Wife Beating “Christians”

February 13, 2014

in ~ list info, Grass-roots Movement, Marriage Killer

This post grew out of research I did because of some of the comments on my Manosphere post. I realise the men who do this are unlikely to be reading this blog, but the sad fact is wives (and children) in YOUR church are being abused. The more of us who accept this fact, the better our churches will be at dealing with this great evil. We have a responsibility to the women in our church, and being informed is the first step to living that out. Please share this with Christian leaders.

How common is abuse among churchgoers? Several studies, including those done by Christians, have found wife abuse is just as common among those who attend evangelical churches as the general public. This means abuse happens at least once in 1 in 4 Christian households.

Please don't © Ambro | freedigitalphotos.net

For a better look, consider a study the Methodist church of Canada did in 2000 when it mailed surveys to 1,000 ministers and lay workers. It found more than 1 in 8 of the women had suffered domestic violence at the hands of their husband. Of those, 54% experienced it for up to five years, 21% for 10 or more years, and 9% said the abuse was still going on. Additionally, 19% of all respondents (male and female) said they witnessed domestic violence as children.

The best-case scenario I could find calculated 5% of protestant churchgoing men are currently abusing their wives physically. Keep in mind all of these numbers are based on those willing to admit abuse – in some cases anonymously, in some not. If we assume some who are being abused don’t admit it, the numbers are worse.

Several studies find Christian women less likely to report abuse and women with strong Christian beliefs stay in abusive relationships longer. The silver lining in all of this is the inverse relationship between a man’s church attending frequency and his likelihood of abusing his wife. Men who attend weekly have a much lower rate of wife abuse than those who attend sporadically.

For years, feminists have blamed patriarchy for wife beating. Early poorly done studies seemed to support the idea that being more patriarchal did mean more wife abuse, but recent, better-done studies show something different. Patriarchy is not the cause of wife beating, but it does give wife beaters cover. Men in strongly patriarchal groups are more likely to feel justified in using physical force against their wife, wives are less likely to report abuse, and if abuse is reported to the church the chances of anyone doing anything are lower.

One big problem is most pastors have no idea how common abuse is. Additionally, most pastors lack any training in how to deal with suspected or reported abuse. When 6,000 pastors were asked how they would counsel a woman who came to them about spousal abuse, they gave some shocking answers:

  • 26% said they would tell her to submit to her husband no matter what.
  • 25% would tell her it was her fault she was beaten – for failing to submit.
  • 50% said submitting to some violence was better than getting a divorce.

I urge all of you to read John Shore’s Why Pastors Struggle With Confronting Domestic Violence. Shore shows why we think this can’t be happening in our church, and how abusers can sit next to us without our having a clue. It’ is an eye-opening read.

For pastors, I strongly recommend Pastor Jeff Crippen’s Letter to Fellow Pastors. He starts:

The evil of domestic and sexual abuse is in our midst. By “our,” I mean our conservative, Bible-believing churches. Churches just like the one I have pastored for nearly 20 years now. We are not doing well in confronting the perpetrators nor in effecting justice and kindness for their victims.

None of us learned about this evil in seminary. As a result, we are largely blind to it. Lest you think that you surely would see it if it were in your church, and that for the most part your church is free of it, let me assure you that those very thoughts reveal our blindness. The evil of domestic and sexual abuse either was – is – or is going to be in your church. And even more frightening is the confirmed fact that when it comes to your congregation, you (like me in the past) will not deal with it rightly, if you even see it at all. None of us would like to think that we would ever be an ally of evil against an oppressed victim. Yet this is what will indeed happen in your church and ministry unless you prepare yourself.

Pastor Crippen goes on to discuss the rules their church had, and how they believed these rules were biblical. As various abuses were revealed in their church, he started to study the issue. This resulted in some realisations and changes:

Over time, and by no means at my own doing, we came to realize that we had created an environment in our church that was abuser-friendly. Evil-friendly. We, as leaders, had encouraged our men to lord it over their wives and families rather than loving them. We had created an environment that was unbiblically oppressive to women. Myself and our elders, over some period of time, began to realize this – by the Lord’s mercy in showing us – and we began to make some changes.

Evil men took advantage of well-meaning rules, using them to justify and hide horrible abuse. Is the same happening in your church?

Most of the stats I gave here can be found in one or more of the following articles:

Domestic Violence within the Church: The Ugly Truth – Christian News, Commentary
EAGLE’S WINGS GLOBAL – DV & the Church
PATRIARCHY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: CHALLENGING COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS

Links may be monetised
Image Credit: © Ambro | freedigitalphotos.net

Shop AmazonShop to give links page
We are donation supported – thanks for your help!
Where we’re going – Contact us about speaking

17 comments
HotHolyHumorous
HotHolyHumorous

Regarding the post itself, I agree that victims have often kept quiet about domestic abuse because of misconstrued and wrongly taught messages about submission. Submission is not about being someone's doormat.


Violence in a marriage is sinful, not biblical, and I pray that churches and Christians will be willing to intervene and seek healing for those involved. Thanks, Paul, for bringing up this topic.

Trying But Not Convinced
Trying But Not Convinced

@High Country:

Thank you. Your post just made this so much easier.

Again, facts: At my church, only men serve in the pastorate and it is growing in new believers. Hence the multiple campuses. My church preaches and lives out the Gospel by demonstrating God's love both inside and outside the walls of the church. Sometimes that involves ministering to women who work and alsoo women contemplating abortion. By reaching out in love, real lives have been saved. Strange, though, they don't spend much time talking about the roles of women. How can that be?

Considering that women in the history of the world did not have the right to vote before it was permitted in the USA, your argument is an anachonism. I think much of your argument is an anachronism and a distraction to the true mission of the church which is to preach the Gospel: that we are all more sinful than we can possibly admit, even to ourselves, but that God loves us more than we could ever dare to imagine, which is why He sent his Son to make the ultimate atoning sacrifice for our sin.

I am not interested in debating with you the subjective conditions that women experience in your household or whether they feel loved, or your personal beliefs on what, in history, caused this or that. The world God created is complex, a fact that Jesus, himself, demonstrated in how he angered the anti-woman establishment by presenting his resurrected self first to a woman and in how he treated women of his day. Incidentaly, spiritual milk can also be observed when a person takes a small piece of scripture and tries to use it to justify a larger view that is not proportionately represented in scripture.

I hope you have a wonderful day. It has been fun sparring with you. I will pray for you and your family, in all seriousness, and I hope that when we reach Heaven you and I can have an 'a-ha' moment and a laugh over this.

(Unless, of course, you do not believe in the true Gospel that says even a mdern, emanicpated woman like me can go to Heaven?

Trying But Not Convinced
Trying But Not Convinced

@High Country (probably should be posted on the Manosphere day). The Bible does not say we will 'win'. it just promises that God will honor our obedience. That includes obedience in wives submitting to their husbands, or husbands submitting to God, even in a woman-dominated world (and even when that does not seem right or fair):

My take: Many husbands, like the character Percy Wetmore in The Green Mile, are quick to understand the power that comes with their positional authority as Husband. They relish that power. They wield that power like a weapon and use it to lord over their charges, to belittle them, to abuse them. They relish the respect that is required to be given them from their charges. However, they misunderstand their positional authority. They convince themselves that they are entitled because of something in themselves, not because that very respect is required and demanded to be given them.

However, like Wetmore, they also underestimate the inherent worth, power, and abilities of their charges. Many of those charges are crushed under these tyrants and lost. Others of these rise up. But, like the movie character John Coffey, they are ultimately condemned – and rightly so – for defying the positional authority of the tyrant. Positional authority always wins, even when positional authority is wrong. That is what positional authority is.

Consider Jesus. In his position as God With Us, Jesus was bestowed with positional authority and power to do all things. To judge. To condemn. Yet, he himself said he did not come to judge. He told the woman by the well that he did not condemn her.

Maybe, back in the ‘50s when the world was perfect, if husbands had truly been Christ-like, had died to themselves, offered themselves as living sacrifices, and humbled themselves, then we would not have the RadFem issues we have today. Or, perhaps, because men are men, are sinners with evil in their very nature, completely unable within themselves to attain and live out the perfection of Christ, just perhaps, God has seen fit to empower women to rise up as a better help-mate, to live together with a man, not to impinge upon or hamper his positional authority, but to aid him and support him as an intelligent, equally valued, co-creation of God. And, maybe, just maybe, if man saw the inner beauty, abilities, and power of women, they could earnestly seek to honor God’s creation and, thereby, be more willing to humble and sacrifice themselves for it the way God intended. And, maybe, if women saw Christ-like men who were dying to themselves, who were loving and honoring women the way Christ loved and sacrificed himself for the Church, then women would not feel the need to fight tooth and nail with men over authority.

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Col 1:15-20

“Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Phil 2:5-8

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@High Country Interesting reading, thanks.

1) I would note that on the first study, the authors said, "Women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true happiness and have thus deflated their previously inflated responses."

The second study says men are happier, both compared to the past and to women. This does not seem to fit with your claims about how horrible life has become for men. What it suggests is that the men of manosphere are a small, disgruntled group that skews from the majority. You can tell me that most men are too stupid to know they are unhappy, but then I could put that back on what you say about women. I do not see a win for either of us in your data. In reality we cannot really prove this one either way. I think we are all less happy now, and feminism is a part of why that is so. However, women are safer now than in the past – but then so too are men for the most part.

2) You continue to lump all abuse into one category. If that seems sane to you, then yes, by that measure you are right. If you take things like degree of abuse, permanent injuries, or death into account, then women have it far worse.

3) The divorce article is excellent, it points out many of the bogus ways these statistics are done, some of which I have mentioned in the past. You can pretty much get any number you want, depending on how you do it. I do not see the numbers you gave in that article you linked to. It seems the best numbers, according to the article, put the high point at 2001, with rated dropping slowly since then. Much different from what I said, but still going down. Personally, I think much of that drop is due to fewer people getting married.

The most troubling thing in the whole article was this "Barna, a born-again Christian, dolefully admitted that the areas of the country where divorce rates were highest are frequently the areas many conservative Christians live." If feminism is the cause of divorces, that means feminism is having a greater effect on Christians than non-Christians. You may say that is so, but I doubt it.

They also said divorce is more common for those who are less educated. I certainly see that.

4) I agree, no-fault muddies the waters. There is also the fact that couples who live together and split do not show up as divorces, while the spiritual and emotional devastation is just as bad. If you include those who live together, the ‘divorce’ rate is huge. This I very much put at the feet of feminism; the whole promiscuity = freedom thing has been a disaster for men and women. (Of course most of the manosphere is all for promiscuity, which is one of my problems with it.)

5) I have explained why this is technically accurate but does not mean what you imply. If you look at hours a child spends with men and women, the rates of abuse are far, far greater for men. Women “win out” because they spend more hours with children. If those numbers make you feel good, go for it.

You say “The death of children from violence is largely a crime of women” and give a reference. At that site, I read that “Women are responsible for 43 percent of the deaths of children under age 12 who are killed by identifiable persons.” So, men are doing 57%. If we then look at the fact that more children are under the care of women than men, the risk factor is significantly higher for men.

6) I agree the Bible is clear. Unfortunately, we have obscured the Bible with religion that contorts the Bible to support what it wants to be true. Your dusty old books certainly support what you think, as they were written well after Christianity has been heavily modified. If you can read the Bible without the filters, you find all kinds of things you never saw before, and it goes way beyond the roles of men and women. The changes in the church did not start in the last century; they started in the second century.  

7) Calling me a liar: When you say I do not believe what I have clearly stated I believe, you are calling me a liar. You have done this several times. You also tell others that I believe something, even though I will not admit it. How about you tell everyone what you think, and let me tell them what I think? It really does work out better. (BTW, if you really think you know my mind better than I do myself, you need help.)

8) I find it hilarious that you think I am so influenced by modern Christianity. Does ten years doing house church sound as if I am following modern Christianity? When we started TMB we were blasted from all sides by CHRISTIANS who said we should not do what we were doing. I am many things, but a product of modern Christianity is not one of them.

9) Thank you for doing more talking and less name-calling, I appreciate it.

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@High Country  As you have once again stooped to calling me a liar, calling me names, and telling everyone you somehow know my secret motives which I never share, I am done. I like to discuss things, not scream at others. If that makes me a woman in your mind, so be it.

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@Trying But Not Convinced  Excellent comment!

Not all men are/were as you say, but those who were not ignored those who were. All that is required for bad men to abuse women is for good men to do nothing, as it were. I have been guilty of that in the past, but I refuse do keep doing it. That is what this post is about, trying to get other good men to see the problem and commit to doing what they can - starting with not giving cover to those who are abusive.

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@High Country  So you want to defend men by saying woman are just as bad, or worse? Hardly are strong defence – ENEN IF IT WERE TRUE, which it is not.

I'm sure you can find some handpicked data to support your claims, but they are totally bogus is you dig at all. If we take a very, very, broad definition of spousal abuse that ignores intensity, you may be right. If a wife slapping her husband is counted the same as a husband breaking several of his wife's bones, then MAYBE women abuse just as much, although I doubt it. If you look at injuries bad enough to go to the hospital men are far, far, far more abusive and destructive. The same is true if you look at deaths – husbands kill their wife more often than the other way around.  Yes, both men and women are killed by their spouses, but it’s not even close.

Yes, women do abuse their kids, but again your claims are bogus, and based on bad crunching of raw data. If you look at 100 men who care for kids and 100 women who care for kids, you find that far more of the men are abusive. In reality, more women than men care for children. Using your 70% figure for women, and then adjusting for who is actually doing caregiving, we find that men are the abuser about 65% of the time. If we then consider that women generally care for more children than men, the numbers are even worse. When you do all the math, it turns out men are more than ten times as likely to harm a child as women. Beyond this, we should really look at the kind of abuse as men are far more likely to cause significantly greater physical harm, and much more likely to commit sexual assaults.

I am sure you are just repeating numbers you have heard, not intentionally misrepresenting reality. However, at some point this data was manipulated to say something false. The manosphere is very good at this, both by intent and ignorance. It does not take much digging to find why their claims are false, but sadly, truth is not the goal of most who descend into the manosphere. I find it very irresponsible to repeat these lies, as it gives abusive men cover. Please, stop coving for monsters!

All of this said, I knew a husband who was abused by his wife, and she did try to use the system against him, with limited success. I am not denying that women abuse and that the system is slanted, but you have exaggerated several magnitudes beyond reality. 

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@High Country @Trying But Not Convinced  Again with the not recognising the sin of women thing! Why is it when men's sins are exposed on a blog for men that some men react by yelling about the sin of women? Not that it is new, when God confronted Adam with his sin, he blamed his wife. That this comes up in comments on a post about wife beating is particularly troubling.

You seem to think women "rising up" is what killed the church. I would say correlation is not causation. If you do some study you realise the church was in big trouble long before the feminists came on the scene. When the Gospel stopped being the only thing, the fall of the church was inevitable. We stopped thinking the Gospel was the answer and started trying to make the world a better place by trying to enforce what we thought was good and right. I see it as far back as the temperance movement. Christians decided they were going to improve by imposing their morals (not necessarily the Bible's morals, BTW) through protest and laws. Blue laws were another example of this - trying to force all Americans to follow what we thought they should do. Of course, Jesus never called us to do this, but apparently, we thought we knew better than Jesus did. Like all well-intentioned departures from God's truth, it did not end well.

Why are people leaving the church? Because the church is not what God called it to be. Gender issues are a part of this, but not the only issue and hardly the biggest. Jesus said they would know us by our love, so when a church is lacking in love for even its own members, it’s not surprising people leave? Many stayed for a long time because it was important for their careers or social status to be a member in good standing at a local church. I spent most of my live in the Bible belt, and plenty of folks in church had no use for God, they just had to get their card punched. This kind of thing gave the church a false image of being strong and healthy long after it had stopped being either.

I am no fan of day-care, and I certainly think abortion is wrong, but I see the church as partly to blame for the prevalence of these things. They would have happened regardless of what we did, but we failed to give the world a biblical alternative. We became salt that had lost its saltiness, and we were trampled underfoot.

You seem to be under the impression I have not spent much time in my Bible. You would be wrong. Actually, I was closer to what you preach in the past, and it was reading my Bible that changes me. Not TV, not some preacher (we did house church for a decade) not some feminist literature, THE BIBLE. However, I did not just read it; I set aside my preconceived ideas and all the theology I have been taught, and I dug to find out what the Bible actually said. Turns out much of what religion said was there was not. Turn out Jesus is radical, not safe. Turns out we have added things to God's Word, and ignored other things. We have made minor points huge and turned big point into footnotes.

ForgivenWife
ForgivenWife

@High Country @Trying But Not Convinced  Please explain what you mean by this:


 "You are doing what most christian modern men do, you do not recognize the sin nature of women."


What is the sin nature of women, and how does this relate to men and sin?

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@High Country @TheGenerousHusband  And a late addition. New Light on Paul and Women http://bit.ly/1bYRAMY

This article by Jon Zens is outstanding. It shows the importance of understanding the times and the people. What Paul says in 1 Cor 14:34-35 is not his words, but quoting the Talmud, and then mocking it and what it said. 

Part of that passage says "as also saith the law". Thing is, the law never says that. This should be our clue, but those who want it to be true just pass over that and keep going.

Note that Paul does this in other places - he quotes common wisdom and show it is wrong. In dealing with the gnostics he quotes their saying "food for the stomach and the stomach for food". 

Paul could be sarcastic, and when we miss that, we end up missing what he said. Those who read him back then would have understood his words were a quote just as we would know something like "Where's the beef" is a quote.

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@High Country @TheGenerousHusband  Yes, I have heard all these things and more. They seem rather convincing if you listen to them in a vacuum. However, if you dare to study the Scriptures to see if these things are true, you find problems.

Rather than cutting and pasting a lot of stuff here, I am going to point to resources from a couple of my friends who have studied, prayed, and written on this issue a great deal. I mention they are friends because I am vouching for them. These are intelligent well-read individuals. They are also humble servant leaders, and they are very serious about their walk with the Lord.

·Women are not allowed to teach. Really? http://bit.ly/1bCuyRx - A great overview on 1 Tim 2:12.

·Understanding “I do not permit a woman to teach…” http://bit.ly/1grKt4p - A closer look at one aspect of 1 Tim 2:12.

·Eve was deceived… http://bit.ly/1dXIdgp - A closer look at one aspect of 1 Tim 2:12.

·Women teaching and gnosticism http://bit.ly/1ga1H4f - Another possible way to translate 1 Tim 2:12.

·King James had it right… http://bit.ly/1eFGqg6 - A better understanding of 1 Cor 14:34-36

·How Jesus defied convention in his dealings with women http://bit.ly/1lXIUNg - A better, more in depth look at something I mentioned earlier.

·The hemiplegic body of Christ http://bit.ly/Mq9imw - How our umbilical understanding of women is hurting and limiting the body of Christ.

·What we can learn from Priscilla http://bit.ly/17Y4PNi - Discusses why her name being first means something.

·WOMEN AND THE EARLY CHURCH http://bit.ly/1dADntW - It was not how most of us were taught it was.

·What's with Paul and Women: Unlocking the Cultural Background to 1 Timothy 2 http://amzn.to/1gJpMk4 An excellent book by Jon Zens. I highly recommend this for anyone who really wants to dig into this.

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@High Country @TheGenerousHusband  She is also named first. Any idea what that meant, especially then?


So we should interpret the Bible without any clue as to the cultural context in which it was written? How does that work? You will be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who would consider it unimportant. Did your seminary professors teach you to interpret a 2000 year old Eastern text based on what our modern Western world thinks?


I could point you to plenty of explanations, but I'd be wasting both of our time.

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@High Country @TheGenerousHusband  So are you saying Priscilla was not a woman? That would open a whole new can of worms! And what of the "women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel"? Did the only contend when no men were present? 


I know the verses you base your belief on, and the lack of context required to get there. I used to read it that way too, then I realised that context and an understanding of the culture of the time was necessary to understand what was being said.


Does it concern you that what you say Paul is teaching conflicts with that he allowed without any comment? This would mean he taught one thing and lived another. Maybe that is what men named Paul do? 

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@High Country @TheGenerousHusband  No, I do not believe everything I read. But neither do I ignore things just because I do not agree with them. I study to find truth, even when it turns out the truth is not what I once thought.


Enough of that I already knew (some of it you will see in my comments recently) that I suspect it is mostly accurate. I've marked it for more study.


If you think women did not work long hard hours in the field too you really need to study history.


I posted that separately, so calm down and go read the other response.

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@High Country @TheGenerousHusband  1) Since 1973, rape is down 80%. This despite the fact the report rate is up. (http://bit.ly/1lUncK4)

Since 1976, the rate of women being killed by their husbands has dropped from 1.4 per 100,000 to .08. (http://bit.ly/1jHG5l6) You will also notice the rate of death for husbands has ALWAYS been lower than for men.

All forms of violence against women have dropped since 1993(http://1.usa.gov/1cK9uTV), including violence by an intimate partner (http://bit.ly/MY7gdl). Also, notice on the first link the odds of men being hurt by an intimate partner are a much smaller part of the total than for women. Further down you will see that non-fatal violence on a woman by an intimate partner is down for all women other than those who are separated, which is over all down but not as steady as for married, divorces and never married.

By the way, patriarchy is not nearly as historically common in America as you may think, and not as good for women as you say. See my other comment on the history of the family for a link.

2) Hundreds of thousands of men are arrested and punished when they are the victim. Really? I do not deny it happens, I mentioned a friend it happened to. What I argue is your extreme numbers. I am always upset when someone is wrongly accused, but making it bigger than it is does not help anyone.

You seem to think women being abused is somehow a rare thing. You would be wrong.

3) Yes two thirds of divorces are initiated by women. That proves nothing. It could mean they are bored and want out, or it could mean they are scared and want out, or it could mean they or their husband had a string of affairs. I am tired of this fact being used as if it proves something, because it does not.

As to happiness, all I said was “most women were unhappy with some aspect of their”. I am not the one that turned it into a battle over who is more happy. Like you I do  not see happiness as our goal in life.

I certainly agree with you on the culture of being discontent. I expect it of the world, but would like to see the church do more to expose that and teach truth. Frankly, I see churches buying into and promoting that going back to at least the 50’s.

4) Abuse was an out IF YOU COULD PROVE IT! Male police and courts might reject it, and as I said before one state requires there to be multiple proven cases.

Yes, there is a bias towards the mother. I’ve seen that up close, and in some cases the mother certainly was not the better parent. On this, you and I agree. The idea that a mother is always best for the child wrong. I would say it is true more often than not, but there are more than enough exceptions to make such a starting place bad for kids. I’ve seen both bad moms and bad dads, and I do not want the kids with either. I’ve seen women who use child support to buy fancy clothes, and I’ve seen men who are always a week late with child support just to spite the mother. Vindictiveness knows no gender boundaries.

5) It takes men to make kids? Really? I will need to research this and get back to you.

You want to do the numbers by total population rather than those who actually care for the kids, and you accuse me of cooking the numbers? I don’t know if you cannot grasp the reality of do not want to, but either way we are not going to make any progress on this.

6) Glad you have no problem with women teaching women. Paul had no problem with women teaching men. So who has change from Paul, you or me?

My wife knows I run/manage our home. That you doubt that means nothing to me.

I do not see headship and generosity at opposite ends, but I do not see headship as you see it.

7) Yes, I have disagreed with you on a number of points. I assume you believe what you say, so while you may be speaking things that are not accurate, you are not lying. You on the other hand keep telling me I believe something other than what I have said. If you see those two things as the same then I have no idea how we are going to communicate on deeper issues.

8) I have no doubt your grandfather, or most Christian men of his time would scoff at much of what I teach, and contrary to what you suggest, I have never denied that.

Yes, I think millions of people who have followed religion rather than Christ have some things wrong. I have done that too, and no doubt am still doing it in many areas. I do not see how seeking and sharing truth makes one arrogant. I think the crusades were wrong and not in any way biblical, doe that make me arrogant?

10) Yes, there are Christian manosphere sites. It seems to me, from the outside, that most of them are into the whole enemy of my enemy is my friend thing, which is not biblical. I am always concerned when I see Christians teaming up with non-Christians to advance a cause. I do not recall Jesus advising this, or any of the disciples doing it. Why then is it a good plan for us? This, by the way, is just one example of our following religion over Jesus. We think we know better, of we think the situation is so drastic that we are justified in doing it differently than the Bible tells us to do it. Then we wonder why it ends badly.

TheGenerousHusband
TheGenerousHusband moderator

@High Country @TheGenerousHusband  While looking up some facts on this, I came across BTW, an interesting history of American families at http://bit.ly/MnXxgf. The note that the man as breadwinner and wife as homemaker is not the long-standing tradition we think. It was not until 1920’s that this was the case for the majority of Americans. They say the family of the 50’s was a “historical aberration out of line with long term historical trends.” They also said, “Throughout American history, most families have needed more than one breadwinner to support themselves.”

The article talks about a near panic over a growing awareness of wife beating and child abuse that occurred in the early 1800’s – clearly this is well before feminism! It also talks about the growing divorce rate in the mid to late 1800’s.

World War II had a huge negative effect on the family. It was a time of the greatest increase in out of wedlock pregnancies in the history of the country, and a massive increase in divorces. All of this before feminism. The war put many younger wives in charge of their families, and put many older wives to work in factories. Feminism did not do these things, the war did.

The 1950‘s were not as we think. Only 60% of children spent their childhood in a male-breadwinner, female homemaker household. The age of marriage for women dropped to 20, a change that resulted in a massive increase in divorces in the 60’s. The 60’s also saw it becoming increasingly difficult to sustain the middle class dream on a single income, and many women who went to work did so because their husband could not earn enough for the lifestyle they wanted.

Much of this I knew, but I had not put it together in my mind. The 50’s family that the manosphere holds up is not what they say it was. It was not as widespread as they claim, and it was a short-lived aberration in 400+ years of American history. It looks to me like most of the changes we see in the 60’s and 70’s were set in motion decades earlier. Feminism may have promoted and helped those changes, but they did not cause them. They were just riding the wave!

ForgivenWife
ForgivenWife

@High Country @ForgivenWife @Trying But Not Convinced  There's a difference between challenging the concept of female moral superiority and saying that people don't recognize that women sin at all. And again, how does this relate to male sin?


How did women get the power to damage the church in the first place? I just don't see this. I've read those women's writings, and I simply don't see this--although I am approaching their writings from a different perspective than you are and am paying attention to different things.

Previous post:

Next post: