Originally posted by Leonhard
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Massive Muslim Immigration...
Collapse
X
-
"I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThat's a rather antagonistic approach to take towards non-Christian sources
Originally posted by Leonhard View Postsome of the sources though that I remember were Christian. Long before I was a Christian I was a feminist, and I still keep in touch with the community, and there are a lot of Christian feminist circles talking about certain problems arising within the Christian communities who are heavy on complementarianism.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI didn't read it on Skeptics Bible Guide, or Fedora-Wearing-Atheist-Man-Dudes-Personal-Blog or some Reddit thread bashing Christianity if that's what you think.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThat's all very well and good, and I have no doubt that in most cases it works out healthily. That does not remove the problems though,
Originally posted by Leonhard View Postnor the fact that a highly popular evangelical Christian told women to "endure the abuse for a season",
Originally posted by Leonhard View Postand was given thousands of opportunities to clarify, and chose not to,
Originally posted by Leonhard View Postonly surfacing to post one, lone, article saying that "It is okay for women to seek help from authorities" and then only after drowning it in a 1001 clarifications and pushing it out as a wrong corner case.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostWhy didn't he simply say that its okay to seek help from the authorities?
3. Women can faithfully seek civil recourse.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostRemember though all of this was in the context of religious communities having internal religious courts. Defacto this is what this is. Don't take the abuse case to the authorities, take it to the local court of Elders, and they'll decide if the authorities get involved or if its handled "internally".
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI have no idea what to advice a person like that. One thing I would never advice anyone is to "endure it for a season".
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIt turned out that there were quite a few instances of that going on in the Assemblies of God congregations that John Piper headed. And they had all been protected by the communites, rather than the communities protecting the women.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThe "endure it for a season", also applied to women who were experiencing physical abuse.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostHonestly though he spends far more time talking about a highly imaginary case of a woman being tempted into group sex by her husband (2/3s of the video), than about the more realistic and problematic cases.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostA person can come back to the flock, but rights and privileges cannot be restored.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIf someone has beat his wife, she doesn't, neither for his sake, nor for Christs, owe him a second chance.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThe Christian community has only one responsibility there, backing her up, and if need be ensure that he doesn't corner her alone.
To be clear, you realize that the only case I'm making here is that, based on that one video you linked (and now Piper's followup reply which I found on my own), I don't see a reason to view the video as a worse case scenario? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong for taking the view that you have, especially if you have greater knowledge of the context of the video, merely that from my point of view, it's not nearly as damning as first presented.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostThe "big name" I most hear associated with the practice of not calling the police is James Dobson. In his 1983 book, he gave extensive advice to battered women in one chapter. They included talk about how beaten women often are asking for it from their actions... but there is not a single word in the chapter about calling the police.
After decades of bad publicity, he and his organization finally do respond to questioners by encouraging to call the police, but the damage was done.
At the same time, I sort of get where the idea comes in based on Paul's instructions for Christians to solve their problems themselves. However I think the context of what Paul meant was not violent situations that needed immediate intervention from the police.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI think it's a perfectly reasonable approach to take.
I wasn't asserting you had. There are plenty of places on Reddit, for instance, (r/news, r/NotTheOnion, r/AskHistorians, etc.) where Christian topics come up all of the time where people unfamiliar with a greater Christian context often misunderstand what is going on.
Which problem?
Ok, so to me, this seems like the crux of the issue. As I stated in the previous post, I'm completely unfamiliar with the history of this issue. Who all asked Pastor Piper to clarify this subject?
Hmm. I thought his case was perfectly cogent. I didn't see him offering extraneous clarifications, or pushing it out as a wrong corner case.
Why does that require so much unpacking?
He does.
While watching the initial video, I didn't think for once that Piper was asserting that a battered woman should not go to the authorities before seeking advice in the religious community,
At least he could have filled up the first 2/3s of the clip talking about that, rather than a highly imaginary fantasy of his of a husband trying seduce his wife into an orgy.
There's a huge range between happily married, and a spouse beating the other within an inch of one's life. His advice of "endure it for a season" isn't bad in certain cases.
I see. Is this what his Q&A video was initially replying to, or did these claims come out subsequent to the video? Do you know if there are articles that discuss how Piper's church handled these cases when they were initially brought forward to pastors and counselors in his church? This would be incredibly valuable context that I wasn't aware of before I made my initial reply.
Going back to the video, the "for a season" was in reference to "verbal abuse." The smack was endured "one night." I'll agree that it's a clumsy way of stating his case,
And it's not 2/3rds the video.
What? Says who?
No one is owed a second chance.
But drop for a second the idea that abuse only involves physically beating someone, is it ok to give the husband I mentioned in my above scenario a second chance?
My mom was soured quite a bit on her evangelical community. Its from a mostly good Christian group in Denmark called Inner Mission (meaning they do missioning within the country instead of other countries). She remembered this rich person in the community who often donated a lot in the collection plate, but she and many others also knew that he beat his wife quite regularly. Yet he was an upstanding member of the community, well liked, and met with the big boys in the Church.
You see the disconnect there?
The church has responsibilities to both parties (assuming the husband is also member of the congregation).
He can get in after wearing sackcloth and ash on his face for a month. But even then, when he returns, I believe the community owes her protection, not him.
To be clear, you realize that the only case I'm making here is that, based on that one video you linked (and now Piper's followup reply which I found on my own), I don't see a reason to view the video as a worse case scenario? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong for taking the view that you have, especially if you have greater knowledge of the context of the video, merely that from my point of view, it's not nearly as damning as first presented.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThat sounds like a very unfair criticism. Not explicitly saying that someone should call the police is quite different from actively discouraging them from calling the police. This seems like the typical disingenuous attack against Focus on the Family that they have been subjected to for pretty much as long as the ministry has existed.
In any event, as I mentioned, Dobson and the ministry as a whole have later clarified their stance so as not to discourage anybody from going to the police if it's actually warranted."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIts not at all a reasonable position to take, you basically poisoned the well up front, and even made assumptions about where I'd gotten the information.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostAs I said, it wasn't on Reddit.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostReligious courts, religious internal church laws trumping secular laws, men were given special power over women and abusing it.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostA thousand and one comments, emails, several other people writing articles about it. All simple calls for clarifications on something you think is trivially obvious.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostWe might have to disagree on that, I thought it was a lot of handwringing to answer a simple one sentence question that should be answered with a yes or no answer. "Can an abused woman seek help from the authorities?"
Why does that require so much unpacking?
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostHe did, after several years. And if that had been the only thing he posted, it would have been perfect. Yet that paragraph is burried deep in a much bigger article, talking a lot about the husband, and continues afterwards about the wife seeking help from the Church, and that she should be able to feel safe there. Meaning even then he still envisions her going there first.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostSeems to me its not addressed at all. He just tells abused women, emotionally or physically to "endure it for a season", seek Church help, and mostly work towards reconsiliation. There doesn't seem to be much consideration for her health, or any mention of actual violent abuse, or spousal rape or what have we. Things that are actual problems, and worth of discussion.
At least he could have filled up the first 2/3s of the clip talking about that, rather than a highly imaginary fantasy of his of a husband trying seduce his wife into an orgy.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIt would have taken five seconds for him to say "Of course if a woman is battered by a her husband she ought to seek help from the authorities, before taking it to the Church, who should work with the authorities and offer full support"
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIf all he's talking about is a husband hitting his wife with a slap, and telling her to endure it for one night, I'd still say its going too far, but its a lot lighter than what I and a lot of other people heard. Because it sounded very clearly to me as saying that she should endure his physical abuses, for a season, that is to say for some months, while its worked out with the Church, and only when the Church steps in and says "You can't do this to her" is the matter being dealt with.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIt is 2/3rds of the video. It takes that long for him to get away from that droll sex orgy seduction example, and start talking about something real.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostAny notion of Justice and Wisdom. A person can be forgiven, but there are rights and privileges that can never be restored to a person. For instance, there is a sense in which a person who has committed abuse to his wife, such as battering, even if he is forgiven and she waives any legal case, there is a sense in which that person can't regain the innocent trust they had before. That's been permanently sullied. Same with pedophiles, we can forgive them, in some cases their place in society can be restored. But often they can't be trusted around children in the same way someone else can.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostSo you agree that a battered woman can tell you, if you were her counsilor that she wouldn't trust the person again, and then you would agree and support her in the Church and not pressure her to get back with him?
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYes of course, if its a matter of spousal infighting and its not severe there's all sorts of reasonable responses. But since its battery I have in mind, would you agree that in those cases a woman can rightfully seek the authorities... once she has sought the authorities only then coming to the Church letting them know what has happened, and that the Church should support her and back her up, and kindly (but forcefully) book the abuser out of the community - no matter how much money he donates.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostMy mom was soured quite a bit on her evangelical community. Its from a mostly good Christian group in Denmark called Inner Mission (meaning they do missioning within the country instead of other countries). She remembered this rich person in the community who often donated a lot in the collection plate, but she and many others also knew that he beat his wife quite regularly. Yet he was an upstanding member of the community, well liked, and met with the big boys in the Church.
You see the disconnect there?
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostAnd for his own sake, at least so he understands that he's done something-bad, he needs to be thrown out.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostHe can get in after wearing sackcloth and ash on his face for a month. But even then, when he returns, I believe the community owes her protection, not him.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostGranted, this also took a turn far away from what I was originally arguing, which is that religious courts aren't a new phenomenon.Last edited by Adrift; 09-11-2019, 05:35 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostIf you write an entire chapter on how to respond to domestic violence and you don't even once mention the possibility of going to police, that's a pretty glaring omission, though it's definitely not nearly as bad as active discouragement of doing so.
In any event, as I mentioned, Dobson and the ministry as a whole have later clarified their stance so as not to discourage anybody from going to the police if it's actually warranted.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostIt works just fine. 700 cases out of tens of millions of church going women does not suggest a widespread practice among US churches.
Granted, that is being somewhat nitpicky. But on a less nitpicky note, the original article did note that this is only 700 reportedLast edited by Terraceth; 09-11-2019, 06:03 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThere is nothing at all wrong with that. Had I said, "well, you probably got this from a skeptic website, and of course they're going twist things," then yes, I would have been poisoning the well. I didn't do that. I asked where you got it, and my question was sincere.
KingsGambit also found it uncharitable.
Outside of cults, I don't think this is a serious problem within most of the Christian community, and so far I haven't seen any indication that John Piper is directly part of that problem.
This seems a bit vague. Do you have a source, or a cite, or something that demonstrates that over a thousand people attempted and failed to contact John Piper about this issue personally? And just because people write about it in an article, or in the comments of an article is no indication that Piper read or was familiar with said articles/comments.
And again, you're assuming the worse case scenario. In certain circumstances (for instance in cases where verbal abuse might be the issue) a woman might have zero recourse in going to the authorities.
Yes abuse is more complex, I never said it wasn't. No abuse doesn't mean only the worst case, but what made me aware of his sayings originally were the testimonies of women who had experienced the worst case, but had been steered back by the "elders" to her husband again and again, her concerns minimized, etc...
Again, that's not an accurate representation of the video. I even quoted what he said in the video, so I don't understand the misrepresentation.
Please rewatch the video. That's clearly not what he's referring to. And I agree that even a slap is a line crosser, but in some relationships it's not the end of the world. It might be less tolerated today, but you watch old black and white films, and you'll see couples slapping each other left and right, and then making up by the end of the movie. And while I've never slapped a girlfriend in the face, I can think back to a couple instances where my she might have shoved me in the middle of an argument, or where I might have smacked an accusing finger out of my face.
You're misremembering. He does not take up 2/3rds of the video talking about sex orgies. Up to about 1:37 of the video he's distinguishing between types of abuse, and asserting that the wife's duty is to submit first to the Lord and then to her husband. At the 1:37 mark he states, "So, if this man, for example, is calling her to engage in abusive acts willingly, group sex, or something really weird bizarre, harmful (that clearly would be sin), then the way she submits is...." Note he's not only talking about sex, but about abuse where one might be compelled to sin. That tangent starts at about the 1:37 mark and proceeds to about the 2:30 mark. That's less than a minute of a 4 minute video where he's talking about different types of abuse, the church's response to that abuse, and submission to Christ ahead of the husband.
I have never heard any authority make this blanket claim, nor do I think it's Biblical. I stole a book when I was 16. Does that mean I should never be trusted near books again? Using the extreme case of child predation is over the top. Rights and privileges can be and ARE restored all of the time.
Well, of course. Now you have me really confused about what sort of position you think I'm taking on this.
And why do you only have battery in mind,
That's why I'm only a complementarian in spiritual matters, such as the role of the priest in the assembly, but in other matters I'm an egalitarian out of practical wisdom.
I don't. I have no idea how donating money should interfere in a church's duty to report physical abuse to the authorities, or to advise a spouse to report it before coming to the church.
Wait, what? No, I wouldn't agree with that. We wouldn't throw a repentant sinner out of the church.
Ohh... You're still thinking that the only type of abuse is violent physical abuse, aren't you?
In a case where a wife walks into the church with bruises and welts, then of course the authorities should be called, the church should provide a place to stay like a battered shelter, and the husband informed he is not welcome. That's standard procedure at every church I've ever been to.
Just say it then. Its not hard. It doesn't cost anything.Last edited by Leonhard; 09-11-2019, 06:15 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYou said specifically, and I'll quote it back to you "Did you find it on some secular or skeptic website that attempted to twist it into something that Piper didn't intend?"
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostKingsGambit also found it uncharitable.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostFair enough. You don't consider elders in the Church to be a religious court of any kind.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI will try to gather the evidence as I've said. I do think its fair for you to request the information, but I hope you can understand that it will take a while to gather due to how Google's algorithms bury older news, articles etc. I might get around to it in the weekend though probably not as I'm visiting my father.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIt just belays the point. Sometimes it is the worst case scenario. Its clear, well articulated problem. The sex orgy was much less actual a problem, than a wife experience actual and repeated spousal abuse, and getting clear answers should be simple and straight forward.
Yes abuse is more complex, I never said it wasn't. No abuse doesn't mean only the worst case, but what made me aware of his sayings originally were the testimonies of women who had experienced the worst case, but had been steered back by the "elders" to her husband again and again, her concerns minimized, etc...
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI don't think its clear at all, neither did many others.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostWe've grown and matured in this matter. C.S Lewis brilliantly out that each age had its morals and virtues that they were better on than in other cases, I do believe in this matter we're the better.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostHmm, you're right, its only a minute he spends on that scenario. Must just have felt as longer to me. I'll grant this.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostWe agree on child predations, I also don't think we disagree on a person who's committed frequent and recurring acts of physical abuse towards their spouse. At least if we are, I will have to disagree with you, such a person cannot be given the same innocent trust he enjoyed once. That's just gone forever now.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostBecause it happens, the victims are hushed, and the community often helps the abuser. And in complementarian relationships, and communities who claim its better than egalitarianism they quite often turn out to have a lot of problems with spousal abuse. Which doesn't seem surprising when you claim that the man is the lord of the house, and the woman be completely submissive to him. Its a power imbalance that lends itself to abuse.
That's why I'm only a complementarian in spiritual matters, such as the role of the priest in the assembly, but in other matters I'm an egalitarian out of practical wisdom.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostApparently he was a high-ranking member, and friends with the elders, and probably an elder too, and they didn't believe her words over his.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThen what would you do with a violent abuser, the wife has left him, made it clear to you that she won't be giving him a second chance. He comes back to the community. They're both in your congregation now. How is this managed?
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThis would have taken less than ten seconds to say. Yet he spends a full minute on a sex orgy scenario?
Just say it then. Its not hard. It doesn't cost anything.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 03:54 PM
|
0 responses
6 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 03:54 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 12:05 PM
|
7 responses
58 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 05:10 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-09-2024, 04:14 PM
|
32 responses
183 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 04:50 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-09-2024, 01:20 PM
|
6 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
05-09-2024, 03:07 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-09-2024, 09:59 AM
|
8 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 05:06 AM
|
Comment