Savvy Sisters and Stylish Blogs

My Savvy Sisters is an online magazine dedicated to providing resources, inspiration and guidance to women that will empower them to survive and thrive in life. We encourage self sufficiency, self love and resourcefulness. The publisher recently contacted me and asked for an interview which was a great joy for me to do.

The effort flourished into three articles, the first of which features the publisher's own account of her spiritual abuse story. Notably, she speaks about the experience that so many others who escape spiritual abuse report: the subtle and not so subtle curses of woe that will befall someone if they a group. Along with the griefs associated with leaving, spiritual leaders often predict that some evil will befall those who leave their group, partly in efforts to keep the member from leaving. For many group leaders, however, I believe that they tell these tales so often that they believe their own bad press. Te-Erika relates her own experience of this feature of spiritual abuse and how she triumphed over it, and she continues to use the wisdom she learned to help others in a new adventure that awaits her.

My scrapbook from Erika's work!

On the heels of the Savvy Sisters interview with me which focuses on the dynamics of the process and how recovery begins, the online magazine features the story of Erika Martin that many readers here will recognize as “Stampin' Mama.” Erika sells the Stamping Up line of scrapbooking products, a medium she used to help process her own spiritual abuse experience after emerging from the Quiverfull/Patriarchy Movement. Please link over to read Erika's dynamic story of triumph and growth, one that I always find a great joy to read. If you're particularly inspired by the Savvy Sisters interview, you can find even more details about Erika's experience by clicking on the “NLQ Stories” tab at NoLongerQuivering.com.

Ah, but there are more stylish things to come...

Richard Gelina sent me an email to let me know that he'd just received the Stylish Blogger Award, and he tagged me as one of the recipients, as each person who receives the award must tag seven others with it. Richard's By His Grace, For His Glory blog is more like the kind of blog I'd rather write, and in many ways, he does all the stuff I wish I could still do! He's got all sorts of stuff on his beautiful blog, complete with his own photography which chronicles his Christian journey through life. Richard covers current events, his music, his family, as well as his thoughts about sermons he hears and the books he reads. Please go visit him, newly dubbed as Stylish, a title truly fitting.

As a stylish blog recipient, I must tell you seven things about me:

1. I cheated on my gluten-free diet and ate pasta on Sunday. It was great!
2. I followed my mom around when I was about five years old, bugging her to rehearse with me all of the words to “Victory in Jesus” until I'd memorized it. It's a miracle she that doesn't hate the song, because I remember being relentless.
3. My ring finger was a size 6 ½ when I married and a 7 ½ now.
4. I have 1/3 the number of shoes that my husband does.
5. I love walking with walking poles, not just because they help me burn 30% more calories, but because they also amuse me.
6. My favorite John Thompson's Modern Course for the Piano book was #4 because I like the songs in that one better than the ones in #5.
7. I hate using earphones.
   
   

   

Nominations:

1. In keeping with things stylish, I'm tagging Stampin' Mama Designs, Erika's website. You can join her virtual stamp club, find things there to celebrate Spring with craftiness, or link over to her Etsy Store.
   
   
2. The Wartburg Watch gets the next stylish tag, particularly for their creative inclusion of a coveted Star Trek T-Shirt while drawing attention to the problem of the teaching of the Pearls. I love the humor, much needed when dealing with the deeply disturbing issue.
   
   
3. A few weeks ago, Adele Hebert (independent scholar whose diligent work has helped writers like Leonard Swindler, author of Jesus was a Feminist) sent me an email stating that she thought that Waneta Dawn's Submission Tyranny blog was the best blog on the internet, so I'm tagging Waneta. Waneta is also the author of the stylish book, Behind the Hedge, a novel that chronicles a story of domestic violence. You can watch talk a little about characters in the book on YouTube.
   
   
4. Hannah Thomas hosts Emotional Abuse and Your Faith, another one of those among the “best blogs on the internet” category. Declaring Psalm 112:4, “Unto the upright, there arises light in the darkness,” the subheading of her blog states, “Domestic Violence issues are not gender based, and it is my hope that this resource will help – and not render – your walk in Faith.” I love her easy-to-read and stylish list of links, particularly those that link to resources for those struggling with Domestic Violence. I like the stylish skirt that appears in the right hand corner of her header!
   
   
5. The Patriarch's Bible parody blog deserves honorable mention as a stylish one for preserving the integrity of “The Accolade,” Edmund Blair Leighton's painting, which they feature in their header. (Not everyone finds that painting adequate. I had to take it down off my wall after I saw what was done to it.) “The Patriarch's Bible is a volunteer project designed to produce a Bible paraphrase and commentary in line with modern patriarchal theology.” 
    
6. Hopewell Takes on Life is quite stylish, especially considering that the current post features a book about a little black dress! Hopewell has many things to say about a host of topics including many great book reviews, many that relate to the Quiverfull/Patriarchy Movement. And Hopewell gives away books from time to time, too. I especially love her review of the Return of the Daughters video.
   
   
7. Because Adele Hebert doesn't have a blog (unless she has one and she hasn't told me about it), I'm going to tag the Overcoming Botkin Syndrome blog as stylish to direct you to some of her excellent work. The blog also has a variety of information that specifically applies to what Hillary McFarland has described as the Quivering Daughter, the daughters of the Quiverfull Movement. I'm very grateful for Adele's contributions, and some of her writing is also featured in the Quivering Daughters book as well as at GodsWordToWomen.org.  Well, since I was able to talk about the Overcoming BS blog and honor Adele, I've decided to tag Hillary!

Thank you to all of you for your stylish blogs and all of your dedication to writing about the topics that matter so much. You're also Savvy Sisters, too, (except for Richard, savvy in his own right). ;-)

Revisiting First Time Obedience: Finding New Alternatives

I've spent a great deal of time on this blog developing ideas about the problems with First Time Obedience (FTO), but I'd like to quickly revisit the concept before moving on to some new alternatives for parents, in light of how the topic relates to the Pearl Method of Child Training through aggressive spanking. When Lydia Shatz died last year after abuse with the Pearl-recommended Teflon reinforced plumbing supply hose, it was noted by some who knew the family that the Shatz family also ascribed to a theological idea that it was possible for a Christian to completely attain a sinless life. Those who follow the idea of FTO often rely upon techniques like the Pearl or the Ezzo Methods to accomplish those ends, what some describe as an attempt at training human nature and the resultant proclivity to sin out of children in order to obtain perfection.

I will refer to one of FTO's most zealous advocates within Quiverfull/Patriarchy to roughly define the expectation and practice, quoting Voddie Baucham. In context, Baucham describes “Discipline and Training Phase" in his book as well as in audio sermons as directed toward these general and benign sounding objectives for children: 1) Do What They Are Told; 2) Do It When They Are Told; 3) Do It With a Respectful Attitude.  As he expounds on his concept (in a very pleasant tone that does not sound overtly authoritarian), he defines any "delayed obedience" in black and white terms as intolerable, an unqualified disobedience to parent and God, something he requires of a two year old.   In his book, Baucham uses an example of expectations that he has for a two year old on pages 109-10 of his book, Family Driven Faith:

What this means is the degree to which children properly respond to the authority of their parents is indicative of the degree to which they are filled with the Spirit. In other words, obedience is a spiritual issue...

You tell your two-year-old to do something in front of the pastor’s wife and she sticks out her tongue yells “no,” and takes off running in the other direction... Eventually you learn that everyone is willing to accept this behavior, or at least to make comments that suggest their acceptance.

The only problem with this scenario is that it clearly violates the principles laid out in God’s Word. It is not OK for our toddlers to be characterized by rank disobedience. Moreover, if we do not deal with this when they are toddlers, our children will grow up to be disobedient, disrespectful, obnoxious teens whom no one wants to be around. More importantly, they will have established a behavior pattern that mitigates against the Spirit-filled life. Remember, a young man or woman who is filled with the Spirit will be marked by obedience to his or her parents...

Others have reported to me that they have heard Dr. Baucham teach sermons wherein he also uses the example of the sin of shyness in a two year old.  In this sermon online, it is unclear how old the child must be when Baucham states that he will discipline a shy child himself if the parent does not,  should that child fail to greet him in a manner he finds appropriate.  Baucham reportedly defines this shyness a sin of selfishness on behalf of the child and the parent.  His charismatic speaking style and pleasant tone offsets the authoritarian nature of his teachings.

Concerning an unrelated matter, I pulled out Harriet Braiker's book a few days ago, and with the issue of corporal punishment of children on my mind as the subject of future posts on this blog, I noted this relevant issue which Braiker describes as at type of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Though the book concerns how a person can break free of manipulation in adult relationships, exploitative manipulation and abuse still looks the same, no matter the age of the manipulator's “mark.” Manipulation (getting a child to do what is in their best interest) is not always a negative measure, but exploitation and trauma should not be lauded as a healthy or a Christian method for accomplishing a positive end. I offer Braiker's words as another consideration and perspective on FTO before moving on to future posts concerning the larger topic.

Methods of Manipulative Control: Traumatic One-Trial Learning (in the chapter entitled The Mechanics of Manipulation)

The fifth way that manipulators control their targets is through traumatic one-trial learning. This method of controlling behavior is the proverbial “hand on a hot burner” event. In other words, you do not need a second experience to learn to keep your hands away from a hot burner if you have experienced a painful burn once.

A terrifying or traumatic experience can produce long-term and generalized effects. For example, a child who is attacked and bitten by a pit bull is very likely to develop a morbid fear of dogs that can last a lifetime. The generalization effect means that the child's fear attaches not only to pit bulls but to dogs that resemble pit bulls in any way or maybe even to all dogs in general. . .

A physically or emotionally abusive husband, for example, generally can establish fear and trepidation in his victim after the first traumatic episode. Thereafter, the victim is fearful and adopts a response style designed to try to avoid another occurrence of abuse. Unfortunately, almost every abuser continue to re expose his victim to repeat attacks that serve to deepen the impact of the initial traumatic experience. . .

The psychological term is one-trial learning because the impact on the victim is so strong as to effect behavioral control, often through the instigation of fear and intimidation, almost immediately. However, People who erupt emotionally or physically generally do not stop with one episode – their own self-control is not that good. In other words, if the meltdown happened once, it is safe to bet that it is only a matter of time before the other shoe drops with a blood-curdling thud.

Excerpt from pages 140 – 144

Who's Pulling Your Strings?:

How to Break the Cycle of Manipulation

and Regain Control of Your Life

by Harriet Braiker

McGraw Hill, 2004

If this topic is of interest to you, I recommend that you read the quotes from Alice Miller that I've begun to list at Overcoming Botkin Syndrome (a website discussing unhealthy enmeshment with family resulting from the Quiverfull and Patriarchy lifestyle). I also recommend visiting the Tulip Girl and the Why Not Train a Child websites for more information concerning the Pearl and Ezzo child training methods.

For those of you who have not read these in the past, please note these previous discussions of First Time Obedience on this website:

►First Time Obedience Introduction
The Selfish Sin of Shyness

• A review of the submission required under multigenerational faithfulness as Vision Forum’s carryover from Bill Gothard’s submission teachings with various examples of this demand for unquestioned obedience without credulity. First post specifically examining “First Time Obedience” in young children.
  

►First Time Obedience and Unquestioned Submission
Part I: Parental Convenience

• A review of the principle of sacerdotalism and parental convenience (as a control issue in dysfunctional families) as rationales for requiring “First Time Obedience” and “leaps of faith” required under multigenerational faithfulness.
  

►First Time Obedience and Unquestioned Submission
Part II: Spiritualizing All Activities

• Review of the tendency to make every banal daily activity one of great eternal spiritual significance as a consequence of works-based salvation. Includes a discussion of viewing personality traits that do not fit the belief system’s paradigm as sinful as well as the building up of all gender related activities as sacramental for the impartation of inward sanctification.
  

►First Time Obedience and Unquestioned Submission:
Addendum to Part II (Spiritualizing All Activities)

• Blog host’s personal experience with inherent personality traits treated by parents as sin, the idolatry of seeking parental approval, and the consequences of requiring unquestioned submission with the use of guilt and shame that predisposes one to easy brainwashing and compliance with thought reform. Includes a section from Biderman’s Chart of Coercion addressing the powerful effects of devaluing individuals in religious settings.
  

►First Time Obedience and Unquestioned Submission
Part III: Poor Development of Analytical Thought and Problem Solving Skills

• Discussion of the development of how perfectionism, works-based salvation and First Time Obedience squelch problem-solving skill and prevent the development of critical thinking under the guise of multigenerational faithfulness.
  

►First Time Obedience and Unquestioned Submission
Part IV: Theological Concerns

• A specific review of the theological problems in Voddie Baucham’s defense of First Time Obedience as well as the refutation of the practice from Scripture. Echos concerns noted in this previous blog post concerning Baucham’s “Family Driven Faith” book.

Click here to read the entire series at the archive.

Related Posts About Lydia Schatz and Family

• A list of ALL POSTS related to Lydia Schatz, Michael Pearl, and Blind Obedience
• CNN's Reports about the deaths of Lydia Schatz and Hannah Williams, and interviews with Michael Pearl on AC360 and Dr. Drew.
• Posts about Kidney Disease related to the Pearl Method
• Posts about Harm to Children through discipline for religious reasons (including Pearl)

.

More John Piper and Other Complementarians in the Bedroom

After reviewing Augustine's challenge on the last BTR show, I pointed out that the complementarians make the show of love and liberty quite complicated because they intermingle matters of social preference with essential doctrine. If they intended to divide the church by doing so, the divisive plan has worked quite well. Our conflicts not only concern behavior, they also involve core doctrine, and it's not just a matter of intramurals as they would have you believe.

They send a host of mixed messages, then don't want to be held accountable for sending them. Somehow, it all falls back on that evil and unsubmissive woman!

By creating a new interpretation of the Trinity, complementarians claim that their intramural gender preference is actually an essential part of essential doctrine. They draw a direct parallel between the Persons of the Godhead as a direct analogy to gender within the family wherein men are like God and women are like Jesus as an eternal suffering servant. They interpret rejection of their preferred rules of conduct for women as a direct sin of rejection of God Himself. You cannot have one (gender) without the other (God's identity) – they are concepts inextricably bound to each other under the new doctrine. (Jocelyn Andersen calls this the Trinitarian Marriage.) Those people who reject this concept are dismissed as non-Christian and are said to worship a false God because deviation from their gender preference is said to outright reject God's own Image. This blog post would then be false teaching and my act of worship unto a false God, all on top of my other blatant violation of their rules about gender (which I would be happy to respect if it didn't involve spiritual and other abuse, as well as semi-Arian doctrine).

It seems to me to be little different from kids on a playground who win against their rivals by crying, “Na, na, na – na, na, na!” No appropriate or effective response will resolve the conflict, because those taunting children don't want to resolve anything. Amongst adults, if necessary, it appears that the complementarians cry, “Lesbian!” and “Open Theist!” instead.

Regarding Piper specifically and complementarians in general, I compared how I view their response to those who reject their teachings in this way:

Rather than unity,   they demand uniformity.

Rather than liberty, they show great intolerance.

Rather than love,     they show aggressive rejection.

Regardless of our differences, we should all call one another back to unity, liberty, and love in Jesus. But how do we do that, given the doctrinal twist?

Back in the Bedroom, And it's Full of Complementarians

 Tomorrow, Jocelyn and I will continue our discussion of complementarian teachings on BTR and how the group focuses on sex at the expense of the central message of the Faith. There is much to say about the subject, and we didn't get to touch on all that we'd planned to mention.

Oddly, at the same time that we announced the topic of our show last week, several other blogs began discussing John Piper. The Wartburg Watch (speculating about “Piper's missing video”) and Emotional Abuse and Your Faith tackled several aspects of this same topic. The timing of these things is always fascinating to me, as Jocelyn and I have discussed the topic of “Piper in the Bedroom” for many months. These posts and the discussions that followed are well worth your time.

Earlier this week, Hannah Thomas and I emailed back and forth about the problem that many followers of John Piper have with us whenever we challenge the inconsistencies in his teachings. People like Hannah and me get accused of all sorts of things like hatred, etc.. We have no agenda other than finding the “right opinion” about how the Bible tells us to live. If we reject a teaching, that doesn't make the teacher a “bad person,” and we're not suggesting that they are. We don't even know these people personally in most all cases, and even if we did, it would not exempt them from responsibility for the inconsistent things that they teach! I don't know what that has to do with anything, except that it might be an expectation that we Christians should never openly challenge other Christians who appear to be “nice.” That's a social convention, not a Biblical one, and John Piper himself is known for challenging others very publicly without concern about whether they are “nice people.”

I only wish to elucidate the truth written in the Bible so we can all have a “right opinion” about how it applies to our lives today. So I ask lots of questions about teachings that seem to me to be either obscure, misguided or outright wrong, but the questions don't deny liberty or negate love. Questioning teachings ought to be considered a function of liberty and tolerance under a spirit of love and charity. (But if you misunderstand unity as uniformity, everything falls apart.) Perhaps our error rests with some social expectation of the appearance of unity (appearance = uniformity) at the expense of discussing or debating right doctrine, an expectation which is not Biblical.

On BTR last week, we made references to a video by John Piper concerning how an abused woman should submit to her husband. (It's a different one from the video I posted last week.) In it, Piper first laughs when he is asked the question. ON BTR, we also mentioned the very strange nature of Piper's very first “tip of the tongue” example of sin that an abusive husband might ask of a wife, noting that we found it inappropriate and a cause for some concern.

My previous post about Piper's disturbing use of falsehood and deception seems rather harsh because I just found so much wrong with what he had to say. Hannah's posts this past week about John Piper's excellent advice to an adult who was abused by their parents in the past broadens understanding of Piper, presenting several important points about his message. In some respects, his rational and unbiased approach to that topic shows us a very different side of Piper than previously presented here. Piper shows us a very compassionate and kind response to heartache, something he extended liberally to grown children who once suffered abuse. And as Hannah has noted, John Piper does this all without laughing like he does when discussing the abuse of women, and all without bizarre, out of place examples like “group sex.”

I'd love to say that this video somehow exonerates Piper from his errors, clearly demonstrating what a nice guy he is. Sadly, as Hannah also details well in her second post in response to this video, the only sometimes compassionate Piper holds a double standard when it comes to women. A grown child can free themselves from the injustice of abusive parenting and can realize forgiveness without bitterness even when a parent rejects reconciliation. Yet Piper also tells us that wives who are mistreated by their husbands must resign themselves to a certain degree of injustice, relinquishing themselves to obedience to their spouse who becomes their new and eternal “obligate parent.” I won't try to duplicate Hannah's review and will refer you to her for an excellent examination of yet another difficult inconsistency in Piper's message about women.

After many words and ideas, I'd like to again invite the reader to be a listener on Saturday as Jocelyn and I discuss more aspects of this troubling problem within the Church.

Unity, Liberty, and Love: Dealing with Doctrinal Differences

At the start of last week's Blog Talk Radio (BTR) with Jocelyn Andersen, I highlighted something very important that I've spelled out on this website many times before. It deserves repeating every once in awhile.

Traditional, conservative Christians want to conform to that which is written in the Bible as opposed to “cherry picking” only doctrines that they like so that they can plug them into their own construct. We want to have the “right opinion” about what is actually written in the Bible, and we study it so that we can have the most informed opinion possible. The word “orthodox” means “right opinion” in it's original form in the Greek language.  After the last official apostle passed on to that unseen country, it took our early church fathers some time to clarify exactly what “right opinion” meant, partly because they spent most of their time averting persecution. But eventually, they constructed the creeds so that we could affirm and establish that right opinion.

Things get a bit more complicated, however. The Bible is sometimes very explicit, clearly telling us how all of the dots connect about a certain topic. There is very little “wiggle room” on interpretation based upon what is written. But that Bible is a thick book, and some topics and related teachings are implicit or less clear. We know certain things about those topics, but we don't know everything because the Bible does not spell them out. Part of that owes to our unfamiliarity with the culture and language used, as we are looking back a rough 2000 years in order to understand and at a language that is not only foreign, it is no longer used by people for their common means of communication.

The central message of Christianity is the message of the Gospel: Believe in Jesus the Messiah in your heart and confess that faith. By grace, through faith, God then gives those who believe in Him salvation from their sins. This gift is something that cannot be merited through human effort or works and is God's free gift to us. Any doctrines or teachings that add any extras to that central, core message are not a part of the Gospel (though the Creeds of the Church clarify the specifics). Certainly, Christianity discusses many other important topics, but they are not the central topic. Those doctrines (including things like gender concerns, eschatology, etc.) also tend to be less specific or are implicit. For the ease of discussion, those who came before us defined this central message of the Gospel as “essential doctrine,” and those implicit, peripheral things as “non-essential doctrine.” (Another term used interchangeably with “non-essential” is “intramural.”)

I've also mentioned Augustine's commentary on how we should approach those less specific doctrines on this blog in the past, but it also deserves repeating:

In essentials, unity.

In non-essentials, liberty.

In all things, love.

As Christians, our unity in the central message of Christ and our love for one another that flows from it should call us to show liberty and tolerance to those who interpret those peripheral doctrines differently than we do. I mentioned John R. Rice as an example on the radio, someone who held defended his gender views without love and liberty in many cases. His lack, however, does not exempt me from showing him tolerance and love. 

The late John Rice was straight and true on the central and essential doctrine, and I affirm that fact, despite any differences we would have had about the non-essentials. I don't have any problem extending respect and tolerance to those who do not share my interpretations about gender. The commandment of Jesus for us to show our love for one another and Paul's many admonishments to stay focused on the central message of Christ and Him crucified must take precedence, demanding liberty, no matter how uncomfortable showing liberty's tolerance to others might be for me. And, I admire those who defend what they believe.

Ideas for further reading:

• Preserving Evangelical Unity: Welcoming Diversity in Non-Essentials by Michael Meiring (ed.) 
• One Lord, One Faith: A Theology for Cross-Denominational Renewal by Rex Koivisto 
• Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church by Harold O. J. Brown

More important thoughts about unity:

Contrary to popular belief, denominationalism is not the root cause of disunity; it is sectarianism or fundamentalism.  And the evangelical church is not immune to this disease.  Some Christians have in the past and up to now sown a sectarian attitude, believing that unity means conformity to all their views and “refusing to allow for diversity in others.”  

They have broadened Christian orthodoxy by breaking fellowship with any other Christian who disagrees with them on non-essential doctrines, which is fuelled by their belief that the Holy Spirit illumines their minds to understand everything written in the Bible.  There is, however, a subtle danger that all of us must face in our effort for unity.  We must be aware that when we apply principles of interpretation, we are approaching Scripture with our presuppositions, influenced by our environment and theological traditions   (pg. 10,“Preserving Evangelical Unity:  Welcoming Diversity in Non-Essentials” by Meiring,  emphasis mine).

John Piper in the Bedroom and Propaganda from the Pulpit: Another Fine Example of the Induction of Cognitive Dissonance

A few weeks ago, Jocelyn Andersen asked me to join her as co-host on her new Blog Talk Radio (BTR) show. Though you can always catch the earlier archives which remain online and can be explored at the BTR website, Jocelyn and I will meet every Saturday morning at 10 AM Central to discuss the topics of both Spiritual Abuse and what Jocelyn has titled “The Complementarian Cult.” We will alternate the subject of the discussions every week to keep things interesting! Because complementarianism does utilize so many tricks of rhetoric and social psychology, Jocelyn chose to add the term “cult” to the title of the biweekly discussion.

This coming Saturday, March 19, 2011, we've scheduled a show to discuss “John Piper in the Bedroom,” a subject with which I am not familiar. Apparently, he has established standards regarding how married couples should approach intimacy through even more social anthropology and social engineering under the guise of religion. I will learn about this subject along with the BTR listeners.

19Mar11 edit:  Listen to the show now:

Listen to internet radio with jocelyn andersen on Blog Talk Radio

I believe that while patriarchy and complementartianism oppose overt sexual sin, their leaders' obsession with gender differs little from obsession with sex. Though they decry our sexualized secular society, the Church appears to have it's own comparable version of the same, but by way of gender. It is not that such topics are taboo, but complementarian leaders' primary focus on gender as essential Christian doctrine displaces the significance of Christ Himself. Paul's admonishment to preach Christ and Him crucified becomes secondary to the legalistic message that their particular intramural preferences are an eternal salvation requirement for all Believers.

In preparation for the upcoming BTR show, I searched for online references about John Piper concerning the bedroom. I found the this video on the topic. Please note the following definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary before you view the video so that you can approach the topic with a strong frame of reference and understanding of the words that Piper discusses. Scientia potentia est (Proverbs 24:5).

Sex: 

   1 (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse

   2 either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions

   Origin: late Middle English (denoting the two categories, male and female): from Old French sexe or Latin sexus

   Usage: On the difference in use between the words sex (in sense 2 above) and gender, see gender (usage)

Gender:

   1 the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)

   2 Grammar(in languages such as Latin, Greek, Russian, and German) each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections that they have and require in words syntactically associated with them. Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.

   Origin: late Middle English: from Old French gendre (modern genre), based on Latin genus 'birth, family, nation'. The earliest meanings were 'kind, sort, genus' and 'type or class of noun, etc.' (which was also a sense of Latin genus)

   Usage: The word gender has been used since the 14th century as a grammatical term , referring to classes of noun designated as masculine, feminine, or neuter in some languages. The sense ‘the state of being male or female’ has also been used since the 14th century, but this did not become common until the mid 20th century. Although the words gender and sex both have the sense ‘the state of being male or female,’ they are typically used in slightly different ways: sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender refers to cultural or social ones (emphasis added by blog host)

Concerning Piper's Secular Feminism's Influence: Sex and Gender Video

In this video, John Piper reads a quote from a social historian, Jerry Muller, regarding how the academics in women's studies programs use words “sex” and “gender” in order to support complementarianism. Note that the opinion of the writer is never challenged, nor is the source of the quote noted specifically, though the author's credentials are cited. (The 1993 article appears in the First Things journal, the publication of a Catholic/eccumenical influenced “interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society.” To his credit, Piper does at least note the specific source on his website in a discussion of “complementarity,” the term that Catholics use for their version of patriarchy.) Piper does not make known to the audience that the author he quotes is likely comparable to someone like Bruce Ware in terms of belief. I find it interesting that Piper puts a copy of the actual text that he's quoting on the screen behind him. Piper appeals to someone noteworthy who appears to be outside the usual CBMW affiliated experts to reinforce his premise, utilizing the powerful fallacy of appeal to authority. Why does he put an actual copy of the reference on an overhead? If it's in print, it must be more reliable?

He's also just made his second major logical leap into error by presuming that common people in society use the same language and share the same concepts about gender as the most liberal of academics. He's wrongfully employed the slippery slope fallacy, presuming that A (extremes of liberal academia) leads to B (common definitions and speech in society) which leads to C (corruption of Christians with lesbianism), which eventually leads to Z (the demise of all society) with no stops or significant processes in between. If it's present in a limited academic field that defines the ultimate in things liberal, it is present in the conservative Church?

Just like Piper is himself, all Christians are accountable to God, commanded to bring every thought captive to Christ, and conform their hearts and minds to the standard of the Word, though Piper does not make any such acknowledgment. Piper fails to validate the power of the Holy Spirit and the Word in the life of the Believer as a break in the link of his created chain of causality. In support of his concept of “evangelical feminism,” he uses the black and white informal logical fallacy to lump the most radical and offensive examples of secular feminism together with any and all Christians who reject or even question his theology of gender. But he seems so polite in the communication of it, so it becomes more difficult to identify. Piper's soft tone does not match the offensiveness of his statements, another manipulative technique which triggers a suspension of critical thinking.

The way in which Piper uses Muller's reference to lesbianism and repeats the word to emphasize it also employs another powerful propaganda technique. The word is thought-stopping. Piper's primary audience will identify lesbianism, whether it is rightfully or wrongfully introduced into the topic, as something repugnant. Many listening will stop thinking critically just because of the emotional weight of the word itself, something that is quite pejorative to them. They will not process anything that's spoken after Piper emphasizes this word. He's used the propaganda technique of reducteo ad Hitlerum, a particular type of red herring that triggers an appeal to emotion and an appeal to fear.

It's very confusing, because he's actually appropriating the definition of his adversary, agreeing with the language and thoughts of radical feminists to prove his premise that they're wrong. In so doing, he's actually giving God's power away to the feminists. He's letting them define the terms then uses the term to instil fear to bring his audience back to his way of thinking.

Using the fallacy of ambiguity, Piper fails to point out that the word “gender” which derives from genus (kind or the subtype of a species) has been used since the 14^th Century. He also suggests indirectly through some very fuzzy logic that the word “gender” itself is somehow sub-standard because it's status as a mere grammatical term implies a loss of personhood. By doing so, he's using the fallacy of poisoning the well to sully the term “gender” with his audience. He also challenges the word by noting several times that “gender” is a mere artificial cultural construction. Any Christian in his audience will understand and experience an automatic resistance to the word “gender” as Piper defines it because Christianity teaches that God designed the sexes to communicate something of His transcendent love for His people. Piper is thus utilizing both intentional vagueness and unstated assumption. This red herring logical fallacy will disrupt the critical thinking processes of his audience.

Piper fails to correctly define usage of the word “gender” as a banal and pragmatic term in common speech by spiritualizing it (a fallacy of transference) and creating a false dilemma that does not exist outside of the construct he's created in his argument. He creates an artificial conflict between common speech and religious meaning, all in order to arouse the audience and to create doubt. It is another emotional hook through the use of the black and white fallacy that causes people to stop thinking critically about the message, a red herring that distracts the listener from the problems in his premise. He has, in fact, demonized the word “gender” by employing argumentum ad hominem.

Piper fails to note the benefits of the word “gender” and the difficulties in using the word “sex” as an alternative. In this context he's dissembling to prevent the listener from making an informed choice about his premise. When he states that he prefers the word “sex” over “gender,” he never mentions that “gender” is a more polite term because “sex” often connotes and is confused with coitus. The term “gender” spares embarrassment and confusion, particularly in religious settings where it might be understood as provocative. But I believe he wants to be provocative. It sells books and gets attention. How postmodern of him.

These are examples of the linguistic tricks and very insidious techniques which manipulate the greater discussion of complementarianism by inducing cognitive dissonance. People understand that they can't even rely on the meanings of the words they use, and they are very likely untrue, though they never had a clue. This is a way of causing the listener to doubt themselves, and this allows Piper an inroad to dominate the conversation and the thoughts of his listeners. “If I don't even know how to use the right words, I'm likely wrong about what I already know about the subject because this expert clearly knows more about it than I do.”

After so many successive fallacies piled on in rapid succession (a dozen major ones in three minutes), the listener either tunes out or becomes weary of thinking critically. Those who continue to listen will usually stop questioning and will just passively agree with what they are told. They will finally accept Piper's opinion and premise because they become weary and stressed by the inconsistencies. Their emotions, thoughts, behaviors and the information they're given is tightly controlled, and it is hard to resist conversion under these conditions.

These contradictions also make the learner dependent on the high priests of complementarianism, because they cannot trust themselves. All of these inconsistencies that I've listed here were crammed into only three minutes. After several of these contradictions and appeals to a person to doubt themselves, and especially when you listen to a sermon of this type, the listener/reader has no ability to slow down the process to think critically about each item said to them. In those stressful situations and given the social context of homiletic in a group setting, most people will start taking in what the speaker says without weighing what is said and whether they agree with it or not. “Piper must be right, and I can't keep up. He must really be smart and talking right over my head.” (It's not acceptable for those in the audience to stand up and shout, “Hey, can you go back and explain that because it doesn't make sense to me.”)

I'm also troubled at the paternalism that assumes that a high priest is needed by the masses. The Holy Spirit and the discernment of the individual must be rendered as something drastically limited.

<>

I invite you to tune in to hear Jocelyn and me explore this and other aspects of the topic this Saturday on Blog Talk Radio at 10 AM Central.

Finding an Alternative Model for Child Training, Getting Out of a Patriarchal Marriage, and the Various Issues related to Domestic and Child Discipline, Etc.: Plans for Future Posts

I continue to get more email feedback than I can address in a timely manner sometimes, but I do my best to answer emails from those with the most pressing needs.  (If you’re among those who have written to me this past fall, I’m still wading through those!)  What I find most troubling are those emails from parents and mothers who have difficulty coping with the demands that patriarchy has put upon them, albeit without the lofty benefits promised to them by the system.  For some with adequate resources, their families seem to make it through patriarchy, but that is not so for all.
Over the next few weeks and months, and with the help of friends of this blog and professional colleagues, I would like to address some of the more common requests for help and advice that I receive. 

It is vitally important for people emerging from high demand groups to make their own decisions, but I hope to provide some alternatives that might inspire others find good solutions for themselves. Parents frequently ask about alternatives to the child training methods used in patriarchy, a matter of great concern for many who just need to find a better model for dealing with their kids. Some want advice about how to get away from verbal abuse in the home which becomes much more complicated when this involves children. Some women just want out of their marriages, but how does one accomplish this when custody becomes an issue? Is it better to stay and suffer, and if not, how does one find help and support if you can't do it anymore? How do you do it when you have children or many children?

Some other issues that are more difficult will take more time and research to address, and they are more long-term interests. I don't know that there is truly more to add to the discussion of these issues beyond the writing of this blog post at this point and without structured study. It is certainly an introduction into a wider discussion of the problems faced by some Christians who have tasted the bitter fruit of patriarchal teachings.

The Various Faces of Discipline, Patriarchy-Style

The “Christian Domestic Disipline” (CDD) issue and related problems are perhaps the most difficult of topics that many have asked me to address, and I suspect that it is a growing problem among those who are emerging from all types of patriarchy and patriocentric lifestyles.  I hope to address this over the coming years as I expect more data will become known over time. Perhaps it won't. ???  *And please take note that I use the term CDD loosely merely because the term is used in the circles that ascribe to it, for I see no Christian merit in it personally.*
 
Some follow the practice of the physical discipline of wives by husbands as an adjunct to the Bible-based belief system that teaches that women are of lesser essence than men or are subordinate to men, thus requiring correction and male governance in the home and in marriage.  According to that reasoning and the logical conclusions of the teaching, women therefore need a male disciplinarian and governor as well as the vague implications and fuzzy logic of the need for a male spiritual intercessor. Some Christians argue the practice of CDD as an adjunct to complementarian ideology and teaching, a matter that has been discussed on the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s own forum in years past. Other Christians have reported to me that many ex-Mormons continue to follow the practice, though they have left the Mormon faith.

Though little is said openly about the practice of CDD (apart from its presence on the internet), a consistent five to ten percent of visitors on this blog that use a search engine to arrive here at UnderMuchGrace.com find their way here because of searches on CDD and related issues.  I’ve found that people often question this finding, and I wanted to again bring it to the attention of the Christian community and to those who read here.  Discussing Christian Domestic Discipline has been the third most popular blog post on this site over the past ten months according to blogger analytics (a post that defines the practice as unhealthy and associated with elements of addiction and unresolved shame).  That is not to suggest that this reflects anything meaningful about true numbers of adherents, but it does indicate that CDD is practiced and that individuals are searching for communities of people who follow the same.  (See this 2008 post for additional information regarding interest in the topic as reflected by search engine referrals.)

I am also told of a growing number of adult children that have emerged from the first generation of aggressive Michael Pearl-style parenting, who in their rebellion against the system in which they were raised, have adopted an interest in sadomasochism in conjunction with promiscuity. Concerned parents have approached me to address this topic because the practice has created self-destructive problems for their grown children.   

It is believed that in the study of aberrant sexual behavior and addiction that aggressive spanking does trigger sexual stimulation.  A few months ago, I had the privilege of speaking to Maureen Canning, clinical consultant to the The Meadows' sexual addiction treatment program and noted expert in the field of sexual disorders.  She explained to me in a discussion of this growing phenomenon among those who have exited patriarchy to think of slapping one loosely held hand with a firm hand.  The vibration of the impact travels through both hands and into the fingers.  The impact does not remain in only the palm of the hand alone, and the more aggressive the impact, the further the vibration travels.  She explained that is long believed that in the treatment of sexual addiction and disorders that aggressive spankings cause the same type of vibration to travel to the sexual areas, too.  Many who were spanked regularly and aggressively as children and suffer sexual addictions and fetishism as adults are believed to have experienced a “fusion” of sexual arousal areas in the brain with their pain centers in the brain on a physiologic level, in addition to whatever conditioning also reinforced a mental link.  Because of this physical stimulation in childhood which includes inadvertent stimulation of sexual organs because of the spankings, as adults, these grown children are unable to experience sexual pleasure without the induction of pain and sometimes shame.  In their brains, the two are synonymous and they can no longer separate between the two sensations on a functional level sexually.

Have parents unknowingly trained their children in such a way that fosters sexual deviance along with its other unfortunate legacies including the deaths of Sean Paddock and Lydia Schatz?

In both of these cases of discipline, be they the logical conclusions of complementarian theology or the regretful sexual practices of those children who were aggressively spanked in the name of Michael Pearl, one notable factor emerges from them both:  a lack of intimacy with one’s partner.  

[11Mar11 Late edit for clarity:  "from them both" refers to 1.) practices of discipline based on the idea that a woman is a man's subordinate and of lesser essence/value/power as defined by alleged Christian principle, and 2.) those adults who identify/seek help for sexual problems that they associate with aggressive discipline in childhood.  This is not a post intended to discuss sex play or practice within the confines of healthy adult intimate relationships.]

Many argue that sexual behaviors and even domestic discipline itself is harmless if no one gets hurt, but is it healthy?  According to Maureen Canning in a private discussion, in her writings, as well as in the writings of other experts like Patrick Carnes, a sexual practice is only considered to be healthy so long as it promotes healthy emotional intimacy and relationship.  The practices discussed here promote objectification, degradation, and toxic shame.  Rather than promoting deep love and trust through physical intimacy, these practices promote dissociation and a displacement of the self in time and space. They are the enemies of intimacy, the clinical perspective of the problem.

Again, aside from broaching these topics, at this point in the unfolding of the legacy of patriarchy, I don't know what additional factors can be addressed.  I hope that those who perhaps see themselves in this post will consider what is written here, perhaps finding some validation and provoking some deeper thought about their experiences.  In my opinion, Michael Pearl is guilty of far more than that which readily meets the eye.

For anyone engaged in domestic discipline or in other types of sexual behaviors as mentioned, I highly recommend Maureen Canning's book, “Love, Anger Lust: Understanding Sexual Addiction and the Road to Healthy Intimacy.” Also, Patrick Carnes books concerning sexual addiction are excellent, and The Betrayal Bond is helpful for all types of relationship issues. Your Sexually Addicted Spouse by Steffans and Means is also an excellent resource.

*Late edit and highlighting added for clarity.*