Gimme That Old Time Religion

[Churchhoney]

Kevin Swanson shows Ben how seriously we should take the escalating persecution of Christians. This is a massive meme these days, I think. Ben needs to be more creative with his videos.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-I5yqM5ff4

Edited August 12, 2015 by Churchhoney

[Liz Tudor]

Wow. I went to the site and read the whole depressing, soul-sucking post. How terrible for an adult to indoctrinate girls into being thoughtless, unquestioning, brood mares. It reads like a scene from some futuristic/new society book (I know The Handmaid's Tale has been discussed here quite a bit, and rightfully so). It's such a 180 from my upbringing. I wonder if any of the Duggar girls will have/have had a "light bulb moment?" Or if they have, they must quash it. Gothardism is a terrible, awful cult.

[Churchhoney]

Wow. I went to the site and read the whole depressing, soul-sucking post. How terrible for an adult to indoctrinate girls into being thoughtless, unquestioning, brood mares. It reads like a scene from some futuristic/new society book (I know The Handmaid's Tale has been discussed here quite a bit, and rightfully so). It's such a 180 from my upbringing. I wonder if any of the Duggar girls will have/have had a "light bulb moment?" Or if they have, they must quash it. Gothardism is a terrible, awful cult.

 

Seems likely that Jana's even taught stuff in this vein at Journey to the Heart. Given how these ideas seem to permeate that whole group, I think it'd be quite unsurprising to find that she was the main impediment to her own marriage prospects. At least at the TTH, Boob has other slaves and a chief doormat and plenty of other places to direct his attention. If she married one of these guys, she'd be the primary and for a time the only doormat of somebody whose intentions and character she would barely know and who could be presumed to buy in to this crap completely. Even though I guess it's taken as a sign of the Duggars' non-royalty status, Jessa and Jill are lucky that they got husbands from outside of ATI, I'd say.

[kokapetl]

Seems likely that Jana's even taught stuff in this vein at Journey to the Heart. Given how these ideas seem to permeate that whole group, I think it'd be quite unsurprising to find that she was the main impediment to her own marriage prospects. At least at the TTH, Boob has other slaves and a chief doormat and plenty of other places to direct his attention. If she married one of these guys, she'd be the primary and for a time the only doormat of somebody whose intentions and character she would barely know and who could be presumed to buy in to this crap completely. Even though I guess it's taken as a sign of the Duggars' non-royalty status, Jessa and Jill are lucky that they got husbands from outside of ATI, I'd say.

I think Gothard unintentionally killed the prospect of second generation Quiverfull by restricting their educations. The first generation consisting of converts seem to be largely middle class, but their kids won't be.

[Churchhoney]

Yeah, I agree. I think that's exactly what he did. He isn't as smart as he thinks he is.....

 

On the other hand, maybe he did see it coming. It's possible that all he ever wanted was to create a group of people who'd send him bucks throughout his lifetime -- and then who cares what happens after? It's not like he has any kids that he'd want to reap the benefits of his businesses. A couple of generations of suckers with a few dollars to spend was all he needed to set him up for life. I by no means think that all the people who found cults actually believe in the cults that they've founded.

[kokapetl]

Yeah, I agree. I think that's exactly what he did. He isn't as smart as he thinks he is.....

On the other hand, maybe he did see it coming. It's possible that all he ever wanted was to create a group of people who'd send him bucks throughout his lifetime -- and then who cares what happens after? It's not like he has any kids that he'd want to reap the benefits of his businesses. A couple of generations of suckers with a few dollars to spend was all he needed to set him up for life. I by no means think that all the people who found cults actually believe in the cults that they've founded.

Sometimes I jokingly tell myself that JimBob plans to have his family buried alive with him when he dies.

I think there's an element of them also believing that the "end times" are imminent, so if there's any education that needs to be undertaken, it's only the ALERT militia training.

I think Jana may be waiting for someone who essentially can't exist due to Gothard rules and regulations. And the older she gets, the more likely it is that the age appropriate partners available will be hardened from their devotion to Gothard rules, and the 10+ years of unskilled labour it took for them to be finally be considered able to support a family. She'll be something they literally "earnt".

Edited August 12, 2015 by Kokapetl

[Liz Tudor]

I just had a nauseating thought (probably late to the game on it) but most parents want their kids to have a better life and more opportinities than they did (I know mine sure did, and did everything they could to ensure it). But as Kokapetl pointed out, there's no way the 2nd generation CAN do that. They have no marketable skills, useful educations, etc. to even be self-sufficient. All the Duggars have learned is how to schill for money. I bet whoever winds up being the more income-generating kid will be expected to support the others; or maybe they will all have to pool resources to support themselves, once Daddy & Daddy's money is gone. But I guess the most important thing is staying true to Gothard's brainwashing.

[Julia]

For whatever it's worth, I think this is a really responsible answer to the question of how you solve a problem like the Duggars.

 

A quote:

If another driver hits your car, you expect restitution. If your house gets broken into, you don’t inquire whether the robber is repentant. You call the police. Yet, if your daughter gets “broken into,” she should forgive?

We simply don’t know the harm we inadvertently inflict when insisting on human forgiveness.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Julia

[Defrauder]

Mark 4:22.  Everything hidden will be revealed.  

[6 MeowMeowBeenz]

Okay I don't know why people say send out prayers instead of helping.

 

It's like putting a "support the troops" bumper sticker on your car, but not actually joining the military or sending any money to the causes. You feel all good and virtuous, and it costs you nothing

[charmed1]

I read on Recovering Grace how a kid working at Headquarters got in trouble for playing a game of touch football on a Sunday. And Gothard discouraged him from certain types of music because "witch doctors" in Africa use drums, which would be so funny if it weren't so sadly racist.

Has anyone, ANYone confronted Gothard and told him, "Cher, you're a virgin who can't drive?" It's so clear to me that this guy was the geekiest, no game having, most inadequate dork growing up, and has created an entire religion out of forbidding everything that he sucks at. Sports, girls, dancing, music, etc. He's like the pre-cursor to those geeks who draw comics of what they think women should look like and it's always some cartoon of some woman with a five inch waist and watermelon boobs. It's like me starting a religion tomorrow where everyone is forbidden from playing hockey, driving stick shifts and using Excel.

He's not even a particularly smart dork like Bill Gates who is comfortable, confident and charitable. So why would any man (and I say man because they're supposed to lead in this ridiculous belief system) follow this racist, inadequate, misogynistic, 80-year old virgin? He doesn't seem all that charismatic like I heard David Koresch was. He doesn't seem to be coked out of his mind and threatening to shoot people dead in the jungle like Jim Jones did. What hold does this old man have over these people that they'd even style their hair to suit his fetishes?

[MrHufflepuff]

It's a pyramid scheme.  You follow Gothard, and then you get your own set of marks who have to follow you (your wife and kids).

[charmed1]

You put it very simply, but that makes sense. My mom was involved in an MLM (pyramid scam) in the early 80's and people were so enamored with the top scammer because he had a metal plate in his head but had become a millionaire.

[Ocean Chick]

The whole "water into wine" thing is so ridiculous.  Of course it was wine, not grape juice.  If you read the whole story, the guests go on to praise the bridegroom for holding the best wine (the wine that Jesus made) until last, instead of bringing out the cheap stuff after they'd drunk enough to not notice, or care less.  I doubt they were drunk enough to think grape juice was "the best" wine that was served that day.

[JenCarroll]

Over in in the JB/Michelle topic, someone mentioned Pa Keller's statement that where the Bible says Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding, it meant not an alcoholic bevvie, but grape juice.

I've heard that "grape juice" thing before, a long time ago (I'm old). IMO it circulates in fundie circles because while they're thumping their Bibles and claiming every. single. word. in the Bible is literally true? They also forbid drinking alcohol. Which they have to reconcile with the statement in the Bible that clearly says Jesus turned water into wine.

Hey presto, you decide that "wine" was really grape juice. Problem solved.

I'm no religious scholar, but I'm sure that the followers of every religion expend a lot of energy reading and interpreting their holy texts. It's not just the fundies.

The most plausible explanation of this I've heard is that in New Testament times, they didn't really have a separate word for unfermented juice (probably because no one in their right mind would drink it that way; it wasn't safe) so they used the same word for what they poured into the casks as they did for what they took out after fermentation. This little factoid allows fundies with an anti-alcohol agenda to claim that when Jesus used the word, he just meant grape juice.

Is this accurate? I have no idea, honestly -- I don't even know the Hebrew Bible that well, and the New Testament is pretty much Greek to me.

Edited August 26, 2015 by JenCarroll

[Ocean Chick]

The most plausible explanation of this I've heard is that in New Testament times, they didn't really have a separate word for unfermented juice (probably because no one in their right mind would drink it that way; it wasn't safe) so they used the same word for what they poured into the casks as they did for what they took out after fermentation.

 

But again, why would the guests then praise the bridegroom for bringing out the "good stuff" if it was only grape juice?  Did Jesus also transform their taste buds?

 

I still think it was wine.  Really, REALLY good wine.  ;)

[galax-arena]

I'm browsing the website for the church affiliated with the rehab facility that Josh is going to. You know, I think "soul-winning" programs serve as a red flag for me.

[Featherhat]

I do think all denominations of Christians (and from what I've seen) different denominations of Jewish groups cherry pick what is important to them or at least what they can or can't ignore but still seems truish to the spirit of their general direction. And they often invent things that came well after a central Holy Book as sacred doctrinal law, which is again the same for all religions.

 

Having said that. The "Jesus changing water into non alcoholic grape juice" as a miracle. The wedding at Cena was known as a big thing partly because it was such a great party, that the wine wasn't simply supermarket squash that Jesus added to water. People in the Bible (both Testaments) drank alcohol sometimes depending on where they were it was probably one of the ways to prevent people drinking and dying of dirty water.  

 

The Gothard Cult preaches one mans vision of an insamely legalistic Old Testament set of rules that he claims are still important today, even if they make no sense, yet can't get even Jesus's no 1 commandment that was supposed to sweep away all that and then said "eh, he totally had water and added flavour to produce Snapple, everyone take a sip".  My Grandmother was a Methodist (in the UK) and whilst they used non alcoholic stuff on communion, they don't deny that "changing water into Wine" was a supposed big miracle in the actual scriptures, even if its only metaphorical remembrance  for them.

 

In a nutshell the would probably approve more of the Pharisees than Jesus and disciples in their cult.  

Edited August 26, 2015 by Featherhat

[kokapetl]

Wouldn't it be more thoughtful to leave the cheap booze until the guests are drunk? Also, does this mean this portion of the bible is based on a drunken recollection?

[mbutterfly]

Wouldn't it be more thoughtful to leave the cheap booze until the guests are drunk? Also, does this mean this portion of the bible is based on a drunken recollection?

I think the point is that everybody did leave the cheap booze until the guests were drunk. It wasn't the guests who noticed what great wine they were getting. It was the wine steward who was probably a sober working man who was knowledgable about wines. 

[melanie]

This "water into wine" story is the original rationalization story in many denominations around where I live.  I have friends (I guess I should say I had friends) who are Pentecostal and they refer to the wine that Jesus created as the "New Wine".  Somehow they relate this to how they become "drunk" through the Holy Spirit.  That is why their services often involve the dancing and running around and wailing and even to some extend the speaking in tongues.  They are absolutely against drinking any kind of alcohol and if they find that anyone does, they can be thrown out of the church for that.  

They gave me all kinds of insight into their church when they thought they could convert me, but stopped speaking to me altogether when I made it clear that I was not interested in their form of Christianity -- just to clarify.  

I know that the Duggars are not Pentecostal and do not worship in the same way, but I am sure that Independent Baptists have some similar rationalization about that story -- it just does not go along with their worldview.  

[kassygreene]

We used grape juice in my church in teeny tiny shot glasses about the size of very large thimbles - the rationale was that it was symbolic, and didn't have to be wine (water would have worked too).  We also used tiny cut up cubes of bread for bread.  It's communion.  It's symbolic.  It's partaking of the blood and flesh.  I know of no Xtian church that uses actual blood OR flesh.  The blessing on the sacrament and the ritual of the consuming is the holy part, that sanctifies the rest.  

 

Now, I'm not a holy roller, I haven't been to church (or had communion) in decades, but whenever Protestants pushed my father (a lay minister) on this, he would make this point, that it is symbolic, and that getting hung up on form while ignoring content kind of defeated the purpose of faith and a well-lived life.

 

Also, in the U.S. at least, Sunday Blue Laws were A Freaking Big Deal for most of the last century.

[Satchels of gold]

Catholics use wine and don't beleive it's symbolic they actually beleive the the host and wine is transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ.

[melanie]

The whole anti-alcohol thing is very American and very Protestant.  There was a very good multi-part documentary of PBS that talked about Prohibition and the social roots of the movement and additionally the involvement of the churches.  My point was that when that or anything else becomes your theology, you have to rationalize passages in the Bible that are inconsistent with that belief.  There is no other logical way that you could prohibit the reasonable consumption of alcohol at a social event such as a wedding if you did not do that because then you would be stating basically that Jesus had sinned by creating wine and the would open a whole new set of problems.  

The Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox churches, and many others have no such prohibition on alcohol, so no problem with Jesus doing what he did.  

The "New Wine" explanation that the Pentecostals provided was the most unique rationalization that I have ever heard.  They do have a very interesting way of worship.  

Edited August 27, 2015 by melanie

[Ocean Chick]

My church uses grape juice and unleavened crackers, as we believe it's symbolic.  We'd not use wine, as we have a few recovering alcoholics in our congregation, and why would you do that to them?  We want to keep them in recovery, thank you very much.  ;)

Edited August 27, 2015 by Ocean Chick

[Julia]

The whole anti-alcohol thing is very American and very Protestant.  There was a very good multi-part documentary of PBS that talked about Prohibition and the social roots of the movement and additionally the involvement of the churches. 

 

The ironic part is that Prohibition was largely an anti-patriarchal movement at its inception. Since women were not allowed to own property or keep custody of their children or leave abusive men, the thinking was that denying alcohol to men would keep them from spending all the money (many times the money the women had earned) and getting violent when they were drunk. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by Julia

[Churchhoney]

Catholics use wine and don't beleive it's symbolic they actually beleive the the host and wine is transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ.

 

In the words of Tom Lehrer and "The Vatican Rag" --

 

Get in line in that processional,

Step into that small confessional,

There, the guy who's got religion'll

Tell you if your sin's original.

 

If it is, try playin' it safer,

Drink the wine and chew the wafer,

Two, four, six, eight,

Time to transubstantiate!

[kokapetl]

I learnt about transubstantiation from a King of the Hill episode. I also learnt that "Methodism is the rejection of Calvinism".

[Defrauder]

Catholics use wine and don't beleive it's symbolic they actually beleive the the host and wine is transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ.

Yes.  A lot of people during communion will take the host and not take the wine as the wine is an option during communion.  When I was a practicing Catholic I always took both because I felt I could not pass the blood of Christ that had been shed. 

 

When I was growing up as a Lutheran wine was part of communion and everyone took the host as well as the wine but it was said to be symbolic.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Defrauder

[smittykins]

I attend an Episcopal church, which uses wine at Communion(and teaches that Jesus is present, though not necessarily the same way Catholics do), and there is the option to not receive the cup by crossing one's arms at the altar rail. I found this out at my pre-wedding counseling, as my mom's SO is a recovering alcoholic.

Edited August 29, 2015 by smittykins

[MrsMommy]

My church uses grape juice and unleavened crackers, as we believe it's symbolic. We'd not use wine, as we have a few recovering alcoholics in our congregation, and why would you do that to them? We want to keep them in recovery, thank you very much. ;)

We do the same

We also had a talk in Sunday school about alcohol and basically it boiled down to your personal convictions, some people feel it's ok to have a few drinks at a celebration or whatever and some feel that they shouldn't, either is ok bc we aren't here to judge others but you have to live with what you do and if you feel okay about it then bottoms up. I know i was raised southern baptist and I'm in a Christian church now and I have a drink every now and then. (I've never been a big drinker) I don't drink much bc I'm a light weight but I feel it's ok to have a shot or a glass once in awhile.

[Ilovemylabs]

My church uses grape juice and unleavened crackers, as we believe it's symbolic.  We'd not use wine, as we have a few recovering alcoholics in our congregation, and why would you do that to them?  We want to keep them in recovery, thank you very much.  ;)

In my tradition we use wine, but offer grape juice as an alternative for those who do not choose to drink alcohol (for whatever reason). In our faith you need receive only one element (bread or wine) to receive the benefits of the sacrament.  However, we serve both.  We believe in consubstantiation (the bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ as well as the elements bread and wine).

Edited August 30, 2015 by Ilovemylabs

[Jynnan tonnix]

In the words of Tom Lehrer and "The Vatican Rag" --

 

Get in line in that processional,

Step into that small confessional,

There, the guy who's got religion'll

Tell you if your sin's original.

 

If it is, try playin' it safer,

Drink the wine and chew the wafer,

Two, four, six, eight,

Time to transubstantiate!

Ha! Although I do recall a nun telling me when I was going through the pre-first-communion classes (40 years ago...I don't know whether it has changed since) that when you take communion, you must under no circumstances bite the wafer or even have it touch your teeth, as that would be the same thing as biting Jesus. You were to let it get soft on the back of your tongue and then just suck it down. Though however she actually phrased it I doubt it sounded quite that suggestive. I don't remember.

 

As far as the wine, I don't think there was any in any of the churches I've ever been to until I was maybe around high school age. They introduced the option of having a sip out of the chalice but younger children and those who chose for whatever reason not to share could simply walk past.

[SomePity1066]

you must under no circumstances bite the wafer or even have it touch your teeth, as that would be the same thing as biting Jesus.

Jynnan tonnix you just made me laugh like a hyena with rabies there - Boy, did that bring back some memories ! I, too, went through communion classes about 40 years ago, apparently with the same nuns - just don't bite Jesus !

 

I love how this whole wine vs. grape juice kerfuffle demonstrates the tenuous hold the Duggars, Kellers, etc, have on their very own faith.  They parrot over and over that the Bible, specifically the KJV, is to be taken literally, as the truth and not a parable, and is not open to interpretation...

 

Um, errr...except when it is. Then that's fine, but other than that it's not. 

[kokapetl]

Ha! Although I do recall a nun telling me when I was going through the pre-first-communion classes (40 years ago...I don't know whether it has changed since) that when you take communion, you must under no circumstances bite the wafer or even have it touch your teeth, as that would be the same thing as biting Jesus. You were to let it get soft on the back of your tongue and then just suck it down. Though however she actually phrased it I doubt it sounded quite that suggestive. I don't remember.

As far as the wine, I don't think there was any in any of the churches I've ever been to until I was maybe around high school age. They introduced the option of having a sip out of the chalice but younger children and those who chose for whatever reason not to share could simply walk past.

But they're having you eat Jesus. Are we eating live Jesus, and the chewing would hurt him?

[Bewitched]

There is a fabulous scene in the book Angela's Ashes in which the narrator takes his first Holy Communion.  In short, the wafer sticks to the roof of his mouth and gags him.  He then pukes in the backyard and gets punished for "throwing up Jesus".

[zenme]

After his First Holy Communion my nephew quite earnestly, and with a tinge of surprise said, "The Body of Christ is not spicy."

[Tabbygirl521]

I read on Recovering Grace how a kid working at Headquarters got in trouble for playing a game of touch football on a Sunday. And Gothard discouraged him from certain types of music because "witch doctors" in Africa use drums, which would be so funny if it weren't so sadly racist.

Has anyone, ANYone confronted Gothard and told him, "Cher, you're a virgin who can't drive?" It's so clear to me that this guy was the geekiest, no game having, most inadequate dork growing up, and has created an entire religion out of forbidding everything that he sucks at. Sports, girls, dancing, music, etc. He's like the pre-cursor to those geeks who draw comics of what they think women should look like and it's always some cartoon of some woman with a five inch waist and watermelon boobs. It's like me starting a religion tomorrow where everyone is forbidden from playing hockey, driving stick shifts and using Excel.

He's not even a particularly smart dork like Bill Gates who is comfortable, confident and charitable. So why would any man (and I say man because they're supposed to lead in this ridiculous belief system) follow this racist, inadequate, misogynistic, 80-year old virgin? He doesn't seem all that charismatic like I heard David Koresch was. He doesn't seem to be coked out of his mind and threatening to shoot people dead in the jungle like Jim Jones did. What hold does this old man have over these people that they'd even style their hair to suit his fetishes?

Bill Gothard really is a crazy old fart, isn't he? One mean, hateful SOB - and he has managed to institutionalize his nuttiness. I haven't always followed this thread closely; maybe you all have already discussed this article, about a critique of Bill's teachings. I found this particularly compelling because the writers are Bible-believing Christians who seem very clear on the dangers of Gothard-style cultism.

ETA: dang it, I can't seem to paste the link. It is batteredsheep.com/gothard.html

Edited September 1, 2015 by Tabbygirl521

[galax-arena]

So yet another old school anti-gay yay-Christian-patriarchy minister, R.C. Sproul Jr., has been outed as a hypocrite in the wake of the Ashley Madison hack. I mostly remember Sproul from a disturbing comment someone made about him on a message board:

After supper as we sat in the living room with RC and his children. Denise was cleaning up in the kitchen. RC got up to go in the kitchen. Denise must have done something to make him mad because he angrily told her, “Go to your room”. It sounded just like he was talking to a little child. Denise went to their bedroom and a little later RC went up and we could hear him spanking her. She stayed up there a long time before she came back down. The look on her face told all. She was humiliated and ashamed. It was the most awkward supper we’d ever had in anyone’s home. We didn’t accept anymore invitations from RC after that.

For all we know, that person could have been making shit up - anonymous person on the Internet, truckload of salt and all that - but Christian domestic discpline (CDD) and the more extremist version of Christian partiarchy are definitely things. I always figured that CDD was something that kinky Christians did as a cover for mild BDSM, though.

 

Wasn't sure where to put this, but I thought Sproul's alleged views re: spanking and hierarchy could fit here.

[kokapetl]

I was curious how old this daughter Denise was, turns out she isn't his child, she's his wife

Edited September 1, 2015 by Kokapetl

[Churchhoney]

 I always figured that CDD was something that kinky Christians did as a cover for mild BDSM, though.

 

 

I think that is true of many people, especially the couples in which women actively promote having the lifestyle (and there seem to be a lot of those, actually). But I also think that most who fall into that category don't know or don't let themselves realize that that's what they're doing. They can't let themselves acknowledge that there's anything sexual about it because, of course, anything sexual is bad. And if you had to acknowledge that you not only had sexual desires but that you acted out sexual desires that many would consider kinky -- that would be just too much, especially for a lot of conservative Christian women.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Churchhoney

[Julia]

And too, if Bob Headship has a hard case of the combat doms, it doesn't follow that his wife does. She isn't really in a position which allows for meaningful consent, since he gets to hit her anyway and she's not allowed to say no to sex.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Julia

[Churchhoney]

And too, if Bob Headship has a hard case of the combat doms, it doesn't follow that his wife does. She isn't really in a position which allows for meaningful consent, since he gets to hit her anyway and she's not allowed to say no to sex.

 

Oh, yeah, it's terrible for women who are pushed into it by a "headship," whether it's a sexual dom thing or a "theological" or just meanness thing on the husband's part. Of course, I guess most everything women are pushed into by a headship is terrible -- imagine the women who really don't want 10 children. This patriarchy and complementarian stuff is awful.

 

On the other hand, I know some it's-not-BDSM (except I know it is) couples in which the husbands don't seem to have the dom desire at all but the wives keep pushing for the lifestyle because they have the sub desire (I'm convinced) although they steadfastly assert it's for some sort of theological reason. The husbands don't like that and resist it, but the wives keep pushing it and pushing it (which to me proves it's sexual desire they aren't acknowledging). That's not a great situation either, but at least the men don't get hit, I guess. It does make some quite unhappy, however.

 

Having this theology that assigns "roles" to the sexes is one more thing in the conservative-Christian world that muffles honesty, communication and self-knowledge and leads to a lot of crap that could otherwise be avoided.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Churchhoney

[Julia]

Having this theology that assigns "roles" to the sexes is one more thing in the conservative-Christian world that muffles honesty, communication and self-knowledge and leads to a lot of crap that could otherwise be avoided.

 

I would take it a step further and say that by assigning your partner the status of a creature with no volition carrying a uterus around, you turn your marriage (one of the few things we got to watch Christ celebrating, with wine) becomes something which in intent might as well be masturbation, if not bestiality. 

[Satchels of gold]

Oh, yeah, it's terrible for women who are pushed into it by a "headship," whether it's a sexual dom thing or a "theological" or just meanness thing on the husband's part. Of course, I guess most everything women are pushed into by a headship is terrible -- imagine the women who really don't want 10 children. This patriarchy and complementarian stuff is awful.

 

On the other hand, I know some it's-not-BDSM (except I know it is) couples in which the husbands don't seem to have the dom desire at all but the wives keep pushing for the lifestyle because they have the sub desire (I'm convinced) although they steadfastly assert it's for some sort of theological reason. The husbands don't like that and resist it, but the wives keep pushing it and pushing it (which to me proves it's sexual desire they aren't acknowledging). That's not a great situation either, but at least the men don't get hit, I guess. It does make some quite unhappy, however.

 

Having this theology that assigns "roles" to the sexes is one more thing in the conservative-Christian world that muffles honesty, communication and self-knowledge and leads to a lot of crap that could otherwise be avoided.

.???? I need to get out more..????

[Churchhoney]

.???? I need to get out more..????

 

Yeah, you probably do!    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio.....   ; - )

[Micks Picks]

After hearing this, I'm not going anywhere.  I'm staying here where there is nobody to beat me or berate me.  Just my dog who is a grand companion, good looking' too.  And he treats me nicely.  I just can't imagine wanting to get mistreated or mistreat someone else.

[galax-arena]

Bringing this over from the Media thread. Wellfleet posted the following in response to someone quoting my rant about John Piper:

 

The only women that want men like this are Gothardites and similar fundies. And as for why? A myriad of reasons, most of them psychological and stemming from childhood. But we're not supposed to be amateur psychoanalysts here so...

John Piper is actually one of the mainstream complementarian bigshots. Your average conservative college student dipping his toes into the waters of complementarianism is going to swear by Piper and people like him. He's much more widely accepted and popular than Gothardite fundies.

 

Surprisingly, he did get some flak for his recent comment that women shouldn't be police officers, with even some fellow complementarians pushing back and saying, "No, complementarian headship is for the family/church structure only, you shouldn't be applying it to the rest of the secular world at large." But the bigger name complementarians kept their mouths shut, of course. And that's what frustrates me. Organizations like the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood want to convince me that complementarianism and biblical submission aren't really about unfairly subjugating women, that they're more pro-women than nasty egalitarian feminism, and yet they refuse to call out one of their own when he starts saying bullshit about how women shouldn't be police officers or that we need to be careful about giving men directions.

 

My go-to refrain when someone tries to sell me on complementarianism is that they're going to need to give me a really good reason why I should take them seriously when one of the movement's leaders is a guy who said that women are obligated to endure abuse. 

 

ETA: The complementarian who first pushed back at Piper's comment about police officers was a female blogger, IIRC. I wouldn't be surprised if Piper dismissed her based on that alone. Someone who thinks that a woman needs to be careful about giving directions to a man isn't going to take kindly to a woman trying to school him on what the Bible says. "1 TIMOTHY 2:12!!! I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR TO ASSUME AUTHORITY OVER A MAN!!"

Edited September 2, 2015 by galax-arena

[galax-arena]

Ya know, it's unfair for me to go on and on about John Piper without letting you guys read his words for yourselves. You shouldn't have to take my word for any of this.

 

Should women be police officers?

 

The stuff about giving directions to a man is from his book What's the Difference? Relevant section here:

But in any case, regardless of the relationships in which a
woman finds herself, mature femininity will seek to express itself in appropriate ways.
There are ways for a woman to interact even with a male subordinate that signal to him
and others her endorsement of his mature manhood in relationship to her as a woman. I
do not have in mind anything like sexual suggestiveness or innuendo. Rather, I have in
mind culturally appropriate expressions of respect for his kind of strength, and glad
acceptance of his gentlemanly courtesies. Her demeanor-the tone and style and
disposition and discourse of her ranking position-can signal clearly her affirmation of the
unique role that men should play in relationship to women owing to their sense of
responsibility to protect and lead.

 

It is obvious at this point that we are on the brink of contradiction-suggesting that a
woman may hold a position of leadership and fulfill it in a way that signals to men her
endorsement of their sense of responsibility to lead. But the complexities of life require
of us this risk. To illustrate: it is simply impossible that from time to time a woman not be
put in a position of influencing or guiding men. For example, a housewife in her
backyard may be asked by a man how to get to the freeway. At that point she is giving a
kind of leadership. She has superior knowledge that the man needs and he submits
himself to her guidance. But we all know that there is a way for that housewife to direct
the man that neither of them feels their mature femininity or masculinity compromised. It
is not a contradiction to speak of certain kinds of influence coming from women to men
in ways that affirm the responsibility of men to provide a pattern of strength and
initiative.

Transcript taken from here:

Part of that answer’s clearly going to depend on what kind of abuse we’re dealing with here . . . .

 

If this man, for example, is calling her to engage in abusive acts willingly – group sex, or something really weird, bizarre, harmful, that clearly would be sin.  Then the way she submits – and I really think this is possible, it’s kind of paradoxical [sic].  She’s not going to go there.  I’m saying no, she’s not going to do what Jesus would disapprove [sic], even though the husband is asking her to do it.

 

She’s going to say, however, something like, “Honey, I want so much to follow you as my leader.  I think God calls me to do that, and I would love to do that.  It would be sweet to me if I could enjoy your leadership.”  And so – then she would say – “But if you would ask me to do this, require this of me, then I can’t – I can’t go there.”

 

Now that’s one kind of situation.  Just a word on the other kind.  If it’s not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.

Piper's later follow-up.

[JenCarroll]

Ya know, it's unfair for me to go on and on about John Piper without letting you guys read his words for yourselves. You shouldn't have to take my word for any of this. Should women be police officers? The stuff about giving directions to a man is from his book What's the Difference? Relevant section here:John Piper on submitting to abuse. Transcript taken from here:Piper's later follow-up.

God, what a windbag.