Counting On: Season 3, Part 5: Engagment on the Horizon

[sawasdee]

I was raised RC, but am now agnostic. I read the NT more than the OT at school, and like @HarleyQuinn regarded the OT as mythology - at least my (nun) teachers made it clear that it was written over hundreds of years, if not millenia, and by many writers. We were taught that Jesus came to update the OT, with a better rule, and that the OT was the forerunner of the NT, and displaced by it.

I try to imagine Sister Julie Anne confronted with a fundie quoting OT at her as justification for, for example, cutting Meals on Wheels or Child Welfare payments, or trying to claim that the obligations imposed on a christian to others by the NT were only toward other christians. She'd have skinned them alive - complete with all the right citations!

The christian right in the US today seems to be the exact opposite - cleaving to the OT before the NT. I'm just waiting for the 'drawers of water and hewers of wood' quote to surface to justify the reinstatement of at least segregation of non- caucasians into a lower realm of society - oh - perhaps that's what all that stuff going on since the Voting Rights Act was terminated is all about?

ETA I thought that being a christian meant following Christ's rules, not Mosaic law - we were taught that all the 10 commandments , and the behaviour they demand, can be summed up by 'Love thy God with all yourheart and all your soul , all your mind and all your strength, and love your neighbour as yourself.'

[BoPeep]

I'm a Christian, and very conservative.  In the technical definition, I am a fundamentalist, as I believe in the literal reading of the Bible.  But I'm not a Duggar fundie, nor are we patriarchal in our beliefs.  My poor mom's side of the family was terribly patriarchal and hard core fundie, and there was physical and spiritual abuse in her mom and dad's childhood, and my mom and her cousins dealt with spiritual, verbal, and mental abuse.  

It was in talking with my mom's younger cousin that I recognized that much of who my mom is was shaped by that religious abuse.  Around the same time, I was reading Recovering Grace, and I realized how messed up the churches my mom's family attended were....and how they ruined the women.  Sigh.  

 My church till I was 9 was spiritually abusive...right in the middle of gothard territory, and they sent "their wimmen" to the conferences, to teach them to be better wives.  To stop being so rebellious.  I talked to my mom awhile ago, and in discussing some of her past, she/I realized that one of those conferences broke her.  Just broke her good.  And now, almost 40 yrs later, she's FINALLY getting some freedom and healing.

Us leaving that insanity when I was a kid was such a blessing....though the way it happened was horrible and caused so many problems, but I am so thankful we left that insanity and entered some more normal churches.  Churches that didn't police our every move, nor question our salvation if we disagreed or asked questions.  My siblings don't remember the time in the fundie church.  One has an inordinant amount of guilt in his life....which could be a byproduct of that intense religiousity.  But time and prayer and counseling (while not formal) helped me to let go and find my own freedom from that super-fundie garbage.  I suppose I did go a bit more feminist and non-religious for awhile, though I didn't realize till now that I had done so/nor why.  (I'm not a feminist now, and I would be called religious by FJ....while I just consider it following Christ, vs following some man-made religion and made up rules.)

I don't fit in completely with the free jinger mentality....but I know the pain and horridness which the duggar-type fundie-ism entails.  So I read here from time to time (and have on and off since the yuku days), and agree with some things....disagree with others.  But deep in people's hearts here at FJ is the desire for these people to see there is freedom beyond what the duggars (and bates, etc) know.  And I appreciate that.  

[OldFadedStar]

2 hours ago, sawasdee said:

 

ETA I thought that being a christian meant following Christ's rules, not Mosaic law - we were taught that all the 10 commandments , and the behaviour they demand, can be summed up by 'Love thy God with all yourheart and all your soul , all your mind and all your strength, and love your neighbour as yourself.'

 

That's how I interpret it too. I'm a moderate christian.. don't really fall into the conservative nor liberal christianity.. and have been reading through the entire bible this year. 

In Hebrews 4, Jesus is declared to be the new high priest,

Spoiler

"14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[f]Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."

In Hebrews 7, this is where they pretty much said that the old law is no longer valid, 

Spoiler

12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.17 For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind:
    ‘You are a priest forever.’”

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to Godthrough him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

 

So you don't have to follow mosaic law to be a "good Christian". At least thats how I interpret Hebrews.

[send*the*ferrets]

I was raised United Methodist- my kids still go to the preschool at that church, though I consider myself atheist. They focus on "fruits of the spirit" in preschool- love, joy, patience, kindness, etc (totally had to ask my 4 year old to remind me). I'm totally fine with that, as they avoid all talks of hell/being "saved" and so on. I had a conversation when I was young with the pastor about how the *morals* the Bible taught were more important than the specifics. For example- the fish and loaves story- each gospel tells it slightly differently. Is it really important to get bogged down in he details, or focus on the message of sharing what you have and it being enough? 

Based on the Old Testament I don't really know why anybody would want to be Christian, some pretty awful things were done in the name of God! "Abraham, that son you waited a hundred years for- kill him! Hahaha wait just kidding!" And then the entire book of Job, where God makes a bet with the Devil.... and tortures a devout man. No thank you! 

[singsingsing]

2 minutes ago, send*the*ferrets said:

Based on the Old Testament I don't really know why anybody would want to be Christian, some pretty awful things were done in the name of God! "Abraham, that son you waited a hundred years for- kill him! Hahaha wait just kidding!" And then the entire book of Job, where God makes a bet with the Devil.... and tortures a devout man. No thank you! 

I find a lot of atheists don't realize that there are plenty of Christians who don't take the Old Testament literally. It makes sense given that the evangelical Biblical literalists are by far the most vocal in the U.S. I don't know how anyone could be a Christian if they took the OT literally either. But viewed as what it really is, a collection of oral histories, legends, allegories and poems, it's a completely different story.

[formergothardite]

2 hours ago, BoPeep said:

nor are we patriarchal in our beliefs.

 

2 hours ago, BoPeep said:

(I'm not a feminist now,

Could you explain how you aren't patriarchal, yet don't believe in being a feminists? 

Looking at the Bible now, I don't know how anyone could take it literally, but I also know how hard it was for me to train my mind not to take it literally. So I can see how people raised to view it as literal don't struggle at all with it. I'm not sure how adult converts just accept it. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

8 hours ago, jerkit said:

I totally get it. I feel like a crazy person when I read the Gospels and I think to myself "Have Christians ever even READ this?! They're totally missing the point!"

I think that a lot of them have not read it. Those that do often miss the point.

[luxfilia]

3 hours ago, singsingsing said:

I find a lot of atheists don't realize that there are plenty of Christians who don't take the Old Testament literally. It makes sense given that the evangelical Biblical literalists are by far the most vocal in the U.S. I don't know how anyone could be a Christian if they took the OT literally either. But viewed as what it really is, a collection of oral histories, legends, allegories and poems, it's a completely different story.

And it's not just about "not taking it literally," but often more about believing that the law changed. The old testament, to many, represents the old law. The sacrifices described (like in Leviticus) were once "necessary" to atone for sin, but then Christ came and gave himself as the "ultimate sacrifice," so all that changed. Only the commandments given (or repeated) in the New Testament are to be followed, in many Christians' eyes. They still study the OT for context/history/background, etc. (the etc. being the Proverbs and such), but they only truly follow the commandments in the New Testament. That's where some fundies confuse me. They refer to verses about women's clothing from the Old Testament, for example, as if they are commandments, but they don't adhere to many other commandments in the OT. 

[lumpentheologie]

3 hours ago, formergothardite said:

 

Could you explain how you aren't patriarchal, yet don't believe in being a feminists? 

Looking at the Bible now, I don't know how anyone could take it literally, but I also know how hard it was for me to train my mind not to take it literally. So I can see how people raised to view it as literal don't struggle at all with it. I'm not sure how adult converts just accept it. 

I was about to ask this when I saw that @formergothardite had just done it. I'm never sure why people say they're not feminist.  I think I'm a feminist because I believe that men and women are equal.  But @BoPeep seems to believe that too, since she said she's not patriarchal. 

[luxfilia]

2 minutes ago, lumpentheologie said:

I was about to ask this when I saw that @formergothardite had just done it. I'm never sure why people say they're not feminist.  I think I'm a feminist because I believe that men and women are equal.  But @BoPeep seems to believe that too, since she said she's not patriarchal. 

I think a lot of people shy away from the label, but still aspire to equality for all. Some people just don't like labels, which always comes with some untrue connotations for some people. Or sometimes people don't like labels because, even if it represents everything they stand for, it's not linguistically what they would deem the best choice.

[BoPeep]

3 hours ago, formergothardite said:

 

Could you explain how you aren't patriarchal, yet don't believe in being a feminists? 

Looking at the Bible now, I don't know how anyone could take it literally, but I also know how hard it was for me to train my mind not to take it literally. So I can see how people raised to view it as literal don't struggle at all with it. I'm not sure how adult converts just accept it. 

 I can do my best to explain for me....but honestly, worry I will get argued at....and I think that's why alot of christians read but keep quiet.  I guess it depends on the personal definitions of patriarchy and feminism.  The patriarchal movement, to me, is the duggars/gothard/etc....the husband rules the family, his word is law, the wife is lowly, the daughters stay at home till married and under their husband's rule.  (This is what it seems most people on here are against, me too.).  *MY* feminism was me, as a woman, being better than men...they weren't as good as women, they were lowly, I was smarter and better and had to prove myself as such.  May not be everyone's view of feminism....may be the incorrect view of feminism....but that's the basic gist of what I was following.  

My husband loves me, honors me, respects me and my opinion, cares for me, looks out for me, and never lords it over me that he is man/he must rule/he is #1.  I adore him, I respect him, I find him extremely wise and intelligent, I do my best to take good care of him, and I don't try to rule over him.  We talk about issues, we discuss viewpoints, we listen to one another.  If we can't agree on something (....20 yrs....there's LOTS we haven't agreed on!), we pray for our hearts to be united to come to the same decision.  I don't try to best him nor manipulate him into getting my way, and he doesn't say "my way or the highway" nor does he make huge decisions without us discussing things for my point of view.  It took time, prayer, and hard work, but we compliment each other well.  He trusts me, I trust him.  I do sometimes have to step back and let him figure out the best decisions for our family....and keep my big mouth shut (cause often he sees the big picture and I just see the right now)....this is my choice.  And he steps back and listens not only to my words, but also to my heart....his choice.  

He's been GREAT at helping me to step out of the emotional insanity I sometimes dealt with growing up, and has helped me to spread my wings and BE all of who I need to be.  I feel like I have helped him to grow in areas, as well, and stretched him, and taught him, too.  Whatever we're doing has worked well for us, and we're much much better people than we were 20 yrs ago.  

We do tend to be old fashioned in our gender roles...and it suits us.  God help me, I HATE doing yard work, and I have never mowed the grass since I got married.  Lol.  I do most of the household stuff, but when I am sick (often) or traveling w the kids, he keeps the house.  I do the bills, cause he's terrible at it, lol.  He almost never grocery shops....unless I've been sick for days and we have no food.  He does like to eat, lol. But WE worked out what worked for us.  When I worked full time, he did housework alongside of me.  Now that I stay at home, he spends 8 hrs+ at work, and I do what needs done at home....plus I rest/nap daily.  Lol....he doesn't get nap breaks at work.  

his mama taught him how to care for women, and he's done a good job.  I had to learn how to care for a man, and he seems happy enough with my efforts.  We're both very different....and it took time and work to learn how to communicate well and treat each other well.  I'm sure all marriages go thru that learning process, trying to find the right ways to love and care for each other.  Each marriage is so different, and what works for one, is different than what works for another.  We found what we needed.

 

[rainbowbabycakes]

I'm a Christian as well, and a fairly conservative one. I'm not a fundie, although I did belong to a Duggar-level IFB church for a while My ex and I were stationed in Germany. It was closest to my house, and the people were amazingly sweet. There were somethings I didn't agree with, like only wearing skirts, but it was never thrown in my face, and people weren't rude about differences like that. I really enjoyed my time there, and I still talk to people, and it's been 10 years since I left Germany.

[Chickenbutt]

@BoPeepIf I could like your post 1000 times, I would. Congratulations on what sounds like a very equitable and successful marriage, Not an easy thing to do/have.

[formergothardite]

@BoPeep. Thank you for answering. It sounds like what you were following wasn't what is typically thought of as feminism. Feminism is equality, which is sounds like you believe in. So while you may not adopt the label, it sounds like you are actually a feminists.

[2manyKidzzz]

It could be said that there are different ways to manifest feminism.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

[calimojo]

Long time feminist here, but I do have to say that perhaps it is time to change the word.  As Feminism is, at its core about equality for all genders,  I think we need a better word to describe that.  People have been misunderstanding feminism for a long time and I truly believe it is largely because of the word.  It has never been about women being superior to men. 

Perhaps we should just call it equalism and we identify as equalists.  It doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as feminism, so maybe someone else has a better word. 

[singsingsing]

I do feel like feminism as a word has lost almost all of its meaning, and I am uncomfortable labelling myself a feminist simply because of that. I have no idea how any given person is going to interpret it and perhaps ascribe certain beliefs, feelings or actions to me that aren't mine. I guess I have that obnoxious millennial aversion to labels in general though.

[HarleyQuinn]

I'm perfectly fine labeling myself as a feminist. I can't control people who are too lazy to Google the actual definition when they think it means something else. 

[singsingsing]

7 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

I'm perfectly fine labeling myself as a feminist. I can't control people who are too lazy to Google the actual definition when they think it means something else. 

Good point. Maybe I should just own the word instead of trying to find a better one.

[Jilli]

@BoPeep what you define as feminism is what I define as misandry. And that's completely fine. I've always felt that the term feminism has been overrun with an undesireable stereotype first by the people originally against it, and more recently some of the extreme/toxic "feminism"

That said, I still define myself as a feminist while including the fact that I mean gender equality. I'm ok that some people aren't comfortable with that at the moment, but if I don't talk about it I feel it will probably stay in some sort of limbo place.

 

misandry: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex).

 

[front hugs > duggs]

I think that a lot of people still associate feminism with the bra burners of the 60's and 70's. It took me a while to embrace that fact that I am a feminist, because I too was misguided about what it really meant. Part of what came from the "bra burning movement"  was the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Until 1974, women were not actually allowed to have their own credit cards!

To the people of the world: if you believe that men and women should get paid for doing the exact same job, guess what? YOU ARE A FEMINIST!

[RosyDaisy]

@formergothardite Kelly Crawford was one of my gateway fundies.

[luxfilia]

2 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

I'm perfectly fine labeling myself as a feminist. I can't control people who are too lazy to Google the actual definition when they think it means something else. 

Well, maybe you CAN control them, by using a different word. Sometimes it's not just about them googling it and seeing the standard definition, but thinking of people they knew years ago (especially for people from, say, my dad's generation) who grossly misrepresented the label. They may disregard the official written definition, thinking of the live definitions they've seen real people display.

That will always happen, sure, but the fact that "fem" is part of the word does make some people believe what they want, regardless of any definition they read.

However, I fully respect that you are fine labeling yourself a feminist, because you aren't responsible for someone else's choice to be ignorant/stubborn. I'm just brainstorming, I guess, because sometimes it feels like something's gotta change  in order to move forward (southern U.S. here). If all it takes is a word (to get more people into a positive conversation), then okay.

1 hour ago, front hugs > duggs said:

I think that a lot of people still associate feminism with the bra burners of the 60's and 70's. It took me a while to embrace that fact that I am a feminist, because I too was misguided about what it really meant. Part of what came from the "bra burning movement"  was the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Until 1974, women were not actually allowed to have their own credit cards!

To the people of the world: if you believe that men and women should get paid for doing the exact same job, guess what? YOU ARE A FEMINIST!

Exactly. I'd LOVE to burn all my bras because I'm small-breasted and hate having to wear them just to hide my nipples, but that's beside the fact. LOL. People like my dad do look at feminism as almost more of a personality trait or angry reaction to society than an equality movement. That may seem old-school and like something we're way beyond, but it simply isn't. Do we have to accommodate our language for people like him? We shouldn't have to, but, again, these days I am all about what will be productive and what will aid progress. If I bring up the topic of equal wages, etc., then my dad is fully onboard. (Nevertheless he does still hold SOME very traditional ideas about men and women's roles.)  It's an interesting topic. I personally avoid the label "feminist" (although if someone asked if I was one, I'd say yes) and simply make my stance on pertinent issues very clear, so that people can already see I'm pro equal rights for men and women. I feel like labels sometimes slow us down and keep us arguing about things that aren't the actual ISSUES.

[zygote373]

I think the feminism label suffers from a lot of the same issues as the black lives matter label. It's not about women or people of color being better than men/white people, it's about the fact that, historically, both those groups have been treated as less than. So raising women and people of color up is about bringing them to the same level they always should have been in the first place. Because centering women/black people goes against the status quo, it can feel like special treatment or favoring. But it's not.

I am torn about the feminism label. On the one hand, I think it's important to acknowledge that it's not just the vague concept of gender equality that we care about. It is specifically addressing the problem of women not being treated equally, and I think that emphasis is important to keep the root of the issue out in the open. However, I do realize that there is a lot of baggage with the word, and that it turns off a lot of people who identify as feminists in all but name.