What did we think of the retreat, honey?
There’s a churchy thing called a Couples Retreat. It’s at the First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana, where the pastor is Jack Schaap, who is apparently what professionals call a Real Doozy. The church offers a list of What We Believe, in case any confused people try to join in, thinking they’re Wiccans or something. The list of What They Believe would cause a wondering frown to appear on the face of Karen Armstrong, and as for Terry Eagleton, he would probably decide to become a line order cook.
We take instruction from the Bible literally; we believe what it is actually saying, not that it is an allegory or a fable. We take instruction from the Bible in the areas of life and faith and go to it for the answers to life.
Like not cooking a football in its mother’s milk, and all that kind of thing. What all the liberal believers and friends of liberal believers tell us hardly anyone believes – and yet the First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana is a big church. Very big. It seats 7,500.
Check out the video of the couples’ retreat. It has couples saying how much they loved the retreat. Well not exactly. It has couples standing there, one couple at a time, but with each couple, only the man is miked, and only the man talks. Sometimes the woman nods, in a shocking display of insubordination, but mostly each woman just stands there smiling into the camera like a stick of wood while the man clutches the back of her shirt and does all the talking.
That’s their idea of being churchy, and “Christian,” and good, and the right way to be, and supportive of The Family. Their idea is that the man gets to be a human being and the woman gets to be a stunted idea-less empty object that is attached to the man and would shrivel and die if she accidentally got unattached. She’s a parasite, an appendage, a part of his body. Their idea of virtue, at First Baptist of Hammond, is to live a bifurcated life in which men are people and women are something much less.
I think you’re being really unfair… I mean, just look at the Staff List on their website and their deep commitment to equality – out of the 30 people named, there actually is one woman!! (I had to check – I haven’t come across the name Mirian before…
Personally, I found the video pretty persuasive. I’ve been given a glimpse of Hell, and I might want to hedge my bet.
I would ask why any woman would allow themselves to be mentally and physically enslaved by a ridiculous community, but I guess I know the answer already: lack of reason. It doesn’t appear that a brilliant memory and education makes up for a poor ability to reason critically either. Without reason, we’re like leaves in the wind: unfree like a passenger on a plane without a pilot.
1) I don’t think that these women (or men for that matter) are lacking in the ability to reason. They have, however, been taught that it is sinful for a woman to think for herself (though only in areas where the man is supposed to have control – for example, it’s quite alright for her to devise housekeeping efficiencies to better serve her master/husband). They also believe (for both men and women) that if their rational thinking leads them to conclusions that are in any way contradictory to church teachings, it’s a sign that Satan has influenced them, and they must discard the evil thoughts and concentrate on prayer and scripture reading.
2) The behaviour at 1st Baptist backs up the assertion I keep making that the difference between Islam and Christianity is a difference of degree, and not kind. I do wish some atheists would keep that in mind when considering allying with anti-Islam groups. Atheists oppose shariah law because it is a violation of the principles of public secularism. Fundagelical Christians also oppose shariah law, because they want their theocracy. (The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. Period.)
I’m assuming that the men in that video weren’t speaking their minds. I’d guess that the producers asked couples what they thought and then directed the men to express those thoughts in a particular, scripted, way. The objective is, by no means, to listen.
I attended a state college where one could not escape the evangelicals. After the umpteenth invitation to bible study, I convinced a friend to attend one of these with me as a kind of sociological investigation. (OK, I convinced a friend that, if we were really high, it might be weirdly entertaining.) The discussion was led by two guys, and there were maybe a dozen other people. Including an honest to God shill. And I had a revelation. This isn’t just like a con. This actually is a con.
And that’s how I look at that video. The objective is to get members of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana to part with more of their money than they have previously.
I really do hate when my otherwise progressive-mined friends talk about religion being anti-woman in the past tense. Their tone suggests that today’s religion is by and large more sophisticated. I always remind them of stuff like this—of how “mainline” protestants teach that the man is the “head” of the woman, and that wives are to be subject to their husbands.
“2) The behaviour at 1st Baptist backs up the assertion I keep making that the difference between Islam and Christianity is a difference of degree, and not kind. I do wish some atheists would keep that in mind when considering allying with anti-Islam groups. Atheists oppose shariah law because it is a violation of the principles of public secularism. Fundagelical Christians also oppose shariah law, because they want their theocracy. (The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. Period.)”
Also, if you go to parts of the world where Christians can still do things old school (mostly in Africa but also in parts of South Asia) they’re pretty brutal. Witch hunts, angry mobs, religious persecution, murdering gays, the whole nine. I think if anything Islam is less inherently nutty than Christianity; but Christianity has been crippled and neutered by secularism in much of the world and Islam has not.
Ken Pidcock:
Yes. I assure you, there are fundagelical churches like this in every part of Indiana. But there are also somewhat trendier megachurches, that are not Pentecostal, not Assembly of God, not Baptist, not Disciples of Christ, where the emphasis on Biblical inerrancy / literalism is more subtle, less consistent, or non-existent, and where women are more vocal and more active in church leadership than the men are . . . and those church operations are also a con. I have talked to women who are active in leadership in Baptist and non-Baptist churches, and these churches are equally likely to use PowerPoint during sermons and hymn-singing. But it does seem to be true that the Baptist and charismatic Christian churches put a greater emphasis on the “women should be silent and subservient” hoo-haa than the more middle-of-the-road Protestant churches. I’ve lost count of the number of Indiana weddings I’ve attended where a Baptist preacher (always male) quoted either I Corinthians 14:34-35 or I Timothy 2:11-12 both during the ceremony.
If one wants to differentiate one’s own church from the others and to show that Biblical literalism / inerrancy is important in the content of the preaching, etc., it’s sufficient to put one word in the advertising (such as on the sign out front with the moveable big plastic letters): “Biblical.”
Here in Indiana there are also attempts to establish extremely trendy and extremely lucrative churches through marketing, and the congregations at these joints would probably not be quite as shocked by Karen Armstrong’s pronouncements as the folks at 1st Baptist in Hammond. For about a year I used to drive past a billboard in Speedway (west side of Indianapolis) for some new church, where two thirds of the advertising slogan was “Casual atmosphere / no judging” and the billboard depicted a thirty-something couple in jeans holding Starbucks-style coffee cups. Whatever it takes to get folks in the door, into the pews every week, and doing their regular tithing.
Finally, the demographic and survey data show that most of the Indiana cities with populations of 100,000 or more (and this probably includes Hammond, very close to Chicago) are majority-Roman Catholic in religious self-identification. And in those congregations, women are as cowed and in-the-background as anywhere. As for what the men and women in those congregations believe . . . . Well, about 60 percent of the lawyers and about 45 percent of the clients I encounter daily are nominally Roman Catholic, and it’s not apparent that they know much in detail about the doctrine; they mostly go through the motions and make a show professing or contriving to believe of what the priests tell them they are supposed to believe. Now there’s a con. “Accept no substitutes; insist on the original.”
I was wondering whether to send you that link a few days ago. Of course the women’s silence is very noticeable, but it was those two (I think there were two, I’m not about to watch it again) who nod that were really jarring. I wonder if the editor(s) of the video were aware of how daring those two seem, just by moving their heads in agreement. I mean, it’s almost as if they thought they had the right to say something. Overton Window.
Makes me wonder if it all worked so smoothly when those couples were newlyweds. Had they all memorised the rule book, or were there slip-ups requiring “correction” along the way? Anyone ever seen a horse do what it was told without it having been broken in first?
Well, I guess that’s one way to shut Armstrong up, but I don’t see how it’d help us with Eagleton, if the men are still allowed to talk.
That’s the orthodox catholic line too. I don’t know of any christian sect that doesn’t subscribe to this because it’s from an epistle erroneously ascribed to saul of tarsus the inventor of christianity (actually a forgery in saul’s name) – and he couldn’t be wrong.
On the whole, though, I think they’re more honest than Armstrong. They basically say “it’s true, inerrant and we believe it”. Armstrong basically says “it’s all crap and I don’t believe it except in some allegorical sort of way where I can’t actually be pinned down to anything”.
Since the inception of a Faith Promise Giving program, the church has seen its missions giving rise from $85,000 to a pledged $1.3 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.
God’s business is indeed a very lucrative one! It surely wouldn’t do the patriarchal figures any harm to have the lookalike Stepford Wives surrendering to them while they get down to the real business of counting the spondulas that keep on rolling in by the new time to the Baptist holy coffers. Isn’t that the way it works in the patriarchal RC church. The holy women, who are often educated to Ph’D standard, do all the dirty work and are kept submissively in the wings. The women are as much to blame for feeding into the ‘submission’ culture. I suppose they’d have to get permission to go on-line to read OB’s post.
Hubbard admitted he started scientology because religion is where the money is. With RCC Inc it’s all about the cash:http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1370323/Tony-Blairs-priest-fixed-papal-knighthoods-cash.html
Dammit – i’ll figure out how to link yet; you see if i don’t!
I don’t know how to link, but I know how to fake it. (1) Find a link on a page, and remember the text around it. (2) On a blank part of the page, right click and choose View Source. (3) Search for the text, and that should take you to the link in all of its baffling glory. (4) Copy from <A to A>, then paste this into a document. Save the document.
Now, when you want to include a link, open the document, replace the URL and link text with what you want to use, copy it and paste it into your comment. Here, you have to switch to HTML editor style before pasting it.
Tony Blair’s priest fixed papal knighthoods for cash
i used to live up the road during the 80’s from the friars in Francis St, at the back of Westminster Cathedral. I knew them personally. The American friars there who sometimes wore brown and grey long garb and sandals were the epitome of saintliness piousness and adhering to the ethos of St Francis, and were very highly respected by all in the area. I was shocked to see the photo of Father Steed in a white modern jacket and holding in his hand a glass of what what appeared like shampaigne — he seems a far cry from the Graymoor friars i once knew.
Tony Blair’s priest fixed papal knighthoods for cash.
A good friend of mine who goes to First Wesleyan Church in my hometown in Alabama is trained in ministry and has been ordained. But she insists that her husband is the spiritual head of their household. Because he’s the man. And according to the Bible, the husband is ALWAYS the spiritual head. She was horrified when I even suggested otherwise and pointed out her credentials.
Pet stores don’t sell live snakes that speak human language. And grocery stores don’t sell knowledge of good and evil fruit. So…is the story of Adam and Eve nonsense or does it have meaning beyond their disobedience which, of course, is the essential element? Do a search: The First Scandal. Then click twice.
You thought the Stepford Wives was just fiction? Couples that act like that totally creep me out. Thankfully, I know enough churchgoing women who don’t accept any part of it that the stereotype is just that — and not necessarily a general rule that cuts across churches. Still, when I do see it, I can’t help but shudder.
Andy Dufresne: I think part of the problem is also that teaching that women should be subordinate to men is somehow seen as…mainstream? Or acceptable, or at least not to be judged? So long as you stick a “because God says so,” anyway.
Contrast this with saying that (for instance) “God says black people are the children of Ham and bear his curse,” which is an idea totally rejected in the mainstream. But somehow people still see women’s subordination as not that bad if it’s god-ordained. The difference in reactions to male-supremacist churches vs. white-supremacist churches (which do exist) is very striking to me.
[…] as well — something so evident in the appalling video of the “couples retreat” linked by Ophelia Benson — is an indication that the project of the growth of freedom is seriously in danger. That may […]