Tag Archives: gender

•

Thoughts on "Hey John, Is My Femininity Showing?"

The offending podcast is here.

The way I'm reading it goes like this.

The basics

  1. John Piper is a Complementarian
  2. He believes that men should be the leaders in the home and church and further...
  3. women should not be in spiritual leadership positions over men.

The question the podcast answers the question: Can men use commentaries written by women?

The logic:

  1. Piper doesn't have a problem reading spiritual material written by women
  2. Piper does have a problem with a woman sitting in spiritual authority over a man, whether in a church, or seminary class.
  3. Therefore: the mere presence of a female body (in general) is offensive to John Piper.

Apparently, most egalitarians don't see the distinction between reading a book (sitting and gathering information) and sitting under teaching authority.

You don't submit to a book, you do submit to a teacher.

You can put a book down, you can give it away, throw it away, burn it...you can't do those things to a teaching authority. You can get yourself out from under the authority, but as long as you're in that class, you're under authority.

I understand that it's not the body parts, it's the authority. Piper makes that clear when he says, "whereas if she were standing right in front of me and teaching me as my shepherd< /strong>…I couldn’t make that separation"

This is not the voice of "femininity" - it's the voice of worldly feminism (which is antithetical to femininity.) It's the brand of feminism that cannot tolerate dissension, cannot respect differing viewpoints and must tear down those who disagree.

So Rachel, don't worry...it's not your femininity that's showing.

• 2 Comments

•

Wayne Grudem's article is no longer on CBMW.

I'm putting it here as a reference for myself...if Grudem doesn't approve, I'd love for him to contact me and see if he can get it back on CBMW as a reference (and to let him know that I now work with one of his former students 😉

But What Should Women Do In The Church?

Wayne Grudem

...continue reading →

• 3 Comments

•

So....shall we talk about expanding definitions?

Our definition of sexual assault is any type of sexual behavior or contact where consent is not freely given or obtained and is accomplished through force, intimidation, violence, coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, or abuse of authority. This definition gets beyond our society’s narrow understanding of the issue and expands the spectrum of actions to be considered sexual assault.

("Rid Of My Disgrace" by Lindsey and Justin Holcomb)

What is the problem with this definition?

"assault" is an ugly word, and it should be. But (for the sake of the victim and the aggressor) it needs to be defined objectively.

For instance, define "freely given" - does that mean that a partner needs to explicitly give consent each and every time an encounter happens? Does it mean that a consent that was granted when a wife accepts her husband's advances because he wanted her, even though she wasn't in that perfect "mood," that consent was not "freely" given?

Who gets to decide when "manipulation" happened?

The big one is "abuse of authority" - I'm firmly in the complementarian camp and I believe that the husband is an authority over his wife. If there is a pattern of him denied access to the blessings of the marriage covenant, and presses the issue, is that an "abuse of authority?"

These are subjective definitions.

If a girl or woman was treated inappropriately, does that rise to the level of "assault"?

For instance...when I was a teen, one of the fashions of the day was a button up shirt...not buttoned, but tied in a knot right at the bridge of the bra. Lots of cleavage there. (this, by the way, is something that I may have told one or two people...ever) A friend and I had been baby-sitting and when the man in the home came to pay us and send us on our way, he got real close to me, put the backs of his fingers inside my shirt and stroked my breast.

It was sexual behavior, consent was not give, and I felt intimidated. Inappropriate, certainly. Absolutely - and I was very uncomfortable with it. But, Inever ratcheted up to the level of "assault."

I rarely think about the incident, only when I hear similar stories, only the "victim" is so wound up about her "assault" that she cannot function. I end up thinking..."really?"

I have a friend who was brutally raped by multiple young men. The wounds went deep, and they should.

I have a problem when the distinction between my incident and gang rape is blurred. There should be "levels of guilt" (for lack of a better term) in this area. If we bring everything to the level of "assault" - then everything is assault and everybody is a victim. I'm not prepared to live life as a victim.

Women are strong (or should be) and resilient (or should be) - instead of being told that we are all victims of assault, we should be taught to distinguish between those levels and deal with the behavior at that level.

My friend, Jan, has what her husband calls the "awfulizer" - she can take a fairly mundane thing and "awfulize" it (but can't we all?")

By taking an inappropriate act and "awfulizing" into "assault" we are running the risk of taking an objective definition, leaving it at the mercy of subjective feelings, then having a few women "awfulize" it, leaving men to wonder if they're going to be forever branded as sex criminals on Megan's List.

That could be a very bad thing.

• 1 Comment

•

A few days ago, Tim Challies wrote a post on "50 Shades of Porn."

I didn't respond before comments were closed, but I wanted to address a few things.

First, I tend to not use the word "porn" - it limits the impact of what is really going on. People hear "porn" and think "pics." If we use the term "erotic material" - we open up a variety of genres...and we eliminate a double standard.

"50 Shades" is not "porn" in the way we normally think of it. It's "erotic material."

Second...Tim Challies wrote:

Women, you need to be aware because the pornographers are coming after you. Yes, you.

Using the term "erotic material" - "historical romance" has been around for a long time. You know the sort, pirates, bad guys, villains...all who steal the tender virgin, ravage her and then steal her heart...and lose their heart to her as well. And, for some women's libraries...you can tell where the "juicy parts" are by the worn spots in the books.

Why do women get hooked on soap operas? Yeah.

Third: the double standard.

A while ago, Tim posted a poem written by a woman whose husband was a regular (and addicted) user of erotic material. This woman was going back to her very wedding night, imposing what she knows now onto that night and declared everything RUINED! And that notion of years (YEARS) of ruined marriage was not only supported, those who objected to that sort of retroactive grudge were scolded for it.

Can you even imagine what the response would be to a man who caught his wife re-reading for the 20th time the "juicy parts" of that novel, then declaring their wedding night a hurtful thing, because he believed that her thoughts were really on Fabio (or whoever the male model was) when he was making love to her?

THE DOUBLE STANDARD:

When men use erotic material, they're evil, mean, unfaithful and pretty much the scum of the earth.

When women use erotic material, they're victims of a marketing ploy.

•

Whenever a discussion about sex before marriage comes about and a Christian participates (in a "that's a bad idea" sort of way) the

"yeah but..."

"Christians have a higher divorce rate than unbelievers" card gets played.

What very few of the people who play that card stop to think about is

1) break ups outside of marriage
2) break downs inside "Christianity"

break ups outside of marriage

Since unbelievers cohabitate before marriage more often than Christians do, their separations are not included in the statistics. A study from Britain noted that most "live ins" lasted about a year.

Certainly, if the choice was "marriage or not at all" - they probably wouldn't have moved in together at all, but the fact is, cohabitations are not reflected in the stats.

break downs inside "Christianity"< /strong>

This was "fact checked" by Professor Bradley Wright, and I picked it up at The Gospel Coalition.

It seems that folks who just say "I'm a Christian" but are nominal and attend church seldom divorce at a rate 20% HIGHER than unbelievers.

But if you look at the segment that includes "active conservative Protestants" - they divorce at a rate 35% LOWER than unbelievers.

So, if you look at the top line stat, it looks pretty bad.

If you dig in, it looks bad for those who talk the talk (a little) but don't walk the walk.

•

Put on your best "Mr Bill" voice:  OHHHH NOOOO!

MSNBC has their collective panties in a bunch.

Women add to the list of voters who are potential casualties of disenfranchisement from restrictive voting laws, as reports show that women have an increasingly difficult path to obtaining proper photo ID.

Evidently, when a woman gets married, divorced, or moves...she's not smart enough to make sure her voter registration gets changed.  Oh?  That happens automatically?  oh....

So, if a woman changes her name or address, her voter registration is changed also?

So, the problem is that the name on her state-issued ID no longer matches her voter registration?  Yeah, that could be a problem.  (In Michigan, the state puts a sticker noting the change right on the back of the ID...problem solved)

But... MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry points out, in an asterisk section at the bottom of the Pennsylvania Department of State Voter ID rules, the requirements reads:

 *In this example a voter who recently changed her name by reason of marriage presents a valid Pennsylvania driver's license or Pennsylvania ID card accompanied by a PennDOT update card, which is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Voter ID law regarding proof of identification.

OH!  MY! GOODNESS!

You mean to say that when you go to get your name or address changed, you get a card that verifies it?  WHEN YOU GET YOUR ID CHANGED, YOU GET THE CARD!!!

Even more amazing, the state seems to think that women are smart enough to hang onto that card.

MSNBC, however, doesn't give women that much credit.

• 1 Comment

•

Politics/religion - yes, this one does fit.

In my web wanderings, I either see or participate in debates where the lines are either drawn between Calvinism vs "something else" OR conservative vs. liberal (either politics or religion.  It's the latter I'm thinking about when I post "Obama's Nazi Straw Man:  an Old Alinsky Trick" - I read "Rules for Radicals" a while ago, to brush up for conversations at work

It hit me the other day that - whether meaning to or not - liberal Christians may use some of the same tactics in religious conversations.

~~~

Gender and religion - on "Straw Women"

~~~

Lutheran SATIRE - "What St. Paul Really Said" (youtube video)

~~~

For those keeping up with Rob Bell and "Love Wins" - here's the chronology from Resurgence

and...Robbed Hell - a spoof...vimeo video

 

•

From the Vatican:

1° With due regard for can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, both the one who attempts to confer sacred ordination on a woman, and she who attempts to receive sacred ordination, incurs a  latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

and

§ 1. The more grave delicts against morals which are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:

1° the delict against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years; in this case, a person who habitually lacks the use of reason is to be considered equivalent to a minor.

2° the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using whatever technology;

§ 2. A cleric who commits the delicts mentioned above in § 1 is to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition.

On first glance, it would seem as though the Vatican is reserving the more severe punishment for ordaining women, rather than child rape.

I think I see it a little bit differently.  With this wording, Rome has the opportunity to deal with both of these issues in a right way...whether that happens remains to be seen, since they don't exactly have the greatest track record of dealing with pedophiles.

The first (ordaining of women) is punishable with excommunication.  "We're done, you're gone, it's over."  The people involved are no longer under the authority of Rome and Rome has no hold over them, spiritually or earthly.

The second (sex with a minor) may be punishable with defrocking and being turned over to the secular authorities.  This means that there will be earthly consequences (prison, perhaps) and they may no longer be in a leadership position within the church.

This also means that (unlike excommunication) they are still under the authority of Rome, which means that the Vatican can have some direction and it leaves the door open for repentance...penance...forgiveness...restoration.

To me, keeping these offenders under the authority of Rome keeps them accountable...and keeps Rome accountable.

• 1 Comment

•

.From Dr. Helen:

The original article has some interesting theories on monogamy (or not) that I'm not sure I agree with.

What I do agree with is the way that men (as opposed to women) are portrayed in media, sitcoms, television and the way that they are increasing treated in the court system treats both genders unfairly by robbing them of choices that should be theirs to make.