Here we go again...I'm praying for the Mize family. The language I am seeing in character assassination is all too familiar. It's not of God. And honestly, I'm exhausted from the whole act of trying to prove God's love for women and our worth. I know the work needs to be done, but too many have revealed themselves in the OPC that they refuse to see. And worse, too many others have revealed themselves that they choose to enable blindness and cruelty. Who is protected in the OPC? Who is valued? Who gets the glory?
So true, Aimee. The knives are out. How jealously many guard their distinction as "superiors," to the detriment of their "inferiors." And yes, their toleration of the failures to love evidenced among their own cannot be reasoned away. Here is yet another chance to choose humility and gentleness despite disagreement, but I must admit, it seems the most angry and self-assertive among them will again win the day.
Wow these arguments for patriarchy. It’s baffling how baffled these men get over people rejecting such “clear” doctrine. Ironically, with Van Doodeward’s cherry-picking any and every positive mention of “father” and “patriarch,” and alongside his diagnosis of rejecting patriarchy as demonic, he completely misses the possibility of satanic patriarchy:
John 8:43-44 “Why don't you understand what I say? Because you cannot listen to my word. [44] You are of your father the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.”
Maybe, just maybe, it is patriarchy that is demonic, not the rejection of patriarchy.
Also, given his claim that Jesus endorsed patriarchy merely because he called God Father citing John 5, I thought it worth adding this quote from Mary Coloe. Agreeing with you and Mize, the Father-Son relationship is about mutual abiding/unitive love, not hierarchical rule.
“The household model as imaged in the language of the Fourth Gospel essentially deconstructs the patriarchal household model of antiquity, since It takes as its point of reference the divine communion. The Fourth Gospel, while using "father-son" terminology, reconstitutes the relationship as a dynamism of mutual self-giving love. In turn, although Jesus can rightly be called kyrios, he acts in loving service in washing the feet of disciples, he calls members of the household "friends," and he gives the ultimate sign of love unto death. We do not have within this household a hierarchy of leadership other than the leadership of faith and love, seen particularly in the female characters of the Samaritan woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene, and also the Beloved Disciple, who remains anonymous and in his anonymity includes all beloved disciples, women and men.”
That last sentence is beautiful, Aaron. Yes, your work in John helps me to see clearly not only how the societal structures of Jesus's day united in conspiring against him, but how Jesus in the midst of that leaned into his Father and continued his work, seeking and saving the lost, many of whom were pushed out to the margins. I also was thinking again of how many times we found "Father" mentioned in John 8 on Tuesday. I counted them. Twenty times. And each one emphasizing the vital union of Jesus with his heavenly Father, which the religious leaders could not hear or accept. Their hatred seemed to grow with each mention of his Father until the last verse, when they picked up stones to kill him.
I read Mize’s article and was so blessed and encouraged by it. I am so saddened that it has been taken down. Thank you for taking the time to write this.
Thank you, Jennifer. Yes, my heart sank to see that it was removed. On the issue of superior and inferiors, who rules and who doesn't, there seems to be no room for difference of opinion or debate. Many stand alert, ready to find "feminism," Marxism, and liberalism in anyone who challenges their conception of themselves. I find it interesting that no one ever uses the word "masculinism," as if the exaltation of maleness over femaleness is not a thing to be recognized and admonished.
That’s similar to one of those gender aphorisms I was working on that I mentioned:
“When men mobilize a movement for men, they don’t have to call it a masculinist movement. They just call it a movement.”
It’s not great, but trying to note the irony that “masculinism” and “masculinist” are not words we use (positively or negatively), which I take as evidence of patriarchy. But maybe we should start criticizing the dangers of masculinism.
I think the second term is better. Although it’s longer, it’s more accurate to social reality.
Men are afraid of being derided, mocked and socially shamed by other men. That’s a major reason so many ‘good’ men don’t speak up.
Graham Goulden is a retired cop who does active-bystandership training for organisations. He says that brain scan research shows that social shame and physical pain activate the same area of the brain. Find him on FB and X.
Dr George Simon has decades of experience as forensic psychologist. He is also a professing Christian. I am adapting what he said in his article "How To Tell When Therapy Won't Work" to the domain of pastoral counseling.
I have used male pronouns for the character disturbed individual, because we are talking about how Patriarchy leads men to a sense of entitlement and from this entitlement comes abuse.
It is useless for the pastor to spend a lot of time and energy trying to get the abusive man to ‘see’ what he is doing. Character disturbed individuals already ‘see.’ The abusive man is very aware of the things he does as well as the reasons why he does them them. And he's also acutely aware that other folks would prefer that he does things differently. He sees, but he disagrees with the rules most of us play by. He knows what others would like him to do, but he prefers his own way.
So an insight-oriented or awareness-heightening approach is useless.
Effective pastoral counselling is more of a confront, correct, and reinforce approach. And there’s a highly specialized art to confronting and correcting in a sufficiently palatable, benign manner that the disturbed character might actually respond positively. It involves gentle but persuasive leading, modeling, challenging, encouraging, etc. so that the disturbed character becomes willing to at least ‘try out’ more functional alternatives and then experience the positive consequences of so doing.
Effective pastoral counseling with abusive men should always focus on the inextricable interconnection between their problematic thinking patterns [which derive from Patriarchal doctrines] as well as the destructive behaviors that result from them.
A husband who no longer believes that women should always be subordinate is much less likely to become irate when his wife fails to honor his every wish.
Men are generally stronger than women, but that means they have greater responsibility to not use their strength to hurt and oppress others.
Pushing the idea that men should embrace Patriarchy as their mantle can exacerbate a not-so-good man’s attitude of entitlement, making him even worse in his marriage than he might otherwise have been.
Yes, I liked what Mize said concerning "entitlement." When the entitlement is thought to be rooted in God himself and in his law, then dangers become real. It reminds me of the leaders of Jesus' day who thought they were doing God's will in handling Jesus.
Crazy that the OPC pulled the March issue. I googled "Mize, patriarchy" and immediately found Twitter guff from patriarchal figures like Zachary Garris and anon accounts.
Has the editor, Reynolds, explained what's going on?
Yes, I found that as well. It is so unfortunate that it goes that way. I do not know anything about what the editor is thinking. Things might be out of his hands at this point.
Here we go again...I'm praying for the Mize family. The language I am seeing in character assassination is all too familiar. It's not of God. And honestly, I'm exhausted from the whole act of trying to prove God's love for women and our worth. I know the work needs to be done, but too many have revealed themselves in the OPC that they refuse to see. And worse, too many others have revealed themselves that they choose to enable blindness and cruelty. Who is protected in the OPC? Who is valued? Who gets the glory?
So true, Aimee. The knives are out. How jealously many guard their distinction as "superiors," to the detriment of their "inferiors." And yes, their toleration of the failures to love evidenced among their own cannot be reasoned away. Here is yet another chance to choose humility and gentleness despite disagreement, but I must admit, it seems the most angry and self-assertive among them will again win the day.
Wow these arguments for patriarchy. It’s baffling how baffled these men get over people rejecting such “clear” doctrine. Ironically, with Van Doodeward’s cherry-picking any and every positive mention of “father” and “patriarch,” and alongside his diagnosis of rejecting patriarchy as demonic, he completely misses the possibility of satanic patriarchy:
John 8:43-44 “Why don't you understand what I say? Because you cannot listen to my word. [44] You are of your father the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.”
Maybe, just maybe, it is patriarchy that is demonic, not the rejection of patriarchy.
Also, given his claim that Jesus endorsed patriarchy merely because he called God Father citing John 5, I thought it worth adding this quote from Mary Coloe. Agreeing with you and Mize, the Father-Son relationship is about mutual abiding/unitive love, not hierarchical rule.
“The household model as imaged in the language of the Fourth Gospel essentially deconstructs the patriarchal household model of antiquity, since It takes as its point of reference the divine communion. The Fourth Gospel, while using "father-son" terminology, reconstitutes the relationship as a dynamism of mutual self-giving love. In turn, although Jesus can rightly be called kyrios, he acts in loving service in washing the feet of disciples, he calls members of the household "friends," and he gives the ultimate sign of love unto death. We do not have within this household a hierarchy of leadership other than the leadership of faith and love, seen particularly in the female characters of the Samaritan woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene, and also the Beloved Disciple, who remains anonymous and in his anonymity includes all beloved disciples, women and men.”
That last sentence is beautiful, Aaron. Yes, your work in John helps me to see clearly not only how the societal structures of Jesus's day united in conspiring against him, but how Jesus in the midst of that leaned into his Father and continued his work, seeking and saving the lost, many of whom were pushed out to the margins. I also was thinking again of how many times we found "Father" mentioned in John 8 on Tuesday. I counted them. Twenty times. And each one emphasizing the vital union of Jesus with his heavenly Father, which the religious leaders could not hear or accept. Their hatred seemed to grow with each mention of his Father until the last verse, when they picked up stones to kill him.
I read Mize’s article and was so blessed and encouraged by it. I am so saddened that it has been taken down. Thank you for taking the time to write this.
Thank you, Jennifer. Yes, my heart sank to see that it was removed. On the issue of superior and inferiors, who rules and who doesn't, there seems to be no room for difference of opinion or debate. Many stand alert, ready to find "feminism," Marxism, and liberalism in anyone who challenges their conception of themselves. I find it interesting that no one ever uses the word "masculinism," as if the exaltation of maleness over femaleness is not a thing to be recognized and admonished.
"no one ever uses the word 'masculinism,' as if the exaltation of maleness over femaleness is not a thing to be recognized and admonished"
—well said Anna!
That’s similar to one of those gender aphorisms I was working on that I mentioned:
“When men mobilize a movement for men, they don’t have to call it a masculinist movement. They just call it a movement.”
It’s not great, but trying to note the irony that “masculinism” and “masculinist” are not words we use (positively or negatively), which I take as evidence of patriarchy. But maybe we should start criticizing the dangers of masculinism.
‘masculinism’ … or ‘alpha-masculinism’.
I think the second term is better. Although it’s longer, it’s more accurate to social reality.
Men are afraid of being derided, mocked and socially shamed by other men. That’s a major reason so many ‘good’ men don’t speak up.
Graham Goulden is a retired cop who does active-bystandership training for organisations. He says that brain scan research shows that social shame and physical pain activate the same area of the brain. Find him on FB and X.
https://grahamgoulden.com/
Also Jackson Katz
https://www.jacksonkatz.com/
"Men must be in charge to protect women from men" sounds an awful lot like the Mafia showing up for protection money every month.
Dr George Simon has decades of experience as forensic psychologist. He is also a professing Christian. I am adapting what he said in his article "How To Tell When Therapy Won't Work" to the domain of pastoral counseling.
https://counsellingresource.com/features/2012/02/08/when-therapy-wont-work/
I have used male pronouns for the character disturbed individual, because we are talking about how Patriarchy leads men to a sense of entitlement and from this entitlement comes abuse.
It is useless for the pastor to spend a lot of time and energy trying to get the abusive man to ‘see’ what he is doing. Character disturbed individuals already ‘see.’ The abusive man is very aware of the things he does as well as the reasons why he does them them. And he's also acutely aware that other folks would prefer that he does things differently. He sees, but he disagrees with the rules most of us play by. He knows what others would like him to do, but he prefers his own way.
So an insight-oriented or awareness-heightening approach is useless.
Effective pastoral counselling is more of a confront, correct, and reinforce approach. And there’s a highly specialized art to confronting and correcting in a sufficiently palatable, benign manner that the disturbed character might actually respond positively. It involves gentle but persuasive leading, modeling, challenging, encouraging, etc. so that the disturbed character becomes willing to at least ‘try out’ more functional alternatives and then experience the positive consequences of so doing.
Effective pastoral counseling with abusive men should always focus on the inextricable interconnection between their problematic thinking patterns [which derive from Patriarchal doctrines] as well as the destructive behaviors that result from them.
A husband who no longer believes that women should always be subordinate is much less likely to become irate when his wife fails to honor his every wish.
Men are generally stronger than women, but that means they have greater responsibility to not use their strength to hurt and oppress others.
Pushing the idea that men should embrace Patriarchy as their mantle can exacerbate a not-so-good man’s attitude of entitlement, making him even worse in his marriage than he might otherwise have been.
Read a case study here: https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2014/07/30/how-complementarianism-can-magnify-the-entitlement-mentality-of-men-making-them-worse/
Research has shown that there’s a correlation between Calvinism and domestic violence. https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2018/04/27/calvinism-and-domestic-violence-theres-a-correlation-but-we-cant-say-calvinism-causes-domestic-violence/
Yes, I liked what Mize said concerning "entitlement." When the entitlement is thought to be rooted in God himself and in his law, then dangers become real. It reminds me of the leaders of Jesus' day who thought they were doing God's will in handling Jesus.
I clicked on the internet archive link, but the article doesn’t show up…can I get a copy somehow?
Crazy that the OPC pulled the March issue. I googled "Mize, patriarchy" and immediately found Twitter guff from patriarchal figures like Zachary Garris and anon accounts.
Has the editor, Reynolds, explained what's going on?
Yes, I found that as well. It is so unfortunate that it goes that way. I do not know anything about what the editor is thinking. Things might be out of his hands at this point.