My church is currently doing a sermon series on the Ten Commandments. This morning the sermon centered around the second commandment, which is the anti-idolatry commandment. If you read beyond the actual verse prohibiting the making of an idol, you will find that God goes on to say that the third and fourth generations after the idolaters will be punished.
My pastor interpreted this as meaning that the negative consequences of the sins of the father will be experienced by his grandchildren and even great-grandchildren. And I agree – we see this play out over and over in society. For example, alcoholics tend to produce alcoholics, smokers produce smokers, welfare recipients produce welfare recipients, baby daddies and baby mamas produce more baby daddies and baby mamas, obese parents produce obese kids, etc.
But did my pastor use any of these as examples? No. For some reason, after an admonition to men to provide for their families and sacrifice for their wives, he brought up ABUSE and said that fathers who model abuse to their families will produce abusers. So fathers should think twice about abusing their families. I don’t want to downplay abuse, but this seemed like a really random and extreme example to use. Then he said that mothers have a responsibility, too – to treat their husbands well and give them respect and encouragement.
HAHAHAHA, just kidding!
What he actually said was that mothers should think twice about staying in abusive relationships because they’re teaching their daughters to that a loving relationship includes abuse. And that was the extent of things mothers need to do to stop propagating bad family situations.
While the pastor was giving these examples, I started wondering if my church had an actual problem with abusive husbands. Why else would the pastor use this kind of example? I mean, is he getting a lot of calls each month from women claiming to be abused (whether physically or verbally) by their husbands? Am I attending a church where the husbands are constantly roughing up their wives and calling them profanity-laden pejoratives or otherwise psychologically manipulating them to believe they are worthless?
Or is it that abuse is such a knee-jerk sympathy trigger and clear-cut black and white issue that no one will argue with it? Hmmmmmmm. Regardless, I was disappointed that the teaching was presented in such a way as to make it look like husbands are the main propagators of badness in future generations, except for those wives who stay with abusers. In reality, women are just as capable of destroying the futures of their children as men are. They’re just given more of a pass because they don’t have the ability to be as physically dangerous as a man.
Haley's Halo 
I have the suspicion that the reason pastors call men out on their aggressiveness isn’t just because of their mostly female crowd and the fact most of the men who become pastors, youth pastors, worship music leaders, etc. have their balls sitting neatly in some woman’s purse somewhere. I believe most clergymen are emasculated because they were emasculated back in their youth as well, and as such easy prey for a bully. Because of this, I’d wager good money (and bad money) that as soon as they gained some measure of power they immediately went looking for a reason to get back at their aggressors i.e. all aggressive, assertive masculine men. Being a Bible geek isn’t exactly the best way to make one look manly after all, especially if one follows feminized churchian teachings.
My church did something very similar during a sermon series on the 7 deadly sins. The topic was lust, in which my pastor gave strong admonition about men lusting, which included a call for *ALL* wives to put on web-monitoring software on every computer because men are weak and will go to bad websites.
While, I didn’t expect any level of discussion of hypergamy or anything “Red Pill”, I was amazed that it was absolutely, fully and exclusively focused on men and their type of lust. Not only were women not included in any type of physical lust, nor emotional lust, but they were portrayed as the victims of men’s sinful nature. Implied in the sermon was that women did not have a sinful sexual nature.
There was no discussion of the rampant use of romance novels (or Twilight) setting unrealistic expectations of love.
There was also no discussion of emotional affairs, or how easy it is for women to use on-line chat, email, facebook, text, etc. to connect, talk, and become emotionally invested in someone other than her husband. Emotional affairs give women the dopamine fix they want (and are probably lacking from their husband), and it is so easy to pull off and hide because she doesn’t have to leave the house or even be on-line at the same time.
I think it comes from how much harder it is to prove lustful intent. Men looking at pictures or videos is pretty clear. A women talking to a friend can be just that, or it can be more — it allows women to hide their lusts better. Also, it allows them to lie to themselves and get involved deep into an emotional affair, and then the hamster is running full tilt, and all bets are off.
It is really too bad that church doesn’t recognize how both sexes’ sinful nature leads to the destruction of marriages.
http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.no/2012/05/one-third-of-child-sexual-abuse.html
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/blowing-the-whistle-on-the-domestic-violence-research-paradigm/
Show both to your pastor.
Mm, I would find another church if I heard that sort of sermon with any frequency. (If it were a megachurch with lots of young people, even better!) Vote with your feet, and shake the dust off your shoes as you leave.
Your Pastor was bowing down to the idol of the age, which is the three phases of womenhood (maiden, mother, crone).
Is his sermon online? I wanna fisk it. Thoroughly.
I believe most clergymen are emasculated because they were emasculated back in their youth as well, and as such easy prey for a bully.
Yes. There are a lot of mama’s boys in the collar.
There is another likely explanation as well: Sermons are often projections of what the pastor has been dealing with in his own life.
“They’re just given more of a pass because they don’t have the ability to be as physically dangerous as a man.”
I’m hoping you don’t actually believe that abusive women are any less dangerous in the household, and are just stating traditional western views about women. It isn’t that women can’t do as much damage, but rather that they typically don’t, because women tend to engage in psychological abuse far more often than physical abuse. Especially in the case of child abuse, women are just as capable of inflicting serious physical harm as men.
In my frank opinion, I think it’s more likely that the church believes that women would never be the aggressors in an abusive household because that would require them to be dominant in the home, and as Christian tradition holds, women can never lead a home unless there’s no man present. Men are the leaders, ladies! If you’re in an abusive household, there’s no reason to take charge, call the cops, and lead towards that new horizon! Just get a new man, a BETTER man, and let HIM fix your problems! Hallelujah! Praise be to penises.
Given the example your pastor gave then men should not stay in a abusive relationship so the children won’t be exposed to it. Women are just as physically and far more verbally abusive than men given given the statistics and a smige of common sense.
Deception has been warmly welcomed into current evangelical churches with movies like Courageous and Fireproof.
Here are a couple of whopper consequence verses….
-1 Tim 5:6
But she who worships the Arena is dead while she lives.
-Revelation of John 2:22-23
Revelation of John 2:22-23
Behold, I throw her into a bed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, if they do not repent of her works. And I will kill her children in death. And all the congregations will know that I am he who searches the inner feelings and hearts. And I will give to you-to each-according to your works.
Jude 1:12
-as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
@Bwana Simba
June 3, 2012 at 3:22 pm
“I believe most clergymen are emasculated because they were emasculated back in their youth as well”
So what you’re saying is that sack-less pastors will produce sack-less pastors unto the fourth generation? (Although how they reproduce is anyone’s guess).
Quit whining about these feminised churches and just leave them and start your own church. Failing that, start calling the pastor on his bullshit. Those who choose to do nothing are tacitly encouraging false preaching and the worshipping of other idols.
B, I agree with you, but my suspicion is that this type of false teaching it is usually brought in with great subtlety. The eldership adopt it first, then their favored friends, and it is only actually preached from the pulpit once it is in charge and it is too late. In the early stages it is done with a lot of plausible deniability and it only announces its presence openly once it is in command.
Men, stop doing porn. Women, stop… reading historical romance novels.