 and I weighed close to 130. No one commented about our weight. A young Christian coworker Paula was heavily endowed. It was impossible not to notice. We didn’t really know her, but she did dress very modestly and seemed nice. Despite this, some men gawked and stared. Both men and women sometimes made rude comments behind her back about her appearance.
     Anyhow, the day arrived when the company had us doing touchy-feely-imaging team-building exercises (bordering on witchcraft, it seemed to us). Bill and I respectfully declined to participate on grounds of Christian conscience, and eventually Management agreed.  Paula was the only person who joined us on the sidelines, and we had the chance to talk, and get to know her. Turned out she attended an early Multi-site Mega-church called Community Chapel. Bill and I had heard some troubling reports, and attempted to warn her.  Especially troubling were the “spiritual connections” parishioners made with others to whom they weren’t married, while “dancing before the Lord” together.  Paula reassured us it was a great church with nothing bad going on, God was  doing great things, Pastor was a man of God, etc. Well, we’d only heard the tip of the iceberg. It was in fact worse than the new-age stuff our company brought in.  In retrospect, she was *safer* in the worldly world of work, amongst leering unchristian men, than she was at “church”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Chapel_and_Bible_Training_Center
(Featured in the book “Churches That Abuse” BTW)

__

@ Dave A A

…safety is no longer necessarily defined by close proximity to a church pew.

(how sad)

Sopy

—

Daisy, you are completely missing my point.

I do not think that because you are single you are out for any opportunity to seduce a man. Nor do I think men are constantly looking for a chance to “do the nasty.”

BUT–all it takes is one woman that man has rebuffed, or one man out to ruin the woman’s reputation, or one disgruntled employee of either of them, or one nosy Nellie always assuming the worst of people plus one incident where something “could” have happened and lives can be destroyed.

But I have to admit this, and please take it with charity: why is it so important to you to be free to be alone with married men?

I think that if the church would stop pretending that men and women were from different planets and go with the scriptures that tell us are all human and should respect each other as such we would have a lot less problems between us. I know so many non Christian people who have much higher integrity than so many Christians because they were raised without influence of hierarchy among any people groups. I know for one man, my husband, was able to control his ‘conditioned’ objectifying of women only after he was able to agree that women are his equal in creation and “rule.”

Joe wrote:

I think the question you need to consider is, “Why would a woman want to be “just friends” with a man?

Oh, good grief! 🙁

Victorious wrote:

Oh, good grief! 🙁

That’s the best you can do? How about an honest answer – if you actually have one!

Victorious wrote:

How about an honest answer – if you actually have one!

In order to have an honest answer, it is good to start with honest questions, not loaded, assumptionful, accusations against and entire gender based on a foundation prejudice, stereotypes, and years of BAD teaching from male dominated pulpits.

Victorious wrote:

Another crazy assumption!!! Good grief…will they never end??

I’m still waiting ….. do you have an honest answer to the question?

Joe wrote:

I’m still waiting ….. do you have an honest answer to the question?

Joe, of course I have an honest answer to why a woman would want to be friends with a man. For one, the same reason a man wants a friendship with another man! Because of mutual interests; i.e. sports, news, hobbies, etc. Because friendships can increase our understanding of one another whether male or female. Because we respect the other’s outlook on a variety of issues and can learn from the other. Because we’re social beings who care about one another. Because without a variety of types of friends, we grow narrow-minded.

Just a few… good enough for you?

Joe wrote:

Daisy wrote:
The assumption is still at play there, that men and women cannot be “just friends,” or that sex will always be the result if a man and a woman (especially if the woman in question is single) are alone in a room together because (and I find this very insulting), one or both are immoral, lack restraint, have loose sexual ethics.
I think the question you need to consider is, “Why would a woman want to be “just friends” with a man? It’s possible that a man may be fulfilling her need for attention or emotional release or even viewed as having utilitarian value (e.g., I can fix your leaky faucet for free), but there is no quid-pro-quo in such a friendship. The woman is simply using the man.

Stunning, Joe!

Based on this statement, maybe we can make some assumptions about what you think the purposes a female has in life . . .

This reiterates or expands upon a few of the points I was making:

How the Sexual Revolution ruined friendship

By Jonathon Van Maren

One of the casualties of the Sexual Revolution, however, is a significant one: Friendship.

It is an irony of Modernia that the secular elites believe that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that mankind has the ability to the change the climate or end poverty, but is incapable of keeping his or her pants on. We can do anything, if we put our minds to it—except, of course, stop ourselves from devolving into an irrational pool of primal passion the moment we are presented with the opportunity for sexual (mis)adventure. That’s because “abstinence,” the Sages of the Sexual Revolution inform us from a wealth of inexperience, is “unrealistic.”

Thus, every friendship is now suspect—cross-gender friendships especially, mind you, but certainly not exclusively. This is not merely my own observation, either. Many of my friends, from every walk of life and varying worldviews, have made the same complaint. Friends, you say, people say knowingly if you’ve begun spending what they consider to be a significant amount of time with someone, Interesting.

… The suggestion that “intimacy” necessarily translates into “sex”—which it certainly does not—is one that is extraordinarily reductionist in its analysis of the human person. The idea that two human beings cannot share a close, personal, and meaningful relationship with each other without any sexual component whatsoever is one that assumes human beings, in all their glorious and messy complexities, cannot be interested in someone else without demanding something—and something physical—from them.

….And what a dreadful, reductionist assumption it is to see people enjoying one another’s company and assume that the only thing they have to offer each other is sexual favors.

Don’t buy the lies carefully marketed by hyper-sexualized pop culture, pornography, and commentators like Dan Savage and his ilk.

Joe wrote:

I think the question you need to consider is, “Why would a woman want to be “just friends” with a man? It’s possible that a man may be fulfilling her need for attention or emotional release or even viewed as having utilitarian value (e.g., I can fix your leaky faucet for free), but there is no quid-pro-quo in such a friendship. The woman is simply using the man.

Why are you assuming the only reason a woman would want to be friends with a man has anything to do with sex or sexuality? Because I sure don’t. Obviously – still a virgin past age 40, and I’ve had male friends through my life.

@ Daisy: I’m not conviced re. changing social mores altering friendship so drastically – I had male friends in HS and undergrad school. once people start getting married, things change. and there are *always* going to be people who make unfounded assumptions of all sorts, whether about men and women or about friends of the same gender. ’twas ever thus, IMO.

not only that, but until relatively recent decades (post-WWII), young people generally got married fresh out of HS. socializing in the way that became common due to greatly increased college attendance starting in the 50s-early 60s has allowed for more opportunities for male-female friendships, not less.

side note: I am sick of people claiming that everything was loads better circa 1952. it’s simply not true.

Daisy wrote:

I was friends with them because we shared similar interests and enjoyed each other’s company.

Yes, Daisy I believe you. Are you sure these men weren’t “closet” gays or even heterosexuals who are socially maladjusted and unable to have any relationship with a women other than friendship? My experience tells me churches seem to be magnets for men that are socially inept. Perhaps the answer to Linda’s question – But I have to admit this, and please take it with charity: why is it so important to you to be free to be alone with married men? is that you are actually yearning for a friendship with a man that has a normal relationship with a woman.

As briefly as possible!

Modest dressing by women in church. You are playing the keyboard at the side of the church, and everytime you look over the keyboard all you can see is shapely hosed legs, and if your eyes wander far enough up, you may eventually see the skirt (for what it’s worth). This is an unnecessary distraction for a man. All the more so if this is in the middle of the communion service.

The idea that men and women are virtually identical in makeup comes from someone who was a liar from the beginning. I’ve noticed the different way of thinking in secular women who take the line ‘we can wear what we like, it’s our right, and you men will just have to deal with it’. They don’t know how men think, even though in church where most men want to subdue lustful thoughts the men themselves don’t intend thinking that way. Men can have a problem with what they see, and it is no good (rightly) complaining of them downloading porn, only to tempt them in church, however unintended. It’s the last place on earth anyone should be drawing attention to themselves.

This is a classic example of mutual submission. Ask the men if what is worn is a distraction, and submit to the answer! The men, on the other hand, need to understand women don’t want to be controlled in what they wear either, should expect men to develop self-control, so sensible give and take on this. Communicate. Talk to rather than at. Respect the different needs. That sort of thing.

I have an extremely educated opinion that people who have a difficult time redirecting their evil objectifying lusts away from attractively dressed people whether at the grocery store, church or sports events view pornography. On the other hand Ken might have a point. it has been much easier for me not to objectify men in church since they have all started wearing casual clothes to church. I mean ZZ Top had it right about women going crazy for a sharp dressed man ;-/

Especially through the winter months, when it is dark from about 4pm here in Scotland and less conducive to running outdoors, I frequent the local university gym. Where, perforce, I encounter any number of (broadly speaking) attractive women wearing rather less than purdah. I sometimes cross-train in the swimming pool where they are likely to be wearing less still. On such occasions, I take a certain quiet satisfaction in simply looking the other way and getting on with my own day.

This is not to say I always resist the temptation to look more than once (and somebody once defined lust as “the second look”). Lesley made an interesting comment on that the other day; basically she said she was quite glad that I can still find other women attractive too, because “if you didn’t it’d mean there was something wrong with me“. Now, you have to understand that in context – she wasn’t saying I don’t mind; ogle whoever you want, any more than Jesus did. We men are tasked with controlling ourselves, whatever that means for each of us and whatever it takes. But so are women. And it doesn’t need to be that big a deal.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick, It may be a big deal for immature, porn-consuming, strip club visiting, under the influence of beer, boys in men’s bodies.

Ken wrote:

Modest dressing by women in church. You are playing the keyboard at the side of the church, and everytime you look over the keyboard all you can see is shapely hosed legs, and if your eyes wander far enough up, you may eventually see the skirt (for what it’s worth). This is an unnecessary distraction for a man. All the more so if this is in the middle of the communion service.

And if you can realize in your heart things like 99 percent of the women you are allowing yourself to be distracted by are in no way in the same mood as you but just want to ‘fit in’ and look nice, and another percent might be insecure wives attempting to keep their churchy husband’s eyes on them alone, and if you are willing to accept that the 1 percent that IS attempting to distract men because they ARE in your mood is also fighting the same demons as you are you will either take the communion much more seriously or you might just hook up with this person who you have something in common with. But just as I could no more blame the good looking keyboard player wearing sharp clothes for my distraction to evil thoughts during church can you blame feminine accentuating attire on women in the pew or next to you on the worship team.
All you really have to do to know where the problem lies is study the rape cultures of the world until you find incidences of the one woman in the room who dares or accidentally reveals an ankle has incited evil lust enough for rape to be justified. Jesus never talked to women about their dress, at least not publicly or I am certain the Pharisees of his day would have it recorded somewhere.

Ken, we’ve all come down real hard on you about this but I really really hope for your sake and anyone you teach that you will take all that we have said to heart. You have no idea the damage done by church ‘authorities’ with your mindset as it is, please let us know if you ever have changes to your thoughts on this issue, I promise not to be harsh any more if you still need to work through, but I’m not going to be persuaded by your arguments as is, been there done that.

I’m going to voice another assumption of mine. People who tend to think that the opposite is just wants to use them usually just want to use the opposite sex.

@ An Attorney:
I repeat, immature boys in men’s clothing, doing things that excite them and reduce their self-control, then blaming some woman for their weaknesses.

An Attorney wrote:

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick, It may be a big deal for immature, porn-consuming, strip club visiting, under the influence of beer, boys in men’s bodies.

Are you Mark Driscoll?

@ Joe:
Be careful Joe, if certain film makers are reading this they might sue you for plagiarism. Sounds like the script in male fantasy film I viewed once.

@ dee:

Dee….when you go out in public maybe you and every other female should wear a burka! 😛 There is a lot we can learn from Sunni Islam, as Ken exhibits. Just think after wearing a burka, we also need to segregate by gender. Females from 2 to 14 should be kept separate and circumssized. Remeber if a three year old is molested…its the fault of the three year old.

THEN….we can go in the Islamic direction. The Saudi’s broadcast their executions. The Taliban executed females in soccor stadiums…their crime. They are a female. So maybe at the next T4G or “Act Like Men” conference they can stone a woman to death or burn someone at the stake. Their crime? Tempting a man…by being a female.

However, since some guys struggle with homosexuality maybe the males can all wear burkas as well. That’s a thought…

But I better let it rest.

Signed…

The One Day Servetus of Fairfax, Virginia!

In other news, the weekend sport did not go well. Liverpool dropped points (albeit in a cracking Merseyside derby), the England rugby league side lost to the Kiwis (albeit, again, in a superb match)… and don’t get me started on the 1st Ashes test.

@ Joe:I have to tell you: you are SO wrong, in SO many ways, that I can only hope and pray you will have different – and better – relationships with women in the future.

Please don’t slam us all for the problems/mistakes you’ve encountered in your personal life. We are as diverse as men are, and that’s a *lot* of variety.

Some *people* – women *and* men – are manipulative and duplicitous. Human weakness and wrongdoing is a fact of life, and it certainly is NOT confined to one gender alone.

@ Nick Bulbeck: Oh yes, re. Tom Baker! When I 1st heard his voice, I jumped a bit in my chair – he was “my Doctor,” too, though I was watching reruns while in grad school. 😉

But I have to admit that Matt has displaced him on my “Top Doctors” list – there’s a charm and innocence about him that I really love.

As for going to the “dark side,” I think we get more Trenzalore at Christmas, but I’m sure it will have a very different outcome than “Angels Take Manhattan” did. (At least, I’m hoping it will.)

Moffatt is *finally* delivering the goods, after several seasons of convoluted scripts. Last year’s Christmas episode, the final episode of last season, and now the 50th – quite an achievement there. (I wonder if he worked with a script doctor?)

And Osgood: perfect fan stand-in!

Joe wrote:

or any number of other reasons such as the woman is using men to have some emotional need met, likes being fawned over by servile men attempting to curry favor with her

You have either made VERY bad experiences or you have no idea what you are talking about. How many women do you know?

@ JeffT: “Timey-what?!!”

@ JeffT: Me too… “Inhaler – now!”

In other news, just back from Monday’s excursion to the Stirling climbing-wall and I’ve just on-sighted (correct spelling this time) an alleged 6c which is thus downgraded to 6b. And I’m making pretty good progress on the yellow 7b with the insanely long reach to the sloping pinch-grip.

Thankyou for reading; I’ll get my coat now.

I don’t get the Doctor Who stuff…but I’m eager and willing to start quoting from Chevy Chase’s “Fletch”,”Fletch 2″ or “Spaceballs” or “Galexy Quest”

“EB Ted Marshall has been a compulsive gambler” 😛 (You need to see Fletch 2 to see what happens)
“LUDRICOUS SPEED!!! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!” (Spaceballs)
“Comb the desert!”
“Why didn’t someone tell me my a@@ was this big?”
“You went over my helmet?!?”
“Never Give up Never Surrender” (Galexy Quest)

Why is it that a suggestion that women dress in a way not to draw attention to themselves is met with such an extreme response? No-one is talking of burkas, just having a sensible regard for others. Burkas deal with the symptom, not the underlying problem.

Any man who does not want to be distracted by what is worn in church is not necessarily full of lust, but he is aware of the dangers. If men are tempted with lust, it is their problem, but women do have a co-responsibility in this, or if you prefer, they can help. Love their neighbour as themselves.

I do actually have a sense of humour, and talking of mutual submission here was a bit tongue-in-cheek, though it does actually provide a good example of how this might work in practice. But there is no mutual submission, it’s ‘no-one can tell me what to wear’, poor women would otherwise be appeasing men.

I’ve seen almost exactly the same kind of discussion amongst atheist feminists, they have believed the lie that men and women are the same – “the woman was deceived” and carry on being deceived on this.

I’ve already said women don’t have to dress like Miss Marple. This is the equal and opposite extreme.

For comments on what is intended to be a discernment blog, you don’t have make a lot of assumptions! Someone once said that some Christians are very fit, because they keep jumping to wrong conclusions. I’m the only person who knows what my mindset is on this, and I’m pretty sure you are wrong on what you think it is.

Normal men can have all sorts of normal friendships with all sorts of people. Nick’s comment on avoiding the ‘second look’ earthed this issue in reality. Just be a bit careful, and relax. It doesn’t need to be such a big deal.

@ Eagle:
I wondered whether I should simply ignore this post. Yet it is inaccurate, immature and malicious in its content, not the sort of thing that should be seen on a forum of Christians discussing issues, however high feelings may run on any one topic. It’s way over the top.

I sincerely hope, Eagle, you will mull this post over and avoid this sort of posting. You can disagree with me (or anyone else) as much as you like, no problem, but tone down the rhetoric, we are ultimately supposed to be on the same side.

Ken, The next time you see a woman purposely flaunting herself with her clothes, feel sorry for her instead of being angry you are being tempted. She obviously has issues but then, so do you.

Ken wrote:

I’ve already said women don’t have to dress like Miss Marple.

Thanks for that, Ken. 🙁 (/sarcasm)

Do you ever go to the beach?

Any man who does not want to be distracted by what is worn in church is not necessarily full of lust, but he is aware of the dangers.

Dangers at church? Jesus indicated lust and evil thoughts are in the heart not in the pew in front of you.

What is modest seems to be rather an individual, subjective matter. I’ve heard some men object to sleeveless dresses. Some object to women wearing pants. Some object to anything lower than the adam’s apple. Others object to pierced ears. Some insist on long hair and that must be covered in church. I’ve even heard objectives (believe it or not) to the color red!! And even high heels!!!

Is it any wonder women have said, “Enough!!!?”

@ Joe: First you generalize about all women, now you generalize about the entire US.

So sorry that you feel the way you do.

@ Ken:

Hi, Ken. Some thoughts.

“Why is it that a suggestion that women dress in a way not to draw attention to themselves is met with such an extreme response?”
++++++++++++++++++

–it is not necessarily the suggestion, but rather the fact that your particular guidelines (apparently skirts and hosiery are now frowned upon) are symbolic of the fact regardless of what a woman wears she is a problem.

You can say that “If men are tempted with lust, it is their problem, but women do have a co-responsibility in this” — but even when women are conscientious about carrying out this responsibility, it is always wrong. Your example of the woman playing the keyboard wearing a skirt and hosiery — chances are she did her best in choosing something appropriate. Perhaps she was told by someone else that pants are too casual, and that bare legs should be covered. So she simply chose the only option left to her. Yet that is now wrong, too. And she is painted as irresponsible.

In all honesty, I’m coming to the conclusion that the only way to carry out this “co-responsibility” is to wear a burlap sack. But then she’d have to jump around to get from here to there and that would definitely be drawing attention to herself — which also seems to be a big no no. Perhaps if she just didn’t come — that would definitely solve the problem.
===

“No-one is talking of burkas, just having a sensible regard for others.”
++++++++++++++++

the problem is that sensible is entirely a matter of opinion. I, like many women, am frankly weary of feeling like a pawn being pushed and pulled around the gameboard in this direction & that according to a spectrum of sheer opinions for the convenience & comfort of others.
========

“But there is no mutual submission, it’s ‘no-one can tell me what to wear’, poor women would otherwise be appeasing men.”
+++++++++

–‘no-one can tell me what to wear’ in actuality is “everyone is telling me something different as to what I can wear, and no matter what I choose I’m in the wrong.”

The only option is “I’ll do my best. Now pipe down.”

“I’ve seen almost exactly the same kind of discussion amongst atheist feminists, they have believed the lie that men and women are the same – “the woman was deceived” and carry on being deceived on this.”
+++++++++++++++

–you must have no idea how offensive it is to any woman to be viewed as “deceived” by reason of chromosomes.
==

“Nick’s comment on avoiding the ‘second look’ earthed this issue in reality. Just be a bit careful, and relax. It doesn’t need to be such a big deal.”
+++++++++

not sure who you are talking to here (men, women, both). I agree, it does not have to be a big deal. however, when all a woman’s possible wardrobe choices end up casting her as irresponsible & designed to draw attention to herself, the simplicity you describe is not possible. When a woman is invisible, when eye contact is avoided, it is dehumanizing. it is far from simple.

Ken, you seem kind. but I don’t think you understand the reality of what you are saying.

Joe wrote:

It’s very possible that Austria experiences a more homogenous culture

Well, er, no, actually. From 1970 to 2012, population grew bi more than a million, from 7.4 to 8.4 million, that’s 13.5%, about 80 percent of that one-million-person growth happened since 1990 – a result of a huge number of refugees and asylum seekers coming in as a consequence of the Balkans wars – Serbia vs Croatia and Slovenia, Serbia vs Bosnia, Serbia vs Kosovo – the breakup of former Yugoslavia. There is also a large number of people of Turkish descent, and many African refugees. So whereas Austria was very homogenous in the past (and boring as well), it’s now much less homogenous, more international and also more interesting. Not that there aren’t also annoyances – large-scale immigration is never without friction, not even, I’ve been told, in the U.S.A. which has a much longer tradition of welcoming immigrants than my country.

If your experiences have been bad, I’m sorry to hear that. Nobody deserves to be exploited or led up the garden path.

Maybe you should try to get to know more women simply as acquaintances and friends, but not necessarily very close ones. Not all the men you know are your friends, and male friendships can also be very superficial, where the shared interest is a sports team, etc.

But I assure you, I’ve always been friends with women, and in most of the situations either the woman, or I myself, or both were married. Even though they were not based on erotic attraction I’ve been greatly enriched by these friendships. I’ve also learned not to take myself too seriously.

I was good friends with my wife for six years before the relationship turned from friendship and mutual respect to love.

Women are just normal people, like everyone else (i.e., men). That does not mean they’re all nice – the proportion of decidedly not nice people and total a***h***s is probably the same for women as for men, or even slightly lower for women. You will never be able to like all of them, but then again, you don’t like all men.

That is, BTW, the difficult part of “loving thy neighbour” – if they were all very likeable, it would be easy.

I have not read all posts in this thread since I last visited it.

Julie Anne just posted a story on her Spiritual Sounding Board blog about a preacher (who I assume is married) who took sexual advantage of a married Christian woman (I think she saw the guy for counseling or help of some sort).

I don’t see anything wrong about a woman, married or single, who seeks to meet with a married preacher ALONE for counseling or leadership/prayer. That is in part what preachers are for, after all.

Some churches are rinky dink (under 200 members) with nobody else for a person to see (no extensive staff).

You might as well say that male preachers may only serve and minister to other males, which sounds ridiculous to me.

If we use the logic I saw above on this thread, married women should not be alone with a married Christian man (preacher), because one or both will have an affair.

And goodness, it will look unseemly to see a married woman walk out of the office of a married preacher, think of how it appears, or may appear, to others.

If that’s the thinking, then why not go all the way:
The genders should be segregated all the time.

Christian women should wear head- to- toe coverings, so as not to turn on the males.

Women should be kept separate; men on one side of the church, women on the other (or in a room in the back).

Sounds like some branches of Islam or ancient Judaism. I thought Christ did away with all that.

Women being paranoid of other women is not confined to Christian culture, though:

She’s A Homewrecker: the website where women expose ‘infidelity’ . The internet just ate itself

People have cheated on each other since the invention of monogamy.

That’s not going to change just because one of you might get virtually burnt at the stake.

Because that’s what this website (“She’s A Homewrecker”) is, a vicious witch hunt that taps into some women’s worst fear – the other woman, the evil temptress who seduces your husband and lures him away from his family just because she can.

he truth is, she’s a fiction – no more real than an actual witch, pointy hat, broomstick at all. Do you know who is real? The man who cheats on his wife and chooses to leave his family – there are versions of him everywhere. And if you don’t believe me, check out the trail of destruction he’s left behind him on She’s A Homewrecker.

Ken wrote:

Now regarding the keyboard, it was me at the keyboard not wanting to be distracted. I fear at this point though that I am going to disappoint Bridget – I am not a pharisee, nor the son of a pharisee. I don’t have a list of rules as to what everyone should wear. On the contrary, I am a great believer in Christian liberty. What I did say was to exercise common sense and deliberately worded my objection to women ‘dressing to draw attention to themselves’. There is a point where a skirt is too short, something that may be fine for a first date or the office ‘do’ may not be appropriate in church. The nearest I can get to a rule is that dressing well and looking attractive is fine, looking sexy is not. The church is not a dating agency, although you could sometimes be forgiven for wondering!

No disappointment here! In fact, glad to hear you’re not a Pharisee. Most of us reading seemed to be confused about “who” was at the keyboard. Most of us seemed to think it was a woman in a skirt wearing hose and that it was a problem for you to see her like that. You must admit that it is difficult for a woman to dress in a way that pleases everyone. I have to say, though, that I’ve also never had anyone point out that I’ve dressed inappropriately.

Ken wrote:

I remember David Pawson in England when listing (not without humour!) differences between men and women noting that one of them is that men tend to think in terms of principle, and women in practical detail. This discussion is a classic example of this – I’m thinking in general terms about the principle, but you want a long list of rules as to how this works out in practice.

No one asked for a long list of rules. I asked you what your version of appropriate dress would be for women. I don’t have a clue who David Pawson is, but I don’t believe in his pigeonholing of men and women. There are plenty of men who are detailed and want lists and plenty of women who think in general terms about principle. So, I guess this discussion isn’t a classic example at all. You have read way too much into what some people have asked you.

@ Daisy:
What a great article!
Thanks for sharing that link, Daisy.