RIP #MeToo

[Mountain Man]

I did find an interesting study on this as it relates to the Church by a Christian author that believes that the correct understanding of the Biblical text actually helps prevent abuse.

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...-594_Tracy.pdf

Gee, where did we hear that before? Oh, right, I said it earlier in the thread!

I suppose this might be possible in theory, especially if such teachings are not given proper context and balanced with Biblical admonitions for the husband to love and care for his wife, but you have presented nothing to convince me that "conservative churches" in general do not present balanced instruction, and that abuse of women is inevitable and commonplace. As I said, if your personal experience leads you to believe that this is the case then you need to pick better churches.

But at least you finally got around to posting something other than your own breezy confident declaration that what you believe must be so simply because you say it's so (and which is the only reason I'm responding). I just find it ironic that the essay you eventually found contradicts your earlier claims that conservative churches encourage domestic violence yet present it as if it somehow vindicates you. A few choice quotes:

"[S]everal recent studies [show] there is an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence. Conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly are found to be the least likely group to engage in domestic violence..."

"According to several recent sociological studies of conservative Protestant family life, most American evangelicals affirm distinctive gender roles in marriage and affirm male headship, but do not practice traditional patriarchy but 'soft patriarchy.' This form of patriarchy deemphasizes male authority and control, defines male 'headship' in terms of loving sacrificial service to one's family, and lives this out in terms of joint decision-making, shared parenting, and shared domestic duties."

"At this juncture we may be able to make sense of the research studies cited earlier that reveal an inverse relationship between conservative Protestant church attendance and wife abuse. We might surmise from the fact that conservative Protestant men who are regular church attendees have the lowest spouse abuse rates that (1) regular exposure to balanced biblical teaching and preaching on family life detoxifies abusive misbeliefs about male headship; (2) Christian community offers salutary models of loving, non-dominating masculinity; (3) the experience of Christian community increases men's sense of confidence and masculinity which in turn decreases their need to control women and children."

So much for your claim that "many conservative churches" encourage abuse of women.

[oxmixmudd]

Gee, where did we hear that before? Oh, right, I said it earlier in the thread!

And in my reply to you, I pointed out that you were not wrong as it applies to balanced teaching on the subject. I also have acknowledged that when the whole of scripture is taken into account, there is sufficient offset to counteract the well documented pressure towards abuse that is part of the patriarchical structure itself.
But at least you finally got around to posting something other than your own breezy confident declaration that what you believe must be so simply because you say it's so (and which is the only reason I'm responding). I just find it ironic that the essay you eventually found contradicts your earlier claims that conservative churches encourage domestic violence yet present it as if it somehow vindicates you. A few choice quotes:

"[S]everal recent studies [show] there is an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence. Conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly are found to be the least likely group to engage in domestic violence..."

"According to several recent sociological studies of conservative Protestant family life, most American evangelicals affirm distinctive gender roles in marriage and affirm male headship, but do not practice traditional patriarchy but 'soft patriarchy.' This form of patriarchy deemphasizes male authority and control, defines male 'headship' in terms of loving sacrificial service to one's family, and lives this out in terms of joint decision-making, shared parenting, and shared domestic duties."

"At this juncture we may be able to make sense of the research studies cited earlier that reveal an inverse relationship between conservative Protestant church attendance and wife abuse. We might surmise from the fact that conservative Protestant men who are regular church attendees have the lowest spouse abuse rates that (1) regular exposure to balanced biblical teaching and preaching on family life detoxifies abusive misbeliefs about male headship; (2) Christian community offers salutary models of loving, non-dominating masculinity; (3) the experience of Christian community increases men's sense of confidence and masculinity which in turn decreases their need to control women and children."

So much for your claim that "many conservative churches" encourage abuse of women.

Part of that is you don't even understand the nature of my original claim. If you did understand the nature of my original claim, then you would understand this paper absolutely confirms every aspect of what I claimed. So perhaps you can take the time to look back a little closer (and read the paper a bit more carefully)

The patriarchical underpinning is a policy that encourages or fosters abuse. Unless balanced teaching is offered, it produces a pressure towards abuse. This is shown in the paper I quoted in that this pressure changes the abuse stat from 2% for regular attenders to over 10% for sporadic attendees.

The author points directly at Piper and Grudem, who I also had mentioned, and who try to discount the pressure towards abuse that the patriarchical system induces.

If you could take the time to read the entirety of my responses, and try to understand the nuanced interaction between the underlying patriarchical system (which exerts a pressure towards abuse) and balanced teaching (which if properly handled can complely nullify that pressure), you could probably compose a more appropriate response to the issue.

However, properly balancing that teaching is not trivial. And there are a plethora of popular examples that fail.

e.g. with popular writers like Piper and Grudem offering unbalanced views that are pursued and emulated in many conservative churches, the problem remains, and are the foundation on which my original statement is based.

---


The problem we are up against now is that once you have misunderstood the nature of one of my replies, instead of admitting your mistake, you dig in like a tick and refuse to budge. So getting back to an actual discussion of what I actually said is going to be quite the long road with a historically low success rate.

[Mountain Man]

Part of that is you don't even understand the nature of my original claim.

Your original claim:

Unfortunately, when it comes to the abuse of women, many conservative churches adopt policies and attitudes that encourage it rather than deter it.

The paper you referenced cites studies showing that the exact opposite is true, that men who regularly attend conservative churches are the least likely to be abusive because the "regular exposure to balanced biblical teaching and preaching on family life detoxifies abusive misbeliefs about male headship". It would seem, therefore, that contrary to your assertion, many conservative churches adopt policies and attitudes that deter the abuse of women rather than encourage it.

At this point, I have to wonder what's going through your head for you to continue insisting that your original claim must be true despite evidence to the contrary. Given your earlier appeal to anecdotal evidence, I have my suspicions, but I will keep them to myself.

[oxmixmudd]

Your original claim:

Unfortunately, when it comes to the abuse of women, many conservative churches adopt policies and attitudes that encourage it rather than deter it.

EXACTLY. And you quote it apparently without understanding what it means. I am talking about the underlying pressure that exists from the underlying patriarchical theology, and the fact that many churches do NOT properly balance their teaching. And I point to two very popular writers in Conservative Christian Circles who are prime exhibits of that same unbalanced approach - Piper and Grudem. And the author (Tracy) lists them and other popular writers with influence in the Conservative Christian Church that also offer extremely unbalanced views of that underlying patriarchical theology.

The paper you referenced cites studies showing that the exact opposite is true, that men who regularly attend conservative churches are the least likely to be abusive because the "regular exposure to balanced biblical teaching and preaching on family life detoxifies abusive misbeliefs about male headship". It would seem, therefore, that contrary to your assertion, many conservative churches adopt policies and attitudes that deter the abuse of women rather than encourage it.

At this point, I have to wonder what's going through your head for you to continue insisting that your original claim must be true despite evidence to the contrary. Given your earlier appeal to anecdotal evidence, I have my suspicions, but I will keep them to myself.

This is cherry picking MM. Look at the statement you quote: balanced biblical teaching and preaching on family life detoxifies abusive misbeliefs about male headship.

You can't detoxify something that is not toxic to start with. You have pulled out of context one sentence from 22 pages of text. And in my original response on the paper, I outline a far more conprehensive look at the whole of the paper the includes critical element you are ignoring, but also including the text you are ripping out of context.

In specific:

Source: Tracy's paper

While all forms of patriarchy can and do contribute to domestic violence, it appears that the models of patriarchy which give husbands the greatest levels of power and authority are most likely to stimulate domestic violence. Furthermore, recent social science research which reveals an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence among conservative Protestant men challenges both patriarchalists and egalitarians to modify their understanding of gender roles and abuse and to work together to combat domestic violence

© Copyright Original Source

I am not trying to discount the final phrase in my comment. I am saying that it is not uncommon for conservative churches to offer unbalanced teaching on the issues. And it is not uncommon for members of churches to be sporadic attenders and not reap the benefit of that balance - changing the overall effect of church attendence on abuse!

Consider: The number of people on church roles vs those attending on Sunday morning. If that difference represents the 'sporadic attenders' - then of the men on that list, 10% of those are abusers IN THE CHURCH whose tendency towards abuse has been amplified by an unbalanced understanding of the underlying patriarchical system.

and in amplification of that point I quoted this:

Source: Tracy's paper

Thus we would anticipate that very traditional patriarchal teaching that views male headship primarily in terms of power and control, places few parameters on submission, and urges women not to correct their husbands could most easily prompt insecure and misogynistic men to justify abuse and domination. This approach to gender roles also undercuts a woman’s ability to challenge her husband’s abusive behavior.There are numerous examples of this approach to gender roles in the very conservative patriarchal literature. Marlene Evans, for instance, argues that a wife should never correct her husband even in private and should never fail to obey her husband. Martha Peace instructs wives that they can only challenge their husband’s authority one time, and after that they should accept his decision as the will of God, even if that means suffering for righteousness’ sake. Jack Hyles argues that one of the best things parents can do for a daughter is teach her strict obedience that means “she must obey immediately, without question and without argument.” The reason this is so important is that she will be transferring her obedience to her future husband. Hence, parents who require their daughter to obey immediately, without question and without argument “have done a big favor for their future son-in-law.”61 It takes no stretch of the imagination to visualize how this kind of rigid patriarchal teaching that gives men virtually unbridled power and little or no accountability to their wives could stimulate unhealthy men to become abusive and domineering. Furthermore, this type of patriarchal teaching clearly programs women to accept abuse. Some patriarchal literature is even more extreme and actually instructs wives who are being physically abused to passively submit to their abusive husbands and to accept the resultant physical and emotional suffering as an act of godliness.

© Copyright Original Source

and

Source: Tracy's paper

It is imperative that conservatives begin to acknowledge that there is a real causal connection between male headship and domestic violence. It is troubling when conservatives who affirm male headship dismiss this connection and imply that abuse is largely or solely the result of feminism. For instance, see John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem; Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991) 62

© Copyright Original Source

As he deals with popular conservative writers with significant influence in the Conservative Christian Church that most decidedly do NOT encourage 'balanced' teaching on these issues. And there are a large number of pastors that look to people like Piper and Grudem as a strong source in their interpretation of scripture on these issues. This is evidenced by their book sales and their popularity as conference speakers in Conservative Christian circles (and the references to their words in sunday morning sermons).

[Mountain Man]

And yet despite it all, studies apparently show that those men who regularly attend conservative Christian churches are the least likely to be abusive (the paper you reference emphatically makes this point several times, so I'm not cherry picking) which flatly contradicts your original claim that conservative churches foster abusive behavior.

I honestly don't know how to break through your cognitive dissonance here, which is why I suspect there's something unstated driving your unwavering conviction that the opposite must necessarily be true despite evidence to the contrary staring you n the face. Evidence that YOU provided.

[oxmixmudd]

And yet despite it all, studies apparently show that those men who regularly attend conservative Christian churches are the least likely to be abusive (the paper you reference emphatically makes this point several times, so I'm not cherry picking) which flatly contradicts your original claim that conservative churches foster abusive behavior.

It doesn't say that, as I pointed out. It says there is an inverse relationship.

It says, the more you attend the less likely you are to abuse, with those attending the most are the least likely to abuse.

It does not make an absolute comparison between the percentage of those 'least likely to abuse' men in the church and the general population, though I would not be surprised if that percentage is ALSO less than the average for the general population. But most importantly in terms of the effect of the underlying patriarchical system - it is NOT lower for the sporadic attenders.

I honestly don't know how to break through your cognitive dissonance here, which is why I suspect there's something unstated driving your unwavering conviction that the opposite must necessarily be true despite evidence to the contrary staring you n the face. Evidence that YOU provided.

MM- the problem is your lack of capacity to make nuanced evaluations of complicated issues. There is no cognitive dissonance here. You are looking at one narrow result and claiming that is the whole picture - it is not.

Two facts from the paper you have completely ignored and not factored into your understanding of my comments:

1. Patriarchical systems encourage abuse. I Quoted Tracy making that point serveral times now. You are blind to what it means.
2. Unbalanced teaching allows that Partriarchical tendency to be unchecked. And I have made clear two elements where that factors into the overall effect for the Conservative Christian Church
   1. Unbalanced teaching that has a wide influence, e.g. Piper and Grudem
   2. Sporadic attenders that do not reap the benefits of the potential balanced teaching where it exists.

You are not hearing MM. You are not understanding what I'm saying. And you are not understanding the content and meaning of the paper I referenced.

[Sparko]

And yet despite it all, studies apparently show that those men who regularly attend conservative Christian churches are the least likely to be abusive (the paper you reference emphatically makes this point several times, so I'm not cherry picking) which flatly contradicts your original claim that conservative churches foster abusive behavior.

It doesn't say that, as I pointed out. It says there is an inverse relationship.

It says, the more you attend the less likely you are to abuse, with those attending the most are the least likely to abuse.

Do you guys even read each other's posts? You both just said the exact same thing.

This whole back and forth between you two is getting really boring.

[oxmixmudd]

Do you guys even read each other's posts? You both just said the exact same thing.

This whole back and forth between you two is getting really boring.

Sorry to bore you Sparko. There are other threads you can read

I find the entire topic very interesting. I grew up accepting the typical understanding of the complementarian roles, and in spite of the fact I understood (and implemented, and taught) the balancing teaching in terms of loving the wife as Christ loved the church and submit yourselves one to another, I find that looking back on my younger self there were still areas that the negative elements of the patriarchical influence found a foot-hold. I also saw some very bad applications of that same patriarchical teaching in a number of area churches (not necessarily my own) and even the impact of it in my own (a well respected but conservative SBC church in an urban setting).

It is not trivial to truly abandon its effect, and I do not believe that many that think they are free of its influence are in fact actually free of it. I also saw the effect on young women as they either moved away from conservative faith because they understood it made little to no sense that they - intelligent, respectful, gifted women with the capacity to contribute to the entire church - would need to occupy only secondary roles (at best) in church leadership under that sort of a system. Study of the scripture, the culture, also make it clear that there is more here to be learned and understood than simply blindly implementing the literal text and relegating women in the church to secondary 'submissive' roles.

But to the point I am making, Aggressively implementing this hierarchy as I have seen done all too often in conservative churches, especially those tending towards the teaching of people like Piper or Evans or Driscoll or Grudem, has very negative and not rarely abusive consequences for the women in those churches. It is an issue - despite the protests from MM and Pix.

An issue that is best solved by not merely trying to counteract the well known and documented effect, but by reducing or eliminating the enforcement of the Patriarchical system itself and allowing women to have comparable influence in the leadership of the Church as do the men.

[Mountain Man]

Do you guys even read each other's posts? You both just said the exact same thing.

We may be saying the same thing now, but he's contradicting himself. He originally claimed that conservative churches foster abuse towards women. Then he cited an article saying that the opposite is true, that men who regularly attend a conservative church are the least likely to be abusive, yet he still insists that his initial assertion is true.

[oxmixmudd]

We may be saying the same thing now, but he's contradicting himself. He originally claimed that conservative churches foster abuse towards women. Then he cited an article saying that the opposite is true, that men who regularly attend a conservative church are the least likely to be abusive, yet he still insists that his initial assertion is true.

I am still saying it. You are the one that can't comprehend the complex interaction of two opposing forces. the article does not say the opposite is true is the prime example of your lack of understanding. The article is 22 pages long MM, not one sentence in one paragraph.

The primary push back in that article is the feminist idea that Patriarchy is the SOLE source of spousal abuse. The statistic that shows the inverse relationship between attendance and abuse is part of making that case.

In fact, in another study, the only group that is better than unaffiliated (no religion) in terms of spousal abuse is ACTIVE conservative protestants (2.8% vs 3.2%) and only marginally. Nominal mainline are next (3.9), active mainline (interesting) next at 5.4 and nominal CONSERVATIVE the worst at 7.2%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domest..._United_States

[Mountain Man]

I am still saying it.

I know, that's my point, and I'm at loss how to help you overcome your cognitive dissonance.

[oxmixmudd]

I know, that's my point, and I'm at loss how to help you overcome your cognitive dissonance.

You are at a loss because of your lack of understanding MM. But I can't fix that - and I've done all I'm going to do at this point to try. the fact you cut the additional information from the post is at the heart of why you 'don't understand'. You do not choose to hear (or likely even look at) what is being said.

[Sparko]

Sorry to bore you Sparko. There are other threads you can read

I find the entire topic very interesting. I grew up accepting the typical understanding of the complementarian roles, and in spite of the fact I understood (and implemented, and taught) the balancing teaching in terms of loving the wife as Christ loved the church and submit yourselves one to another, I find that looking back on my younger self there were still areas that the negative elements of the patriarchical influence found a foot-hold. I also saw some very bad applications of that same patriarchical teaching in a number of area churches (not necessarily my own) and even the impact of it in my own (a well respected but conservative SBC church in an urban setting).

It is not trivial to truly abandon its effect, and I do not believe that many that think they are free of its influence are in fact actually free of it. I also saw the effect on young women as they either moved away from conservative faith because they understood it made little to no sense that they - intelligent, respectful, gifted women with the capacity to contribute to the entire church - would need to occupy only secondary roles (at best) in church leadership under that sort of a system. Study of the scripture, the culture, also make it clear that there is more here to be learned and understood than simply blindly implementing the literal text and relegating women in the church to secondary 'submissive' roles.

But to the point I am making, Aggressively implementing this hierarchy as I have seen done all too often in conservative churches, especially those tending towards the teaching of people like Piper or Evans or Driscoll or Grudem, has very negative and not rarely abusive consequences for the women in those churches. It is an issue - despite the protests from MM and Pix.

An issue that is best solved by not merely trying to counteract the well known and documented effect, but by reducing or eliminating the enforcement of the Patriarchical system itself and allowing women to have comparable influence in the leadership of the Church as do the men.

tl;dr

[Sparko]

He originally claimed that conservative churches foster abuse towards women

I am still saying it. .

A wise man once said:

It doesn't say that, as I pointed out. It says there is an inverse relationship.

It says, the more you attend the less likely you are to abuse, with those attending the most are the least likely to abuse.

There, you can argue with yourself.

[oxmixmudd]

A wise man once said:



There, you can argue with yourself.

There really is no point in trying to have an honest, nuanced discussion here, is there.