Good list of qualities! I also turn to the New Testament description of qualifications for elders and deacons, as found in 1 Tim 3:8-13, and Titus 1:5-9, e.g.: dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain, sound in faith and life, blameless, Godly wife, one-woman man, spiritual leader of the family, not arrogant or quick-tempered, hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, disciplined, etc.
Holy buckets, Nicholas. Astoundingly perceptive and medicinal writing. There is something so liberating and unlocking when reading truth like this. I’m forwarding this to some of the boys.
I believe that God created both men and women in God’s image. God is spirit and therefore neither male nor female. The quintessence of God is Love; and Love is the intended quintessence of all of God’s human children, both male and female.
I believe, with Eleanor Roosevelt, that “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” All big dreamers — boys and girls — should be encouraged to fiercely pursue their God-given dreams.
By their very nature, big dreams do not come wrapped in neat little pink and blue packages. Girls who dream should never be belittled by comments that suggest that dreaming betrays their femininity.
The Bard does not seek to make better Christian men. He seeks to resurrect the Roman Empire, a patriarchy where only men, by definition, could be virtuous. It is a strategy doomed to failure.
Nonsense! What we have here is the quintessential definition of misogyny, complete with the insistence that women be complicit in the idea that their “essence” is to live small:
‘Personally, I’ve never heard a woman described as someone “larger than life”. Why is that? It’s because I don’t know any women who would even feel complimented by such a description, because we all know, deep down, that this is a description of masculinity.” ‘
No, I didn’t misread your article. You do not seek to make better Christian men, you seek to resurrect a Roman patriarchy where only men — by definition — can be virtuous. It is a strategy doomed to failure.
I read the article and had some quibbles and I do understand that there has been a history of opressing and marginalizing women within and through the Church and I lament that and am saddened by ways I personally have contributed to it. I appreciate that you've made clear here that you believe both men and women are created in God's image, something I (and I'm 100% sure Nicholas) agree with whole-heartedly.
I don't know if you saw the interchange between Nicholas and some others on this thread and noted that he pulled the introductory section of the post that I think did help set the reading on a bad foot and he's admitted that, but your quote you pull out comes from another section altogether from the core of his article/letter.
I'm not sure I agree with Nicholas' statement there but I don't believe there's anything in his writing here that "seek(s) to resurrect a Roman patriarchy where only men -- be definition -- can be virtuous." I would agree with you that if that were his aim it is doomed to failure!
I think your reading of the post is uncharitable and you're reading into it, and while I have heard similar things from some whose aim is exactly what you're (rightly!) responding to, I don't see that at all in Nicholas' post here. **Is there something you think I and others are missing here? **
In asking that question I'm not in any way trying to minimize or equivocate around the harms women have received from men in power and I honestly want to be a part of that being a thing of a sadly remembered past in the Church. I am pretty sure Nicholas would agree with that too. I also share Nicholas' frustration with the rejection of any way that we, gendered, image-bearers differ in the way we display the image of God and how that has harmed many young, also powerless, men and driven them towards vile heretical substitutes.
I think there are some things here that conjured up for me an image of "Wild at Heart but lite" but that's because of my own background among the hyper-patriarchal movement that is marring the Church right now and has for a while, and I'm asking you to help us see what you're seeing that I may be missing but also to look and see if maybe you're lumping Nicholas in with similar but very differently aimed teaching that you've been exposed to in the past. I hope this hasn't been too long to be engaged with but in any case I do lament with you the way that so many women have been harmed by men in power who have not used that power to care for and lift up the vulnerable and instead have exploited and oppressed. Blessings to you, sister.
No, my understanding of The Bard was not an uncharitable misreading. The passage I quoted is the logical conclusion of his entire article— “deep down” (I.e., at the root level) the “description of masculinity” (I.e., the exclusive domain of men; only incidental when found in women) is to be “larger than life” (I.e, to have big dreams and pursue them passionately).
Teach your boys this and modern Western women will clean their clocks. The fact is, we do dream big dreams and we compete fiercely to achieve them. And we tend to leave churches that try to teach us and our little daughters otherwise with deliberate misreadings of St. Paul.
Let’s teach all our children to be heroes and heroines in Christ — to support one another’s dreams and to love one another with a First Corinthians 13 kind of love. Imagine how great this world would be! Peace.
Diane, if you truly believe I'm displaying a hatred of women (that's what misogyny is), or that I'm denying its existence (it's the thing I called vile, demonic and disgusting at the beginning of this post), you should come talk to me.
Nicholas, I cannot tell from your comment if this is intended as an invitation or a scold. Given this article, your dismissive reply here to Jan, and considering everything I have personally experienced in the PCA and the CIP, I choose to decline your advice of what I “should” do. Rather, I choose lament, because yours was the first sermon we heard at Redeemer. It was significant and healing in providing us a place of refuge. And I also choose to unsubscribe to guard my peace.
I believe you to be a smart man. And I take you at your word that you consider misogyny to be vile. I ask you to consider that it can also be systemic, and subconsciously habituated, and not necessarily limited to willfully and consciously chosen hate. If you consider it vile, I believe you would want to identify the places it has crept in. And, being reformed, I believe you can accept that sin does creep, yet grace abounds more.
You are capable of doing your own internal work, and I might recommend as a starting point your own words in a post about Aaron Renn. Sit as the audience for your own insight there. I think there is much that applies.
Of course, I want to know my blind spots, especially from people who know me. But vague, non-specific, heavy handed accusations don't help me to know my blind spots.
Jan's comment is very clearly a misconstrual of my words, so no, I don't take that to heart. Anyone who reads the article carefully and charitably can see that.
I agree sexism is subtle. I disagree that misogyny is subtle. It's like the difference between racism and bigotry. That's a level 10 accusation that I think is very serious.
It's discouraging to have someone make such a heavy handed spiritual accusation, and then say, "you figure it out" when asked to talk about it. As someone familiar with spiritual abuse, I would think you would know this.
I understand your experiences with the PCA and the CIP are framing your reaction, here, but I'd ask you to disentangle that experience from how you're reading me. That's not fair to me, even if it is understandable.
If I may chime in. Do we think you are a misogynist? No, full stop. But in this article you employ sexist, bordering on misogynistic language, tropes, and argumentation. Here's some examples.
About Helen Lewis you write, “Instead, in the article above we get a litany of pop-litigations against a “gendered” reality, a battering ram of progressive cuss words that I can only imagine the author screaming to herself in a shower before cathartically puking them all at us on the digital pages of the Atlantic. […] It’s an incantation for the Cult of the Incensed.”
You position yourself as the calm, reasonable man while she is violent (battering ram), vile (cussing), irrational (screaming), uncontrolled (puking) and perhaps even a witch (speaking incantations.) And why is she naked in the shower in your imagination? Do you need to make her weak and vulnerable to counter her points?
About Laura Field you write, “This is, to put it mildly, a schoolgirl’s insult playing dress-up as a think-piece. It is an insultingly oversimplified, frankly out of touch ad hominem that casually femsplains to all young men: "Your just jeeealous, you’re just jeeeealous”. Here you take a grown woman and infantilize her as a “schoolgirl” playing “dress-up” and putting words in her mouth she didn’t say in the voice of a taunting child, “you’re just jeeeealous.” Is this your way of embracing the advice of Tim Keller to state the arguments of your opponents in terms they would agree with?
Compare this to how you engaged Bart Ehrman in another recent article. “To be clear…even though I think taking Ehrman’s thoughts to their logic ends leads us to an insane place, I do think Ehrman is a really smart guy. He’s formidable. Most of Ehrman’s claims, at face value, look pretty clean and shiny. I found myself scratching my head a few times, at least. Lots to untangle.” When disagreeing with him, you say that taking his IDEAS to their ends leads to an insane place, but you don’t call him insane. Indeed, you praise him for being really smart and formidable. Why is the man not naked in the shower screaming? Why don’t you put childish words in his mouth or call him a pouty little schoolboy?
You also write, “I’m as disgusted by the misogyny of these New Right extremists as anyone. But when I read articles like this, I think, “Well…what did you expect?” This is the rhetorical equivalent of blaming the woman who is assaulted for wearing a tight dress. “I’m as disgusted by rape as anyone, but when I see what you wore that night, I think, “Well…what did you expect?” Your argument follows this exact logical pattern, placing the blame for the actions of bad men on the women for triggering their evil response. And why do you have cause and effect in this order? Why isn't it that a lifetime of mistreatment at the hands of men has led some women to overcorrect in their analysis of the problem and write a pointed article?
We like you. We're for you. Truly. And at the same time we have some problems with what you've written here. I hope you take this feedback in the spirit in which it is intended.
Good list of qualities! I also turn to the New Testament description of qualifications for elders and deacons, as found in 1 Tim 3:8-13, and Titus 1:5-9, e.g.: dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain, sound in faith and life, blameless, Godly wife, one-woman man, spiritual leader of the family, not arrogant or quick-tempered, hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, disciplined, etc.
Holy buckets, Nicholas. Astoundingly perceptive and medicinal writing. There is something so liberating and unlocking when reading truth like this. I’m forwarding this to some of the boys.
Thanks so much for the kind and encouraging words, Caleb. Glad it was useful to you.
Excellent writing and thinking.
Thank you!
Best piece of yours I've read. I'm not even joking when I echo Nicholson's words from that movie, even though Helen Hunt isn't involved.
I appreciate the kind words, thank you!
I believe that God created both men and women in God’s image. God is spirit and therefore neither male nor female. The quintessence of God is Love; and Love is the intended quintessence of all of God’s human children, both male and female.
I believe, with Eleanor Roosevelt, that “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” All big dreamers — boys and girls — should be encouraged to fiercely pursue their God-given dreams.
By their very nature, big dreams do not come wrapped in neat little pink and blue packages. Girls who dream should never be belittled by comments that suggest that dreaming betrays their femininity.
The Bard does not seek to make better Christian men. He seeks to resurrect the Roman Empire, a patriarchy where only men, by definition, could be virtuous. It is a strategy doomed to failure.
Nonsense! What we have here is the quintessential definition of misogyny, complete with the insistence that women be complicit in the idea that their “essence” is to live small:
‘Personally, I’ve never heard a woman described as someone “larger than life”. Why is that? It’s because I don’t know any women who would even feel complimented by such a description, because we all know, deep down, that this is a description of masculinity.” ‘
Nope
No, I didn’t misread your article. You do not seek to make better Christian men, you seek to resurrect a Roman patriarchy where only men — by definition — can be virtuous. It is a strategy doomed to failure.
Hi Jan:
I read the article and had some quibbles and I do understand that there has been a history of opressing and marginalizing women within and through the Church and I lament that and am saddened by ways I personally have contributed to it. I appreciate that you've made clear here that you believe both men and women are created in God's image, something I (and I'm 100% sure Nicholas) agree with whole-heartedly.
I don't know if you saw the interchange between Nicholas and some others on this thread and noted that he pulled the introductory section of the post that I think did help set the reading on a bad foot and he's admitted that, but your quote you pull out comes from another section altogether from the core of his article/letter.
I'm not sure I agree with Nicholas' statement there but I don't believe there's anything in his writing here that "seek(s) to resurrect a Roman patriarchy where only men -- be definition -- can be virtuous." I would agree with you that if that were his aim it is doomed to failure!
I think your reading of the post is uncharitable and you're reading into it, and while I have heard similar things from some whose aim is exactly what you're (rightly!) responding to, I don't see that at all in Nicholas' post here. **Is there something you think I and others are missing here? **
In asking that question I'm not in any way trying to minimize or equivocate around the harms women have received from men in power and I honestly want to be a part of that being a thing of a sadly remembered past in the Church. I am pretty sure Nicholas would agree with that too. I also share Nicholas' frustration with the rejection of any way that we, gendered, image-bearers differ in the way we display the image of God and how that has harmed many young, also powerless, men and driven them towards vile heretical substitutes.
I think there are some things here that conjured up for me an image of "Wild at Heart but lite" but that's because of my own background among the hyper-patriarchal movement that is marring the Church right now and has for a while, and I'm asking you to help us see what you're seeing that I may be missing but also to look and see if maybe you're lumping Nicholas in with similar but very differently aimed teaching that you've been exposed to in the past. I hope this hasn't been too long to be engaged with but in any case I do lament with you the way that so many women have been harmed by men in power who have not used that power to care for and lift up the vulnerable and instead have exploited and oppressed. Blessings to you, sister.
No, my understanding of The Bard was not an uncharitable misreading. The passage I quoted is the logical conclusion of his entire article— “deep down” (I.e., at the root level) the “description of masculinity” (I.e., the exclusive domain of men; only incidental when found in women) is to be “larger than life” (I.e, to have big dreams and pursue them passionately).
Teach your boys this and modern Western women will clean their clocks. The fact is, we do dream big dreams and we compete fiercely to achieve them. And we tend to leave churches that try to teach us and our little daughters otherwise with deliberate misreadings of St. Paul.
Let’s teach all our children to be heroes and heroines in Christ — to support one another’s dreams and to love one another with a First Corinthians 13 kind of love. Imagine how great this world would be! Peace.
“But a disbelief in misogyny has no bearing on its existence.” -Judge Azeema Akram
Diane, if you truly believe I'm displaying a hatred of women (that's what misogyny is), or that I'm denying its existence (it's the thing I called vile, demonic and disgusting at the beginning of this post), you should come talk to me.
Nicholas, I cannot tell from your comment if this is intended as an invitation or a scold. Given this article, your dismissive reply here to Jan, and considering everything I have personally experienced in the PCA and the CIP, I choose to decline your advice of what I “should” do. Rather, I choose lament, because yours was the first sermon we heard at Redeemer. It was significant and healing in providing us a place of refuge. And I also choose to unsubscribe to guard my peace.
I believe you to be a smart man. And I take you at your word that you consider misogyny to be vile. I ask you to consider that it can also be systemic, and subconsciously habituated, and not necessarily limited to willfully and consciously chosen hate. If you consider it vile, I believe you would want to identify the places it has crept in. And, being reformed, I believe you can accept that sin does creep, yet grace abounds more.
You are capable of doing your own internal work, and I might recommend as a starting point your own words in a post about Aaron Renn. Sit as the audience for your own insight there. I think there is much that applies.
It is sincere, Diane.
Of course, I want to know my blind spots, especially from people who know me. But vague, non-specific, heavy handed accusations don't help me to know my blind spots.
Jan's comment is very clearly a misconstrual of my words, so no, I don't take that to heart. Anyone who reads the article carefully and charitably can see that.
I agree sexism is subtle. I disagree that misogyny is subtle. It's like the difference between racism and bigotry. That's a level 10 accusation that I think is very serious.
It's discouraging to have someone make such a heavy handed spiritual accusation, and then say, "you figure it out" when asked to talk about it. As someone familiar with spiritual abuse, I would think you would know this.
I understand your experiences with the PCA and the CIP are framing your reaction, here, but I'd ask you to disentangle that experience from how you're reading me. That's not fair to me, even if it is understandable.
If I may chime in. Do we think you are a misogynist? No, full stop. But in this article you employ sexist, bordering on misogynistic language, tropes, and argumentation. Here's some examples.
About Helen Lewis you write, “Instead, in the article above we get a litany of pop-litigations against a “gendered” reality, a battering ram of progressive cuss words that I can only imagine the author screaming to herself in a shower before cathartically puking them all at us on the digital pages of the Atlantic. […] It’s an incantation for the Cult of the Incensed.”
You position yourself as the calm, reasonable man while she is violent (battering ram), vile (cussing), irrational (screaming), uncontrolled (puking) and perhaps even a witch (speaking incantations.) And why is she naked in the shower in your imagination? Do you need to make her weak and vulnerable to counter her points?
About Laura Field you write, “This is, to put it mildly, a schoolgirl’s insult playing dress-up as a think-piece. It is an insultingly oversimplified, frankly out of touch ad hominem that casually femsplains to all young men: "Your just jeeealous, you’re just jeeeealous”. Here you take a grown woman and infantilize her as a “schoolgirl” playing “dress-up” and putting words in her mouth she didn’t say in the voice of a taunting child, “you’re just jeeeealous.” Is this your way of embracing the advice of Tim Keller to state the arguments of your opponents in terms they would agree with?
Compare this to how you engaged Bart Ehrman in another recent article. “To be clear…even though I think taking Ehrman’s thoughts to their logic ends leads us to an insane place, I do think Ehrman is a really smart guy. He’s formidable. Most of Ehrman’s claims, at face value, look pretty clean and shiny. I found myself scratching my head a few times, at least. Lots to untangle.” When disagreeing with him, you say that taking his IDEAS to their ends leads to an insane place, but you don’t call him insane. Indeed, you praise him for being really smart and formidable. Why is the man not naked in the shower screaming? Why don’t you put childish words in his mouth or call him a pouty little schoolboy?
You also write, “I’m as disgusted by the misogyny of these New Right extremists as anyone. But when I read articles like this, I think, “Well…what did you expect?” This is the rhetorical equivalent of blaming the woman who is assaulted for wearing a tight dress. “I’m as disgusted by rape as anyone, but when I see what you wore that night, I think, “Well…what did you expect?” Your argument follows this exact logical pattern, placing the blame for the actions of bad men on the women for triggering their evil response. And why do you have cause and effect in this order? Why isn't it that a lifetime of mistreatment at the hands of men has led some women to overcorrect in their analysis of the problem and write a pointed article?
We like you. We're for you. Truly. And at the same time we have some problems with what you've written here. I hope you take this feedback in the spirit in which it is intended.
Jan, describe what is quintessential femininity, or masculinity, and I think that will give me a better vision of what you’re responding to.
I replied to you, but I can tell if my reply was directly attached to your question.