I really appreciate your insight on the marketing angle to this - Hatmaker et al aren't marketing to a mass audience as much as they are taking advantage of an existing audience created while they were in evangelicalism (also thinking about Josh Harris and his post-Christian writing efforts). I suppose it will win 15 minutes of NY Times fame, but in the long run, the evangelical followers they cultivated years ago are still their target audience.
And at the risk of overspiritualizing, it affirms the realities of 2 Peter 2:1-3: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers *among you*. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute."
The "out-there" false teacher is not nearly as impactful (dangerous?) as the "from-here" false teacher.
It strikes me as sad that in trying to break free from the Bible, she doesn’t really do that. She just shifts where her story is represented. False teaching, the women of Jeremiah, Jezebel, “everyone doing right in their own eyes…”, are all ugly places to land. We can never really escape the Bible. God has us pinpointed in the story of humanity one way or another. I remind my flesh of that fairly often.
“And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Why do so many posts imply that there is only a choice between two options? With one option being deliberately framed as unacceptable?
I would suggest that NEITHER option is a sound reflection of Christian sexuality.
I would urge that MUTUAL respect and MUTUAL service is what the New Testament urges. Yes, and Paul's writings too, even though they have been twisted by patriarchy over the centuries.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. This piece isn't really offering *any* options. It's an observation about a real cultural trend that seems harder for Christians to detect than a parallel trend among the opposite sex. I'm not an egalitarian, but that's not really what I'm talking about in the article.
My apologies, Samuel. I had assumed (apparently falsely) that your purpose in making a critique would be to promote an alternative, even if tacitly. In this case, you explicitly proposed no alternative, so the 'tacit option' seemed to be to resist the change you had noted. Forgive my hasty assumnption.
Perhaps your article might serve to start a discussion of what positive approach we should adopt. For lack any better idea, I would table:-
"Mutual respect between both sexes, who are both in the Image of God and equally adopted as sons (yes, even females have been given the same status as 'sons' in the Greek!) of God."
This post is not implying that there is only a choice between two options. Samuel even says “this imbalance is likely part of the problem” at the end. He’s saying the problem right now is that pornified culture is only seen as bad when it’s men participating, where it should really be seen as equally bad for both sexes.
I take your point, but it is not the immediate impression generated by the primary post, nor does it clearly promote a way forward. I understand the need for critique, but I like to see a positive way to respond. I would suggest that proposing a more wholesome and egalitarian attitude to sexuality is the basis for a better response.
I didn't have that impression at all, actually. In fact, this piece seems to be calling for greater equality in identifying sexual compromise across genders and identifying where it is most perniciously occurs (with women).
Samuel himself says in his reply to me that he was not offering any suggestions, but making an observation. But I agree with you that there is a need for correction of the more pernicious aspects of our current societal culture by considering more equality and compromise; I call it 'mutuality'.
I get that the generalization that people disconstruct because they want to sleep with whoever they want is just that (a generalization), but man is it disappointing when it actually plays out that way.
I have not read Jen Hatmaker's blog. I do, however, have some thoughts on your statement:
"Men could really use friendship right now, and it seems like women could use some tougher love."
As a man, I agree about the need of friendship for men. I'm not so sure, however, that I have the understanding or authority to speak about women needing "tougher love". It seems like historically they have gotten plenty of that from men already.
Hi Jonathan! I think you have a generous nature. But I'd like to push back a bit on your point that women don't necessarily need tough love because of past tough love from men. I'm not sure that Samuel is insinuating that the tough love needs to come from *men* per say, but I'd say that the tough love needs to come from both fellow women and men. Men are afraid to speak truth to women because they've been lambasted for it (in the media, behind the pulpit, at home, etc.). In this way, women have been systematically shackling men. When we limit who is able to tell others the truth, we are really only limiting the truth.
The sex-positive feminists appear to have drawn the exact opposite conclusion from patriarchal hypocrisy from what they should have. There have been plenty of examples of societies where men were expected to play around while women were expected to be the faithful ones. But the correct response to that double standard is to hold men to a higher ethical standard, not to say that everyone, men and women alike, should be as selfish in the pursuit of bodily pleasure as they feel like.
You might be able to "solve" moral hypocrisy by getting rid of morality, but you're not getting any closer to the truth that way.
When I look at where its pursuit leads people, it's easy for me to see why the early Christians held such a dim view of sex.
I'm not going to say that I saw this coming, because I didn't, but anyone involved in online fandom (which is heavily female-dominated) in the mid 'oughts saw this trend starting. I was disabused of the notion that women were naturally more sexually virtuous than men by the time I left high school.
As a side note, this is also yet another entry in the list of trends that started in online spaces and bled over into the real world.
“Purity culture horribly twisted her mind, to the point where she wore a one-piece swimsuit on her Mexican honeymoon. Grim stuff, indeed.” Had me rolling 🤣
The deeper issue here is theological and you alluded to it with the 'Big Eva' statement (thank you, Carl Trueman). Being trained as a emergency nurse, often when people present with an illness the 'illness' is actually a symptom of something worse. We were part of 'Little Eva' in our circles, but very much part of 'Big Homeschool' (with a good sprinkling of Vision Forum) which cultivates 'what you must do (not do), vs what Christ has done/doing. We thank the Lord for becoming covenentally Reformed presbyterians helping to provide a way to escape, just in time (Happy 31st!)
Like what happened to Mrs. Hatmaker, I see this trend among those who have 'deconstructed', or worse, is that they were driven by the religious culture of their circles rather than good, biblical, historical, orthodox theology...something else 'Big Eva' has laid aside. As a result we/they wind up creating a god in our own image (Ps. 50:21) and then embrace what that culture calls good, beautiful, and 'true'. This is the true illness. How much of this is part of Mrs. Hatmaker's story? May the Lord bring healing to her and the many others who had plenty of law at the expense of the Gospel.
I did do a bit of research on the books outlined in your graphics, at my daughter's suggestion. Websites like pluggedin or Commonsense Media or others really don't describe those books in the context of being 'pornified'. Maybe a correction there is needed. But I believe you are on the right track with this medium (books) being more appealing to a woman's heart. Men are visually driven, thus the porn industry thrives. Women (as my Mrs. regularly reminds me) are driven by what they 'hear' and being 'heard'.
Books allow women to 'hear' with their eyes...and thus bad things can fly under the radar because '...I'm just reading.' We can see how those in the earthly and spiritual realms have taken advantage of this medium. If anything is appealing to their eyes, its eye contact. A man who has his heart in the right place not only listens to his wife and daughters with his ears, but also with his eyes.
I was unaware that porn content had invaded women’s spaces in the church until a young woman came to me looking for help. She had begun reading romance articles online, which would link to porn videos. She was surprised how quickly she became addicted. I had had no idea that that kind of content was so readily available, believing that one had to search for a porn site in order to view it. As I attempted to educate myself, I found a plethora of books written addressing men. I found biblical references that were helpful for us. And we embarked on a campaign, memorization and careful accountability. Each evening we would pray together on the phone and then she would turn her phone off and place it in the kitchen. After a couple of weeks, she decided to confess her sin to her father who also began praying with her and holding her accountable. When she courting with a young man in our church, they confessed their pornography problems to each other.
The men in our current culture have been feminized. They don't love women, they fear them. Enter the "servant leader" who can pretend he's leading while being led.
A helpful article, thank you. Just a query - you mentioned "the content standards of Lifeway", and I wondered if you'd be happy to explain this reference? Thank you.
Sorry, there should have been a hyperlink there. Hatmaker went on a campaign against Lifeway after the store dropped her materials following her shift on LGBTQ. She has referred to this in discussions as to why she feels alienated toward other Christians.
I really appreciate your insight on the marketing angle to this - Hatmaker et al aren't marketing to a mass audience as much as they are taking advantage of an existing audience created while they were in evangelicalism (also thinking about Josh Harris and his post-Christian writing efforts). I suppose it will win 15 minutes of NY Times fame, but in the long run, the evangelical followers they cultivated years ago are still their target audience.
And at the risk of overspiritualizing, it affirms the realities of 2 Peter 2:1-3: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers *among you*. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute."
The "out-there" false teacher is not nearly as impactful (dangerous?) as the "from-here" false teacher.
Re: overspiritualizing — this.
It strikes me as sad that in trying to break free from the Bible, she doesn’t really do that. She just shifts where her story is represented. False teaching, the women of Jeremiah, Jezebel, “everyone doing right in their own eyes…”, are all ugly places to land. We can never really escape the Bible. God has us pinpointed in the story of humanity one way or another. I remind my flesh of that fairly often.
“And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Joshua 24:15
i am writing something about this right now. also about to teach my first women's retreat. kismet!
Superb, eager to read this.
Why do so many posts imply that there is only a choice between two options? With one option being deliberately framed as unacceptable?
I would suggest that NEITHER option is a sound reflection of Christian sexuality.
I would urge that MUTUAL respect and MUTUAL service is what the New Testament urges. Yes, and Paul's writings too, even though they have been twisted by patriarchy over the centuries.
We are to honour each other.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. This piece isn't really offering *any* options. It's an observation about a real cultural trend that seems harder for Christians to detect than a parallel trend among the opposite sex. I'm not an egalitarian, but that's not really what I'm talking about in the article.
My apologies, Samuel. I had assumed (apparently falsely) that your purpose in making a critique would be to promote an alternative, even if tacitly. In this case, you explicitly proposed no alternative, so the 'tacit option' seemed to be to resist the change you had noted. Forgive my hasty assumnption.
Perhaps your article might serve to start a discussion of what positive approach we should adopt. For lack any better idea, I would table:-
"Mutual respect between both sexes, who are both in the Image of God and equally adopted as sons (yes, even females have been given the same status as 'sons' in the Greek!) of God."
This post is not implying that there is only a choice between two options. Samuel even says “this imbalance is likely part of the problem” at the end. He’s saying the problem right now is that pornified culture is only seen as bad when it’s men participating, where it should really be seen as equally bad for both sexes.
Kuriakon,
I take your point, but it is not the immediate impression generated by the primary post, nor does it clearly promote a way forward. I understand the need for critique, but I like to see a positive way to respond. I would suggest that proposing a more wholesome and egalitarian attitude to sexuality is the basis for a better response.
Thanks for your consideration.
I didn't have that impression at all, actually. In fact, this piece seems to be calling for greater equality in identifying sexual compromise across genders and identifying where it is most perniciously occurs (with women).
Samuel himself says in his reply to me that he was not offering any suggestions, but making an observation. But I agree with you that there is a need for correction of the more pernicious aspects of our current societal culture by considering more equality and compromise; I call it 'mutuality'.
I get that the generalization that people disconstruct because they want to sleep with whoever they want is just that (a generalization), but man is it disappointing when it actually plays out that way.
I have not read Jen Hatmaker's blog. I do, however, have some thoughts on your statement:
"Men could really use friendship right now, and it seems like women could use some tougher love."
As a man, I agree about the need of friendship for men. I'm not so sure, however, that I have the understanding or authority to speak about women needing "tougher love". It seems like historically they have gotten plenty of that from men already.
Hi Jonathan! I think you have a generous nature. But I'd like to push back a bit on your point that women don't necessarily need tough love because of past tough love from men. I'm not sure that Samuel is insinuating that the tough love needs to come from *men* per say, but I'd say that the tough love needs to come from both fellow women and men. Men are afraid to speak truth to women because they've been lambasted for it (in the media, behind the pulpit, at home, etc.). In this way, women have been systematically shackling men. When we limit who is able to tell others the truth, we are really only limiting the truth.
Thanks Mary for that encouragement to speak truth...just want to make sure that I am doing that in love, whether to women or men. (Ephesians 4:15)
Insightful post. I suspect that many leaders of church women's ministries are unaware of these literary trends.
The sex-positive feminists appear to have drawn the exact opposite conclusion from patriarchal hypocrisy from what they should have. There have been plenty of examples of societies where men were expected to play around while women were expected to be the faithful ones. But the correct response to that double standard is to hold men to a higher ethical standard, not to say that everyone, men and women alike, should be as selfish in the pursuit of bodily pleasure as they feel like.
You might be able to "solve" moral hypocrisy by getting rid of morality, but you're not getting any closer to the truth that way.
When I look at where its pursuit leads people, it's easy for me to see why the early Christians held such a dim view of sex.
I'm not going to say that I saw this coming, because I didn't, but anyone involved in online fandom (which is heavily female-dominated) in the mid 'oughts saw this trend starting. I was disabused of the notion that women were naturally more sexually virtuous than men by the time I left high school.
As a side note, this is also yet another entry in the list of trends that started in online spaces and bled over into the real world.
Sad times...
“Purity culture horribly twisted her mind, to the point where she wore a one-piece swimsuit on her Mexican honeymoon. Grim stuff, indeed.” Had me rolling 🤣
The deeper issue here is theological and you alluded to it with the 'Big Eva' statement (thank you, Carl Trueman). Being trained as a emergency nurse, often when people present with an illness the 'illness' is actually a symptom of something worse. We were part of 'Little Eva' in our circles, but very much part of 'Big Homeschool' (with a good sprinkling of Vision Forum) which cultivates 'what you must do (not do), vs what Christ has done/doing. We thank the Lord for becoming covenentally Reformed presbyterians helping to provide a way to escape, just in time (Happy 31st!)
Like what happened to Mrs. Hatmaker, I see this trend among those who have 'deconstructed', or worse, is that they were driven by the religious culture of their circles rather than good, biblical, historical, orthodox theology...something else 'Big Eva' has laid aside. As a result we/they wind up creating a god in our own image (Ps. 50:21) and then embrace what that culture calls good, beautiful, and 'true'. This is the true illness. How much of this is part of Mrs. Hatmaker's story? May the Lord bring healing to her and the many others who had plenty of law at the expense of the Gospel.
I did do a bit of research on the books outlined in your graphics, at my daughter's suggestion. Websites like pluggedin or Commonsense Media or others really don't describe those books in the context of being 'pornified'. Maybe a correction there is needed. But I believe you are on the right track with this medium (books) being more appealing to a woman's heart. Men are visually driven, thus the porn industry thrives. Women (as my Mrs. regularly reminds me) are driven by what they 'hear' and being 'heard'.
Books allow women to 'hear' with their eyes...and thus bad things can fly under the radar because '...I'm just reading.' We can see how those in the earthly and spiritual realms have taken advantage of this medium. If anything is appealing to their eyes, its eye contact. A man who has his heart in the right place not only listens to his wife and daughters with his ears, but also with his eyes.
I was unaware that porn content had invaded women’s spaces in the church until a young woman came to me looking for help. She had begun reading romance articles online, which would link to porn videos. She was surprised how quickly she became addicted. I had had no idea that that kind of content was so readily available, believing that one had to search for a porn site in order to view it. As I attempted to educate myself, I found a plethora of books written addressing men. I found biblical references that were helpful for us. And we embarked on a campaign, memorization and careful accountability. Each evening we would pray together on the phone and then she would turn her phone off and place it in the kitchen. After a couple of weeks, she decided to confess her sin to her father who also began praying with her and holding her accountable. When she courting with a young man in our church, they confessed their pornography problems to each other.
The men in our current culture have been feminized. They don't love women, they fear them. Enter the "servant leader" who can pretend he's leading while being led.
A helpful article, thank you. Just a query - you mentioned "the content standards of Lifeway", and I wondered if you'd be happy to explain this reference? Thank you.
Sorry, there should have been a hyperlink there. Hatmaker went on a campaign against Lifeway after the store dropped her materials following her shift on LGBTQ. She has referred to this in discussions as to why she feels alienated toward other Christians.
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/lifeway-pulls-hatmaker-books-over-lgbt-views/
Hello Samuel Thank you for clarifying this - that's very helpful. I'll look at this link. Every blessing, Rob