Showing posts with label Gender Roles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gender Roles. Show all posts

Teaching gender hierarchy leads to contempt and abuse of women

 Complementarian men symbolically urinate on women


Reprint of 
March 11, 2012 Examiner article By Jocelyn Andersen

Last week men were symbolically urinating on women at the complementarian “Men of God 2012” conference held at Calvary Baptist Church in Bellefontaine, Ohio (complementarianism assigns strict gender roles to women and men with women being subordinate to men in all things).

Since there were no women in attendance, the women’s restroom was opened for use by the men. In an article describing his experience at the conference, ** Paul M. Dohse Sr., editor of the blog “Paul’s Passing Thoughts” and advocate of non-hierarchical church leadership, posted on his blog that while using the women’s restroom, he found the toilets and floor in every stall sprayed with urine. 

He wrote that this was the case with the women's restroom throughout the conference. In an email interview with this writer, Dohse said the men's restroom was never in such condition but would not go so far as to say he believed men at the conference were demonstrating hatred and contempt for women by symbolically urinating on them. He did say, “it's hard for me to believe what I saw wasn't deliberate.”

He blamed the condition of the women’s restroom [in part] on the anti-woman messages preached at the conference by Dr. Voddie Baucham. Baucham, who will be coming to the Orlando area this fall to speak at a conference with Dr. R. C. Sproul, is a prominent leader within the complementarian movement. He presented three keynote messages at the Bellefontaine conference, all of which were saturated with anti-feminist rhetoric and an “us” against “them” attitude. In part two of his three part “Culture War” presentation, he portrayed women as being just a notch above the serpent on the “food chain,” of which males were at the top.

From the urine-sprayed condition of the women’s restroom at Calvary Baptist, it seems clear that Baucham was successful in whipping the men into an anti-feminist frenzy. Successful leaders understand that movements with clearly defined opposition are the most successful. In her book, Out of the Cults and into the Church, Janis Hutchinson quoted Hoffer when she wrote, “Mass movements can rise and succeed without a belief in God . . . but never without a belief in a devil. This is because the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil. When Hitler was asked whether he thought the Jew should be completely destroyed, he answered, ‘No . . . We have then to reinvent him.’ Hitler further explained that ‘It is essential to have a tangible enemy, not merely an abstract one.’”

The devil of the complementarian movement is the feminist, and by complementarian standards, any woman who does not accept a subordinate position to males is a feminist.

On his blog, Dohse asked, “Will New Calvinism Become a Christian Woman’s Worst Nightmare?” In the email interview, he added, “I would look hard at the fact that the patriarchy movement is teaming up with New Calvinism. That's some seriously bad news for women.”

One study found that a belief in strict gender roles was “associated with less perceived seriousness of scenarios depicting interpersonal aggression.” In plain English, that means that those who held to the belief of female subordination did not feel that violence against women was all that serious. This cannot be divorced from the almost wholesale acceptance by evangelicals of complementarianism, which began in 1987 with the issuance of the Danvers Statement. When equality is trashed, as recently demonstrated in Bellefontaine, contemptuous attitudes and actions follow. 

Domestic abuse and violence occurs more frequently among professing Christians than is commonly believed. Some family counselors, such as, Barrington H. Brennen, boldly assert that complementarian teaching is directly responsible for accelerating abusive and violent behavior in husbands.

In 2012, anonymous men at the Bellefontaine conference expressed contempt for women by symbolically urinating on them. Dohse said there was so much urine [in places] on the floor of the women’s restroom that it was difficult to keep it from saturating the hem of his pants. Statistics show what misogynistic men have been doing in the privacy of their homes for decades. How many of the men who urinated all over the women’s restroom at Calvary Baptist Church in Bellefontaine went home and mistreated or beat their wives?

The outrageous behavior of its followers should expose the unbiblical roots of complementarianism for what it is. Jesus said, “you shall know them by their fruits.”

With the complementarian position becoming more extreme, one can only hope adherents will recognize it for the evil it is, withdraw their support, and allow it to implode upon itself and self destruct.

Christians need to stop supporting this garbage and expend our physical and financial resources on worthy endeavors in the advancement of the gospel. Let us seek to set captives free rather than supporting those who seek to enslave. Stand up and walk out on them. Leave complementarian leaders to preach to empty pews and mop up the stinking mess of their own shame.

 

*** After interviewing Dohse, who first reported about this on his blog in 2011, Andersen published this article on “The Examiner.” Dohse, who attended the Bellefontaine conference, told Andersen [in an email interview] that he stood by his report and analysis of the condition of the women's restroom (vastly different from the men's restroom). Within 24 hours of this article being published on The Examiner, it was reported that Dohse was visited by men who allegedly pressured him to remove his report of the conference from his blog. Dohse, who to his credit remains a staunch advocate of non-hierarchical church leadership, nevertheless caved to the pressure and removed the report from his blog.

 Gender hierarchy teaching is [in and of itself] abusive to women.

 .  
Subscribe to Jocelyn’s Updates & Newsletters: http://eepurl.com/dgDt6b



Where In the Bible...?

God's "Design" for men and women
Where in the Bible can that word or even the concept be found? Can someone produce one scripture that specifically uses the words "God's Design" in reference to men and women?      

...And God blessed them and said unto them...have dominion.

Roles
   Pastors preach about "roles" for men and women. Where in the Bible can the word "roles" be found? Can someone produce a single scripture containing that word?
   Sermons on the "authority" given to man over woman abound. What scripture says man was placed in authority over woman?    

You cannot serve two masters...We have one Lord even Christ....

Woman's Protector
Christians are taught that man is woman's protector. Where does the Bible say that? Scripture please!

Congregations are informed that woman needs protection for far more than just physical reasons. She needs protection--they are told--emotionally, mentally and spiritually. How frail woman is! What specific verse of scripture says that man is woman's protector?    

 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.




Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, and the Evangelical Caste System




Woman this is WAR!, examines Bible commentary and translation practices which have historically been androcentric (male centered) and even misogynistic (anti-woman). These have adversely effected understanding of the scriptures, relations between women and men, the happiness of men and women, and, in general, has hindered the work of the gospel, by forbidding women to preach, pastor, or serve as elders or deacons. 

The book chronicles the early history of the women's rights movements, as well as the role of church leadership in aggressively suppressing both women's rights and the historical record of Christian initiatives within the movements. Through the complementarian movement, many of the same arguments used to support the institution of slavery, are still used today in suppressing the rights of Christian women. This book documents identical arguments used by Christian leaders against both movements and is an unparalleled resource for all who desire an in-depth study of gender equality from a Christian perspective. The history of women’s rights is traced back [much further than usual] to the very first feminists…who were Christians—godly women, who brought the issue of women's rights to the forefront as they struggled to alleviate the suffering of others, and found they were hindered in doing so for no other reason than the fact of their sex. This work, provides valuable historical insight into Christian initiatives in the movements for women’s rights, that are rarely included in Christian literature.


Subscribe to Jocelyn Andersen’s Updates & Newsletters: http://eepurl.com/dgDt6b


Do Wives Desire To Destroy Their Husbands As a Result of the Fall?


CBMW'S interpretation of Genesis 3:16 "Thy desire shall be to thy husband," is that all women have a natural desire to dominate and rule over their husbands. 

Bruce Ware and John MacArthur of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood teach this is what that verse means and (along with many others) aggressively promote this view to the mainstream Christian community. 

They base their argument on a comparison of Genesis 3:16 with Genesis 4:7 where sin is depicted as a lion crouching at the door (in preparation for a kill) and the lion's DESIRE is to destroy Cain. 

By extension, those who promote this view, must also believe that all wives have a natural tendency to desire the utter destruction of their husbands--not just to rule over them. 

 Does this argument hold water? 
Listen to entire commentary here  

Following the reasoning of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood via Bruce Ware and John MacArthur, in interpreting Genesis 3:16 [when taken in context and compared with Song of Solomon 7:10], the argument of CBMW holds no water. 

The Council is teaching false doctrine. Their destructive argument perpetuates the curse that Adam embraced, God Prophesied, and that Jesus set free from.


Subscribe to Jocelyn Andersen’s Updates & Newsletters: http://eepurl.com/dgDt6b

Were Gender Roles for Men and Women Established Before the Fall of Mankind?

The importance of understanding what gender roles consisted of, if indeed there was such a thing as gender "roles" before the fall of mankind, cannot be underestimated when attempting to achieve an understanding of gender roles from a biblical perspective.

Evangelical leaders know this, and that is why the gender "roles," as seen in the first two chapters of Genesis are a frequent source of discussion and debate.

Understanding gender roles, as defined before the fall, is important for the simple fact that the entire body of conservative evangelical theology concerning this issue rests on what is contained within the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. And even though the biblical evidence is vigorously denied by many, the record shows that gender roles were radically different before the fall of mankind than after. In fact there is no biblical record of gender "roles" [as we understand them today] before sin entered the kosmos.

According to Pastor David L. Brown Ph.D., God has ordained a rigid caste system in regards to gender roles in which men assume the leadership "role" in the church and home, and women are to assume the support "role." He cites Genesis 2:18 and Genesis 2:20 as the basis for his conclusions. Brown contends that the scriptures which say there was not an "help meet" to be found for Adam ( so God was compelled to create one for him), prove the support role of women was established before the fall of mankind, and that Eve was created for the sole purpose of being an obedient, submissive, support person for Adam.

The writings of Pastor Brown reflect the general consensus of conservative, evangelicals in regards to gender roles within the Christian Church and home. "If man had not sinned," Brown declares, "he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness."

Pastor Brown has some serious flaws in his theology concerning original (un-fallen) gender roles in the following areas:

  • He assumes that the use of the words help and meet (meaning proper [or appropriate] help) in conjunction with the creation of woman implies she was created for the purpose of subordinate obedience to man
  • He assumes that the man was originally created to rule over other people, most especially his wife -Vs- receiveing a mandate to rule over the plant and animal kingdoms only.
In Psalms 33:20, the shepherd/prophet/king David, declared that the Lord was his "help." In this verse, he used the same Hebrew word "help" that was used in Genesis chapter two concerning the woman in relation to the man. Does this imply that David was to rule over God with wisdom and love? Or that God was to obey David with humility and meekness? God was to be a submissive, support person in helping David succeed? Is it possible that the word "help" can be used without any connotation of subordinate subservience? We see it used it that way many times in scripture. God indeed was David's help. And the scriptures are clear, that he is our help as well. But he is certainly not our subordinate servant.

The word "help," in Genesis chapter two in regards to the woman, has no implication of subordinate servitude whatsoever. And the word that follows it, "meet," simply means "proper" or appropriate. The argument can be made that Adam was also an appropriate help for Eve, for the simple fact that they were both humans.

In Genesis 2:20 (one of the verses used by Brown to prove that women were created to serve men), we are told that Adam gave names to all the cattle and all the fowls, but there was no appropriate "help" to be found for him. Why? Because there was no one else like him on the planet. The implication of this verse is clear; each of the animals, both male and female, already had an appropriate help--its own male or female counterpart. But the man did not have an appropriate help. He had no female counterpart. On the other hand, the woman came into being with an appropriate help already in place--her human counterpart, the man.

Was mankind (males in particular) created to rule over other men and women? The bible says humans (both male and female) were created in God's image and that both were instructed to have dominion over all the rest of His creation. We see no command given, in either the first or second chapter of Genesis, in regards to mankind ruling over any other human being. It is simply not there. The female human was given the same benefit as the male human concerning the privilege of subduing the earth by being given dominion over the plant and animal kingdoms.

Neither Genesis 2:18 nor 2:20 proves that the present gender role distinctions defended so fervently by conservative evangelicals were ordained of God before the fall. The rigid gender role, caste system, we see enforced among evangelicals today are nothing less than the result of sin. They have not been mandated by God but, rather, by men.