|
Post by rosa on Apr 30, 2009 13:53:16 GMT -5
I wish I knew the answer for that, themomma. I think the most important thing for *any* group is to just believe people, to make their safety important and support their decisions. It doesn't have to mean taking sides - if you don't believe specific accusations, you can still say "if you don't feel safe there, you shouldn't have to be there". But that means valuing people's right to thrive over stuff like the headship doctrine, so I don't know how to do that inside some of these churches.
|
|
|
Post by titus2woman on May 1, 2009 7:58:30 GMT -5
Let's say a woman went to church leadership because her husband was becoming physically abusive. I would hope that the leadership would pull him in, let him know he is NOT behaving in a Godly manner, offer him help and Biblical counselling and close mentorship, and make it well clear that if it continued he would be turned into the authorities. If the woman decided to try again and stay, then I hope she would be given lots of support and many numbers to call if she needed a safe haven. If she wanted to leave until things improved, I hope she would find support in that as well.
As I write this, maybe the husband could be the one given a place to stay for a time~ever see that "Little House on the Prairie" where Charles Ingalls stays with the drunk guy that was abusing his kid? Thankfully the ending was very sweet (though fictional), and sadly I know that not all ending would be so....
I just know that a healthy church would NOT say it was happening because the wife was not submissive enough and allow it to continue. Somehow the man would be held accountable for his actions. (((((HUGS))))) sandi
|
|
|
Post by themomma on May 1, 2009 10:01:07 GMT -5
Let's say a woman went to church leadership because her husband was becoming physically abusive. I would hope that the leadership would pull him in, let him know he is NOT behaving in a Godly manner, offer him help and Biblical counselling and close mentorship, and make it well clear that if it continued he would be turned into the authorities. If the woman decided to try again and stay, then I hope she would be given lots of support and many numbers to call if she needed a safe haven. If she wanted to leave until things improved, I hope she would find support in that as well. As I write this, maybe the husband could be the one given a place to stay for a time~ever see that "Little House on the Prairie" where Charles Ingalls stays with the drunk guy that was abusing his kid? Thankfully the ending was very sweet (though fictional), and sadly I know that not all ending would be so.... I just know that a healthy church would NOT say it was happening because the wife was not submissive enough and allow it to continue. Somehow the man would be held accountable for his actions. (((((HUGS))))) sandi What if the parents think they are "doing ok" but others in the church are concerned? Is it ever the churches role to step in and say, "Ok, we want you to come here BUT, here are some issues we need to see improving"?
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on May 1, 2009 10:16:33 GMT -5
I think if you read any history of a dysfunctional religious family (I'm thinking of the FLDS' splitters and other groups like Phelps, for instance) you will often find that their various communities and churches do, sometimes, step forward and try to “help” but as long as the abuser can voluntarily leave and further isolate or dominate his family that help can simply lead to further disengagement. In the case of severely patriarchal churches and communities the first problem is getting the church elders to recognize that there are some areas where local notions of “headship” or autonomy don't apply. Interestingly enough—or perhaps what I mean is not surprisingly—those churches tend to see interfereing in women's clothing, sexual behavior, etc... and that of children, or that of outsiders as easier, more palatable, and more in keeping with their conservative mission. In other words it seems very easy for church elders to shun women and children and imaginary feminists, people from other religions, or other political parties or to demand, for example, that gay people (in or outside the church community) submit to church discipline and order. But very, very, very hard for the Church leadership to exert the same control over men acting out their male prerogative of headship even when that headship is clearly abusive. I, personally, think that is because male sins with regard to power are seen as not as pathological as women's sins, not as serious, not as problematic for the church. And also because calling a man to account for his behavior conflicts with the sincere and self interested respect men give other men (within protestantism) with respect to their personal relationship with god. While women and children fall into the category of always needing some intermediary to speak for them and to them men are assumed to be in control of their own relationship with god and with power. That's a very strong reason that other men find it difficult to intervene and challenge their neighbors and friends over abuses of power in the name of god. And if the church/elders are willing to contest with a given man there is nothing to prevent him from withdrawing his family from the community and further isolating and abusing them. How often have you heard of a christian community that threw out the abuser and kept and cared for the wife and children? I'm not saying it never happens. I'm sure it does. But I'd bet that its quite rare and even rarer for the woman and children to be kept on as full members in good standing because of the strong bias against divorce and against women's rights as independent actors.
aimai
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 1, 2009 11:16:11 GMT -5
In the case of severely patriarchal churches and communities the first problem is getting the church elders to recognize that there are some areas where local notions of “headship” or autonomy don't apply. Good point, aimai. I can't wait to get farther along in my story ~ to the part where I went to the "elders" in our fellowship for help in dealing with Warren. What an absolute disaster. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by luneargentee on May 2, 2009 6:48:35 GMT -5
The patriarchy/headship problems have been a major part of the desert religions since they began. The Jews were a small tribe, in a desert backwater. Christianity was considered the religion of slaves. Islam arose with a small tribe in the desert without any real power. The men in these religions needed to feel powerful. They certainly were not members of powerful societies, but they were given a lot of power over their families.
This is not to say that only these religions were the only ones with the "women and children are chattel" issue, but they are the ones to have survived into the 21st century with this attitude intact.
The Catholic Church supports this attitude, but the members often simply reject the control of the church in aspects of their lives. They have grown away from the church. Most Jews are not Orthodox. Most Muslims were not, but the rise of the extremism in the 70s has been formerly modern societies back 14 centuries.
It is just wrong that all the women in the world (a majority of the population) should be considered little more than wombs on legs. Ugh.
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on May 2, 2009 8:37:09 GMT -5
Aimai There's actually a very interesting conversation going on over at Imonk www.internetmonk.com/archive/my-latest-attempt-to-become-a-complementarian, and in the comments our very own KR Wordgazer is holding her own, about complementarianism and egalitarianism in the original texts. What strikes me most in reading the (mostly male) discussion and back and forth in comments there is the way the men involved in the discussion pretty much never question the primacy of their right (whether they think it scriptural or just because of the natural importance of their own place in the universe) to debate these issues without real and humble reference to women's experience. That is, the comments thread is full of really nice (Christian) guys, many of whom would never consider being abusive within any kind of relationship but they still hold to a faint unease at being told that maybe god didn't give headship to men. And they never ask themselves whether there isn't something just a tad self interested and convenient in their conviction? Because, of course, they have long, long, long since renounced any conviction that just because Paul called slaves to obey their masters that they should freely enter into a compact as a slave and cede moral and political and financial authority to another being. That's all cheerfully relegated to the past, to local custom, to “no one could have envisioned a world without slavery” but other things, like 50's american cultural mores and dress and sexual division of labor? That is eternal. What I find most jarring about the discussion is not any one thing that any one poster says—though of course you have to laugh when the last poster on the thread says that it must be highly significant for male supremacy that we “fell” through Adam's act and we “rose” through Jesus's act because that must lead us to conclude that...what? I might conclude that god hates guys named adam and loves guys named jesus but sam and bob are right out of the equation?--wait, what I wanted to say is that very few of the posters draw back and humbly submit themselves to the testimony of women who have actually submitted themselves to the natural outcome of this abusive and idolatrous fixation on male godhead. If a woman, like our own Molly, comes on and describes what actually happened to her when she submitted she reads like a crank, a hysteric. Oh, the men seem to say by turning their back on her comment and refusing to engage, that's so weird and so unlikely and so unscriptural and if only the men in your life had explained to you that you and your husband's thoughts on this matter were wrong! Of course the real basic wrongness is in allowing people to call themselves Christians, and market themselves as Christians, while pushing an extremely dangerous, sexist, and authoritarian version of Christianity on vulnerable men, women, and children. The first sin is Christians not taking other Christians to task for promoting a dangerous and perverse doctrine of the potential infallibility and authority of the husband over the wife. You simply can't square this conviction that god insists on this level of submission from one and only one woman in the context of marriage while leaving open the obvious reality that most men are not able to handle this level of authority in a moral fashion. Why or how would a guy who isn't bright enough, or trusted enough, in business or family relations suddenly be able to be a stand in for god and priesthood in a one on one relationship with his wife? Power corrupts and absolute power tends absolutely to corrupt and we know that in ordinary non “holy” relationships that are not marriage. And yet the men on that board, pro egal and con egal, are so steeped in masuclinist privilige that with one or two exceptions they can't step aside and simply take testimony from the women board members and criticize their entire sex and the centuries long misogyny of the religion and the culture. That's how deep the prerogative of masculinity goes—that it can't even see itself in a mirror.
|
|
|
Post by themomma on May 2, 2009 8:49:02 GMT -5
In the sitaution I am thinking of it seems the mother is the abusive one and the father is clueless or kind of like deer in the headlights. He doesn't know how/what to do to change things without leaving or her leaving.
I think there are "steps" before that needs to happen.
I don't want to offend anybody here, I like to read all the posts, even the ones I don't agree with, so I am going to make a request.
If you have a really long post that is great but could you break it up a little so that every few lines there is a space? It is too hard to read through it quickly when it is in strict paragraph form so I tend to skip it if it is too long and stuck in a long paragraph.
When it is broken up it is easier to skim and get the ideas presented, quickly.
Thanks.
TM
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 6, 2009 19:34:13 GMT -5
There's actually a very interesting conversation going on over at Imonk www.internetmonk.com/archive/my-latest-attempt-to-become-a-complementarian, and in the comments our very own KR Wordgazer is holding her own, about complementarianism and egalitarianism in the original texts. *** --wait, what I wanted to say is that very few of the posters draw back and humbly submit themselves to the testimony of women who have actually submitted themselves to the natural outcome of this abusive and idolatrous fixation on male godhead. If a woman, like our own Molly, comes on and describes what actually happened to her when she submitted she reads like a crank, a hysteric. Oh, the men seem to say by turning their back on her comment and refusing to engage, that's so weird and so unlikely and so unscriptural and if only the men in your life had explained to you that you and your husband's thoughts on this matter were wrong! Of course the real basic wrongness is in allowing people to call themselves Christians, and market themselves as Christians, while pushing an extremely dangerous, sexist, and authoritarian version of Christianity on vulnerable men, women, and children. The first sin is Christians not taking other Christians to task for promoting a dangerous and perverse doctrine of the potential infallibility and authority of the husband over the wife. *** Power corrupts and absolute power tends absolutely to corrupt and we know that in ordinary non “holy” relationships that are not marriage. And yet the men on that board, pro egal and con egal, are so steeped in masuclinist privilige that with one or two exceptions they can't step aside and simply take testimony from the women board members and criticize their entire sex and the centuries long misogyny of the religion and the culture. That's how deep the prerogative of masculinity goes—that it can't even see itself in a mirror. Thanks so much for your comments and support, Aimai. I think that for many Christians, all that is seen to really matter is the Biblical text. No arguments can be made along the lines of "but it doesn't work in real life, so maybe we should look at it differently." It's along the same lines as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy discussed earlier-- this is what the Scripture says (the fact that they are actually starting from certain presuppositions and assumptions that result in a certain interpretation is something they are not aware of) so it must work to do it this way, and only this way-- and if it doesn't work, then the fault is the way you're doing it, not the way I'm reading the Scriptures (because my reading is the "right" one, after all!) To be fair, even if it were a man posting that male supremacy in the home didn't work for him, because it had a negative effect on his character/behavior, the man's testimony would get disregarded too. It's a kind of Phariseeism, to my mind. Rules and doctrines matter more than real people and their real needs. And yet-- I do find that my words tend to have more weight in conversations like that, when no one knows I'm female.
|
|
|
Post by charis on May 7, 2009 12:54:55 GMT -5
And yet the men on that board, pro egal and con egal, are so steeped in masuclinist privilige that with one or two exceptions they can't step aside and simply take testimony from the women board members and criticize their entire sex and the centuries long misogyny of the religion and the culture. That's how deep the prerogative of masculinity goes—that it can't even see itself in a mirror. Insightful comment, Aimai! Awhile ago, I posted a bit there and based on the reception by the mostly male posters, I surfed around and discovered no female representation among I-Monk's cast of mentors/comrades. While he seems to profess "egalitarianism", as you observed, the practice is something else again. (The term "good ole boys" comes to mind). I am not one to be persistent in trying to get a point across when I feel unheard and disrespected. My bad, I suppose. (((((((shrug))))))) But I have wasted too much of my life in such vain attempts.
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on May 7, 2009 13:21:46 GMT -5
charis, I have noticed the same thing over there. I'm glad he speaks up against hard complementarianism, because the only voices a hard comp will consider are those that come from males. And yet... it's still an awfully, um, male place over there. I understand it would be difficult to see that, when you've been in a white male place of privelage in the church world, and yet...I wish he was able to see it. It's kind of depressing how blind even those on "our side" can be, isn't it? I always get a "good ol' boy" vibe there, too, much as I *love* a lot of what he has to say.
In contrast, Scot McKnight of Jesus Creed is someone who's really impressed me with his ability to see that kind of stuff and do the hard work of changing the way he acts.
|
|
|
Post by charis on May 7, 2009 14:01:47 GMT -5
I always get a "good ol' boy" vibe there, too, much as I *love* a lot of what he has to say. I really have a hard time respecting the viewpoint of someone who doesn't respect mine, so I tend to avoid his blog and if its quoted or linked and I read his stuff, I look at it through that lens of not trusting it. Probably "my bad"; I have unresolved/ongoing "trust issues" shall we say.... Too much bitter experience...
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 7, 2009 14:13:05 GMT -5
I think that going with what you have learned, instead of how you "should" feel, is actually a sign of wisdom and intelligence, Charis.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 7, 2009 15:44:11 GMT -5
I believe Internet Monk is open to change, that he's questioning the ways of thinking in which he was brought up, and that he's open to listening to other points of view. He may be blind to male privilege, but it's a sincere, not a self-induced, blindness. (Which is more than I can say for some of his cronies, but he's hardly responsible for them.) Which means he'll eventually figure it out. And in the meantime I will try to be a voice giving a female perspective over there, whether anyone knows it or not.
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on May 7, 2009 15:58:54 GMT -5
I agree, kr... I don't think it's so palpable as to write him off. I visit IM a few times a week, and generally LOVE reading his musings, probably because I find so much in them that I resonate with...
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on May 7, 2009 16:30:56 GMT -5
I like the site and his musings. I'm interested to discover that others have the same impression of overwhelming guyness that I did. Its like a genteel men's locker room, or coffee-with-golf thing they've got going on there. In fact the only reason that "women's issues" ever come up is that the bible and the way people live it is so incredibly sexist that issues that elswehere are relegated to women here have a particular salience and importance. I think, however, that imonk and his posters are largely unaware of their sexism. They think that when they talk windily about humans and god they are including everyone in the conversation even as the less egalitarian comp guys explicitly assume that some decisions and ideas are *only* for men and not for women.
aimai
|
|