Sermon from my minister that FJ will love

[Elle]

Elle, I think the reason people are 'attacking' (to use your word) her church is because she is the one who put it out there about how wonderful it was, and then seemed to keep taking it a few steps further when trying to defend herself. Her attitude is obviously not doing anything to help. I don't feel sorry for her at all, and am confused why you would feel bad/be sorry that you think her church is being 'attacked'.

The current leaders are trying to step forward and get with the modern equal program. The first step is acknowledging there is a problem. Unless the goal is to drive away the men (and their families) who aren't open to change by overhauling everything right this instant, then all the necessary changes are going to take time, warm up the assholes who are the problem, hell, maybe even make sure the women under them know that they have rights and options so that, if the assholes do pull away, those women will think about what they heard and say HELL NO to living a live of submission somewhere else. I'm going to praise any genuine attempts are positive change, even if it isn't all happening instantly. Slow change is better than no change, and I'd rather encourage that.

[Elle]

I don't know...maybe it's because I'm dumber than a rock. Maybe because it's because I don't want to step outside my comfort zone. Maybe it's because I've spent the vast majority of my life there. I DON'T KNOW! I know the answers seem obvious to you, but they aren't to me. I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but it's the best answer I have right now. But all of the comments made here today have gotten to me an opened my eyes and making me realize that perhaps I'm holding on to an antiquated way of life that needs to change.

I've got friends who stepped far away from extreme fundamentalism, like so extreme that a woman having a miscarriage is said to be her harboring some sin that makes it her fault. Women are property, all that jazz. Gothardites, etc.. They stepped away and outside their comfort zone because they realized it was all wrong and wicked. They didn't want their sons and any future children to be raised thinking women are lesser beings, and now they have a daughter and are protecting her from even their own families who might make her out to be a second-class citizen because of what's between her legs.

You might not want to step outside of your comfort zone, but for the sake of your daughters, you need to. Put the NEEDS of your children ahead of your want for comfort. It's part o feeing a parent. Needs before wants. Your church is evolving and sees that it's not right to hold onto old patriarchy, and I hope that path continues. You need to continue it in your own home instead of keeping the cycle going. You aren't fully comfortable with women having equal rights, but for the love of your children, don't pass this awful belief down.

[Guest Anonymous]

First of all, I have no children and never will. Second, as I have already explained, I wasn't bragging about my church. I only wanted to point out progress, but alas, it did come across as bragging, and I'm sorry for that. Despite the fact that my church has no female leadership doesn't make it fundamentalist. You are assuming what's coming out of the pulpit is dangerous hateful, and misogynistic. That simply isn't the case. If it were, why would my minister have helped my friend? Why would he encourage her to leave her abusive husband, divorce, and seek counseling? Why would have made her abusive husband own up to what he did and turn himself in? Why would he have spoken out against the patriarchy movement (defined by me as something along the line of IFB and the like). That doesn't sound fundamentalist or dangerous to me. Furthermore, if I see change happening, I want to stick around to see that happen. I would much rather be part of the change than to leave and say FU church & minister and just leave.

[formergothardite]

Just because you will never have a daughter to raise in a church where she is taught from birth that just being a woman disqualifies her from being a church leader doesn't mean you shouldn't care about the other young girls who are in your church.

It has been said here over and over again that the most dangerous kind of fundies are the ones that look normal and who's suppression of women is more subtle. They are the ones that get people to start thinking "Hey, it's not THAT bad to say that women aren't capable of leading in the church." and from there it is just a slippery slope downward to treating women like crap. And since it isn't obvious, people like you get sucked into beliving it isn't bad.

This slippery slope apparently has already happened in your church since your minister had to devote a whole sermon to try and teach the men not to be jerks to women, yet you admit that many in your church aren't getting it. The problem lies with the fact that the structure of your church is built on saying women are not as capable as men to make decisions or lead, that women are somehow less than men in this aspect. When the church is sending that sort of message, even if it is subtle, of course there are going to be problems with the men treating the women with respect because, hey, the church also teaches that the men are better than the women.

If you want to stick around and be a part of the change great! I would encourage you to do so, but the first step in that direction is admitting that there is a problem, something you have refused to do. So until you are willing to say, "Women need to be treated equally to men in all areas of the church." you will just be part of the problem. You will not ever be part of the change until you do that.

[AudreyE]

I don't know...maybe it's because I'm dumber than a rock. Maybe because it's because I don't want to step outside my comfort zone. Maybe it's because I've spent the vast majority of my life there. I DON'T KNOW! I know the answers seem obvious to you, but they aren't to me. I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but it's the best answer I have right now. But all of the comments made here today have gotten to me an opened my eyes and making me realize that perhaps I'm holding on to an antiquated way of life that needs to change.

If that's really true and not just a hilarious prank on us, then I'd call that open-minded. Most adults I know (myself included) struggle to admit second-thoughts about beliefs we've had all our lives. I respect your willingness to look more closely at these things and your determination to stick around here and have a conversation when your beliefs are being aggressively attacked.

Of course, no one has elected me President of the "What's Worthy of Respect Committee," so my opinion and a nickel will get you 12 minutes on a parking meter.

[dawbs]

But that kinda my point- it's not her religion. It's one church. There are thousands more in her denomination (whatever that is) Hundreds of thousands more in Christianity.

As someone leaving my 'home church' because of patriarchy issues...this gets said but I haven't found it to be true. I mean, yes, it's true, but there aren't a dearth of non-patriarchal churches, waiting in the wings, for those of us who are leaving fundie-lite-dom.

There are 20 ish churches in my wee town/surrounding wee towns (If I include the wee little scary ones)...I go to one of the most liberal and it's patriarchal enough that I have to leave.

The other most 'liberal' denomination that has a church in my town is a liberal denomination--but this particular church is probably less liberal than mine.

(personally, I could drive to local 'university town', but, really, that defeats a lot of the community reasons to go to church in the first place and isn't exactly close or convenient. I'm not willing to go to a UU church--there is one near the university, about 30 miles away and it's...not what I can do right now. But that's about me.).

I'm working on not being part of the problem, but it's not the OP can pick up a rock and hit a non-patriarchal church.

[formergothardite]

It is hard to find a non-patriarchal church in this area too, so I would understand if she wanted to stay and try and work with that church. Her refusal to acknowledge that her church treats women as less than men is what bothered me.

[dawbs]

It is hard to find a non-patriarchal church in this area too, so I would understand if she wanted to stay and try and work with that church. Her refusal to acknowledge that her church treats women as less than men is what bothered me.

That I can get behind. I just don't like pat answers that aren't really answers.

It can be awfully easy to say "oh, they're trying to do better" and fail to realize that as the great philisopher Yoda points out, if they were really trying to do better, they'd do better.

[valsa]

As someone leaving my 'home church' because of patriarchy issues...this gets said but I haven't found it to be true. I mean, yes, it's true, but there aren't a dearth of non-patriarchal churches, waiting in the wings, for those of us who are leaving fundie-lite-dom.

There are 20 ish churches in my wee town/surrounding wee towns (If I include the wee little scary ones)...I go to one of the most liberal and it's patriarchal enough that I have to leave.

The other most 'liberal' denomination that has a church in my town is a liberal denomination--but this particular church is probably less liberal than mine.

(personally, I could drive to local 'university town', but, really, that defeats a lot of the community reasons to go to church in the first place and isn't exactly close or convenient. I'm not willing to go to a UU church--there is one near the university, about 30 miles away and it's...not what I can do right now. But that's about me.).

I'm working on not being part of the problem, but it's not the OP can pick up a rock and hit a non-patriarchal church.

Personally, I'd choose inconvenient and farther away (or getting over my issues with UU) before I'd go to a church that believes some people are less than others. Since sexism is very much alive, well, and acceptable in a lot of places even today, let's use a non-sexist example. A few decades ago it was probably really, really hard to find a church in certain places in the country that wasn't racist. Now, that gave people who didn't believe minorities are less than whites two options- find another non-racist church or actively attempt to change the one they were already in. Or I suppose they could have taken a third option, which is to do nothing and admit they're hypocrites who value their own comfort and convenience over equality and justice.

[doubtingkimmy]

I think that what it often comes down to, in matters of faith, is that it isn't easy to just walk away from a religion that one may feel a "bone-deep" connection to, spiritually. I face this same conundrum myself as both a strong advocate of feminism and a Catholic. Both of these things, while quite contradictory in many areas, are inarguable parts of me. So, in attempting to address the obvious points of mental and spiritual conflict, I can either choose to walk away from my faith (which I did, for a time) or I can choose to stay and seek to become an instrument for the changes that I seek, which is my current approach.

I don't know that it's always desirable to simply choose to abandon those things of importance when they don't totally align in all areas with your convictions. I mean, the United States has never had a women Chief Executive, and women are still grossly under-represented in the legislative and judicial branches as well. Should I leave my country, or should I work to see that more women are in a position to help determine the course that my country will take in the future? Women in the military are still not allowed into front-line combat assignments, and their careers and chances for promotion are often adversely effected by their lack of combat experience. Should all women abandon military service, or should they continue to serve and to push for an equal chance at both the risks and the potential rewards that combat experience affords?

With Catholicism, I believe that many of the changes that I seek will occur in time, or that there will be a further schism that results in a more liberal version of church being established. If for no other reasons than there simply aren't enough young men entering the seminary to maintain the status quo, and that the new generation of Catholics is in general much more liberal than the previous generations. For example, in my mother's generation, the majority took the church's dogma against artificial birth control as gospel. No one that I personally know in my generation of practicing Catholics follows that belief. Girls as well as boys now serve on the alter, and while this is a very small thing, it still is a start, and something that was unheard of when I was a child. Married Episcopalian ministers can now be ordained as priests within the Catholic church while still maintaining their status as being married with families. Again, none of these shifts alone is great enough to completely shake up Catholicism, but taken together do point towards a subtle shift in a more liberal direction.

[formergothardite]

I think there is a big difference in admitting there is a problem and trying to change it and refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem at all, which is what genie was doing.

[kpmom]

I think there is a big difference in admitting there is a problem and trying to change it and refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem at all, which is what genie was doing.

This was my issue with geniebelle too.

With Catholicism, I believe that many of the changes that I seek will occur in time, or that there will be a further schism that results in a more liberal version of church being established.

It's already here! It's called the Episcopal Church. ;)

[valsa]

I think that what it often comes down to, in matters of faith, is that it isn't easy to just walk away from a religion that one may feel a "bone-deep" connection to, spiritually.

It may not be easy but people shouldn't get a pass for hypocrisy just because it's religion. That's the same shit we here from fundies about their sexist ideas- it's in the Bible, so it gets a pass. No, no it doesn't.

I don't know that it's always desirable to simply choose to abandon those things of importance when they don't totally align in all areas with your convictions. I mean, the United States has never had a women Chief Executive, and women are still grossly under-represented in the legislative and judicial branches as well. Should I leave my country, or should I work to see that more women are in a position to help determine the course that my country will take in the future? Women in the military are still not allowed into front-line combat assignments, and their careers and chances for promotion are often adversely effected by their lack of combat experience. Should all women abandon military service, or should they continue to serve and to push for an equal chance at both the risks and the potential rewards that combat experience affords?

There's nothing that precludes a woman in the U.S. from being president, and under-representation is not the same as no representation (though people are, rightfully, working on getting more women into office) As for the Army, though that's different than church attendance (which is completely voluntary) I'd have no problem with women refusing to sign up until they're allowed on the front lines (though I'd personally be protesting the extraordinarily high rates of female rape and sexual harassment in the military before anything else) And, as formergothardite said, there's a difference between staying somewhere that espouses racist or sexist ideas AND actively trying to change that place, and refusing to acknowledge the sexism and racism. Genie outright said that the patriarchy (which is just a polite word for sexism) is her church is okay.

Imagine someone saying "Racism, which I think of as what the KKK does, is bad. But the racism at my church, where black people can't lead the church but they can cook for the congregation and take care of the kids, is okay."

[doubtingkimmy]

Yes, Valsa and formergothardite, I agree, there is a difference between staying in an institution that promotes sexism, racism, etc. while doing nothing, and staying with an institution while trying to effect change. My take on Genie's initial post was also that she was okay in going along with her church's complementarian stance, but from some of her later posts, I sensed that this might not be the case. Of course I can't speak for Genie nor her church, but just from what I read it seems that Genie may not be closed-minded on this matter and was open to challenging her church's and possibly even her own opinions on the issue of women's roles within the church.

[formergothardite]

Just because you will never have a daughter to raise in a church where she is taught from birth that just being a woman disqualifies her from being a church leader doesn't mean you shouldn't care about the other young girls who are in your church.

It has been said here over and over again that the most dangerous kind of fundies are the ones that look normal and who's suppression of women is more subtle. They are the ones that get people to start thinking "Hey, it's not THAT bad to say that women aren't capable of leading in the church." and from there it is just a slippery slope downward to treating women like crap. And since it isn't obvious, people like you get sucked into beliving it isn't bad.

This slippery slope apparently has already happened in your church since your minister had to devote a whole sermon to try and teach the men not to be jerks to women, yet you admit that many in your church aren't getting it. The problem lies with the fact that the structure of your church is built on saying women are not as capable as men to make decisions or lead, that women are somehow less than men in this aspect. When the church is sending that sort of message, even if it is subtle, of course there are going to be problems with the men treating the women with respect because, hey, the church also teaches that the men are better than the women.

If you want to stick around and be a part of the change great! I would encourage you to do so, but the first step in that direction is admitting that there is a problem, something you have refused to do. So until you are willing to say, "Women need to be treated equally to men in all areas of the church." you will just be part of the problem. You will not ever be part of the change until you do that.

Quoting this since geniebell has been back and I really want her to address this. When a little girl in your church comes up to you crying because she has just been told that being a woman means she will never be good enough to be a leader, how are you going to explain how this isn't making her lesser than a man? Are you just going to go on pretending it isn't a problem or are you going to admit the problem and try and change things?

[Guest Anonymous]

I have answered this question already...yes...I would encourage her to push for change. And what you have missed from my posts on this is that change is happening. And people accuse me of not having reading comprehension skills. :roll:

[formergothardite]

No you haven't. You have maintained that women are not treated as lesser than men in your church. How will you explain this to a little girl who is just told that being a women means that she isn't capable of being a leader but it also means she isn't lesser than the little boys in her class.

Good that change is happening, but it won't if you won't admit there is a problem. Do you admit there is a problem in your church when women being treated as lesser than men?

[emmiedahl]

geniebelle, little girls are already being treated like second-class citizens in your church. On another thread, you said that was not sexism. Which is it: gender discrimination is okay, or you are going to fight for change?

[formergothardite]

geniebelle, little girls are already being treated like second-class citizens in your church. On another thread, you said that was not sexism. Which is it: gender discrimination is okay, or you are going to fight for change?

Good point. If you are fighting for a change, you have to first acknowledge the sexism. I really hope that you are one day able to do so. For your own sake and for the sake of all the children (both male and female) in your church.