RIP #MeToo

[oxmixmudd]

Evans? Surely not the late Rachel Held Evans.

No, not Rachael Held Evans

[oxmixmudd]

I do think that Jim is aware that the SBC is a big tent, Beth Moore has a foothold in the SBC as well as her fiercest opponents. There are Baptists who have an egalitarian view. I doubt his reference to the SBC was meant to be viewed that way.

I grew up in the SBC, so I'm quite familiar with the wide range of variation and the independent nature of each individual congregation.

[simplicio]

I grew up in the SBC, so I'm quite familiar with the wide range of variation and the independent nature of each individual congregation.

And aware of the alarmism of the heresy hunters? It is an industry, to identify the latest and greatest threats from within and without. I wonder if they still play pin the tail on the antichrist, know we used to do that. (the antichrist keeps dying before he can fulfill scripture, pretty devilish if you ask me to thwart the Lord that way)

Heck. I'm Catholic, and Francis is the most liberal Pope since St Peter!. But few have ever stopped to examine the charges, and the similarities with Pope Benedict (who headed the Inquisition, and was the most conservative Pope since St Peter). Francis was the liberal heretic at the Amazon Synod, while now he is playing the role of the heavy handed conservative Vatican hierarchy squelching the voice of the current German Synod. Liberal heretic of faithful Catholic? I am pretty sure the Church is resilient enough to survive Francis, we survived Luther and Calvin, after all.

Few have any way to measure the extent of orthodoxy, we usually either compare it to ourselves, ("I" am the measure of orthodoxy) or we compare it to what has been traditionally accepted within Christianity. So when we meet a novum like Beth Moore, who arose because of the internet blogs and bypassed the traditional gatekeepers, many were caught flat footed. Heroine or heretic? I don't know.

If someone makes a good argument, using scripture, which can also be used to support stoning gays or heretics, he is recognized as a "good" Christian. But if a Christian tries to incorporate the universally accepted ideas of allowing sinners, including gays, into the church pews, he is a soft-on-sin liberal heretic.

For the record, some of what Beth Moore, and the late Rachel Held Evans teach makes me uncomfortable, but for the most part I think they land within orthodoxy. But most importantly, they do bring up good points, points which the church in America has failed to address, or abandoned those things to the liberal mainline denominations.

[lilpixieofterror]

I do think that Jim is aware that the SBC is a big tent, Beth Moore has a foothold in the SBC as well as her fiercest opponents. There are Baptists who have an egalitarian view. I doubt his reference to the SBC was meant to be viewed that way.

So the reason he paints the SBC as the primary enablers of women abusers is...

[oxmixmudd]

So the reason he paints the SBC as the primary enablers of women abusers is...

That is not what I did - and if you are even half as intelligent as I think you are, you already know that. I'll repeat for the sake of clarity the primary point.

1) Patriarchical systems have been shown to foster the abuse of women - in multiple lines of research, and that fact is acknowledged more than once in the paper I referenced many times in this thread from Tracy.

2) The authority structure in the Church and in the home that is prescribed in the Bible if one does not account for culture in interpreting the text is Patriarchal. That means that churches that implement such structure literally are subject to that same inherent potential to foster abuse that is part of Patriarchical cultures. Such is intrinsic to that culture.

2 is the primary justification for my comments about Conservative Evangelical churches implementing policies that foster (original word was encourage) abuse. That is the nature of such systems. Conservative churches are the ones more likely to teach and implement the literal patriarchy prescribed. And it is not uncommon for the teaching to be overtly prone to problems (e.g. Piper and Grudem). The SBC figures into the picture in that a large number of SBC congregations are also conservative evangelical congregations, no small number of whom embrace Pipers teachings (a reformed Baptist)

3) There are other elements of the discussion, most notably a disagreement about the significance or proper understanding of the implication of the result in a study of abuse that shows conservative congregants that attend regularly (at least once a week) have a rate of abuse slightly lower, but statistically equivalent to, that of non-religious persons.

But points 1 and 2 bring us to the incorrect accusation that you've made.

a) enabler typically implies active participation in, willingness to help. The issue I am raising comes in large degree from ignorance and is only rarely that actual intent of the teacher or its subject matter
b) I've not singled out the SBC as primary in this issue. They are just part of the set of churches that has this problem. I also listed conservatvie presbyterian, Pentacostal, and fundamentalist (which includes many independent congregations as well)


So no, I have not painted the SBC as 'the primary enablers of abuse'.

[lilpixieofterror]

That is not what I did - and if you are even half as intelligent as I think you are, you already know that. I'll repeat for the sake of clarity the primary point.

Irony at its finest. If you were 1/4th as smart as you think you are, you’d realize that conservative church =/= Patriarchical in nature or that Patriarchical comes in flavors and extremes that maybe all different, seems to escape your notice too. As usual, your desire to paint your opponents as pure evil overrides any sort of sense because your massive ego will never let you see that you’re wrong.

1) Patriarchical systems have been shown to foster the abuse of women - in multiple lines of research, and that fact acknowledge more than once in the paper I referenced many times in this thread from Tracy.

Actually, your own sources showed those, who regularly attended a conservative church, were least likely to be abusers where those that attended sparingly, were more likely. Blowing a giant hole in your assertions. You still blamed the churches anyway because it is obviously their fault that those that don’t consistently get a good dose of their teachings don’t follow them. Again, if you 1/4th as smart as you brag about being, you’d figure that out, but you won’t because I and MM are evil and nothing will ever disprove that.

2) The authority structure in the Church and in the home that is prescribed in the Bible if one does not account for culture in interpreting the text is Patriarchal. That means that churches that implement such structure literally are subject to that same inherent potential to foster abuse that is part of Patriarchical cultures. That is intrinsic to that culture.

As I pointed out to you (and you ignored) I have never encountered that in all the years I attended conservative churches. Not a single one took an issue with my military service, any volunteer work I did for them, didn’t care if I did more traditional ‘man things’ like changing outlets, toilets, running wires, troubleshooting computer and sound problems and were just grateful someone was there to help, had no issue with any women in leadership roles and enjoyed having them, etc. so who should I believe Jim? Good old life experience or you?

2 is the primary justification for my comments about Conservative Evangelical churches implement policies that foster (original word was encourage) abuse. That is the nature of such systems. Conservative churches are the ones more likely to teach and implement the literal patriarchy prescribed. The SBC figures into the picture in that a large number of SBC congregations are also conservative evangelical congregations.

And who should I believe? Life experience or you?

3) There are other elements of the discussion, most notably a disagreement about the significance or proper understanding of the implication of a study that conservative congregants that attend regularly (at least once a week) have a rate of abuse slightly lower, but statistically equivalent to, that of non-religious persons.

Do you have any comparative studies where your model church’s present us with a statical less likely hood of abuse? Say, between SBC, Methodist, Lutherans, Catholics, etc?

But points 1 and 2 bring us to the incorrect accusation that you've made.

So no, I have not painted the SBS as enablers of abuse. I have included the SBC in the list on Protestant denominations that typically identify as conservative Evangelical and thus are subject to the impact of implementing that same patriarchical system. And I have (along with simplicio) pointed out the well known fact that a former head of the SBC, Paige Patterson, did in fact engage in teaching and counsel that diminished women and enabled abuse.

Can I find similar cases, in other churches? Paige Patterson was president of the SBC, 20 years ago and you and I both know the SBC isn’t nearly as strict in demanding churches follow them as other church groups are. As I pointed out, the military allows SBC chaplains among the corps and I doubt they would allow that if they thought the SBC was filled with abusers. I’ve been to many churches, across many denominations, and really, doctrines only really vary on a few points.

[oxmixmudd]

[QUOTE=lilpixieofterror;711840] --- If --- you’d realize that conservative church =/= Patriarchical in nature or that Patriarchical comes in flavors and extremes that maybe all different ---.[\QUOTE]

patriarchy: relating to or characteristic of a system of society or government controlled by men.

Source: 1 Timothy 2:9-15

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

King James Version (KJV)

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Ephesians 5:22

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Colosians 3:18

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

© Copyright Original Source

Yes - a conservative literal reading of the Bible on male and female roles in the family and the church is a patriarchy Pix.

Actually, your own sources showed those, who regularly attended a conservative church, were least likely to be abusers where those that attended sparingly, were more likely. Blowing a giant hole in your assertions. You still blamed the churches anyway because it is obviously their fault that those that don’t consistently get a good dose of their teachings don’t follow them. Again, if you 1/4th as smart as you brag about being, you’d figure that out, but you won’t because I and MM are evil and nothing will ever disprove that.

No, you are still very confused both about my point and how to understand the statistics. The pressure of the patriarchical system to foster abuse is demonstrated by the general statistics for the church which are HIGHER that for the non-affiliated. What Tracy said and the statistics show is that if a person is sufficiently immersed in the whole of Christian teaching then that pressure from the patriarchal system which fosters abuse can be compensated for. That does not change the fact that the underlying patriarchal system fosters abuse. It just means that it is possible - under the right conditions - to compensate for it.

And the part you continue not to grasp is that even in the conservative christian congregations, the percentage of the congregation involved and committed enough to gain the compensatory element is not enough to bring the entire statistic down to the point it equals what is seen in the non-affiliated.

That is, for a significant percentage of a congregation, conservative church teaching around a patriarchal relationship between men and women (husband head of the women/wife submit) produces a negative, not a positive effect - even for congregations where the statistic you quote can be derived. The percent regular attenders must be >92% for that statistic to make that church body look better than the folks out there not going to church at all.

As I pointed out to you (and you ignored) I have never encountered that in all the years I attended conservative churches. Not a single one took an issue with my military service, any volunteer work I did for them, didn’t care if I did more traditional ‘man things’ like changing outlets, toilets, running wires, troubleshooting computer and sound problems and were just grateful someone was there to help, had no issue with any women in leadership roles and enjoyed having them, etc. so who should I believe Jim? Good old life experience or you?

That is good for you pix, but how much you've directly encountered what I'm talking about depends on the type of church you attend, the emphasis of that church on traditional female roles, whether or not your own husband (if you have one?) is abusive and you've needed help, and to what extent you have tried to take on positions or roles in church leadership that are traditionally male.

And who should I believe? Life experience or you?

It's not me pix. It's the testimony of large numbers of abused women, its the result of research, it's just the facts of the situation. You can pretend all that is some sort of conspiracy or my own personal abberation if you want. But mostly I'm keying on external testimony, research, and literature. I've said very little from my personal perspective and experience, except to say what I've seen lines up with the additional resources I've been referencing.

Do you have any comparative studies where your model church’s present us with a statical less likely hood of abuse? Say, between SBC, Methodist, Lutherans, Catholics, etc?

Beyond the studies I've sited, not really. Research that goes in depth into abuse in the church is a bit sparse. Part of the reason for that is the resistance to shedding too bright a light on it.

Can I find similar cases, in other churches? Paige Patterson was president of the SBC, 20 years ago and you and I both know the SBC isn’t nearly as strict in demanding churches follow them as other church groups are. As I pointed out, the military allows SBC chaplains among the corps and I doubt they would allow that if they thought the SBC was filled with abusers. I’ve been to many churches, across many denominations, and really, doctrines only really vary on a few points.

Your question is based on a false characterization of the points I've been making. Sort of like 'have you stopped beating your wife".

But if you are interested in learning more, or looking more in depth at the issues, here is a list of what I've referenced as a starting point:

I have referenced Tracys paper (He has written a good deal more on various aspects of these issues):

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

Here is a page where tracy is featured:

https://www.cbeinternational.org/persons/steven-r-tracy


An article in the Priscilla papers:

https://www.cbeinternational.org/res...nd-abuse-women


and an austrialian broadcast company in depth look at this issue:


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-...change/9782184

The ABC article has, of course, been duly railed upon by many conservative Christian outlets, so you will find plenty of counter point for it.

[lilpixieofterror]

patriarchy: relating to or characteristic of a system of society or government controlled by men.

Source: 1 Timothy 2:9-15

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

King James Version (KJV)

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Ephesians 5:22

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Colosians 3:18

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

© Copyright Original Source

Yes - a conservative literal reading of the Bible on male and female roles in the family and the church is a patriarchy Pix.

Would you consider Glenn Miller, of Christian Think-tank, conservative? I would, go read his articles on women in the church sometime Jim and see what he says. As usual, you fail to account for shades between black/white and only see things the way you see it and that’s it. I have my positions quite clear, to several conservative Christians over the years, writing essays on the topic and making it no secret online or offline that I am an egalitarian. The pushback I’ve received has been barely any. Am I a conservative Christian Jim? Even with my theistic evolution views? With my egalitarian outlook? How about rogue? Like I said Jim, you’re fitting people into boxes you want them to fit into without any consideration that people do not always fit neatly into boxes.

No, you are still very confused both about my point and how to understand the statistics. The pressure of the patriarchical system to foster abuse is demonstrated by the general statistics for the church which are HIGHER that for the non-affiliated. What Tracy said and the statistics show is that if a person is sufficiently immersed in the whole of Christian teaching then that pressure from the patriarchal system which fosters abuse can be compensated for. That does not change the fact that the underlying patriarchal system fosters abuse. It just means that it is possible - under the right conditions - to compensate for it.

I understand your point just fine and I say you’re making assertions you can’t prove and assuming, without evidence, what you so desire.

1. People don’t fit into boxes Jim, do you have any proof, at all, that the churches did it? How do you know that these infrequent church meetings wasnÂ’t a cry for help? You don’t, you assume it because you want your answer to be true.

2. Am I liberal or conservative, Jim? Truthfully, I’m both and many people are too. Despite your desire to stuff people into boxes.

And the part you continue not to grasp is that even in the conservative christian congregations, the percentage of the congregation involved and committed enough to gain the compensatory element is not enough to bring the entire statistic down to the point it equals what is seen in the non-affiliated.

I understand just fine, you want to assume things you can’t prove and assert you’re opponents are not as smart as you are. You have no proof of anything you say, you have anecdotes, you have articles that contradict you, but no solid proof. Why Jim? Has society, as a whole, done a better job of spotting domestic abuse? No. Has society, as a whole, done any better at preventing sexual abuse? No. So you still are dodging, do you have any proof that your model church is any better at preventing domestic or sexual abuse?

That is, for a significant percentage of a congregation, conservative church teaching around a patriarchal relationship between men and women (husband head of the women/wife submit) produces a negative, not a positive effect - even for congregations where the statistic you quote can be derived. The percent regular attenders must be >92% for that statistic to make that church body look better than the folks out there not going to church at all.

Am I a liberal or conservative Christian? Likewise, you still have no proof that your model church is any better.

That is good for you pix, but how much you've directly encountered what I'm talking about depends on the type of church you attend, the emphasis of that church on traditional female roles, whether or not your own husband (if you have one?) is abusive and you've needed help, and to what extent you have tried to take on positions or roles in church leadership that are traditionally male.

I’ve attended quite a few conservative Churches Jim, never was treated badly. Can you produce some sort of example I have to look for for these Churches you claim are encouraging women abuse? I’ve been to SBC ones, had a SBC pastor for years. He met his wife while they were attending college together, he had a masters in theology, she had a masters in music and headed up the music. Was she not supposed to be doing that? How about their daughter, who was a leader in the FCA wasn’t she supposed to let the males do that? This is why I scratch my head and wonder who you were hanging out with Jim. I’ve been numerous conservative churches and don’t recall any of this. Could it be possible that not all conservatives are as you describe?

It's not me pix. It's the testimony of large numbers of abused women, its the result of research, it's just the facts of the situation. You can pretend all that is some sort of conspiracy or my own personal abberation if you want. But mostly I'm keying on external testimony, research, and literature. I've said very little from my personal perspective and experience, except to say what I've seen lines up with the additional resources I've been referencing.

People get abused everyday Jim. That’s reality. Does the sexual abuse case, with the doctor abusing teenage girls going on to the olympics prove the US Olympics team is filled with child molesters? Does Harvey Weinstein’s case prove all of Hollywood is filled with rapist? We can go on and on, do you have any evidence that conclusively proves your assertions?

Beyond the studies I've sited, not really. Research that goes in depth into abuse in the church is a bit sparse. Part of the reason for that is the resistance to shedding too bright a light on it.

So with so little evidence to go on, how can you conclude your model church is superior?

Your question is based on a false characterization of the points I've been making. Sort of like 'have you stopped beating your wife".

But if you are interested in learning more, or looking more in depth at the issues, here is a list of what I've referenced as a starting point:

I have referenced Tracys paper (He has written a good deal more on various aspects of these issues):

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

Here is a page where tracy is featured:

https://www.cbeinternational.org/persons/steven-r-tracy


An article in the Priscilla papers:

https://www.cbeinternational.org/res...nd-abuse-women


and an austrialian broadcast company in depth look at this issue:


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-...change/9782184

The ABC article has, of course, been duly railed upon by many conservative Christian outlets, so you will find plenty of counter point for it.

It’s not false at all Jim because you still have no proof of your conclusions. Just a list of anecdotes and assertions.

[simplicio]

If there is no problem, then nothing needs to be fixed or changed, the church culture is all right. The Beth Moore's and Rachel Held Evans of the world are wrong.

Rachel Held Evans rose to popularity because many thought she had her finger on the pulse of the church, and followed her intently. and wass followed by Beth Moore. Yes religious leftists paid attention, but she gained attention among the right.

Beth Moore, like Evans did, is calling attention to problems that the rest of the (conservative) church overlooks.

Is it necessarily a liberal/conservative religious thing? I don't see it as necessary. But there is something within the theologically conservative churches which make them both unable to recognize the need to address the issue. Complentarianism does not need to fall for the church to stand up for abuse victims, Beth Moore is an example.

As for as I know, Moore does accept complementarianism, just not the strong view of some evangelicals.

I will add this: I believe her change in views was prompted by the experience of inaction within evangelicalism, no longer accepts that the church can change without the feminine view in the pulpit.

[lilpixieofterror]

If there is no problem, then nothing needs to be fixed or changed, the church culture is all right. The Beth Moore's and Rachel Held Evans of the world are wrong.

Rachel Held Evans rose to popularity because many thought she had her finger on the pulse of the church, and followed her intently. and wass followed by Beth Moore. Yes religious leftists paid attention, but she gained attention among the right.

Beth Moore, like Evans did, is calling attention to problems that the rest of the (conservative) church overlooks.

Is it necessarily a liberal/conservative religious thing? I don't see it as necessary. But there is something within the theologically conservative churches which make them both unable to recognize the need to address the issue. Complentarianism does not need to fall for the church to stand up for abuse victims, Beth Moore is an example.

As for as I know, Moore does accept complementarianism, just not the strong view of some evangelicals.

I will add this: I believe her change in views was prompted by the experience of inaction within evangelicalism, no longer accepts that the church can change without the feminine view in the pulpit.

Got to love the black/white thinker because, if anything, the things I noticed are indicators of change. Also, Catholics are hardly in the position to preach to anyone about abuse cases. How long did the RCC hide priest, who were caught abusing children, again?

[simplicio]

Got to love the black/white thinker because, if anything, the things I noticed are indicators of change. Also, Catholics are hardly in the position to preach to anyone about abuse cases. How long did the RCC hide priest, who were caught abusing children, again?

Too long was the problem swept aside.And look how well it turned out for the Catholic Church!

So we have a model to follow here, a model on WHAT NOT TO DO. Ignoring the problem and relying on some of the same arguments being used here was a disaster for the Catholic Church. Due to the inaction some left, ministries suffered.

Evangelicalism is in flux, SBC is shrinking for the first time, the Rachel Held Evans of the world are siphoning off members to more liberal churches, due to inaction and the poor response by the church, by church leaders. It is not like any real issue is at stake. Complementarianism can survive a cultural shift, not so sure that the patriarchy can though.

No, egalitarianism does not mean you have to throw out the bible, nor does complementarianism mean you have to punch your wife. Those are the extreme caricatures of the positions.

[oxmixmudd]

Would you consider Glenn Miller, of Christian Think-tank, conservative? I would, go read his articles on women in the church sometime Jim and see what he says. As usual, you fail to account for shades between black/white and only see things the way you see it and that’s it. I have my positions quite clear, to several conservative Christians over the years, writing essays on the topic and making it no secret online or offline that I am an egalitarian. The pushback I’ve received has been barely any. Am I a conservative Christian Jim? Even with my theistic evolution views? With my egalitarian outlook? How about rogue? Like I said Jim, you’re fitting people into boxes you want them to fit into without any consideration that people do not always fit neatly into boxes.

This is all I'm going to address at this point. This response here has no discernable correlation with the text you are responding to. A response to the text I gave would be:

1) a counter example
2) agreement that scripture defines a patriarchy.

What you wrote is instead 'something else' that I honestly can't even tie meaningfully into the discussion. Why you wrote it I don't know. So maybe you could explain how you think what you wrote above is connected to the text of mine that you replied to. Maybe if you can connect them we can find a meaningful path to communication.

[lilpixieofterror]

Too long was the problem swept aside.And look how well it turned out for the Catholic Church!

So we have a model to follow here, a model on WHAT NOT TO DO. Ignoring the problem and relying on some of the same arguments being used here was a disaster for the Catholic Church. Due to the inaction some left, ministries suffered.

Evangelicalism is in flux, SBC is shrinking for the first time, the Rachel Held Evans of the world are siphoning off members to more liberal churches, due to inaction and the poor response by the church, by church leaders. It is not like any real issue is at stake. Complementarianism can survive a cultural shift, not so sure that the patriarchy can though.

No, egalitarianism does not mean you have to throw out the bible, nor does complementarianism mean you have to punch your wife. Those are the extreme caricatures of the positions.

And do tell, how do you plan on making this work? The SBC isn’t a governing body like the Vatican is nor are the thousands of evangelical churches ran by a central body. The bottom line is Jim has no proof of his claims, none because to claim that X is better than Y at preventing A, you need a way to compare the two to a base sample. We need to know:

1. GP spouse abuse rates.
2. Conservative church spouse abuse rates.
3. Liberal church spouse abuse rates.
4. Moderate church spouse abuse rates.

We don’t have 3 or 4, so how can you make a claim that egalitarianism is best at preventing domestic abuse, when you don’t know what the abuse rate is? We don’t have that data and thus Jim’s entire argument is based on an assumption. That isn’t science, it’s ideology.

[simplicio]

And do tell, how do you plan on making this work? The SBC isnÂ’t a governing body like the Vatican is nor are the thousands of evangelical churches ran by a central body. The bottom line is Jim has no proof of his claims, none because to claim that X is better than Y at preventing A, you need a way to compare the two to a base sample. We need to know:

1. GP spouse abuse rates.
2. Conservative church spouse abuse rates.
3. Liberal church spouse abuse rates.
4. Moderate church spouse abuse rates.

We donÂ’t have 3 or 4, so how can you make a claim that egalitarianism is best at preventing domestic abuse, when you donÂ’t know what the abuse rate is? We donÂ’t have that data and thus JimÂ’s entire argument is based on an assumption. That isnÂ’t science, itÂ’s ideology.

You act as if the Body of Christ is a secular institution, dependent on the statistical analyses! At one time monks spent time hunched over desks copying scripture, now we need monks pouring over spreadsheets trained in the arts and science of statistical analysees.

The Church does not run on empirical evidences. Oxmix allowed the discussion to move to flawed social science studies, dependent on the statistical analysees (and other gladly followed) and there it stayed for pages!

One piece of anecdotal evidence is enough for me: The male pastor who insisted that he and his church were doing a fine job policing abuse. the next day, women from the pews came forward, secretly, anonymously, and cautiously, to provide many stories of abuse. The male pastor and the women congregants, who was right, given the radically differing perceptions? The man of course, he has theological training and the authority of a teaching office?

The tale of the woman with two black eyes going to Paige Patterson was not about complementarianism, it was about a sheep going to a shepherd. Misericordia, misery in the heart often finds itself going to the pastor, but finding......inspiring stories about saving the soul, but nothing for the soul in need standing before the pastor.

Following the Pharisses, the American church is discussing the finer details of washing hands and the limits and extent of the qorban (a reference to Mark 7 in case anyone wants to see if the New Testament has anything to offer the Church in America)

[NorrinRadd]

MM - you are unfortunately just either obstinate enough to purposefully ignore, or ignorant enough not to know how to parse, the data and content of the source I gave - either way there is nothing I can do to change that fact.

That you are ignorant of the teachings of people like Piper and others, and how they have been applied, is good - for you and the people in your church, assuming you even understand the implications in this area in your own congregation (the fact your congregation enforces an all male authority structure means the probability that has negative effects you may not be aware of is high). But it does not change the reality that this is an ongoing issue where such actions are common. I've seen it across multiple congregations and towns in the south - which is where the majority of my interactions with these issue have taken place. They are not cults. They are standard Presbyterian, SBC, Fundamentalist, and Pentecostal congregations. IT is what it is.

For me it's especially disappointing to hear this about Pentecostals, both because I am one, and because some of the major Pentecostal denominations have affirmed egalitarianism for well over 100 years.