Evidence for God from Science

So I have been relatively oblivious to this term but have been made aware of it recently by visiting a few blogs written by Christian males who have seemed ot make it their mission to establish that the church has been "feminized" and I was hoping for some clarity from some of the men here that I respect greatly.

In the discourse that we have had, the blogger stresses that men have been feminized and this term is used many times. I have asked repeatedly for clarification for this term.

Personally I am very puzzled by this term, especially by a set of men (the bloggers) who also declare that they love strong women. Several times the notion that men and women are different (a concept I have no issue with) and yet what exactly those difference are vague. While reading the blog, It seemed a valid conclusion to make that to consistently use the feminization to illustrate that men have become weaker men seems to reinforce the idea that the person using that term views women as weak and wimpy.

A simple mathematical equation: a feminized man = a weak man, ergo, femininity means weakness

Elsewhere in the blog women in the church are stereotyped as weaker intellectually, as not interested in deeper theological issues and weak-minded.

To my mind, if we *truly*, truly want stronger women in the church, the last thing we should perpetuate is this idea that feminization means weakness...or, to put it another way, that last term we should be using to bolster and strengthen men is a word that also conveniently manages to reinforce weakness in women!! Women aren't stupid, and if they hear that that is what men think being feminine is about, then to get along and find a place in the church means being anemic and letting the heavy lifting be the sole venue of the men.

So please, gentlemen, help me sort this out...I would like to make sure that I myself am not "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I don't want anemic men, but I hate hearing that men want strong women and yet they language shows that they really don't view women as strong or even having the abillity to be strong.

How can we address this issue without digging ourselves into a horrible morass of bad feelings?? But i have bene reading these things and thinking to myself "what am I, some sort of freak of womanhood to like thinking???"

It's a pretty amorphous thing. I hear it raised at times with regard to the Institutional Church, meaning that women dominate and men are somewhat absent. I think some Church cultures are just built that way. Men are traditionally seen as the breadwinners and so they work and women who are not as engaged in that area have more time and they end up more involved in the Church by default. That's not a strong model in society in general anymore. Traditional families where men are the sole bread-winners are relatively fewer. Church as microcosms though value that and can be outside the mainstream culture. So you have a catch 22. On the one hand, men are assuming an expected role, but on the other hand that role diminishes their presence within the traditional church. Often the response it to use shame and guilt that men should be doing more, but then something has to give ... work or family.

What is called feminization too has a lot to do with the elevation of society and culture away from those elements that emphasize maleness. When physical strength gives way to mental and cultural elements, then it's claimed that men are "feminized". The needs of society and the family are not focused on things that emphasize physical strength and drive. So that moves to the elements of society where that stil is value. This culture pays a premium for intelligence and creativity. Physical labor and strength is decidedly "blue collar."

Religion offers a niche for what maleness "should be." It appeals to ego and male desire (which is not just male but human) for dominance and power.

Those thoughts are rambling but maybe it helps, I hope.

But where in scripture (other than the weaker vessel" ) are weak women shown to be the ideal.?

I guess what I am asking is whether this is Biblical....it seems like women are thrown under to bus in order to lift up men.

I tend to agree with that. It ties to a culture that aligns with religious values. I find very little support for it in terms of the whole council of Scripture.

A few passages in the OT and in the NT are appealed to and many more are ignored to accomplish that. Passages that were understood in one particular way in the context of the culture of that time have been elevated to moral absolutes which have lost all the nuance of its day and brought to stand on their own without any context.

I don't see the patriarchal (elevation of men at the expense of women) as Biblical. In fact, I see it as an affront to the Bible.

In the OT women held a high and important role and were respected. You saw that in the OT stories of Esther, Judith, Rahab, Rebekkah, the female judges in Isreal and in the context of passages like the Song of Solomon and Proverbs 31.

The imposition of outside cultural and philosophical influences have influenced the church in the direction of diminishing women in this manner. Greek philosophy and Greek religious influence was "christianized" in places and things like the story of Adam and Eve were made to be more symbolic (ironically because in other contexts the same people arguing for literal creationism in some extreme forms of YEC reject any symbolism there.) So Eve comes to represent all women and the appeal is made to her being created from Adam after Adam's creation and therefore an inferior creation or a "weaker vessel" in a sense beying physical strength.

Some forms of Judaism and Christian culture point to Eve being the first to sin as if that was more serious than Adam and project upon that an entire social and cultural structure that has very little to do with the text itself. The superb "logic" that Adam is superior to Eve because he was created first and in the more direct image of God should lead us to then to conclude that all the animals created before Adam and Eve are superior on the same basis. It requires very selective reasoning to come to these prescribed outcomes, without much focus upon internal consistency.

Passages like I Cor 11:7 have been pushed into a hierarchy of God over men and men over women when that's not to my understanding the point of the passage at all. Women are the glory of men. I believe when it speaks of glory in this context that the meaning is one of revelation and and indication of love and fellowship, not an prescribed hierarchy. You have to assume that going into the passage to impose that meaning. I don't see it present by itself there.

Jesus treated women in the same manner that he treated men. He didn't bow to the culture he was in and indeed was greatly criticized for it. He made no distinction between men in sinful lifestyles as opposed to men. He loved and reached out to both. He demonstrated this with the adultress taken in sin and Mary Magdelene. Indeed, he reserved some very special honors relative to his resurrection and its discovery that brought women into full paricipation with His revelation and plan.

The greatest revelation to all of mankind come first to and through women. I think that's consistent with the promise to Eve in the OT that through the seed of woman the serpents head would be crushed. Attempting to read more into it than that misses the over-riding theme in scripture that extends from the very beginning of Genesis, in my opinion.

Woman had a decisive role in the early church that speaks loudly in my opinion. Women bear responsibility for churches and as missionaries and this can be found in Rom 16, Phil 4 and Col 4. Women had spiritual gifts and functioned in diaconal roles as well as prophecy and speaking in tongues. (Acts 2; 12; and 21)

Paul, for all that he is appealed to in isolated passages affirms that women have the gift of public prayer and prophecy (I Cor 11:5). Paul makes the ultimate statment in this regard too when he states, under inspiration, that there is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, slave nor free before God. It takes a huge amount of "Yeah buts" and rationalization to try and turn that around to where the exact opposite is endorsed in the name of Christ by some. Sadly, that's what rationalization and the adoption of outside influences that are then dressed up as Christianity have done and I think it is wrong especially to the extent that some have taken it in our recent history in which physical abuse, mental and emotional abuse have been endorsed and empowered by many in the name of Christ and God. That makes me ill to be honest and it stands as a stark condemnation of what institutionalized religion and rationalization can do to completely subvert and undermine the law of love we are to model before others in the name of Christ.

Paul is not the misogynist that many Christians have attempted to make him to be. Sadly, many non-Christians have accepted what many Christians have said in this regard and among many it's not even examined or debated. It's just accepted that Paul sees women as inferior and subjegated to men and to be silent in society. The Church has established this view and misrepresented both Paul and the Bible.

What Christian history has done is to have taken half of what Paul and the Scriptures have said and then turned that into a system and moral code while ignoring the other half the speaks of mutual submission love and respect in a vibrant and healthy relationship. In other words, we totally misunderstand Paul's theology when we retain only half of his teaching and then transform this half, in which he affirms something that is a fact, into a type of legal and social organization and a moral duty. That's the essence of legalism and the complete opposite of relationship, grace and freedom in which we walk in love for God and for one another. The code and duties become the letter of the law that kills the spirit of it and in the end only the structure remains and is manipulated by men who want submission and power without building the relationship that functions healthily within.

Women and men are not more moral or more immoral than the other. We share common ground before God in that regard. Yet passages like I Cor 14:34-35 and I Tim 2:11 and I Cor 11:5 are quoted, without any surrounding context and held as absolutes by those attempting to assert their own power without following the context of loving relationship. However you have nearby passages like in I Cor 11 where it seemingly contradicts itself and says rather than women remaining silent that when they do speak they should keep their head covered. Why would he contradict himself so close together? There must have been something going on the context of Corinth that gave meaning to these outward things. In fact, there was. The Pagan religious practices of the region had women in the context of their gathering speaking out in a prelude to orgies and immodest behavior. Paul was telling them to avoid the appearance of that by curtailing the practice that could be misunderstood and lead to debauchery which we know was a problem in Corinth and even in the church from other parts of the Epistle. Wresting the context away from that to present a code of absolutes is a product of manipulation on the part of those who want to misuse and abuse women. Even those who attempt for pure motives to do so, set the stage for those of less pure motives to do the same. They Church to the extent that it has done this in the past throughout history has a lot to answer before God and before the women and children who have been abused by this system and the empowerment of imperfect men to take advantage of the system without first establishing relationship with the love of Christ preeminent!!!

The passages in Corinthians are a cry for decency and order in order to set them apart from the indecency, debauchery and orgiastic worship of the pagan traditions around them. Men are appealed to as well as women in other areas to keep the spirit of prophecy subject to self-control. Yet the same people who appeal to direct passages for women ignore this and don't draw the same conclusion for men.

Jesus never falls into legalistic patterns of morality, nor does Paul. That is contrary to the message of grace that Paul fought for and opposed Judiazer and even Peter in the book of Acts. Picking out isolated texts and turning them into legal precepts is a complete demolishing of the Spirit of the NT and of Paul's message of grace.

I can say more but this is probably enough for now. God forgive us for what institutionalized Christianity and Christendom along with the heart of man and desire for legal codes rather than grace filled relationship has done to the word of God and to so many women and children. It saddens me greatly.

Could you give a link to the site?

So far as men being "weak" by being more feminine, I have no idea what they mean. It seems to me, from what you say, that they want more "manly" men in the church and want the women to be subservient and obedient to the men, a concept I strongly disagree with. And as far as men being intellectually superior to women, that is an EPIC FAIL on their part. Women to me, at many a times, tend to be smarter and deeper in the spirit than men. Men, more often than not, allow themselves to be distracted from God by trivial things that are "manly". I have noticed that women open themselves up more to God and desire a close relationship with Him than men do. Not saying all men don't open themselves up to God just as much, just men tend to do it less so because it makes them look "weak". They don't want to face the fact that, they are weak, but that God can make them strong. IDK, very tired right now, and can't fully convey what I mean, but I hope you get the point. These men just seem like they want control and power, and that they want the women to serve them. I think that the church would be better if all the members were more loving and showed the love of Christ better and stopped trying to have a power struggle between men and women.

I will respond more when I can concentrate better. Sorry if I seem to be all over the place and not getting what you are saying. I am just not sure what these men are getting at... why would they say that? How is the church too feminine? Because men are beginning to be more emotional or loving? Men need to be more like that, it would make for a better world that is for sure. Now men here, I am not downing you all, there are many good men, and many good women too. It just seems that men are worse about this and that they tend to hide their emotions to look strong and more "manly". Please let me know what they mean, they really need to clarify what they mean by that, so we can better understand (and then prove them wrong )

Zoe,

Feminised is too ambiguous a term to describe what these people are perhaps getting at. I believe that a lot of men have become less like men. Many men do not support their families like they used to and should; men seem to have less amibition, less drive and less goals. I also see a lot of pandering to the whims of females these days. I could go on and on, but the last time I tried to debate this, on another forum, I was actually faced with 'attack' after 'attack'... all from women. I was actually venerating the woman, and chastising an element of 'modern' man, yet was faced with such irrational responses from women that it became like a bear pit. I'm sure you and other women on here would be a lot more sensible, since the women on here are good thinkers. But I found it a fruitless task before...

Here comes the bear!!

Just kidding.

Oh the story is a bit more complicated but I have to go teach now....

Sorry Zoe, I edited as I somehow lost a sentence in my first post...it just disappeared.

Well, I've learned to try to talk rationally with regards to evolution so perhaps we can strive to do that with regards with gender issues.

I have loads of respect for hte men here, oodles of it in fact, so I have high hopes of us remaining rational

My goal is to clarify terms and language used in this debate.

I would agree with you, Danny, that some men need to step up, absolutely.

I can pm you the blog but I don't feel right posting it publicly.

I'll be honest, he was on a christian dating site and sent me a message, this is what prompted me to go to his blog. Now on the blog he posts myriad "relationship tips for men" which essentially boil down to "hey guys, this is what you should be asking women to make sure that they are interested in feminizing you" which sent alarm bells ringing, because it does seem to me that the more men talk about this the more insecure they are....or rather the more interested they are in creating male "territory" and female "territory." (I had seen his profile a good month earlier but certain things in the profile were making me leary so I didn't bother).

In order to be fair, I answered back and simply asked some questions concerning the blog (one of the questions he wants men to ask the women they date is whether, if the man takes the lead in choosing seats in church, she is willing to follow, which seems to be a rather obscure and vague question). I asked him to clarify and he hasn't bothered.

In another section of the blog he states (talking to pastors who treat young men childishly)

You might personally prefer to interact with a lady in her 40s or 50s who is asking you to pray for her neighbor's bunion than a college-trained man asking you about dinosaur bones and the book of Genesis, or embarrassing questions about tithing. However, between the two, who is going to do the heavy spiritual lifting for the church in the decades to come? Who?"

or here

[quote="""]The “feminization” — that kicks in when someone's feeling's are going to be threatened if we examine (KJV-onlyism — fossils — Cessationism— or whatever) is alive and well, and thus we avoid talking about things that seem to matter more to men than to women. Women in my experience consistently talk about whether a church is 'nice' — and men talk about whether 'they were any help'. " [/quote]

I then read one of the pieces which quotes the book wild at heart, which has some really fine parts to it. One of the quotes was (I will paraphrase here), that men should realize that women want to share the adventure. To me, this is awesome!!...it's one of the most exciting aspects of a relationship, the idea of sharing the adventure!! But to me, this means sharing in learning, sharing in conversations, sharing in activities. In the past this has seemed to be a very vulnerable are in some men. For example, many years ago I played volleyball recreationally in a co-ed group of Christian singles. I loved, loved, loved playing with many of the men there and had no problem being part of the team. Most of the guys were awesome and were willing to share the court. Occasionally, however, I would find a few men who seemed to resent my being there and went overboard in trying to steal the ball, hog the place on the court and just have an over-bearing, condescending attitude towards me, if not downright neanderthalish about me being there.

The same thing happens sometimes in Sunday schools or discussions where it is co-ed, if I am participating in the discussion, it almost seems that there is this awkwardness to the group, as if they don't know what to do with me. At the most, it seems as if I am encroaching upon their territory, at the least it is awkward.

So after many frustrating attempts at trying to get him to clarify what he means, I finally downright asked him what it means to share an adventure and he refuses to engage in the discussion. He accused me of being judgmental about the men (focusing on the fact that I dared to use the word neanderthal).

I'm not acting for advice on him....running in the opposite direction...but I was rather disappointed when I really really tried to express my excitement at the idea of a relationship where the adventure is shared and pfff, nothing but irritation.

So perhaps any of the men out there who have read the book or have some insights, what do you think about the idea that men should realize that women want to share in the adventure??!!

Zoe, I've read the book. It's got some very good insights and I enjoyed and benefitted from it. There's a tendency for some who read the book to use it as a license for "machismo". In celebrating men and our uniqueness as opposed to women, the idea of subjugation as opposed to mutual submission in the context of a loving relationship, is given cover. I didn't read the book that way. I don't think Eldridge meant it that way. I saw statements of spiritual leadership and then women coming along for the adventure as one of mutual submission and care where men, who tend in general (not always individually in practice) take a role of leadership toward knowing God better and the wife comes along in support. Submission in that context doesn't mean passive acceptance and suppression of any individual participation in the journey, even at times making suggestions or setting the pace. It means active participation and engagement in a shared goal with the man out front and setting the pace for both as a general principle. In general that's a very common model and one that plays to how men in general are wired and function, and women in general are from their side as well. When the model is elevated above all else then you descend into legalistic, moralizing type religion that is more focused on form than function.

It just shouldn't be this hard should it?

I really like the fact that he addresses this desire that women have. And perhaps he elaborates on what this means.

Women really do desire to be part of the adventure and I think that, in part, is why some of the adventure shows that have been very popular lately (NCIS, Bones, Stargate) are also popular with women, because they show women being involved and integral to the team. Whereas I'm not sure tha church quite has that element figured out yet.

Zoe,

It seems to me like this man is just being a petty (understatement?) chauvinist. It's the sort of thing that he'd be better off discussing with his friends, as it has no intellectual basis for a public airing. I also see crass generalisations being made (how many women in their 40s/50s has he actually heard ask for parayer for their friend's bunion?!). Or is he just making this up in order to make a, erm, point?

I totally agree with you about the excitement of a relationship, the buzz, the tingles, and simply enjoying being together. But I also think it is the duty of the man to look after his woman, to have ambition, a career, to have a personality, drive, energy, a good network of friends, etc. But that doesn't mean to denigrate the woman by suggesting she be looked after; it means to love and protect no matter what, to provide stability and be a rock. I also think the woman's instinct is to look after her man, in a way that only a woman can do. So it is about equality, for sure.

Yes would you mind pm-ing me with that blog, Zoe? I'd also like to talk to you about something you mentioned, so if you do not mind I could pm you back...?

Danny

DannyM wrote:Zoe,

It seems to me like this man is just being a petty (understatement?) chauvinist. It's the sort of thing that he'd be better off discussing with his friends, as it has no intellectual basis for a public airing. I also see crass generalisations being made (how many women in their 40s/50s has he actually heard ask for parayer for their friend's bunion?!). Or is he just making this up in order to make a, erm, point?

I totally agree with you about the excitement of a relationship, the buzz, the tingles, and simply enjoying being together. But I also think it is the duty of the man to look after his woman, to have ambition, a career, to have a personality, drive, energy, a good network of friends, etc. But that doesn't mean to denigrate the woman by suggesting she be looked after; it means to love and protect no matter what, to provide stability and be a rock. I also think the woman's instinct is to look after her man, in a way that only a woman can do. So it is about equality, for sure.

Yes would you mind pm-ing me with that blog, Zoe? I'd also like to talk to you about something you mentioned, so if you do not mind I could pm you back...?

Danny

I;m not only talking about the excitement of the relationship but also of shared goals within the relationship, of the spiritual battle, of life's adventures....

zoegirl wrote:It just shouldn't be this hard should it? I really like the fact that he addresses this desire that women have. And perhaps he elaborates on what this means. Women really do desire to be part of the adventure and I think that, in part, is why some of the adventure shows that have been very popular lately (NCIS, Bones, Stargate) are also popular with women, because they show women being involved and integral to the team. Whereas I'm not sure tha church quite has that element figured out yet.

God designed men and women to become an Echaud - one - coequal in the gift of life. Echaud means unity of oneness so in relationship two become echaud.

Does it mean that I become feminized when my wife gives a “Honey Do” list? No — it means we work together to accomplish the challenges of life lain before us. There are limits we each have and these all vary per individual. My wife is more level headed, conservative, frugal, and more intelligent than I am. However, there are times when these good traits get in the way and she needs a wild idea, or assurance it is okay to spend, and sometimes reminders that too much reason causes inactivity. In other words, we balance each other out.

Sadly culture has interjected cultural interpretations in the biblical text. There are exceptions to everything but the norm is that men are physically stronger than women. My wife cannot lift two hundred pounds but I can. That is all that it means in the bible referring to women as weaker, nothing else. Culture, ancient Roman for example was very oppressive toward women, and when Rome fell, Christianity took over — this cultural of oppression crept into the Church.

Such oppression interpretation crept in regarding Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 14:34-40. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Paul uses the word “I” not thus sayeth the Lord. In fact , the daughters of Philip were prophetesses and Paul mentions women in position in authority so what Paul was addressing were problems in the Church at the time.

I Corinthians 14 addresses the abuse of speaking in unknown tongues as well as gossip and people thinking one teacher is better than another due to abuse of spiritual gifts. Included in definition of the word translated silence is tranquility that comes from respect. Therefore, keep the peace by respecting each other. This was not happening in the Corinthian Church as evidenced from the very letters themselves and Paul was addressing that. Paul was simply trying to stop the slander and discontent in his address.

Interesting in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Paul uses a Greek word that is derived from words meaning a murderer that seeks to have ultimate rule where the text reads 'authority over.' In other words, this is saying that one is not to murder, slay, destroy another's reputation so as you or someone you know gains power. With that proper definition the text takes on a more clear meaning.

The majority of women do not do this, nor engaged in this. In Paul's time, it seems that he kept running into this problem, someone seeking to slay, murder, ones reputation in order to dominate. The women teaching in the Church, that I know do not do this. They seek not to slay in order to dominate. They are the handmaidens of the Lord as it is written:

Joel 2:28, 29, 30, "And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. 29 And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. 30 "And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth...." NKJV

Since, God pours out his Spirit in such manner he proscribes, we must understand this, men and women are truly coheirs of the Holy Spirit. Let us all avoid the temptation to murder, slay, another in order to dominate as that produces strife and keeps the dissension from 1 Corinthian Church perpetuated.
-
-
-

zoegirl wrote:

DannyM wrote:Zoe,

It seems to me like this man is just being a petty (understatement?) chauvinist. It's the sort of thing that he'd be better off discussing with his friends, as it has no intellectual basis for a public airing. I also see crass generalisations being made (how many women in their 40s/50s has he actually heard ask for parayer for their friend's bunion?!). Or is he just making this up in order to make a, erm, point?

I totally agree with you about the excitement of a relationship, the buzz, the tingles, and simply enjoying being together. But I also think it is the duty of the man to look after his woman, to have ambition, a career, to have a personality, drive, energy, a good network of friends, etc. But that doesn't mean to denigrate the woman by suggesting she be looked after; it means to love and protect no matter what, to provide stability and be a rock. I also think the woman's instinct is to look after her man, in a way that only a woman can do. So it is about equality, for sure.

Yes would you mind pm-ing me with that blog, Zoe? I'd also like to talk to you about something you mentioned, so if you do not mind I could pm you back...?

Danny

I;m not only talking about the excitement of the relationship but also of shared goals within the relationship, of the spiritual battle, of life's adventures....

Indeedydo, I agree with you. But I have met a girl who is not an avowed Christian, so I can't really think in those terms.