CHARLES WRITES:

In the entry “The Christian Wimp,” Lawrence Auster asks: 

How could anyone, with any normal amount of spirit in him, be a part of such a congregation and swallow such a message? 

There are a number of reasons this can be so. In a general sense, if one has been raised in the Evangelical church all of one’s life, it is akin to the proverbial frog being boiled in oil. The antidote is to read Scripture – a lot of it – and to compare what the pastor teaches directly with Scripture. This, of course, requires discipline. And at times it can require courage to confront the pastor or elder teaching such things. Such confrontations are not always pleasant. Years ago, I remember telling my fiance that the more I read scripture, the more I clearly understood that much of what was coming out of the pulpit was not necessarily scriptural. Indeed, much of it was harsh and harmful and had nothing to do with solid Christian doctrine. I was disappointed in the church leadership and continue to be so at present. Today, I rely on Scripture first, and what any teacher says is compared with what the Bible actually states. 

K stated:

 “Can you imagine the influence this kind of venom had on our women? And on us, as men? It is one thing to be told by society that you are no good; but to have it rammed down your throat from the so-called pulpit of God, and by one of your own (a man), then this propaganda becomes the command of God!” 

And in K’s case, it was another man telling him that men are from the dumpster! One would think one would be safe from the feminist rot in church since Christianity is not about opinion but about the revelation of God’s redemptive plan for his people. We have a solid set of doctrines for belief that do not change with time or fashion. However, some pastors like to be fashionable — so, in this case, the male pastor, using the authority of the church belittled the men in the church. In the evangelical world, some pastors – clearly not all – are like little gods. They are authoritarians first and maybe a pastor second. If one challenges an authoritarian on something like this, then one must be prepared for the very real possibility of a ruptured relationship with the pastor and possibly the church as well. Authoritarians do not reason. They insult and belittle. I believe that K understands that. It is a serious matter. However, I believe that getting away from such a pastor is esential to protect one’s own soul from spiritual abuse. Somehow these authoritarian pastors must be confronted with how wrong they are and how much damage they are causing.

Laura writes:

Charles says that “some pastors like to be fashionable.”

They also have financial concerns. Let’s face it, feminism adds to the church coffers. Not many churches have the guts to urge families to try to live on one income or to suppress female ambition.

                                                                 — Comments —

John E. writes:

Charles writes: 

And in K’s case, it was another man telling him that men are from the dumpster!

It seems that you have to take the “greeting card” factor into consideration too. I have experienced similar statements from male pastors from the pulpit and wondered whether they meant them seriously.

Laura writes:

I suppose you mean congenial sentimentality to create warmth in the congregation. A pastor or priest, at least on the altar, is not a friend. Besides, one can create warmth without speaking falsehoods.

John E. replies:

Laura wrote: 

I suppose you mean congenial sentimentality to create warmth in the congregation. A pastor or priest, at least on the altar, is not a friend. Besides, one can create warmth without speaking falsehoods. 

This is a good point. 

Related to this post on feminism in religion, and to Mr. Auster’s incredulity that K. would have anything to do with his congregation, I still do not grasp the ease with which Mr. Auster is able to quarantine feminist influences in religion in order to reject them. It is not Feminism Incarnate that gives the homily every Sunday at church, but a good priest who has much to share in the way of truth, but also has a few feminist ideas here and there that make their way into the homily, even though his intent is not to further feminist ideology. I want to embrace the truth and reject the lie. It is not always easy to discern the two, but I am ready and willing to be shown how it can and should be much easier.

Laura writes:

Yes, that’s an important point although Mr. Auster was speaking about K.’s example, which was quite extreme. On the other hand, he said he had always rejected any sign of feminism outright. 

Youngfogey writes:

Mr Auster wrote:

“Your commenter says he’s been pounded all his life with the idea that women are superior to men. I don’t remember ever being pounded with it.”

I was quite surprised to read this. Surely, Mr. Auster understands that the inculcation of this idea begins in boyhood. To be a boy in this era means being surrounded by this assumption and being fed it constantly by virtually every authority figure. Failing to behave as if you, as a male, do not accept this will inevitably result in punishment. If this doesn’t count as “pounding,” I can’t imagine what a “pounding” would be.

I am certain Mr. Auster is aware of all this, hence my surprise at reading his comment. Perhaps some clarification on this point would be helpful.

As to the reader who asked what feminism is, I would say that feminism is simply the name given to the efforts of liberalism to destroy human sexual and family relations. Liberalism is a force that seeks destruction in multiple areas but we tend to call that force by different names depending on the area in which we see it at work.

One sure sign of the presence of feminism is any idea or expression that insists on talking about “people” or “persons” as if these entities exist in some form abstracted from our embodied realities as men and women. To understand this aspect of feminism more fully, it is necessary to understand the connection between liberalism and gnosticism. To that end, I recommend Mr. Auster’s copious and beneficial posts, which can be read here and here  and here, on this connection.

Laura writes:

 Feminism has become a greater part of schooling in the past 30 years. Mr. Auster was possibly not bombarded with it as a child. Nursery schools and kindergartens start the indoctrination today.

 Modern gnosticism, as defined by Eric Voegelin, converts dreams of utopian transformation into a pseudo-religion that feeds off many aspects of Christian doctrine. Mr. Auster writes:

The basic experience of gnosticism, common to both ancient gnosticism and what Eric Voegelin calls modern gnosticism, is that the world is alienating and senseless, a vast right-wing conspiracy as it were, and thus that the Creator who made this world, as portrayed in Genesis, is not the real God but a false god who has created a false, delusive world. Truth is to be found, according to ancient gnosticism, in the true, hidden god who is completely apart from the Creation, or, according to modern gnosticism (the focus of which is society rather than the cosmos), in some total political transformation of society or in a sense of the self as being utterly independent of its surroundings. The modern idea of the Totally Liberated Self is as much an expression of gnosticism as is, say, Communism.

Please follow and like us: