Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature

Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature

(There is an update at the bottom of this post).

This involves a lot of back story I don’t want to get into because this blog post would be ten pages long.

I am blogging this primarily for adult singles who have felt marginalized or hurt by Christian denominations or churches that treat adult singles as though they have cooties.

I have a somewhat different motivation for blogging about this than other blogs do. There were a few other blogs who addressed the child abuse aspect of the story, that we have an adult (Hall) badgering a teen kid (Braxton Caner) on the internet.

J D Hall is a Calvinist preacher with a blog called “Pulpit and Pen,” a Twitter account, and a group of fan boys who follow him around online who actually refer to themselves as “Pulpiteers.”

At one time, Hall’s groupies were using the #pulpiteer (or “pulpiteers”) hash to follow each other around Twitter. I’m not sure if they still use the “Pulpiteer” label or not. I will continue to refer to them as such.

This group, and a few other people, have a long standing hatred of another guy named Ergun Caner.

Continue reading “Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature”

Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally, by S. Harris – And: further thoughts on U.S. Christian Priorities and Reverse Racism

Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally, by S. Harris – And: further thoughts on U.S. Christian Priorities and Reverse Racism

Below you will find a link to, and excerpts from, an editorial by S. Harris I agree with.

One of the most annoying things about the backlash against the Coulter piece is how Christians arguing against it were tone-deaf or had tunnel vision. They totally mis-read her piece, or assumed things about it that she did not say.

Most of the criticisms I read were operating under the erroneous belief that Coulter said, “Americans should never, ever help foreigners.” -When she said no such thing.

Another variation on that were the idiots who thought Coulter was saying, “Americans should only help Americans, screw the world!” She also wasn’t saying that.

Look, if you are an American living in the USA and you have “Grandpa Joe” living under your roof, you’ve taken him in because he can no longer care for himself….

And good old Grandpa Joe has dementia and is in a wheelchair, and you’re not getting him proper medication, nursing visits, bathing him, -BUT- you are flying to Africa on a plane every four months to go build one room huts for Africans (and you pride yourself in taking these trips to help orphans in Africa), you are the selfish jerk with messed up priorities, not Ann Coulter for calling you out on that hypocrisy.

And sad to say, most Americans do indeed ignore Grandpa Joe, or guys and women like him, to go on humanitarian trips to places like Africa.

And they think this is so compassionate and loving. They cannot see the hypocrisy or insensitivity of it. If God wanted you to go help in Africa, he would have had you born there.

It makes no sense for the Africans to fly to the USA to help Americans, the French to fly to Brazil to help Brazilians, the Saudis to fly to France to help the French, the Russians to fly to Canada to help the Canadians, the Aussies to fly to Russia to help the Russians.

In an extreme situation, in a natural disaster type thing (which to me is different than an on-going disease outbreak that has a 90% fatality rate), I’m seeing a stronger rationale for action.

Where a nation gets blown off the map by a typhoon, or what not, by all means, let’s see the world come together and all nations mail food and fly in equipment and blankets, but the rest of the year, no, it’s a waste of time and resources for everyone everywhere to do these things.

According to several news reports I’ve read, the ebola disease is 60 – 90% fatal (depending on medical treatment), and the whole thing that kicked off the Coulter piece in the first place were these naive, American, evangelical do-gooder doctor and missionaries who flew down there to “lend a hand.”

Now these do-gooders have ebola and were flown back to the United States, and which potentionally exposes other Americans to this.

Someone on another site raised what I felt was a decent analogy – how people voluntarily go on mountain-hiking trips but then get stranded on the mountain, so that other emergency respondents have to risk their lives, and spend a buttload of money, to fly helicopters and what all to rescue them. It’s a similar scenario.

Here is the editorial I agree with:

(Link): Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally by S. Harris

Excerpts:

    Ann Coulter’s recent article “Ebola Doc’s Condition Downgraded to Idiotic” really hit home — if you’ll excuse the pun.

Coulter makes a good argument as she questions why American missionaries don’t stay home and help a country in the violent throes of spiritual decay. She accuses them of slinking off to Third World countries (and coming back with Ebola), while they abandon the most consequential nation on earth — their own.

It’s a thought I’ve often had as I’ve watched church after church suck their congregations dry for overseas missionary work while the old lady in the house next-door struggles for food — physically and financially.

These same missionaries are lauded as heroes for going to Africa when their hometowns are awash in drugs, pornography, murders, domestic abuse, pedophilia, and a thousand other byproducts of spiritual darkness.

I would go even farther and liken the situation to child adoption in the U.S. Couples, often citing impossible U.S. adoption laws and red tape, have been going overseas to adopt children for years while nearly 400,000 American children remain in foster care.

Roughly 102,000 of those are waiting to be adopted at any given time, and another 58,000 become available for adoption after their parents’ rights are terminated.

I know a Christian couple who recently adopted five siblings from Bhutan. Another couple, misled about the health of a newborn, adopted a Russian baby who needed so many operations they nearly went bankrupt and ended up divorcing.

All of this happens while a little boy or girl from Nebraska or Kentucky grows up in the uncertain love and insecurity of foster care. I’ve rarely met a couple who adopted an American-born child.

The truth is, instead of staying and fighting, Americans developed a pattern of running to other countries — whether for missionary work, adoption, or cheaper labor and smaller overhead.

…Ann Coulters article was harsh, but it needed to be said.

… Still, Ann Coulter was right to raise such relevant questions: “…Why do we have to deal with this at all? Can’t anyone serve Christ in America anymore?”
~ ~ ~ end excerpts ~ ~ ~

I encourage you to visit the author’s editorial and read the whole thing, because in it, in a part I did not quote above here, she even has an example in there of a time she brought her India- born- and- raised friend to an American church with her as a guest.

Harris said she was a Christian wanting to find a home church. She said she invited her India-born friend to attend with her one day at a new church she was checking out, so he did.

Harris said that when the church people noticed her friend was from India and was a Hindu, that they swarmed around him to welcome him but they blew her off (she was, to them, an obvious American).

Harris said the next day, the church ladies visited the guy at his home – they had obtained his address the day before – and brought him baked cakes and other goodies, but they brought nothing to Harris.

And Harris was the Christian looking for a church – her Hindu friend did not give a rat’s ass about joining Christianity at all. He was delighted to get free cookies from the Christians but thought the church ladies naive (that was how I understood what she wrote).

I could be mistaken, but I would assume that Harris’ Hindu friend probably had brown skin, probably spoke with a heavy accent – so it was obvious to the church people he was foreign.

I have noticed that U.S. Christians are in fact inclined to do missionary work toward, or help, only certain groups of people – among them, dark skinned people, and especially ones who are pagan in religious beliefs (ie, Hindu, Muslim).

(Though evangelicals will at times make narrow exceptions in America to help suffering Americans, but usually only the most severe, “down and out” cases, such as homeless crack addicts and women who work as strippers in night clubs.)

There seems to be little to no concern by white Christians for white skinned, middle class, “average Joe” people in America.

It’s weird, revolting, and not at all biblical to play “pick and choose” in who you will show compassion to. Everyone is supposed to be your neighbor, not just orphan kids or ebola patients in Africa, or homeless crack addicts.

And no, I’m not a “white pride” person or “white nationalist” or whatever they call themselves. I don’t mind if whites help dark skinned people.

What I am saying is I am sort of turned off by how so many American white Christians view dark-skinned foreigners as exotic pets and/or as being more “worthy” to save or help than their white, native neighbors (and we also have dark skinned Americans in America who could use help). It’s kind of a form of reverse-racism, and Christians should have no part in it, but they do.

Years ago, during what seemed to be a trend of white Americans adopting black children from Africa (and greasing the wheels by throwing their money at charities in those nations), I saw editorials by dark skinned Africans* who wrote they found the white American do-gooder mentality towards Africans offensive and condescending – they say they don’t want or need a “white savior” to fly in and rescue them. You would think white Americans would get a clue.

*(some of the journalists either self-identified as being black people, and/or they had a staff photo of themselves accompanying their editorials.)
——————————-
Related posts:

(Link): Ann Coulter’s Very Accurate Ebola Post Being Criticized As Being Insensitive – But It’s Not; It’s Accurate

(Link): White Evangelicals, White Fundamentalists, and White Baptists: White Americans Don’t Need the Gospel or Compassion, especially not the affluent or middle class

(Link): Why Christians Need To Stress Spiritual Family Over the Nuclear Family – People with no flesh and blood relations including Muslims who Convert to Christianity – Also: First World, White, Rich People Problems

(Link): Radical Christianity – New Trend That Guilt Trips American Christians For Living Average Lives

(Link): To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

Placing One’s Marriage Ahead of The Church – Preacher Used Prioritizing and Rebuilding His Marriage as Rationale for Bullying His Church Members (Re: Driscoll and Mars Hill Church)

Placing One’s Marriage Ahead of The Church – Preacher Used Prioritizing and Rebuilding His Marriage as Rationale for Bullying His Church Members

(Link): The Storm at Mars Hill Church: Mark Driscoll Explains It All

In that page, there is a description of how Driscoll claims the reason he came down hard on his church members was to save his marriage. He says he and his wife Grace were going through a tough time in their marriage.

Here is an excerpt:

    “For me [Mark Driscoll] to recover, for you [Grace Driscoll] to recover, for us to build our friendship, I feel like we’re kind of at that watershed moment where our marriage is gonna get better or it’s gonna get colder,…

  • I told Grace, I said “I’m going to give it one year, and if it doesn’t get fixed, I’m going to quit, because you’re more important to me than ministry, and I feel like if I quit right now, the church will probably die, and there’s all these thousands of people that met Jesus.” I said “So we’re either going to change it or I’m going to quit, but we’re not going to do this forever and you’re my priority,” and that led to everything that I feared, quite frankly.
  • It was really brutal, and I couldn’t tell the story at the time of and here’s why- because Grace is really hurting, and I love her….

This is an example of what secular researchers call a “greedy marriage.” See this post:

(Link): Do Married Couples Slight Their Family Members as Well as Their Friends? / “Greedy Marriages”

Also:
(Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

(Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

As Throckmorton surmises,

    What is striking about this narrative [by Mark Driscoll explaining why he abused people at his church] is the self-focus.

  • Instead of “men stepping up” perhaps this video should be named “men stepping on” others. The implication is that the damage to others (culture of fear, lay-offs, firings, shunnings, the pile of dead bodies under the Mars Hill bus) was necessary because Mark and Grace Driscoll needed time to repair themselves and their marriage.

So, part of Driscoll’s rationalization of why it was acceptable for him to bulldoze over people at his church was to save his marriage.

Even if Driscoll is lying, and his marital troubles are being used as an excuse only to cover his misbehavior, that doesn’t change the thrust of my criticisms.

And yet many conservative Christians think un-married men and women should not serve as preachers?

Let me tell you something, if you had a single (as in, un-marrred) man or woman serve as pastor of your church, there would be no on-going marital stress and strife that would cause them to terrorize and abuse the people of your church.

You would not have an unmarried person stressing out over his or her marriage (because their is no marriage), and abusing church members to work on his or her relationship with his or her spouse – because there would be no spouse.

Evangelical Christians, Southern Baptists, fundamentalists, and some Neo Calvinists, often believe or teach that marriage and parenthood mature or sanctify a person (though the Bible does not teach either concept), and they often portray the never married or childless or childfree as being selfish, but here we have an example of a married preacher who selfishly put his marriage and children above people at his church.

Being married and a parent sure as hell did not mature Mark Driscoll, nor did it make him more loving, godly, or considerate. Far from it.
————————–
Related posts:

(Link): Preacher Mark Driscoll Basically Says No, Single Christian Males Cannot or Should Not Serve as Preachers / in Leadership Positions – Attempts to Justify Unbiblical, Anti Singleness Christian Bias

(Link): How Christians Have Failed on Teaching Maturity and Morality Vis A Vis Marriage / Parenthood – Used as Markers of Maturity Or Assumed to be Sanctifiers – Also: More Hypocrisy – Christians Teach You Need A Spouse to Be Purified, But Also Teach God Won’t Send You a Spouse Until You Become Purified

(Link): Male Preacher Marries For First Time At Age 44

(Link): Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )

(Link): Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)

Mark Driscoll’s Hypocrisy About Single Men – and other Driscoll stuff

Mark Driscoll’s Hypocrisy About Single Men – and other Driscoll stuff

This is sort of a part 2, or a follow up to this post on my blog:
(Link): Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric

The WenatcheeTheHatchet blog has been covering Driscoll and Driscoll’s Mars Hill church in depth now for a few years.

He has many posts about Driscoll that are eye opening. The main one I wanted to discuss was the page pertaining to Driscoll’s hypocrisy about single men.

First, the other links – ones demonstrating that Driscoll is freaky, has some issues, hates women, and is obsessed with sex:

(Link): Mark Driscoll on the naked virgin Catholic model Adriana Lima at the Resurgence in 2006

(Link): From Mark Driscoll’s 2008 Spiritual Warfare series, on womens’ ministry, ” … you have to be very careful, it’s like juggling knives. … The wrong women tend to want it.”

(Link): Mark Driscoll in 2008 on the efforts he took to protect his wife

(Link): Mark Driscoll, “If you get the young men you win the war. … You don’t get the young men you get nothing. Nothing.”

(Link): Mark Driscoll’s October 9, 2006 Resurgence post ruminating on Jenna Jameson [the pornography movie actress]

In the “if you get the young men you win” commentary, Driscoll writes:

Most churches are built to cater to 40-something-year-old women and their children and the guys are nowhere to be found.
— end Driscoll quote —

No, let me assure you, as a 40-something woman, most evangelical and Baptist churches most certainly do not cater to me or to women in general, regardless of age.

Most churches either cater to married men (women and singles of either gender are not permitted to serve in meaningful capacities), or churches are built to support married couples who have two or three young children still living at home.

One reason of many I no longer attend church, and may never return, is precisely that churches do nothing for 40 something, single, childless women such as myself. Mark Driscoll is once again spouting off about a bunch of crap he knows nothing about.

Here is the main reason I am making this blog post – these posts:

(Link): a little clarification on the recent posts–a case for keeping Driscoll’s contribution to public discussion within public access (even if Mars Hill would wish otherwise)

(Link): Pussified Nation in the context of Driscollian real estate in 2000

(Link): The historical and social setting for Mark Driscoll’s development of William Wallace II as a pen name, a kind of postlude/preface to “Pussified Nation”

The point of those posts is that Driscoll, particuarly about ten years ago, ranted and railed against young, single men in books, forum posts, and sermons. He accused them of being lazy, homosexual, wussies, and clowns because they were not self-supporting, did not own their own homes and cars, etc.

What the post goes on to explain is that at the height of his single-man bashing, Driscoll himself was strapped for money. He had to take in young single men as roomies to help him make payments on his home.

Here are some excerpts (from WTH blog, the first link):

What problem needs to be fixed? The young men need to be yelled at so that they shape up and fly right. They need to get real jobs, find women, marry them, make babies and do all this for Jesus’ fame.

The possibility that many of those 20-something men won’t find “real jobs” because of changes in the economy in a post-industrial context where “we” exported a lot of our unskilled labor overseas or a lot of unskilled labor is unglamorous drudgery “real Americans” don’t want to do may not be on the Driscoll radar.

That neo-Calvinists lament the median age of first marriage has soared up to the highest levels we’ve seen in the last forty years may need to be offset by the observation that the last time that number got so high was during the Great Depression. Continue reading “Mark Driscoll’s Hypocrisy About Single Men – and other Driscoll stuff”

Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )

Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric

More anti-singlness and anti-virginity commentary from perverted, sexist douche bag and pastor Mark Driscoll has come to light. I have blogged about this creep before (see links at the conclusion of this post for more).

I am not a fan of tip toeing around people’s feelings and the extreme political correctness in today’s culture, (as I wrote of in a (Link): previous blog post here), but, I am not a supporter of this other extreme, the one Driscoll presents in the post I excerpt below.

It’s one thing to speak your mind – in a firm but respectful way, even if the majority of popular culture does not like your beliefs – but Driscoll seems to go out of his way to be unnecessarily rude, condescending, and hateful, or as obnoxious as he can be.

In the year 2000, Neo-Calvinist preacher Mark Driscoll, writing under the name “William Wallace II,” I think, wrote a bunch of inflammatory commentary on his church’s forum “Midrash.” In a book he wrote, Driscoll admitted to posting as “William Wallace II” on that forum (some sites linked to below have screen captures taken from online versions of the book that you can view).

In a series of very long posts, Driscoll ranted against women, feminists, homosexuals, men who are not manly-man enough in his view, and all this has drawn the ire and attention of many netizens after this was blogged about recently.

However, the portion of Driscoll’s post that caught my eye seems to subtly mock or ridicule adult singleness, singles ministries, and adult virginity.

Before I get to that, I wanted to mention this:

According to one source ((Link): source) in a Tweet:

    Driscoll through Wallace says women need a man to help them select a husband (p. 78). Eastern culture > Biblical example incl Ruth, then.

As I replied on Twtter in regards to that view by Driscoll:

    I’m a never married lady over 40, would still like to marry some day – Driscoll can eat my shorts

Yes, Driscoll can take his outdated, sexist views about single women and cram them up his butt.

There was also this (Willam Wallace parody account is quoting Driscoll (Link): Source):

Returning once more to the long rant by Driscoll:

(Link): Mark Driscoll’s Pussified Nation… – Matthew Paul Turner’s blog –
If Turner’s blog becomes unavailable for viewing (which it did earlier today apparently due to a stampede of traffic), you can read the Driscoll penned posts here:
(Link): Posts by Driscoll

Here are excerpts of what Driscoll wrote in 2000, under the name “William Wallace II” – with comments by me below this long excerpt (and additional links by other people about this Driscoll rant):

    We live in a completely pussified nation.

    We could get every man, real man as opposed to pussified James Dobson knock-off crying Promise Keeping homoerotic worship loving mama’s boy sensitive emasculated neutered exact male replica evangellyfish, and have a conference in a phone booth.

    It all began with Adam, the first of the pussified nation, who kept his mouth shut and watched everything fall headlong down the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his mouth and listened to his wife who thought Satan was a good theologian when he should have lead her and exercised his delegated authority as king of the planet.

    As a result, he was cursed for listening to his wife and every man since has been his pussified sit quietly by and watch a nation of men be raised by bitter penis envying burned feministed single mothers who make sure that Johnny grows up to be a very nice woman who sits down to pee.

    Continue reading “Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )”

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

(Before I get to the link proper, here is a long introduction by me.)

I agree with this guy’s editorial (linked to farther below). I’ve written of this phenomenon before on my own blog, going back a year or maybe as long as three years ago (see links at the bottom of this post under the “Related Posts” section).

I do not like legalistic jerks. I don’t think Christians should be rude, mean, hateful jerks to other people, even when condemning certain behaviors as being sinful.

However. HOWEVER.

I can’t say as though I’m a whole-scale supporter of legalism’s opposite characteristics, either – which amounts to extreme leniency and “watering down of standards” in the name of Love and Tolerance.

I have seen some Christians so very afraid of hurting the feelings of Non-Christians (or even that of fellow Christians) who are in sin, or in confronting Christians who are openly supportive of behaviors the Bible condemns, they tip toe around the sin in question to an absurd degree – where they end up practically supporting, condoning, or excusing said sin (whatever it may be).

These Christians are hyper-sensitive to other people’s feelings, and it is a huge annoyance to me.

This tendency to treat other people’s feelings with kid gloves has gotten so bad in Christendom (particularly in regards to sexual sin), that some preachers have admitted they are afraid to speak out against sin in public, in their blogs, TV shows, books, or from the pulpit.

It’s also very common among Christian lay persons, or by ex-Christians or liberal Christians, who confuse God’s propensity to love and forgive with the notion that God (and Jesus Christ) are hunky-dory with behavior the Bible thoroughly condemns, such as hetero pre-marital sex or homosexual sex acts, for example.

(Transgenderism is a sexual state which has become the new liberal Christian, moderate Christian, Theology of Hurt Feelings Christian, ex-Christian, and left wing secular Sacred Cow that you may not criticize at all.)

It’s also intriguing to me that on the spiritual abuse blogs I have visited, whose owners and members champion the downtrodden (i.e., adults who have been mistreated by churches, or victims of sexual abuse whose abuse was swept under the rug by their fellow church members),
have forum or blog participants, who will, on one hand, quite understandably call for the heads of such abusive church members on a platter,
rightly call out Christians as being naive fools about abuse in churches, but – many of these same people are also very dismissive of, or blind to, abuses by Muslim militants and homosexual militants.

They are very naive of abuses by Muslims and homosexuals. They seem to have a huge blind spot in those areas.

How they can so easily spot and repudiate Christian and church bungling of spiritual and child sexual abuse, or of preachers who exploit their church members,
but fail to recognize the dangers of Muslim and homosexual militancy in American society and other regions of the world, I will never understand.

The blindness and naive nature by folks on those sorts of forums and blogs also extends to Roman Catholicism.

I have had a few Roman Catholic friends in the past, and they are fine people, but their church? No.

The Roman Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake, but one Roman Catholic individual recently thanked a (Protestant) blogger for bringing to everyone’s attention the anti-Roman Catholic commentary expressed by yet another blog (a Protestant one which was critical of perceived sinful RC behavior).

I mean, really? Some Protestant writing a critical comment about Roman Catholic behavior in general on a blog is thought somehow worse than the Roman Catholic Church in years past doing things such as:

-Covering up priest sexual abuse of children, or….

-Burning people to death for refusing to convert to Roman Catholicism, or for (Link to Wiki page): translating the Bible into English, or….

-The same Roman Catholic Church that historically has held the position that the Gospel (which includes sola fide) is anathema (to be damned)?

Off site link for more on that:
Roman Catholic Church condemns the Gospel itself

Seriously?

But you can’t easily point these issues of the Roman Catholic Church out at some forums or blogs – the ones who are into The Theology of Hurt Feelings – as it might offend a Roman Catholic somewhere.

The Roman Catholic Church historically persecuted a lot of people (see again: burning people to death at the stake for things like not converting to Catholicism), but criticism on the internet of their church is considered by some of them to be the height of persecution against Roman Catholics.

At any rate, I agree with the gentlemen quoted below.

There is most certainly a Theology of Hurt Feelings, where-in some Christians are so incredibly concerned with not offending various classes of sinners (e.g., hetero fornicators or active homosexuals), they think Christians speaking out publicly (on blogs, radio shows, in church services, etc) is “unloving” and therefore Christ would object to it.

The mind boggles at this. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for hetero fornication and homosexual sex acts, among other sins of humanity.

But these “lovey dovey” types want other Christians to pipe down about all this and act as though God is totaly fine with, and accepting of, all manner of sin.

The Bible presents a God who is not only loving, forgiving, and gracious, but also one who is Holy, just, and who does not tolerate sin, he does not like sin, and he won’t put up with sin indefinitely. God is not fine and dandy with sin.
And the Bible does in fact call out hetero pre-marital sex, and all homosexual sex acts, as sin.

I suspect that this well-meaning, yet wrong-headed, tendency to want to be Very Loving, Very Accepting,
and To Spare People’s Feelings, is partially responsible for what gave rise several years ago to the ridiculous,
non-sensical, un-Biblical habit of referring to fornicators as “Born Again Virgins,” “Spiritual Virgins,” and similar monikers (see links below, this post, for more about that).

(Link): Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities

Excerpts.

    • BY ALEX MURASHKO , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
    July 25, 2014|8:33 am

Advocates for behavior considered immoral by Christians who believe the Bible is God’s inerrant word, have successfully used the idea of “love” to affirm homoerotic behavior, to redefine marriage and family, to justify pedophilia, and as theologian and pastor James Emery White recently pointed out, to justify assisted suicide.

The problem, White writes in his blog, Church & Culture, is that the “love” described to normalize these behaviors is “not the biblical idea of love.”

Continue reading “Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin”

Why Singles Belong in Church Leadership by L. Ferguson

Why Singles Belong in Church Leadership

(Link): Why Singles Belong in Church Leadership

Excerpts

    Unmarried ministers offer a unique understanding of devotion to Christ alone.

    by Lore Ferguson, guest writer

    Each time I read a well-intentioned article on how to make the most of your single years, I scan down to the author’s bio and often discover that, sure enough, he’s married to his college sweetheart, pulling advice from a brief period of singleness years ago.

    Even at 33, I’m a spring chicken to some of the seasoned single men and women before me.

    These Christians have spent their lives burning with passion, unmet desires, or unrequited love, or have committed to a life of celibacy.

    These are the clouds of witnesses I look to for wisdom in issues of singleness—not the well-meaning, but hollow three-points and a poem professor with his winsome wife and four little ones. What do I know of his life?

    The hardships of parenting, husbanding, pastoring, teaching, ministering? But what does he know of mine?

    If the life of a single Christian, as Paul admonished, is to be undistracted by the world, concerned with the things of the Lord, then unmarried ministers have a unique calling indeed. And it is one the church ought not ignore — or usurp.

    Where I live, in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, young marriages are common. Younger than the national average at least. Yet few single men and women are involved in ministry.

    Continue reading “Why Singles Belong in Church Leadership by L. Ferguson”

Gary Habermas joins Janet Mefferd to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life (Re: Unanswered Prayer – other issues)

Gary Habermas joins Janet to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life (Re: Unanswered Prayer)

Audio / podcast.

I have found that Janet Mefferd’s show does not work in Google Chrome (browser), sometimes does not work in FireFox, but DOES work in IE (Microsoft Internet Explorer browser). I loathe IE, but it’s the only browser that will play her show.

Habermas has recently written a book about faith and doubt or something, and he is interviewed by Janet Mefferd about it, as well as related questions, such as unanswered prayer, Christians who walk away from church because they have been hurt by other Christias, or they lost a loved one (to death), or they don’t feel Christianity is meeting their needs, etc.

You can listen to the interview here:
(I think this is hour 3 – there appears to be an hour 1 and hour 2):
(Fixed the link)

(Link): Podcast: Gary Habermas joins Janet to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life. (mentions unanswered prayer, other topics)

———————————
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): Blaming the Christian for His or Her Own Problem or Unanswered Prayer / Christian Codependency

(Link):  Unanswered Prayer and Diversity of Doctrine and Interpretation (podcasts)

(Link):  How to Deal with Unanswered Prayers via Pastor Bil Cornelius 

(Link):   When All We Hear from God is Silence by Diane Markins

(Link): On Prayer and Christ’s Comment to Grant You Anything You Ask in His Name

(Link): Church Is Not Important, 51 Percent of US Adults Say

(Link): Guilt Tripping or Shaming the Hurt Sheep to Return to Church

(Link): Quitting Church – why single Christians aren’t going to church – church has failed Christian singles

(Link): Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies

(Link): Why People Don’t Go To Church (various links and testimonies March 2014)

Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

I touched on this in an earlier post or two, such as this one: (Link): No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected.

But this time, I wanted to discuss Neo Calvinism and spiritual abuse blogs and advocates in particular.

I do not support Neo Calvinism, or even old school Calvinism. I think Calvinism is a crock of crap.

Many of the NC’s (Neo Calvinists, aka YRRs), are arrogant, narrow minded jerks.

My problem with seeing NC guys, their churches, or their positions discussed and picked apart by some bloggers is that the anti NCs go into reactionary mode.

Their positions often time seem not so much well thought out in and of themselves, but that they will take a position opposite of that held by most NCs just because it’s the opposite of that held by NCs.

I do know a little bit about NCs and their theological beliefs, but not as much as their frequent critics.

According to their frequent critics, NCs believe in a literal six day creation, not an old age of the earth.

(As for me, I am NOT an NC, and I believe in a literal six day creation.)

My issue when I visit blogs or Twitter accounts by people who are vehemently anti NC is that they will, it appears to me, automatically take the opposite position on anything John Piper, The Gospel Coaltion, and other NC guys say just to be contrary.

Continue reading “Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists”

Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)

Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)

I have blogged on this cretin before. Driscoll is sexist, and anti-singles, both anti male singles and anti female singles.

Driscoll, oddly, out of one side of his mouth, will condemn pornography in some of his sermons or books, but then tell his male church members on other occasions, whether in sermons or in books, that their wives are nothing more than sex blow up dolls, there to do their every sexual bidding, even indulging in sex acts most women do not want or enjoy, such as anal sex, or performing a blow job on their husband.

(That’s right men, most women do not like giving blow jobs, which is one of your seemingly biggest fantasies. Over the span of my entire life, all women I’ve met in person, or have read their musings online, only one or two have said they enjoy performing oral sex on a man. Most women get no pleasure out of it, it grosses them out, and many say it makes them feel like a five dollar crack whore.

I also notice that when writing about marital sex, or sermonizing on it, many conservative male preachers never, ever advise the husbands to perform oral sex on their wives, or perform whatever other sex act… it’s always very selfishly framed in how the woman can meet the man’s sexual needs.)

Mark Driscoll is a married father, and he is a sexual pervert… and yet, Christians insist on portraying or thinking of all older (as in over age 30) never-married, childless men as being homosexuals, over sexed Don Juans, or some other type of sexual deviant.

That Driscoll is on record (in his book on marriage, if I am not mistaken, or was it a sermon?) as saying he and his wife’s marriage was sexless for a few years (or unsatisfactory sexually in some other manner) also does not speak well of the conservative Christian propaganda that married sex is super great, so, if you just wait until you’re married to have sex, there will be fire works in the bedroom all the time.

A long excerpt from
(Link): Inside Mars Hill’s massive meltdown

    by By Stacey Solie
    July 2014

    SEX

    It was also around the mid-2000s that members noticed Driscoll’s growing preoccupation with sex.

    Driscoll also started to preach more about male privilege and sexual entitlement. This had a damaging impact on many marriages, said Rob Thain Smith, who, with Merle, was acting as an informal marriage counselor to many young couples.

    “He created enormous abuse of wives,” Smith said. “He helped young men objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience.”

    “The way Driscoll talked, you thought that he was getting it every night. All these men are seeing his hot wife, and are thinking he’s got it made.”

    In Real Marriage, Driscoll bitterly describes a largely sexless marriage, and seems to imply that he’s been acting out all these years because he was sexually frustrated at home.

    Continue reading “Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)”

Christian Confusion on Sexual Ethics – Sexual Purity is For All Ages and All Marital Statuses, and Sexual Sin is Not Just Limited to Adultery – Rape is Not An Extra Marital Affair

Christian Confusion on Sexual Ethics – Sexual Purity is For All Ages and All Marital Statuses, and Sexual Sin is Not Just Limited to Adultery – Rape is Not An Affair

Conservative Christians keeps presenting some very skewed views about sex and sexual sin.

While a lot of Christians have watered down the biblical teaching of “virginity- until- marriage,” the ones who still do bother to give it lip service seem to think that sexual sin only befalls unmarried people who are younger than age 25.

There is an ignorant assumption by most Christians that married couples will never commit sexual sin, because they are supposedly getting their sexual desires satiated on a regular basis with their spouse (which is false, see these links: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, for just a few examples).

In some recent news stories about rape, some Christians have been characterizing the reported rapes as being “extra marital affairs,” and one young lady, who was raped several times at age 19 by a co-worker, told her Christian college (B.J.U., Bob Jones University) about the rapes, and was told by college staff that she needed to repent of her sin of being a rape victim.

I wrote about the first story here:
(Link): Married Youth Pastor Jailed for Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl Writes Editorial About Said Abuse for Christianity Today, Uproar Ensues On Christian Blogs

One rape victim also made the comment in an interview that she thought in terms of sexual sin as being ‘adultery’ and did not have a concept of rape.

As one commentator over at SCCL Facebook group pointed out in regards to this news story about BJU’s mishandling of response to sexual assault victims (source),

    The lack of a working, moral vocabulary for sexual violation is a huge blindspot for faith communities. The Christianity Today article last week was also couched in “adultery” terms. The discussion of sexual morality has to grow outside the marriage/adultery frame. Also, that moral vocabulary has to do a better job in connecting to broader social justice. Less hush-up. More call-out.

It is true that often, in their stereotypes about sex and sexual sin, the Christians who do bother to preach against sexual sin any more (many do not preach against it), still often neglect to teach that celibacy applies to married couples (e.g., when one partner cannot perform, or the couple are apart for whatever reason), as well as to unmarried people, and that sexual purity applies to people of all ages, not just to teen-aged kids.

(Link): Rape victims say Bob Jones University told them to repent

Excerpts:

    June 18, 2014 1:00PM ET
    by Claire Gordo

    Raised in a conservative Mennonite home in rural Ohio, Katie Landry was a sheltered kid. She hadn’t even held hands with a boy when, at age 19, she says her supervisor at her summer job raped her. Two years later, and desperate for help, she reported the abuse to the dean of students at her college.

    He goes, ‘Well, there’s always a sin under other sin. There’s a root sin,’” Landry remembers. “And he said, ‘We have to find the sin in your life that caused your rape.’ And I just ran.”

    …But most damaging was how, through the language of Scripture, victims say they were told that their sins had brought on their rapes, that their trauma meant they were fighting God and that healing came from forgiving their rapists.

    [Katie Landry discusses having been raped by a co-worker]

    Landry didn’t know the word rape; she only knew adultery, and liked the man’s wife, she said. Afraid of her attacker and deeply ashamed, she said she failed most her classes first semester, and kept her assaults a secret until her junior year.

I do think there is something very amiss with any so-called Christian group, church, or denomination, that speaks of sexual sin only in terms of adultery, so that when a young, unmarried woman is sexually assaulted, she does not even have the terminology to describe it, or is not even familiar with the word “rape.”

I also wonder if the church Ms. Landry attended did not read aloud from the Scriptures, where episodes such as the rape of Tamar are discussed (see (Link): 2 Samuel 13:32).

Christians have idolized marriage to the point that it’s given them faulty views about sexual sin, where some of them think only un-married adults are capable of sexual sin, or others think that the only sexual sin married people are capable of is “adultery” (never mind all the married men who view porn, use prostitutes or who sexually fondle children, aside from men raping 19 year old women).

I see a lot of outrage over this B.J.U. story from left wingers, ex Christians, etc, and rightly so – but – these are the same groups who criticize sexual purity teachings, which I find a tad hypocritical.

If Christians supported and taught sexual purity across the board rather than only emphasizing virginity for females ages teen to 25, but also taught and upheld the biblical views that males are to remain virgins until marriage as well, and that any sexual activity outside of marriage (rape, consensual affairs, porn use, etc), was wrong, maybe some of these problems could be lowered.
————————-
Related posts:

(Link): Marriage Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread)

(Link): Perverted Christian Married Couple Wants to “Wife Swap” (For Sex) With Other Christian Couple – Why Christians Need to Uphold Chastity / Celibacy For All People Even Married Couples Not Just Teens

(Link): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy / Virginity Sexual Purity Not An Idol

(Link): Males and Females Raped at Christian College, College Doesn’t Care – Equally Yoked is a Joke

(Link): How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets

(Link): The ol’ Christian myth that married couples are impervious to sexual sin but singles have lots of sexual sin

(Link): New ‘Christian Swingers’ Dating Site Offers Faithful Couples Chance to ‘Hookup’

(Link): Marriage does not guarantee sexual purity: Married guy discovers his wife is having sex chats with online buddy

(Link): Why Christians Need to Uphold Lifelong Celibacy as an Option for All Instead of Merely Pressuring All to Marry – vis a vis Sexless Marriages, Counselors Who Tell Marrieds that Having Affairs Can Help their Marriages

(Link): Jason the Christian’s Sexless Marriage – Christians promise hot regular steamy married sex but it isn’t true

(Link): AARP post: How to Handle a Sexless Married Life – But Christians Promise You Great Hot Regular Married Sex

(Link): More Married Couples Admit to Sexless Marriages (various articles) / Christians promise you great frequent sex if you wait until marriage, but the propaganda is not true

Old Testament Studies Blog on Various Topics From Early Marriage to Sexual Sin to Evangelical and Baptist Propensity to Make an Idol Out of Family Marriage and Parenthood Etc Etc

Old Testament Studies Blog on Various Topics From Early Marriage to Sexual Sin to Evangelical and Baptist Propensity to Make an Idol Out of Family Marriage and Parenthood Etc Etc

I’m not necessarily in agreement with all views of the guy behind this blog, the OTSB (Old Testament Studies Blog).

For one, he seems to be a Calvinist, and I disagree with Calvinism.

OTSB guy discusses some of the same issues at his blog that I discuss here on mine. It looks as though he has not made a new blog entry since October 2013.

Blog’s Main Page:
(Link): Old Testament Studies

(Link): The Dark Side of Evangelicalism-A Response to Accusations on the Boundless Blog
(Re: Christians denigrating singlehood and idolizing marriage)

Excerpts:

    The case in point is a recent radio podcast put out by the folks over at Boundless. Steve and Candice Watters were in Louisville, Kentucky for the Give me an Answer conference at Southern Seminary.

    While they were there, they interviewed Albert Mohler for their podcast.

    During the podcast, the following dicussion took place. I want you to read this carefully, and ask yourself if what Dr. Mohler says in the bold portion is consistent with scripture! It begins at 24:15:

    Candice- Are you encouraged by Mark Regnerus and others who are encouraging early marriage, and do you think that this movement will gain traction?

    Dr. Mohler- Well, I’ve been at that a long time, and I can tell you its extremely controversial whereas throughout most of human history that would be the mormal expectation.

    I am encouraged…It’s going to be a counter-revolution. We are literally going to have to stand against the kind of demographic tide that is coming at us, and say…you know, here is the question.

    I just want to ask you this honestly. I talk to young guys about this more than probably any other subject when they bring it up and say, you know, here is the issue: How are you going to be holy without marriage?

    And that’s a tough question to answer, unless, you know, if God has called you to missions, if God’s called you to special service and deployment in this area, then the word is going to compensate for that, but, for most guys, the big issue is just this now long wait.

(Link): Kristin and Ted Kluck Write of the Familiolatry in the Modern Church

(Link): Famliolatry on Display Again

(Link): Why Getting Married Early Will Not Stop Sexual Sin

(Link): Marital Gnosticism in Evangelicalism

Excerpts:

    I think we as a church have boughten into a form of gnosticism which I will call “marital gnosticism.” We seem to think that the way to the higher Christian life is through marriage, and, although single people are a part of the church, they simply are not as “enlightened” as those who are married.

    Hence, we need to encourage, and even shame single people into getting married, so that they will become “enlightened” like the rest of the married people. It is gross, ridiculous, gnostic thinking.

    Not only does it not work [marriage cannot change the heart; only Christ can], even worse, it alienates singles. Singles who see this kind of behavior know that they are not part of the “enlightened” gnostic group, and thus, they are pushed further and further away.

(Link): Another “Marriage is a Cure All” Message

(Link): Horrendus Eisegesis from Evangelicals in the Culture War

(Link): Challenging the Challenge to the “Unnecessary” Delay of Marriage

Continue reading “Old Testament Studies Blog on Various Topics From Early Marriage to Sexual Sin to Evangelical and Baptist Propensity to Make an Idol Out of Family Marriage and Parenthood Etc Etc”

“Because I was single I felt second class.”-by Chandin, former Mars Hill member & single, on Mars Hill church

“Because I was single I felt second class.”-by Chandin, former Mars Hill member & single, on Mars Hill church

The lady who wrote this started out single at Mars Hill and later got married. But she discusses, that while she was single, there was some adult singles shaming going on at Mars Hill.

Early on, Chandin served as a leader of a woman’s only Mars Hill Bible study group.

(Link): Chandin’s Story, from We Love Mars Hill Blog

Here are excerpts:

    Community groups discussed the sermons from the previous Sunday. Group leaders were given guides to go through with our groups.

    This was particularly difficult when we studied Song of Songs. Driscoll’s view of sex and marriage in Song of Songs (the Peasant Princess series) was extremely uncomfortable to talk about in a group of single ladies who wanted to be married and one married woman (I am amazed she stuck with us!).

    I asked my coach if we could do a Bible study rather than discuss the sermon on Sunday. I was flatly told no.

    That this was good information to have while we were single, so when we married we would be prepared.

    The sermon series felt torturous.

    Because I was single I felt second class. I know Pastor Mark would address singles occasionally, but for the most part it was difficult to sit through and then lead discussion on it.

    I had attempted to step down from my group twice, but was talked out of it by coaches and pastors.

    …. One of the Pastors reached out to me shortly after the meeting and expressed that he wanted to get to know me more and talk about my abuse further. I agreed, thankful that he cared and wanted to help. I went over to his house for dinner with his family.

    We talked about Anchor and of Brian who I met there.

    Brian and I had discussed dating and marriage, and the pastor was interested in talking to him. After we finished our meal, we began to talk about the abuse I was just coming to terms with. I started to cry.

    His wife stopped me and looked me in the eye and said, “You don’t have to wallow in self pity”.

    I was stunned. I looked at her husband, the pastor, and he nodded in agreement. Crying about trauma, though it happened years before, was considered self pity. I didn’t want to talk about it further. I left confused and felt ashamed for crying.

    Continue reading ““Because I was single I felt second class.”-by Chandin, former Mars Hill member & single, on Mars Hill church”

Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling? by Marcia Wolf – and other links that address the Christian fallacy that a woman’s most godly or only proper role is as wife and mother

Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling? by Marcia Wolf – and other links that address the Christian fallacy that a woman’s most godly or only proper role is as wife and mother

(Link): Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling?

Excerpt:

    by Marcia Wolf

Does every woman in the church need to be married with children in order to lead a happy, fulfilling life?

Certainly not.

But many single women may feel pressure to comply with what the church often upholds as an ideal state of womanhood.

Kate Wallace is a single woman with a budding career as cofounder of the Junia Project, an organization that advocates for women in leadership at all levels of the church.

A devout Christian, Wallace believes the church tends to overlook single women in favor of married women with kids.

Continue reading “Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling? by Marcia Wolf – and other links that address the Christian fallacy that a woman’s most godly or only proper role is as wife and mother”

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

I remember seeing posts like this (see link below) last year at Mother’s Day – there are actually mothers out there, including Christian and Mormon ones, who feel that their churches do not do ENOUGH to honor them on Mommy’s Day.

Some mothers I’ve seen go further than that and insult or mock childless (or childfree) women in the comments of blogs that ask people to be more sensitive to the feelings of non mothers.

These bitter, hate-filled mothers spit out, on such blogs, comments such as, “Screw the childless women, what about me, I work hard as a mom all year and DESERVE some recognition.”

Yep, they are that blunt and nasty about it in their comments. (I have a real sample below, with a link to said blog, but it’s by a guy, not a lady, but it’s representative of the type of crap angry mothers who whine about being under-appreciated leave on blogs).

No, I am not exaggerating, I have indeed seen a smattering of such vitriolic comments by mothers on various blogs the last two years, even on Christian blogs by women who claim they are Christian!

Even though churches WORSHIP motherhood 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and hype it up on Mother’s Day itself even more so, these selfish mommy dolts think churches should worship mommy-hood EVEN MORE than they already do.

Meanwhile, never-married, childless, divorced, widowed, and childfree adult women get absolutely NO HOLIDAYS in THEIR honor, so why should I care if mommies don’t feel honored enough on Mother’s Day?

Some mothers are the most selfish, hateful people on the face of the planet.

Some mothers expect and demand everyone around them in their families and at church to make a big fuss over them.

I thought motherhood was supposed to be its own reward?

If motherhood is so lofty, so noble, so high and mighty, and it supposedly makes a woman totally content, and you buy into Christian swill about mom-hood being a woman’s only, or most, godly role in life, why do you, little Ms. Entitled Mommy, need or want others to validate the position for you, by throwing you parties and handing you carnations in church services?

I thought Christians said parenthood automatically makes a person more godly and giving than being single and child-free, or it works out that way over a period of years?

That is not so, because I see many mothers online whining like little children that they don’t get enough attention and presents from their spouses or preachers on the holiday.

I cannot believe how self absorbed and self centered some mothers are.

Here is a link to a blog page by a Mormon woman –
Note that while this woman is a Mormon but her points sound about identical to the average Baptist, Reformed, or Evangelical women I see online; just swap out “Mormon” with the word “Christian” and it reads the same:

(Link): Taking Mom Out of Mother’s Day – Have We Gone Too Far?

Excerpts:

    In a desire to be sensitive toward women who are unable to have children I’m concerned that, perhaps, on Mother’s Day, we may be going a bit too far. Not that we can ever be too compassionate in acknowledging the pain that surely accompanies the inability to have children, but at the same time we shouldn’t need to pull back in giving the much needed praise, encouragement and recognition of Moms’, who are actually raising, or have raised, children — and all that that entails.

  • …In order to be politically sensitive, in all circumstances, where the issue of how women fulfill their role as mothers comes into play, it is my observation that we are becoming increasingly comfortable with relegating actual Moms’ to the back of the bus — even on Mother’s Day. And frankly, that kind of bothers me.

Here was the comment I left on her page (but it did not show up last I checked):

    Never-married and childless women such as myself get ZERO holidays for us. None. There are no cards for us. No cakes, no brunches.

  • Churches never have a “recognize and celebrate mature, celibate, never married, childless women” type of service, so I have a very hard time feeling sorry for mothers who feel their churches or communities are not doing enough to honor motherhood.

Continue reading “Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women”

Otherhood – An overlooked demographic – the Childless and Childfree Women and Singles Especially Women Who Had Hoped to Marry and Have Kids But Never Met Mr. Right (links)

Otherhood – An overlooked demographic – the Childless and Childfree Women and Singles (links)
——————————————
The book Otherhood: Modern Women Finding A New Kind of Happiness by Melanie Notkin is available for sale on Barnes and Noble, and other sites.

From a page about the book:

    More American women are childless than ever before—nearly half those of childbearing age don’t have children.

While our society often assumes these women are “childfree by choice,” that’s not always true.

In reality, many of them expected to marry and have children, but it simply hasn’t happened. Wrongly judged as picky or career-obsessed, they make up the “Otherhood,” a growing demographic that has gone without definition or visibility until now.

—————————————-
Disclaimer: I am not anti-motherhood, nor necessarily against people taking their mothers out to brunch on Mother’s Day.

I am, however, against the onslaught of syrupy Mother’s Day hoopla on and before the day, and the church services that honor mothers because:

  • Some people (women included) were abused by their mothers and so find the holiday awkward or painful,
  • some people had or have mothers who are/were cruel or overly-critical,
  • some people’s mothers are dead and they miss them terribly,
  • some women desire to be a mother but cannot because they are infertile, their spouse is infertile, or they are single and cannot find “Mr. Right” (and don’t believe in getting pregnant outside of marriage, or don’t feel they could support a baby alone)
  • some women choose to be child free, but feel excluded or shamed by church and secular staggering emphasis on motherhood on the holiday

Some Christians have turned motherhood (as well as fatherhood and marriage) into idols, which they should repent of.
—————————-
This post discusses “Otherhood” (women who delay motherhood for years, or who are infertile, or ones who were open to having children but who’ve not met “Mr Right,” and for whatever reason, do not want to have a child while single, but would prefer to be married before having kids)

OTHERHOOD

(Link): The Otherhood: Single women face ‘circumstantial infertility’

Excerpt

    Melanie Notkin wanted love, marriage, and then the proverbial baby carriage — in that order.

By the time she reached her early forties, the entrepreneur and author was still single and appreciated the likelihood that, despite wanting desperately to be a mother, she might never give birth to a child on her own.

Like many women her age, Notkin, 44, a Montreal native, expected to reap all the social, economic, and political equality that her mother’s generation didn’t have. At the same time, in addition to her education and her career, she anticipated a traditional family track.

In her new book, released today, “Otherhood: Modern Women Finding A New Kind of Happiness,” Notkin uncovers the personal stories of women like her, who are part of a growing demographic trend and suffer what she calls “circumstantial infertility.”

Often, people presume that when a woman like Notkin is childless, it’s probably by choice. But many of the childless women in their thirties and forties simply want to do it the “old fashioned way,” she says, and find the right relationship before making a lifetime commitment to have kids.

Continue reading “Otherhood – An overlooked demographic – the Childless and Childfree Women and Singles Especially Women Who Had Hoped to Marry and Have Kids But Never Met Mr. Right (links)”

Being Childfree, Childless, Infertile, or Dealing With the Death of a Mother on Mother’s Day, Or Dealing With An Abusive or Insensitive Mother, Mothers Who Lost Adult or Young Children to Murder, Abortion, Miscarriages, or Sickness (links)

Being Childfree, Childless, Infertile, or Dealing With the Death of a Mother on Mother’s Day, An Abusive or Insensitive Mother, Mothers Who Lost Adult Children to Murder or Sickness (links)

Disclaimer: I am not anti-motherhood, nor necessarily against people taking their mothers out to brunch on Mother’s Day, or buying dear old Mom some flowers to mark the occasion.

I am, however, against the excessive focus on motherhood, the failure to acknowledge and celebrate childless and childfree women, the onslaught of syrupy Mother’s Day hoopla, on and before the day, and the church services that honor mothers because:

  • Some people (women included) were abused by their mothers and so find the holiday awkward or painful,
  • some people had or have mothers who are/were cruel or overly-critical,
  • some people’s mothers are dead and they miss them terribly,
  • some women desire to be a mother but cannot because they are infertile, their spouse is infertile, or they are single and cannot find “Mr. Right” (and don’t believe in getting pregnant outside of marriage, or don’t feel they could support a baby alone)
  • some women choose to be child free, but feel excluded or shamed by church and secular staggering emphasis on motherhood on the holiday

Some Christians have turned motherhood (as well as fatherhood and marriage) into idols, which they should repent of.

That is one reason why churches are losing visitors and members: despite the fact that 44% of American adults are single (edit: as of 2014 studies, (Link): that figure is now 51% or greater) and a big chunk are childless, most churches either…

– IGNORE adult singles/ childless adults,
or,
-preachers and Christian talking heads insult adult singleness and adult virginity from their blogs, pod casts, books, organizations, and pulpits, by implying or forth rightly saying, that adult singleness (or being childless) makes a person stunted, or makes a person not as “godly” as being married with kids.

Now, why the hell does anyone suppose I, a never-married celibate woman, would want to attend a church where I am insulted before I ever step foot in it?

Most churches spend mountains of money on “family” ministries, family dinners, programs for youth and married couples.

Most churches and denominations do not budget time or money for adult singles anything – not classes, social functions, dinners. The big message from that is, “At our church, we don’t care about adult singles or those without children. You have to be married with a kid to count here.”

If you are a church that has a “Mother’s Day” celebration or ceremony of some sort, even if it’s very brief, you should also have one the following Sunday for all the childless, never-married women, the child free women, and infertile- but- married women too, or women who have not been able to carry a baby to term (ie, miscarry) – it’s only fair.

If you are unwilling to honor ALL women in ALL situations, ages, and life stages, at one time or another during the year in your church, nobody should get a holiday or party, none, nope, nuh-uh.

This post discusses being single and childless or childfree on Mother’s day, or other circumstances that make Mother’s Day painful for some women.

—–THE LINKS—–

(Link): For the childless this Mother’s Day (and those who love them) by S. Burden

(Link): When Mother’s Day isn’t so rosy: 6 recommended ways to cope

Excerpt

    Happy Not-A-Mother’s Day to every woman who might be reading this and does not have children. This coming Sunday, it will be Mother’s Day yet again.

  • More than likely the author of this article will attend church services with her husband and quite a few children will be passing out flowers for each of the mothers in attendance. When one of them reaches her and starts to place a beautiful blossom in her hand, she will gently refuse but thank him or her anyway.
  • The child may become confused but that will just have to be.
  • He or she does need to learn that not all the adult women that are in attendance for church are mothers.
  • The author is in her very early 40’s, an adult, and a wife but she is not anyone’s mother. For as long as the Earth has existed, the persistent ticking of most women’s biological clocks have equated their lives with one purpose only and that has been to have children.
  • However in today’s society, great numbers of married women have decided not to have them.
  • Happily the writer of this article was lucky enough to have been born at a time in history where such a choice was accepted with women, and also to luck out and find a husband who felt the same way she did about children.

(Link): ‘Childless’ or ‘Childfree’: The Difference Matters

Excerpts

    Here’s the problem: While “childless” means the condition of being without children, it implies that everyone who does not have children would like to have them. However, being “childfree,” like Mirren—and like me—means that one does not want to have children at all.
  • ….The taboo that surrounds women without children, childless or childfree, is potent.
  • We spend a lot of time explaining ourselves (or avoiding explaining ourselves) and looking for people who understand us, who don’t ask us to or expect us to explain. But at the same time, the difference between childless and childfree folks is important to take note of and apply correctly, because we are not, in fact, the same.
  • As a woman who’s childfree, I’m not experiencing reproductive challenges.
  • I’m not waiting for the right partner, or enough money, or the perfect geographic location.
  • I don’t feel like something is missing from my life because I don’t have children. I don’t want to have kids. There is no yet.
  • … That might be hard to swallow, for some—childfree folks constantly hear things like, “You’ll change your mind” and “You’ll regret it.”
  • Perhaps, because it’s still so unfathomable to the world that a woman wouldn’t want a baby, the term is deliberately misunderstood. If we keep confusing the language, the thinking may go, we can deny that childfree women exist.
  • The experience of not wanting children in a world where women are defined by their reproductive desire and potential—where women are expected to structure their lives around babies—is very different than being a woman who would like a baby or would like to be a parent some day. That difference has to do with desire.
  • If you’re a cisgender, heterosexual woman—especially a white woman—who doesn’t have a kid but wants one, you’re still in line with expectations about how a woman should behave.
  • You’re not threatening, you’re adhering.
  • A cisgender, straight woman who doesn’t want a baby is transgressive, subversive, pathological, a perpetual mystery to be solved.
  • Things may be different, of course, if you’re queer, trans, single, poor, or a person of color; as a society, we’re pretty clear on who we want to be having babies.

(Link): Mother’s Day After Abortion

    Mother’s Day is a wonderful celebration – a time when mothers are honored for their constant love and daily sacrifice, and when life itself is recognized and treasured as the gift that it is.
  • But for many women who have had abortions, Mother’s Day is one of the biggest triggers of painful memories, regrets, and remorse over what “might have been.”
  • My heart breaks for these women.
  • Even though they accepted and believed the messages our society esteems so highly – messages about a woman’s right to choose and the importance of “family planning” – these women have learned, through bitter experience, the truth that abortion is tragic for women.

(Link): Why You Should Watch What You Say on Mother’s Day

Excerpts:

      • by Lori Holden, May 2014
      • ——————–
      • An open letter to ministers, yoga teachers, rabbis, spin instructors, pastors, professors, priests, Zumba leaders, imams, motivational speakers, reverends and anyone addressing mothers and fathers in mid-May or mid-June.
      • ——————

Dear Person at the Front of the Room,

  • I know you worked really hard on that homily about Mother’s Day/Father’s Day. It’s a time of joy and appreciation and community for almost everyone you address. Thank you for your special sentiments to soothe those in your audience who don’t have their mothers or fathers accessible to them. It’s a nice touch to bring in that compassion.
  • You may not know this, but there are likely other outliers receiving your message. That 30-something lady who pulled tissues out of her purse and filled up three of them with tears and snot? That man who had to excuse himself awkwardly? That woman who tried to hide the fact that she was sobbing on her yoga mat?
  • These are people who desperately want to be a mother or father, to join the parenting club at long last. To have the cards and commercials and 30% off sales apply to them. To bring into their lives what others are able to effortlessly.
  • These are the outliers in your audience.
  • Let me tell you about some of them.
  • Could be a woman who found out this morning that her third IVF attempt didn’t work — no line on the pee stick. To make matters worse, she turns 35 next week and her medical chart will be marked AMA — advanced maternal age. Her prospects for success with future treatments looks unbearably bleak.
  • Could be a couple who has been waiting in an adoption pool for 28 months. Each period she has — each turn of the calendar page — marks another month their prayers have gone unanswered.
  • Could be a couple who thought they were finally going to be admitted to the Mother’s Day/Father’s Day club, but whose hopes ended in a miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death.
  • Could be a couple whose planned surrogate is suddenly unavailable to them.
  • Could be a man who wore the title of Dad for a few months — until his baby died.
  • Could be a woman who experienced an unexpected pregnancy and took the course to place her baby in the arms of another mother.
  • Could be a couple who has exhausted their options and who has resigned themselves to living a child-free life. Not so much by choice as by circumstance.

Written by a Child Free, lesbian Woman (you do not have to be a lesbian or agree with or endorse lesbianism to relate to what this woman says):

(Link): On Not Being a Parent by Julie R. Enszer

    As the United States moves into the frenzied celebrations of female parenthood, I want to register an alternate voice and declare my autonomy from children. I am not a parent, and I am happy to not be a parent.
  • I am a child-free woman. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2008, about 17 percent of women between the age of 40 and 44 had not had a child. This is a significant number of women without children in the United States today.
  • Child-free women do not speak out enough. We are not necessarily women who wanted children but could not have them; we are not necessarily women who forgot to have children; we are not necessarily women who missed a crucial life milestone. Being child-free is not necessarily a source of shame or regret.
  • I want to say plainly: I am blessed to not have children. I have more time and energy to devote to creative pursuits and projects that fuel my passions in the world.

(Link): A Bittersweet Mother’s Day

    Mother’s Day can be such a bittersweet time. It is a special day to celebrate our mothers, but for those of us who have lost our mothers, did not have a caring mother or have not been able to experience the joys of motherhood despite trying, it can be a painful reminder.

Continue reading “Being Childfree, Childless, Infertile, or Dealing With the Death of a Mother on Mother’s Day, Or Dealing With An Abusive or Insensitive Mother, Mothers Who Lost Adult or Young Children to Murder, Abortion, Miscarriages, or Sickness (links)”

The “Problem” with Being Single (also discusses celibacy) by Heather Pillette

The “Problem” with Being Single (also discusses celibacy) by Heather Pillette

(Link): The “Problem” with Being Single by by Heather Pillette

This is a pretty good article (there are excerpts below), but I am not opposed per se to adult singles ministries as the article author, Pillette, seems to be.

I do feel churches should do more to integrate adult singles into the church body. Pillette is correct about that.

I think singles ministry can be a good place for a single woman to meet a single man for the purpose of dating and marriage, so I cringe every time a writer chides churches for having a singles ministry that reflects that purpose.

I was a Christian single women for many years, and my only alternative to snagging a husband in a singles class was trying dating sites, and dating sites do not always work. In my view, absolutely one purpose of a singles ministry is to help marriage minded singles get married!

It’s either meet a mate at church or try a dating site or a bar. If you are a Christian, where do you prefer a Christian single to meet a mate, at church or a bar?

There are many, many adult singles in America today. Roughly 44% of adults in the USA are single, and among these are Christians. One reason a lot of us adult singles leave churches is that they treat single adults as though they are defective.

Pastors gripe and complain about dwindling attendance numbers, but then do nothing to retain adult, celibate singles. They actually tend to insult adult singles whenever they topic of adult singleness is brought up by them.

Don’t sit there and complain about your dwindling church numbers when you continue to exclude or insult some of those very members, and at that, on the basis of their single status, or whatever else.

You are treating people like crap, which drives them away, but then have the nerve to complain that people aren’t coming to your church anymore, so you write these blog posts shaming people for not attending church anymore (see this link). Give me a break, you oblivious hypocrites.

(Link): The “Problem” with Being Single by by Heather Pillette

    Every church has at least one. You know—the sweet and well-intentioned elderly lady who is always telling you about her grandson or neighbor’s daughter.

    She genuinely wants to see you settled down with a “sweet girl” or “good ol’ boy” and to watch you experience the joys and blessings of marriage and family life.

    The truth is, you may want that experience too, but you are just not there yet.

    This dear woman represents an unspoken attitude of the larger church: there is a problem with being single.

    From Disney to youth group messages, we have heard the “someday my prince will come” line. We have been taught to seek God’s face and pursue our passions until that time. We are taught by pastors and parents to wait for that one “right” person.

    The only trouble these days is the expectation that we will find him/her by the time we are 22.

    So what happens for those of us who don’t?

    What does the Church, culture, and Scripture have to say about our love lives and relationship statuses?

    Plenty. Let’s take a look.

    Continue reading “The “Problem” with Being Single (also discusses celibacy) by Heather Pillette”

Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics

Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics

SUMMARY:

    A lot of Christians (usually theologically and politically liberal or moderate) and Non-Christians think that because Christian sexual purity teachings (which includes the teaching that having pre-marital sex is sinful) causes victims of sexual abuse to feel sad, ashamed, or bad, that Christians should drop biblical sexual teachings altogether, or stop insisting that pre martial sex is sinful. I disagree.

While I am sympathetic to victims of sexual abuse, the Bible none – the – less still teaches that CONSENSUAL sexual activity outside of marriage remains immoral.

I was skimming over the “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” facebook group today, where I saw a link there to this discussion on Reddit:

    (Link):

How Christian Purity Culture Enabled My Father’s Abuse, submitted by J__P (aka King Coupons?)

Here are some excerpts from that page:

    [by JP / King Coupons]

So, as the daughters [of the self professing Christian men] were kept inside, while the sons worked, the fathers pushed the men with the motivation that one day they’d get to have their daughters, as if that was the only proper motivation.

I later learned, in college, after I’d already abandoned my faith in God, that this man had regularly abused his daughters, both physically and sexually.

They were still virgins, though, of course, by the technical standards of the Southern Baptist church.

Even though he abused them, he’d never “taken their virtue.”

I even found out that, on the few occasions I had been to their house, I had managed to visit both just after he’d abused them, and just before. That was the man I was supposed to look up to. He was the godly, masculine influence in my life.

This comes up repeatedly on liberal, emergent, and ex-Christian forums and blogs: throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That is, because some self-professing Christians do not, have not, or will not live out biblical ethics that they parrot the rest of the week, this is taken to mean by the liberal Christians, ex Christians, and emergents (and amazingly, even some conservatives these days), that those biblical ethics can, or should, be ignored by everyone all the time.

I just recently left a post addressing this topic at Sarah Moon’s blog,

    (Link):

The Answer To Sexual Shame is Not MORE Sexual Shame, Carson T. Clark

In that post, sexual abuse was discussed and mixed in with sexual purity.

Here are some excerpts from the page by Clark at Sarah Moon’s blog, with some of Moon’s comments in the mix:

    [Content Note: Sexual and Spiritual Abuse]

[My understanding is that these are comments by Moon:]

When I was 16, I dated an abuser who was constantly coercing me into having sex with him.

I had been raised in fundamentalist purity culture, so I thought of sex as something gross and scary.

My boyfriend at the time tried to combat those feelings by sending me on guilt trips and by holding me to his manipulative, subjective standards of “responsibility.”

…Yes, I had a lot of hang-ups about sex because the the culture I’d grown up in, and it was liberating and healthy for me to learn later in life that my sexuality could be a good thing.

But the fact that purity culture hindered my acceptance of my sexuality does not excuse the way this person treated me for over a year.

Being in a relationship like this was a horrible process. I constantly felt guilty for not having sex, and then guilty for having sex.

Even when I consented to sexual activity, I felt violated.

I never felt like I really had a choice in the matter. I thought it was my responsibility to have sex with him, or I felt afraid of what might happen if I didn’t. I felt trapped, like I didn’t belong to myself and was no longer a person.

… If you don’t think it is okay to coerce a woman into sex before marriage, but feel that people have the right to coerce married women into having sex with their spouses, I want you to stop and think about why.

…Clark states that “[f]or the longest time…a marital rape culture existed. Just awful.”

I’m sorry to say, that marital rape culture still exists, and Clark’s words serve to reinforce it.

That this person’s boyfriend was an abusive jerk who wrapped his jerk-holery up in “purity” talk does not mean sexual purity teachings themselves are bogus.

This is part and parcel of the (Link): Genetic Fallacy, by the way.

If serial killer Ted Bundy were alive today, and if he were to tell you that murder is morally wrong, would you disagree with him and claim the opposite because of the source?

Would you say, “Nah, murdering people is fine! I’m not going to listen to you, because you have murdered people before, you hypocrite.”

I doubt that this person’s boyfriend was even a Christian to start with.

Before you trot out the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, bear this in mind:

Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul warn in the Bible that not all who claim Christ are actual followers, but are in fact, wolves in sheeps’ clothing who you need to either steer clear of or rebuke

    (see for example

this link (Matthew 7:21)

    ,

this link (John 14:15)

    ,

this link (John 14:23)

    ,

this link (1 Corinthians 5:11)

    ,

this link (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)

    ,

this link (Matthew 7:15)

    ,

this link (Matthew 7:15-18)

    – I could list several other verses, but you get the idea).

Quoting Christ (from Matthew 7:21-23):

    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

I am semi-agnostic these days myself, after having been a Christian since my childhood, which makes it a little easier for me to stand apart from Christianity now and assess some of its flaws, or rather, how self-professing Christians are mishandling the faith.

But then, I can also call Christian-critics on the carpet a bit easier, too.

Sometimes the people who criticize particular Christians, or how certain teachings are presented by Christians, are absolutely “right on the money,” but sometimes, their criticisms are a huge crock or are inaccurate.

And in this group I include all of them; full blown agnostics, hard core atheists, luke warm atheists, feminist Christians, liberal Christians, and emergents.

When you’re not in any one, particular camp any longer, it becomes ten times easier to spot all the fallacies and biases from all sides.

Returning to Moon’s view that a rape culture exists – I guess she means in Christian marriages, and she mentions this because Clark raised this point first?

I am unaware of mainstream, every day, Baptist or other conservative Christians, who believe a man has the right to rape his wife or that he should. The Bible certainly does not contain such a teaching, that’s for sure.

Continue reading “Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics”

The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language (How churches exclude singles and the childless) by E A Dause

The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language

(Link): The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language by E A Dause

Excerpts:

    I am 27, single, and my father has passed away. It seems everywhere I turn in the Christian world — churches, organizations, politicians — I am excluded, because I am not part of a family.

    A pastor comments excitedly on the number of new families joining his church. If I joined, would my membership be valuable? Respected Christian leaders urge us to support “family values.” Are values really tied to family units, or can I have values, too? A politician catering to evangelicals declares strong families to be the foundation of our nation.

    If he even knows I exist, a person without a family, does he even care about my vote?

    Christian magazines and organizations identify themselves by their emphasis on family. Where do I stand with them?

    A church bulletin asks me to bring enough food for my family to the church gathering. Am I even invited in the first place?

    Continue reading “The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language (How churches exclude singles and the childless) by E A Dause”