RIP #MeToo

[oxmixmudd]

Last time I'll ask, and then I'm done with this thread: Where is your evidence to support this assertion?

The 'this' of this post is :

...many conservative churches are unbalanced in the juxtaposition of "husbands love your wives AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH" and "wives submit to your husbands."

Given that I don't know of any studies to try to determine how 'balanced' the teaching is surrounding teachings that incorporate the idea of submission of the wife to the husband, then the evidence would be:

The written theologies of various teachers: I gave you one example of such a problematic theology, Piper's ESS. You would need to engage in an actual discussion for there to be a capacity to expand on WHY it is problematic, why it is 'unbalanced'

Sermons from various popular pastors. I'd have to research it, I don't have any accessible immediately. I know the fellow at Mars Hill (Marc Driscoll) was especially bad. I could look op sermons from Piper and others, Paige Patterson, platforms of the SBC, etc. It's a systemic thing. And again, I also have seen the impact of it (even helped a woman and her children escape an abuse situation that I believe was related to it). I know of several situations were men abusive to their wives gained the sympathy of their pastors. I know of and have heard pastors allude to the adultery being caused by the womens lack of effort at making herself attractive - again stemming from an overarching view that the woman is to submit herself to the man, that she is to serve and please him more than he is to serve and sacrifice himself on her behalf (as Christ did for hte Church). In fact, I can't remember more than a very small number of sermons preached where the concept of the Husband sacrificing himself for the sake of the wife were ever even mentioned.

I would hazard to guess that elements I consider red flags you would not, and that would be another source of disagreement.

But I stand by my statement. The traditional, conservative teaching surrounding the relationship between husband and wife is sourced in a patriarchal society where women were uneducated and barely more than property. There is evidence for at least one women elder in the Early church but that those translating found it distasteful and changed the name to a masculine form. There were deaconesses. Paul's teaching includes "In Christ there is no male or female, no jew nor greek etc" which provides a better principle that some of the specific direction given within that patriarchal culture. We already accept that Paul's teaching on slaves was accommodated to the culture, not an endorsement of slavery itself.

The biggest evidence MM is all around you. The effect of Patriarchal cultures on women for millenia, and to this day. The sort of authority structure you have in your church perpetuates that same conceptualization of women as less than men, less worthy of church office, less intelligent, marginalized people meant to serve men. And that culture will always be more likely to foster abuse than one that recognizes the mental and spiritual equality of women and men.

Conservative churches are especially vocal about enforcing that culture as part of their attempt to remain Biblical. And so also tend to foster an environment where the abuse of women is more likely. The abuse, again, may take the form of trying to force the women to forgive infidelity on the part of the man, or of trying to 'counsel' her to endure abuse for a time with a goal of 'winning' the husband back (such counsel is almost never given in reverse). But it may not be 'abuse proper', and be as simple and demeaning as not allowing her to teach on a day where her male 'cover' is unable to attend the class she is teaching.

All conservative churches are not this way. My church's head elder is a woman. She preaches/teaches from the pulpit with the same regularity of any other elder (well perhaps more so given her position), and we are evangelical and conservative in most things that one would consider conservative. But then again, the head pastor of my church has been able to sift through these issues and recognizes the problems with the more typical responses to Paul's teaching in conservative circles.

It is what it is, your denials notwithstanding.

[One Bad Pig]

The 'this' of this post is :



Given that I don't know of any studies to try to determine how 'balanced' the teaching is surrounding teachings that incorporate the idea of submission of the wife to the husband, then the evidence would be:

The written theologies of various teachers: I gave you one example of such a problematic theology, Piper's ESS. You would need to engage in an actual discussion for there to be a capacity to exand on WHY it is problematic.

Sermons from various popular pasters. I'd have to research it, I don't have any accessible immediately. I know the fellow at Mars Hill (Marc Driscoll) was especially bad. I could look op sermons from Piper and others, Paige Patterson, platforms of the SBC, etc. It's a systemic thing. And again, I also have seen the impact of it (even helped a woman and her children escape an abuse situation that I believe was related to it).

I would hazard to guess that elements I consider red flags you would not, and that would be another source of disagreement.

But I stand by my statement. The traditional, conservative teaching surrounding the relationship between husband and wife is sourced in a patriarchal society where women were uneducated and barely more than property. There is evidence for at least one women elder in the Early church. There were deaconesses. Paul's teaching includes "In Christ there is no male or female, no jew nor greek etc" which provides a better principle that some of the specific direction given within that patriarchal culture. We already accept that Paul's teaching on slaves was accommodated to the culture, not an endorsement of slavery itself.

The biggest evidence MM is all around you. The effect of Patriarchal cultures on women for millenia, and to this day. The sort of authority structure you have in your church perpetuates that same conceptualization of women as less than men, less worthy of church office, less intelligent, marginalized people meant to serve men. And that culture will always be more likely to foster abuse than one that recognizes the mental and spirtual equality of men.

Conservative churches are especially vocal about enforcing that culture as part of their attempt to remain Biblical. And so also tend to foster and environment where the abuse of women is more likely. The abuse, again, may take the form of trying to force the women to forgive infidelity on the part of the man, or of trying to 'counsel' her to endure abuse for a time with a goal of 'winning' the husband back (such counsel is almost never given in reverse)

It is what it is, your denials notwithstanding.

Respectfully, your problem appears to be not so much "conservative" churches, but fidelity to the text of the New Testament. I was raised in a conservative church, my church is headed by patriarchs, I am a committed complementarian, and can attest that abusing my wife would quickly get me in hot water. Abusing my wife is scripturally anathema (see, e.g., Eph. 5:25, 28-29).

[Mountain Man]

Given that I don't know of any studies to try to determine how 'balanced' the teaching is surrounding teachings that incorporate the idea of submission of the wife to the husband, then the evidence would be [*insert farting sound effect*]

I'm out.

[oxmixmudd]

Respectfully, your problem appears to be not so much "conservative" churches, but fidelity to the text of the New Testament. I was raised in a conservative church, my church is headed by patriarchs, I am a committed complementarian, and can attest that abusing my wife would quickly get me in hot water. Abusing my wife is scripturally anathema (see, e.g., Eph. 5:25, 28-29).

Thanks for the respect

Again, please be careful to notice the difference between teaching abuse (or ignoring it) and creating an environment that encourages it (fosters is probably a better word). My point is not that convervative churches teach abuse, but that the enforcement of a patriarchal culture encourages it. But to be honest, I've just seen to many cases were the male leadership of a conservative church extends sympathy to the man in a troubled situation and the wife ends up abused and/or ostracised by not only her husband but the lack of sympathy and help from the male leadership of the church. IOW, they identify with him and his 'plight', and she is even more alone that when she sought their help. And I would not hesitate to view their Patriarchal (complementarian) views as contributing to that outcome.

So ultimately, I do view complementarian views as being more likely to foster abuse than egalitarian views, though neither is a necessary prescription for or against marital bliss.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm out.

Probably for the best MM.

[simplicio]

Respectfully, your problem appears to be not so much "conservative" churches, but fidelity to the text of the New Testament. I was raised in a conservative church, my church is headed by patriarchs, I am a committed complementarian, and can attest that abusing my wife would quickly get me in hot water. Abusing my wife is scripturally anathema (see, e.g., Eph. 5:25, 28-29).

Okay. So you are not an abuser. And I suspect that you see divorce as a tragedy, as I do.

But we have the real life examples of men such as Paige Patterson. How much abuse should a woman, a Christian woman endure?

[simplicio]

Thanks for the respect

Again, please be careful to notice the difference between teaching abuse (or ignoring it) and creating an environment that encourages it (fosters is probably a better word). My point is not that convervative churches teach abuse, but that the enforcement of a patriarchal culture encourages it. But to be honest, I've just seen to many cases were the male leadership of a conservative church extends sympathy to the man in a troubled situation and the wife ends up abused and/or ostracised by not only her husband but the lack of sympathy and help from the male leadership , as well as women in the church of the church. IOW, they identify with him and his 'plight', and she is even more alone that when she sought their help. And I would not hesitate to view their Patriarchal (complementarian) views as contributing to that outcome.

So ultimately, I do view complementarian views as being more likely to foster abuse than egalitarian views, though neither is a necessary prescription for or against marital bliss.

Bolded insertion is mine.

The impact of the culture does not influence only male behavior towards abuse, but women's attitudes, dispositions, and behaviors.

The recent example of women demanding change at the SBC is an example of men and women calling out wrongs and demanding change, resulting in a re-examining of complementarianism. And it is worth noting that the re-examination does not always mean that complementarianism is tossed out all together. I am not sure that complementarianism alone plays into the phenomena you describe, the high view of marriage also pays a role.

Also, the very nature of abuse leads to a shame which tends to keep the abuse hidden, out of sight and mind. So I can look around my church and community, honestly say that abuse is not a visible problem. But is it likely that abuse is not happening within any community of over a hundred families?

[lilpixieofterror]

Okay. So you are not an abuser. And I suspect that you see divorce as a tragedy, as I do.

But we have the real life examples of men such as Paige Patterson. How much abuse should a woman, a Christian woman endure?

The most common domestic abuser today is the boy friend with husbands being the least common.

[simplicio]

The most common domestic abuser today is the boy friend with husbands being the least common.

i am quite sure that pointing out the statistical rarity would be a real comfort to the married woman who was a victim of abuse!

[lilpixieofterror]

i am quite sure that pointing out the statistical rarity would be a real comfort to the married woman who was a victim of abuse!

[simplicio]

Okay, cool. So you are comparing the abused woman in a casual or common law relationship with the abused woman in a religious marriage. In both cases there is a tendency to stay in the abusive relationship.

Not sure that really shreds my narrative at all.

[lilpixieofterror]

Okay, cool. So you are comparing the abused woman in a casual or common law relationship with the abused woman in a religious marriage. In both cases there is a tendency to stay in the abusive relationship.

Not sure that really shreds my narrative at all.

Sweety, I have helped abused women both at shelters and in getting them away, so take your self righteous and shove it. The point is that no fault divorce has done nothing to stop domestic abuse.

[simplicio]

Sweety, I have helped abused women both at shelters and in getting them away, so take your self righteous and shove it. The point is that no fault divorce has done nothing to stop domestic abuse.

And I applaud you personal commitment.

But I do wonder if you find it helpful to point out that the unmarried woman in a relationship is less secure than the married woman in the abusive relationship while you are helping them at shelters and afterwards.

You are the one making the argument, in the context of a thread about the me too movement, a movement centered on raising awareness of abuse and offering empathy for women in the situations, as well as changing social norms.

Your commented was in response to my post which asked how much abuse should a woman endure.

[oxmixmudd]

Bolded insertion is mine.

The impact of the culture does not influence only male behavior towards abuse, but women's attitudes, dispositions, and behaviors.

The recent example of women demanding change at the SBC is an example of men and women calling out wrongs and demanding change, resulting in a re-examining of complementarianism. And it is worth noting that the re-examination does not always mean that complementarianism is tossed out all together. I am not sure that complementarianism alone plays into the phenomena you describe, the high view of marriage also pays a role.

Also, the very nature of abuse leads to a shame which tends to keep the abuse hidden, out of sight and mind. So I can look around my church and community, honestly say that abuse is not a visible problem. But is it likely that abuse is not happening within any community of over a hundred families?

You make good points. Part of the legacy of the patriarchical/complementarian culture that endured till the latter half of the 20th century is that with the teaching that the woman is the submissive help-meet, many times women view the marital problems as their fault, not the fault of the husband. And so she shoulders at least some of the shame and the burden, feeling that somehow she is at least in part to blame. This, in fact, helps marriages survive abuse (but at what cost to the woman?), and helps keep it quiet, behind closed doors as it were, and contributes to the perception 'all is well' when in fact it is not.

In an egalitarian mindset, the woman is more likely to understand 'this is NOT my fault', 'this fellow has a problem and I do not deserve this, nor will I tolerate it'. When the woman's worth is tied to the man (as it often is in a patriarchical society) it is very hard for a woman to build that sort of self-confidence and self-worth that enables them to walk away from such a situation. In patriarchical societies, if children are involved, it is even more difficult, as she has little or no financial recourse for raising the children if she leaves him.

I did find an interesting study on this as it relates to the Church by a Christian author that believes that the correct understanding of the Biblical text actually helps prevent abuse.

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...-594_Tracy.pdf

Source: above

These studies do find a link between conservative religion and domestic violence, but it is not the simple causal relationship the feminist model would predict. Rather, there is an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence. Conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly are found to be the least likely group to engage in domestic violence, though conservative Protestant men who are irregular church attendees are the most likely to batter their wives. Thus current research disproves the feminist hypothesis that patriarchy is the single[ emphasis mine] underlying cause of all abuse against women, though it strongly suggests that patriarchy plays some role in domestic violence[again, emphasis mine]

© Copyright Original Source

The conclusion is also very informative:

Source: above

While all forms of patriarchy can and do contribute to domestic violence, it appears that the models of patriarchy which give husbands the greatest levels of power and authority are most likely to stimulate domestic violence. Furthermore, recent social science research which reveals an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence among conservative Protestant men challenges both patriarchalists and egalitarians to modify their understanding of gender roles and abuse and to work together to combat domestic violence

© Copyright Original Source

emphasis mine again.

He (again this is an paper by a Christian person from a Christian perspective with a positive view of the effect of Christian theology on the potential for abuse) also points out the following:



A question not answered is whether the high attendance males have a higher or lower than average abuse rate as compared to the average in society. The paper cited showed 2% for regular attendees, up to over 10% for sporadic attendees, but those come from a source I can't get to so I can't determine the time frame of that 2%. One year averages for the US are around 1.2% (wikipedia), but w/o a timeframe for the 2%, I can't offer a fair comparison to the 1.2% yearly average for the entire US population.

So the evidence for that 'encouragement of abuse' I'm talking about is real. But - if one is a true follower of Christ and balances those teachingsw with the whole of the teaching of scripture, those other teachings are sufficient to counteract that pressure.

But for the marginal followers, it is not.

A final comment from the paper above:

Source: above

It is imperative that conservatives begin to acknowledge that there is a real causal connection between male headship and domestic violence. It is troubling when conservatives who affirm male headship dismiss this connection and imply that abuse is largely or solely the result of feminism. For instance, see John Piper and Wayne Grudem

© Copyright Original Source

https://www.ps.edu/faculty-staff/steve-tracy/

[simplicio]

You make good points. Part of the legacy of the patriarchical/complementarian culture that endured till the latter half of the 20th century is that with the teaching that the woman is the submissive help-meet, many times women view the marital problems as their fault, not the fault of the husband. And so she shoulders at least some of the shame and the burden, feeling that somehow she is at least in part to blame. This, in fact, helps marriages survive abuse (but at what cost to the woman?), and helps keep it quiet, behind closed doors as it were, and contributes to the perception 'all is well' when in fact it is not.

In an egalitarian mindset, the woman is more likely to understand 'this is NOT my fault', 'this fellow has a problem and I do not deserve this, nor will I tolerate it'. When the woman's worth is tied to the man (as it often is in a patriarchical society) it is very hard for a woman to build that sort of self-confidence and self-worth that enables them to walk away from such a situation. In patriarchical societies, if children are involved, it is even more difficult, as she has little or no financial recourse for raising the children if she leaves him.

I did find an interesting study on this as it relates to the Church by a Christian author that believes that the correct understanding of the Biblical text actually helps prevent abuse.

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...-594_Tracy.pdf

Source: above

These studies do find a link between conservative religion and domestic violence, but it is not the simple causal relationship the feminist model would predict. Rather, there is an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence. Conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly are found to be the least likely group to engage in domestic violence, though conservative Protestant men who are irregular church attendees are the most likely to batter their wives. Thus current research disproves the feminist hypothesis that patriarchy is the single[ emphasis mine] underlying cause of all abuse against women, though it strongly suggests that patriarchy plays some role in domestic violence[again, emphasis mine]

© Copyright Original Source

The conclusion is also very informative:

Source: above

While all forms of patriarchy can and do contribute to domestic violence, it appears that the models of patriarchy which give husbands the greatest levels of power and authority are most likely to stimulate domestic violence. Furthermore, recent social science research which reveals an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence among conservative Protestant men challenges both patriarchalists and egalitarians to modify their understanding of gender roles and abuse and to work together to combat domestic violence

© Copyright Original Source

emphasis mine again.

He (again this is an paper by a Christian person from a Christian perspective with a positive view of the effect of Christian theology on the potential for abuse) also points out the following:

https://www.ps.edu/faculty-staff/steve-tracy/

I did read that abstract on the paper. But it brings in the commonly used assertion of real Christian in contrast to the nominal Christian. Would regular attendance at a church make reporting (self reporting at that) inhibit reporting? And the theological questions of the influence of metanoia, state of the soul, for the regular church goer is hardly suitable for scientific study, but a central question for an approach anchored in Christian theology. All fascinating questions, but unlikely to be actually discussed in a venue like this.

Submitting to an abusive husband, and acceptance of the physical and emotional trauma, as a manifestation of godliness is quite similar to the self flagellation and hair shirts often derided by critics of Catholicism. But which is more common, self flagellation or passive submission to abuse?