Notes on Scott Brown's Singleness Lecture

[FundieWatcher]

While on the treadmill this morning, I decided to listen to the Scott Brown lecture titled "Correct Thinking About Singleness" that is advertised on Beautiful Womanhood/Ladies Against Feminist website. It is available for free on SermonAudio.com. It is 65 minutes long and was presented at Hope Baptist Church in Wake Forest, NC.

I am not a church goer. This is probably the first church service I have listened to since I was a kid, like 13ish. That said, I hate. hate. hate. how sloooooow it is spoken. Talk faster! Ugh. No wonder people fall asleep at church. Early Sunday morning and talking slow, not a good combo IMO. I'm just saying. But the good part about that is I could go back and type a quote from him word for word without any trouble.

He first goes into not treating teens and 20s like babies. (Can we send that part to Steve Maxwell?!) But then he talks to singles about not going against the principals that your parents have created. Then goes on about obedience and honor. "Your parents have put these [rules] their for a reason, they are put their to protect you. It is right to protect holy things."

He talks about persevering purity. And 'safeguards' that you put up to persevere the purity. You make covenants with your eyes. How women dress is described as 'critical'. He says, numerous times, that the church culture should not be "weird" and have "awkward" relationships. And what means by that is not gossiping just because you see 2 unmarried people talking. Don't whisper to your neighbor "OOOooo they must be courting..." And "do not start a rumor that goes across the United States just because 2 people were simply talking. " (maybe the Tebow/Duggar situation?!)

He, unsurprisingly, talks about not having age-segregating church "knots". And what appropriate communication methods are. Take dominion over technology. Young men and women texting is the same as going into a closet together and closing the door to have a conversation.

Women should prepare for a life as described by God. "What happens, particularity with women as the years drag on in their minds, then they begin to get worried and then begin to say they are going to spend their time doing 'other things' that don't have anything to do with my role as a woman. And then they start to prepare themselves for something that doesn't have anything to do with their Biblically defined role. My advice, keep preparing yourself to to fulfill the role of Biblical womanhood as a role as a wife and a mother. And if God does not give you a husband, then her will help you figure it out from there, but it is critical that we trust God with the roles and relationships that he has already defined and trust him in those things and not be diverted from that path. But the greatest preparation is personal Holiness...[sic]".

Then he goes into about 10 minutes about how personal Holiness as a single helps you when you are married. He does state that, for men, singleness is not an inferior state.

Then there is Q&A. The first questions comes from an older sounding man with a very thick southern accent: "what is a good code word you can use instead of the C word, because when you use the C word people get kind of {inaudible}...Instead of courtship... {inaudible}... Lordship? " Scott: " Yeah, yeah, I like that...you don't want to go into a courtship with a real live definition of a courtship is because it means so many different things..." The second comes from a middle-ageish sounds man: "I know this is a very specific questions, but you mentioned texting before. In your personal opinion, is that unwise under any {inaudible} ?" Scott: "So you are asking if texting is ok under any situation?...you have to evaluate the importance of the communication method. I have not seem a communication method that is so susceptible to misunderstanding, meaninglessness.... What does it really do?... Man: "Plus it is permanent, it is permanent". Scott: "My counsel would be use the method that has existed for a long time... it is just so easy to miscommunicate...don't let your children do that...manage the technology." Someone asks a question about getting to know someone in a distance relationship. The question is mostly inaudible to me. Scott says, "I had a daughter that married a guy I that traveled all over the world with for years...he poured his heart out to me...I had no questions for him. That was different than my eldest daughter. You have to be wise with the situation..." (You had a daughter?)

It is theoretical talk rather than a practical one. The only practical advice he gives is for parents to create an environment where the single children are around other singles and expose their children to "right marriage opportunities", that is at the end of the Q&A. Nothing new or too surprising in all of this or anything to signal that he is changing any of his ideas about strict gender roles.

[Marian the Librarian]

While on the treadmill this morning, I decided to listen to the Scott Brown lecture titled "Correct Thinking About Singleness" that is advertised on Beautiful Womanhood/Ladies Against Feminist website. It is available for free on SermonAudio.com. It is 65 minutes long and was presented at Hope Baptist Church in Wake Forest, NC.

I am not a church goer. This is probably the first church service I have listened to since I was a kid, like 13ish. That said, I hate. hate. hate. how sloooooow it is spoken. Talk faster! Ugh. No wonder people fall asleep at church. Early Sunday morning and talking slow, not a good combo IMO. I'm just saying. But the good part about that is I could go back and type a quote from him word for word without any trouble.

He first goes into not treating teens and 20s like babies. (Can we send that part to Steve Maxwell?!) But then he talks to singles about not going against the principals that your parents have created. Then goes on about obedience and honor. "Your parents have put these [rules] their for a reason, they are put their to protect you. It is right to protect holy things."

He talks about persevering purity. And 'safeguards' that you put up to persevere the purity. You make covenants with your eyes. How women dress is described as 'critical'. He says, numerous times, that the church culture should not be "weird" and have "awkward" relationships. And what means by that is not gossiping just because you see 2 unmarried people talking. Don't whisper to your neighbor "OOOooo they must be courting..." And "do not start a rumor that goes across the United States just because 2 people were simply talking. " (maybe the Tebow/Duggar situation?!)

He, unsurprisingly, talks about not having age-segregating church "knots". And what appropriate communication methods are. Take dominion over technology. Young men and women texting is the same as going into a closet together and closing the door to have a conversation.

Women should prepare for a life as described by God. "What happens, particularity with women as the years drag on in their minds, then they begin to get worried and then begin to say they are going to spend their time doing 'other things' that don't have anything to do with my role as a woman. And then they start to prepare themselves for something that doesn't have anything to do with their Biblically defined role. My advice, keep preparing yourself to to fulfill the role of Biblical womanhood as a role as a wife and a mother. And if God does not give you a husband, then her will help you figure it out from there, but it is critical that we trust God with the roles and relationships that he has already defined and trust him in those things and not be diverted from that path. But the greatest preparation is personal Holiness...[sic]".

Then he goes into about 10 minutes about how personal Holiness as a single helps you when you are married. He does state that, for men, singleness is not an inferior state.

Then there is Q&A. The first questions comes from an older sounding man with a very thick southern accent: "what is a good code word you can use instead of the C word, because when you use the C word people get kind of {inaudible}...Instead of courtship... {inaudible}... Lordship? " Scott: " Yeah, yeah, I like that...you don't want to go into a courtship with a real live definition of a courtship is because it means so many different things..." The second comes from a middle-ageish sounds man: "I know this is a very specific questions, but you mentioned texting before. In your personal opinion, is that unwise under any {inaudible} ?" Scott: "So you are asking if texting is ok under any situation?...you have to evaluate the importance of the communication method. I have not seem a communication method that is so susceptible to misunderstanding, meaninglessness.... What does it really do?... Man: "Plus it is permanent, it is permanent". Scott: "My counsel would be use the method that has existed for a long time... it is just so easy to miscommunicate...don't let your children do that...manage the technology." Someone asks a question about getting to know someone in a distance relationship. The question is mostly inaudible to me. Scott says, "I had a daughter that married a guy I that traveled all over the world with for years...he poured his heart out to me...I had no questions for him. That was different than my eldest daughter. You have to be wise with the situation..." (You had a daughter?)

It is theoretical talk rather than a practical one. The only practical advice he gives is for parents to create an environment where the single children are around other singles and expose their children to "right marriage opportunities", that is at the end of the Q&A. Nothing new or too surprising in all of this or anything to signal that he is changing any of his ideas about strict gender roles.

Thanks for taking one for the team!

Re: the bolded part above, about two unmarried people talking - Geoff Botkin said something similarly harrumph-y in one of his webinars a few years back, except he repeatedly used the word "sniggering" - as in, there should be no "sniggering" or speculation about the potential for a relationship between two young people. We must be serious! Serious, and dour, and no fun allowed!

[DomWackTroll]

"I had a daughter that married a guy I that traveled all over the world with for years...he poured his heart out to me...I had no questions for him. That was different than my eldest daughter. You have to be wise with the situation..." (You had a daughter?)

Nice catch, FundieWatcher!

[MamaJunebug]

Then he goes into about 10 minutes about how personal Holiness as a single helps you when you are married. He does state that, for men, singleness is not an inferior state.

Emphasis added. Because it reminds me of Todd Wilken's infamous statement, "Are all men called to be pastors? By no means! But all women *ARE* called to be wives and mothers."

Men who run patriarchal versions of religion will always and unreservedly give their gender a pass, won't they? And they'll constrict the role of women as much as possible.

[PrairieGirl]

Nice catch, FundieWatcher!

Um, wasn't Kelly his eldest daughter? Or am I reading the quote wrong? It sounds like he is saying that this courtship (which I am assuming was BRADRICK! and Kelly) was different than his "eldest daughter's" courtship. Aren't his daughters Kelly, Blair and Claudia, with Kelly being the oldest one?

[Marian the Librarian]

Um, wasn't Kelly his eldest daughter? Or am I reading the quote wrong? It sounds like he is saying that this courtship (which I am assuming was BRADRICK! and Kelly) was different than his "eldest daughter's" courtship. Aren't his daughters Kelly, Blair and Claudia, with Kelly being the oldest one?

I think the first daughter he's referring to - the one who "married a guy that I traveled all over the world with" - is Blair, married to Taylor Tsantles. Scotty didn't make as much of a public brouhaha about Blair's marriage as he did with Kelly and BRADRICK! and the thousand-and-one questions/position papers/quizzing-down he put Petey through.

[PrairieGirl]

I think the first daughter he's referring to - the one who "married a guy that I traveled all over the world with" - is Blair, married to Taylor Tsantles. Scotty didn't make as much of a public brouhaha about Blair's marriage as he did with Kelly and BRADRICK! and the thousand-and-one questions/position papers/quizzing-down he put Petey through.

That makes sense, thank you.

And it is tremendously creepy. At least BRADRICK! was an adult when he courted and married Kelly. Taylor was only 17 when he married Blair. So that means that he spent his teen years "traveling the world" and "pouring out his heart" to Scotty? WTF is wrong with these fundy parents? Also, wasn't it good ole Scotty who suggested that men also have several teenage boys as their best friends? :o :head-desk:

[Marian the Librarian]

Oh, creep factor abounds! In one of the segments on the "Return of the Daughters" DVD, Kelly says that Scott fell in love with Peter BRADRICK! before Kelly did.

[PrairieGirl]

Oh, creep factor abounds! In one of the segments on the "Return of the Daughters" DVD, Kelly says that Scott fell in love with Peter BRADRICK! before Kelly did.

It was probably his manly wide stance and the way his ears flapped whenever there was a crisis. Plus his not-gay devotion to DPIAT/R. It's not hard to see why Scotty found him irresistible.

[slickcat79]

Oh, creep factor abounds! In one of the segments on the "Return of the Daughters" DVD, Kelly says that Scott fell in love with Peter BRADRICK! before Kelly did.

And of course, the number one thing that attracted Peter to Kelly was her ability to roll on the ground rather than give him a glimpse of leg :?

[blessalessi]

So creepy. :?

[16strong]

I really want to ask him "So wait, a man being single is not an inferior state, but a woman being single is? Okay then, so tell me, if presumably those single men are keeping single women in their inferior states by not marrying them, aren't their states also inferior?"

[uber frau]

Yep. There are only 2 ways his logic works. The easiest would be to encourage polygamy but, since fundies are very vocal about marriage being between one man and one woman,I'm pretty sure that wouldn't fly. (I'm not sure Scott doesn't have his own private fantasies but they're for him, he would want that for the average member of his flock.)

The only other way is if the ratio of sexes is heavily skewed towards males. So, basically, he's approving female infanticide or sex selective abortion?

Logic fail ScottieBoy.

[EmiGirl]

Yep. There are only 2 ways his logic works. The easiest would be to encourage polygamy but, since fundies are very vocal about marriage being between one man and one woman,I'm pretty sure that wouldn't fly. (I'm not sure Scott doesn't have his own private fantasies but they're for him, he would want that for the average member of his flock.)

The only other way is if the ratio of sexes is heavily skewed towards males. So, basically, he's approving female infanticide or sex selective abortion?

Logic fail ScottieBoy.

I don't understand why fundies are so against polygamy. The Bible never once forbids it. The only time it is mentioned is when describing the qualifications of an elder (or deacon I can't remember).

[slickcat79]

I don't understand why fundies are so against polygamy. The Bible never once forbids it. The only time it is mentioned is when describing the qualifications of an elder (or deacon I can't remember).

Probably because it would make it hard (nearly impossible) to be against gay marriage if they were in favor of polygamy. They focus heavily on the verse that says God made people male and female, and that the two shall become one flesh. As long as they want to consider that Jesus' definition of marriage, it's hard to say yes, marriage can be between more than two people.