RIP #MeToo

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah, ox has subtly changed his tune on that point (though he won't admit it). It's apparently only nominal church goers who have a problem, but he still wants to blame the church for it.

You are truly a gutter level personality. If you are not seriously moderated for this then this place is truly the antithesis of a Christian website.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, ox has subtly changed his tune on that point (though he won't admit it). It's apparently only nominal church goers who have a problem, but he still wants to blame the church for it.

Sounds more like a cult group than most churches I’ve been around. Most of the SBC pastors I’ve been around have wives that are truly a force of nature themselves. It’s noticeable that while the church is his domaine, everyone knows who really is in charge.

[lilpixieofterror]

You are truly a gutter level personality. If you are not seriously moderated for this then this place is truly the antithesis of a Christian website.

Accuses entire groups of Christians of being women abusers = perfectly acceptable.

Points out Jim’s own words = evil!

Hypocrisy, got to love it.

[Sparko]

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

All I did was post your own previous statement in juxtaposition to your last post.

[oxmixmudd]

All I did was post your own previous statement in juxtaposition to your last post.

You can't justify the affirmation of a false statement from MM by ripping two statements of mine out of context. What you did was affirm a lie. And that is not some minor thing.

This site Sparko fosters hatred and animosity. It rewards hostility and trickery, a nasty snipe is worth more than a pages worth of research into the truth. It punishes those that are honest and truthful and rewards those the are deceitful and dishonest. And there is a band of hooligans here posing as Christians that rip to shreds any decent person that tries to enter into any real discussion.

If it was me, I would not want that to be my legacy or my reward for the time and effort and money I'd be putting into maintaining this thing.

[lilpixieofterror]

You can't justify the affirmation of a false statement from MM by ripping two statements of mine out of context. What you did was affirm a lie. And that is not some minor thing.

This site Sparko fosters hatred and animosity. It rewards hostility and trickery, a nasty snipe is worth more than a pages worth of research into the truth. It punishes those that are honest and truthful and rewards those the are deceitful and dishonest. And there is a band of hooligans here posing as Christians that rip to shreds any decent person that tries to enter into any real discussion.

If it was me, I would not want that to be my legacy or my reward for the time and effort and money I'd be putting into maintaining this thing.

Is that before or after you tar and feather entire denominations and groups that dare to disagree with you?

[Sparko]

You can't justify the affirmation of a false statement from MM by ripping two statements of mine out of context. What you did was affirm a lie. And that is not some minor thing.

This site Sparko fosters hatred and animosity. It rewards hostility and trickery, a nasty snipe is worth more than a pages worth of research into the truth. It punishes those that are honest and truthful and rewards those the are deceitful and dishonest. And there is a band of hooligans here posing as Christians that rip to shreds any decent person that tries to enter into any real discussion.

If it was me, I would not want that to be my legacy or my reward for the time and effort and money I'd be putting into maintaining this thing.

Get off your high horse Jim.

I am at a loss. MM seems to be correct. You are arguing both that conservative churches foster abuse in men and that men who attend conservative churches are less likely to be abusive. All I did was post both of your statements together to show the contradiction.

When someone points out your contradiction, you get mad and accuse them of "affirming a lie"

Let me try it again with your exact words:

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

OK you are saying that conservative churches encourage (i.e. "foster") abuse through their policies and attitudes.

Yet your article you linked to and you yourself said:

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

So if their policies and attitudes encourage abuse, how would attending more lead to LESS likely to abuse?

I am not trying to twist your words, or "affirm a lie" I am trying to understand how you can say that conservative churches encourage abuse but that attending conservative churches make you less likely to be abusive?

Please explain instead of getting mad and insulting everyone. Thanks.

[Chaotic Void]

You can't justify the affirmation of a false statement from MM by ripping two statements of mine out of context. What you did was affirm a lie. And that is not some minor thing.

This site Sparko fosters hatred and animosity. It rewards hostility and trickery, a nasty snipe is worth more than a pages worth of research into the truth. It punishes those that are honest and truthful and rewards those the are deceitful and dishonest. And there is a band of hooligans here posing as Christians that rip to shreds any decent person that tries to enter into any real discussion.

If it was me, I would not want that to be my legacy or my reward for the time and effort and money I'd be putting into maintaining this thing.

Don't sell yourself (or any of the other Anti-Trump folks here) short. Y'all have made hearty contributions to the festering dumpster fire that Civics has become.

[Mountain Man]

Sounds more like a cult group than most churches I’ve been around. Most of the SBC pastors I’ve been around have wives that are truly a force of nature themselves. It’s noticeable that while the church is his domaine, everyone knows who really is in charge.

I've noticed a trend among pastors: they tend to be very unassuming, humble men while their wives are fierce, loyal women you do not want to get on the bad side of!

[Sparko]

I know one cult who is conservative and fosters abuse and mistreatment of women: the LDS church. Women can't even be saved unless they are married.

[oxmixmudd]

---

I am at a loss. MM seems to be correct. You are arguing both that conservative churches foster abuse in men and that men who attend conservative churches are less likely to be abusive. All I did was post both of your statements together to show the contradiction.

I'll address this in detail below ...

When someone points out your contradiction, you get mad and accuse them of "affirming a lie"

It's only a contradiction if it is taken out of context as I will try to expand on below. Perhaps you just didn't understand how twisted MM was being, but by now you really should know MM's nature is such you need to ensure he is not twisting that persons responses into something he can use to taunt them with.

Let me try it again with your exact words:

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

OK you are saying that conservative churches encourage (i.e. "foster") abuse through their policies and attitudes.

Yes, but to clarify: Not the whole of their policies - a subset of policies - those that implement and enforce a patriarchical authority structure. It is important that you keep that caveat in mind.

Yet your article you linked to and you yourself said:

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

Yes, That is the summary, but if you look more at my more expansive posts, and the texts I quoted from the article, the issue is that there are two forces at work. There is the patriarchical culture, which exerts a toxic (author's words) force that encourages abuse of women. And then there are the alternate and balancing teachings of scripture which if emphasized can mitigate the toxicity of the patriarchical culture. But that is most likely to happen in those that are regular attenders and that receive that teaching and that otherwise are not prone to abuse themselves.

So what we end up with is itself two different and opposing trends in the Conservative Church. The toxicity of the patriachal Conservative church culture actually fosters abuse in nominal members, with the result they have the WORST rates of abuse - almost 8% (per a study of abuse and religion) while simultaneously we see a reduction in the probability of abuse in immersed members, regular attenders (2.8%). BOTH are happening at the same time because the toxic force of the patriarchy is not equally countered in all members of the church. As such, that toxic force has the negative effect of fostering abuse. The force of that doesn't go away in the other members, it just is countered, compensated for.

It is worth pointing out that the statistics for Conservative churches were split, and that the best statistic (2.8%) for committed members is only slightly lower than the statistic for unaffiliated (3.2%) and while I don't have precise numbers from which to calculate a composite statistic (these stats come from a book), for the overall value for Conservative churches to be better than non-affiliated, a non committed number of 7.9% would require the ratio of committed to non-committed members be > 92%*.

Do you know of many congregations with <8% nominal members? The bottom line then is that nearly ALL church affiliations in that study effectively show MORE abuse than the non-affiliated group.

So its a complex picture to be sure, but my point is valid, even though if one naively looks at cherry picked statements, there appears to be a contradiction.

The point being that toxic force exists in Conservative churches regardless of how balanced their teaching is, and regardless of their ratio of nominal to immersed members. Therefore, by adopting and enforcing a patriarchical culture that fosters abuse, Conservative churches adopt polices that foster abuse. But how much effect that policy has on a given member depends on several factors. Nevertheless the POLICY fosters abuse.

I also, in my more substantive posts, pointed out that there are other elements at work in Conservative Churches that provide additional unbalancing infuence. And I pointed to the writings of Piper and Grudem, Tracy (the paper's author) points to some others, and simplicio brought up Paige Patterson.

So if their policies and attitudes encourage abuse, how would attending more lead to LESS likely to abuse?

Because the policy is not the only effect of church attendance at work in the church's members. There are other elements that can have a mitigating effect for some members and not others.

I am not trying to twist your words, or "affirm a lie" I am trying to understand how you can say that conservative churches encourage abuse but that attending conservative churches make you less likely to be abusive?

Please explain instead of getting mad and insulting everyone. Thanks.

Ok - thanks for pulling back and giving an opportunity for a conversation.

Have I been able to shed some light on it? Do you have additional questions that would help clarify it further?

ETA:

*inequality to determine percentage n of committed members: 2.8n + 7.9(1-n) < 3.2

[Sparko]

I'll address this in detail below ...



It's only a contradiction if it is taken out of context as I will try to expand on below. Perhaps you just didn't understand how twisted MM was being, but by now you really should know MM's nature is such you need to ensure he is not twisting that persons responses into something he can use to taunt them with.



Yes, but to clarify: Not the whole of their policies - a subset of policies - those that implement and enforce a patriarchical authority structure. It is important that you keep that caveat in mind.



Yes, That is the summary, but if you look more at my more expansive posts, and the texts I quoted from the article, the issue is that there are two forces at work. There is the patriarchical culture, which exerts a toxic (author's words) force that encourages abuse of women. And then there are the alternate and balancing teachings of scripture which if emphasized can mitigate the toxicity of the patriarchical culture. But that is most likely to happen in those that are regular attenders and that receive that teaching and that otherwise are not prone to abuse themselves.

So what we end up with is itself two different and opposing trends in the Conservative Church. The toxicity of the patriachal Conservative church culture actually fosters abuse in nominal members, with the result they have the WORST rates of abuse - almost 8% (per a study of abuse and religion) while simultaneously we see a reduction in the probability of abuse in immersed members, regular attenders (2.8%). BOTH are happening at the same time because the toxic force of the patriarchy is not equally countered in all members of the church. As such, that toxic force has the negative effect of fostering abuse. The force of that doesn't go away in the other members, it just is countered, compensated for.

It is worth pointing out that the statistics for Conservative churches were split, and that the best statistic (2.8%) for committed members is only slightly lower than the statistic for unaffiliated (3.2%) and while I don't have precise numbers from which to calculate a composite statistic (these stats come from a book), for the overall value for Conservative churches to be better than non-affiliated, a non committed number of 7.9% would require the ratio of committed to non-committed members be > 92%*.

Do you know of many congregations with <8% nominal members? The bottom line then is that nearly ALL church affiliations in that study effectively show MORE abuse than the non-affiliated group.

So its a complex picture to be sure, but my point is valid, even though if one naively looks at cherry picked statements, there appears to be a contradiction.

The point being that toxic force exists in Conservative churches regardless of how balanced their teaching is, and regardless of their ratio of nominal to immersed members. Therefore, by adopting and enforcing a patriarchical culture that fosters abuse, Conservative churches adopt polices that foster abuse. But how much effect that policy has on a given member depends on several factors. Nevertheless the POLICY fosters abuse.

I also, in my more substantive posts, pointed out that there are other elements at work in Conservative Churches that provide additional unbalancing infuence. And I pointed to the writings of Piper and Grudem, Tracy (the paper's author) points to some others, and simplicio brought up Paige Patterson.




Because the policy is not the only effect of church attendance at work in the church's members. There are other elements that can have a mitigating effect for some members and not others.



Ok - thanks for pulling back and giving an opportunity for a conversation.

Have I been able to shed some light on it? Do you have additional questions that would help clarify it further?

ETA:

*inequality to determine percentage n of committed members: 2.8n + 7.9(1-n) < 3.2

OK let me restate it and you let me know if I got it right or wrong. Note I am NOT trying to twist anything.

The conservative churches (not all) have policies that promote the abuse of women but that despite that, the members who attend regularly and are immersed in the bible are less abusive despite the policies of their church.

Is that correct?

[oxmixmudd]

OK let me restate it and you let me know if I got it right or wrong. Note I am NOT trying to twist anything.

The conservative churches (not all) have policies that promote the abuse of women but that despite that, the members who attend regularly and are immersed in the bible are less abusive despite the policies of their church.

Is that correct?

Yes. That is what the statistics show.

[Sparko]

Yes. That is what the statistics show.

OK. But aren't those dedicated members the ones who make the policies? Usually the most dedicated members are chosen to lead the congregation as deacons and such. Even if not, if I were in a church that I was involved in and it had policies that I thought were abusive to women, I would fight against them and get them changed.

[oxmixmudd]

OK. But aren't those dedicated members the ones who make the policies? Usually the most dedicated members are chosen to lead the congregation as deacons and such. Even if not, if I were in a church that I was involved in and it had policies that I thought were abusive to women, I would fight against them and get them changed.

Hmm - the 'policies' I'm talking about are the Partriarchal system of government and husband wife interaction that is derived from a very literal reading of Paul's teachings on these issues. I thought you understood that? So its a bit more insidious, a bit trickier to nail down. Churches interpret those things differently, some siding more regressively, perhaps drawing on teachings like those of Piper and Grudem, others less so like the church I currently attend which extends leadership positions to women up to and including head elder (but I don't think pastor at this point - not sure)

Now some churches are nutcasey about it. Tracy mentions some of those sorts of teachings. But other situations - like the one simplicio mentioned with paige patterson being indifferent to the wife of a husband with two black eyes telling her he's just happy the man is saved - more or less happen behind closed doors and you'd not know about them unless the wife of the abusive husband 'outed' the pastor or the elders, or an elder that understands the problem got wind of it and made a stink (both of which happen which is why we know about these cases). Understanding this is not easy - she's an abused wife. The pastor is protecting the husband. She talks about it she better have a place to hide (from the husband), and that likely will not be sanctioned by the pastor that is taking the husbands side. She's really sorta on her own then. Her friends are in the church, they are other husband's wives taught to submit to their husbands and church authority as well.

It's not nearly as uncommon as you might think. There are cases like this from SBC, Presbyterian USA, numerous fundamentalist branches and Pentacostals. It's not a trivial thing and it's not a small thing.

But the common 'wind' that tends to push congregations into this sort of thing is that underlying patriarchical teaching of female submission and covering that must be explicitly countered with words like 'submit yourselves one to another' not to take negative effect.