I couldn’t believe it. Do you remember the pastor who wrote in his column in a newspaper something like this: throw your wife and your dog in the trunk of the car and drive around, and when you stop, see which one is glad to see you?
A few weeks ago he wrote that people want the Bible to be gender-neutral and to say things like “mankind” and “womankind.” Now you and I know that whenever anyone says “womankind” they are making two species of humans. Feminists and those of us who want equality would never separate the human species into mankind and womankind. But he was being cute, and taking a jab at Christian women.
So I should have believed it when his article this past week was titled “Man vs Woman.”
The gist of this gem was that the vacuum cleaner and washing machine made women’s work easier. Women make 77 cents to the dollar that men make, and if women want their husbands to make more money in their paycheck, they should stay home and take care of the kids because “economists” say that when it is the woman who kisses her husband goodbye in the morning and stays home, the husbands will make more money.
I didn’t follow his reasoning, either.
He ended it with the fact that lots of things in life are not fair, but they are made easier by Maytag and the vacuum cleaner inventor.
I doubt that my letter to the editor will be printed as he is a paying customer, and his church pays a pretty penny for his column (which is actually an ad for the church.)
I did have my letter to the editor printed in a big city newspaper Saturday in response to the article about the girls in India being left to die.
Regarding “India prospers, but its girls still die,” the story is the same whether it is about India allowing little girls to die or whether it is about women wearing the hijab.
It is a story that we Christians face daily in our churches as the male headship and authority of men over women has become a big issue among evangelical Christians. Girls and women are seen as second-class in religion and in the home. Countries and religions should be judged on how they view women.
I would add to that “Countries, religions, and pastors should be judged on how they view women.”
bWe Baptist Women for Equality's Blog 
I’ve often observed how different churches treated their women differently.
I noted that some UPC made their women wear dresses and disallowed makeup and the cutting of hair, BUT let them preach like any male on a Sunday morning. And another denomination let their women wear, basically anything, all the make-up they wanted, and they could perm and color and cut their hair to their heart’s desire BUT they were never allowed anywhere near the pulpit.
And I always wondered…
Why are there always ‘extra’ rules for women that don’t apply to men? As in, don’t dress as the culture does OR don’t go near the pulpit OR as in some denoms (IFB anyone?) you can’t do either.
So, anyway, after years of watching how each church treats their women and then seeing ugly cultures around the world, I came up with this saying.
You can learn a lot about a man by how he treats his wife.
You can learn a lot about a country by how they treat their women.
You can learn a lot about a church by how they treat their women.
You can learn a lot about God by how He treats his Bride.
Sometimes it’s good to compare and contrast. And you know what? When you compare many churches and their treatment of women and how God treats His bride, it uncovers how truly shameful their behavior really is.
I wonder if the pastor mentioned above would like for God to throw him in His trunk and drive around the celestial block a few times? I wonder what his reaction would be then?
LikeLike
Mara, I like your saying! =)
LikeLike
His comments about the wife in the trunk, and the wife at home to help the economy – and his giggle about how the appliances finally made their life better…
He certainly isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer is he? Those types of attitudes is what started the woman’s movement that he despises so much.
Are his opinions online?
LikeLike
No. He is the pastor or a large church in this area. His column is really an ad in the newspaper. It cannot be accessed online.
LikeLike
So it’s not enough that this pastor spreads his ugly attitudes about women in his church but he has to print his snipes in the newspaper. Well, hopefully it will be an alert for people to stay away from his church. Is the church a non denominational or is it part of a denomination?
LikeLike
Denominational – Baptist, to be exact. I wrote and asked him for a private conversation – with a witness of his choice. He wrote back and said “pardon me for asking, but what is your background?” I gave him the standard stuff, and did not mention that I attended his church for year, and left 3 months after he arrived.
LikeLike
let us know if/when the meeting happens. Should be interesting. But be prepared to be treated as something less than a child. 😦
LikeLike
So what is the name and address of his church, and what is his name? Expose him, spread the word, so innocent people would not knowingly step into that snake pit!
LikeLike
They read his column but don’t see what you and I see.
LikeLike
If he puts this tripe in a public venue with his name and the name of the church, we can analyze it all we want and be perfectly legal.
LikeLike
It is very public, in a daily newspaper.
LikeLike
We put out that John Piper video for all to see how he squirms when asked what is the abused wife going to do if all wives have to submit to their husbands. It went off the cringe scale. We need to see how ridiculous they are. They need to be held accountable.
LikeLike
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/
By the same token, we need to judge a Christian author/speaker by how he/she judges women.
LikeLike
http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/05/09/censorship-at-di-tzeitung-no-women-allowed/comment-page-1/#comment-136698
LikeLike
I read that. I was planning on writing on that for Wednesday, and still will in case others don’t see it.
LikeLike
My response to the article about the edited news photo:
““The article gives a little more information – it is not to eliminate women from history, but “Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women.””
There was nothing immodest about Hillary Clinton’s attire. So, in effect they are saying that women are immodest human beings because they are women. Viewing a woman is an action of immodesty. Pretty bizarre IMO.
LikeLike
They also couch these things in words such as “we are protecting you.” Which makes it a noble thing that they do, and makes women the weak ones. By the way, my letter to the editor WAS published in my local paper today.
LikeLike
yea! – about your letter
LikeLike
Yea is what I thought, too. I just wonder how long this pastor will allow the editor to post my letters before he threatens to withdraw his ads.
LikeLike
This sort of protection comes with too high a price.
It is more like a thug extracting “protection”* money from places of business than anything the Jesus teaches.
(Think, “The Godfather”)
LikeLike
Actually, their approach is the most direct/honest about the whole “modesty” thing I’ve seen, IMO. What they’re doing, removing women from a photograph, points out what is at the base of all modesty movements that focus on trying to control the thoughts of men: women are made primarily (if not solely) for the purpose of men to have sex with. As opposed to being complete beings in and of themselves, with an intellect and emotions and morals: in other words, complete human beings. Therefore, if I am male, when I see a woman, I *will* think about sex, since the two are nearly synonymous…
LikeLike
I was considering the comment by Michelle above. One of the biggest complaints about Hillary (esp. when vying to be the democratic frontrunner) was that she was NOT considered very attractive to some voters. They complained about the bags under her eyes. They complained about her ‘pantsuits’ (There was the rumor that she only wore pantsuits because she had ugly legs). Remember the T-shirts directed at Hillary, “Iron my Shirt”. I think that any old crapola that works to make women invisible seems to be a viable excuse, when patriarchalists are concerned. As a woman you can be ugly and smart or either beautiful and dumb (stereotyping) But, either way you are still dangerous.
LikeLike
My biggest complaint about Hillary was concerning policy. And I also did not like the fact she enabled her husband’s continual sin. Political power came first. Even back in Ark.
LikeLike
Lydia, your comment made me smile. Yeah, the problems I had with Clinton (Hillary 😉 ) as a candidate were not related to the fact that she is female. I wish folks would just get over the fact of someone’s biological sex, and look at things that are relevant, ya know? Like what you considered.
LikeLike
Terri, that’s one of the things about it that irritates me most. When running for President, Ms. Clinton was not a person, she was a female body in a pantsuit. What did it matter what she looked like? Was she running for Miss America?
Did anyone focus on what any of the male Presidential candidates looked like? Of course not.
Michelle makes a good point. The removal of Ms. Clinton from the photograph is simply showing honestly what is still in most hearts in the nation. A woman is a woman first and last. Being seen as simply a human being is still not a luxury afforded her in most cases.
In the 1960s we used to talk about trying to learn to be color-blind when it came to things like this. It’s high time we started thinking about learning to be gender-blind.
LikeLike