No, John Piper, God Doesn’t Kill Babies Because Their Dad Looked At Porn by B L Corley

No, John Piper, God Doesn’t Kill Babies Because Their Dad Looked At Porn by B L Corley

Piper is a crackpot Calvinist preacher who is, for some reason, don’t ask me why because I don’t see it, revered by a lot of Christians.

But he holds to some weird or repugnant views, such as refuted on this page by a guy named Corley.

(Link): No, John Piper, God Doesn’t Kill Babies Because Their Dad Looked At Porn by B L Corley

Nov 2016

…On a recent episode of (Link): Ask Pastor John, a distraught father wrote in and asked about his wife’s recent miscarriage and his struggle with looking at pornography.

Here’s what the man asked:

“Pastor John, did God cause, or would God cause, my wife to miscarry our child because I have a struggle with lust and pornography? I have a lot of guilt right now, and I don’t know how to think about God’s discipline and punishment for my sin. I’m very confused, please help.”

Piper’s answer was lengthy, and ultimately was, “I don’t know if God killed your baby because you looked at porn.” But the mere fact that Piper doesn’t know if his god would do something like this should be enough to reject his entire belief system.

Continue reading “No, John Piper, God Doesn’t Kill Babies Because Their Dad Looked At Porn by B L Corley”

Schoolgirl Drugged and Raped on Her 10th Birthday Was Chopped Up and Burned in Bathtub ‘by Own Family’

Schoolgirl Drugged and Raped on Her 10th Birthday Was Chopped Up and Burned in Bathtub ‘by Own Family’ 

This post contains vulgar language by me. Because I am incensed at what happened to this little girl, and how Christians tend to teach about or react to stories such as this.

-October 2016 update much farther below-


Terrible story. I feel so bad for this little girl.

The only consoling thing I can possibly think of is that she was probably so doped up (the mother’s boyfriend injected her with drugs or something before attacking her) that she at least was maybe un-aware of what was happening to her and could not feel any physical or psychological pain (I hope).

The articles say the girl’s mother just sat there and watched passively as her boyfriend doped up, raped, and killed her biological daughter (the man’s cousin, some woman named Jessica Kelley, also assaulted and attacked the girl).

SIDE RANT. Note to my fellow Pro-Lifers in the Abortion Debate:

I have read other news stories that talk about mama cats walking in and out of burning buildings to take their baby kittens out of the raging fire, one at a time, saving them all, and putting their own lives at risk in the process.

You see, there are some ANIMALS who are BETTER PARENTS to their offspring than some HUMANS.

So please, let’s lay off the whiny nonsense about how, “Oh, geepers, the media pay more attention to Cecil the Lion being killed by the dentist than abortions in Planned Parenthood, that’s not right” type stuff.

I’ve read two or three news reports about this so far.

This first one I’m linking to on here says that the girl’s mother met her boyfriend (the guy who killed the girl,) online.  I’m not sure if that means they met on a dating site or where exactly.

Many Christians like to say that being married and/or a parent are necessary to make a person more mature, godly, or responsible or loving. News stories like this show that to be absolute bunk. Parenthood and marriage are not magical panaceas that just cause people to be more ethical and loving. Give me a break.

I have always supported the death penalty – and news items like this is a big reason why.

Continue reading “Schoolgirl Drugged and Raped on Her 10th Birthday Was Chopped Up and Burned in Bathtub ‘by Own Family’”

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”

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.

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”

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)”

Parents who kill their children by intentionally leaving them locked in hot cars all day – Dad was sexting while his toddler son was dying in car

Parents who kill their children by intentionally leaving them locked in hot cars all day – Dad was sexting while his toddler son was dying in car
—————————————–
Notice from Christian Pundit blogger: There is coming a time when I will either not be blogging as frequently or not at all. Please read more about that here in this post (Link): Blog Break – May 2014 – and List of This Blog’s Best or Most Relevant Posts
—————————————-
There was a story in the news this past week of an idiot father, Harris, who killed his toddler son by intentionally leaving him locked in a hot car for several hours.

The police examined Harris’ home computer and say both he and his wife researched information online on ‘how long does it take for child to die in a hot car’ and so forth.

But wait, it gets even better. According to headlines I saw today, not only did Dirt Bag Dad leave his toddler son to die in a hot car, but he “sexted” women, including TEENAGERS, while his kid was dying, and in the weeks before. (See links to that below for more.)

I’m in my early 40s but am like a cranky old woman when it comes to babies and children. I have never married and never had children. I do not like children or babies or being around them. I try to avoid them if I can.

But you know what: I would never intentionally harm or murder a baby or a child. If I saw a kid in trouble, I would come to his or her assistance, or at least call the police.

I bring this all up because it is a common, nasty stereotype in Southern Baptist, Reformed, Fundamentalist, and evangelical Christianity that single adults and the childless (or childfree) are selfish, warped, weird, immature losers, but that parents and the married are instantly more godly, ethical, and more mature. I think news stories like the ones I’ve linked to below debunk these Christian stereotypes.

Understand that I am NOT opposed to people remaining virgins until marriage, but:
I also think this news story blows holes in the evangelical sex propaganda that if people just maintain virginity until marriage, that the sex will be mindblowing, great, frequent, and constant.

How “mindblowing” was this married father’s sex life if he was sexting women and teen girls with nude photos?

On a last note: some Christians will argue that you must become perfect and godly before God will reward you with a spouse. Is a man, like the one in this news story below, who murders his own two year old son and who sends pornographic photos to young teen women, perfect and godly?

If you’re a Christian who believes in the nonsense that an unmarried person must clean herself up, become godly and perfect, before God will reward her with a spouse, please explain what it was this dirt bag father did to merit a spouse from God? He is far from perfect, godly, and loving.

(Link): Detective: Dad who left child in hot SUV showed no emotion after boy died

    By KATE BRUMBACKASSOCIATED PRESS
    updated Thursday, July 3, 2014

    Harris was exchanging nude photos with several women, including teenagers, even on the day his son died when he was at work, Stoddard said. In the weeks before the boy’s death, the man also had looked at a website that advocated against having children and had done an Internet search for “how to survive in prison,” the detective said.

(Link): Detective: Dad had 2 life insurance policies for son

    MARIETTA, Ga. — A Georgia man charged with murder in his 22-month-old son’s death was sexting with several women on the day of his son’s death and that he had two life insurance policies on his son, a detective testified Thursday.

    During a probable cause hearing in Cobb County Magistrate Court for Justin Ross Harris, Cobb County Police Detective Phil Stoddard said Harris, who is charged with murder and child cruelty in the June 18 death of his young son, Cooper, intentionally left his son in the car.

    Stoddard testified the two life insurance policies on Cooper were for $2,000 and $25,000.

    The detective also testified that Harris had accessed websites advocating “child free” and searched “how to survive prison” before Cooper died.

(Link): Georgia Dad in Hot-Car Death Case ‘Sexted’ Other Women: Cops

    The suburban Atlanta father accused of murdering his toddler by leaving him in a hot SUV for several hours was in an unhappy marriage and wanted a “child-free life,” a detective testified Thursday.

    Justin Ross Harris, 33, of Marietta, had even been sexting with other women in the two weeks before son Cooper was found dead in the back seat of the family SUV on June 18, said Cobb County Det. Phil Stoddard.

    Prosecutors during Harris’ probable cause hearing were building a case for why Harris allegedly left his son in a sweltering car on purpose while he was at work. “Evidence shows he has this whole second life … with alternate personas,” Stoddard said. It was also revealed that Harris and his wife, Leanna, had two life insurance policies on their 22-month-old son.

(Link): Watch live: Prosecutor says Justin Ross Harris sexted while toddler in car; witness describes him as sobbing father

(Link): Dad Charged With Toddler’s Hot Car Death Was Sexting While Boy Died: Cop

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

Posts By A. Marcotte Re Various Topics E.G.: Pre-Marital Sex, Virginity, Modesty Teachings, Marriage, Divorce, Childfree, Birth Control, Early Marriage, Gender Roles, Female Libido, etc

Posts By A. Marcotte Re Various Topics E.G.: Pre-Marital Sex, Virginity, Modesty Teachings, Marriage, Divorce, Childfree, Birth Control, Early Marriage, Gender Roles, Sexual Harassment, Female Libido, etc

Please remember that I am right wing and respect people remaining virgins until marriage, but this woman, Marcotte, is left wing, and in at least one of her posts, she slightly mocked the concept of virginity (see, left wing feminists will defend any and all sexual choices to the hilt except for voluntary virginity / celibacy), but, I do agree with her in part in some other areas.

Posts by By Amanda Marcotte:

(Link): Where Are the Men in Child-Free Trend Pieces?

(Link): The Case Against Marrying Young

(Link): “Slut Pills” Would Work Best for Women Who Don’t Have Lots of Sex

(Link): Family-Friendly Workplaces Are Great, Unless You Don’t Have Kids

(Link): Where Are the Men in Trend Stories About Women?

(Link): Men Are From Mars and Women Are From … Mars [Men and Women Are Not That Different]

Continue reading “Posts By A. Marcotte Re Various Topics E.G.: Pre-Marital Sex, Virginity, Modesty Teachings, Marriage, Divorce, Childfree, Birth Control, Early Marriage, Gender Roles, Female Libido, etc”

Married Youth Pastor Jailed for Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl Writes Editorial About Said Abuse for Christianity Today, Uproar Ensues On Christian Blogs

Married Youth Pastor Jailed for Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl Writes Editorial About Said Abuse for Christianity Today, Uproar Ensues On Christian Blogs
—————————————–
Don’t forget, I may not be blogging as much or as often in the future, if at all.
See this link (Link): [Blog Break] for more info.

—————————————–
There has been an uproar the last day or so, ever since Christianity Today published a long page by a jailed sex offender who preyed on a teen girl.

I don’t know the man’s name because the piece was published anonymously. I shall here after refer to the author, the convicted sex offender, as “Mr. Perverted Youth Pastor,” or “Mr. PYP” for short.

The author of the piece, Mr. PYP, is in his 30s, and he worked as a youth pastor. He was jailed for statutory rape of one of his female church students under his charge, a young lady he began to groom for exploitation when she was around 11 or 12 years old.

Mr. PYP said in his piece published by Christianity Today that he found the attention from the young lady flattering and intoxicating, and felt his wife was not paying him enough attention, and IIRC, I think he mentioned that the wife was not putting out enough (sexually), or whatever. (I only skimmed the guy’s story, I did not read all of it closely.)

The thing is, a grown man of age 30 should not be seeking validation from an 11 or 16 year old girl – that is not only morally wrong, perverted, and gross, but absolutely pathetic.

I think the editors at Christianity Today intended for this pervert’s essay to be a helpful warning to Christian men not to get too close to women (or something along those lines), and which unfortunately also plays into false stereotypes about the genders, but the guy who wrote the page, Mr. PYP, never fully and unambiguously owns his sin, moral failing, and crime, so it comes across as though he’s excusing and justifying his behavior.

There’s a bit of “victim blaming” in the piece on Mr. PYP’s part, where he uses terminology such as,
“When WE [he and the young lady he was victimizing] decided to end the affair, I felt that…”

I don’t feel like summarizing the guy’s entire story and situation on my blog, so click here to read his page (“My Easy Trip from Youth Minister to Felon”) and read it for yourself.

The aspect of this story I am interested in for the purpose of this blog is that here he is, he is a married adult (with, IIRC, a kid of his own), he worked as a pastor, and yet he also sexually exploited a young lady, and I will explain further below why this interests me.

Another aspect I am interested in regarding this story is that Mr. PYP does not take full responsibility for his actions in the piece, and he classifies his sexual exploitation of the young lady as an “extra martial affair.”

Now, I, to a point, do regard his actions towards her as an “extra marital affair” because he was a MARRIED man who was sleeping with this girl – he was in fact sleeping around on his wife, but of course, his actions are more than just a standard extra-martial affair, because he was taking advantage of a young lady.

In my opinion, his actions contain traits of both situations, sexual abuse as well as an extra-marital affair.

There are a few other writers online who disagree with my view on this; they think his actions were 100% sexual abuse and that the phrase “extra marital affair” should not even be used when discussing this case, but I never- the- less see a tinge of extra-marital affair in the situation as well (but on the man’s part only; I am not blaming the girl at all).

I am simply saying that yes, while Mr. PYP did sexually abuse a teen girl, that in doing so, he also violated his marital vows to his wife to remain faithful to the wife – which to me can categorize his actions as being an affair as well as being sexual abuse.

Why I am interested in this story:

As I have pointed out time and time again on the blog, Christians have several falsehoods and fairy tales and stereotypes about marriage, sex, dating, gender relations, and whom they feel a Christian should marry.

Many conservative Christians believe that married people are immune from sexual sin. Christians falsely believe if a man is married, he must be getting steady, regular, hot sexy sex from his wife, and he therefore will not use porn, fondle kids, or have mistresses. This is of course naive and incorrect, because even men married to sexy wives, who get regular, great sex from the wife, still use porn and have affairs.

Continue reading “Married Youth Pastor Jailed for Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl Writes Editorial About Said Abuse for Christianity Today, Uproar Ensues On Christian Blogs”

Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view which is advocated by W B Wilcox

Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view

The study mentioned on this page below is familiar. I read about it over a year ago. Someone did a study claiming that women who never marry are more likely to be abuse victims.

I’m not sure if I totally understand the study correctly.

I’m a never-married woman who is over the age of 40, but I fail to see how my single status supposedly makes me more vulnerable to being a crime victim than that of a married woman.

Or, given that some conservatives are using this study with the assumption that it’s single women who are “shacking up” with a man who are more prone to being victims, I guess I understand that, though I do not necessarily agree.

That is, some conservatives are using this study to shame single women from having pre-marital sex, or from not having a live-in lover. They are using this to pressure single women to force their live-in lover to marry them.

I understand the Bible does not condone “shacking up” or pre-marital coitus, but, I am not a fan of my fellow conservatives using such “scare” or “shame” tactics to convince single women from not having pre marital sex or live-in BFs. I think it’s a distasteful, sexist approach.

You can read more about all this stuff using these links:

First, here is the offensive, sexist editorial – I mean, how can they blame WOMEN for being the victims of violence?

They should be calling out the men who are abusing these ladies and/or the children. Also note, on the “One Stop Thread” page of this blog, I have link after link to news stories of married men who were caught sexually or physically abusing their OWN kids or someone else’s!

Again, here is a link to the offensive editorial:
(Link): One way to end violence against women? Married dads.

    by W. BRADFORD WILCOX AND ROBIN FRETWELL WILSON June 10

The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer with fewer boyfriends around their kids.

… The bottom line is this: Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.

—(end excerpt)—

The Bible no where suggests that a woman needs to marry or is obligated to marry – Jesus and Paul, in the New Testament, actually depict singleness as being preferable to marriage and parenting!

If it were true women were safer being married, I think Jesus and Paul would have taught on the topics of marriage and singlehood differently than they did.

Here are various rebuttals and commentary in response:

(Link): The Washington Post Says Women Get Abused Because They’re Not Married

Excerpts:

The story, which was originally titled “The best way to end violence against women? Stop taking lovers and get married,” got re-named after wise Internet users made a rightful stink over its controversial content. Also noteworthy: the sub-header read “The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer hitched to their baby daddies.”

Now it’s called “One way to end violence against women? Married dads.” But I think the Post should have taken it down completely.

Using legitimate data to back up their claims (nothing says “I’m telling you the truth!” like a graph), authors W. Bradford Wilcox and Robin Fretwell Wilson do the world a great disservice by making it sound like women have the power to avoid being abused — and it apparently comes down to what they should be doing with their bodies, their kids, and their lives.

…. Further, Wilcox and Wilson feign total ignorance of a problem they themselves are perpetuating — institutional sexism and misogyny, which are major factors in the widespread problem of violence against women and children.

By drawing the conclusion that a simple marriage certificate is actually responsible for the stats, they’re doing both genders a huge disservice, and they’re tricking readers into thinking abuse doesn’t have anything to do with misogyny.

As they write, “The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers.”

Well, that’s certainly an interesting point. How did they arrive there, and what explains it? Is it true that getting married can protect you from abuse?

Actually, no. Because correlation doesn’t mean causation. While they back up their conclusion with legitimate data points, the statistics say more about healthy relationships than they do about the institution of marriage.

—(end excerpt)—

(Link): Violence Against Women: The Washington Post’s Sad, Sloppy Journalism

    The most serious problem with the Washington Post’s sloppy journalism is that it none-too-subtly suggests that all partner violence against women can be boiled down to a single factor: your relationship status.

Decades worth of research blow that simplistic idea out of the water in two seconds.

Continue reading “Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view which is advocated by W B Wilcox”

“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”

College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls

College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls

Hat tip to Shawna R B Atteberry ((Link): visit her blog here), which is where I think I may have first seen this. It does seem familiar. I may have read it before but don’t recall blogging about it here.

(Link): College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls

Excerpt:

    February 18, 2014 – 7:49 am

    • by Amanda Marcotte
  • Susan Patton may be the only person in the history of the world to get a book deal by being a crank who writes nutty letters to the editor. Back in March, Patton wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Princetonian—both her sons went to Princeton—warning college women that they best find a husband before graduating college or, well, she didn’t exactly say they’d be dried-up old hags who would only have a handful of uneducated boors left to marry, but that was the general gist of it.
  • …. The letter went viral, feeding off widespread cultural anxieties that young, well-educated women are shirking their duty to put men and marriage before their own ambitions, and so now she’s back with a book and an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

Continue reading “College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls”

George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)

George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)

I am right wing, a conservative, but sometimes, I realize other conservatives get things wrong, oh so very wrong. This is one of those times.

I do think that, at times, liberals are guilty of hyping certain situations or instilling a ‘victim mentality’ in people, but not in the case of sexual assault, of rape. Will is way off base with his editorial.

The following is from a site that tilts left, but this editorial criticizing Will’s views is right on the money:

(Link): George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges”

    The Washington Post columnist thinks women are lying about sexual assault in order to get “privileges”

    Washington Post columnist George Will doesn’t believe the statistic that (Link): one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college. Instead he believes that liberals, feminists and other nefarious forces have conspired to turn being a rape survivor into a (Link): “coveted status that confers privileges.”

    As a result of this plot, “victims proliferate,” Will wrote in a weekend editorial that ran in the Washington Post and New York Post.

    Further compounding the crisis of people coming forward about sexual assault to stay de rigueur is the fact that “capacious” definitions of sexual assault include forcible sexual penetration and nonconsensual sexual touching.

    Which is really very outrageous, according to Will. It is really very hard to understand why having your breasts or other parts of your body touched against your will should be frowned upon.

    It’s not very surprising that George Will does not think that sexual assault on campus is a big deal. It’s also not very surprising that he thinks that definitions of sexual violence are somehow overly broad because they factor in forms of sexual contact other than penetration.

    But what is puzzling — about this editorial and the army of nearly identical pieces of rape apologia that find a way into national newspapers with some regularity — is how much one has to ignore in order to argue these points.

    Continue reading “George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)”

According to John Piper, all you gotta do to have pre-marital sex is…

According to John Piper, all you gotta do to have pre-marital sex is…

Off the top, I do not like Piper or most of his theology.

The guy is weird and highly sexist and issues crap advice to abused wives (off site link: John Piper: Wives should “endure” abuse “for a season”).

So, some guy called in to Piper’s podcast or radio show or whatever, and Piper’s “Desiring God” site typed up a transcript.

Guy writes in and says he plans on marrying his girlfriend, but he’s not a virgin, what to do, what to do, he inquires of Piper.

Like Tim Challies, and most conservative Christians, Piper pays lip service to the idea of virginity, (“I think the main thing I want to say is this: Virginity is a precious gift that you cannot give to your fiancé, nor she you. That is a great sadness and a great loss.”), but Piper goes on to tell the guy to tell his fiance this:

Excerpts (source (Link): Walking the Wedding Aisle Without Your Virginity)

    So what is the gift you do have to give to this fiancé with whom you have had sexual relations? What gift can you give her that God might be pleased to make so wonderful, the gift you can’t give her will not destroy?

    And here it is. You can look your fiancé in the eye and say this:

    I failed you. I failed God. And I am deeply, deeply sorry. I hate what I did. I hate the hurt it caused you and me. I hate the dishonor that I brought upon the Lord. I hate the disrespect I showed you in not caring for you better. And I repent.

    I turn away from that sin, and sinful forces that drove it. I renounce them. And I turn to Jesus Christ my Lord and my Redeemer and I receive from him his full and blood-bought forgiveness and I cherish it with all my heart.

    I tremble at the thought of despising his blood now. And by the Spirit that he has given me, I resolve in his strength never, never, never to betray him or to give my body to any woman but to my wife.

    I offer you my forgiven, redeemed, cleansed soul and body in marriage to cherish you and honor you and be faithful to you.

    I invite you into this new forgiven, redeemed, cleansed union with me. I know there will always be scars and the memories.

    But God is merciful, and in his time and his wisdom and his way he will make these scars of sin the emblem of his mercy and the signs of his cross.

Oh, okay. That’s all there is to it.

I am a single woman. Now I can start having sex before marriage, and then, if I get a marriage proposal, tell my spouse to be,
“Honey, I failed you. I renounce that sin. Jesus forgives me of my sexual past, so should you. I know there will be scars of sin, but hey, let’s go and get married.”

I don’t agree with some of Piper’s other views on the page. He gets into a thing about how an unmarried person’s body belongs to God, and a married woman’s body belongs to her spouse. I do not agree.
————————
Related posts:

(Link): A Female’s Virginity Belongs To Her – Not Her Father or Husband – Re: Christian Purity Balls

(Link): Stop Rewarding People For Their Failure – Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences – Allowing Sinners To Re-Define Biblical Terms and Standards

(Link): Article: Our Born-Again Virgin Bachelor – Secondary or Spiritual Virginity

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

(Link): After Pastor’s Son Comes Out as Homosexual, Southern Baptist Church Breaks With Denomination on Homosexuality – Once More Christians Allow Their Feelings To Cancel Out What God Says In The Bible on Sexual Morality – Christians worship feelings now, not God

(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): Pat Robertson says ‘Virginity Has Nothing To Do With Marriage’ and Says (Paraphrasing) ‘Virginity Was Fine For Mary But Not Applicable For Any Other Christians’

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

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

I know I have discussed this subject in previous posts, either in posts by myself or excerpts by other people, and sometimes only indirectly, such as…

      (Link):

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

(Link): Study: People today living alone more than ever before

(Link): Neither Fully Widow Nor Fully Wife – Married People Will Be Single Again

(Link): Widower to Advice Columnist Talks about Being Stereotyped by Married Couples or Ignored by Other Marrieds Since His Wife has Died

(Link): Married People Who Find Themselves Single Again – Spouses With Dementia / Married People Who Are Lonely

(Link): The Walking Dead television series – Virginity and Family – One of TV’s Most Popular Adult Characters is a Virgin and Single And Most Are Okay With That

(Link): What Christians Can Learn from The Walking Dead Re: Family, Singleness, and Marriage

But I wanted to address another angle to this.

I have in the past heard of Muslims who convert to Christianity and are then ostracized by their family of origin.

A former American Muslim found himself in that very situation and recently gave an interview on a Christian television program, which you can watch here; his family have nothing to do with him any longer because he converted to Christianity:

(Link): A Journey From Islam

    Author and former Muslim Nabeel Qureshi shares about his dramatic conversion to Christianity.

You can also watch a copy of the video here:
(Link): A Journey from Islam, on 700 Club’s site

Here are a few additional resources on this topic, with more comments by me below this assortment of links and excerpts:

      (Link):

Testimonies of Muslims who became Christians

(Link): Muslims converts face ostracism in France

    (“Zee News,” February 6, 2007)

Paris, France – Muslims are converting to Christianity in their thousands in France but face exclusion from their families and even death threats.

(Link): Kurdish Converts to Christianity Ostracised By Society and Family

(Link): CARING FOR THE MUSLIM CONVERT.

(Link): Egyptian Muslim who converted to Christianity goes into hiding

(Link): When Muslims Convert

      By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
    Commentary Feb. 2005

In the Islamic world, there is a broad consensus, both popular and scholarly, that apostates deserve to be killed. A rich theological and intellectual tradition, stretching as far back as Muhammad and his companions, supports this position.

Though official proceedings against those who reject Islam are fairly rare–in part, no doubt, because most keep their conversion a closely held secret–apostasy is punishable by death in Afghanistan, Comoros, Iran, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen.1 It is also illegal in Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, the Maldives, Oman, and Qatar.

The most common dangers faced by Muslim apostates come from their own families.

At a recent evangelical convention in Falls Church, Virginia, a couple of female converts from Islam told a reporter about their fears as new Christians. One woman said that when her family finds out, “I know they’re going to disown me if they don’t kill me.”

The second woman had similar fears. “My brothers haven’t spoken to me in the last couple of years, and that was only because I married an American,” she said. “Can you imagine what they would do if they found out I was a Christian?”

…. Roy Oksnevad, a missionary with the Evangelical Free Church in Minneapolis, tells of a Turkish convert whose brother, an ultra-conservative imam who also owns a lucrative carpet and jewelry business, threatened to have him killed if he ever returned to Turkey.

A Farsi-speaking pastor [name withheld by request] in Oakton, Virginia, told the Washington Times, “I’ve seen some people who’ve come from Iran to the United States to persecute, if not kill, in order to bring back their relatives to Islam.”

Even when apostates do not face physical danger from their families, they are often ostracized. This experience is not unique to Muslims, of course; it is a fact of life for many people who convert out of the faith into which they were born.

But for Muslim apostates, the loss of family and community support can carry a heavy price, especially if they are immigrants. If they lose their livelihoods or the means to maintain themselves financially, they can be forced to return to their home countries–and that can amount to a death sentence.

Many conservative Christians are emphasizing the traditional family unit far too much.

Not only are many adults today staying single indefinitely or past their late 20s, and not only do some become widows or get divorced, but there are people who are ostracized and cut off from their family of origin for accepting Jesus Christ.

I wonder what churches near to where these former Muslims (who convert to Christianity), whether in the USA or overseas, do to help these individuals, now that they are totally alone, now that their biological families have rejected them?

And I don’t mean just financial help, but, do the Christians in these churches adopt these new converts as new family?

Do Christians invite these former- Muslims- now- Christians to their homes weekly or nightly for dinner, or invite them over for holidays?

The world can be a very lonely, difficult place if one has no spouse and no flesh and blood family to turn to, but many Christians, especially in the United States, seem to forget that.

There are people in the world who walk to Christ which means they are walking away from their only support systems they have ever known – their families: their mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, grandparents.

Will American Christians stop obsessing over traditional marriage, parenting, and the “nuclear family,” to reach out to these types of people who give up everything to follow Jesus?

Judging by the American church’s response to American- born individuals who are single, those who never-married, or who are divorced or widowed, my guess is sadly, no.

One of the best things you can do for someone else is to offer yourself, your time, and your companionship. Some people are lonely and hurting and have nobody to turn to and could use the friendship, a shoulder to cry on, and encouragement.

But your married Christians who have children, the ones who attend mega churches, seeker friendly churches, evangelical, Reformed, and Southern Baptist churches, only hang out with other married with children couples, and they continue to market self-absorbed programs and sermons about how each individual can achieve his vision or dreams in life, how a person can have a better marriage, and be his or her “all.”

Truly, these are the concerns of people who have no serious challenges in life. These sermons and ministries are irrelevant to 50% or more of the U.S. population.

If you are a middle class husband and father living in the American ‘burbs, and you feel that weekly sermons about how to “reach your potential” or “how to have a hot marital sex life” are relevant, applicable to all (or most), or of equal concern to all, may I suggest you may be living in a bubble and need to realize there are people out there that are not as fortunate as yourself?

You have what is called “rich people’s problems,” also known as “white people problems,” or “first world problems.” Visit the (Link): First World Problems site to see (humorous) examples.

I can’t imagine how churches offering potlucks for middle class, married couples with children, or offering another ‘ten steps to a great marriage’ sermon series is going to aid, comfort, or help people like the 25 year old single Muslim man who just left all he had to follow Jesus, or the widower who is living alone at 72 years of age, or the never-married adult who is 36 years old.

I will leave you with the words of Christ:

    34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

And, from Matthew 12,

    46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.

50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

September 2015 edit:

Muslim refugees express their loneliness being without families on Eid al-Adha

(Link):   The loneliness of Eid al-Adha for refugees

Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke – An Essay that Hits and Misses

Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke

I offer this link with a caveat or four.

Before I get to the link itself, here are a few of my problems with it (with additional critique below the link and excerpts from it).

This essay comes from a site sponsored by a bunch of people, “The Gospel Coalition,” a phrase which sounds so darn “biblical,” but I sharply disagree with them (not all their views are ‘biblical’).

The Gospel Coalition is comprised, for example, of Neo Calvinists (or they support Neo Cal preachers and doctrine; I am not sure if every last writer at their site is a Neo Cal).

Further, they are gender complementarian (also known as “biblical womanhood and biblical manhood.” As taught by these people, their views of gender roles are not biblical.

If you’d like to see a contrary conservative, biblical Christian view about gender and gender roles, please read the material at (Link): Christians For Biblical Equality.)

There are some aspects of this writing that seem to be an even-handed essay telling Christians to be careful about not making too much out of “family” and “marriage” to the point either or both become idols, but there are still one or two aspects of this that I still disagree with and will comment on that below the long excerpt.

(Link): Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke

Starke begins his editorial discussing how marriage today is in trouble, divorce is on the rise, and so on.

Excerpts:

    by J Starke

    …. But with every response [by Christians to issues in secular culture such as rising divorce rates], there’s always the danger of over-correction.

    It’s not that I think some evangelicals have become too conservative or too traditional. I worry that they’ve simply adopted traditional cultural and societal norms, instead of biblical norms.

    Zechariah

    … The two birth announcements in the Gospel of Luke to Zechariah and Mary reveal how a society’s “traditional” family values may not line up with God’s.

    Zechariah, the priest married to a barren woman, and Mary both heard miraculous announcements about impending childbirth.

    Yet while Zechariah responded with skepticism and doubt, Mary responded with faith and wonder.

    So why would Zechariah, a priest, doubt an angel of the Lord? He knew the story of Abraham and Sarah, so the idea of an older, barren woman giving birth wouldn’t be ridiculous to him.

    But consider Zechariah and Elizabeth’s situation. Some of you may know the pain of not being able to have children.

    It’s the feeling of 10, 20, even 30 years deeply desiring children with hopes unfulfilled.

    Zechariah and Elizabeth also suffered shame. Luke 1:24-25 reveals Elizabeth’s heart. She said, “Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.”

    By reproach she meant the shame that comes from known barrenness. Maybe some of you have experienced this reproach from more conservative societies, where family is held in such a high regard.

    If you’re nearing your 40s with no children and maybe not even married, you start to receive questions like, “When are you going to get yourself a husband?” “When are we going to start seeing some little ones around here?” You hear the whispers. Every baby shower brings guilt and shame.

    Zechariah and Elizabeth also dealt with questions about whether they did something wrong to deserve barrenness.

    Was there some hidden sin? Worse, Zechariah was a religious leader, a priest!

    Can you imagine how this public shame undermined his position, his authority?

    So for Zechariah, pain and sorrow turned to shame and disgrace. He held on tightly to the cultural idol of family. This idol filled his heart so that there was no room for the truth of God’s promise, even if he heard it from an angel. The good news of a coming son did not inspire joy but unbelief. It’s too late. We’re too old.

    … But there’s another wrong view. A society can make the family the most important thing. It can become an idol, something that fundamentally defines us. We regard anyone who never marries or cannot have children as somehow subhuman. They must have done something wrong to upset God.

    …By contrast, the Bible actually teaches a radically subversive message about the family. God, we often discover, is the cause of barrenness in women.

    Stories of family dynamics rarely flatter. You’ll never find a Leave it to Beaver household in the Bible. Rather, we see constant distress, rivalry, and jealousy.

    Usually this dynamic doesn’t result from undervaluing children. No, we see it when children become the most important thing! Not only that, Jesus also has some deeply alarming things to say about the family, sounding almost cold and uncaring—see Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 14:26.

    And finally, it’s difficult to make family the most central thing for Christians when the two most prominent figures in the New Testament, Jesus and the apostle Paul, were both single. Actually, Christianity made singleness a legitimate way of life for the first time in any culture or religion.

    Christ and the Church

    Before you thumb your noses at traditional values on marriage and family, remember this: When God wanted to paint a picture of his great love for he church and cost of his death, he cited marriage between a husband and wife. God in Jesus Christ is the faithful and sacrificial husband for his bride, the church.

    ….While the family cannot be so important that it invades the space in our heart that only God should occupy, we see that even from Creation, God designed marriage and family to result in a maturing society. Zechariah, however, warns us not to make family the ultimate thing. He turned it into a false god, leaving no room for the truth of the real God.

    … But their [Christians’] convictions should come from the Bible, not simply the norms of traditional societies.

I commend this author for pointing out that some Christians have turned marriage and family into idols, but I feel he gets a few things wrong and makes a few comments that are insensitive to certain types of people.

Here are some additional problems I have with this paper, as outlined below.

Starke starts out sounding sympathetic to barren or single adults who desire marriage and/or children. Starke writes,

    ..Zechariah and Elizabeth also dealt with questions about whether they did something wrong to deserve barrenness.

    Was there some hidden sin? Worse, Zechariah was a religious leader, a priest! Can you imagine how this public shame undermined his position, his authority?

I don’t recall the Bible explicitly saying that this couple was shamed and blamed for being without children, but Starke assumes this was so.

If we grant Starke that point:

When I first read this essay, I assumed Starke “felt” for Zack and Liz (Zechariah and Elizabeth) and how terrible it must have been for this couple to have supposedly been shamed or insulted over their childlessness.

Instead of rebuking the judgmental pro-family types for shaming “Zack and Liz” for being without children, which is what Starke should be doing, Starke instead shames and blames Zack and Liz themselves for supposedly having had made “the family” into an idol (though the biblical text does not say this).

I have more to say about this below this next excerpt.

Starke wrote:

    So for Zechariah, pain and sorrow turned to shame and disgrace. He held on tightly to the cultural idol of family. This idol filled his heart so that there was no room for the truth of God’s promise, even if he heard it from an angel.

There is nothing wrong with Zechariah, or with anyone, wanting to have a spouse or a child.

Simply wanting or desiring something that the Bible does not condemn does not mean one is idolizing it, yet Christians constantly make this leap.

I find this attitude by Stark fairly insensitive.

I have observed for many years now that among Christians who idolize marriage and family, it is made an idol by those who are already married, who are already parents, who tell the never-married and the infertile they are not as good, godly, mature, and worthy as marrieds and parents (hence my one stop threads on (Link): marriage and (Link): parenthood).

It’s the already married and those who are already parents who have turned marriage and parenthood into idols, not the childless and not the singles.

How cruel it is when the majority of Christian culture sets both things up -marriage and parenthood- as idols to be prized and then shames, rebukes, or blames an unmarried person for wanting a spouse, for seeking a spouse, or for an infertile couple to seek medical care to become pregnant.

Christian singles are told by Christians that they are not as mature, godly, or responsible as married couples are, but if they still desire marriage or attempt to get married – by using dating sites, for example – they are told they are “idolizing” marriage.

It’s a highly hypocritical move that Christians foist on other Christians, but they do it constantly.

I’ve written of it before in pages such as:

When Starke advises Christians not to turn marriage and family into idols, who exactly is he warning?

Because it sounds to me as though Starke is, in this essay, further shaming and blaming singles or infertiles who hanker after spouse and children, when he should be solely directing his criticisms at the overall Christian culture, which is maintained and controlled by people who are, 99% of the time, married with children.

Most churches will not even consider permitting un-married adults into positions of leadership, teaching, or preaching. Churches are heavily biased against singles and childless individuals or couples.

Singles should not be shamed for wanting or seeking marriage, and childless people should not be shamed for seeking to have children, especially not in a culture, Christian culture, that keeps cramming the idea down everyone’s throats that marriage and parenthood are more “godly” than singlehood or the state of childlessness, and how marriage and family is so important and fundamental for American society.

Wanting to be married is not “idolatry.” I have discussed that in a few posts before, such as in one by Mark Driscoll (I believe it was this post, (Link): More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll (“Two Mistakes Singles Make”), or, it may have been in this post: (Link): Mark Driscoll on Single Christian Women Who Desire Marriage – the positives and negatives of his piece ), and this one:

It also seems to me that the author dances around the stereotype that singles who hate being single and long for marriage are “bitter” which in turn is a component of “singles shaming.”

I’d say most of us older singles are not “bitter” about it, but have either come to terms with it, or feel sad about it at times, or both.

You can largely come to accept your single status but occasionally feel sad about it.

You can also point out how wrong Christians are to idolize marriage and treat adult singles like trash, but that does not make one “bitter” – it’s offering a much needed critique of Christian culture.

(Link): The Netherworld of Singleness for Some Singles – You Want Marriage But Don’t Want to Be Disrespected or Ignored for Being Single While You’re SingleStarke writes,

    While the family cannot be so important that it invades the space in our heart that only God should occupy, we see that even from Creation, God designed marriage and family to result in a maturing society”

“God designed marriage and family to result in a maturing society?” He did? Really? Please provide book, chapter, and verse for that, because I don’t see anywhere in the Bible that declares this.

That belief that God intends “family” to be for the “maturing” of society, or to act as its backbone, is not even mentioned in the book of Genesis, which describes God creating the first married couple, Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve having their first son.

That God allegedly uses marriage for anything (beyond anything other than for continuation of the human species and as one illustration of Jesus’ relationship to the church) -as a building block of culture, to sanctify people, to mature people and such- are merely assumptions Christians make repeatedly, with no biblical basis.

I’ve written about this issue before, like in this post:

Starke says,

    Before you thumb your noses at traditional values on marriage and family, remember this: When God wanted to paint a picture of his great love for he church and cost of his death, he cited marriage between a husband and wife. God in Jesus Christ is the faithful and sacrificial husband for his bride, the church.

I also wonder who these comments are aimed at. Who does he think may be “thumbing her nose at” marriage?

I am over 40 years of age and still would like to be married. I am not “anti marriage.”

I am very disturbed and angered at how highly other Christians elevate marriage, to the point marriage, and the 1950s nuclear family unit, is turned into a “golden calf” they worship.

Continue reading “Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke – An Essay that Hits and Misses”

When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men – and how the stereotype flipped

When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men by A. Goldstein

This mirrors views I have been repeating on my blog for over a year or two now – this paper is broken up into three web pages:

(Link – to Page One): When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men – and how the stereotype flipped By Alyssa Goldstein

(Link – article on Single Page): When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men – And how the stereotype flipped.

Excerpts:

By Alyssa Goldstein

March 19, 2013

In the 1600s, a man named James Mattock was expelled from the First Church of Boston.

His crime? It wasn’t using lewd language or smiling on the sabbath or anything else that we might think the Puritans had disapproved of. Rather, James Mattock had refused to have sex with his wife for two years.

Though Mattock’s community clearly saw his self-deprivation as improper, it is quite possible that they had his wife’s suffering in mind when they decided to shun him.

The Puritans believed that sexual desire was a normal and natural part of human life for both men and women (as long as it was heterosexual and confined to marriage), but that women wanted and needed sex more than men.

A man could choose to give up sex with relatively little trouble, but for a woman to be so deprived would be much more difficult for her.

Yet today, the idea that men are more interested in sex than women is so pervasive that it seems almost unremarkable.

Whether it’s because of hormone levels or “human nature,” men just need to have sex, masturbate, and look at porn in a way that simply isn’t necessary for women, according to popular assumptions (and if a women does find it so necessary, there’s probably something wrong with her).

Women must be convinced, persuaded, even forced into “giving it up,” because the prospect of sex just isn’t that appealing on its own, say popular stereotypes.

Sex for women is usually a somewhat distasteful but necessary act that must be performed to win approval, financial support, or to maintain a stable relationship.

And since women are not slaves to their desires like men, they are responsible for ensuring that they aren’t “taken advantage of.”

The idea that men are naturally more interested in sex than women is ubiquitous that it’s difficult to imagine that people ever believed differently.

And yet for most of Western history, from ancient Greece to beginning of the nineteenth century, women were assumed to be the sex-crazed porn fiends of their day.

Continue reading “When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men – and how the stereotype flipped”

Neither Fully Widow Nor Fully Wife – Married People Will Be Single Again

Neither Fully Widow Nor Fully Wife – Married People Will Be Single Again

I’ve blogged on this before: married people left single again in a sense because their spouse developed dementia.

The church – run by married couples – makes an idol out of marriage, treats singles like second class citizens, or doesn’t take notice of singles, and it never seems to enter their minds that one day their spouse will be dead, either of old age, or possibly prematurely in their 30s, 40s, 50s from an auto accident, cancer or some other incident or health problem.

Your spouse could divorce you when you’re both 38 years old – maybe he says he’s fallen out of love, or he wants to run off with another woman.

If a woman’s husband is physically or emotionally abusive, she may have to divorce him.

Being married now is not a guarantee you’ll be married tomorrow or five years from now.

This is one reason it is to the benefit of married people to keep and maintain friendships with other people outside their immediate family (like hey, single adults).

Here’s another article about married people being, in effect, in a manner of speaking, left single again because their spouse has dementia.

(Link): Neither Fully Widow Nor Fully Wife

    Alzheimer’s puts caregivers in painful in-betweens.
    Jamie A. Hughes, guest writer

… But for my grandmother, the outcome isn’t so promising, as her husband will continue to lose abilities with each passing year. She is one of 15 million people in the United States caring for someone with Alzheimer’s or another form of dementia.

According to a recent report by the Alzheimer’s Association, more than 5.2 million Americans are affected by this disease, and the number is expected to climb to 13.8 million by 2050.

… Women bear the brunt of this illness in more ways than one. Not only are we more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, but we also shoulder the burden of being primary caregivers. (Between 60 to 70 percent of people nursing a loved one with this condition are female.)

…2 Corinthians 9:11 says that Christians are “enriched in every way to be generous in every way” (NKJV), but I lost sight of that in the confusion of shifting family dynamics.

My grandfather struggled to pray at family gatherings, so my uncle assumed the task. Another person absorbed his duties around the house. Others became the handyman, bookkeeper, and financial planner.

Though I did whatever I could to help my grandfather, I rarely spared a thought for my grandmother. I didn’t fully understand how this disease has eaten away at her life and sense of self.

I came to see that she, too, was mourning—both for herself and the man she’s loved for 58 years, the one she’s losing to a pitiless disease that scours memories from the gray grooves of his brain.

Continue reading “Neither Fully Widow Nor Fully Wife – Married People Will Be Single Again”

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

✹ What follows is actually the heart of my “No Man’s Land” view. This is what prompted me to write it: ✹

✹ TAKING THE OPPOSITE POSITION OF WHAT YOU USED TO BELIEVE BUT NOW HATE – DUE TO EMOTIONAL REASONS OR A KNEE JERK RESPONSE OR FROM SPITE – IS JUST AS WRONG AND MISTAKEN ✹

As to the forums and blogs by ex Christians, liberal Christians, self identifying post-evangelicals, or those still Christian who expose spiritual abuse…

I notice a number of the regular visitors to these sites – the ones who left an abusive or legalistic church or denomination – simply now operate in the reverse in their thinking, which is, IMO, just as bad or wrong as the thinking they are leaving.

There are different types of ex-Christians one must take into consideration when discussing this topic, so I shall present some sketches of them first.

IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists)

For example, there are ex IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists).

IFB preachers and churches are ridiculously legalistic. They make up rules that are not in the Bible, or twist or exaggerate the rules already there to the point those rules then become unbiblical.

IFBs are the contemporary, American versions of the Bible’s Pharisees: nit picky, anal retentive, legalists who make up man-made rules but insist they are “biblical” and thus binding on all believers.

IFBs concoct man-made traditions they expect all IFB members to adhere to, just like the Roman Catholic hierarchy does towards Roman Catholic members.

For example, IFB churches are legalistic about secular entertainment and clothing and physical appearance.

IFB churches teach their congregations that women should not wear pants but only skirts. And the skirts should be only so many inches above or below the knee.

According to IFBs, men should not have hair that touches the back shirt collar – not a mullet to be found in IFB, which may be a good thing. Secular music and television is sinful and should always be avoided.

IFBs have other legalistic rules for just about every aspect of life.

IFBs are vehemently anti-Roman Catholicism as well as anti-Calvinism.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected”