'He is keeping her in church'

[JesusFightClub]

It is a very interesting thread. I'm Scottish and we use keep similarly yet...when I read "keeping her in church" that reads as "making her go when she doesn't want to".

For example if someone brought you some food to eat that was very perishable. They would say "That'll not keep, so best eat it today." Or maybe you can't go out because you are babysitting. "I can't come out tonight, I'm keeping Cathy's weans [kids] she's on a night out".

But you keep small things or weaker things, not adults. I was trying to rephrase what is meant by keeping someone in church, it was really hard. Also wondered...is the church so scary to people in that way? My lot when I was a kid might gossip but if you did come back to the church they would all be delighted. It would not matter if you had done a "big sin" like had a child out of wedlock (hell, it's Scotland, weirder if you hadn't). So in the US the churches are very strict?

[defrauding]

More specifically to this phrase, I think it is worth asking who is being kept (like a child? like a hostage? like a cheese?) and if anyone can or should be kept by another person.

If you look up the phrases "keep her in church" and "keeping her in church" on Google, nearly every result is about making a child attend church -- often despite the protests of the child. (For example, keeping your child in church will apparently ensure that she doesn't become a gothic Satanist loser.) The same holds true if you use "him" instead of "her," although you also get a few results about letting God and Jesus into your daily life rather than confining them to church.

In other words, using the phrase to talk about a wife is fucking creepy.

[Guest Anonymous]

Thank you for your excellent posts, Curiouser. And Kelya, please don't stop the sarcasm, it is a staple food of my diet. ;)

I am familiar with the notion of 'keeping' people in church, probably because of some southern American evangelists that I once knew in a UK church linked to my church. I think the language is very much tied up with the notion of bringing a 'backslider' back to church or grasping onto someone who is at a stage of questioning their faith. I can see how it might have "a very positive connotation to a church-goer in the South" but having been on the receiving attempts to 'keep' me in church after I left, I find the notion very creepy and totally abhorrent, no matter what the intentions of the "keeper".

It sounds very much as though Kristina's mother is making a public statement of thanks to the man who is somehow 'redeeming' her daughter. If the daughter were entirely happy with returning to church there would be no need at all to refer to the 'keeping' - the mother could just make a statement that her daughter and x are very happy and involved in ministry x together or whatever is appropriate. While I doubt the girl is being held against her will, I doubt that her options are unbounded right now.

[debrand]

Uh, why would an adult need to be "accountable" to someone else to go to church? I can see for AA meetings and the like, but church? If the person wouldn't go to church if the "accountability partner" doesn't guilt encourage them into it, why should he/she go?

Sorry, I don't get it either. Is going to church like being in AA? That comparison sounds offensive to Christianity.

Why would someone need encouragement to attend church? What happens if the person doesn't want to go? Are they browbeaten or guilted into attending?

[Guest Anonymous]

Sorry, I don't get it either. Is going to church like being in AA? That comparison sounds offensive to Christianity.

Why would someone need encouragement to attend church? What happens if the person doesn't want to go? Are they browbeaten or guilted into attending?

I spent my teenage and early adult years being 'encouraged' to go to church. I remember once going to a music festival on a Sunday afternoon and getting the whole 'we were so surprised and disappointed' routine from a friend's mum the next week. I missed the evening service but had been there for the two morning services! I was 20 and was going out with a good Christian boy, but still needed to be guilted for my transgressions.

A common tactic was for youth leaders to invite 'backsliders' to Sunday tea, with little option but to be dropped off at church afterwards.

[Grace]

I'm not really squiqqed out by it either. My mom used to say "Her social life is the only thing keeping your sister in school." Meaning my sister went to school to be with her friends. I often say, "This coffee is the only thing keeping me going this morning." In my own little bubble we use it as a form of encouragement maybe? I don't know. I Haven't had said coffee yet this morning. :D But I do see so much validity in looking into the background of the things we say and why we say them. Just because "that's the way we've always said it," doesn't mean it's a good thing.

[debrand]

I'm not really squiqqed out by it either. My mom used to say "Her social life is the only thing keeping your sister in school." Meaning my sister went to school to be with her friends. I often say, "This coffee is the only thing keeping me going this morning." In my own little bubble we use it as a form of encouragement maybe? I don't know. I Haven't had said coffee yet this morning. :D But I do see so much validity in looking into the background of the things we say and why we say them. Just because "that's the way we've always said it," doesn't mean it's a good thing.

That doesn't sound at all the same, to me.

Perhaps your mom was being accurate and you're sister's social life was the only reason that she was in school. Your mother's statement can't really be misconstrued to sound like she forced your sister into going to school.

.

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm not really squiqqed out by it either. My mom used to say "Her social life is the only thing keeping your sister in school." Meaning my sister went to school to be with her friends. I often say, "This coffee is the only thing keeping me going this morning." In my own little bubble we use it as a form of encouragement maybe? I don't know. I Haven't had said coffee yet this morning. :D But I do see so much validity in looking into the background of the things we say and why we say them. Just because "that's the way we've always said it," doesn't mean it's a good thing.

If Kristina's mom had said "Her new husband is the only thing keeping her in church", would you have taken such a comment to be 'a form of encouragement?'

[Patsy]

A husband has agency. The object of a person (eg social life) does not. That's where the difference lies for me, I think, because I interpret those sentences differently.

And it's possible someone would say "he's keeping her in church" to mean "it's the company she needs", but that is certainly not how I interpret it. "She'd be a wayward child if he didn't keep her in line" is the more likely meaning.

[debrand]

Also, is going to church more important than being a Christian? It sounds as if it doesn't matter if the wife dislikes going or if she comes up with excuses as long as the husband makes certain that she is in the pew. I thought the state of the person's heart was more important than their actions. A person who doesn't want to be in church but is 'encouraged' isn't really a Christian, are they? At least, that is what I was taught.

[Kitchen Princess]

The issue is that a man is lauded for making her religious decisions for her. I think you missed the point.

No, because it is said by a lot of people about a lot of people. The "He" could be anyone in a situation. It could be her friends, her parents, her co-workers. When there's a backslider, the people closest to that person has the expectation foisted upon them to help that person get back on the straight-and-narrow. In this case, the pronouns are not important.

[Guest Anonymous]

No, because it is said by a lot of people about a lot of people. The "He" could be anyone in a situation. It could be her friends, her parents, her co-workers. When there's a backslider, the people closest to that person has the expectation foisted upon them to help that person get back on the straight-and-narrow. In this case, the pronouns are not important.

It is the precisely the implication that she is a 'backslider' who needs getting back on the straight and narrow which is the offensive part, IMO. The implication that one only climbs up the Christian greasy pole or backslides down it - the implication that we are other than worthwhile human beings who grow and change throughout all our lives, whether our church families and friends like it or not.

[Kitchen Princess]

I am familiar with the notion of 'keeping' people in church, probably because of some southern American evangelists that I once knew in a UK church linked to my church. I think the language is very much tied up with the notion of bringing a 'backslider' back to church or grasping onto someone who is at a stage of questioning their faith. I can see how it might have "a very positive connotation to a church-goer in the South" but having been on the receiving attempts to 'keep' me in church after I left, I find the notion very creepy and totally abhorrent, no matter what the intentions of the "keeper".

In context, when used in the South, it implies at least a grudging consent of the person being "kept". Except in the very meanest fundamentalist environments (how about Westboro?), no one wants a person who is full on hostile towards the idea to be in church and ruin it for everyone else. It means the "kept" may have to be cajoled a little, but it's all in good humor.

It is the precisely the implication that she is a 'backslider' who needs getting back on the straight and narrow which is the offensive part, IMO.

Yes. But in the context of their community, it's not offensive at all. 'Accountability' is a "thing" in Christian circles. It is entered into with the consent of both parties. Yes, there are controlling spouses, and patriarchy plays a big part in all of this. But the most common expression of accountability is that of two people who decide jointly to hold each other accountable for their actions. It doesn't mean punishment or reparation. It just means that they confess to each other what they feel they've failed at, and help each other take the steps to correct it.

I must say that it is obvious to me that Kristen (is that who we're talking about?) consents to the life style at least in part, and knows what she's getting into. Yes, she could be doing it out of desperation, but I doubt she really needed to go "there" if she really didn't want to. And therefore, since she is consenting, however grudgingly, the phrase is not offensive in context.

[Grace]

That doesn't sound at all the same, to me.

Perhaps your mom was being accurate and you're sister's social life was the only reason that she was in school. Your mother's statement can't really be misconstrued to sound like she forced your sister into going to school.

.

If we're comparing, then I think in this situation my mom=/=her husband. My mom=her mom and my sister's friends=her husband. So the way the statement could be misconstrued by that line of thought would be that my sister's friends were forcing her to go to school. And I don't really see that.

Maybe encouragement isn't the right word. Now that I've had some coffee I think motivation is more what I was looking for. My sister's motivation to go to school was her social life. Maybe Kristina's BIL motivates her sister to go to church. Like my workout buddies have motivated me to go to the gym.

Maybe she wakes up and says "I don't wanna go. It's too early and I feel like people are judging me." and he says to her "Let's go! There will be DONUTS! And everyone loves you and supports you, they aren't judging you." And she feels better and goes. Maybe the people at thre church DO judge her and are total tools and he's a jerk who guilts her into going anyway. Or maybe they don't judge her and her upbringing has just made her feel guilty about her life so she assumes they do. And maybe he knows she really wants to go but feels afraid so he encourages and motivates her. We don't really know the specifics of the situation so we can't really say either way. I do see where the statement can SOUND bad, I just don't think we can automatically say 'Yes, she definitely means she's glad her daughter is being controlled by a man finally."

I'm sort of torn on the issue of dissecting a word down to its bare basics and saying "look at it's history. It means this whether you meant it to or not." I DO think it's important to look at our word choices and realize how things like institutionalized sexism and racism are in our language but I also am hesitant to be too strict on what our language can mean and how it can be used. That's the beautiful thing about language; all the different things it can mean and the beauty it can create. If we break it down too far we lose all the subtle nuances and it reminds me of 1984 and making vocabulary so basic that people won't have the words to even THINK about something we don't want them too.

Also, is going to church more important than being a Christian? It sounds as if it doesn't matter if the wife dislikes going or if she comes up with excuses as long as the husband makes certain that she is in the pew. I thought the state of the person's heart was more important than their actions. A person who doesn't want to be in church but is 'encouraged' isn't really a Christian, are they? At least, that is what I was taught.

Yah, that's a whole seperate discussion on these people's theology and priorities. I think Kristina's parents are likely to be in that school of thought that you HAVE to go to church to be a good Christian because they think that's the only way to honor the Sabbath.

[nutella addict]

I'm from a few states further north and even I've heard that expression. I've never considered it to have a malevolent meaning, it's more of an idiom - the literal meaning of the words is not necessarily relevant. I'm not saying that there's no chance of abuse or inequality, I'm just saying that it's a typical expression that does NOT actually imply that. And I like going to church with people to. I would go alone, and do, but I'm much more likely to wake up on Sunday morning if I'm going with someone. My church-going friend and I mutually agreed to meet up for church and go together, neither of us forced or coerced or even "encouraged" the other to go, we just said "Oh yeah I want to go this week, shall we meet at 10:00?"

As for accountability, I'd also like to clarify that it's a mutual, equal relationship. Someone's "accountability partner" has already been asked to give reminders or encouragement about certain things (based on that individual person's choices) and vice versa. For example, I've developed a habit of swearing a lot and it's nice for any of my accountability partners to remind me that I said something I was trying not to say. It's the same, for me and my friends at least, as having a gym buddy or a study buddy or another such person to do those things with, so that you do them more often, having someone to meet and such.

I interpreted this more as "she wants to go to church and his company and desire to go give her the extra push out the door". I also interpreted it as having a connotation that he's also behaving in a more Christian manner, and I admit this is perhaps a warped northern/southern confusion from my middle ground here, in that he "keeps" her in a churchly way, more like my brother's keeper. Caring and looking out for her. And yes, I'm sure she can also look after herself, but doesn't everyone like to be cared for sometimes? I don't deny that he could be doing all this against her will, I'm just saying that the use of that expression is no reason to assume that, because it is, after all, just an expression.

[Guest Anonymous]

This woman has quite a history of trying to coerce and guilt her readers into attending church:

http://juliesjewels062694.blogspot.com/ ... bel/Church

[O Latin]

I don't find it particularly creepy, either.

I have a friend who only goes to church because of me. From every indication she gives, she likes being there and likes singing in the choir, but she wouldn't go if I wasn't there. So I might say I'm keeping her in church, yet there's no emotional manipulation and I'm certainly not forcing her to do anything.