“What do you fear, lady?" [Aragorn] asked.
"A cage," [Éowyn] said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
– J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King link
Once again, this is not a political column. Please stick to the knitting.
What are the inbred problems in the complementarian movement? Recently, Raw Story posted Right-wing pastor gives up the game: It’s better for a president to grab a vagina than to have one. Dave Daubenmire is the founder of Pass the Salt Ministries. He is a *culture warrior. Here is what he says about himself.
Dave Daubenmire, a veteran 35 year high school football coach, was spurred to action when attacked and eventually sued by the ACLU in the late 1990’s for mixing prayer with his coaching. After a two year battle for his 1st amendment rights and a determination to not back down, the ACLU relented and offered coach an out of court settlement.
As a result of the experience, Coach heard the call to move out of coaching a high school team, to the job of coaching God’s team. PASS THE SALT was formed to encourage the Body of Christ to step into the cultural war. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood…” PASS THE SALT is convinced that God has given the Body a window of opportunity to take our culture back.
PASS THE SALT is committed to bringing together the body of Christ across denominational, racial, and economical borders to demonstrate to America the power of Biblical unity. Our vision is to unite, organize, and mobilize the Army of God to be SALT and Light as stated in MATTHEW 5:12.
Challenging the “church of the Status Quo”, Pass The Salt is calling Christians to engage the culture. By taking the fight to the enemy Coach Daubenmire has become a recognizable voice with the media as he is an unashamed, articulate, apologist for the Christian worldview. Coach’s willingness to stand with Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, Terri Schiavo in Florida, and the 10 commandments in Washington DC, has enabled him to partner with some of the nationally known voices in America
He has divided his culture brigade into a group that he calls the Air Force, the Infantry and the SWAT Team. I kid you not. He is now starting to hold Spiritual Bootcamps. "
Dee," you say, "The modern Calvinistas are far more sophisticated than this. So why are you focusing on him?" Humph-how carefully have you been reading this blog? Simply enter Authentic Manhood into our search engine and you will find posts such as The Many Associations of ‘Authentic Manhood’ That Surround Fellowship Associates. Better yet, Google it and see what comes up. There is even a website called Authentic Manhood.
Now, put together Boot Camp and Authentic Manhood in a search engine and you get results like this at Jacob's Well in New Jersey. No women allowed.
Our annual Men’s Boot Camp will take place on Nov 6, 7 at Tuscarora. We will be continuing in our use of a curriculum called “33—The Series” which allows us to travel in some manhood themes in small teams throughout the program.
The Jezebel spirit
Here is a tip for our new readers. The moment you hear the term *Jezebel spirit* you can be sure you are dealing with someone a bit off their rocker and probably totally off in their theology as you will see here. Here's what Dave Daubenmire has to say about it.
In the second half of the show Coach talks about the Jezebel spirit. This is the spirit dominating our modern culture. The relationship between men and women in America is rebellious and destructive. The Jezebel spirit is a spirit of rebellion and men are rebelling against God and women are rebelling against women.
It appears that the Jezebel spirit, in this particular situation, is a woman who might become President.
Looks like he may have received some teaching from John Piper, Owen Strachan and Al Mohler.
“Women and men may be equal, but I think it’s pretty clear that the Bible teaches us that women should not be in authority over a man,” said Daubenmire,
…“Here’s the point I’m making,” Daubenmire said. “With all that’s going on with Trump and everybody screaming and hollering about that, when is the last time your pastor stood up in the pulpit and said, ‘Hey, listen, we cannot vote for Hillary Clinton because women are not to have authority over men’?”
In fact, a woman running for President is a *judgment of the Lord.*
If we want to follow the Bible, that would sure be a good place to start, wouldn’t it?” Daubenmire said. “Rather than worrying so much about the immorality of a sinful man, what about the biblical principle that when a woman rules over a man … it’s a sign of judgment of the Lord?”
Daubenmire, seemingly channeling that real man, Mark Driscoll, says men have become sissified.
“I’m on a manhunt!” Daubenmire proclaimed several times before explaining, “I believe that we’re in the problem we’re in in America today because there aren’t any men. There aren’t any men. There are a lot of males. There are a lot of guys who are born male. So you’re a male by birth, but you’re a man by choice.”
He said that there are “thousands and thousands of men who love the Lord but are sick of church” because Christianity has become “sissified.”
“They’re sick of the effeminized church,” he said. “They’re sick of going in there and singing sissified songs. They walk into the church, they understand something is terribly wrong in the culture and there is absolutely no relationship between what they hear in the church and what they see going on out there.”
“And the church makes fun of Donald Trump,” he said. “Where’s the Christian Donald Trump? Where’s that man that will stand forth like that and declare the truth that he’s declaring, that will take on political correctness? I’m not talking about Trump. Where are the men of God? Where have we been? And we, we, we’ve created Donald Trump. We have. Our sissified Christianity, men afraid to say anything, hiding behind their wives.
Daubenmire says only heterosexual men can save America from tyranny.
If we can’t open our eyes and see that this is not about race, as much as they try to make it about race, it’s not about race,” he said, “it’s about culture, it’s about the Christian culture that the settlers of America and Europe and England, that those groups took the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. And the only thing standing between tyranny and liberty is a Christian, heterosexual man.”
So, Dave Daubenmire is a nut. What does this have to do with complementarianism?
It was the complementarians leaders that kept Mark Driscoll on the pedestal for so long. Who can ever forget Driscolls' bizarre views on gender roles. The Gospel Coalition and seminary presidents endorsed his books, his ministry and invited him to conferences, practically swooning over his despicable views on women.
Then there was John Piper who announced that he loved Driscoll's theology. How can we ever forget this incredible lack of discernment on the part of the most respected leaders of the Calvinista set?
How does the average Joe Christian tell the difference between Mark Driscoll, John Piper and Dave Daubenmire? Most people can't? I'm not even sure that I can. Take what Piper had to say about modesty. He blames women and their plunging necklines for causing men to stumble.
John Piper: Women must take responsibility for the lust of men.
In 2007 Piper posted Is Modesty an Issue in the Church Today? This followed on the heels of another ministry and pastor that John Piper continues to endorse to this Day-CJ and Carolyn Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries which stressed modesty for women, including how many buttons to button up on a shirt. Where did CJ get his thinking? Could it have been from his BFF John Piper? Here is what Piper wrote.
But it is true that males are more visually spring-loaded to lust or to think unhelpful thoughts when they see a certain picture or person, so that's where I'll focus here.
My concern today is that it seems like a lot of Christian women are oblivious to the fact that they have some measure of responsibility here. I say it carefully though, because I know that some women would turn the issue back on men as if it is their own problem.
Necklines are an issue these days. Everywhere I turn—at the airport and at church—the necklines are plunging! Some fashion designers in the world are communicating to women today that the thing to do is have your neckline split extend too low.
Women should dress in such a way that they draw men's attention towards their eyes, their face, and not towards the other parts of their bodies.
A woman can test herself in this arena by how she dresses her little girl. What kind of bathing suit do you put on your little two-year-old? Is it a cute little bikini? Or do you begin from the very start to teach this little girl that there is an appropriate way to dress?
And women, evidently, are wired to want men to notice their bodies. And that is what must be channeled in an appropriate way.
The Duggars and their long denim skirts: How did that work?
The Duggar women dressed with extreme modesty. Polo shirts and long denim skirts were de rigeur.The girls were not allowed to wear normal swimsuits, let along bikinis. The boys were trained to look at the ground when a normally dressed woman walked by. The kids were supposedly supervised while on the Internet. (Yeah, right!) They were taught never to hold hands with a boy until engagement and no kissing until marriage. Yet, Josh Duggar was molesting his sisters in that den of extreme modesty.
On a recent vacation, I watched families on the beach. The vast majority of the girls and women-large, tall, skinny, whatever, were wearing two piece bathing suits. The only ones who were not were those of us trying to hide a bit of cellulite…I observed the men on the beach. From what I could tell, most of them were swimming, snoozing, etc.
A friend who lives in the Middle East told me that exposed ankles or hair, whatever, can be a sin as well since it can cause lust in men.
Complementarianism is ill-defined, Piper and his BFFs have lots of opinons and that is leading to confusion in the post-evangelical world.
Due to a profound inability to define both complementarianism and authority in the church and in society, combined with a penchant for admiring men like Mark Driscoll, Calvinista leaders are contributing to the development of outlandish men like Daubenmire and programs like Authentic Manhood Boot Camps. Men like piper blame women for the lust of men. The Gospel Coalition's support of men like CJ Mahaney while fussing about Donald Trump behavior demonstrates a deep seated predicament in defining sin within the ranks. Add to that large families like the Duggars and the Willis Clan who prove that sex abuse is alive and well in *modest* families provide a public demonstration that complementarianism has no solution. The writing is on the wall.
My generation has seen the rise of complementarianism and I believe that we will also see the fall of complementarianism as the world reads between the lines and sees very little to commend the movement. The book of the movement, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, will be read (read here for free)and people will be startled to read John Piper's views on the sex life of muscular women and Wayne Grudem's silly chart for what women can and cannot do in the church.
It is highly likely that there will be a woman POTUS, one of the most powerful and authority laden positions on this Earth. (This is not an endorsement so please don't go there.) Conservative (I dare you to prove that it isn't) churches like Bent Tree Bible Fellowship are allowing women to serve as pastors and elders. Women are serving as Navy pilots and doing a darn good job, not only the US but abroad. In complete defiance to John Piper, women make excellent members of the police force.
Times are changing as was portrayed on Downton Abbey. The series began with women not being eligible to hold property. By the end of that period of time, they could. The former restriction was considered a Biblical thing at the time but it wasn't.
As women successfully serve in position of authority in society, I have a prediction. I believe that, in the church in 20 years, except in some small towns, women will always be able to read the Bible out loud in Tim Challies' church service and will even give sermons as fewer and fewer people find it unusual for women to be in that position.
FIRST
One thing you can be certain of: a man who talks excessively about authentic manhood is not an authentic man.
I read the following and choked on my hot tea:
“What are the inbred problems in the complementarian movement? Recently, Raw Story posted Right-wing pastor gives up the game: It’s better for a president to grab a vagina than to have one.”
Just when I think it can’t get any more absurd, along comes a ‘culture warrior’ like Daubenmire. I do not wish to inadvertently slip in to ad hominem statements, but it’s ‘Christians’ like him that are helping so many choose to disassociate with church and question the existence of God.
You know Law Prof when I first got out of the mainstream corporation and started reading online and taking a step back. I use to argue with myself if I was even human. Its sad what caustic theology can do to some folks.
Dave Daubenmire is also a Young Earth Creationist. He was one of the protesters outside the federal courthouse in Pensacola, Florida, in March 2015 urging jury nullification on the jurors in Kent Hovind’s criminal contempt case. (Hovind is a more notorious Young Earth Creationist.) Daubenmire has attempted to get hired by other school districts in Ohio, most recently in 2014, where a school board voted 3-2 *not* to hire him:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/12/Daubenmire-doesnxt-get-coaching-job.html
Apparently he was fired from the coaching job he had at a Christian school prior to his attempt at getting hired on at Lakewood (OH) high school
Based on my experience tussling with him over Kent Hovind, Daubenmire has only a glancing relationship with the truth. And that’s as nice as I am going to get.
If female leadership is a sign of God’s judgment, what right have they to complain about it? Who are they to interfere if God raises up a woman? Why don’t they submit to His judgment, instead of trying to game the system in order to avoid it?
I think I have said this before, my niece is an ordained minister with the A/G and my female cousin is an ordained Methodist minister.
You know if we let people use their gifts and got out of each other’s way in and out of church. I think we would be in the stars. Its not that far fetched.
Law Prof wrote:
Winner!
Daubenmire seems to think the president is a monarch. Here’s a news flash: in the USA, the Constitution is the authority. The president is a public servant whose job is to uphold the Constitution. Funny he should be talking about liberty and tyranny, since he seems to be presupposing that the presidency is an authoritarian office “over” the ordinary citizens, when it was never meant to be one (no matter what Donald Trump or John Yoo thinks).
There’s a reason why I think these guys (who I like to term the Dark Reformation) are analogous to Dark Enlightenment neoreactionaries. Both think absolute monarchy is the natural order of things and have a hard time comprehending how anything else is possible. They’re stuck in a feudal mindset. Which also might form part of the reason for ESS, church discipline, and a whole lot more.
Not to mention penal satisfaction (a theology that according to many authors, came directly out of the feudal, post-pagan social milieu of 11th century Northern Europe).
Dee Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:
Clearly those schools couldn’t handle that much authentic manhood.
Comp, shmomp…
I would never lower myself to be equal to a man.
😀
Came across this Daubenmire quote in ‘Right Wing Watch’:
” “The attack that’s going on in America today is against the white, heterosexual male,” he said. “That’s the battle. If Satan can get control of the family, if they can get the white, heterosexual male removed from the scene, if they can get him ‘de-balled,’ if I will, if they can do that, there is nothing to hold back the forces of darkness in America.”
“It’s not racist, it’s the truth,” he added. ”
This poor man is ticking all the crazy boxes: misogyny, Islamophobia, homophobia, racism …… the ‘white’ heterosexul male thing was so sick and he has no idea how bad off he is ….. but he is not alone by any means. Since the beginning of this election season, a lot of the crazies have come out of the woodwork …. they are SWARMING! So many. And very vocal. And some of them are doing open carry and talking about revolution ‘if’ and ‘when’.
@ Talmidah:
I love it! 🙂
It appears that Mr. Salt has not read “Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Col 4:6). This guy’s salt has lost it savor. The American church sure has some scary characters on the loose.
Talmidah wrote:
I have marked that one as one of the top 10 quotes of the week!
Law Prof wrote:
He doth protest too much
@ Christiane
@ Max
I’ve been dying to say that here for the longest time.
Piper, Daubenmire, Driscoll, et al:
BAM!
@ brian:
IIRC, Daubenmire lost his public school teaching position after supporting John Freshwater’s refusal to quit teaching creationism in an Ohio public school.
@ nmgirl:
Glad to see you back commenting. We’ve been praying for you!
@ Velour:
Thanks, I’ll post an update on the open discussion thread soon.
@ brian:
You betcha!
@ Law Prof:
Then what is inauthentic manhood?
nmgirl wrote:
That would be wonderful. We’ve all be praying for you and were honestly worried for your well-being.
Hugs from California,
Velour
Well at least he (Daubenmire) didn’t try and claim he’s an ex Navy Seal.
Muff Potter wrote:
Yet.
nmgirl wrote:
Probably spun it as PERSECUTION!!!!!!!!!
@ Dee Holmes (fka mirele):
Hovind?
He is that green candied substance in the fruitcake of young earth creationists. Anybody defending Him has run off the rails.
One thing I was wondering about lately in regards to complementarianism, and it is sort of kind of related to the formation of the canon.
If you keep in mind that the New Testament was not all written in one sitting, but was written over decades, and that many of the first believers did not have copies of all the NT books as we do today:
How can today’s complementarians teach that in one or two letters, where Paul mentions in one letter to one church about a wife submitting to her husband, or he forbids a woman to teach in another letter to another church, that such teachings are binding on all Christians?
When Paul wrote the book of 2 Timothy, which has the “I forbid a woman to teach” verse in it, that one church or person he was writing to was the only one who had that particular letter with that particular rule or comment in it.
-Which in turn very well means that other churches Paul was advising at the same time he was writing that were not aware of that rule, so they could have had lady teachers and lady preachers, and it wasn’t a problem.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense in my mind for complementarians to teach some of the remarks by the NT writers were necessarily meant as binding on all people every where forever, given that the early church was not aware of all the stuff Paul was writing.
Quick! Where are all the white Christian men? You are needed immediately:
(Quoting Dave Daubenmire):
Source:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/dave-daubenmire-white-heterosexual-christians-are-the-only-hope-for-america/
Instead of Princess Leia’s, “Help me, Obi Wan, you’re my only hope!,”
it’s Dave Daubenmire’s, “Help us, white, heterosexual men, you’re America’s only hope!”
(Quoting Dave Daubenmire):
Hmm. So, Jesus and the Holy Spirit cannot hold back darkness, but white, heterosexual men’s balls can (??)
I thought Owen Strachan said it’s sanctified testosterone that does the saving and holding back of darkeness?
Talmidah wrote:
Piper’s spiel on women’s necklines only goes to prove that you have a very valid point!
Jane wrote:
That is a very good point.
I think complementarians find women such as Deborah in the Bible very inconvenient because they disprove complementarian teachings, so they have to find a way to minimize or downplay them.
Deborah and the No Available Men Argument
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/deborah-and-the-no-available-men-argument/
JYJames wrote:
Why, the sissified American church!
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
We also have that checks and balances thing going on, so no one branch of the U.S. govt has absolute power over another.
On previous threads where I brought up a book I read about verbal abuse, I learned from the author of that book that some people view relationships in two different ways.
I forget all the exact terms she used to describe it, but it was something like “Power Over” and “Mutual.”
There are people who view all relationships (even marriages, friendships, job etc) as being ones of “Power Over.” These types of people read authority into everything. They assume everyone else is just as obsessed with being in control and in authority over other people as THEY ARE.
Now, this is very confusing to people such as myself who are “Mutualists,” who do NOT view relationships as power plays. I have zippo interest in controlling other people or being a boss figure over them.
The “Power Over” types are very adversarial, even to loved ones. They assume everyone is out to get them, and every disagreement is Total War, and there must be one winner and one loser in every argument or disagreement.
I have a family member or two who is like that and a few former co-workers, and it mystified me for years why these folks treated me as though I was their enemy, because I don’t view relationships like this at all. I don’t view relationships as being war-like with winners and losers.
Daisy wrote:
Especially when both letters were written to folks in Ephesus, which had a serious “girl power” issue. Context matters. Burleson wrote a really good blog entry on this.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html
Our local Presbyterian church has a new pastor. I’m looking forward to officially meeting her. She seems very cool.
JYJames wrote:
Most of these guys who promote “authentic manhood’ would probably define the inauthentic version as being anything most people in their culture would consider feminine, for girls, or woman-ish.
@ Daisy:
“But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.” -1 Timothy 6:11
@ JYJames:
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves,” -Philippians 2:3
JYJames wrote:
It is someone who fails the ‘real manhood’ test.
A story of some REAL men:
“One day Rabbi Judah HaNasi entered the House of Study and smelled garlic. He said: Let the one who has eaten garlic leave the room. Rabbi Chiyya stood up and left. Then the rest of the students followed him. Rabbi Shimon, the son of Judah HaNasi asked Rabbi Chiyya if he had eaten the garlic. Rabbi Chiyya responded: Of course not, but by our leaving, we kept the one responsible from being humiliated.”
contrast these men with the neo-Cals who live for ‘disciplining’ and humiliating ‘sinners’ (those who don’t agree with them or who offend them)
and you get a pretty good idea of what it takes to be a REAL ‘man’ or, better to say, ‘a real human being’
a real man is capable of consideration for others, and compassion, and has no wish to see anyone humiliated so that is going to leave out a LOT of men in patriarchy who fail the real man test big time ….. they are a blot against the honor of all good men
I was raised in Pentecostal churches, which — in their favour — are generally egalitarian. (See Harley’s comment above about female ministers.) Unfortunately, they’re also responsible for this “Spirit of Jezebel” nonsense, which is a stock tool for dismissing or denigrating women of whom one does not approve. And of course, they don’t mean “spirit” in the generic sense of “intangible qualities”. They mean a literal demon that is (somehow!) possessing or controlling millions of women around the globe at any given time. There might be one in your midst at this very moment!
“Spirit of Jezebel” accusations are a smear tactic and a fear tactic based on bad theology and superstition.
David Byrne and Brian Eno recorded an album back in the early eighties; it was kind of a precursor to hip-hop since it heavily involved samples. One of the tracks was called “The Jezebel Spirit” and was based on a recording of a Pentecostal exorcism. Apparently they originally wanted to use a Kathryn Kuhlman recording but her estate wouldn’t let them.
So that’s what I think of whenever I hear the phrase “Jezebel Spirit”.
From the OP:
Even if one leans that way theologically, the US govt is not the church. Such ideology should not be applied where it doesn’t belong.
Au contraire, if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out.
The Wade Burleson article about the Artemis cult was interesting for sure!
The bit about how they encouraged women to use their sexuality to control men reminds me of “Flirty Fishing”. There was a cult in the 70s called the Children of God, which encouraged its female members to seduce “heathen” men sexually in order to win them over to the cult. It was basically religious prostitution. The founder, David Berg, had massive sexuality issues; in some of his writings he comes across as quasi-feminist, but in others he sounds like a misogynist or just plain pervert.
I don’t recall *any* British preachers making this case during Victoria’s long and (at least from a worldly perspective) successful reign…
Eeyore wrote:
I am thankful, every time I read one of these people espousing Comp views/Patriarchy, that we have a separation of church and state.
Velour wrote:
John Knox did strongly object to female heads of state (in his “The First Blast Of The Trumpet Against The Monstruous Regiment Of Women”). So perhaps the whole women-shouldn’t-be-leaders idea is his fault.
There were plenty of female monarchs in the medieval era, and not a small number of Byzantine empresses, and no one that I know of ever argued against them on theological grounds.
Interestingly, Knox’s misogyny had a lasting impact on England’s history. When Queen Elizabeth took the throne, she refused to work with Knox because of his views, even though she was a supporter of Protestantism in general. This might have been part of the reason why Anglicanism ended up so idiosyncratic, rather than toeing the Reformed party line like the Scottish and Dutch churches did. Anglicanism as we know it might not exist, and England might have just become Presbyterian, if Queen Elizabeth had been a man.
Eeyore wrote:
And let’s not forgot we’re now on our second prime female prime minister !
There are comps who say male headship only applies in the home and church and have no problem with women leaders in politics and business. I think this is CBMW’s official position. However, many comps (such as Piper) say women must submit to men at all times.
Dee / Deb – how about a post analysing the beliefs of a list of well-known comps? It would be interesting to know who supports male headship everywhere, and who just applies it to the church and home.
Also, in recent times we’ve had a number of female leaders on the world stage. Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Teresa May, and many others. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_or_appointed_female_heads_of_government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads_of_state
And there is an important theological point to be drawn from this. Many comps say women are unsuited to leadership because women supposedly don’t have the right skills. Yet, on the whole, female leaders have been no better or worse than male ones. The claim is simply not supported by the facts.
Oh, dear, every time I read or hear instructions to women to “dress so that attention is drawn to your face, not your body” as Piper was quoted and as Bill Gothard often admonished, I am in a quandary. Do I wear heavy eye make-up and false eyelashes so my eyes are noticed? No, no, that’s clearly a Jezabel come-hither ploy. Maybe bold lipstick? Hmm, no that’s flirty at best, Delilah-like seductive at worst. That leaves me with only one option: the Cone of Shame. Not just for your post-surgery pooch anymore, the fashionable Women’s Cone of Shame will be debuting for modest complimentarian women this season. Do winsomely petition your scriptural head to order yours early and avoid back orders. It’s the only way for you to prove your submissive complementarity and for your husband to display his gospel headship over you.
Ian wrote:
Moreover, nobody even bothered to comment on the gender of the candidates (although there was some controversy over Andrea Leadsom’s claim that – long story short – being a mother would help her do the job).
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
Not any more.
Daisy wrote:
Not any more.
Seriously.
From the post, quoting a well-known generic player of wind instruments:
The word “evidently” is a paradoxical one. Specifically, it can be used to refer to a crude, if self-gratifying, conclusion one has jumped to when one has not, in fact, properly weighed the evidence.
But it angers me when “men” purporting to support “manhood” hide behind claims that we men (without quotes) can’t help ourselves or control our lusts and it is therefore women’s responsibility to protect us from our own animal natures. I’d rather require Mr Piper to speak for himself. So, he wants women not to draw his attention to their bodies, but to their faces. In other words, he can’t control his own attention: it’s up to women to control it for him. And if he’s handing them responsibility for the control of his attention, he’s also acknowledging their authority over his attention.
It so happens that I remember the first occasion I looked at Lesley and Noticed (capital N) her. It was her face I Noticed. The rest is history! Pity help poor Mr Piper if a pretty woman draws his attention to her face. Because he’s a man and, in his world, men can’t help themselves.
But if a man who can’t rule his household is disqualified for leadership in the church, how much more should a man who can’t even control himself be disqualified! And if “men” generically can’t control themselves, then we hardly want them in charge.
Actually, of course, we can control ourselves, and it is not women’s responsibility to do so for us.
From the post:
I did have a quick look at Mr Daubenmire’s site. This is not the place for a review of the site in general, though I think it appropriate to wonder aloud: Who exactly appointed/anointed him “Coach”? But I stray. I would like, if I may, to make an observation on the “Jezebel Spirit”.
I have not been able to trace the modern-day Ground Zero of the Jezebel Spirit fad. It certainly has become a fad – it grew arms and legs in all directions to the point where everything in heaven, on earth and under the earth was being called a Jezebel Spirit – and it has gained a new lease of life with the advance of misogyny in the American church. (And it is misogyny – a simple fear and hatred of women.) Because the biblical character Jezebel was a woman, the “Jezebel Spirit” is a convenient peg on which to hang the dogma that the problem is women.
The “Jezebel Spirit”, however, before it became a viral fad, was nothing to do with women. It had to do with the misappropriation of authority by anybody – men or women – within the church. As far as I can discover, this teaching actually began life as a caution about a particular modus operandi that demonic powers – and Jesus, who was not a crackpot, made many explicit references to them – are likely to use to disrupt and destabilise church congregations.
So, as regards how you should react when you hear someone refer to “the Jezebel spirit” – well, it depends who they are and what they’re actually saying. In the case of Mr (or “Coach”) Daubenmire, I have to say he doesn’t seem to be using the term constructively or with much understanding. Having looked at his site, I would urge caution in using him as a source of instruction on the “Hagalian * Dialectic” as well.
* I assume he meant “Hegelian”.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
Because they see Themselves as the One to sit on the Iron Throne.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
That’s what the burka and honor killings are for.
I know someone who is in law enforcement, and also is a Christian man, who said men cause most of the trouble.
Jane wrote:
Good point.
As I’ve said many times, logic is not their strong point.
joy wrote:
I totally agree. The same is true of church history – male leaders do not have a good track record.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Daubenmire also dubbed Madeline Murray (O’Hair) as the “spirit of the anti-Christ”and queried how “one devil-filled woman” could change the direction of a nation.
He posts on News with Views:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave420.htm
JYJames wrote:
According to these guys, probably something like listening to your wife.
Of course, inauthentic/authentic are poor word choices. If your authentic self is a mean, unpleasant person, you should change that. If your authentic self, on the other hand, likes music or cooking or ‘girly’ things, then you will never be authentically anything by changing that, let alone manly.
Being secure in who you are, as a woman or a man, is important. Don’t let church convince you to be ‘authentically’ inauthentic just because of your sex.
Ian wrote:
They don’t have a good track record of involving women in leadership, for a start, so it’s small wonder that most of the bother has been caused by men!
(I know what you mean, though.)
@ Daisy:
When he added ‘white’ to the list? That was a tell.
The bible never tells us to be anything simply because of our race.
Nancy2 wrote:
Pipers advice makes me want to run out and buy a low vneck. Just because.
Just commenting because I adore that LOTR quote. <3
“I’m on a manhunt!” Daubenmire proclaimed several times before explaining, “I believe that we’re in the problem we’re in in America today because there aren’t any men. There aren’t any men. There are a lot of males. There are a lot of guys who are born male. So you’re a male by birth, but you’re a man by choice.”
I see this line of logic from time to time on regular people’s blogs, so they’re listening and taking what guys like this say to heart. it’s really problematic in the “men have to earn their manhood” sort of way – it’s no longer: “hey, you survived 18 years, you’re a man” it’s this intangible thing that you have to earn and be approved of by other real men around you – “you’ve done it what it takes! You’re a man just like us!” When I watched the movie Noah, I noticed a prominent earning manhood theme caused a lot of trouble in more ways than one. It doesn’t help that manhood is a nebulous concept, subject to change at a whim – earning it one day is one thing, earning it the next a whole other thing altogether.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
If I believed that was still true in practice, I’d be a lot less depressed about this election.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
There are multiple websites devoted to getting men who can’t control themselves back into church leadership.
bc
I do not know how clear I must be. I do not endorse any candidate and will not allow discussion any candidate except for allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harrassment. Any comment that dose not stick to those parameters will not be approved. I know that each of the readers on this blog is an intelligent and thoughtful person who is capable of making their own decision.
@ Loren R Haas:
@ Dee Holmes (fka mirele):
When Ken Ham says that Hovind is off the wall, then we know we have an incredible problem since I have always thought Ham was the furthest out there.
I remember Hovind – my church taught the entire youth group his Creation Science Evangelism curriculum. I saw both the old and new versions and remember some of the quirks from it. I guess what saved me was that I took every single science class my school offered and realized that I didn’t have to believe everything I learned and it was important to learn everything I can.
Lea wrote:
ROFL!
Can’t I be egalitarian and believe women’s skirts are too short?
Jamie Carter wrote:
I haven’t seen Noah, though I do often think of A Few Good Men as being a rites-of-passage movie: that is, Tom Cruise’s character has to stop being lazy and risk his future in order to do the right thing. (Obviously this will make less sense to anyone who hasn’t seen it.) But it is thought-provoking that Cruise plays a lawyer in a military setting: and what he’s risking isn’t his life, but his career and his reputation. It’s also poignant that one of the men he defends also recognises that he has done wrong in not standing up for the weak within the military. He loses his status as a Marine but, by implication in the narrative, gains his honour.
The great harm done by this fatuous “Christian manhood” delusion is the implicit assertion that only men need or want respect, that only a stunted range of activities count towards earning it, and that women by contrast are infants who just want to be cherished and nurtured in unconditional love. ISTM that, whilst babies crave (and undoubtedly need) unconditional love, adults – and by inclusion, teenagers like my children – need respect: that to be truly rewarding, this respect must be earned and not given for nothing: but also that respect is earned whenever we persevere in the face of difficulties to achieve something worthwhile that expresses who we are.
To me, perhaps the single greatest facet of the Gospel is not that God offers us his unconditional, un-earnable love. It’s that he offers us the opportunity of “well done, good and faithful servant” – that is, he offers us the chance to earn his respect. As Jesus put it: My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to finish his work.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Indeed. Not only respect, men and women should strive to be of good character and what that looks like doesn’t differ much by sex! When you take the focus off that you miss really, really important things.
@ MidwesternEasterner:
Your analysis is right on the money — same as the other oft-used phrase ‘spot on’.
Thing is though, Catholicism has by and large (but not in all cases) learned from its mistakes of the past, and has come to constructive grips with the Enlightenment. Not so with evangelical protestantism and for the most part (but not in all cases), it remains mired in the 16th century.
There were a few other points I wanted to make earlier but had to get offline the other night. I was sleepy and haven’t been feeling well lately. Anyway.
Other than some of the reasons Dee cited in her post as to why she thinks complementarianism will go the way of the DoDo bird in the next 20 years (reasons I believe are true), I have another idea why it will vanish, or why it is already extremely irrelevant.
I’ll quote part of a blog post I wrote months ago (on my Miss Daisy Flower blog), because I honestly think this is another huge reason why complementarianism will cease to exist eventually:
In American society (and several other nations, such as Japan), people are not marrying, not procreating. More and more people are staying single.
This is from 2014:
Single Adults Now Outnumber Married Couples
http://www.medicaldaily.com/single-adults-now-outnumber-married-couples-there-cultural-lag-behind-numbers-game-302328
Most of gender complementarianism seems to assume marriage and parenthood. It’s one of the major underpinnings of their teaching or mindset.
Complementarians do not have a robust or meaningful theology or support system for childless, childfree, or singles (spanning all forms: never-married, divorced, widowed).
The most I ever see complementarians address singleness is to assume that all singles will marry one day (so their articles are tailored from that perspective), and to issue condescending and/or 1950s, June Cleaver advice to single women such as-
“Hello single Christian women reading this blog post.
So long as you are single, provide hospitalilty in your home! Become a great hostess!
On our blog, you will find recipes for great dinners to serve guests. Learn how to sew co-ordinating table clothes to match your curtains.
Consider providing free baby-sitting to married Christian couples at a local church.
If you’re an older single, consider mentoring younger single women in how to be a biblical woman.”
BTW, as far as this mentality goes (and yes I’ve seen this sort of thing in their blogs and articles),
“If you’re an older single, consider mentoring younger single women in how to be a biblical woman”
Who are you calling “Older,” bub? Watch it with the ageism.
Secondly, that is so vague as to be useless, and I can only assume they mean something like:
“Indoctrinate younger single ladies to buy into the clap trap we sell them, that they are to be “submissive wives in training” and so teach them to be doormats – and to be joyful about being doormats.”
People are not marrying, or not having kids or not getting married until much older in life, all of which will, IMO, be one of the several reasons complementarianism goes ‘bye-bye,’ in at least the United States.
This is I think one reason the complementarians who notice singles, such as Al Mohler, have been harping on “early marriage” the last few years.
They keep shaming, brow-beating, and scaring Christians as young as teen-agers to marry just any old guy before they turn 25 or 26.
I fear a cage wrote:
JRR Tolkien was ahead of his time. 🙂
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Ahh…and who can forget Jack Nicholson’s famous…”You can’t handle the truth”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
Great movie!
He said that there are “thousands and thousands of men who love the Lord but are sick of church” because Christianity has become “sissified.”
“They’re sick of the effeminized church,” he said. “They’re sick of going in there and singing sissified songs. They walk into the church, they understand something is terribly wrong in the culture and there is absolutely no relationship between what they hear in the church and what they see going on out there.”
So uh, I think this is true, but I also offering cartoonist caricatures of machismo as a solution is just the other side of the same coin.
I fear a cage wrote:
you might like this quote:
““But of all the women, Éowyn is the strongest, quite frankly, because of her weakness: she’s only human. She has no special powers, no immortality, only her innate grit and drive to be something more than just a shield-maiden. And nothing whatsoever will stay her on her course. In the end, she, and her faithful companion Merry, take down the Witch King HIMSELF! She kills the one servant of Sauron that no man can kill; she kills Fear itself in what is arguably the most dramatic moment in the books. I think it is significant that the embodiment of Fear in The Lord of the Rings is slain by a woman. In fact, only a woman is capable of doing so.”
(Steve Bivans)
Author: Be a Hobbit, Save the Earth
Victorious wrote:
Indeed – even people who’ve never heard of Tom Cruise know that quote.
Christiane wrote:
As was Thomas Tallis.
IHTIH…
Stan wrote:
Which part?
BTW, how do you define ‘sissified’? Because…that’s kind of an issue. If it means loving people? That’s what Christianity is. I saw some guy complaining that Christianity didn’t offer any outlets for men who didn’t like to sing songs, or read books. I don’t really know what to do with that!
@ Stan:
I wholeheartedly agree, on both counts:
Count 1 of 2: sick of Church
I love God but am sick of church. For a variety of reasons that I don’t have time to go into the noo (it’s nearly tea-time in Scotland and I need to give my daughter some instructions), but that have to do with the patronising, condescending nature of UK church culture that is full of frustrated wet-nurses who want to fantasise that everybody’s a baby sobbing for their breastmilk.
Count 2 of 2: disgusted at neanderthal machismo
Actually, there’s no evidence that neanderthals were stupid. But I stray: you’re quite right. It is exactly what it purports to despise.
Count 3 of 2: disgusted at neanderthal machismo
Actually, on this occasion there were just 2 counts.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
I think you might be making reference to ‘the wergeld’ 🙂
Daisy wrote:
I think both you and dee are right. But I’ll be a tad more generous. It (complementarianism) will not see the 22nd century.
Robert wrote:
I’m a flaming liberal and I think there are some people at my job who could dress better. Seven months pregnant and Daisy Dukes? I don’t think so. Man bun? No, you are not a samurai. But I keep my lips zipped because, not my employee.
What I am about to discuss next is not meant to endorse or bash any one running for office (even though some of my headlines might mention one or the other candidate by name).
I’m only interested in the politics of this in so far as it intersects with sexism, and how Christians address sexism, and so on.
So I hope anyone reading my posts or links I provide doesn’t misconstrue what I’m posting as having a political ax to grind, because I do not.
I have noticed that gender related issues have been at the forefront of the current American election.
It’s been interesting and disappointing to see how some Christians have been reacting to the reported sexism, including Christians who identify as complementarians.
Complementarians claim to respect women (“women are equal in worth just not in role”), but so many of them have so easily brushed off really horrible, sexist attitudes or comments by public figures reported in the news lately, as though they’re nothing.
What I find funny or sad about complementarians such as Dave Daubenmire’s views about women holding office in the secular world, is all his huffing and puffing is not going to really change things.
The most someone like him can do is guilt-trip a Christian woman out there from running for office, if she hears him and buys into his views.
Not all complementarians are opposed to women running for political office, or working as police officers, and so on.
(Some complementarians even supported Sarah Palin back when she was running for office.)
I don’t know if Dave Daubenmire notices or cares, but there’s been a lot in the media over the last few years how single, adult women are pivotal in determining U.S. presidential elections.
Daubenmire can rant and ramble all he wants about how he doesn’t think women should run for office, but the fact remains women do have the right to vote for whomever is running.
I have read political analysis saying one reason one of the guys running may not win is that single women don’t want to vote for him. (I am saying this as a matter of observation, I do not mean this as an insult.)
I saw an interesting article or two about this. I’ll look for that article.
But it discusses how this election will hinge heavily on adult, single women.
I can’t at the moment find that link, but here is a headline from Washington Post that is pertinent:
“Donald Trump’s facing an apocalyptic election scenario thanks to women voters “
That sort of headline has caused some men to go on to Twitter with the hash “repeal the 19th” – as in, saying, women should not be allowed to vote.
(Maybe a guy like Daubenmire would support such a thing, which I would find troubling.)
Headline (from TIME magazine, October 2016):
“People actually want to repeal women’s right to vote”
I think I found the editorial I had in mind.
(please understand I am not sharing this to bash this candidate, I am only posting it to show how articles explain that how elections go are determined by women voters now):
“His support amongst white women is cratering”
http://time.com/4533794/donald-trump-women-support/
Snippets:
I just find it really short-sighted and ridiculous that guys such as Daubenmire continue to live in this Fantasy World that is frozen in time in 1778, or 1952, where either American women could not vote, could not run for office, or were socialized not to want to do any of those things.
All the reporting I’ve been seeing lately indicates that women are major indicators of who will win a political office (at least POTUS – President of the United States).
Many complementarians seem stubbornly determined to live in the world as they wish it should be, or how they assume it once was (seeing the past through rose- tinted, nostalgia glasses), rather than to live in the world as it is.
@ Deana Holmes (fka mirele):
Man bun? Elevated dork knob.
My follow up to my post to the one I did above:
The most powerful voter this year, who in her rapidly increasing numbers has become an entirely new category of citizen, is “The Single
American Woman” by Rebecca Traister
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/02/political-power-single-women-c-v-r.html#
The complementarian Daubenmires of the world can get as frustrated as they want to about women in public office, but there you have it.
Women (especially single ones) are allowed to participate and have been a major demographic group that determines who wins what in the last few decades, whether Daubenmire likes it or not.
Insulting these people (women) by telling them that them participating or holding office is a supposed “judgement of God” is terribly sexist, condescending, and I think, a horrible mis-reading or mis-application of an Old Testament text.
Try to follow me here I may be way off but here goes. First there is this
http://www.pillaroftruthministry.com/conference/
Which is a conference from these three contributors to this long running blog
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
Then there is this tweet from one of those blog contributors Mr. Johnson
https://twitter.com/Phil_Johnson_/status/788396043972988928
To this story which is very compelling. This is a theme that Mr. Johnson and the other contributors have discussed before. Evangelical Celebrities and pragmatism. What I find ironic is that Mr. Johnson speaks at many conferences, as does his Pastor, Mr. MacArthur who, from what I understand supports “biblical counseling”, shunning children who may come out as gay if they are professed Christians and their stance on the age of the earth and evolution.I consider all three stances taken from a literalistic pragmatic interpretation of Scripture, science, mental health etc.
This story is very compelling please pay attention to the heart of the person telling the story but to the “solution” he sees. Hint it does not seem to include proper mental health professionals / medical. I could be wrong about that.
https://theauthorofmyfaith.org/2016/10/16/roberta-langella-the-story-behind-the-story-2/
I just find this ironic and very sad.
Nancy2 wrote:
Heheh…
Nancy2, I’m at the point where I just wish everyone who thinks like these guys would concentrate on much more important issues. Or go have a conference in Antarctica for several decades…or just go away.
Deana Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:
Even when I taught in public schools there were dress codes, not only for the students, but for teachers and staff as well. The only real differences between female students and female staff is 1.). Teachers/staff could wear sleeveless blouses while students could not. 2.) students could not wear blue jeans with holes, while teachers/staff could not wear blue jeans at all except on special days, such as “field day” and the rare casual Friday.
Talmidah wrote:
I’m waiting for Piper to preach a sermon on how women should not wear dresses because men just can’t stop themselves from taking photos with their iPhones up the skirts, re Rick Trotter.
Lea wrote:
Like TT and Dustin Boles? Snort.
@ Paul D.:
If a man is assertive and speaks his mind, he’s being assertive and decisive, which is admirable!
If a woman speaks her mind, she’s being a Jezebel, and that’s horrible!
– complementarian logic, by some complementarians
The “Jezebel Spirit” Teaching: Priming Churches for Spiritual Abuse
http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-jezebel-spirit-teaching-priming.html
Robert wrote:
Yes, you can. And I can think that people should restrain themselves out of love and respect for others. Dignity and self-restraint of all kinds has gone out the window, IMO. And that is just my *opinion.*
Daisy wrote:
Earlier this year, when some of us had taken over the Together For the Gospel hashtag on Twitter, I tweeted some stuff from Traister’s book and copied her on it. She retweeted it. I was terribly amused.
The Gospel Coalition is April 3-5 in Indianapolis. Not that I particularly want to go to Indiana, but it would be terribly amusing to be an uppity woman on the sidewalk, a person whose mere presence upsets the raging testosterone of TGC.
(And yeah, I remember that bit about leggings. I will have to keep that in mind.)
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
I think there was so much secular bias against women already in place that it was not that necessary for Christians in years past to write their screeds against women going outside the home, to justify it by coming up with the wonky, cherry-picked Bible verses, as they do.
The more secular culture grants women more opportunities, the more the complementarians seem to find it necessary to write books, blogs, and tracts filled with sexist interpretations of the Bible to try to undercut gains they have made.
American complementarians also chalk up women’s expansion in American culture in decades past to some sinister, underhanded plot by secular feminists to over-throw America or the Nuclear Family, which is not really a completely fair or accurate way of viewing the situation.
“Sissified Church” is code for a church with any females with any type of authority over men.
Ian wrote:
There have been a blog post or two on that very topic published in the last few years.
Here is one of them (I think RHE wrote another post similar to this one):
Will the real complementarian please stand up?
http://thatmom.com/2012/07/13/will-the-real-complementarian-please-stand-up-2/
Nancy2 wrote:
When I worked on the help desk, we only had a couple of rules, because we were the furthest thing from customer-facing that you could get. We only talked to the customers by phone and we were behind multiple locked and badged doors. The rules were: no tank tops, no athletic wear (i.e., running shorts, jogging pants, sweat pants) and no display of underwear. It helped that the room (which was enormous and seated over 100 technical specialists) was kept cold because of all the computing power. However, there was one guy, a tech lead, who in all the years I worked there, I never saw him except that he was wearing cargo shorts. Every day, a different pair of cargo shorts. He could get away with this in Arizona, but still…
The churches did change, but I don’t know if sissified is the best word. And I do not think it was just the calvinistas.
When we were in RCIA and Father T was doing a series of talks on catholic history he got into some to the changes due to Vatican II and some changes which perhaps were not required by V II but which were initiated by progressives who felt that they were not inconsistent with V II. I will give one illustration only, one of the examples which he gave, the attempt to de-emphasize any ‘military’ approach by designing some of the architecture of new churches so that pews were not row upon row front to back with the altar up front and with the priest turning his back on the congregation during the consecration which looked like military order but rather in circles with the altar surrounded by pews; and in fact the newer of the two catholic churches here is in-the-round like that. Father T said it was turning away from ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’ and the Church Militant into a different direction. Some people liked that and some apparently did not.
Meanwhile down the road at SBC mega they also turned away from Onward Christian Soldiers and started singing love songs to Jesus-literally. I was there when I personally saw the music people try to transition the congregation including the men into crooning what sounded for all the world like something a woman would say to a man but not a man to a man (unless wink wink), and in fact the men just stood there and passed up the opportunity to sing as did most of the women at the time. I stood there thinking that these people surely have no idea what this looks like to this congregation. Fifteen or so years later they are still trying to do this and the congregation is still barely singing if at all.
So, yes, there has been an intentional and orchestrated move from one direction to another, and some people probably take exception to this sort of thing. But since I am not a devotee of either tradition, what they do is not for me to say. I do, however, understand how some people might call this sort of thing the de-masculinization of church, or worse, like throwing in the towel during difficult times.
Paul D. wrote:
We hear a lot about “Spirit of Jezebel” …….. “That woman is behaving like a Jezebel” ……. and on it goes. Yet we never hear anyone mention a “Spirit of Deborah”, a “Spirit of Jael”, Esther, Mary, Lydia, Phoebe, Martha ………. Not even Rahab or Ruth. Jezebel is the only one that matters.
The Daubenmires of our country are apparently very fearful of the strength of women.
So the women they CAN ‘control’ are kept ‘silent’, and off the battle field, and out of the workplace, and out of all areas of government power where they will have male subordinates, and may be kept in their father’s homes sometimes until their thirties without the freedom to engage in normal courtship with normal suitors, and consigned to little education so as to increase their dependence on their male superiors.
But these Daubenmires don’t control ALL women. And they fear and despise the women who prove themselves in academia, and in the professions, and on the battlefields, and in industry and business and government. REASON: like all who must ‘put down’ others to build themselves up, these Daubenmires lack self-esteem on their own ….. they must only stand as men on the shoulders of the women they have demeaned and subjugated. They have no manhood of their own. It is derived from their own illusion of superiority AFTER they have in their own minds ‘put’ women ‘in their place’. A poor ‘manhood’ indeed.
I used to think as Piper does regarding toddlers in two piece bathing suits, until I had to potty train my own little girl. He has never tried getting a wet swimsuit off a wiggly little creature who has to go RIGHT NOW and then try to pull the thing back up again. So I bought the tankini and life is that much easier.
Also, love the complementarian cone of shame.
Ian wrote:
Yep. But as I was just saying in some post I wrote above, a lot of complementarians want to live in the world as they think it should be. They don’t want to live in the world as it is.
I think another stumbling block is that some complementarians are also so deeply entrenched in reading the Bible in only one way.
I used to be a complementarian and to a degree understand how they think the way they do and why.
Complementarians read the Bible through an interpretive method that assumes male-hierarchy.
Complementarians feel confused or conflicted about reading the “I forbid a woman not to teach” and “wives submit to your husbands” type or passages any other way. They’re at a loss.
A lot of them might make the mistake of assuming that looking at those passages in any other way is a compromise, or is “liberal,” and they don’t want to do any of that.
So, they refuse to reconsider their interpretation and look at the text in another way, and hence, they remain stuck in promoting a Christianized version of sexism.
Daisy wrote:
Oh, I meant “to teach.” I typed it wrong.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Yes! I have thought this about the whole “biblical manhood” dreck for a long time. Dr. Real put it into words very nicely:
“The myth I speak of is the idea that boys, unlike girls, must achieve masculinity… If they fail, if their ‘masculine identity’ is weak or unstable, dread consequences may result… for boys and men, masculine identity is perceived as precious and perilous, though not a shred of evidence has emerged to indicate the existence of this supposed precarious internal structure…”
— Terrence Real, “I Don’t Want To Talk About It”
Jamie Carter wrote:
Not only is it ill-defined and inconsistent, but also typically “unrealistically narrow and perfectionist”, as Real noted. Hardly anyone can really measure up, and if a man deviates from those standards (whatever they are this week) in any way… oh, the shame that’s heaped upon him.
Reading even the few quotations Dee supplied from Daubenmire, I remember (with faint nausea) Driscoll’s rant under the online name of “William Wallace II”. The way he described the “anatomically correct male” and the disgusting, sexist terms he used to shame most men revolted me. And now, it seems the Coach has taken up his mantle.
Tree wrote:
Complementarian Christainity sets girls and women up into no-win situations all the time. Their dating advice, modesty advice, and whatever other advice is rampant with this stuff.
I’ve been seeing stuff like this by Christians since I was a kid:
-If you’re single and want to marry, be sexy because men are visual. But don’t be too sexy because God doesn’t approve of harlots, and it will cause a brother in Christ to stumble.
-Remember that Jesus loves you for who you are on the inside, so character counts!
And men SHOULD want to date you based on your character, but let’s get real – most men are “wired” by God to be visual, so lose some weight, you fatty, and start wearing mascara if you want a boyfriend.
– Be independent. No man wants a clingy GF or wife. However, be just dependent enough, because men won’t want to date you if they think you don’t “need” them.
They are always setting up no-win scenarios for girls and women.
Complementarians disagree with each other on stuff, or within the same article.
They’ll do things like argue that complementarianism does not teach women to be ‘stay at home wife doormats,’ but the rest of their post will instruct women how to be ‘really great biblical stay at wife doormats.’
There is so much cognitive dissonance in complementarianism.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
My ex-pastor puts on basketball camps and advertises himself as “Coach Cliff McManis”. He also told us stories about defending The Gospel before hostile liberals at a state university in Southern California when he was taking classes to earn his teaching credential. The State of California Teacher Credentialing supervisors said, when I couldn’t find his name on the state’s website as having been credentialed to teach, that the state has NEVER credentialed anyone with his name to teach and he is not permitted to teach in our state.
His “Ph.D.” and other advanced degree in theology are also fakes, from a diploma mill called Faith Bible College in Independence, Missouri. The U.S. Department of Education said it’s not accredited and it’s a diploma mill.
So I think the whole “Coach” thing is used to get chummy with people.
^Many people who left my ex-church Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley thought that “senior pastor” Cliff McManis had faked his background because of how uneducated he was and how dumb his sermons were. They learned, like I did, that his degrees were fakes, his claims to higher education – faked, the job he claimed he had at John MacArthur’s church – faked.
MacArthur said he was only a volunteer.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Maybe he has a closet affinity with trendy designer handbags (and Michael Kors sounds too much like alcohol).
More likely, however, is that he christened himself. No longer allowed on the sidelines of a football field, now he is running drills for God’s squad. Or something like that.
FWIW, I too perused a small portion of his website. If he hadn’t lost me before, he did with the words:
JeffB wrote:
Well, technically, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Velour wrote:
so there it is:
a man who must put women down so that he can hold himself ‘higher’ to build himself up in his OWN mind, because without those women to stand on, he is a small, pitiful excuse for a human person who has lied and misrepresented himself and has no credentials that can stand when examined in the light.
How many hard-core complementarian men are basically phonies? And does this life-style draw such men to it because it offers a cheap way to build themselves up as ‘superior’ and worthy or the ‘subordination’ of other human persons to themselves???
Christiane wrote:
should be ‘worthy OF’
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
(Quoting Piper, I think):
All of your points were excellent.
I’ve noticed that Western men, both Christian or not, can control themselves just fine when they go to public pools and beaches and see women in bathing suits, but Christians who are into this complementarian stuff seem to assume the moment a woman or man walks through a church door, all bets are off.
If a Christian man can refrain from attacking or lusting over women he doesn’t know at pools (and I think more often than not, they probably do), what makes them incapable of doing this when they go to church, or are around Christian women?
As for the whole Piper-arian thing that women are “programmed to show off their bodies,” what is he talking about?
No, we’re not. If anything, from a young age, (American girls at least) are socialized via music videos, magazines, etc, to think their only value resides in what they look like and in being sexy. That is why so many women ‘show off’ their bodies.
And, I’m sorry to be a broken record, but this sort of garbage is indeed taught by American complementarians as well!
Growing up, I was exposed to complementarian teachings aimed at single girls and women that gave us conflicting messages. (I still see, to this day, similar writing on their sites.)
Complementarians would tell us girls and women that our value is in our hearts or character but then write how men are wired to be visual, so we cannot count on our character to get boyfriends or husbands. (There would sometimes follow dieting and make-up tips.)
I linked to a post by Mary Kassian on here a few months back, where she argued in some post that female looks matter to men, so women should pretty themselves up.
So, you have some complementarians who are conveying to girls and women that they should “show themselves off.”
It’s socialization and indoctrination by secular society and/or by complementarians that does this – it’s not that women are “programmed by God” to be this way.
Daisy wrote:
this works IF all of the branches of government do their duty, but as of now, it looks like approval of SCOTUS candidates will not be happening at all for at least the next four years, should the Congress refuse to even consider candidates ….. the ‘no’ thing can bring our government to its knees
For the 439,205th time.
Don’t comment about moderation.
It will happen and we will deal with it. Commenting about it just slows things down.
GBTC
PS: Tread carefully on politics. Too many comments are trying to walk too close to the edge of the cliff.
Gram3 wrote:
I think at some point basic manners were lost in favor of uninhibited self-expression.
Gram3 wrote:
It’s honestly confusing, because some men seem to also apply this to decorations…which if we are going to be stereotypical, can’t women at least do the decorations?
With some of these folks I wonder, did they come to church expecting a football game?
Daisy wrote:
The Gospel of Salvation via the Great White Testicle. Marvellous.
okrapod wrote:
That is a weird trend, but I don’t know that it’s really feminine.
Actually, southpark was making jokes about this ‘singing to jesus as he is your boyfriend’ thing years ago. I would link, but it’s pretty tacky.
I’ve always preferred hymns, personally, but I don’t think that would satisfy the ‘desissify the church’ crowd.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Off the top of my head, I don’t recall complementarians having a similar meme directed at men.
I have never heard one try to silence one man, or the whole male gender, by saying, “You men have the Spirit of Haman!!,” for example.
Even more bizarre, American complementarians will hold a guy like King David up as a great example of manhood, even though the guy had some huge moral failings, like having a dude killed off so he could get it on with the dude’s wife.
I off hand don’t remember a complementarian looking at a horrible man and saying something like, “He has the Spirit of King David!” as a put down.
Some of them actually hold David up as an example to dismiss wrong-doing, especially in this season in the States, where guys are running for office.
They keep saying, “You cannot judge so- and- so for his smarmy behavior towards women, because God forgave King David for his.”
There seems to be a double standard going on.
AmyT wrote:
This is such a great, practical point. I don’t think the tankini is the same thing as a bikini, modesty wise. I’m honestly not sure if piper has any idea that they exist or if that’s what he’s talking about or anything. He’s such a weird, weird guy.
Deana Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:
Yeah, I don’t say anything either. Still, I wish some people could see what they look like from behind before they go into public, particularly when they bend over.
I just think there has to be a middle road on the modesty issue between “women should not defraud their brothers” and “it’s a man’s responsibility if he sins with his eyes”.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
That movie has been airing on one American cable channel as of this week.
I’ve so far not watched it (only a few minutes before turning the channel), because it’s about eight people stuck on a boat, which doesn’t sound like it would be interesting.
It sounds like Titanic, minus Rose and Jack. And there was enough room on that headboard for Jack, too, Rose.
@ Lea:
If you can tell me about a church that taught men to do that, I’d love to go! I’ve spent too much time with gospel™-centered Peter Pans who love crying about how broken they are, especially when a pastor or elder around, but only lift a finger to help out with the mission at their strictest convenience. I’m a man who saw something wrong with culture and went to church, and only got John Piper’s pontifications on an enlightened state of mind that will solve all my problems. And if I didn’t like that, I was “self-reliant”.
Maybe I wouldn’t use that word, but there is a problem. I read a comment on a forum discussing the lack of males in church, and a poster who usually complains about liberalism/modernism in the UMC said something that stuck with me. From the moment men walk into church, the music is created to be an emotional experience. And then the sermons and books are also geared towards an emotional response to God – how He makes you feel. It’s not surprising to see a Lysa TerKeurst or Ann Voskamp writing like that, but look at John Piper or Tim Keller writings too. You’ll see a lot of that is based on feelings too, just in a different diction.
I also recently talked to a guy who used to go to an Acts29 church – the manliest of the manlies, right? He told me about his small group experience: “contrived” and “share your deepest, darkest secrets and cry about it”. Can anyone imagine one of Mark Driscoll’s beloved cage fighters doing that?
I’ll also point out that when I said his church was an Acts29 church, he had no idea what I meant.
I’m working on a little project right now – reading every word of Matt Chandler’s “Beautiful Design” sermon to see how it ticks. I’m in Dallas, and I’ve come to find out that if I tell people that he’s a sleazy mix of Joel Osteen and Mark Driscoll, people start calling for an old priest and a young priest. Anyway, in one of the sermons, he essentially brings out a goon pastor to bash men for 50 minutes. One of his pronouncements is that not being into the Getty worship diddies enough is “sinful refusal to delight in God”.
I could go on. But if the churches that are supposedly recovering biblical manhood are like this, one starts to develop some ideas about why men leave church, and why the ones who stay are so strange.
Nancy2 wrote:
Right on, Sister!
On the other hand, maybe we shouldn’t be giving him any ideas, lol!
Stan wrote:
One of the things I find weird about this complaint that churches are “too feminine” is that they’re blaming women, I guess. But most of these churches (complementarian) are run by men.
Women are not allowed any substantive input, so if this guy finds churches “too girly” he has only male leadership to blame for that, ultimately.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
I remember it well – I was a target. Fortunately, I had a girlfriend, and had no interest in that sort of thing. It was very weird, but soon became obvious what was going on.
Lea wrote:
I’ve wondered too how it is these guys who complain that churches are too feminine what they mean by that.
Are they offended by too much floral decor in a church, and all the mauve or what?
I’m not a girly girl though I am a woman, and I too dislike hyper-feminine decor (no offense to ladies who like that stuff).
It’s like the Mark Driscolls of Christianity are ashamed of the gentle, nice, loving components of the faith and want to make it hyper-masculine.
Piper even wrote a few years ago that Christianity has a “masculine feel,” or that it should.
nmgirl wrote:
I’ve read articles online that “man buns” cause premature baldness in guys who wear their hair like that.
Stan wrote:
I don’t think there is anything wrong with emotions in church, and an emotional response to God, though. Jesus wept, David cried out to God, Ruths’ MIL renamed herself because she was bitter at the way life had treated her. The bible is full of emotions, as are humans. I don’t see emotions as male/female.
I do think you may be saying that the balance is off, though. As a woman, but one who prefers scholarly type sermons over ‘stories about the kids/fam/etc’, I think I would agree with you on that. The thinness of the sermons coupled with insipid music kept me away from church for many years. But it is men, largely, who are giving these sermons and writing and directing the music too. So why is this derided as feminized? Some of this is cultural. Emotions that would be quickly accepted as normal in men in other cultures are not so much in ours.
Daisy wrote:
The funny thing about that complaint, is that what you’re really complaining about is probably that the church is DATED, not feminine.
Let’s be more precise about exactly what the problem is, instead of just blaming it on women. Maybe we would find that we were actually in agreement, instead of antagonists. I hate mauve too, you know?
Anyone who votes for *or* against a person *because of* the candidate’s sex is foolish. Doesn’t matter if said fool wants to vote for “the first woman President” because HISTORIC and SHE DESERVES IT or if said fool thinks voting for a woman for President will bring the Most High God to a nervous breakdown causing him to rain down wrath upon the earth. Those notions, IMO, are sides of the same coin. Thinking that there is virtue in the act of voting for or against because of sex or “race” or anything else that is irrelevant.
Daisy wrote:
Haha, yup.
I’ll say this, and I’ll even dare say that Mark Driscoll had a point. Imagine yourself in a large, wealthy southern city where every church has to measure itself to a mega. Imagine the kind of church where the worship leader has an emotional breakdown while singing about Jesus three times a week, every week. That type of silliness happens and has nothing to do with what Christ’s teachings.
Daisy wrote:
Years ago, early in my search for truth, a young man who was studying to be an Orthodox rabbi told me that many Jews consider the shekinah to be the feminine aspect of God.
A couple of years after that, I met several rabbis who said that many Jews consider women to be superior to men. They said that women have an extra layer of spirituality/discernment – commonly known as women’s intuition.
These men were not afraid to say these things. Their masculinity was not at all threatened. It was surprising and so refreshing, and gave me a lot to explore in my studies. I felt valued and loved by God more than ever.
These are just two of many reasons why I pay little attention to oppressive blowhards in the church world.
Christiane wrote:
That was my conclusion. Guys who can’t do real work want to have power and prestige without having earned it. So they claim it, upon “Biblical authority” or so they (wrongly) say, and that everyone else must bow and scrape to them.
My ex-pastor constantly talked about how people were to ‘obey’ and ‘to submit’ to him and that this was ‘mandated’ by God! They even have this drivel written in the Statement of Faith for Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley, which people here have read and said it gave them ‘the shivers’.
Stan wrote:
I am so tired of them trying to say that women are to blame for the church. It’s manipulative and wrong. These men are trying to get power through any contrived argument and we’re supposed to sit back and go along with it. We’re a priesthood of believers. We’re supposed to be mature. We’re not supposed to be having these bizarre quarrels.
The men I know who don’t go to church can’t be bothered with the politics of it, the silliness of it, how contrived it is, because they work real jobs and many of these fakes who run churches couldn’t get or keep a real job.
@ Nancy2:
Dress codes in some churches have gotten insanely long and detailed for women.
I’ve seen people on other sites share the dress codes they’ve gotten from their church when they apply to join the choir.
Usually, the section for men is very short, maybe 2 or 3 items long, but the section for women is ten feet long and very nit-picky, even asking women to wear blouses that “go below the elbow”.
Deana Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:
I was called by a staffing company to go to a job interview a few months ago. The lady on the phone told me that the place I was interviewing was “corporate professional” and either said or implied I should dress conservatively.
So fine, I went to the interview in conservative skirt, blouse, pantyhose, heels. I shoe up to the interview, and the lady who interviewed me was in a tank top, jeans, and the others were in leggings, t-shirts, sandals, or sneakers. Talk about feeling over-dressed, awkward, and out of place.
Daisy wrote:
Julie Anne just shared some pentacostal complaining about seeing women’s knees! ZOMG the Horrors!
https://martynballestero.com/2013/04/09/theyre-everywhere/
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
Oh, oh, oh!! I haven’t met anyone who’s heard of that album since the early 1990s! It’s still one of my all-time favorites, and sadly, the vinyl version I owned was part of the collateral damage of my twenty-year abusive marriage.
“HELP me, some-bodeh!”
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
As a single women who would like to marry, the funny thing is, I would not want to marry the sort of man these guys teach as being sufficiently manly. I would find such a guy a total turn-off.
Complementarians set up their ideal model of manhood to look like a mixture of Mark Driscoll, a cave man, and Andrew Dice Clay (crass and sexist American entertainer who was big in the 1980s or maybe 90s).
I have no interest in dating a hybrid of a Driscoll- CaveMan – Clay type of man. Thanks but no thanks.
And I think a lot of Christian women today who reject complementarianism feel the same way.
So I don’t know where all the single complementarian men are going to get their submissive, compliant June Cleaver doormat wives from.
Daisy wrote:
Whether it’s true or not, that’s a meme that needs to spread 😉
Stan wrote:
But they don’t have to…
Burwell wrote:
So… he’s looking to the Orange Guy to fix the church?
Why do these guys not look to the Holy Spirit or Jesus to protect and help the church?
GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:
Is there a plug-in that counts that sort of thing?
13% less frivolously, there should be a plug-in that fishes it out.
Daisy wrote:
Yes, ’twas he. I referred to him as a player of wind-instruments * because “oxygen of publicity” and all that.
*Did you see what I did there? 😉
Lea wrote:
I was reading some kind of commentary about Driscoll’s old Mars Hill church by a lady who attended there. She said it was decked out in what could be a masculine style, in the pattern of a sports bar type thing, with dark walls, small windows (which didn’t let much light in).
It’s sad that men who are into this “church is too girly” stuff feel the correction to it is go over-board and alienate women by making the church style or substance hyper-masculine.
I doubt very sincerely that Daubenmire, Driscoll, et. al., are made of the same stuff as say Elie Wiesel, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Pastor Niemoeller.
Macho bravado fueled by testosterone will invariably fold and shrivel under extended and horrific circumstances.
Lea wrote:
I once posted a link to an article on CBE that mentioned the history of church hymns.
According to the author of that page, all the hymns the men who complain about girly-ness in church complain about were written by men.
-While the hymns they praise on their blogs as being tough and manly-man were written by women.
Burwell wrote (quoting some weird laddie’s website):
…
… you have GOT to be kidding…
Stan wrote:
well, the truth is that the part of the human brain that processes ’emotion’ lies adjacent to the part of the human brain that processes music
Why would some ‘theologians’ attempt to separate out emotion from the rest of what it means to be a human person? Sounds like the glorification of ‘thought’ as supreme over emotion, which was a very prominent feature of ancient Greek philosophy. I suppose this is why we Western Christians have difficulty accepting the ‘mystery’ of God, whereas our Eastern Orthodox brothers have no such trouble and are very attuned to the sacred and the mystical in our faith.
Christiane wrote:
And of Intellectual Snobs everywhere. Seeing everything as an abstract Intellectual exercise (“three-point-seven Gigdaeath situation – insignificant”) to the point they cease to be human. It’s Gnostic Dualism for Brights, “Intellectual” instead of “Spiritual”.
Daisy wrote:
There are many places we could go with this…
@ Stan:
Stan wrote:
Interesting. So you were criticized by someone at a church for being “self reliant,” or for possibly tilting that way?
I’ve gotten the complete opposite response from Christians.
I went to Christians after my mother died asking for emotional support at that time, and I was shamed for admitting to NOT being self-reliant. I was told to get over it on my own, basically.
Regarding:
I was willing to be transparent with other people especially Christians in that manner, but after having been shamed or burned by them one too many times in person, I stopped doing that.
I keep personal stuff to myself when I’m around Christians in person.
Some Christians say they want other Christians to be open but if you are, you will regret it. You’ll be shamed or judged when you admit to your struggles and weak areas.
Daisy wrote:
My parish of St Boniface is currently being refurbished — light earth-tone walls trimmed with dark green and gold, restoring and cleaning the large stained-glass windows (the Seven Fruits of the Spirit and Seven Cardinal Virtues) and mosaic Stations of the Cross.
Talmidah wrote:
Some Native American tribes recognize and celebrate the primal power of women and even their kinship is reckoned as matrilineal.
Daisy wrote:
Mail-order from Asia?
Or from Quiverfull breeding-and-breaking-in families?
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
Mo David and his COGs….
They got in the news a LOT back then, right up there with the Moonies. Their last gasp was in ’81 with the Jupiter Effect Rapture Scare; I remember some news coverage of them standing on the steps of some public building in sackcloth robes chanting “FORTY DAYS! FORTY DAYS!” Obviously they saw themselves as Jonahs, completely missing the point of Jonah’s story.
I hear some people saying that men who see church as feminized are or may be feeling threatened by women. Perhaps. There is also the possibility that they may feel excluded, passed over, and not appreciated and also the possibility that they maybe just can’t fit in so much any more.
Daisy wrote:
Because to them, EVERYTHING is Power Struggle. They literally cannot perceive reality in any other way.
Top or Bottom, Dom or Sub, Hold the Whip or Feel the Whip. Zero-Sum Game, where the only way to get more for Me is to take it away from You, where the only way to climb up is to crush everyone else down.
@ Lea:
I do wonder about the guys who sexualize any and every part of a woman’s body.
I for one don’t consider knees to be sexy. If the guy behind that blog post does, that’s his problem, not the problem of women.
Daisy wrote:
I wonder if these men would reject this hymn with lyrics based on the biblical account of Mary’s words in her ‘Magnificat’?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trhxP6VAOuc
Daisy wrote:
Our Precious Bodily Fluids(TM)…
Dave Daubenmire’s son got into some trouble with child porn.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2007/03/01/zachplea.ART_ART_02-28-07_E5_995TV96.html
@ Nick Bulbeck:
🙂
Muff Potter wrote:
Yep, I’ve heard that. I remember seeing a show on PBS a few years ago about a group of people in China (I think)like that too.
Muff Potter wrote:
I think that is probably very likely.
This is somewhat applicable to your observation; it was written by former mixed martial artist Mark Morin and discusses the bogus, fake like masculinity promoted by the Mark Driscolls of the Christian faith:
THE CONFESSIONS OF A CAGE FIGHTER: MASCULINITY, MISOGYNY, AND THE FEAR OF LOSING CONTROL
http://theotherjournal.com/2011/06/28/the-confessions-of-a-cage-fighter-masculinity-misogyny-and-the-fear-of-losing-control/
Daisy wrote:
Isn’t that what the Ku Klux Klan used to say in their recruiting drives?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
🙂 sounds beautiful!
when they refurbished my old parish, they brought over some beautiful stained glass windows from Europe and when the sunlight hits them, it breaks into shards of light with the different colors reflecting off of the wood inside the Church and off the walls ….. very beautiful …. light from light 🙂
In Daubenmire’s quote above,
Did he mean to say “women are rebelling against men”? Otherwise it doesn’t make much sense. Not that it makes any sense to begin with. What a bunch of rot.
I have a strong hunch that if this guy’s own life was examined closely, he has some kind of serious issues going on. He seems very troubled and conflicted.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Or blow up dolls, or robots.
Cherry 2000 movie:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_2000
Snippet:
Some of the Quiverfull type groups have tried to set up arranged marriage balls, where under-age girls are brought in and parents pick girls out for their sons
Goodness knows that adult single women are by and large not buying into this male headship (man as boss in the marriage) or submission stuff (as complementarians teach it) any more.
So good luck, complementarian men, finding yourself a subservient Christian women to marry – they’re getting more and more rare.
siteseer wrote:
Good catch. I had wondered about that too. If it wasn’t a typeo, I wonder what he meant about women rebelling against women??
okrapod wrote:
My issue is not that they are seeing something in church that they don’t feel a part of, but with how they choose to express it. Because I don’t think it’s really that it is feminine that is the problem. I think it’s something else. I would rather we just get to what they something actually IS.
Somebody mentioned a bit ago ‘the antithesis of symbolism and revelation’ so I looked it up. It was a lecture by a Dutch Reformed guy in the late nineteenth century in which he was just exactly extolling the superiority of ‘revelation’ as experienced in knowledge/thinking/doctrine found in Calvinism over the ‘symbolism’ of the Catholic liturgy which relied too much on ’emotion’ apparently derived from classical Greek thinking, and which opened the door for all sorts of awfulness in doing so. In his thinking once one gets involved in emotion and quits diligently practicing extreme simplicity in worship one is headed straight dow the path to idolatry and who know what else. The whole lecture is a thorn patch of untenable suppositions and poor reasoning along with what I suppose to be the theology of the day, and of course it is out of sync with what some of the neuroscience research is showing about how the brain functions and which ought to influence our thinking today on the subject.
Now, this had nothing to do with male and female but everything to with cognition vs emotion, and Calvinism uber alles.
On this topic I also resent the %^& out of emotion in religion, not because it is invalid but because in practice it presents itself as somebody else’s emotion which they demand that I also ‘feel’ thus negating the validity of my own thinking/emotion continuum. And I think in a pigs eye buddy, but knock yourself out (edited version for decency’s sake).
@ Lea:
Meaning that if we really drilled down we would get to an answer, and that answer will be more specific than ‘sissified’.
And the fix, if a fix is needed, is not going to be changing the décor to ‘sports bar chic’.
HUG – let me see if I can find you a link to that story.
Here’s what happens when patriarchal or complementarian men appear to run out of adult, subservient women to marry:
Duggar cult founder plans Kansas ‘retreat’ to set up arranged marriages for teen girls – May 2016
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/duggar-cult-founder-plans-kansas-retreat-to-set-up-arranged-marriages-for-teen-girls/
So gross.
Christiane wrote:
Funny, my church has stained glass windows, but they don’t actually go outside (sanctuary in the middle) so they had to have lighting of some sort to make it feel that way.
okrapod wrote:
True emotion is a beautiful, raw and thing. It comes from within. Forced or fake emotion is just irritating.
Lea wrote:
Christian ‘peace’, the Peace of Christ, has the effect of bringing all aspects (soul, body, spirit) of our human person into harmony, and also can help us to find peace with one another
Lea wrote:
The issue isn’t to get men (and women) into a particular building on Sundays. It’s to bring them to Christ. The problem is far bigger than church decor – the message of Christ, now and as always, is against most everything our ‘culture’ (and as an American, I use the term loosely) stands for. THAT’S the ‘problem’. As it always and ever has been.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Oh! I thought it was just because Piper’s mostly just a lot of hot air, to put it nicely.
“As women successfully serve in position of authority in society, I have a prediction. I believe that, in the church in 20 years, except in some small towns, women will always be able to read the Bible out loud in Tim Challies’ church service and will even give sermons as fewer and fewer people find it unusual for women to be in that position.”
This was actually the direction things were going in evangelicalism in the early 1980s– till the complementarian movement set things back 30 years.
Kristen Rosser wrote:
was the set-back a reaction to something specific???
roebuck wrote:
well said!
Couple quotes from the article-
This jumped out at me because of the way he worded it. He does not deny that we are talking about “a sinful man” that is guilty of “immorality.” He just doesn’t want people to “worry” about it- he’d rather they focus on women “ruling over” men, instead. Well, first of all, this is not biblical, if he wants to make a big deal about being biblical. The Bible doesn’t say to ignore immorality as long as you can focus on some other issue.
But, beyond that, the way he worded this, it makes me wonder if all of this hoopla about women is just a way to redirect others’ attention away from the “immorality” of “a sinful man” a lot closer to home? Why so willing to point the finger at women who are basically doing nothing wrong, while ignoring admitted sinfulness and immorality in their own sex?
They just pursue the same errant thinking with differences in intelligence level and degree of intellectuality.
Muff Potter wrote:
It’s interesting you should say that.
A wee while back, the BBC ran three series entitled SAS: Are you tough enough? in which members of the public (24 at the start of each series and, interestingly, the groups were all mixed-gender) entered a cut-down version of the legendary/infamous SAS selection process. They were gradually whittled down to a final team of four, with one being declared the winner by a vote of the ex-SAS DS’s involved.
In each case, two kinds of people rapidly fell by the wayside (and I mean, cracked and gave up):
The loud, chest-thumping blowhards;
The pretentious, ImGoingToAchieveAllMyKeyFocusGoals blowhards
Whereas the winners were the quiet, “grey men” who just got on with whatever was thrown at them. In Series 2 (set in the jungle), the winning “grey man” was a woman.
@ Daisy:
“It’s sad that men who are into this “church is too girly” stuff feel the correction to it is go over-board and alienate women by making the church style or substance hyper-masculine.”
+++++++++++++
As I understand it, one of Mars Hill’s songs which they did regularly was called “Destroyer”. ‘he dost prostesteth too much’…. happened again, right there.
All in all, this branding stuff from style & colors to sounds to lingo is such a shallow approach to what i thought was as deep as one can get (God, & all).
@ Daisy:
“I went to the interview in conservative skirt, blouse, pantyhose, heels. I shoe up to the interview, and the lady who interviewed me was in a tank top, jeans, and the others were in leggings, t-shirts, sandals, or sneakers. Talk about feeling over-dressed, awkward, and out of place.”
++++++++++++
if they weren’t in pajamas and bathrobe, it was fancy.
Ian wrote:
I have complimentarian friends who take that position. They make a distinction between “authority in the church” and “secular authority”. But that distinction has been invented with no basis. Remember Deborah had both spiritual and political authority in the book of Judges. And the Apostle was Jewish, had a Hebrew mind and therefore would not have made this distinction between sacred and secular that modern Western culture does.
Deana Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:
I’ve never heard of a man bun before! Are these white, heterosexual Calvinista males making pretty cakes with cherries on the top?!
@ Talmidah:
“…several rabbis who said that many Jews consider women to be superior to men. They said that women have an extra layer of spirituality/discernment – commonly known as women’s intuition.
These men were not afraid to say these things. Their masculinity was not at all threatened. It was surprising and so refreshing, …
These are just two of many reasons why I pay little attention to oppressive blowhards in the church world.”
+++++++++++++++++
the christian highlighting of male / man / manly / masculine while sidelining the female / woman / ladies (detest that moniker) / girls / feminine is an expression of nervousness, worry, fear, insecurity, feeling threatened.
(but this is old news, isn’t it.)
it’s not strength. it’s weakness. I am so surprised they don’t recognize this.
@ ZechZav:
Top-Knots, ‘Man Buns’ Can Lead to Hair Loss, Experts Say
http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/top-knots-man-buns-lead-hair-loss-experts/story?id=34093919
elastigirl wrote:
their inability to see this IS a part of that weakness: they project onto women the contempt they would feel for themselves if they did not have the women to look down on
this is a corollary of the sin of pride: that standing in the temple before God and pointing to ‘the other’ and being glad they are ‘not like the other’ …… that is the grim place where these men are and they do need prayer
Ian wrote:
It’s a pretty goofy position the more you think about it.
Daisy wrote:
Roosh V of all people once praised Mark Driscoll, saying that anything that makes church less comfortable for women is a good thing in his book.
If you’re a pastor and Roosh is your biggest fan, chances are you’re doing something wrong.
Dee, you wrote: “Now, put together Boot Camp and Authentic Manhood in a search engine and you get results like this at Jacob’s Well in New Jersey. No women allowed”, which reminded me of the conference where men were told not to bring their wives because they would just take up seats better left to the menfolk.
Conference Organizers Tell Men: Your Wives Aren’t Welcome Here
And then there’s this heading: “John Piper: Women must take responsibility for the lust of men.”
Well of course they should! Modesty Police – a misuse of power and authority
Sorry, didn’t mean to turn the thread into a Tim Fall blog post clearing house!
Kristen Rosser wrote:
I think the Comps set women back 300 years.
“Due to a profound inability to define both complementarianism and authority in the church and in society, combined with a penchant for admiring men like Mark Driscoll, Calvinista leaders are contributing to the development of outlandish men like Daubenmire and programs like Authentic Manhood Boot Camps.”
Their positions lack coherence, but they all support one another as if they had a firm doctrinal foundation. they don’t. Their doctrinal positions and practice are a house of cards, and the cards come from a mismatched set od decks.
elastigirl wrote:
You’re right. I believe men who promote patriarchy (the root) are too busy trying to control women to recognize their own weaknesses. Even if they did, they’d likely never admit it, especially if they’re in the public eye as so-called church leaders.
Men who view women as lesser beings who must be constantly micro-managed intensely dislike them. Maybe they actually hate them and/or view them as an enemy. I have close knowledge of this, unfortunately.
What *really* has been surprising (to me, anyway) is the willingness of the women to trot along behind them and go along with this garbage. Those who are in the fog of patriarchy, and in the fog of abuse, I do understand. My heart breaks for them. Those who are able to extricate themselves and don’t, well, that’s sad too. They all may look back years from now and have no idea who they really are – and wonder who they could have been.
Tim wrote:
Their world strikes me as a boys-only playpen.
siteseer wrote:
Daubenmire’s son, Zachary, was convicted of “the second-degree felony of pandering obscenity involving a minor” in 2007. Basically, he downloaded underage female pornography, which was discovered by a technician when Dave Daubenmire took Zachary’s computer in for repair. The case “In Re Daubenmire” (137 Ohio St.3d 435, 2013-Ohio-4977), where Zachary, a 2011 graduate of Case Western Reserve University Law School, wanted to sit the Ohio bar exam, but had been denied up until that point. Because Zachary is legally required to register as a sex offender until February 27, 2017, the Ohio state supreme court ruled that he would not be allowed to sit the Ohio bar exam until 2018.
http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/docs/pdf/0/2013/2013-Ohio-4977.pdf << This link will take you to the decision. There is specific discussion about Zachary's relationship with his father, Dave, on page 4 of the decision.
I had completely forgotten about this incident, which I had known about 18 months ago when I was trading barbs with Dave Daubenmire over his support of Kent Hovind.
Christiane wrote:
From what I understand, it was simply a reaction to the increasing co-leadership of women, especially in the home and church. A group of conservative evangelicals felt that this was against the Bible, nature and God’s will, and needed to be stopped before it went any further. Without the complementarian movement, I believe evangelicalism would have continued to move rather naturally towards the full enfranchisement of women, and that this would no longer be an issue.
I am one of them. Just the idea of going back to church makes me feel ill. Statements like this one definitely fire up the gag reflex.@ Christiane:
Lea wrote:
That article is a few years old, but the comments are as bizarre as the article.
Dee Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:
Very interesting perspective on his issues… it begs the question of whether this repressive comp mindset instigates a lot of these type of problems.
Lea wrote:
First the men who speak like this need to be able to communicate beyond the high school boys level. They appear to have some real immaturity going on. And many who communicate like this are church “leaders.”
Deana Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:
The New Calvinists in my area prefer the Mark Driscoll pointy hairdo. Here lately, some of the young reformers have combined that with a spiky Calvin beard. I think both are a form of rebellion to go along with their aberrant theology to drive their parents crazy.
Max wrote:
Whenever I saw MD with that hairdo, I thought ‘Kewpie Doll’.
I think it would all go a lot better if the fundamentalists just admitted that they weren’t interested in actual, historic Christianity. If they just said they were promoting a passe and probably immoral social agenda I could respect them more.
I have posted a new update on the open discussion thread. Thank you.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-10/#comment-289847
” … biblical principle that when a woman rules over a man … it’s a sign of judgment of the Lord …” (Daubenmire)
Mr. Daubenmire is going way beyond what the Bible says and taking liberties with Scripture to make a point that God did not intend. I’m sure he was thinking of Deborah being used by God to bring Israel to repentance (Lord, I wish we had a leader in America that would do that!). Certainly Deborah was raised up as a “Judge”, but she was sent to deliver Israel from their enemies not as a judgment against them. All of the Judges had the same mission (Judges 2). This is just another example of a man twisting Scripture to make it fit his personal theology. There is no Biblical principle indicating that when a woman leads anything it is a sign of judgment. On the other hand, when a man distorts Scripture – taking text out of context to confuse and indoctrinate others, leading the sheep astray – personal judgment follows sooner or later. Mr. Daubenmire is not using the right salt shaker.
roebuck wrote:
I’m sure that macho-man Driscoll would resemble that remark!
On a related note, Hickman High School in Columbia, Missouri has “Kewpies” as their mascot! I always felt sorry for their football team, but they have been serious contenders for State championships over the years – I think to be called “Kewpies” make them fight harder! Maybe Driscoll came up with that spiky hairdo so he could intimidate folks “Just say something about my hair and I will punch you in the nose and tell God someone else did it!”
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I like to refer to that as “subjugation theology”; it’s the right-wing bookend to liberation theology. The USA has a long history of this kind of thing. The Curse of Ham “doctrine” is the paramount example.
Kristen Rosser wrote:
I think that is certainly correct. In addition, I think the Female Subordinationist mutant strain of Complementarianism came directly from the personal distress Wayne Grudem and John Piper felt at Bethel and at ETS when the currents seemed to be flowing strongly in an egalitarian direction. And George Knight III provided the rationale for “Eternally Equal but not Eternally Equal” because the baby PCA was feeling the heat regarding denying females ordination. As Judge Tim said, their arguments are incoherent once you stop and actually dissect them and analyze them and check their proof texts.
All that said, the thing that made people even consider Female Subordinationism is Roe v. Wade. In my opinion, that shock to the Evangelical mind has been difficult to overcome. Do not want to sidetrack into a discussion of that issue, but I really do think that it is the huge emotional and spiritual driver behind the embrace of Complementarianism among the pewpeons and why the rallying cry of “You’re either with us or with those Feminists” has been so effective.
@ Tim:
In that conversation about my friend’s old Acts29 church where the men in small groups shared their deepest darkest secrets and cried, he also mentioned they had an 11-week long “masculine leadership” course. I didn’t ask him to elaborate.
@ Lea:
I got the impression that Jen Wilkin’s new book, None Like Him, is their version of a “God is your boyfriend” message.
@ Lea:
I love the theology of the emotion. I’ve seen men who don’t show emotion end up with some problems. But Ruth, David, and Jesus, felt this way because of their experiences and not because of the carefully selected lighting hues on the worship stage. Are there a lot of women who like watching sad movies knowing it will make them sad? Yes – and they’ll like an intense emotional experience on stage every Sunday. Does that pastor at the Village Church really expect a church full of guys closing their eyes, hugging themselves, and swaying?
And why do comp men build churches that appeal to women?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrennan/2015/01/21/top-10-things-everyone-should-know-about-women-consumers/#32d052f72897
@ Daisy:
That was something of an odd joke that didn’t come through over typing. I think what they said to me was that I don’t get the gospel. They have ambiguous insults like that for people who don’t go with the flow. You’re self reliant, or do you don’t get the gospel, or you’re trying to earn your own salvation, etc.
And meanwhile this article popped up in my Facebook feed: http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/33412687/sc-waitress-heartbroken-after-receiving-tip-saying-a-womans-place-is-in-the-home
Really? A working woman is a “disgrace to [her husband’s] manhood?”
It’s for this reason that I don’t even mention religion when in a restaurant. And why I usually leave a 20-25% tip without any sort of additional note besides a “Thanks!” if the service was especially good.
AnonInNC wrote:
This “tip” probably came from a New Calvinist out for an evening of comp abuse.
It is commonly reported by waitresses that some of the meanest folks they wait on are Christians out for Sunday lunch. They are also poor tippers.
Max wrote:
I’ve seen tracts that have the top third or so with a $20 bill printed on it and the rest is some “Repent or go to hell!” message. Looks like a real $20 tip when the “Christian” sticks it into the leather folder that contains the receipt.
AnonInNC wrote:
Nothing surprises me anymore, but that note was so very full of contempt for that poor waitress, who probably has to work to make ends meet. It was a VERY abusive note, yes. And it showed a mean streak like so many other expressions of contempt that have openly been shown recently in our country to women, to other races, to other faiths, to immigrants . . . . a meanness that speaks of self-contempt that is projected onto other people as a coping mechanism by someone who must do this to feel powerful and ‘in control’.
These attempts to emotionally abuse others keeps the perpetrator from facing his own low self-esteem. As long as he can abuse women, he feels powerful. Very, very sick behavior.
Max wrote:
Christians huh?
@ AnonInNC:
My browser is acting funny tonight, so I hestitate to click on another link, open a new broswer and risk cause a freeze…
So I can only guess from the URL and what little you said what it’s about.
Did the guy who left her the “a real woman doesn’t work outside the home” note offer to pay all her bills for her?
Probably not. So he can Shut The Foo Up.
Max wrote:
Why is the husband of the couple even out to eat at a restaurant? That’s a violation of the Bible as Ken F. has previously pointed out to us. Men are supposed to toil for their food…and toil all of the time. No meals cooked by someone else, no fellowship meals, no bbqs, no potlucks, no restaurants.
Also, has the husband eaten bread without sweating? He must be in some kind of sin. Because the verse says that a man is only supposed to eat bread while his brow is sweating.
Dear Wartburger:
Here is your blank paper napkin/towel to write your response/Scripture verse to the married Christian couple.
Muff Potter wrote:
Not everybody that goes to church is the Church.
AnonInNC wrote:
REMEMBER:
Waiters/waitresses are paid BELOW minimum wage. There’s this thing called “Tip Credit” that assumes they make the difference up in tips. Don’t remember whether they’re taxed on the tip credit difference or not. So this “Repent or go to Hell” fake $20 is sticking it to someone who’s already underpaid.
roebuck wrote:
Same here.
Especially on a Buttery Doughy Guy.
Max wrote:
YOU KNOW WHY CALVIN, KNOX, ET AL ALL HAD THOSE LONG TALIBAN/AYATOLLAH BEARDS?
BECAUSE ENEMY CHRISTIANS (CATHOLIC & LUTHERAN) WERE CLEAN-SHAVEN.
THAT’S IT.
siteseer wrote:
Remember Josh Duggar?
Christiane wrote:
Like trailer-trash Ku Kluxers of the Fifties:
“If Ah can’t be better than a n*gg*r, who do Ah got to be better than?”
roebuck wrote:
“What you win them with, you win them TO.”
Daisy wrote:
Do they have an auctioneer as emcee?
(Hurry, gentlemen! Let the auction begin!)
Ya-ha!
Ya-ha-ma-cundah!
(Gentlemen, do you hear? That’s the cry of the auctioneer.)
Ya-ha
Ya-ha-ma-cundah!
…
Handle them, fondle them
But don’t finger them!
They’re prime! They’re prime!
Ya-ha
Ya-ha-ma-cundah!
— Interlude for “Molasses to Rum”, 1776: the Musical
Lea wrote:
Ha ha! Oh my goodness… Imagine that! Women have KNEES! And they bring them TO CHURCH with them! What next?
Max wrote:
Good point well made. If Deborah was God’s judgement upon Israel, why did he deliver them. It doesn’t make sense.
When God promised judgment against Israel he promised many things including dispersion, captivity, being given over to foreign invaders. There is a list of them in Deuteronomy 28 and women leaders cannot be found. As Tim Fall said, there is not a shred of evidence to support this explanation of Deborah. It was invented just to support their complimentarian position.
@Lea @Siteseer
Hahaha. These guys really do get wound up about trivialities whilst ignoring much big issues. I wonder whether he makes the same noise about preachers who protect pedophiles or enable domestic abuse? It’s a free country and people (both men and women) should be able to wear what they want – whether at church, at the shopping mall or wherever. That article is legalism again – making rules about what people (especially women) can and cannot do.
@Lea @Siteseer
I’ve just had another look at this site and I am glad I did – I needed a laugh. But it’s sad that these guys are serious.
In another article he is moaning about men having beards and insists that men should be clean shaven. A sad commentator is complaining about preachers with shirts that are too colourful. So they are making rules for men too.
Max wrote:
It is commonly bandied about, I’ve even repeated it, but now I am curious. In my experience I have found some very mizerly christians and some who are wonderfully generous. I’ve also seen far too many suffer from confirmation bias and can imagine remembering the stingy ones that pray before their meal and forgetting about the ones leaving a generous tips. And not to single out christians, I’ve heard the same tipping accusation directed at political party affiliation, Democrats or Republicans, liberal or conservative, both directions. It reminds me of the frequent references to being cut-off in traffic by the car with the fish bumper sticker, but no one has ever given me a first-person account. As I get older I am ever more skeptical of contentions without data and wonder if this is just another commonly reported myth.
On the subject of urban mythology likely much of my experience hearing it was its use as sermon illustrations.
ZechZav wrote:
Is that by any chance a Oneness Pentecostal site? One of the commenters talked about being “in the Apostolic Truth” and among Pentecostals, “Apostolic” is a buzzword meaning Oneness.
Oneness Pentecostals have a reputation for extreme legalism, to an extent that would seem absurd elsewhere. Perhaps this goes all the way back to the founding of the movement. A common, although not universally held belief among them is that ONLY those who have received a Jesus-Inly baptism (not a Trinitarian one) can be saved.
It can be a selective legalism at times, though. There is a gay-friendly Oneness denomination that started in the 80s in Schenectady. Reportedly they received a revelation from God that gay=OK. But the group maintains a very conservative stance in all other respects.
First-hand experience here on many first-hand occasions about tipping and general tenor towards “the help”. When I first became a “Christian” I attended a bible study and we would go out to eat afterward, it actually was nice to go out. There was a miscalculation on the check for one dollar with six or seven of us eating, then there was the discussion how this was important and the server needed, to be honest and it was a biblical bla bla bla. I mentioned it was just a dollar and I would be glad to pitch it in, a moral failing on my part which was pointed out. Two of the ladies went to discuss the issue that had taken on cosmological importance. So they got her to change the bill, did not leave a tip, I did. Then they left a track about how God loved her but if she did not repent He would torture her forever. They honestly did not see how this was a bit of a contradiction. On the way out she walked back to our group and handed me the track back and said no thank you. I mumbled I don’t blame you if I am remembering right. I do believe they felt vindicated because they suffered persecution for proclaiming the cause of Christ.
I tip at least 20 % and that is if the service is rotten usually higher when I have the money, and I say that at times to the server. Ex. I really dont have the money right now so I leave what I can, I often though not always catch them later with a double tip. Some places I eat at dont allow tips.
Other examples of us showing up with 30 + people and expect to be seated right away, then leaving the bare minimum.
The positive side same group only smaller and as we grew older, we would start out at 20 % and would call ahead and did not mind waiting and we stopped leaving tracks unless asked. Which did happen a few times when we were more appreciative and open to understanding the situation of the server. So I have seen both and I saw growth in the same people in smaller groups who got more mature.
Bill M wrote:
I went digging and I should have known, our very own Deb did a post on this back in July 17, 2014 titled, “Just the Facts, Please…” In the post she referenced one article that included the following:
“But a study from Michael Lynn of Cornell University and Benjamin Katz of HCD Research, showed that, overall, Christians are pretty good tippers. Their online survey of 1,068 Americans found that the average Christian tipped 17 percent for good service. Only 13 percent of Christians left a smaller tip for good service.”
I also find it interesting that when I did a google search on “true or false” and “tipping” that TWW came up on the first page. Pretty awesome deebs.
@ Lea:
“BTW, how do you define ‘sissified’? Because…that’s kind of an issue. If it means loving people? That’s what Christianity is. I saw some guy complaining that Christianity didn’t offer any outlets for men who didn’t like to sing songs, or read books. I don’t really know what to do with that!”
++++++++++++++++++
i don’t like to sing songs (christian songs) or read books (christian books). Hate both, actually. i still pursue God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, though.
If that some guy really wanted to go to a church, he could simply time his arrival to have just missed the last song (& of course the meet/greet/seat!). Nothing wrong with that, as far as I’m concerned.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Heh hey – my second thought after ‘Kewpie Doll’ was always ‘Pillsbury Dough Boy’. 🙂
siteseer wrote:
Elbows?
ZechZav wrote:
Reading responses from last night and wanted to say I got a kick out of this one.
I saw not one but two man buns at the bar a couple weeks ago! So wrong.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Soemtimes people are awful, but I have become quite suspicious of these stories that get circulated because several have turned out to be fakes. Due to a former waitress friend, I often leave tips in cash even when paying on credit and it would be very easy to misrepresent that. Just a thought.
@ Bill M:
Yeah, I suppose we should just send “Christians are bad tippers” to the urban legend file. But I still believe Mr. Rogers was a Navy seal! You can’t change my mind on that one!!
While we are on that subject, I wonder who would leave a bigger tip: Donald or Hillary? I’m still looking for a reason to vote for either one of them.
So I’ll tell you what really sissifies men: church discipline, joyfully submit to your elders, accountability, I’m with the rabid biting sheep, etc.
From DG, 9 Attributes of a Real Man. How many of them are about church discipline? 6.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/nine-attributes-of-a-real-man
@ Stan:
Of course there are 9 of them (attributes of a “real” man).
Talmidah wrote:
Pre pubescent boys don’t want to play with girls either. 🙂
Another insight into the strange ‘masculinity’ of the alt-male-headship typology?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Headless, you get it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Hey HUG, is this the one in Anaheim with the festival this weekend?
@ Stan:
Ha! You men get to be ‘joyfully obedient’ too!
I love how they took a generic verse about loving one another and made it about ‘brotherhood’.
@ Christiane:
HEADLESS, I’m wondering. If the neo-Cal system fosters the opinion that men are no better than worms, do you suppose that having women to look down on as objects of abuse, helps these men to alleviate their ‘lowliness’.
There is a long way from wormhood to the ‘real manhood’ of the neo-Cal world.
I get lost in the convolutions of their theology, so many strange twists and turns and compensatory illusions; it is easy for them to trap themselves into corners by their own contradictions.
Christiane wrote:
What New Calvinists, and other off-track patriarchies, don’t see is that the curse unleashed by Satan in the Garden of Eden was reversed by Jesus on Calvary. In Christ, there are no distinctions by race, class or gender. To those who claim they see things differently, Jesus has a firm word: “If you were blind, nobody could blame you, but, as you insist ‘We can see’, your guilt remains” (John 9:41).
Lea wrote:
Patriarchies have a knack for doing that! If they ‘really’ loved one another, they would stop oppressing half (or more) of the Body of Christ called women.
@ Max:
These men have worked out a deceptive con on unsuspecting SBC Churches, and now these men have been caught up in their own con: the sin of pride is the mother of much darkness in the souls of men and their blindness might be alleviated by the prayers of the whole Church for the intervention of the Holy Spirit on their behalf: that they may return to their first love: the Lord of Light.
Romans 8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love”
When people set out to abuse the trust of others, as the neo-Cals have done repeatedly to the Churches of the SBC, then if the WHOLE Church asks for the intercession of the Holy Spirit, some good may come for everyone’s sake. (?) It is not unknown that God can bring good out of bad intentions for the sake of those who love and wish healing for those brothers that would have selfishly sold them away, yes.
Finally in the new house and got internet back. And we found the coffee maker this morning! I thank everyone for all the prayers.
Max wrote:
We could debate the relative merits of death by firing squad vs death by hanging.
ishy wrote:
Meh, I thought I was posting this on Open Discussion. I apologize!
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
Fun fact — there is no curse of Ham in the Bible.
NJ wrote:
YES, it is.
Second oldest parish in the county/diocese, after Capistrano.
Work is still going on in the church proper, but I think it should be open during the festival. (I know it’ll be open on Sunday for Mass…)
Christiane wrote:
But these are pre-pubescent boys in sexually-mature adult bodies with Urrges in their Arreas, so there is one difference: Gurlz are for One Thing and One Thing ONLY. The same thing as a caked & soiled washcloth.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Good illustration Nick. It highlights the one thing fanatics, zealots, and ideologues have never understood — That for every constructed rule, there’s always an exception.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
When men begin to see themselves in terms of their own ‘urges’ and ‘needs’ as the most important priorities, they have forgotten their humility before the Lord. May God have mercy.
Gram3 wrote:
Just for the record, when Roe v. Wade passed, the evangelical response was a yawn. Evangelicalism believed back then that the fetus became fully human some months AFTER conception (which was Augustine and other Church Fathers’ position as well), buttressed by the Old Testament scripture that did not punish causing a miscarriage, if there was no other harm to the woman, as if it were murder. In the early 1980s Francis Schaefer, Sr., began a crusade to convince evangelicals that life began at conception. Evangelicals, ashamed that they’d largely been found on the wrong side of the segregation issue, and looking for a new cultural rallying point, jumped on the bandwagon.
I think the abortion issue has certainly been a strong weapon on the side of female subordination, and it’s interesting that the two issues came to the forefront of evangelical thought at roughly the same time.
Christiane wrote:
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Heheh…alt-male-headship…I like that, Christiane. Whenever I see alt-anything I think of aliens for some reason. 😛
I guess HUG’s right, but when the urrges happen, if their wimmins would tell them to go take a certain kind of hike, maybe we’d start to see good changes. Maybe.
I’m not holding my breath.
Robert wrote:
I am against anyone thinking an OT “curse” gives them the right to practice injustice or bigotry. But I’m curious, how do you see Gen 9:24-25? Can you explain more?
ishy wrote:
Congratulations!
brian wrote:
And that pretty much sums up a whole lot of the issues I have with church!
Velour wrote:
All will be well when God wills. I think just finding the coffee pot this morning rates an ‘alleluia’. 🙂 May God bless her new home. Good news to be thankful for.
Talmidah wrote:
Not surprising at all. I survived Calvary Chapel as a teachee for almost two decades. When you’re taught to believe that this (patriarchy) is what the Bible ‘teaches’ you (generic you) don’t dare and question it, because if you do, then it’s obvious that you don’t believe God’s word.
And what’s the ultimate destination of those who don’t believe God’s word?
Fear is the most powerful bargaining chip they have. I think it’s what accounts for those you’ve mentioned who have the ability to strike off their shackles but don’t.
ishy wrote:
That’s great – praise God!
@ Lea:
It’s a super-legalism that goes beyond what you do and into how you feel. I’m starting to think that the concept of a submissive wife is the carrot they dangle in front of men on the heavy shepherding treadmill.
Muff Potter wrote:
Yes – 1000%. Amein v’amein v’amein.
Muff Potter wrote:
Not surprising at all. I survived Calvary Chapel as a teachee for almost two decades. When you’re taught to believe that this (patriarchy) is what the Bible ‘teaches’ you (generic you) don’t dare and question it, because if you do, then it’s obvious that you don’t believe God’s word.
And what’s the ultimate destination of those who don’t believe God’s word?
Fear is the most powerful bargaining chip they have. I think it’s what accounts for those you’ve mentioned who have the ability to strike off their shackles but don’t.
I just remembered something.
I always enjoyed Chuck Smith’s verse-by-verse teachings on the radio but honestly, never knew much about Calvary Chapel. Then I met a woman in 2001 who went to one in the area (I live in Deebsland – NC).
Anyway, this friend raved about the CC she attended and it sounded great. She invited me to go with her but I was never able to go. Also, I never heard anything negative about the CCs around here. I think there were two at that time.
Has patriarchy always been a real *thing* in Calvary Chapel? You mentioned two decades. What was your experience, if you have time to share?
Woops, bad formatting above on my part I guess. My comment to Muff starts at “I just remembered something”.
AnonInNC wrote:
They covered all the talking points, didn’t they? And even brought their politics into it. It almost seems fake, it’s like Poe’s law IRL?
I actually blame the leaders for a lot of this. When people are constantly getting hammered with these ideas, they do go out and offend others. They aren’t thinking clearly. The simplistic answers blind them.
siteseer wrote:
Take a look at who is cursed in verse 25. It isn’t Ham.
Muff Potter wrote:
When I was a student at Liberty, I was rather mystified at the fundamentalist belief of “Everything in the Bible is already decided, so if you disagree with us, you hate the Bible.” It’s very similar.
I disagreed with a lot of things at Liberty, including the patriarchal ideology, though it wasn’t quite as strong as the hyper-Calvinists. Nobody questioned me being a single missionary until I got to SEBTS. But there were so many things that I just didn’t see in the Bible that they claimed were absolutes, to the point that I wondered if they were really reading the Bible.
Robert wrote:
Ah, I see what you’re saying. Which raises another point, why did he curse Ham’s son for what Ham did? And… what exactly did Ham do? One of those strange stories that I feel is mostly left unsaid…
siteseer wrote:
Here’s an interesting take. I heard Rabbi Lapin teach on this several years ago and it was rather shocking:
https://rabbidaniellapin.com/ham-i-am/
@ Christiane:
“But these Daubenmires don’t control ALL women. And they fear and despise the women who prove themselves in academia, and in the professions, and on the battlefields, and in industry and business and government.”
++++++++++++++++++++
and the look on their face when you challenge them, don’t agree with them, when you don’t obey them.
it’s this kind of half smile, as they fix their eyes on you — first it’s surprise, then it’s a need to mask the affront they feel, then it’s resolve: “hmmm, i see,…. ok, we’ll just go to defcon 2 next time.” yes, all this in the matter of 2.3 seconds.
i can’t be the only here one who knows this look.
ishy wrote:
Like what? This is not the place for getting off track of the topic, but I would be interested in hearing perhaps your short list in just a few words.
@ elastigirl:
…and when you give them direction because it’s simply the logical thing to do in the moment. and you didn’t know you couldn’t. and you knew exactly what the best course of action was for him, for others.
elastigirl wrote:
And then it’s threats, orders to obey and submit to them, meetings [the pastors/elders at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley, my ex-church do this] with multiple men threatening a woman, a closure of the meeting that you’re destined for Hell and not one of us and should be shunned [chairman of the elder board of GBFSV], being banned from church property & church services & any contact with your friends, being told that YOU have to apologize to them for their mistreatment of you, excommunication, shunning. And all the while — lies. Lie upon lie upon lie. I’ve never seen such inveterate liars as the pastors/elders at my ex-church and the lies they will tell to get their way.
Talmidah wrote:
Very interesting.
This part would drive some of the inerrancy folks batty: “Ancient Jewish wisdom teaches that the Torah uses euphemistic language”
siteseer wrote:
Interesting questions. Another interesting tidbit is that it is not God who gives the curse, but Noah. In any case, it is obvious what the curse of Canaan involves, and it has nothing to do with skin color. The curse is that Canaan’s descendants would be displaced by Shem’s. “Let Japheth dwell in the tents of Shem” might refer to the presence of the Philistines and possibly other ethnic Greek groups in Palestine.
My approach to scripture has become a lot more liberal over the years, and I regard the Genesis stories as being mainly folklore. It’s possible that Noah was originally known as the inventor of wine-making, and that his sons were Shem, Japheth, and Canaan, and that Noah was associated with a global flood later on. There are indications in scripture that suggest this is what happened.
Lea wrote:
Isn’t *that* the truth! 😀
@ elastigirl:
My brother was introducing my niece to an older male visitor who heard her play a sonata on the piano. My niece is a stunning blond woman. This was before her marriage in her early thirties.
The man said to my brother words to the effect of ‘shouldn’t she be married by now? anyone that beautiful deserves a husband to look after her’
my brother then introduced his daughter to this man using her military title ‘Lt. Commander’; my brother said ‘the look on that man’s face …….’ (you can only imagine the rest)
@ Christiane:
i’d pay money to see that!
Lea wrote:
I waited tables when I was young at a casual dining place frequented by high school students. More than once I found myself fishing my tip out of a drink glass. It was annoying, but part of the gig.
There is, anecdotally at least, some confusion in the Church at large about what it means to be separate from TheWorld. Jesus said that it should be our righteous deeds that shine out; the problem comes when we lack the warmth, love and character that people in TheWorld have and our deeds are less righteous than theirs. Some people seem to’ve decided the best alternative then is to let our self-righteous speech clang out, perhaps in the belief that claiming to be technically “righteous” even though we’re jerks will somehow be a good advert for the doctrines that have punched our tickets to heaven.
Well, of course, that’s an excellent alternative to Jesus’ rather over-optimistic plan. The flaw is that we’re actually meant to provide evidence that heaven exists.
@ elastigirl:
🙂
ION:
Barcelona, remarkably, are only just shading the possession stats against Manchester City in the Nou Camp. That has not, however, prevented them from taking the lead.
At the Emirates, Arsenal have just gone 2-0 up against Ludogorets and there are no goals at Celtic Park as yet tonight.
Speaking of Celtic Park, Celtic’s opponents are Borussia Monchengladbach. A football-loving friend of mine at university once observed that a good, inoffensive way to make oneself unpopular at a football match would be to attend one of Borussia Monchengladbach’s home games, wait for a quiet moment, and then shout: Give us a “B”…
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Standing ovation.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
See, I don’t get the separate part, because I always thought we were supposed to be in the world but not of it.
I like what Paul says here, and it sounds nothing like what some people do:
“Paul’s Use of His Freedom
19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”
Stan wrote:
“It is not enough for you to obey Big Brother, 6079 Smith W. You must LOVE Big Brother.”
She’s the Prize. Stick with all the crap long enough and YOU’LL get a Smokin’ HAWT Wife like Pastor’s! Who’ll service every paraphilia you’ve been building up over all these years of crap. 24/7/365.
@ Daisy:
IIRC, Doug Phillips and Doug Wilson, for starters, encouraged their followers to believe in the “one vote per household” idea. If women *had* to be allowed to vote, then of course they should follow their husband’s (or father’s?) lead, so as to reinforce his vote, rather than nullify it.
It’s all about power.
@ Daisy:
But there is hope. I had a conversation with a formerly staunch supporter of patriarchy, who has done a complete reversal. It was an amazing thing to behold. God is doing a great work in his life, and has opened his eyes to the lies he once upheld and taught.
okrapod wrote:
I would say the driving force behind much of their theology is that they are “pure”, and to be afraid of anything that might taint them and make them sin. Examples include secular media, Halloween, and sadly, non-Christian friends. They isolate themselves in this fundamentalist world, and think evangelism is passing out tracts without actually dealing with the real world problems of everyday people.
The problem is that they are an arrogant and greedy lot who never talk about pride or greed as being the worst of sins. It’s perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged, to make a lot of money off church members (including poor ones).
I never saw Jesus fear anything, and He never avoided the problems of real people. He asked people to trust Him, not to fear the world.
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
I am reminded of the advertising culture that started in the early years of television and grew from there. People didn’t necessarily worry about their body odor — until deodorant commercials showed them how other people might regard them with disgust. People didn’t worry a whole lot about how white their smile might be — until toothpaste commercials showed them how “important” an issue it was. Did women really obsess about “ring around the collar” before they were “told” that’s how they ought to be reacting, by the despairing woman in the ad?
I wonder how many little boys would grow up worrying about their level of manhood, if they weren’t told that they had something to worry about?
ishy wrote:
Which is actually counterproductive, if your real goal is evangelism.
Burwell wrote:
Whoa. Let’s see, “the chance to be great again…” If the church follows in the alleged footsteps of the presidential candidate, I suppose that means forcing sexual attention on women against their will, because “he just can’t help himself.”
As to the honorary “Coach” title, is that something like a Southern gentleman being known as “the Colonel” — even when he wasn’t? (I am suddenly reminded of Garrison Kiellor’s “Senator” character, who is not a senator at all, it’s the name his parents gave him at birth.)
Lea wrote:
Extremely, which is why most non-Christians in Lynchburg hate Liberty people.
Oh, and the terrible tipping Christians in Lynchburg are quite a real thing. I’ve been with church groups while I was in school and listened to people refuse to give tips for the stupidest of reasons, when I knew it was just because they were jerks.
Christiane wrote:
What really confused me in our former church was that the elders seemed to be competent men in their business fields. I really didn’t get a “threatened by competition from women” vibe from them.
refugee wrote:
I think there’s two kinds of men attracted to it. The power hungry ones, and the ones that like faith very neat and tidy. Calvinism is laid out in such clear and uncertain terms that it appeals to those people who don’t like shades of grey.
refugee wrote:
To add to ishy’s categories, I think there is a third category of ‘go along to get along’, where people just mouth whatever they’re supposed to and continue to act normal. I would like to know what percentage of comp folks are all ‘whatever’ and what percentage are true believers. (and I think there are also people who are true believers, kind of, but don’t actually ACT that way – and this includes most of the ‘maybe every ten years something comes up where I need to ‘submit’ to my husbands decision’)
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I thought you might be calling him an old fart.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
But you were really saying he’s full of hot air, at least, that’s what I got out of it.
Nancy2 wrote:
Hah! GMTA.
Nancy2 wrote:
Oops, I don’t know why that happened (see above). That “GMTA” was supposed to apply to *this* quote of Nancy2’s.
Robert wrote:
There is the issue of the current YEC proponent, but that’s another topic…
ishy wrote:
Bingo.
Back to the topic. I think when a guy is dressed in a nice suit and tie, and wears a good men’s cologne, they can be sexy. Does this mean that men can no longer wear nice suits to church because there are women who find them sexy looking. God Forbid. I’ve always been able to “control” myself. So what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. In my opinion, guys like Piper and company are so wrong about the way a woman should dress. i can remember that we girls were told that when you kneel in church, your dress should touch the floor. They would have dress checks on that in church camp. We could never show our knees as this was in a boys and girls camp.
ishy wrote:
I meant “certain terms” there. We’re through the worst of the moving, but I’m still really tired.
refugee wrote:
Actually, I really was just using “piper” as an agent noun (“one who plays the pipes” or, in Scotland, “one who plays the bagpipes”).
There’s an old Scottish joke here:
Q: Why does a pipe band march?
A: Because it’s harder to hit a moving target.
I’ve been loosely following the commentary and wondering whether or not to add to it.
Daubenmire does identify a problem, but he mischaracterizes it. I don’t believe it’s an issue of gender. Rather than using words like sissy or effeminate, better descriptions for many modern churches include words such as vapid, boring, uninspiring, predictable, uninteresting, depressing, burdensome, fabricated, insincere, banal, lifeless, oppressive, abusive, untruthful, rude, sadistic, extremist, radical, etc. There is a real problem, but blaming it on gender is not the solution. Daubenmire does not seem to get this.
It’s true that some churches have an atmosphere that leans more towards what could be defined as feminine, and others lean toward masculine. I’m guessing that churches that obviously lean one way or the other are making a mistake. It depends on what the purpose of church is. If the goal is to get as many people in the building as possible, then one should look for ways to offend the least amount of people. This would probably mean going with something gender-neutral. But is being non-offensive really the goal?
Jesus attracted large crowds – so many that he actually turned them away through his harsh teaching (see John 6:66). The Bible does not say anything about him emphasizing gender in terms of what the body of believers is supposed to look like. Maybe the modern church needs to get away from the focus on atmosphere and décor, and try to discover what it was about Jesus that caused people to give up everything for him.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
As I said above, there really aren’t any more submissive complementarian single women out there, not any more.
More and more Christian women are rejecting the complementarian view, so these men who want to marry a woman who will play a passive doormat to them will either have to buy a blow up doll, or else purchase a mail-order bride.
Or learn to be content being a life-long single.
Harley wrote:
When Suits Become a Stumbling Block – A Plea To My Brothers in Christ
http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/
Ken F wrote:
Ironically one of the very reasons so many women then and now find Jesus so appealing is that the guy was NOT a gender complementarian or a sexist.
Jesus bucked gender norms of his culture – he taught women, he didn’t shame them for not being SAHMs, etc etc. Jesus treated women as equals, not as second class citizens or as men’s inferiors.
@ Talmidah:
Left you a comment over on the OD thread so as not to derail this one.
Kristen Rosser wrote:
I don’t know how to explain this, but as a life time celibate – I’ve never had sex, so my chances of getting pregnant are about zero, unless I am sexually assaulted –
It bothers me to think one motive that compels these complementarian seems to have to do with them assuming I (a woman) might have sex and get pregnant, and they want to regulate my possible reproductive situation to the Nth degree, and come up with all this bogus gender theology to limit me.
If a huge basis for complementarianism has to do with abortion, that ticks me off. I’m a celibate lady. I’m not going to get pregnant, so their complementarian teachings have even less relevance to my life than before.
Daisy wrote:
Yes – he bucked all norms. And religion has always been trying to get him back in the box.
Ken F wrote:
21st century Christianity doesn’t take Jesus serious enough … at least the American version of it.
Muff Potter wrote:
Just left you a comment over there.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
Yep. I sometimes quote complementarians, substituting “negro” for “woman” just to show how absurd they sound.
ishy wrote:
Calvinism is all about law and order. I’m a black & white sort of guy myself – grey makes me uncomfortable. But, I don’t check my spiritual brains at the door of any church – I search the Scripture myself to see if what the pulpit is saying is truth. New Calvinist belief and practice continues to come up short when compared to the whole of Scripture. However, as you note, there are those who like their religion served to them in a box, rather than disciplining their lives to read the Bible themselves and beseech the Holy Spirit to teach them. They would rather follow the Pied Piper, at the risk of missing Jesus.
Max wrote:
Well said. I’ve felt the same way for years. It’s a shame that so many are missing out on so much.
Max wrote:
If that’s really the case, then it’s not Christianity.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I did that very thing in a conversation with my grown daughter several months ago. She understands now more than ever how ridiculous it all is.
Max wrote:
I want to paraphrase the honorable Abraham Heschel:
“Christ is either of no importance, or of supreme importance.”
Talmidah wrote:
I once wrote a country song lampooning anti-Semitism, in which the protagonist is a paranoid sheep rancher who repeats all the same canards, but directs them at cowboys instead of Jews.
It’s here, if anyone is interested
ishy wrote:
I have seen this mentality in many fundamentalist circles. If you disagree with their dogma, they will say things like “they are promoting Satan’s lies and asking ‘did God REALLY say that?’ (Genesis 3:1)”. It’s a manipulative tactic they use to shut down any genuine debate, ridicule their opponents and stop anyone questioning them.
ishy wrote:
And this is the root of legalism in modern Christianity. Some of them are so centred on the letter and not the spirit of it. Jesus said that to love God and your neighbour are the goal and fulfilment of the law. Do you remember when the Pharisees took Jesus to task for healing on the Sabbath and he cited the example of David and his men eating the holy bread that was only for the priests. Jesus called them “innocent”. Or the case of the Hebrew midwives who were not exactly honest with Pharaoh and preserved the lives of innocent children and God blessed them (Exodus 3)? The point is that the good of humanity comes first and takes precedence over technical obedience to the letter of the law.
Max wrote:
The Pied Piper LOL. Great comment, and very true.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Way back when I was a waitress, we were paid $1 below minimum wage, with the expectation that we would make that $1 an hour in tips. The IRS taxed that phantom $1 an hour, whether we made it or not (and sometimes we didn’t…)
Ken F wrote:
There are two kinds of discussion thread on TWW:
1) Those I’m not sure about whether (or what) to add to;
2) Those I can’t shut up on
Less frivolously:
Ken F wrote:
I agree. There’s a lot of inaccuracy in orbit around the claim that “a woman needs to be loved, whereas a man needs to be respected”. Love (given unconditionally in recognition of a person’s intrinsic worth) and respect (given only in recognition of honest achievement) both feature in the gospel.
Love and respect, like X and Y axes on a graph, are independent variables: meaning, you can give a person one, or the other, or neither, or both. As with any “independent variables”, they’re much more powerful when expressed together. But human beings also have a tendency to boil it down to a misguided either/or and to fall for one or the other. It has been my experience that church in the UK likes the idea of love, but does not properly understand – or like – the idea of respect.
It may be that women are statistically more tolerant than men of a relational diet biased heavily towards love and away from respect. If so, then again, there may be many complex reasons for this. (One perfectly reasonable reading of the curse “Your desire shall be for your husband, but he shall rule over you” is: you’ll want respect but you’ll never get it. And to the man: you’ll want the earth to love you, but it never will.)
If women are indeed more able to tolerate a respect-poor diet – though that doesn’t mean they’re thriving on it – then that may explain the belief that sweet, soft, gentle, loving church is “feminine” and needs correcting by something “masculine”.
Max wrote:
Several hyper-Calvinists I know are quite open about the fact that they line the Bible up to a Calvinist framework, and not the other way around. But I guess that goes with the authoritarian ideology that thinking for yourself and outside the hyper-Calvinist box is bad. Their leaders certainly work very hard to remove any dissenting opinions.
refugee wrote:
Like I said, TIP CREDIT.
(I discovered that almost 40 years ago while working at a restaurant company’s HQ.)
Would the IRS accept those fake $20 Gospel tracts as payment?
ZechZav wrote:
Fluttering hands, fear of Muscular Women, and all.
Harley wrote:
They think women aren't visual. Which is hilarious.
But if you told them you were hot for some guy, they would just call you a slutty jezebel temptress and be done with it. The important thing is that no matter what happens it is the woman's fault!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I know what you mean.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I think they are so closely tied…I don’t know how you would even test for that. Love makes you think you are respected sometimes, and then you realize that you were really not. People will say ‘I love you’ but they don’t often say ‘I respect you’. So you have to figure it out from actions. And actions can deceive.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Eh, I think there is such thing as unconditional respect but it has absolutely nothing to do with the way comps and the love/respect gurus push it.
Working with troubled youth, I have seen that there very personhood was disrespected and trampled on. Some of them were terribly disrespectful and their behavior did not contain anything resembling honest achievement.
But they still needed respect, unconditional respect to fill up the respect deficit in their lives. Whereas other staff continued to disrespect these teens, I tried to treat them with a basic human decency respect. And guess what? They responded to it.
Not trying to muddy the waters.
Just trying to bring more into the love/respect spectrum.
ishy wrote:
TWW’s recent piece on the ESV Bible (the New Calvinist sword of choice) gives testimony to Scripture twisting to fit a reformed grid.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
A little more on this.
I think this big debate on ‘consent’ has to do with respect. As Lea mentions above, a person can love or say they love another and not have respect for them. And I mean the most basic respect as in respecting boundaries or their personhood. It is a sort of ownership love. Ownership love has a respect deficit and doesn’t understand consent.
One of the problems with the love/respect debate is on how respect is ill-defined and then turned into a gender issue. There are many levels of respect on the spectrum as you say using the x and y example. One level IS the honest achievement level. It is an upper level but not the only level. I go into more detail on it here:
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2013/07/unconditional-respect.html
Mara wrote:
Yes! See, I guess I don’t think you can truly love someone if you don’t have a basic level of respect for them as a person. Now, maybe you don’t respect their opinion on a topic, or intelligence, and that could hurt because a relationship would feel unequal. But what is love without basic respect? I don’t know how to separate them.
Christiane wrote:
Before I retired, I traveled extensively on my job. Whenever my schedule included a Sunday stay, I would sometimes attend a church in the area. As I exited some of those places, I was struck with the thought “What happened to Jesus?!” America is a mess because the church is a mess … and the church is a mess because the Main Thing is not the main thing in far too many places.
Lea wrote:
I think it is easier for some to separate them than others.
I think ownership love within some men and women has varying levels of diminishing respect for like say a wife, a child, a slave, a pet.
Lea wrote:
All primates (including men & women) are visually-oriented.
Sight is our primary sense, as smell is for dogs and hearing for bats.
Daisy wrote:
I sense a pitch for an episode of Black Mirror…
Mara wrote:
Another huge problem with the teaching is that it teaches women that they don’t need respect and that they need to be able to give respect without getting it. And then, it teaches both men and women that one way of a women disrespecting a man allowing her think she can expect respect concerning her own body and her own personal boundaries.
It takes away her right of consent. And it teaches a man how to be coercive in getting sex and that this coerciveness is not a sin or lack of love or lack of respect against a woman.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2016/06/marital-coercion.html
ishy wrote:
Just like the sects of Islam that get into the news these days.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Maybe they are mistaking women not being attracted to them specifically with not being ‘visual’?
Mara wrote:
Ah, see I just can’t see that type of thing as love.
refugee wrote:
What exactly burst his bubble?
(And no Christianese platitude explanations. If you don’t know, say so.)
ishy wrote:
Like Kirk Cameron locking himself in his trailer when he heard there were Heathens on the set of Left Behind. Keep your nose squeaky-clean for the Rapture Litmus Test.
Slacktivist once theorized that this sounded like someone who was catechized with a definition of Holiness which was entirely negative, i.e. nothing more than Thou Shalt Nots. Add the fact KC was coming in as an adult from a world with a bad rep among the Godly (i.e. Theater Arts & showbiz) and you have a recipe for a lot of baggage and one-eighty overreaction. Neurotic even by Hollywood standards, Excessive Scrupulosity sub-type.
elastigirl wrote:
Stopping at ONLY DefCon 2?
@ Mara:
I was reading this part about driscoll..without being graphic, you say he said women ought to do a thing. Do they ever talk about men doing the reverse for their wives? I keep wondering about that, but not enough to actually listen to Mark for any length of time.
Mara wrote:
Mara wrote:
I could be wrong, but I think this is where Paul was going in Ephesians with “husbands love your wives: wives respect your husbands”. In most cases, women were considered to be nothing more than property. Most marriages were based on the men’s decisions and women didn’t have much choice in who they married.
ZechZav wrote:
Well said! My heart’s cry!!!
Christiane wrote:
Gotta chime in with elastigirl on this one. I too would have payed money to see that poor man’s bewilderment and chagrin.
Max wrote:
Max wrote:
I am of the mind that if you go into a place that honors Christ as Lord, please don’t let it have a ‘stage’ or look like a coffee bar or a sports bar, but I come from a love of the visual expressions of faith, the tangible, the ‘bells and the smells’, the feel of holy water and of the beads in my hands, and the kneelers, sometimes padded for the older ones which now I am counted among …. and the light, always the light: the candles, the stained glass emitting great shards of colored light on the woods and walls of the sanctuary …. let the place call people to life up their hearts to Christ in prayer
I did want to clarify that quote. I said that I had paraphrased Abraham Heschel, and I had. His actual quote, which to me really does incorporate my paraphrase, is this:
“God is either of no importance, or of supreme importance.”
A wise man, this Abraham Heschel. He gets it, yes.
@ Muff Potter:
🙂
Muff Potter wrote:
Me, too! I would have loved to have been there with a camera!
Ken F wrote:
well, the ‘witnesses’ who were martyred had seen Him crucified for their sake, and then they saw the Risen Lord
and these witnesses were fearful after He ascended to heaven and hid together in the Upper Room, until the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Who took away their fear and gifted them to go out into the world in the footsteps of the One Who had gone to Calvary for their sake
‘Let the fire of the Holy Spirit descend …..
‘and He shall renew the face of the Earth’
@ Nancy2:
In fairness, I must say that the man was an elderly gentleman, not an obnoxious person, and my brother is not an unkind person or one to insult anyone;
but I can understand what happened there, and I suspect that my brother’s glowing pride in Linz just got the better of him (giggle) …..
@ Christiane:
It’s not form, but substance which makes the difference. If the substance offered in whatever form does not lift up the name of Jesus, it’s just doing church without God.
Max wrote:
Yes, I can see this. We may use words differently, but in my Church is said, this:
” Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to His life.
And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into His love.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Because I post anonymously here for the sake of the teens, who took way more abuse than I did from the old church, I don’t want to put in too many details.
Perhaps it had something to do with his daughters reaching adulthood, with no prospects if suitors didn’t come knocking. (And in that culture, the run-of-the-mill congregants don’t see elders’ daughters as attainable, I think, which narrows the pool considerably.) Perhaps it had something to do with him being willing, unlike the other elders, to admit when he’d gotten something wrong. (Before we left the church some years back, he stood up in front of the congregation and confessed to something else he’d gotten wrong, and that took courage on his part in a church where the elders are always right.)
Perhaps it had something to do with an innate sense of justice, or perhaps mercy, that was getting increasingly trampled with each case of discipline he had to agree to. (And “unity” — is that how it was put recently, the term that reflects mind control? — was demanded at that church, no less for the elders. Lockstep. No dissent allowed.)
He is a man who works with his hands, rather than an executive type (though he does run his own business). I wonder if that makes him more down-to-earth than the other corporate-type elders.
Lea wrote:
Naw. It’s that women are not supposed to be sexual creatures. Look at Doug Wilson’s insistence that it’s not about mutual pleasure. The man is supposed to conquer, plant, etc. and the woman is supposed to just lie back and accept. It doesn’t matter if she enjoys it or not. The man’s pleasure is what it’s all about.
Women aren’t supposed to lust after others. They’re not supposed to notice a good-looking guy. Not allowed. They’re not allowed to have crushes, or daydream about a guy. (Why, that would be equivalent to giving a piece of their heart away!) They’re supposed to be pure, virginal creatures until they marry, and their husband (shades of Song of Solomon) awakens and shapes his wife and teaches her the proper responses.
It’s just another facet of leading his wife.
refugee wrote:
Yeah. There are easier things than running the gantlet of an Elder Tywin Lannister.
Pretty sure that was a factor. He had an ongoing Reality Check — something you don’t get in the rarified atmosphere of Spiritual Giantism or Hypothetical Theological Minutiae or behind your “walkers” or surrounded by Yes-Men.
refugee wrote:
Just like Pornography!
And Harem Sex Slavery!
refugee wrote:
Has anyone ever done a sermon about the stuff men should be doing for their wives in bed?
Not that I think they should, but they sure seem to go to the other well not infrequently…
Lea wrote:
I read somewhere that in Jewish culture, sex is seen as something men GIVE to their wives, not the other way around. I suspect that was true among early Christians, too. The androcentric attitude is more Greco-Roman pagan, I suspect.
Lea wrote:
It’s not Agape love, to be sure.
But that is exactly the kind of love husbands are instructed to give their wives.
Just as there are levels and types of respect, so also there are levels and types of love.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
Interesting – I didn’t know that. It would make sense, though. A husband must surely see it that way, for love’s sake.
Recalling a certain Mr Wilson’s iconically fatuous statement that a man “penetrates, conquers, colonises, plants”… well, there is some precedent in scripture for men entering in and penetrating. But they didn’t conquer and colonise; I refer to the Holy of Holies into which the male priests entered in – but with fear and trepidation. Nadab and Abihu decided one day to try and colonise/plant their own thing in there – and vanished in a radioactive fireball, albeit with just enough of them left to bury.
Sinful men who, statistically, are physically stronger, do get their chance to conquer/colonise/whatever in this world, if that’s the kind of men they are. Sinful men got the chance to flog and crucify God when he emptied himself and appeared to them in a form that didn’t threaten them. Given the choice to exploit something that is – at least under present circumstances – less immediately powerful than themselves, sinful men generally do.
I am speculating to a certain extent here, but Jesus – this is not speculation, btw – stated that many who are first will be last, and vice versa, when he returns and his full Nature is manifested. Those who thought they’d killed him will experience a rude awakening. It may also be that those who imagine women – given less musculature and power on this earth – will be their eternal subordinates, will also experience a rude awakening.
dee wrote:
Hovind is a special kind of crazy – he is into UFOs and all kinds of conspiracy theories.
@ Mara:
I ran across a ‘desiring god’ article saying men run on respect and women run on love which is super annoying but then I realized it’s a year old and written by doug Wilson! so.
He said “Women are better at loving than men are. Men do well at respecting.”
Which is so much nonsense that I want to talk at length about past relationships but whatever.
@ Lea:
OH, If you want to read it its here. http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/love-and-repect-basics-for-marriage
Desiring god gets all the negative points for having this Doug Wilson nonsense on their website.
Jacob wrote:
UFOlogy and Conspiracy Theories have gone together since Project Bluebook, but the Conspiracy Theories took over completely sometime around 1980.
And there’s more: HEEEEEEEEERES HOVIND!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#Politics_and_conspiracies
Really out there, but disappointing in that all his Grand Unified Conspiracy Theories are so conventional at the core. New World Order, 9/11 Truther, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, World Communist Conspiracy, Microchips in Forehead and Right Hand, all with SATAN pulling the strings. No Deros shining their Telaug Rays up from inside the Hollow Earth; no Shapeshifting Cannibal Alien Lizards, no Communist Gangster Computer God on the Dark Side of the Moon.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
P.S. And Sovereign Citizen up the wazoo.
That officially elevates it to the Kitchen Sink level of Conspiracy Theory.
He thinks rheumatoid arthritis was created by the government?
Lea wrote:
It wasn’t just Doug Wilson nonsense. I guess you were never exposed to this book? Sorry to have to expose you to this stuff 😉
https://www.amazon.com/Love-Respect-Desires-Desperately-Needs-ebook/dp/B004MYFQ3Q
I haven’t read all the comments, so maybe this has already been brought up. Dave Daubenmire lives in the same county that I live in, in Ohio. He is always spewing nonsense & agitating “Christians” who lack vital critical thinking skills. His own son, Zachary Daubenmire, was arrested on child porn charges in ’07. More recently Dave was stirring up trouble by protesting the local Target’s bathroom policy. His viewpoints & comments make me sick, and sadly there are a number of local men who follow his flawed thought process. Just the other day a Facebook “friend” of mine, former youth Pastor at my former church, shared the same arguement about why we should all vote for Trump rather than Hillary (“God has already said in His Word who we should vote for! She is disqualified because she is a woman!”). I asked him if a conservative pro-life female were running against a liberal pro-choice male, would God still tell him to vote for the male? Shortly afterwards he deleted his post. SMH
Robert wrote:
The Secret Shadow Government who REALLY runs things. (Illuminati…)
Remember, anyone who doubts any of the Conspiracy Theory have PROVEN themselves to be part of The Conspiracy. “The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs! We Won’t be Taken In!”
I think the Deebs should consider doing an article on Occidental Reformed Church of North Idaho. It appears to be a Kinist (I.e. white nationalist) church, and has been guest-pastored in the past by the Afrikaner apartheid-supporter, Adi Schlebusch. I first became aware of Schlebusch back in 2009 when a Louisiana Justice of the Peace refused to marry an interracial couple, and Schlebusch kept commenting on articles about the incident expressing his support for the man. The Occidental Reformed Church uses a Celtic cross (a common white nationalist symbol) as its logo. The church’s name is another tip-off, since the word “Occidental” is a common buzzword for white nationalism (for instance, in the names of publications like Occidental Dissent, Occidental Observer, Occidental Quarterly, etc.)
North Idaho has been a hotbed for Christian Identity and neo-Nazi groups in the past. It appears as though “Kinism” might be an attempt to woo those folks toward a more Calvinist way of thinking.
While most Calvinists wouldn’t go so far as to support this stuff, a few (such as Doug Wilson) do come perilously close. Daubenmire’s comments about specifically WHITE men would be received by the Kinists with eager ears as well, I’m sure.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
What is it about Idaho that draws these creeps to that beauiful state? Perhaps pockets of isolation? So awful for the residents who are decent to have this happen to their state.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
If you “enjoyed” that, you will really appreciate this – I think surely this has to be the ultimate of nuttiness. Evidently a book that mixes conspiracy theories about the Vatican, UFOs, and I don’t know what else:
https://www.amazon.com/Exo-Vaticana-L-U-C-I-F-R-Vaticans-Astonishing/dp/0984825630
I know this is taking things way off topic but it does show the really weird mindset enough people have to make such a book sucessful. I learned about this book because I visit bookstores and if they have a “Christian” section I rush past the vast shelves full of the “Left Behind” books and look for a small corner where they have the Catholic books. So imagine my shock when I was looking for a book by Ratzinger and I saw this book – the cover has a picture of the Vatican but the picture is enhanced with UFOs. One can imagine UFOs flying out of the Vatican like angry bees swarming out of a beehive. Anyway, the bookstore staff is ignorant enough to place such a book in the Catholic section. I remember laughing and feeling offended at the same time when I saw that book.
Jacob wrote:
Four words: KITCHEN SINK CONSPIRACY THEORY.
Note that it has an End Times tie-in; ever since UFOlogy went kinda mainstream after the Sixties, there’s been a Christianese reaction that “aliens” are really DEMONS and the Illuminati are going to explain away The Rapture as Alien Abduction before welcoming SATAN under the cover of Supreme Space Brother. Like Spaceship Ruthie on bath salts.
As one commenter in a wild and crazy comment thread on extraterrestrial life(either here or at Internet Monk) put it: “There are no ‘aliens’. They are Fallen Ones come to deceive us. No I am not a conspiracy crackhead.”
In mainstream and used bookstores, I always check out the “New Age” section (AKA “Metaphysical”, what used to be called “Occult”). Reason being is that section acts as a catchall category for a lot of offbeat and just-plain-WEIRD stuff they can’t pigeonhole anywhere else. I once scored a serious speculative book on exobiology from a favorite SF author of mine that way.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
According to the FBI profiler who worked on Unabomber, a LOT of groups and individuals like that settle in Idaho and Montana. (Including the Jerk with the Kirk in Moscow?) If you’re totally asocial, antisocial, fruitcake, or just want to get away from everyone else (Crazy Hermit), the uninhabited wilderness of rural Idaho and/or Montana is the place to do it. That and the Canadian border is nearby for a quick getaway if things get too hot for you in the States.
Anyway, the bookstore staff is ignorant enough to place such a book in the Catholic section. I remember laughing and feeling offended at the same time when I saw that book.
That reminds me of the time I saw South Park DVD’s in the kids’ movies section at a thrift store. The owners of this particular store were Hispanic, and not native English speakers, so maybe that’s why they didn’t pick up on the fact that a DVD with the words “Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Boat Eide” on it is probably not appropriate for kids.
by Suzanne Burden:
“In a season when many evangelical women have been turned upside-down and inside-out by political candidates who have a stained record when it comes to the value and abuse of women, and when “good Christians” endorse and stand by them, I am not always sure how much longer women currently in the church pews will stay there.”
From:
For evangelical women who are discouraged (and the men who care)
http://www.suzanneburden.com/blog/for-evangelical-women-who-are-discouraged-and-the-men-who-care
@ Not amused:
If he wants to not support someone running due to gender, and that’s his only rationale for his choice, that’s a poor, poor reason.
I have reasons why I don’t like her myself, but her gender is not one of those reasons (I also have reasons why I don’t like the orange guy who’s running against her, but it’s not a gender thing with him, either).
If Target, and stores like it, can guarantee that non-trans persons won’t take advantage of their bathroom policies, I don’t think I’d care much if some Trans-Woman wanted in.
However, I’ve seen too many news stories of dudes lying, saying they are Trans (but they are not), so they can go into the women’s rooms to film half-dressed women unaware, or assault them.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Is that for real? He really did that?? But how does he reconcile his actions with Jesus hanging out with the tax collectors and prostitutes, even in the face of getting criticism from the Pharisees for hanging out with “the sinners”??
My impression of Kirk C. is that he drank the Evangelical Kool-Aid. IMO, he’s gone over-board. He’s in the Evangelical Bubble.
Daisy wrote:
This is called GAME THE SYSTEM.
Daisy wrote:
Ah, poor man needs to go and look into the eyes of the people he thinks will contaminate him ….. and there, if he is honest, he will see in their eyes ‘the divine spark’ of a human brother or sister he has not yet met.
(Unless of course, his ‘acting’ extends beyond the cameras and plays to a very lucrative circuit which is low on love for ‘the others’, but exceedingly generous with money when reassured of their own spotless righteousness.
I hope he is of the former, and not of the latter.
Daisy wrote:
I think KC came in as an adult convert with a lot of guilt baggage (real or imagined) from being in showbiz and is overcompensating by being as Holy and Godly as possible. And if he was Saved and catechized in a primarily NEGATIVE Holiness tradition, there’d be a LOT of emphasis on Thou Shalt Nots and Avoiding the Appearance of Sin to the point of Excessive Scrupulosity. Maybe he was always neurotic in that way and this was just a Cosmic-level focus for that neurosis.
Another story about KC on the set was that he will only work in Christianese productions and HAS to have his RL wife as a stand-in for all kissing scenes “to prevent Adultery”. That sounds like a guy who wasn’t wrapped all that tight to begin with flipping as far as possible in the other direction. Like St Augustine when it came to sex.
Kirk Cameron is also hanging around with evangelist Ray Comfort all of the time.
My ex-church, Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley, were followers of Comfort’s evangelism style and showed up videos of Comfort and Cameron working together.
Christiane wrote:
IF that’s able to overcome the Fear of Losing My Salvation from Heathen Contamination.
Eternal Hell and Getting Spewed Out of His Mouth can be quite a motivator.
“BEGONE FROM ME YE CURSED INTO EVERLASTING FIRE! JOIN THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS!”
— Jack Chick Tract Great White Throne setpiece scene
One comment not allowed.
Bridget wrote:
I read the Nate guys review. It sounds awful.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It makes sense. If you watched those KKK history channel deals, there were several waves. The original one or two in the south, but after that it mostly moved to the Midwest.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I was already a bit familiar with Kirk Cameron’s background – that he says he was once an atheist but later became a Christian – but I still marvel at how far into the evangelical bubble he is.
Even when I was not having doubts about the faith and still in the bubble myself to a point, I would’ve raised an eyebrow at some of his views. I hope he comes out of the bubble soon.
Ironically, if more Christians stepped out of the bubble, it might make them more effective Christians (or less weird looking, less obnoxious, etc).
When you’re in the Evangelical bubble, you are sort of cut off from real life, real world, real people, and real problems, because everything is sugar coated, saccharine sweet, and reduced to stuff like, “Have a problem with “X”? Golly, just pray about it, read the Bible, and that problem will instantly melt away”.
There is not much room in the Christian Bubble for real problems or real pain that can take years or decades to process.
I posted some quotes by complementarian Mary Kassian on this blog about a month ago, taken from Christianity Today, where she was saying (paraphrase):
“Gob durn it, I do wish people would stop associating gender complementarianism with domestic violence and sexual abuse!! Because I just don’t see what abuse of girls and women has to do with complementariansm!”
Kassian might want to read this (because at points, it sort of addresses her complaint):
Evangelicals and the Pursuit of Power
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/evangelicals-and-pursuit-power
Daisy wrote:
It’s not just the abuse, but the major players in that movement clearly and openly protect the abusers and not the abused.
It’s all lies.
ishy wrote:
Maybe not all comps abuse but the system is tailor made for abuse.
I read a sad article in the news yesterday about this woman who was sentenced to 5 life sentences (!) for the terrible abuse she and her late husband, a pastor, did to their daughter. The extreme sentence can tell you how bad the abuse was, which this woman took an active part in. Her defense for her actions was that her husband was the head of the household and God would hold him accountable.
It’s an ugly system that lends itself to abuse. I believe that when comp families are healthy, it’s in spite of the comp system, not because of it.
siteseer wrote:
I didn’t read the article because it sounded awful, but that was really her excuse?
Any organization can see abuse, its how its dealt with and whether it is encouraged or discouraged that you have to watch. There is no doubt to me that so many of these comp churches encourage abuse, whether they mean to or not, because of the way they react to it. They can mouth all the platitudes they want, but the proof is in the pudding.
@ Lea:
Texas judge gives pastor’s widow 5 life sentences for worst child sex abuse he’s ever seen
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2016/10/22/central-texas-judge-says-pastor-wife-committed-worst-child-sex-abuse-ever-seen
..The trial started Monday in Burnet, about 60 miles northwest of Austin, and focused on sexual abuse committed by both Misty Rae Hopkins and her late husband, John Hopkins, who acted together, as well as apart, according to a press release from the district attorney’s office.
John Hopkins was a pastor at a church in the area during the time of the offenses. He died in 2012.
… “Yesterday you [Misty Rae Hopkins] said that your husband was the head of the house and God will hold him responsible,” Stubbs [Judge Evan Stubbs] said. “And I’ll simply tell you I hope he does and I hope he does you as well. And that’s for another day.”
siteseer wrote:
And this prevents the judge from also holding her accountable how?
Daisy wrote:
I wonder whether he might have been an Extremist/Fanatic type of personality to begin with, and this is just what he ended up with to be Fanatical about.
What I call “Five Fast Praise-the-LOORDs Will Fix Everything!”
Source was a really Uber-Uber-Christian from my college days.
Tip: It doesn’t.
Velour wrote:
Did they do the Banana bit?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I thought the whole family was raised Christian because Candice is all in it too. But I’ve never actually looked it up or read anything about it, so maybe that’s wrong. Still seems odd.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
?
What’s that?
Lea wrote:
Candace became a Christian because of Kirk. She still does secular TV shows, though, so I don’t think she’s quite as in the bubble as he is.
I get the impression Kirk is a true believer, and it’s always problematic when a true believer surrounds themselves with people who insist that you will be tainted with outside relationships.
Velour wrote:
Ray Comfort’s banana apologetics
The Banana Argument
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Banana_argument
On that page, you can see the video where Comfort makes the Banana Argument.
I am posting this because, IMO, it is applicable to gender complementarianism, and I hope anyone reading this can easily see why I see similarities:
Why Doesn’t Spending Time With Women Make Men Less Sexist?
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/why-doesnt-spending-time-with-women-make-men-less-sexist.html
It discusses ambivalent sexism, which seems to be explained on this page in such a way it sounds the same as the concept of benevolent sexism.
Snippets from the page:
————
Benevolent sexism is different. Benevolent sexists endorse a paternalistic view of the world in which women are to be cherished and protected, in part because they aren’t quite equal to men. Oftentimes, seemingly positive sentiments about women are manifestations of benevolent sexism.
Glick explained that the overarching theory here is that benevolent sexism evolved culturally as a way to maintain the gender hierarchy while also allowing men to enjoy close companionship with women, consensual sex, and so on.
In other words: If you adopt the stance that part of your role is to protect your wife or girlfriend and to be made better by her goodness, then you get those aforementioned perks, without losing your place in the gender hierarchy. “You’re the knight in shining armor, you’re Prince Charming — rather than, ‘You’re the oppressor,’” said Glick.
Women, meanwhile, often benefit from benevolent sexism in the crude, unfortunate sense that it’s simply better than the alternative.
…“The best women can hope for is benevolent sexism (being cherished and adored by men who love you). It’s a small pedestal that you can fall off easily, but it’s better than being harassed, raped, and demonized.” [said Rudman, social psychologist at Rutgers]
Daisy wrote:
I must have been in the fellowship hall setting up for the potluck lunch and missed Adult Sunday School at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley (aka Salem Witch Trials II).
Thanks for the explanation.
Daisy wrote:
And the video where Ray Comfort demonstrates the Intelligent Design of the Banana as shaped to perfectly fit the mouth. By inserting it into his mouth in an unintentionally-EROTIC manner. Move over, Linda Lovelace.
Daisy wrote:
There is not much room in the Christian Bubble for REALITY, period.
Guys such as these are also helping to kill off complementarianism:
Christian marriage adviser: Use ‘fear and dread’ to control your wife — as God intended Oct 2015
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/christian-marriage-adviser-use-fear-and-dread-to-control-your-wife-as-god-intended/
I don’t know of any normal, healthy woman who would marry a guy like that knowing he’s like that from the start, or would STAY married once she finds out what he’s really like.
The only women who would likely stay in such a relationship are women who are conditioned to believe (by the husband, childhood abuse, and/or church teachings) to think she MUST endure that sort of treatment.
I’d rather remain single than marry some guy who thinks it’s okay to control me, and to use dread and fear to do so (and to think the Bible supports as such). The guys behind the articles linked to from that page also have some sick entitlement views, too.
Daisy wrote:
Ever seen a wild banana? They’re tiny and practically inedible (mostly seeds). Not very Comfort-able to eat!
Or maybe I should say, wild bananas are not a Comfort food!
Daisy wrote:
That’s!My!Church!
It’s okay for women to get out and bust our tails working; get hot and sweaty, smash our thumbs, and get cuts and bruises on Kentucky Changers mission trips. But when it comes to the church and our marriages, it’s a different story! We have to be cherished and protected there – protected from the shame of having to make serious decisions and serving in any of the roles/offices necessary for the function of the church. We are too precious and fragile to do things like that!