RIP #MeToo

[oxmixmudd]

Not in my experience. And apparently not according to the author of the essay you cited. You still haven't been able to account for the disconnect between "Conservative churches promote attitudes and policies that encourage the abuse of women" and "Those who regularly attend conservative churches are the least likely to be abusive because of regular exposure to balanced teaching".

You clearly did not read the second essay link I provided, Or even the full text of the selection from the Priscilla papers. She is indeed no longer of the patriarchal mindset that is the problem. She has a abandoned the belief that a patriarchal system is actually the correct way to understand and respond to the scriptures on these issues. She would find herself labeled a heretic of sorts, if not in full, in many conservative circles. In your church, her stated theology would work to bring women into deacon, elder, and even pastoral positions.

So unless your church can welcome a woman like her with open arms and embrace what she is teaching on the subject, she is not an example you can reference in any post wher you claim she is somehow an example that contradicts my point. She in fact offers robust support for my point in that she has turned away from what she was taught in a conservative evangelical church and until a short time ago believed was true.

Tracy, the first author, is also more in sync with what she would be teaching regarding the patrarchical roles in a church and the issues I'm raising. And indeed, he is discussing in the paper I quoted the same two opposing elements, the toxic effect of the patriarchal system, and the potential for balance teach to, in some members, counter its effects.

You also do not yet seem to have parsed the fact that the implication of the full set of data used to point out the possible mitigation of balanced teaching actually shows increased abuse overall in the conservative evangelical church. That for the split nominal/committed stats to be true, and the total abuse number to not be worse than non affiliated, the ratio of committed to nominal members would have to be far higher than is actually seen in conservative churches.

[Mountain Man]

You clearly did not read the second essay link I provided, Or even the full text of the selection from the Priscilla papers. She is indeed no longer of the patriarchal mindset that is the problem. She has a abandoned the belief that a patriarchal system is actually the correct way to understand and respond to the scriptures on these issues. She would find herself labeled a heretic of sorts, if not in full, in many conservative circles. In your church, her stated theology would work to bring women into deacon, elder, and even pastoral positions.

So unless your church can welcome a woman like her with open arms and embrace what she is teaching on the subject, she is not an example you can reference in any post wher you claim she is somehow an example that contradicts my point. She in fact offers robust support for my point in that she has turned away from what she was taught in a conservative evangelical church and until a short time ago believed was true.

Tracy, the first author, is also more in sync with what she would be teaching regarding the patrarchical roles in a church and the issues I'm raising. And indeed, he is discussing in the paper I quoted the same two opposing elements, the toxic effect of the patriarchal system, and the potential for balance teach to, in some members, counter its effects.

You also do not yet seem to have parsed the fact that the implication of the full set of data used to point out the possible mitigation of balanced teaching actually shows increased abuse overall in the conservative evangelical church. That for the split nominal/committed stats to be true, and the total abuse number to not be worse than non affiliated, the ratio of committed to nominal members would have to be far higher than is actually seen in conservative churches.

You can keep spinning it however you want, but blaming the church for the attitudes and actions of nominal attendees is stupid, especially when YOUR source shows that regular attendees are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Do you blame the doctor when the guy who doesn't get regular check-ups suffers from an undiagnosed illness? Frankly, the militant, cult-like attitudes and subjugation of women that you describe are as foreign to me as a church that teaches that homosexuality is not a sin, or that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

[oxmixmudd]

You can keep spinning it however you want, but blaming the church for the attitudes and actions of nominal attendees is stupid, especially when YOUR source shows that regular attendees are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Do you blame the doctor when the guy who doesn't get regular check-ups suffers from an undiagnosed illness? Frankly, the militant, cult-like attitudes and subjugation of women that you describe are as foreign to me as a church that teaches that homosexuality is not a sin, or that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

Mm, unfortunately you are continuing to simply magnify your own ignorance with statements like this. My statements are not spin, they are the facts of the situation, which you have yet to demonstrate a capacity to understand.

For example, an astute observer would already have noticed that in addition to the fact the composit statistic points to greater abuse overall, the statistic in question upon which this post is based is not even statistically significant when asking if conservative Christian faith reduces abuse in that 2.8% vs 3.2% itself is not statistically significant. That is, the best it shows is that if a person gets regular, balanced teaching, they can keep pace with the non religious crowd on this issue and not be affected by the negative pressure of the patrarchical culture.

I'll have a good bit more to post later today.

[Mountain Man]

My statements are not spin, they are the facts of the situation...

The facts, according to YOUR source, are that men who regularly attend conservative churches are the least likely to develop the attitudes you describe and the source that YOU reference attributes this to the balanced, biblical teachings of the conservative church.

Now perhaps you could argue that the church can and should do more to combat abuse, but that's a completely different matter than falsely accusing them of encouraging it.

[oxmixmudd]

You can keep spinning it however you want, but blaming the church for the attitudes and actions of nominal attendees is stupid, especially when YOUR source shows that regular attendees are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Do you blame the doctor when the guy who doesn't get regular check-ups suffers from an undiagnosed illness? Frankly, the militant, cult-like attitudes and subjugation of women that you describe are as foreign to me as a church that teaches that homosexuality is not a sin, or that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

MM - you are unfortunately just either obstinate enough to purposefully ignore, or ignorant enough not to know how to parse, the data and content of the source I gave - either way there is nothing I can do to change that fact.

That you are ignorant of the teachings of people like Piper and others, and how they have been applied, is good - for you and the people in your church, assuming you even understand the implications in this area in your own congregation (the fact your congregation enforces an all male authority structure means the probability that has negative effects you may not be aware of is high). But it does not change the reality that this is an ongoing issue where such actions are common. I've seen it across multiple congregations and towns in the south - which is where the majority of my interactions with these issue have taken place. They are not cults. They are standard Presbyterian, SBC, Fundamentalist, and Pentecostal congregations. IT is what it is.

There was a significant expose on these issues done in Australia. Over 250 pastors and congregants were interviewed. The results are very similar to those cautioned by Tracy and outlined by the paper I referenced in the Priscilla papers article.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-...lence/11778864



As simplicio has pointed out, the WOMEN of the SBC where the ones that raised the issue of improper response to domestic abuse, and it was a leader of the SBC convention that told the woman with two black eyes to be happy her husband was saved. And the SBC is NOT 'some cult'. To be fair, making the Patterson comments public produced a large amount of backlash, even from some SBC pastors, but I've heard comments like his from enough SBC, Fundamentalist, and Pentacostal sources to know there are a good number of SBC pastors that prior to the backlash would have seen nothing amiss with the comment Patterson made that got him in so much trouble.

[Mountain Man]

MM - you are unfortunately just either obstinate enough to purposefully ignore, or ignorant enough not to know how to parse, the data and content of the source I gave - either way there is nothing I can do to change that fact.

The problem is that the facts, as you have presented them, do not support your original assertion that this is a problem at "many conservative churches". It might be a problem at some, but there's nothing to convince me either in your arguments or my own personal experience that the problem is widespread and pervasive, and in fact, the source that YOU presented is more consistent with my experience than with yours.

...the fact your congregation enforces an all male authority structure means the probability that has negative effects you may not be aware of is high.

I'm aware that you have to assume this must be the case because the alternative is conceding the point to me, and we both know your ego would never allow that.

[oxmixmudd]

The problem is that the facts, as you have presented them, do not support your original assertion that this is a problem at "many conservative churches". It might be a problem at some, but there's nothing to convince me either in your arguments or my own personal experience that the problem is widespread and pervasive, and in fact, the source that YOU presented is more consistent with my experience than with yours.


I'm aware that you have to assume this must be the case because the alternative is conceding the point to me, and we both know your ego would never allow that.

They do in fact support it quite strongly. And your reaction to it, the attempts to divert from the implications , is not at all atypical of church leadership as it has been observed in cases like paige Patterson, or those cases detailed in the Australian news investigative series, or many of the cases I've seen coming out of grace churches or other strongly patriarchical conservative churches modeling their cultures on the teachings of Piper and others. Such reactions help to prevent addressing the problem and thus foster new instances of abuse.

I get why you react like you do. The implication here is that following what you believe to be a Biblical model is actually detrimental to marriages and the lives of women in the church. And that is a difficult pill to swallow.

More later.

[Mountain Man]

I get why you react like you do.

No, you really don't, and based on your confession that "the negative elements of the patriarchical influence found a foot-hold" in your life when you were younger, it's obvious that you're simply projecting your own failings and insecurities onto me.

[oxmixmudd]

No, you really don't, and based on your confession that "the negative elements of the patriarchical influence found a foot-hold" in your life when you were younger, it's obvious that you're simply projecting your own failings and insecurities onto me.

The smear you are attempting is the product of a sick mind. But it's a lie. The 'footholds' I refer to are nothing more than thinking a woman, my wife, should submit to me per the patrarchical system. All I'm referring to is the belief there is some legitimate reason women should not have positions of authority in the church.

[Mountain Man]

You are the best person I've ever met at twisting truth into a lie.

As I said, you must believe that because your ego won't allow you to ever concede an inch of ground in any conversation with me. And I'm fine with that. I have enough confidence in my own abilities to present a compelling argument that I am able to walk away from a debate once it reaches a certain point, as this one has, where further discussion is unprofitable.

[oxmixmudd]

As I said, you must believe that because your ego won't allow you to ever concede an inch of ground in any conversation with me. And I'm fine with that. I have enough confidence in my own abilities to present a compelling argument that I am able to walk away from a debate once it reaches a certain point, as this one has, where further discussion is unprofitable.

As I said in my revised post above, the smear you are attempting is the product of a sick mind, and is a lie. The 'footholds' I refer to are nothing more than thinking a woman, my wife, should submit to me per the patrarchical system. All I'm referring to is the belief there is some legitimate reason women should not have positions of authority in the church.

As far as conceding something to you, certainly in this case, there is nothing to concede.

I cant help the fact you are not capable of objectively evaluating scientific or statistical data. But you have consistently failed to be able to process technical data from our discussion of the inauguration photos to this thread. Once the discussion moves to actual data that contradicts what you prefer to be true, you just cant put on an objective hat and process what is before you, even when it is spelled out for you in minute and pedantic detail.

[lilpixieofterror]

They do in fact support it quite strongly. And your reaction to it, the attempts to divert from the implications , is not at all atypical of church leadership as it has been observed in cases like paige Patterson, or those cases detailed in the Australian news investigative series, or many of the cases I've seen coming out of grace churches or other strongly patriarchical conservative churches modeling their cultures on the teachings of Piper and others. Such reactions help to prevent addressing the problem and thus foster new instances of abuse.

I get why you react like you do. The implication here is that following what you believe to be a Biblical model is actually detrimental to marriages and the lives of women in the church. And that is a difficult pill to swallow.

More later.

[lilpixieofterror]

As I said in my revised post above, the smear you are attempting is the product of a sick mind, and is a lie. The 'footholds' I refer to are nothing more than thinking a woman, my wife, should submit to me per the patrarchical system. All I'm referring to is the belief there is some legitimate reason women should not have positions of authority in the church.

[oxmixmudd]

As I said in my revised post above, the smear you are attempting is the product of a sick mind, and is a lie. The 'footholds' I refer to are nothing more than thinking a woman, my wife, should submit to me per the patrarchical system. All I'm referring to is the belief there is some legitimate reason women should not have positions of authority in the church.

As far as conceding something to you, certainly in this case, there is nothing to concede.

I cant help the fact you are not capable of objectively evaluating scientific or statistical data. But you have consistently failed to be able to process technical data from our discussion of the inauguration photos to this thread. Once the discussion moves to actual data that contradicts what you prefer to be true, you just cant put on an objective hat and process what is before you, even when it is spelled out for you in minute and pedantic detail.

So given that patriarchal cultures tends to foster the abuse of women, given that the church itself has a historically patriarchal structure entwined in its theology and especially its prescribed authority structure and husband-wife interactions, and given that statistics show that with the exception of the conservative evangelical minimum every sunday attendees ( <2/3 in most such churches) that patriarchal tendency to foster abuse creates a statistically significant increase in abuse in church populations, what is a solution?

I believe a solution lies in accepting there are cultural accommodations in the scriptures as we address this issue that, similar to the accommodation of slavery, need to be recognized and compensated for. That women needto be recognized as the intellectual equals that they are, and where they are gifted in such areas, they be given equivalent opportunity to men to serve and minister in the church.

Many mainline denominations have already begun the process. But, many mainline denominations have also tended to not merely recognize accommodation, but diminish the authority of scripture in critical ways, elements that are more than just recognizing cultural accommodation but that effectively deny the power of faith in Christ to change lives.

I dont believe it is either/or. In fact, the church I attend is a very good example of exactly how possible it is to have women participating in leadership roles while being a real force for the gospel in the local community and around the world.

It is not necessary to adopt a repressive patriarchal culture to minister effectively and in the power of the holy spirit and respect the authority and divine inspiration of Scripture. In fact if we recognize that Paul and Christ were actually breaking with cultural tradition in this area many times over, we can in fact accept that as their guidance to us in our own. And the church, and especially the women of the church, are better off if we do just that.

[Sparko]

Jim thanks for your explanation(s)

I will accept your word for what you mean (who else knows you better? )

But this discussion is just going around in circles between you and MM. I think I will step out and lurk for a while or unsubscribe.