#ThingsOnlyChristianWomenHear

[Paidiske]

Thought others might be interested in this, and sharing their experiences too.

I think my favourite from the article has to be:

“You speak five languages and have a doctoral degree? Children's ministry is your calling!”

But this one works for this forum:

“You’re egalitarian? … Umm, are you still a Christian?”

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

 

[All4Christ]

Thought others might be interested in this, and sharing their experiences too.

I think my favourite from the article has to be:

“You speak five languages and have a doctoral degree? Children's ministry is your calling!”

But this one works for this forum:

“You’re egalitarian? … Umm, are you still a Christian?”

Do you have a link to the article?

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, did I not post it? Let me see if I can find it again...

55 Things Only Christian Women Hear

Sorry, clearly more caffeine needed before I should try to post!

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

4. “Yeah, but who gets to make the final call in your marriage?” –Sarah Bessey

my wife

 

[Dave-W]

I read the list and this one stood out to me:

12. “As a single woman, you need to find a male mentor to submit yourself to because you need a covering.” –Joy Beth Smith​

I have been in some patriarchal groups, and that was exactly OPPOSITE what they said. Men mentoring women was strictly forbidden.

This one angered me: (and again, it was the opposite in my experience)

19. “If the pastor fell into sin and raped you it was you who seduced and tempted him.” –Sierra White​

In fact, when a similar situation occurred, the leader (not the senior pastor) was paraded in front of the congregation while the board of elders read a litany of his offenses, sometimes in graphic detail to the congregation in an open meeting. The woman in question was completely exonerated.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Can someone please explain to me what "covering" means as used in this context? I don't understand.

12. “As a single woman, you need to find a male mentor to submit yourself to because you need a covering.” –Joy Beth Smith

 

[Paidiske]

I may do this an injustice, but as I understand it, the idea is that a woman doesn't have the authority to do various things in her own right, but if she does them under the authority of a man, that provides her with the "covering" to enable her to do it.

So, for example, I may not be seen as having the authority to negotiate the mortgage on my house, but if my husband authorises me to do it; or I may not be seen as having the authority to speak to a congregation, but if the male minister okays it, then it becomes okay because his authority provides the necessary standing for my actions. (If that makes sense?)

I think the word covering was used also because there's some suggestion that along with being under proper authority comes some level of protection from spiritual attack.

The men-mentoring-women thing can cut both ways; on the one hand, the woman is seen to be needing to be under a man's authority, but some people are against it if that means the woman will be meeting with her male mentor alone. (Billy Graham rules, I guess).

And Dave, I should hope someone who had been raped would be "completely exonerated," even if I don't agree with the style of discipline you describe for the rapist.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Paidiske, thank you for this explanation. It sounds like a fundamentalist loophole. I have known some excellent woman pastors. All were quite capable of being inspirational religious leaders and teachers without male oversight.

Some of the other stuff baffles me (e.g. the Billy Graham or VP Pence rules). I have worked in a female dominated profession for 44 years. That means I've had countless meetings with female colleagues over lunch or alone in an office. I admit some I have found quite pretty. And, some have dressed more immodestly than I prefer for a work environment. In 44 years, none ever came on to me nor have I ever been anything other than professional with them. The answer is pretty easy actually. Honor your marriage vows. Honor your faith. Be a professional. See how that works? Now, wasn't that easy?

 

[Dave-W]

And Dave, I should hope someone who had been raped would be "completely exonerated," even if I don't agree with the style of discipline you describe for the rapist.

In that instance, what it was legally fell short of "rape," otherwise the elders (after the public humiliation) would have turned him over to the police.

 

[Dave-W]

Some of the other stuff baffles me (e.g. the Billy Graham or VP Pence rules). I have worked in a female dominated profession for 44 years. That means I've had countless meetings with female colleagues over lunch or alone in an office.

The "Billy Graham" rule (not familiar with VP Pence rule) came about after an incident where Rev Graham was in a high rise hotel and took an elevator to the lobby alone. A woman got on the elevator and proceeded to undress herself and when it opened in the lobby, she claimed Graham had attempted to rape her. That happened back in the 1960s.

The over-reactions to this has been horrible. Pastors PROUD of leaving female congregants with broken down cars miles out in the country and them not even stopping to help or offer to call someone. And their husbands AGREEING to that. I would punch him out even if he was clergy.

After all - we must avoid the APPEARANCE of evil. But our Lord did a LOT of stuff that looked pretty bad to a lot of people.

 

[Paidiske]

In that instance, what it was legally fell short of "rape," otherwise the elders (after the public humiliation) would have turned him over to the police.

I would argue that, pastor to congregant, he was still the one with more power and the one who had abused his position.

But it does mean that it's not at all a situation comparable to the one you quoted, where the woman was blamed for being raped.

I actually sort of get where the Billy Graham rule (there are other Billy Graham rules too, about things like money and transparency, but this is the best known) is coming from, and I'm not opposed to it if you can make it work. In a church, though, unless you have a pretty good team ministry situation, it's very difficult to make it work while still meeting people's pastoral needs.

 

[Dave-W]

I would argue that, pastor to congregant, he was still the one with more power and the one who had abused his position.

Indeed he did.

But it does mean that it's not at all a situation comparable to the one you quoted, where the woman was blamed for being raped.

The woman was NOT blamed at all in that situation.

I actually sort of get where the Billy Graham rule (there are other Billy Graham rules too, about things like money and transparency, but this is the best known) is coming from, and I'm not opposed to it if you can make it work. In a church, though, unless you have a pretty good team ministry situation, it's very difficult to make it work while still meeting people's pastoral needs.

Reactionary doctrine (or even practice) is never a good idea. It almost always results in an over-correction. That particular congregation had a LOT of reactionary practice rules.

 

[Paidiske]

The woman was NOT blamed at all in that situation.

But how is that, in any way, relevant to the woman who had been raped?

I just don't understand why you would bring it up here, except to suggest that the woman is in some way responsible/to blame.

 

[Dave-W]

I just don't understand why you would bring it up here, except to suggest that the woman is in some way responsible/to blame.

To point out that even uber patriarchy is not a monolith.

In that congregation's practice the man/husband was responsible for EVERYTHING. Even doing jail time for his wife's crimes.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, I see.

Well, that's not okay either.

 

[Dave-W]

I was trying to find on Google a news story from a couple of years ago about a woman who was driving recklessly in Ohio and got pulled over and arrested. The husband insisted he should be the one to do the jail time and started a law suit to allow for that. But I cannot find the story now. Nothing even close.

 

[Zoii]

This just angers me

 

[PKFox]

Wow... #38. "You know too much about the Bible. You will be too intimidating for a guy to marry. How will they lead you?"
Sometimes, this is how I feel in small groups when I'm around other teenagers, and sometimes, it's because I know what order the books of the Bible are in.
(Continues reading)
Some of these are just mean! 42 stands out.
(Continues reading)
46. Thanks a lot Eve...

 

[Zoii]

Wow... #38. "You know too much about the Bible. You will be too intimidating for a guy to marry. How will they lead you?"
Sometimes, this is how I feel in small groups when I'm around other teenagers, and sometimes, it's because I know what order the books of the Bible are in.
(Continues reading)
Some of these are just mean! 42 stands out.
(Continues reading)
46. Thanks a lot Eve...

I had to stop reading it - it just made me so exasperated and angry. The whole notion within Christianity that women are second class just upsets and repels me.