Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Why women leave the Christian church

dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 4:48:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Continuing the theme from my previous thread:

http://www.smh.com.au...

What is taught as "absolute truth" and embedded in the created order in these churches is the permanent subordination of women. This means sexual expression is limited to heterosexual marriage only. The subordination of women is taught as the counterpart of male headship and leadership in a marriage; a "complementarian rather than egalitarian" style of relationship.

The problem experienced by the research participants with the "equal but different" teaching, is that, inevitably, concepts such as headship and authority end up meaning, in practice, men behave in a controlling and rule-based way towards women. If the women in any way questioned, protested, or disputed the dominant narrative of Christian womanhood, they got a strong push-back from leaders and other church members.
.
.
.
Prescribed gender roles for men and women in particular are then reinforced through a specific view of scripture that cannot be questioned, despite public teaching that all sermons and Bible study is open to discussion and comment. Hence the Bible, which on the one hand is used to teach Christian freedom and a renewed relationship with the God of love, is then used to conveniently oppress women and to have them subscribe willingly to that oppression. As one woman said, "There is no need to fight a revolution if no one revolts."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 9:11:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 4:48:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
Continuing the theme from my previous thread:

http://www.smh.com.au...

What is taught as "absolute truth" and embedded in the created order in these churches is the permanent subordination of women. This means sexual expression is limited to heterosexual marriage only. The subordination of women is taught as the counterpart of male headship and leadership in a marriage; a "complementarian rather than egalitarian" style of relationship.

The problem experienced by the research participants with the "equal but different" teaching, is that, inevitably, concepts such as headship and authority end up meaning, in practice, men behave in a controlling and rule-based way towards women. If the women in any way questioned, protested, or disputed the dominant narrative of Christian womanhood, they got a strong push-back from leaders and other church members.
.
.
.
Prescribed gender roles for men and women in particular are then reinforced through a specific view of scripture that cannot be questioned, despite public teaching that all sermons and Bible study is open to discussion and comment. Hence the Bible, which on the one hand is used to teach Christian freedom and a renewed relationship with the God of love, is then used to conveniently oppress women and to have them subscribe willingly to that oppression. As one woman said, "There is no need to fight a revolution if no one revolts."


Very reminiscent of the 'Separate but Equal" doctrine that was finally seen for the institutionalized repression of black people and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Brown vs Board of education.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 10:54:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 9:11:36 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/5/2015 4:48:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
Continuing the theme from my previous thread:

http://www.smh.com.au...

What is taught as "absolute truth" and embedded in the created order in these churches is the permanent subordination of women. This means sexual expression is limited to heterosexual marriage only. The subordination of women is taught as the counterpart of male headship and leadership in a marriage; a "complementarian rather than egalitarian" style of relationship.

The problem experienced by the research participants with the "equal but different" teaching, is that, inevitably, concepts such as headship and authority end up meaning, in practice, men behave in a controlling and rule-based way towards women. If the women in any way questioned, protested, or disputed the dominant narrative of Christian womanhood, they got a strong push-back from leaders and other church members.
.
.
.
Prescribed gender roles for men and women in particular are then reinforced through a specific view of scripture that cannot be questioned, despite public teaching that all sermons and Bible study is open to discussion and comment. Hence the Bible, which on the one hand is used to teach Christian freedom and a renewed relationship with the God of love, is then used to conveniently oppress women and to have them subscribe willingly to that oppression. As one woman said, "There is no need to fight a revolution if no one revolts."


Very reminiscent of the 'Separate but Equal" doctrine that was finally seen for the institutionalized repression of black people and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Brown vs Board of education.

Yes, good point. The "equal" part was always a lie.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 11:09:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 10:54:15 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/5/2015 9:11:36 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/5/2015 4:48:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
Continuing the theme from my previous thread:

http://www.smh.com.au...

What is taught as "absolute truth" and embedded in the created order in these churches is the permanent subordination of women. This means sexual expression is limited to heterosexual marriage only. The subordination of women is taught as the counterpart of male headship and leadership in a marriage; a "complementarian rather than egalitarian" style of relationship.

The problem experienced by the research participants with the "equal but different" teaching, is that, inevitably, concepts such as headship and authority end up meaning, in practice, men behave in a controlling and rule-based way towards women. If the women in any way questioned, protested, or disputed the dominant narrative of Christian womanhood, they got a strong push-back from leaders and other church members.
.
.
.
Prescribed gender roles for men and women in particular are then reinforced through a specific view of scripture that cannot be questioned, despite public teaching that all sermons and Bible study is open to discussion and comment. Hence the Bible, which on the one hand is used to teach Christian freedom and a renewed relationship with the God of love, is then used to conveniently oppress women and to have them subscribe willingly to that oppression. As one woman said, "There is no need to fight a revolution if no one revolts."


Very reminiscent of the 'Separate but Equal" doctrine that was finally seen for the institutionalized repression of black people and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Brown vs Board of education.

Yes, good point. The "equal" part was always a lie.

Aw, come on! "Animal Farm"'s definition of equal...
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 11:47:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 4:48:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
Continuing the theme from my previous thread:

http://www.smh.com.au...

What is taught as "absolute truth" and embedded in the created order in these churches is the permanent subordination of women. This means sexual expression is limited to heterosexual marriage only. The subordination of women is taught as the counterpart of male headship and leadership in a marriage; a "complementarian rather than egalitarian" style of relationship.

The problem experienced by the research participants with the "equal but different" teaching, is that, inevitably, concepts such as headship and authority end up meaning, in practice, men behave in a controlling and rule-based way towards women. If the women in any way questioned, protested, or disputed the dominant narrative of Christian womanhood, they got a strong push-back from leaders and other church members.
.
.
.
Prescribed gender roles for men and women in particular are then reinforced through a specific view of scripture that cannot be questioned, despite public teaching that all sermons and Bible study is open to discussion and comment. Hence the Bible, which on the one hand is used to teach Christian freedom and a renewed relationship with the God of love, is then used to conveniently oppress women and to have them subscribe willingly to that oppression. As one woman said, "There is no need to fight a revolution if no one revolts."


Man was created both male and female. It's difficult for God's created men who appear to be more female than male and even worse if you appear to be a male but sexually desire other males or to appear to be a female and sexually desire another female. This is the reason God's created men are so deceived by what they observe in a mirror.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 6:18:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 4:48:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
Continuing the theme from my previous thread:

http://www.smh.com.au...

What is taught as "absolute truth" and embedded in the created order in these churches is the permanent subordination of women. This means sexual expression is limited to heterosexual marriage only. The subordination of women is taught as the counterpart of male headship and leadership in a marriage; a "complementarian rather than egalitarian" style of relationship.

The problem experienced by the research participants with the "equal but different" teaching, is that, inevitably, concepts such as headship and authority end up meaning, in practice, men behave in a controlling and rule-based way towards women. If the women in any way questioned, protested, or disputed the dominant narrative of Christian womanhood, they got a strong push-back from leaders and other church members.
.
.
.
Prescribed gender roles for men and women in particular are then reinforced through a specific view of scripture that cannot be questioned, despite public teaching that all sermons and Bible study is open to discussion and comment. Hence the Bible, which on the one hand is used to teach Christian freedom and a renewed relationship with the God of love, is then used to conveniently oppress women and to have them subscribe willingly to that oppression. As one woman said, "There is no need to fight a revolution if no one revolts."


When I read "evangelical Christian churches", I think "fundamentalist Christian Churches". If you do not, we need to talk.
Fundamentalist Christian churches and on the downswing, their time has come and gone, the hard core remain.
I could write a similar paper with the topic 'Why men are leaving the Evangelical Christian Churches' - and talk about YEC, the Genesis account, and macro evolution as well as geology.
Your reference needs to be put in context.

My most recent church attendance was at an Anabaptist church - by marriage.
I never transferred my membership from a previous Lutheran church.
As many of you know all Anabaptist churches are fundamentalist leaning, although to various degrees, and Lutheran churches are all progressive, to various degrees - Missouri synod less so.
We moved about a year ago and just before we moved a woman was ordained as a preacher in that church.
If you would have asked me twenty-five years earlier what the chances were of that happening, and I would have said slim to none.
As an observer of the Christian Church in the U.S. for over half a century, I can say with some authority that it is changing, self correcting.
The Christian church is not going away anytime soon, and the longer it is around the more women will be equal to men.
They will never be truly equal in the Amish church, and many others.
Women today who want to be equally active in the church and home can find a congregation where they will by happy.
Fifty years from now it will be even easier. The wheels of progress move slowly in the Religious community.

If you want to know more about my membership in the Anabaptist church:
I was quickly accepted by the membership, and in a short time I was teaching an adult Sunday school class, and even on the search committee for a new pastor.
We turned down one good candidate because he was divorced, and we believed the membership would never accept a divorced preacher - especially older members.
During the semiannual foot washing communion service it was common for men to be on one side of the church, and women on the other, before we went to the foot washing.
The point of all this is to let you know I know the difference between fundamentalist and progressive, and I am talking about a fundamentalist church. Young members accept macro evolution, older members still follow a literal interpretation of the Genesis account.

In Sunday school classes it was common for women to teach, especially the younger children. As for Biblical teachings against this , well, they were teaching children, not adults, and they were good Christian women, how could it be wrong.
The subject of women being active in the church came up, and it was generally agreed that they were an indispensable part of the church, and someone would mention NT references to women mentioned by Jesus.
So, yes, men were above women in the church, but women were equal to men in Christ, which is want Jesus taught. As for Paul, well, I have some problems with Paul.
This is one area where the Biblical teaching becomes gray, like it or not.
Look to the OT, and one thing is said - and repeated by Paul in the NT, I will agree.
Black and white, plain and simple.
Look to the teachings of Jesus, and things get gray.