Rape Prevention

I've been preparing to teach some classes on personal safety and self-defense for young women. As a martial arts and self-defense instructor, I have read my fair share of material on this subject. I can honestly say that the following rape prevention tips, if followed, would be enormously successful, far more so than any other tips I've read.

Please pass them on to everyone you know.





-- Posted from my iPhone

Setting the record straight

As a martial arts and self-defense instructor, I am continually surprised at a number of the myths that people present as facts.

One of the newer myths that some men are attempting to perpetuate, without any sort of proof (because there is none) is that women are just as violent as men, and that women abuse their spouses as often or more often than men do. I just ran across this on the Bayly Blog:

The violence and victims literature tells us women are every bit as violent as men, and lesbian couples are the most violent of all. Even when asked to report on prior heterosexual relationships, lesbians report their present homosexual relationship to be more violent than any prior heterosexual relationship.

No footnotes, of course.

A quick Google search turned up the following:

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:

• Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
• 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
• Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
• 50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.

  Matthew R. Durose et al., U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 207846, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances, at 31-32 (2005), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf

In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).

Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, at iii (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

Sexual Assault According to the National Violence Against Women Survey:

• Women are more likely to be victims of sexual violence than men: 78% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are women and 22% are men.
• Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of sexual violence committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men. Sexual violence against men is also mainly male violence: 70% of rapes, 86% of physical assaults, and 65% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men.
• In 8 out of 10 rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator. Of people who report sexual violence, 64% of women and 16% of men were raped, physically assaulted, or stalked by an intimate partner. This includes a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, or date.

  Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/183781.htm

• Another national survey found that 34% of women were victims of sexual coercion by a husband or intimate partner in their lifetime.
  

  Kathleen C. Basile, Prevalence of Wife Rape and Other Intimate Partner Sexual Coercion in a Nationally Representative Sample of Women, 17 Violence and Victims 511 (2002).

The National Women's Study, a three-year longitudinal study of a national probability sample of 4,008 adult women (2,008 of whom represent a cross section of all adult women and 2,000 of whom are an over sample of younger women between the ages of 18 and 34), found:

• 13% of adult women had been victims of completed rape during their lifetime
• 22% of rape victims were assaulted by someone they had never seen before or did not know well.
• 9% of victims were raped by husbands or ex-husbands.
• 11% were raped by fathers or stepfathers.
• 10% were raped by boyfriends or ex-boyfriends.
• 16% were raped by other relatives.
• 29% were raped by other non-relatives, such as friends and neighbors.

  See Dean G. Kilpatrick et al., Rape in America: A Report to the Nation (1992); Heidi S. Resnick et al., Prevalence of Civilian Trauma and PTSD in a Representative National Sample of Women, 61 J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychol. 984 (1993); Dean G. Kilpatrick et al., A 2-Year Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationship Between Violent Assault and Substance Use in Women, 65 J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychol. 834 (1997); Kilpatrick et al., Rape, Other Violence Against Women, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Critical Issues in Assessing the Adversity-Stress-Psychopathology Relationship, in Adversity, Stress, & Psychopathology 161-176 (Bruce P. Dohrenwend ed., 1998); Dean G. Kilpatrick, Rape and Sexual Assault, Aug. 7, 2006, http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/sa.shtml

11% of lesbians reported violence by their female partner and 15% of gay men who had lived with a male partner reported being victimized by a male partner.

Patricia Tjaden, Symposium on Integrating Responses to Domestic Violence: Extent and Nature of Intimate Partner Violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey, 47 Loy. L. Rev. 41, 54 (2003).

• One survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2% of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 of the opposite- sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime.
  

  Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

• 15.4% of same-sex cohabiting men reported being raped, physically assaulted and/or stalked by a male partner, but 10.8% reported such violence by a female partner.
  

  Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

Physical Injury and Medical Treatment

• The U.S. Department of Justice reported that 37% of all women who sought care in hospital emergency rooms for violence-related injuries were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend.
  

  Michael R. Rand, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 156921, Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments, (1997) available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vrithed.txt

• Women are significantly more likely than men to be injured during an assault: 31.5% of female rape victims, compared with 16.1% of male rape victims, reported being injured during their most recent rape, and 39-42% percent of female physical assault victims, compared with 20-25% of male physical assault victims, reported being injured during their most recent physical assault.
  
• 35.6% of the women injured during their most recent rape and 30.2% of the women injured during their most recent physical assault received medical treatment. Approximately 21.5% of male victims of intimate partner physical assaults that resulted in an injury sought medical treatment.
  

  Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000) available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/183781.htm; Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

Ninety-two percent of women who were physically abused by their partners did not discuss these incidents with their physicians; 57% did not discuss the incidents with anyone. Additionally, in four different studies of survivors of abuse, 70% to 81% of the patients studied reported that they would like their healthcare providers to ask them privately about intimate partner violence.

Panagiota V. Caralis & Regina Musialowski, Women's Experiences with Domestic Violence and Their Attitudes and Expectations Regarding Medical Care of Abuse Victims, 90 S. Med. J. 1075 (1997); Jeanne McCauley et al., Inside 'Pandora's Box': Abused Women's Experiences with Clinicians and Health Services, 13 Archives of Internal Med. 549 (1998); Lawrence S. Friedman et al., Inquiry About Victimization Experiences: A Survey of Patient Preferences and Physician Practices, 152 Archives of Internal Med. (1992); Michael Rodriguez et al., Breaking the Silence: Battered Women's Perspectives on Medical Care, 5 Archives of Fam. Med. 153 (1996).

From: "Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1998"

• Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend each year to 4 million women who are physically abused by their husbands or live-in partners each year.

• While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.

• Violence by an intimate partner accounts for about 21% of violent crime experienced by women and about 2 % of the violence experienced by men.

• 31,260 women were murdered by an intimate from 1976-1996.

• Females accounted for 39% of the hospital emergency department visits for violence-related injuries in 1994 but 84% of the persons treated for injuries inflicted by intimates.

Over 500,00 women are stalked by an intimate partner each year.

5.3 million women are abused each year.

1,232 women are killed each year by an intimate partner.

Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women.

Women are more likely to be attacked by someone they know rather than by a stranger.

[from the American Institute on Domestic Violence]


I have no idea what "violence and victims literature" Tim Bayly is referring to, since he does not actually cite any, but this unnamed "literature" cannot be credible if it contradicts the most reliable sources.

As for the article referenced in the Bayly Blog: What sort of man, instead of calling the police, instead of leaving his wife, would sign "a contract with his wife that entitles her to attack him once a week"? Why not sign a contract that entitling him to live free of attack from her? Why not go to her kung fu sifu and demand that she not be allowed to misuse her martial arts? Something about this story is very fishy indeed...almost as fishy as the unsubstantiated statements Tim Bayly makes about domestic violence.

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

We don't lose our minds when we become pregnant

Really, we don't. Even when we sometimes feel that way or possibly even act that way.

Having more than the socially acceptable number of children, contrary to what many might think, did not reduce my IQ to below room temperature.

But you'd never guess that from the way people have treated me and other mothers, especially in light of the ridiculous questions I've been asked. When I announced my pregnancy with Child #4, guess what question I was asked more than any other: "Have you even thought about where you will put this child?"

Come on, our house was small, but not that small. Another mom, much in the same sort of situation, gave me her answer. She would gasp, open her eyes wide in shock, and exclaim as dramatically as possible, "Oh, no! We never even thought of that! Whatever will we do? I guess we'll just have to stick the baby...on the back porch!"

Other questions/statements I've had to endure:

"I suppose you've never given any thought to what you will do if you are ever in an accident or incapacitated."

"Have you considered what you will do if your husband dies?"

"You might want to think about how you and your husband will manage to pay for all these children."

"Have you even thought about finding someone to deliver this baby?" (I kid you not --- I was about two weeks away from my due date, and as hugely pregnant as could be, when I was asked this question.) Despite the fact that I'd chosen the birth attendants long before conception, and was more than fully prepared to have the baby right that minute, I was tempted to give my blankest look and ask, "Huh? Deliver this baby? What do you mean?"

"What are you going to do with your other children after this baby is born? Have you even thought about how you're going to take care of them?"

"I don't think you have any idea of what it's like to try to handle six children." (Said by a father of two, who seemed oblivious to the fact that I had two years of full-time experience handling five children, and about 12 years of full-time mothering experience to his three years of part-time fathering!)

"Have you and your husband ever thought to discuss whether or not a large family is a good idea?"

"Have you even considered, for a moment, whether it's fair to your older children to keep bringing more children into the family?"

"I suppose you've never thought about what it will be like when all these children are teenagers."

Newsflash: Women are not stupid. Mothers are not stupid. We do think about these things. In fact, we tend to think about them far more than our husbands do. We lose sleep over such questions. We spend the "night watch hours" in prayer. We read; we study; we research; we consult trusted advisers; we plan. If anything, we spend too much time on these questions, not too little.

"Does she have any idea what she's going to do with her children once she's vice-president?"

I'm sure she does. After all, she's had a workable plan in place while being governor. Yes, handling six children was more of a challenge than handling five. Yes, being vice president will be more of a challenge than being governor. But I doubt that Governor Palin is a fool or an idiot. I doubt that you know more about combining family with governmental responsibilities than she does. I certainly doubt that you have given more thought to the issue than she has.

She has a husband, a man who is obviously no stranger to holding and tending his baby. That doesn't make him a "mom"; that makes him an involved father. She has experience working with babies in her office --- probably far more experience than you do.

I'm sure she answered that question, with much careful consideration, long before you even knew she was being considered for vice president. In fact, this is what her answer looks like.

Another friend of mine came up with a standard answer to what she termed "I know you're an idiot so I need to ask you" questions: "Don't worry. We already have all sorts of plans and contingency plans in place. I know the idea of this is new and overwhelming for you, but it's old hat for us. Thanks for your concern."

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

Where are the tears for the Obama children?

If I read one more blog commenter going on and on about how he/she weeps for the Palin children, I'm going to be awfully tempted to begin spamming the internet with the following reply:

Have you also been weeping for the Obama children? They have been dragged into the public spotlight. They have had to deal with an absentee father and a mother on the campaign trail. There are no hundreds of heartwarming pictures showing the parents working with their daughters at their sides and in their arms --- because the Obama family does not live this way. These little girls have had to hear that babies are a "punishment" and will no doubt some day wonder if their parents regarded them as punishments as well.

Where were your posts about weeping for them? And, since you haven't been weeping for them, what am I to assume?

1. You don't concern yourself with the children of those who are democrats.
2. You don't concern yourself with the children of those of other races than your own.
3. You don't concern yourself with the children of men who are running for office.
4. You don't concern yourself with the children of those you don't particularly like.
   
5. It's really not about the children. It's about a woman doing something you don't think women should do.
   

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

More silliness on the campaign trail

On this the patriarchal crowd and the ultra-liberals agree: bashing mothers is always fair game, even if one has to be illogical and hypocritical to do so.

On this the patriarchal crowd and the ultra-liberals also agree: no one really cares if a father is a "bad father" or not. Fatherhood is, for the most part, usually not even worth thinking or talking about, especially in light of more "serious concerns".

So today I've learned, from both the patriarchal crowd and the ultra-liberals, that Governor Palin is a bad mom for bringing her family up on the stage with her after her speech. Supposedly she should have left her children at home --- or, at least, she should have left her 17 year old daughter and her youngest child at home.

She did nothing different from what all other candidates for political office have been doing ever since I can remember. Where was the criticism for all these men? Why are they not being accused of being bad dads? You would think the patriarchal crowd, who do like to go on about superior upper body strength making men naturally suitable to be leaders and protectors, would at least wonder aloud why all the male candidates are not protecting their families from the grave harm of appearing on stage at conventions! But, no...it is only mothers who are expected to protect their children and who fail by not doing so.

This "it's harmful for children to receive national attention" idea must be some kind of odd, new-fangled notion. Or maybe the patriarchal crowd was simply too young (or not alive yet?) to raise their strident protests against Jackie Kennedy when she exposed her grieving tots to national scrutiny at her husband's funeral. No one seemed to think that abusive. Can any of us who watched it on TV ever forget the sight of tiny John, in his short suit, saluting his father's casket? I don't recall, then or since, anyone castigating Mrs. Kennedy for being a bad mom that day.

So...why not have at it now? And why stop there? Why not attack all the wives of politicians for being bad moms and allowing their children to be dragged on stage? Why not attack all the pastor's wives for not protecting their children from being used as sermon illustrations or, worse, having to stand at the door of the church and shake everyone's hand in the dreaded pastoral family reception line Sunday after Sunday? (I think I'm seriously dating myself here!) Why not attack all wives of public figures whose children are not being protected from having to appear at public functions, pose for the obligatory family pictures, and serve as props to further their father's professional image?

And the fathers who insist on these things? Why, they get a free ride, of course. Because they are only fathers. And what they do doesn't impact their children as much. What they do as fathers interests us less than their all-important careers and professions.

But let a mother get on our bad side! Why, it's open season!

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

What kind of feminist is THAT?!

Normally politics is not my thing. But the Palin nomination, and the response to it, has been so interesting, and so revealing as to attitudes about women, children, families, etc. I just can't help but write about it.

A lot of ultra-conservatives are extremely uncomfortable with Governor Palin. It's bad enough that she is a woman governor. Some of them could almost bring themselves to overlook that. But her real crime is that she is a member of Feminists for Life. Feminists. Yet, it's hard to savage and vilify her for that because...well...she puts to lie their favorite whipping-girl stereotype of feminist.

I'm reminded of the t-shirt, "This is what a feminist looks like".

The angry anti-feminists would rather not admit that a feminist can look like Governor Palin. She's not a man-hating lesbian with short hair stridently shouting about abortion rights. Instead, she is, as one reporter noticed, "pro-baby, pro-guns, and pro-Jesus". She is married. She has five children. She has been widely photographed going about her business with her baby in a sling. She is not shrill or angry. She actually has a sense of humor. And she's feminine, to the point that a popular bumper slogan in her state says "Alaska. Coldest State. Hottest Governor".

Other than working outside the home, she is that fantasy ideal wife for many of the ultra-conservative men. If she were a housewife at a homeschooling convention with Trig in her sling, men would be falling over themselves to hold her up as an example for their wives, and they would be commenting with envy, "Man, her husband is one lucky dude. She's not only pretty and feminine and having babies in her 40's, but she even goes moose hunting. She's the perfect wife."

Those same men simply don't want to admit that this sort of woman could possibly be a feminist. It makes it harder when a feminist looks so much the way you wished your wife did. It makes it harder to scream that all feminists are angry, bitter, ugly women that men would never want anyway, and who now hate all men and want to murder all babies.

"Real women" can be feminists too. I'm reminded of a woman I read about, a self-proclaimed feminist. She may have also been a member of Feminists for Life; I'm not sure, but I do know she was involved in pro-life ministry. She was also pretty and feminine with a fairly large family. In addition, she was a stay-at-home homeschooling mom who loved to cook, sew, and involve herself in stereotypically feminine pursuits. Men liked to argue with her and tell her that she was not a feminist, that she didn't understand what it meant to be a feminist, etc. She had her degree in Feminist Studies and could, of course, argue circles around these men, since she had actually studied feminist literature and was not relying on some pastor's ill-informed anti-feminist rhetoric or on silly stereotypes. She tended to baffle these men.

But it's not just the ultra-conservative men who don't know what to do with someone like Governor Palin. It's the ultra-left as well.

You see, Governor Palin is committing the crime of "doing it all". Worse yet, she's doing it all while wearning Trig in a sling. She's not insisting on the necessity of abortions and child care. She's simply doing what mothers without a socialistic agenda have always done --- working at one's calling while tending one's babies.

No one --- at least not the ultra-conservatives or the ultra-left --- want to admit that this is possible. It makes them angry. It puts to lie their hostile rhetoric. Mothers must stay home! Children get in the way of a woman's career! Babies have no place in the working world! Babies should be rarely seen and certainly not heard! Having a baby with an extra chromosone is a tragedy that will ruin your life or, at the very least, make it impossible for you to do anything else but spend 24 exhausting hours a day completely consumed by your special-needs child! Real women don't work! Real women don't go moose hunting! Real women don't have babies in their 40's! Real women are pro-abortion! Real women don't seek to rule over men! Real women need child care in order to live their lives! Real women never need any household help! Real women...!

Very few want to admit that, yes, Governor Palin is what a feminist looks like. And it's ridiculous to try to claim that she's not a real woman.

Many are much more comfortable with the idea that Hillary Clinton is what a feminist looks like.

The truth of the matter is that feminists are sort of like Baptists in that when you get two together, you have at least three opinions. Unlike Baptists, feminist embrace a much wider variety of beliefs and practices.

So...she may not be the sort of feminist you like to throw darts at. She may not be the sort of feminist that fits your stereotype. She may not be the sort of feminist you are. But she's a feminist. In fact, there are more just like her. Get used to it. Maybe every feminist is not your enemy...or not just like you. Or maybe some are more like you than you're comfortable admitting...it all depends on your perspective.

Time to face the truth, uncomfortable though it may be. Time to let go of the sterotypes...to argue ideas rather than straw women!

Updated to add:

This picture, taken --- to the best of my knowledge --- right before Governor Palin's speech accepting the vice presidential nomination, has been circulating on the internet, sometimes with the caption, "This is what a feminist looks like".


And why are so many uncomfortable with this picture? What does it tell us about what we really think about feminists and, more importantly, what we really think about women, especially mothers?

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

The two shall become one

And, as the old joke goes, "But which one?"

I believe it is a new one, a one which never existed before. Some say this mystery speaks only of the fact that the married couple has sex. I've written about this elsewhere.

I believe it speaks of unity.

The two become one, and that one is a sum greater than its parts. No one dies; no one disappears. In fact, you become more. You become completed in this other person. In Christ, you become the three-chord strand that is not easily broken.

It's a good thing.

Yes, because we are sinful creatures, there are struggles along the way. Sometimes we want selfishness, power, laziness --- whatever --- over unity. Sometimes our natural inclinations make us seek out friends and advisers who encourage us to set other things ahead of unity. Marriage is not so much about unity, they will say. It's really about who is the boss. It's about a CEO and a plant manager and a bunch of employees-in-training. It's about a commanding officer, an enlisted soldier, and a bunch of raw recruits in boot camp. It's about getting what you want. It's about manipulating your husband into doing whatever you don't want to do, and being all self-righteous about how submissive you are. It's about the fact that men and women are so different that they can't possibly be one in any way other than through sexual intercourse. It's about having babies and little else. It's about the superiority of all males over all females. It's about winning in the culture wars. It's about providing men with an alternative to prostitutes and pornography, with the added benefit of a live-in cook and maid. It's about providing women with a free ticket to easy street, so they'll never have to work at a real job again. It's about me, me, me, and whether I am fulfilled and whether my needs are met and whether my spouse does what I want.

And, if it is about being one, let's make sure that I am THE ONE. I won't see beyond me. When I look at my spouse, all I see is me. It's all about me, me, me, me, me...

You know what? I don't get any of that when I read the Bible and see what it actually says about marriage. I don't read about business plans and military conquests and husbands wielding swords against their wives. I don't read about selfishness becoming sanctified and acceptable in marriage. I don't read that it's suddenly OK to seize authority and to ignore Christ's example of coming to serve rather than to be served. I don't read that passivity and weakness and manipulativeness and guile are wifely virtues.

Instead, I read about unity. I read about love, the sort of love that is described in 1 Corinthians 13. I read about living together in understanding. I read about respect. I read about submission. I read about being one. Not being one person or the other. Being one, both together in unity.

Recently I heard a husband who said that, no, he didn't submit to his wife. He didn't believe that was Biblical. But he did submit to the Lord and to his marriage. Specifically, he submitted himself to maintaining and increasing unity and intimacy with his wife. His wife submitted to him and, since that was his goal for their marriage, she was happy that it was her goal as well. In fact, that is a big factor in why she married him. They both believed that, in unity with Christ and with each other, they could serve Him far better than they could separately.

I've worked in the business world. I really am not looking to pretend to be a plant manager and to have a respectful, professional relationship with the CEO of the company. Because, the truth of the matter is that I know this is, at best, a distant relationship. I never wanted to have sexual relations with any of my bosses. It would have been unseemly and inappropriate and an abuse of his power. So why pretend this is a model for marriage? I don't want a business arrangement. I want a real marriage --- a Biblical marriage. The corporate world holds no appeal for me.

I believe in the order of creation. I take it literally. All six days. I honestly believe that it all happened in just that order. God can set me straight when we get to Heaven, and He can chuckle at my naive simplicity. But, in the meantime, I'll take His Words at face value. I also believe Him when He declared it all good.

That's not all I believe. I also believe that the husband should leave his parents and that he should become one with his wife. For some men, that has meant giving up their dreams, their entitlements, their friends --- all for the sake of unity with their wives. All for the sake of loving their wives as Christ loved the Church, giving up His life for it.

I also believe that God meant what He said when He declared that a man who finds a wife finds what is good, and finds favor with God. And I believe His warnings against husbands dealing treacherously with their wives. And I believe that a man's poor relationship with His wife can directly hinder his prayer life.

There is so much more that I believe...

I also believe that we are to die to ourselves, take up our crosses daily, and live for Christ.

And I believe that there is only one God, and that He is a jealous God.

I believe that, as wives, our desire for our husband can be so strong, so overwhelming, that we are tempted to make an idol of this man. Even though the Bible teaches us to be one with our husbands, it does not teach us to put this unity, this intimacy, ahead of God. God is a jealous God. He does not take kindly to idolatry, whether it is self or another that we worship.

I believe that husbands are tempted to rule over their wives, and that too many of them far prefer this over intimacy and unity. It is safer for them, more comfortable, and gets them what they want. Very few want true servanthood. They especially do not want to serve a woman.

But I believe that Christian marriage is different --- or should be different --- from what so many are stridently claiming marriage should be.

It's so much better. So much better. On the day I was married, I thought my father-in-law sweet but quaint and idealistic when he prayed a prayer over us that included the word "bliss" to describe marriage. Yes, he was sweet. Perhaps a bit quaint and idealistic as well. But not so much as I thought at the time. He knew. He grew into being a good husband. He laid down his own life. He gave much and served much, especially in his later years. He knew. He had experienced that bliss first hand --- the rewards of his obedience to Christ.

May we give up on the world's ideas of marriage, even if they are trumpeted forth loudly and eloquently and convincingly by those claiming to be Christian. May we instead submit to Christ and follow Him in all things, especially in our marriages. May we discover the bliss, the good thing, that God has always intended marriage to be.

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

The masculinization of the church, part 5

For background, see Part 1, and the other posts in the series.

According to organizations like "Church for Men" and "GodMen", and a growing number of men who like to flatter themselves by claiming that they are "Biblical partriarchs" instead of just ordinary Christian guys, the big problem with the church in America is that it is feminized. Frankly, their arguments have never made much logical sense to me. For the most part, it is a lot of hysteria, a lot of whining, and a lot of childish silliness with some paranoia mixed in. A man can't simply say he doesn't like pews, or that church pews have outlived their usefulness, or even that church pews were a bad idea to begin with --- if he is one of the hysterical or whiny "blame it all on the women" types, he has to insist that church pews are a sign of the feminization of the church!

Back in the 50's and 60's, conspiracy theorists loved to shout that the communists were taking over everything. Today, in a growing number of evangelical fringe groups, they love to shout that the feminists are taking over everything. (I actually happen to know some real feminists --- as in, they self-describe themselves as such and are very well read on the subject --- and they think these guys are hilariously misinformed. But that's for another series of posts --- and another writer.)

Certainly it is true that many churches are no longer as extremely male-dominated as they were a generation ago in our our country. Today, in a number of churches, women are not confined to children's Sunday School, the kitchen and the "missionary circle" as the only way of being involved in church "ministry". A growing number of male church leaders are willing to act on the belief that women, as well as men, are capable of receiving the Holy Spirit, and that spiritual giftings for women can include more than mercy and helps.

It is also true that many churches in American are filled with more women than men. But, then again, there were more women followers of Jesus who were there at the Cross, and His women followers were the first ones there at the Tomb after He arose...

It is also true that there are churches that have fallen into heresy and that some --- but certainly not all or even most --- of these heresies involve expressions of feminist spirituality.

But all that being true hardly means that we need to run around like Chicken Little and scream shrilly that the feminists are taking over the church. Unless, of course, we are those men who operate with a very simple paradigm:

Feminine = bad
Masculine = good

That is what is really behind all of this hysteria about the church being too feminized. No one is arguing that the church was too male-dominated, too masculinized, and that this feminization is providing a healthy balance. No one is arguing that the church should reflect all of its members, male and female. Instead, those who believe that the church is becoming feminized see this as a bad thing, an extremely bad thing.

The problem with the church, they say, is that it is not masculine enough. Because, of course, being masculine is good. Being feminine isn't. It is as if men need less redeeming than women, as if their masculine natures are either less fallen or more easily redeemed. And one cannot help but wonder if, in their worldview, women are ever truly redeemed. Being feminine is seen as somehow more fallen, less able to be be an image bearer of God, less able to be led by the Holy Spirit, less able to be empowered by Him for His glory.

What is good about our culture and about the church is therefore seen as being masculine. What is bad and weak about our culture and the church is seen as being feminine.

Of course, this means that the proponents of the "church should be masculine" view sometimes have to make some great leaps of logic. As a commenter on this blog pointed out, referring to an article on the Bayly's blog, "I was especially amused to read the phrase, speaking of the Bride of Christ, 'she has been emasculated.'"

Yes, it is amusing.

But it is also sad. To say nothing of the fact that this view demeans the very image of God.

And it misses the point.

The problem with the church in America is not that there are too many women in church. It is not that the male leadership is not masculine enough. It is not that, to quote one disgusting article, there are "girly-men in the pulpit". The problem is not a lack of testosterone.

It's a lack of Jesus.

So, yes, I don't really believe that the problem with the church is that it is too masculine. I think the problem with the church is that it reflects its human self-proclaimed leaders (who are usually male) more than it reflects its Head. I was using a certain amount of irony to make some important points.

But I am also quite convinced of a truly radical notion that I have: that women are called to be --- and can be --- just as Christlike as men. Even more wild and crazy, I believe that when God declared His creation of male and female as good, He meant that even femininity was good. Call me a heretical simpleton for taking Scripture so literally, but there you have it.

And the solution to the problem with the church in American? Ah...well, that's the subject of a whole 'nuther series...

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice on the bottom of this page. Thank you.

True femininity?

O.K. ladies, now it's our turn!

There are a lot of mistaken, wrong-headed, and unbiblical notions about femininity rampant in our culture and even in our churches today. Here are some of the major ones:

1. Feminine = bad and/or defective or, at best, inferior.

2. Feminine = sexy.

3. Feminine = passive and/or weak.

4. Feminine = "kitchen wife".

5. Feminine = unintelligent, illogical, and overly emotional.

I'm not saying that a kitchen wife, or a sexy woman, cannot also be feminine; I am saying that true femininity is not bound up in those simple equations. A "kitchen wife" can be feminine or unfeminine, for example. Contrary to some men's fears, hanging out in the kitchen too much will not make one feminine, any more than hanging out in the garage will make one a car.

A simple definition of feminine is "of or relating to women or girls; characterized by or possessing qualities generally attributed to a woman".

Sometimes we act as if we've forgotten that God created women --- and that He declared all of His creation good.

However, in some circles among those who claim to be Christian are men who lob the word "feminine" and "feminized" as if these were the worst insults. They act as if a woman's influence is to avoided at all costs.

So...without further ado, here is my list of those things that I consider unfeminine:

Women who are not ladies. By this I mean real ladies. My grandmothers worked hard. They were strong. They were courageous. They would even sweat. One of my grandmothers, who recently went to heaven, was remembered at her funeral as, among other things, loving to exercise. But my grandmothers were ladies who, even when being outspoken, knew how to be well-mannered, cultured, hospitable, and proper.

Couch potatoes. Slothfulness is so unfeminine!

Women who do not treat their husbands kindly, respectfully, and as they want to be treated. I thought about how to word this for a long time. Submission is such a loaded word. I've met husbands who insist that they don't want their wives to submit to them. It's not that they want rebellious wives who don't treat them respectfully; it's just that they don't want doormats. True submission, in my opinion is treating your husband as he wishes, unless to do so would violate Scripture, violate your conscience, or be a poor testimony. (Yes, there are some husbands who deserve neither kindness, respect, nor anything else. I'm not talking about those kind of horrible marriages.)

Women who lack courage. Cowardice is not feminine. It's just wimpy. Real woman do what they need to do despite fear.

Women who lack compassion. That's hardly feminine. We're supposed to be the relational ones.

Women who are arrogant. Why should we behave as the worst of men?

Women who are more concerned about criticizing men than about becoming godly women. That should go without saying.

Women who make excuses for not demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit. Ditto.

Indulgent, gluttonous women. It's just as sinful for women, even if you don't end up looking as ridiculous as the men. But there is nothing feminine about food binges. Really. [Edited to add: please note that I did not say that all overweight women are unfeminine or in sin. I realize that not every overweight woman is gluttonous. Carrying extra pounds following childbirth is, in fact, quite normally feminine. There is nothing unfeminine or sinful about thyroid disorders or other health problems that cause inadvertent weight gain. However, no matter how heavy or skinny one might be, gluttony is still a sin. It's not a sin because of how it does or doesn't make us appear; it's a sin because the Bible says so. No matter how much we may try to "pretty up" our food binges, blame them on hormones, or pretend they are somehow part and parcel of being women, they are still sin. There is nothing feminine about indulgence and gluttony. See "Is Gluttony a Sin?" and "Gluttony: Still a Deadly Sin" ]

Women who mock what is feminine. Please don't mock me for having children, for enjoying to cook, for being married, or for dressing up on occasion. Note: saying "I don't have children" or "I don't like to cook" or "I have learned to enjoy being single" is not mocking me. I'm not that thin-skinned. But telling me that only an idiot would have children --- well, I have a hard time putting a positive spin on those words. It's hard not to view that as an attack on my womanhood and as quite unfeminine of you.

Women who don't like women. If you run around trying to convince people how dangerous and violent and sneaky and horrible and stupid and mean and attacking and catty women are, it's all too easy for me to start thinking that maybe you aren't really a woman. At any rate, you certainly have gender issues and aren't very feminine.

Sorry, ladies, that I was harder on you than on the men. But I presume we've all got our big girl panties on and that we can handle it!

True masculinity?

O.K. --- I will fully admit that the following rant is, at times, a bit tongue-in-cheek and is probably not an example of gracious speech, but this post has been screaming to be written for way too long. And there is some stuff of value in it after all. Read with discernment.

I'm tired of men trying to define "femininity" for me in ways that are silly, denigrating, narrow, stifling, and just plain ridiculous. Over the years, I've collected some real doozies, including the man who railed against me for not bottlefeeding with the near hysterical cry of, "But don't you see that breastfeeding is so...so...feminist! Why do you women have to claim you are so much better than men?"

The idea that breastfeeding was the equivalent of shouting, "I am woman; hear me roar" was news to me. Nor did I have any idea that doing so was claiming that I was better than men.

Then there are men who have tried to convince me that having a bunch of children is "simply not feminine; after all, you are not breeding stock", to which I can only answer, "HUH? Giving birth is not feminine?"

I've also been told that the following is not at all feminine: talking too much, talking too little, reading books, studying theology, laughing out loud, having a sense of humor, sweating while doing heavy housework, exercising, wearing comfortable shoes, going barefoot, wearing a denim skirt, getting along well with my brothers, any sort of athletic activity, using "big words", reading the Bible too much (oh, if this were only true of me!), writing about anything but recipes and household hints, looking people in the eye while speaking to them, having a firm handshake, etc., etc., etc.

Whenever some man wants to push his ideas of femininity on me, without any basis of Scripture or even common sense, to say nothing of a real knowledge of women, to back them up, I've always been tempted to let him know exactly how I felt he was lacking in the masculinity department.

Until now, I've not given in to that temptation.

Masculine can be defined in a number of different ways, but I thought I'd stick to the most basic that I got from an online dictionary: pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men, such as masculine attire; having qualities traditionally ascribed to men, as strength and boldness.

So, without further ado, let me tell you what I find to be completely unmasculine, in no particular order of importance:

Men who are not gentlemen. I mean real gentlemen. No matter what your station in life, you can still be civilized, gentle, sensitive, dignified, and well-mannered. It takes a real man to be those things. Sadly, all too many males today are very unmasculine in this regard. It's been refreshing for me to meet some young men who are courageous enough to buck the uncivilized trend of our current culture.

Couch potatoes. There is no boldness in passivity.

Men who do not protect their wives. Yes, I know that many husbands like to fantasize about heroic acts of bravery, where they imagine some action movie scene in their minds in which they save their wives (who probably look much more movie-starrish in these fantasies) from some dangerous fate. But I'm surprised to see that, in the day to day living of life, women tend to be far more protective of their husbands than husbands are of wives. Women will attempt to shield their husbands from stress, overwork, lack of sleep, poor health habits, etc. Women will defend their husbands against attacks. Husbands will often stand by helplessly, not wanting to "cause a scene" when their wives are insulted or unjustly criticized. Of course, not all husband are like that. For example, men whose are protective enough to watch the children every Saturday morning so that wives can catch up on lost sleep are showing true masculinity!

Men who do not lead by example. Even a two-year old can bark orders or give speeches. It takes a real man to live a life of godly humility, servitude, and integrity in front of his family --- and to set the family standard for these things. I'm glad to have had a number of masculine examples in my life, who set the bar very high in these areas.

Men who lack courage. I don't know how many times I've heard wives say things like, "I'd love to have another baby, but my husband is afraid." "I wanted to have natural childbirth, but my husband was too scared to let me try." "My husband is afraid to go to church." If I --- world's most fearful person --- can do these things despite quaking in my boots, it's hard for me to view someone as masculine when they are far weaker than me. Thank God for those men who are more courageous than their wives, but who are tender-hearted enough to encourage their wives, rather than to criticize them for being fearful.

Men who lack compassion. Weeping with those who weep is not just something women are to do. Jesus wept. Don't confuse a lack of empathy and a fear of emotions with masculinity.

Men who are arrogant. So are a lot of toddlers. Grow up. Godly humility in a man is wonderfully masculine.

Men who are more concerned about rebuking women than about becoming godly men. Silly children do this sort of thing. Be a man. Lead the way. Set the example. Let women teach women how to be godly wives. Don't try to pretend you are everyone's husband and that every woman must submit to you. You're neither an older woman nor husband of all, so please quite trying to act like that you are.

Christian men who act as if the fruit of the Spirit are feminine. If the Holy Spirit is in our lives, we should all be growing in our demonstration of "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self-control." Lacking these things does not make you a man; it simply means that you are not submissive enough to allow the Holy Spirit control of your life. (Yes, I used the "submissive" word on purpose. Even men are to submit to God.)

Indulgent, gluttonous men. This takes zero courage and zero boldness. The truth of the matter is that overweight men don't even look remotely masculine. Once when I was languishing sick in bed, I happened to turn on the TV and watched, in horror, "The Biggest Loser". I'm not sure why I watched as much of it as I did. The most appalling thing is that every single man took off his t-shirt for the weigh-in --- and they showed this on TV! It was one of the most disgusting and offensive sights. It struck me that these men looked like hideously extreme caricatures of unbelievably ugly pregnant women. In fact, they looked worse than that, with their grossly distended, sagging bellies and their lack of anything remotely approaching a masculine physique. It makes sense to me that a lack of strength and will-power would lead to such a de-masculinized appearance. In fact, it seems rather just. If someone will not act as a true man should, why should he look like one?

Now that I've vented, let me hasten to add:

This post may seem like male-bashing. In a way, it might be. But since it is open season, on many other blogs, to bash women for not cooking enough or for being too outspoken, or for writing books, or whatever, it seems that justice requires that at least one voice say, "Hey...if any man cares...at least one woman wishes men were more masculine --- at least more truly masculine!"

Silly little children and gorillas can puff out their chests and make a big show of being all tough. But true masculinity is a wonderful, wonderful thing. I'm not impressed by the silly Hollywood stereotypes; I've never been a fan of John Wayne; I don't think most professional athletes are particularly masculine.

Some of the most manly men I've known were short of stature...some were even physically weak...I can think of several who were infirm and crippled...but they stood head and shoulders above all other men in their devotion to Christ and to their families, in their self-sacrifice, in the powerful way the fruit of the Spirit shown from their lives, in their tenderness, in their compassion, in their protectiveness, in their integrity, in their courage. I wish there were far more of these men.

So, if anything, I'd like this post to encourage women to be more appreciative of the real masculinity in their husbands, and to encourage it and nurture it. I'd also like to encourage men to embrace true, Biblical masculinity. I'll admit that my rant strayed from the Biblical in some respects, so feel free to throw out anything that is simply of me!

Edited here and there because I posted it too hastily and to add the following: I did not mean the section about overweight men to seem insulting to pregnant women. Many husbands, mine included, find the sight of their pregnant wives cute, if not beautiful. I have never met a wife who thought her husband's big belly was handsome or attractive in any way. Pregnancy is a wonderful state, one that can be a sign of God's blessing. Obesity is a sign of the sin of gluttony. I know it's politically incorrect to speak this bluntly about it. I know all too well how difficult it is to wage battle against our own flesh, rather than to indulge ourselves. But the Bible speaks plainly on the sin of gluttony --- far more plainly than it does on who is to do the cooking.

Edited yet again to add this disclaimer: yes, I know that not all men with huge bellies are gluttons. There are those extremely rare cases of men eat completely in moderation, have all their appetites under control, only allow themselves to eat healthy and low-calorie fare --- and yet are overweight due to unusual hormonal imbalances, medications they must take, cancer treatments, or thyroid imbalances. Also, some men are gluttons and yet remain thin. Gluttony is a sin. Being overweight can often be an obvious sign of that sin. Once in a while, being overweight can be a sign of something else. I was speaking of gluttonous men, most of whom also happen to look very much like we would expect them to look while living gluttonous, indulgent lifestyles for quite some time. I am speaking especially of those men who try to pretend that their gluttony is masculine. It's not. It's sin.

Masculine piety?

Back in the day, I spent a lot of time on AOL discussing, among other things, various theological issues. The following is part of one such discussion. Even though there is a lot that I wrote back in 2001 that I would prefer to think I've since outgrown, I felt that this particular post might be worth repeating.

[The quoted portions below are taken from the article "Ministers in Skirts" by Douglas Wilson. The article originally appeared in Credenda Agenda and I assume it can still be found at http://www.credenda.org]

>It explains why the masculine virtues of courage, initiative,
>responsibility, and strength are in such short supply.

This kind of stuff reminds me of a 3-year-old boy I used to know. He had the amusing habit of assigning gender to *everything*. For example, one day when I was visiting, he wanted to do some digging and asked for the "boy shubbil". He would only drink out of "boy cups". I could never quite fathom what made a shovel a "boy shubbil" and what made a cup a "boy cup".

Scripture doesn't stoop to this sort of immature silliness. When it tells us to be courageous, the Bible doesn't address just the men. Women aren't let off the hook when it comes to initiative, responsibility, and strength. "Be strong in the Lord!" isn't referring to having enough testosterone in order to build up male-sized muscles. There is nothing masculine about being godly, about obeying Scripture, and about being mighty in spirit.

>We have failed
>because we have forgotten what masculine piety even looks like. When it
>occasionally appears among us, we are entirely flumoxed by it. But God gave
>the pattern of feminine piety to complement, not to rule.

Contrary to what a number of both feminists and masculinists might think, true spirituality and piety is neither masculine or feminine. If it were, Scripture would clearly teach this. However, our spiritual journeys, our justification, our sanctification---these are not gender-specific. True piety, true spirituality, is an ongoing process of the Holy Spirit in our lives, as we are being transformed more and more into the image of Christ. This does not mean that we must all become masculine. It means we must all become holy. And holiness has no gender.

Having said all that, I have to say that I still believe that God has ordained different functions for men and women, within families and within the church.

To put Douglas Wilson's article in its theological context: Although, to my knowledge, he does not describe himself as a theonomist, his theology has, over the years, moved more and more into that direction. This article, in fact, is strongly reminiscent of one that appeared in Chalcedon Report (a theonomist magazine) titled "Girlie-Men in the Pulpit".

I think these articles are, in part, intended to be highly insulting to women. One of the worst epithets a theonomist can hurl at anyone or anything is that he/it has become "feminized" or "feminine".

When God created Eve, he did not make a mistake. He saw that she was good. Femininity is good. If pastors and churches are failing today, it is because of sin and disbelief, not because men are becoming "feminine". It's time to start calling a spade a spade and a shovel a shovel---and it's time to stop pretending that the spade is feminized.

copyright 2001 by Rebecca Prewett

Where have the gentlemen gone?

Recently I was talking with another woman about the growing lack of civility and consideration that we are noticing among men in the church, especially among what she referred to as the "young bucks". We both wondered what had ever happened to the Scriptural idea that younger men should treat the older women as they treat their mothers.

But then, as I thought about it some more, I realized that part of the problem is that these same men probably treat their own mothers with an extreme lack of any respect, consideration, and good manners.

I know what some readers of this blog are no doubt thinking: it's the feminists' fault. Men would be gentlemen, but they are tired of being barked at every time they try to open a door for a woman.

To which there can only be one reply: that is sheer and utter nonsense, a ridiculous excuse for throwing out all manners and tact. Just because some woman didn't fall all over you with gratitude for strong-arming a doorknob out of her grip doesn't give you the excuse to lean back in your chair and belch loudly while making demeaning comments to and about every woman within earshot. Just because some women do not like strange men intruding closely enough on their personal space to open doors for them does not mean that, for the rest of your life, you need not ever be considerate again, but can declare open season on all women everywhere, subjecting them to the full range of your uncouth behavior.

I can recall a time when I ran out of gas on the highway, close to an offramp where there was a gas station. Two men, both total strangers, stopped to offer their assistance while I was walking to get gas. Man #1 practically ran me over and then offered me a ride. When I very politely declined to get in his vehicle, he began cursing me with the vilest language and threats imaginable. Man #2 stopped his vehicle a safe, unthreatening distance away from me and offered to bring me a gas can full of gas. When I declined his offer, he graciously accepted my "no", as any gentleman would. I doubt that he has since begun treating all women rudely and insisting that they are all asking for it, those feminists. It is obvious who the real gentleman was, and who had sinister motives.

What is ironic is that many of those men who wax nostalgic about the good old pre-feminist days are the worst of the bunch when it comes to how lacking in social graces they are. Apparently their vision of polite society includes ladies but not gentlemen. Either that, or these men have never learned what it means to be a gentleman.

Years ago, I knew an older gentlemen who seemed to epitomize graciousness. His manners were impeccable, born out of genuine respect and caring for others. I remember once seeing him respond to a woman who was rude to him. At the time, she was wearing ugly stretch pants, curlers, and chomping loudly on her gum, while he was wearing a handsome suit. But, given the way he treated her, one would have thought he was talking to someone else; he was that deferential and humble. Someone later commented on her rudeness, and the man replied, "I couldn't treat her as anything less than a lady". When it was pointed out that she hardly looked or acted like a lady, he appeared bewildered. "A gentleman," he said, "would never notice such a thing." To him, every woman was a lady.

OK, those are really old-fashioned ideas, and old-fashioned manners. That was back in the day when women wore gloves and hats to church, and when women weren't ever supposed to sweat. I'm not sure I want to turn back the clock.

BUT...

I do wish those who love to trumpet forth loudly about what the Bible teaches about gender roles would do so with a lot more civility and decency. I wish they would be at least equally as concerned about all the Scripture passages that speak of humility, love, and how we are supposed to treat others in the Body of Christ. I wish they would stop seeing women as enemies. I wish they would not lose their tempers when women dare speak anything but a demure, "Oh, my dear brother, you are as usual so wise and all knowing." I wish these advocates of Biblical manhood would try, just a little, to behave like gentlemen.

An admission I make freely: I was raised by a true gentleman. I'll admit it --- I've been spoiled by the men I grew up with. Most of them actually liked the fact that I was a girl. I grew used to being treated kindly, respectfully, protectively, graciously, gently. Like many people who have been a bit spoiled, it took me a few years to realize that the rest of the world isn't like this.

But shouldn't men who name the name of Christ be different from the rest of the world? Why is it that so many of them are...dare I say it...even worse?

More about Doug Phillips and Vision Forum

A few links of interest:

Doug Phillips' Raising the Allosaur

Ultimate Truth 1

Ultimate Truth

Doug Phillips Refuses to Protect Women and Children (latest installment in Jen's account of her family's disturbing experience as members of Doug Phillips' church)

Edited to add yet another link:

Simplegifts3 is also blogging about the controversy.

Vision Forum

If you homeschool, you've probably seen these beautiful, impressive catalogs. One Christmas, we ordered a number of gifts for our boys from the interesting, cool stuff offered.

But...

As years went by, there were things that just didn't sit right. Some of the books and resources being sold seemed a bit too extreme. I didn't appreciate the over-the-top gender stereotyping. The pictures and gifts in the boys' catalog, for example, encouraged adventure, excitement, imagination and fun activity, while the pictures and gifts in the girls' catalog seemed to encourage passivity and appearing feminine. When I was a little girl, I would have found the girls' catalog a bit too stifling and boring; none of the girls in the pictures were actually doing anything, while the boys were obviously having fun playing all sorts of wonderful things.

Then there was the over-the-top descriptions Doug Phillips gave on his blog and in his email newsletter about the weddings of a few young couples. You would have thought these couples had done great heroic deeds and changed the course of history, to hear him describe them. And there was the silliness of American men employing odd historical anachronisms, carrying swords at a wedding, and "knighting" the groom. These guys just take themselves way too seriously and yet haven't really grown up yet, I would find myself thinking.

But there is more to the story, and that "more" can be found here:
Jen’s Gems: Exposing Doug Phillips’ Ecclesiastical Tyranny

Wives letting themselves go

The blogosphere has been all abuzz about the Ted Haggard scandal. In the wake of that, Mark Driscoll (yet another "celebrity pastor") posted about the problem of sexual temptation for clergy. Apparently Mr. Driscoll is quite some exciting hunk of a man, because his female parishioners like to slip him notes soliciting sex. However, it is this comment of his that is raising the most concern: Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

The first question that struck me is "Who is the team?" I'm assuming he means the team of guys who like to blame their wives for their own problems with porn and other forms of emotional or physical infidelity.

It seems that there is good reason that Driscoll is, as he admits, "widely despised". Apparently he has a habit of making insulting, demeaning public comments about women.

I posted the following to a guy-oriented blog, but it seems my comment was either deleted or not approved. I guess I shouldn't be surprised:

“It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.”

It is also not uncommon to meet pastors who really let themselves go. In fact, in my experience, I have met far more of these, and most of them have been married to women who took far better care of their personal appearance and health than did their husbands. In fact, the last two pastors at our church have been (and still are) obese. [Note: they are not unusual. Although I've not read any studies, I have encountered evidence that obesity is as much, if not more, of a problem among male clergy as among the American population at large. Pun intended.] Obviously this presents issues in a marriage, especially when the wife takes far better care of herself. She may not have men slipping notes in her pocket asking her for massages and sex, but it is really hard to want to go all "Song of Solomon" with a fat guy who is a selfish slave to his appetities --- and any nice guy without a huge belly can look awfully attractive in comparison.

Now, it's probably true that fat pastors face less temptation from women trying to have flings with them, but they are hardly setting an example for healthy marriages, or for loving their wives. And a lot of guys who overly indulge their appetite for food will also be weak when it comes to controlling their other sensual appetities, such as for porn. Plus, I've known obese men who felt a huge need to affirm their masculinity by agressively chasing women. (Trust me; when I was single I used to get sick of the fat old guys at work who seemed to think I would actually be receptive to their nauseating attempts to proposition me and any other woman around.)

Obviously that was not Ted Haggard's issue. But I'm tired of pastor's wives being raked over the coals for not being attractive enough, when their husbands have far, far less excuse.

What I failed to mention was the obvious: There is no way that Ted Haggard's wife could have been beautiful enough or "Song of Solomon" enough to keep her husband from wanting to have sex with a male prostitute.

Judging others

Normally I don't make a practice of using this blog to follow the discussion on other blogs, but I felt this follow-up was important.

After being asked to clarify his harsh judgments of an egalitarian woman, Mr. Bayly posted a lengthy reply which didn't answer the question posed but ended:

You will understand, I trust, dear brother that there is a limit to my time, and these words don't write themselves. So please be gracious when I don't respond to every challenge or question posted as a comment.

To which the questioner responded:

I understand that and appreciate the answer. However, the matter of calling someone "an agent of the Evil One" seems important enough to clarify so that you are not misunderstood.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are not saying that Ms. Morton is not a Christian. Just that she is wrong in this one doctrinal matter. Yes?

In which case, since we are all imperfect, we would all be agents of the evil one in some area or another since no one has perfect doctrine.

Mr. Bayly then responded:

Well, sure, all of us could, at one time or another, see our Lord saying to us, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" But it would have to be one of the most sober rebukes of our lives. Similarly, I would hope that Mrs. Morton would take my rebuke, as an officer of Christ's Church, as one of the most sober rebukes of her life. As for whether or not Mrs. Morton and other feminist rebels against God are Christians, that's not the question I was addressing. But do you think Peter wondered about his eternal destiny when he heard our Lord's rebuke? I can't imagine he didn't.

This whole exchange raises a host of interesting questions. One which interests me is the broader issue raised by Mr. Bayly's statement, "Similarly, I would hope that Mrs. Morton would take my rebuke, as an officer of Christ's Church, as one of the most sober rebukes of her life." For the sake of argument, let's assume that a similar situation is taking place between Mr. A, a teaching elder in his church, and Mrs. B, a member of a completely different church.

Mr. A strongly disagrees with the egalitarian position. He believes that anyone who espouses it is an agent of Satan and cannot possibly be submissive to their husbands. He believes this to be a foundational doctrine, an essential doctrine. He believes that, as an "agent of Christ's Church", he has some sort of authority over women outside his church and that his rebuke should carry a similar weight to Jesus' rebuke of Peter.

However, let's assume that Mrs. B belongs to a church that disagrees with Mr. A. Perhaps her church is egalitarian or perhaps they are complementarian but don't consider this issue to be an essential one that should cause division within the church. Mrs. B's elders know her well; they have observed her submission and devotion to her husband; they have observed that her devotion to Christ is what motivates her to relate to her husband in the way she does. Because they know Mrs. B and because they believe that a difference in doctrine over egalitarianism is not a difference in opinion over essentials, they would firmly disagree with this online rebuke of one of those God has entrusted in their spiritual care.

Let us suppose that Mrs. B is in full submission to both her husband and her church leaders. Let us suppose that her egalitarian views have been taught to her by her husband. (This is not unusual. I have been in mind-boggling online arguments where wives, whose husbands were insisting on egalitarian marriages, were told by other men that they needed to "submit" and "insist their husbands lead" -- even if this was contrary to their husband's desires.) Why is some man, claiming to be an "officer of Christ's church", so quick to rebuke a woman so harshly (calling her an "agent of Satan") without any real knowledge of her? Why, while claiming to follow a Biblical view of male-female relationships, is he so quick in his attempts to usurp and undermine the authority of Mrs. B's husband, elders, and pastor?

Let us suppose that Mr. A likes to "throw his weight around". He loves reminding people that he is an "officer of Christ's church", because that sounds oh so much more important than "I'm an elder at a little church that meets in a school." He also loves putting women in their place and enjoys the idea that he has some sort of God-given authority over them, as a male and as an elder, even if he is the elder of a church they've never heard of.

When I was a fairly new wife and, desiring to become better in this role, read a lot of books and listened to a lot of advice, my husband often had to remind me gently, "Honey, you are supposed to submit to me, not to some guy who wrote a book." If only all those guys who write books and blogs really believed that!

For an interesting cross-cultural perspective on how the Bayly's treat other men's wives, read Hannah Im's blog entry. It is an excellent reminder of how far our American culture has strayed from common courtesy and respect.