Whew, that’s good. As a sidenote, and I don’t mean to detract from the seriousness of your article, but if you ever give a workshop in composing literary insults, I will pay whatever price you set. “Cut-rate semi-Nicean wannabee prophets who write like concussed possums and can’t cut the crusts off their own sandwiches” is a level of eloquence in rage that I truly envy.
“Care, attention, support, and service flow as an obligation from women to men. They flow less reliably, and at the giver’s discretion, from men to women.”
This truth would bring clarity to many of the “am I a bad wife?” posts in our local Facebook moms group.
Wow. First off, blisteringly well written. I laughed quite a bit. There is a precise cut involved in people who cannot cut the crust off their own sandwiches - men who have never served, don’t know how to serve, don’t know how to tend, don’t know how to cook...don’t know how to wash feet. Are helpless when it comes to things outside their comfort zone. The definition of a manager in the manager vs leader dynamic. Born to be served, not to serve.
And then I stopped laughing. Well said to the whole thing. Especially the enumeration of “well, we care about women’s safety, there are just so many other, more important things we care about first...” and that list is indeed never ending.
I had a teacher in college who said, “a budget is fundamentally a moral document, because it shows what you really care about.” The budget of attention pointed anywhere other than tending to the needs of the people who are important to Christ is just wrong. You start with protecting the most vulnerable, and end with taking care of the most powerful, not the other way, and the book of James (I think?) goes ham on showing preference to the wealthy and powerful.
Most of us men were shaped by this evil from birth. But redemption is by definition changing from evil to good; casting off wickedness and choosing the right, by the grace and power of God. The Christian must know truth when they see it (I see nothing but truth in this essay), and follow the truth where it leads.
I thank God for you, for Beth, for so many other women adding their voices, so that we can hear and attend. Can repent and obey God's command to submit to one another in love. And for men, specifically, to begin to repay the debt most of us have been accruing all our lives.
So much truth here, so much food for thought. Thank you. I experienced a similar backlash in my faith circle when I publicly expressed my "no way in hell" lack of support for Donald Trump. I got kicked out of my home group, and the few friends who would talk to me about it basically wondered why I couldn't have just kept my thoughts to myself. Sheesh. If I live to be 100, I will never understand how well-meaning, faithful Christian people jumped aboard the Trump Train with such religious fervor. It's sickening and deeply disheartening.
I have often described myself as a feminist, and I wondered at your comment that you didn't see Beth as a feminist. Like "evangelical" and "conservative," the meaning of the word has morphed and conformed to cultural tides, but its essence is the belief that women deserve to be treated equally to men. The "feminazi" characterization of the more militant feminists from the 1970s likely still colors perceptions of the word, but isn't it time we embrace being feminists -- maybe "Jesus feminists" -- in our day? It seems the natural counter to patriarchy, and I'm genuinely puzzled why people who reject patriarchy also shy away from the word. Would love to know your thoughts.
I worked in academics for many years (in medicine). A lot of my friends are women (yes, I said this intentionally for the purpose made obvious by stating my intentionality).
I love your wit! It sharpens the impact of your truth statements.
Your writing challenges me to 'parry back' with a similar cleverness. Not for the purpose of making points; but to engage in something important and meaningful toward a little bit more clarity than the substantive clarity your writing brings.
Going back to the first statement; it always has astounded me that women in medicine that i've known, manage to not just meet the expectations, but exceed them. I worked long hours; I married a professional woman (she had earned her master's in one of the healing professions before we began dating, when I was in my senior year of college). While I was in grad school, she worked to support us; when our first child was born, we thought through 'how are we going to do this'; that was in 1981, the culture had seen the reaction to what was then termed 'male chauvinism' in every circle and institution, the feminist movement had begun, and the church had responded (not reacted) to the substantive issues feminism raised, leading to a broad response articulated by making fun of the 'tradition' that mandated that women be kept 'barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen'. This mild mockery seemed to be pervasive across the church, acknowledging the substantive issue of women's suppression.
But the permeating underculture still insisted on what you so clearly state in this posting; that women were allowed to be in men's spaces IF they fulfilled their primary obligations as 'spouse and PRIMARY caregiver of the children' as well. I have always 'marvelled' at colleagues I found far more capable than men in several actual distinctives I can articulate that would take at least a paragraph for each one (multi-tasking; examining problems holistically rather than from a single, limited perspective; managing others in ways that affirmed and promoted their welfare, as just a few examples), all the while, being effecitve 'caring spouses and mothers'-who in both these responsiblities, while sharing this load, often carried the larger part of it (they were the ones who ensured that a child was taken to the doctor; was able to participate in school events, etc.). It's actually amazing when you know professional women well enough by collegial collaborations to see them working and all that they manage; and they know they are handling responsiblities well, thought society doesn't affirm that very often, if ever.
What you've brought out here brings out this cultural 'demand' that women fulfill the role as you've so clearly described it.
This is amazingly well thought out and articulated. Kudos from an old(er) academic...
I've seen this process play out so many times in the lives of women I know - especially during the Trump presidency and pandemic. Once a "good Christian girl" pointed out something patently troubling, she is called crazy, labelled a liberal (which means heretic in these parts), and then her opinion can be safely ignored going forward.
I'm friends with folks in Beth Moore's new Anglican Diocese in Texas. That Diocese does NOT ordain women to the pastorate/priesthood. They ordain women to the diaconate only. Laura should correct her article on that point. It was an incorrect assumption.
I once tried to track down the origin of Beth being called a false teacher. (This was years before the current problem). Turns out it had something to do with the 2 or 3 times Beth described hearing God's direction so clearly she phrased it as "God told me to". She once gave her Bible to a stranger & something about a hairbrush🤔. She has since said she might have used different wording, but the damage was done. She was smeared, and then it snowballed from there. It's really ridiculous.
There are elements of misogyny in the vitriol Beth experienced, and it was vile. Because her influence was seen as limited and she was not pushing for structural change she was not a threat. But as a prominent voice who objected to the evil done by the standard bearer, those who seek political power decided to attack her like they attack all "political enemies." And they used whatever tools they could to discredit her: pseudo-complementarian theology and open misogyny were the biggest cudgels.
I refused to support him for the same reasons (and that he's a pathological liar, insanely narcissistic and abusive to any who disagree on anything) The message was clear. Oppose "our" choice, face our wrath. But I had far less to lose as a man not in ministry.
Whew, that’s good. As a sidenote, and I don’t mean to detract from the seriousness of your article, but if you ever give a workshop in composing literary insults, I will pay whatever price you set. “Cut-rate semi-Nicean wannabee prophets who write like concussed possums and can’t cut the crusts off their own sandwiches” is a level of eloquence in rage that I truly envy.
“Care, attention, support, and service flow as an obligation from women to men. They flow less reliably, and at the giver’s discretion, from men to women.”
This truth would bring clarity to many of the “am I a bad wife?” posts in our local Facebook moms group.
The answer would nearly always be, "not by any just standard".
Wow. First off, blisteringly well written. I laughed quite a bit. There is a precise cut involved in people who cannot cut the crust off their own sandwiches - men who have never served, don’t know how to serve, don’t know how to tend, don’t know how to cook...don’t know how to wash feet. Are helpless when it comes to things outside their comfort zone. The definition of a manager in the manager vs leader dynamic. Born to be served, not to serve.
And then I stopped laughing. Well said to the whole thing. Especially the enumeration of “well, we care about women’s safety, there are just so many other, more important things we care about first...” and that list is indeed never ending.
I had a teacher in college who said, “a budget is fundamentally a moral document, because it shows what you really care about.” The budget of attention pointed anywhere other than tending to the needs of the people who are important to Christ is just wrong. You start with protecting the most vulnerable, and end with taking care of the most powerful, not the other way, and the book of James (I think?) goes ham on showing preference to the wealthy and powerful.
Anywho. Well writ. Well said.
Most of us men were shaped by this evil from birth. But redemption is by definition changing from evil to good; casting off wickedness and choosing the right, by the grace and power of God. The Christian must know truth when they see it (I see nothing but truth in this essay), and follow the truth where it leads.
I thank God for you, for Beth, for so many other women adding their voices, so that we can hear and attend. Can repent and obey God's command to submit to one another in love. And for men, specifically, to begin to repay the debt most of us have been accruing all our lives.
So much truth here, so much food for thought. Thank you. I experienced a similar backlash in my faith circle when I publicly expressed my "no way in hell" lack of support for Donald Trump. I got kicked out of my home group, and the few friends who would talk to me about it basically wondered why I couldn't have just kept my thoughts to myself. Sheesh. If I live to be 100, I will never understand how well-meaning, faithful Christian people jumped aboard the Trump Train with such religious fervor. It's sickening and deeply disheartening.
I have often described myself as a feminist, and I wondered at your comment that you didn't see Beth as a feminist. Like "evangelical" and "conservative," the meaning of the word has morphed and conformed to cultural tides, but its essence is the belief that women deserve to be treated equally to men. The "feminazi" characterization of the more militant feminists from the 1970s likely still colors perceptions of the word, but isn't it time we embrace being feminists -- maybe "Jesus feminists" -- in our day? It seems the natural counter to patriarchy, and I'm genuinely puzzled why people who reject patriarchy also shy away from the word. Would love to know your thoughts.
I worked in academics for many years (in medicine). A lot of my friends are women (yes, I said this intentionally for the purpose made obvious by stating my intentionality).
I love your wit! It sharpens the impact of your truth statements.
Your writing challenges me to 'parry back' with a similar cleverness. Not for the purpose of making points; but to engage in something important and meaningful toward a little bit more clarity than the substantive clarity your writing brings.
Going back to the first statement; it always has astounded me that women in medicine that i've known, manage to not just meet the expectations, but exceed them. I worked long hours; I married a professional woman (she had earned her master's in one of the healing professions before we began dating, when I was in my senior year of college). While I was in grad school, she worked to support us; when our first child was born, we thought through 'how are we going to do this'; that was in 1981, the culture had seen the reaction to what was then termed 'male chauvinism' in every circle and institution, the feminist movement had begun, and the church had responded (not reacted) to the substantive issues feminism raised, leading to a broad response articulated by making fun of the 'tradition' that mandated that women be kept 'barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen'. This mild mockery seemed to be pervasive across the church, acknowledging the substantive issue of women's suppression.
But the permeating underculture still insisted on what you so clearly state in this posting; that women were allowed to be in men's spaces IF they fulfilled their primary obligations as 'spouse and PRIMARY caregiver of the children' as well. I have always 'marvelled' at colleagues I found far more capable than men in several actual distinctives I can articulate that would take at least a paragraph for each one (multi-tasking; examining problems holistically rather than from a single, limited perspective; managing others in ways that affirmed and promoted their welfare, as just a few examples), all the while, being effecitve 'caring spouses and mothers'-who in both these responsiblities, while sharing this load, often carried the larger part of it (they were the ones who ensured that a child was taken to the doctor; was able to participate in school events, etc.). It's actually amazing when you know professional women well enough by collegial collaborations to see them working and all that they manage; and they know they are handling responsiblities well, thought society doesn't affirm that very often, if ever.
What you've brought out here brings out this cultural 'demand' that women fulfill the role as you've so clearly described it.
This is amazingly well thought out and articulated. Kudos from an old(er) academic...
This was ferocious and wonderful.
Thank you for writing this. So much laid clear. I was nodding and saying "yes" non-stop through it.
I've seen this process play out so many times in the lives of women I know - especially during the Trump presidency and pandemic. Once a "good Christian girl" pointed out something patently troubling, she is called crazy, labelled a liberal (which means heretic in these parts), and then her opinion can be safely ignored going forward.
I'm friends with folks in Beth Moore's new Anglican Diocese in Texas. That Diocese does NOT ordain women to the pastorate/priesthood. They ordain women to the diaconate only. Laura should correct her article on that point. It was an incorrect assumption.
"She just stopped supporting [the Patriarchy] in the myriad devouring ways it insists upon." And now she's a feminist.
The essence of "feminist" thought is in acknowledging injustice, in making it visible, in resisting it. I think Jesus approves.
"A desire to have all the fun is nine-tenths of the Law of Chivalry" - Dorothy L. Sayers.
I once tried to track down the origin of Beth being called a false teacher. (This was years before the current problem). Turns out it had something to do with the 2 or 3 times Beth described hearing God's direction so clearly she phrased it as "God told me to". She once gave her Bible to a stranger & something about a hairbrush🤔. She has since said she might have used different wording, but the damage was done. She was smeared, and then it snowballed from there. It's really ridiculous.
Wow wow wow. So good.
There are elements of misogyny in the vitriol Beth experienced, and it was vile. Because her influence was seen as limited and she was not pushing for structural change she was not a threat. But as a prominent voice who objected to the evil done by the standard bearer, those who seek political power decided to attack her like they attack all "political enemies." And they used whatever tools they could to discredit her: pseudo-complementarian theology and open misogyny were the biggest cudgels.
I refused to support him for the same reasons (and that he's a pathological liar, insanely narcissistic and abusive to any who disagree on anything) The message was clear. Oppose "our" choice, face our wrath. But I had far less to lose as a man not in ministry.
Superb.