Do Fundies all practice what they preach?

[ladyamylynn]

When my grandpa died in a drowning accident in 1962, grandma was left with children ages 5, 4, and 2. She was pressured into marrying again extremely fast because there was no money left and she had no skills. 6 weeks later to be exact. Guess what kind of man he turned out to be? An abusive drunk, and a child predator. Ahh the good old days.

ETA she was and is a church-going Christian. 

[feministxtian]

5 hours ago, Terrie said:

Another way of saying "complementarianism" is "separate but equal" which we generally acknowledge is a bunch of BS. Neither women nor men are a monlith. A man and a woman will think differently because they are individuals, not because one is a man and one is a women. Anyone who says there's a magical formula for how all relationships should work is doing some serious projecting,

For a true puke-fest, read "Love and Respect".

[hoipolloi]

1 hour ago, Lurky said:

Trying to think which of these families have a church that could help.  Shraders, yes; Rodriguii, yes; PP & Zsu - well it's their church, so not sure how that would work

As others here have said, Zsu has previously warned members of the CHSM not expect handouts.

Charity is a one-way street at CHSM -- it all goes to Steve & Zsu Anderson.

[feministxtian]

On our current journey of brokeass and on welfare, the friends who have helped the most have NOT been Christians. A good friend who is Buddhist hooked us up with enough toiletries AND cat food to last for three months. Christian friends just ask when I'm going to get a job (as if I sit on my ass all day and do nothing). 

[RosyDaisy]

Churches could do more to help if they would stop spending money to send missionaries to foreign countries for no other reason than to convert. Charity starts at home. If you can't help your fellow congregants when they are in need, then you sure as hell can't be of any use overseas. Having said that, most churches don't have the resources to help everyone. This is why we need safety nets.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

On 18/8/2016 at 11:47 PM, true believer said:

The one questions that sticks out right this second is what would happen if my dh and I had differing opinions on something important.  That has happened many times.    Most every time he has listened to me carefully and respectfully.  We have talked it out and usually come to an agreement together.  The one time he did not want to listen and decided to do it his way regardless of what I thought did not turn out well and he remembers that. 

Sorry but to me the bolded sounds very passive-aggressive. Paraphrasing: I am totally submissive but husband does what we both agree upon because I make sure that he remembers well what happens when he makes decisions I don't agree with. I find this highly hypocritical, it is being submissive on the surface only. It makes every decision a power struggle hidden under a coat of apparent "meekness", "submission", "feminine ways" and other idealised bullshit. All this is very à la Lori Alexander the queen of being submissively bitchy to have everything done in her way. 

We all have our passive-aggressive/bitchy moments and sometimes it's a useful tool to make a point. But, in my very educated opinion, building a whole relationship around this sort of mechanism is very unhealthy and leads to much damage, see the Alexanders for textbook examples. And finally it's not even submissive because saying "you get to decide as long as you choose what I too want, otherwise it's not gonna end well, but oh it's totally your decision of course" isn't submissive,  it's just twisted.

And what exactly is the essence of this difference of women from men? For example is our mind weaker and unable to stand some good decision making? Do we have problems with formulating logical connections? Or is it our will that's faulty and can't properly handle decisions? Are we more incapable of taking responsibility for our choices? Is there any evidence of essential and non physical differences between men and women outside an old book? Or is it because of our physiology? In this last case you'd have to explain the link between physical characteristics and spiritual and mental skills and resources (and good luck with that).

Another couple of questions: how many families in unfortunate circumstances is your church supporting right now?  How many in the past and for how long on average?  And what is this support made of? Food? Rent? Healthcare? Bills?

[Koala]

7 hours ago, ladyamylynn said:

Soo... The hands and feet of Jesus are going to pay her mortgage, homeowners insurance, property taxes, car insurance, car maintenance, utility bills, health care costs, home repair costs, food bills- what, indefinitely? Or are they going to drop off a casserole and mow her lawn once or twice? How about funeral costs and administrative costs associated with the estate? What about costs associated with the care of the children and their education? All of this could easily reach into the millions over a lifetime.

I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. Christians are just as given to apathy and greed as any other population.

I'll tell you what happened in my experience.  

Med. size, independent, fundamental Baptist church.  The family had been with the church for years, their kids attended the private Christian school the church ran, and the husband worked there as a teacher.  The school's highest paid teacher made approx. $17,00 a year. The husband was a diabetic in his 30s.  At some point he quit his job for another low paying  job, but the family stayed with the church.  They ran out of money and he couldn't afford his medicine.  He died leaving behind a pregnant wife and 5 kids.  

The church (which they were still members of) colleceted a one time "love offering" for them, but otherwise did absolutely nothing to help.  Nothing.  

We were already heathen Atheists by that point, but someone from the church called to let us know.  I took her groceries every Sun. for a solid year.  I would wait until right before time for them to come home from church and leave them on her doorstep.  I left her a note letting her know she could count on the groceries, and to expect them each week.  I didn't want her to have to face me though.

#1. I was afraid she wouldn't accept the help from an Atheist.

#2. I didn't want to make her face me...I didn't want her to feel bad about needing help.

I left Christmas gifts, Mother's Days gifts, and clothes and a carseat for her new baby.

After a year she married a man in his late fifties or sixties.  I hope to this day that he treated her right, but lord knows...  It was obviously a marriage of desperation.  

All of that to say, the idea of a church taking care of a widow (we knew of at least 3 young widows in that one church) is laughable.  These people are kidding themselves.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

12 hours ago, MamaB said:

That's very true. The bible gives a clear understanding that homosexuality is wrong so to the fundy world there is no other option. There is no debate about it.

There is no such clear understanding.  Biblical scholars have wildly different interpretations - some find it a sin, some say the prohibitions were not about homosexuality but really against goddess worship/paganism, some say the sodom and Gomorrah story was about social mores relating to hospitality...and a zillion others.

For every issue someone is sure the bible lays out in black and white you can find multiple other interpretations, theories, some just as strongly held.  To say there is no debate about any biblical topic is naive.  At best.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

On August 18, 2016 at 4:47 PM, true believer said:

<snip>

If I chose to not be submissive to his decisions, then that would be that.  He can't make me and he doesn't want to try (and most men realize that).  Submission is something that is either given willingly or it isn't submission.

<snip>

 I have told them that it is not important that they believe what I believe, but rather than they sincerely believe what they believe and be able to defend that belief on their own.

Tbh I don't know how optional submission is different from letting someone else do the heavy lifting in the relationships.  Decisions have consequences and input without any agency in the final call seems like it would be easy to manipulate to get one's way while avoiding any responsibility.  

I wouldn't be in a relationship with a man who needed submission, nor would I duck out of the hard part of life and leave that solely on his shoulders.  

To the second part quoted...I don't understand how any fundy could be okay with their children making other religious choices.  If I believed that my religious point of view was the only true way and to not follow would lead my children to eternal damnation I would be Steve Maxwell.

If a parent truly believes in their heart of hearts that an eternity of torment awaits their kids in the afterlife how can they love their kids and still respect their choices to jump into the circles of hell?

Not being a fundy I also respect my kid's choices, because I don't believe they are risking their souls.  If I did...you'd all have threads about the crazy lengths I'd go to to keep them safe.

For a fundy to have a lassaiz faire attitude about their kids' salvation seems on par with a parent not caring if their kids drive drunk.  Indifference to potential grave harm chalked up to their choice seems at odds with the desire most parents have to want to protect their children from harm.

(I'm not suggesting parents can or should control behavior/beliefs of adult children, but the desire to want them kept safe and happy doesn't vanish when they turn 18.)

how do you reconcile that?

[December]

5 hours ago, Miranda said:

Depending on your church for total support for years upon years is in no way realistic. They might be able to help cover a bill here and there or help out with work around the house, but even that will drop off in no time at all.

Definitely. I've been involved with churches where they would help poor families cover the heating bills for the winter, or cover the rent for a month or two while the unemployed adult(s) found new jobs. The programs were great, because they helped families through rough patches until they could take care of themselves again. From a purely monetary perspective, too, I think it's a much better way to use a church's limited resources to minister to many needy families -- rather than this fantasy of a church permanently financing an able-bodied, adult woman in just being a SAHM if her husband dies/leaves. 

4 hours ago, Lurky said:

ETA and actually, in the Smith/Morton clans, don't they all homechurch?  or family church?  So there isn't even a support structure from church.

I think that's one reason you're supposed to have eleventy thousand children.   But seriously, that's an interesting point. 

[THERetroGamerNY]

Yeah, the wide differences in what the bible says is fairly good evidence alone - to me - that it is hardly the "inerrant word of God, breathed into paper".

If that were true: You're the worst communicator ever, God. Try again.

Like, take this verse:
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
‭‭
Whoa! Hate your family?!

Very obviously the intent here is "Put God first". But what an inept way to express this!

And to a Progressive, like myself: Jesus never even said this. It was added by later authors.

Or this one. The granddaddy of all Christian division. The lynchpin of fundie belief:
“Don’t suppose for a minute that I have come to demolish the Scriptures—either God’s Law or the Prophets. I’m not here to demolish but to complete."

Is Jesus saying to disregard the Old Testament, or to keep it still in use as Christian law?

Obviously fundies see it clearly as "the Old Testament still applies". More Progressive Christians pretty much disregard the OT, except for Psalms or Proverbs and such.

[PennySycamore]

@Koala, you are truly a mensch!

[Grimalkin]

     I imagine there are some that don't make patriarchy an issue, and probably don't really think much about it in their daily lives. People who genuinely feel they want to do God's work, and try to be good people.

    I also do not think homeschooling is a bad thing, and at one point considerd it. There are wonderful curriculums out there, and people who do a great job of it. The kids I know who were homeschooled don't stand out as awkward social misfits. I don't think I could give a 'type' because they vary.

      It does seem like fundies isolate themselves though. 

My question is do you view people outside your church as 'them' I am curious as to how you relate to others.

     I think it would be easy to lose compassion and be judgmental when you isolate and don't interact much with others. 

     I admit I am a bit stand offish with people. I hate back to school night and dread socializing there. Once I do it though it's not so bad. i like people better once I take the time to get to know them. 

[Childless]

I have no issue helping someone in a time of need.  Help them get back on their feet.  I refuse to support an able bodied adult for the rest of her life so she can stay at home.  Nope, not happening.  Get off your ass and get a job.  Sometimes you have to do things in life you don't want to do.  Pull on your big girl panties and act like an adult.

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

Let's assume for a moment that the divorced/widowed/ single SAHM has a church or a community that willingly supports her every need so she can be at home.

Children grow up.  They leave home.  They go to college, get jobs, maybe marry.  What does the SAHM do when there are no children to be home for?

Does she *now* get a job after a lifetime of not working and no skills?  Does the church/community continue to support her?  Do the children support her in addition to themselves and their families?

And how is being supported for life by the church/community/family any different that being on welfare/public assistance for life?  Fundies decry any form govt. assistance but give lip service to doing the same thing via the church. If SAHM on public assistance are lazy, what does that say about the SAHM supported by the church? 

Are we to believe that single SAHM are the lilies of the field and that we are stand-ins for God to feed and clothe them?

Paul writes in Second Thessalonians 3:10-12 “For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.  For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.  Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.”

 

 

[Alisamer]

So, it occurred to me while reading this thread that "women are given different ways of thinking by God" could be the biggest possible support for transgender people possible... except that a person born with a penis who "thinks like a woman" is likely to be automatically rejected and feared by fundies. And a person born with a vagina who "thinks like a man" is likely to be treated just as badly. I'm probably not articulating that well.

I also don't get the "Oh, the church will support women who are left without support" thing. Perhaps that's part of why most fundy churches are so insular? If they're having to support women they've managed to convince that they shouldn't work (or make decisions, or think for themselves in some cases), there's probably nothing left over to do much helping out in the community.

I would think that couldn't be much of a life, being supported by your church. People already tend to freak out if someone on any sort of assistance "treats" themselves to a coffee once in a while when they manage to scrape up a couple extra dollars. If you're being supported by other people, those people take that as giving them permission to keep track of "what is being done with their money." I can imagine it being totally miserable - good luck having any sort of hobby or "treat" of any kind, ever, or even shopping somewhere other than Aldi and the thrift shop.

I'm Christian, but I know for a fact I was NOT called to be "in the home". I'm single with a full-time job and wish I could afford a housekeeper, because I do NOT have those skills. I think I'd have done great with maybe 2 children (assuming a supportive spouse who contributed equally to parenting and housekeeping), but no more than that. I can't imagine being in a church that told me I had to just stay home, have as many kids as come along, oh and keep the house and children spotless while having dinner on the table for hubby at a specific time each day, all while educating the kids and doing it on one income. At least a tenth of which goes straight to the church, of course, no matter how much you're struggling to make ends meet. And be joyful!

[smittykins]

My grandma contracted polio at the age of 19, while she was pregnant with my mom, and separated from her husband.  She was in an iron lung(they took her out just long enough for Mom to make her appearance). and she was raised by a foster family while Gram recovered; she eventually escaped the iron lung but was in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.  My great-grandmother helped raise Mom and her older sister, but Gram still had to work; she was an insurance agent and had an office in her home for many years.

It's why I have no patience with the anti-vaxxers(obviously not including kids who can't be vaxxed for medical reasons).

[sta_sha]

I'm not sure how often churches support individuals or families in times of need. I suppose it depends on the church and the resources of those who attend. Overall though, churches do an incredible amount in most communities to ensure that those who need assistance have a place to go. In my city, the four major shelters are run by faith based organizations. As are many of the social service agencies- including the one where I work (despite the fact that I haven't practiced anything resembling any kind of religion in years). I can't speak for all agencies of course, but the one I work for is a Christian organization that serves everyone regardless of race, religion, orientation, etc. and asks for nothing in return. I can't imagine a church supporting any one person long term.

[klynn]

Back when I was in church, and we are talking my jr high years here, the church ladies would provide casserole upon casserole to a grieving widow or widower.  The church would likely take up a collection on ONE Sunday, and I'm sure others would privately help in various ways as well.  There would also probably be some sort of benefit held, with an auction and bake sale, and supper.  They wouldn't be supported forever.  And I don't think the grieving spouse would expect to continue this way forever.  Of course, my church wasn't a fundie church...so women worked and wore pants and had too much wine at bbq's and no one batted an eye.

[iweartanktops]

10 hours ago, Childless said:

I have no issue helping someone in a time of need.  Help them get back on their feet.  I refuse to support an able bodied adult for the rest of her life so she can stay at home.  Nope, not happening.  Get off your ass and get a job.  Sometimes you have to do things in life you don't want to do.  Pull on your big girl panties and act like an adult.

I agree with you! I do think that churches should help people in need, as much as possible, but eventually one has to support themselves. 

The church I was raised in, is very large and affluent. They are great about helping those in need, whether they are members, or non-believers in the community. I remember several years ago when I was on medical leave from work. They sent me grocery gift cards for a couple of months. It was so kind! It definitely helped me to be able to pay for my medical expenses without asking my parents for help. 

[FundieFarmer]

I'm on mobile and short on time but I can't wait to delve into this thread. Short answer, of course not. Not all of ANY group does. But I'm excited to read this all!

[Terrie]

No church serious about helping those in need would be willing to support a widow just so she can continue to be a SAHM and homeschool. Help her get through the first few difficult months? Yes! Help her get a job or training for a job? Of course! Turn away others in need because they're giving their money to someone who refuses to woman up and be responsible for herself and her family? Heck, no!

 

[BackseatMom]

3 hours ago, Terrie said:

No church serious about helping those in need would be willing to support a widow just so she can continue to be a SAHM and homeschool. Help her get through the first few difficult months? Yes! Help her get a job or training for a job? Of course! Turn away others in need because they're giving their money to someone who refuses to woman up and be responsible for herself and her family? Heck, no!

 

Exactly this. Supporting some woman (or man) who just wants to stay home and pretend to have an upper class, Victorian lifestyle, means that someone else (probably many someone elses) who really needs help won't get it. Staying home at the expense of the needy seems pretty unchristian to me (at least how I understand it).

If it were my church, I'd say help them get back on their feet (especially finding or training for a job), then move on to the next family who desperetly needs a little help to get back above water. Of course, I wouldn't handicap half of my population by denying them education, work history, and the other things we give our children to set them up for success regardless of their spouse's income potential.

[SilverBeach]

My church has a benevolence fund open to all. It is meant for emergencies or as supplemental help. We also arrange for donated cars to go to those who need them to work. A food pantry is available too. As is assistance in finding work. We have child care too.

But total support for any one family for an unlimited time is beyond the scope of what we can do. 

My congregation is pretty loving though, so members help each other outside of the formal programs.

[Mercer]

On 8/18/2016 at 7:17 PM, true believer said:

I did want to clarify that a woman left with no means of support should be provided for by her family and/or church body, whether that lack of support is from a husband who left her high and dry, died, is seriously ill and unable to provide, or whatever the reason.  She should never be destitute and without help, whether that help comes from financial means, physical help in her home, emotional support, etc.  We are taught that we are the hands and feet of Christ and we are supposed to do all in our power to help others when it is possible.

What if a woman is widowed at age 30 and lives to be 90? Is the church really going to pay all of her living expenses for the next 60 years?

Where is that money going to come from? Do your people really have that much to spare, and if so, what are they doing with it now? 

What if this widow has ten kids?

What if there's a terrible accident and ten women in the congregation all lose their husbands at once?

What if they each have ten kids?

What if this particular church ceases to exist as a congregation before all these widows have passed away or their children are old enough to work?

It just seems like... what you're saying is a really nice idea (community supporting a member in need) but there just seem to be way too many practical issues getting glossed over for it to be a reasonable life plan.

And no, "God will provide" is not an answer. There are Christians all over the world living and dying in very desperate and painful circumstances. God does not favor Americans so much more that He is going to step in and make sure every fundie widow in the United States never has to get a job.