(Part 2) Church of Christ Practice Harms Girls Long-Term, Suggests 2018 Study: Negative Reactions

Part 1 and notes on sources:  Steve Gardner, “Church of Christ Practice Harms Girls Long-Term, Suggests 2018 Study,” AuthenticTheology.com (November 28, 2018).

Part 1 noted the Churches of Christ denomination is on the extreme end of male congregational leadership—women are generally barred from reading scripture, leading singing or prayer, assisting at the communion table, or preaching in the worship assembly and from teaching adult (and even middle and high school) Sunday School.  (Update: Included this in the main text and moved the 90%+ indicate to accompany it for clarity.)

The study:  Benjamin R. Knoll and Cammie Jo Bolin, She Preached the Word, New York: Oxford University Press (2018).

Quotes 1-7 are paraphrases and combinations of multiple, similar comments.

I think it is immoral and a sin to block women from speaking in the worship service. Blocking women from doing so is blocking women from what Christ asked, it is failing to follow the example Christ gave us, and it is not following God’s word.

Some additional rough thoughts on harm for future further consideration:

It appears to me that barring girls and women from speaking and teaching as most Churches of Christ do (in the worship service, etc.) causes long-term harm to many of them.  I am curious how you see it? Does it harm them? Do you think it is helpful to them? What am I missing?  Here are some of my thoughts about it:

1. Having young girls sit in the pews and watch themselves and their moms and their females friends be discriminated against every Sunday for years and years is psychologically harmful (for example to their understanding of God and God’s view of women, to their perception of their abilities relative to boys and men, to their perception of their power relative to males, …), spiritually harmful (some of same reasons), and physically harmful (there are biological, physiological reactions that go along with sex discrimination and these other impacts, potential careers in ministry are discouraged, ….).

2. The church carrying out such things provides an example of sex discrimination to young boys and men that they can’t help by mimic and be influenced by outside of church —- so it negatively impacts and harms young girls and women in the workplace, at school, in society, etc., too.

3. Blocking young girls from speaking in the worship service blocks them from doing what Jesus asks them to do in the Greatest Commandment — blocks them from loving (e.g., worshiping and serving) God with *all* their heart, mind, and soul. And it blocks them from loving (serving) their neighbor. Setting aside that I view blocking them from doing what Jesus asks as a sin, it seems that blocking them from doing what Jesus asks is harming them.  By definition, by being prohibited, they are blocked from loving God with their *all* and from loving others *as themselves*.

4. I don’t think it takes long to have a material negative impact on a young girl and to have it “set in” for long term. For example, she only has to raise her hand 2-3 times in Sunday School early on to volunteer to pray and get passed over for her to learn that girls can’t pray in front of boys. And she only has to hear “it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor 14:35) once or twice, combined with people she loves reinforcing it by keeping all women from speaking in the church, to have it impact her forever.

5.  I am disturbed that we do this and disturbed and embarrassed that I participated in it for years without giving its impact much or any thought.

6.  It seems like the practice itself is sex discrimination.  Thus, automatically, all the harm that comes with sex discrimination comes to the young girls subjected to it—— I gave some examples of the kinds of harm that comes with it above.  So it seems like one of the questions on harm is whether other stuff overcomes that harm that comes with it.  Some argue one can communicate to them clearly that they are valued in other ways.  So it seems that one would have to argue that the harm caused by that sex discrimination can be overcome by this clear communication of value to them in other ways.  It doesn’t seem like that would be possible, all while continuing to discriminate against them by prohibiting them from speaking/teaching and continuing to interpret and teach them that 1 Cor 14:34-35 says they can’t speak b/c it is a disgrace or a shame for them to speak in the church and that 1 Tim 2 means they can’t teach men at all in the church because their prototype Eve was deceived while the boys’ prototype Adam wasn’t etc.  It seems like, regardless of such an attempt to convince them they are valued through such words, prohibiting young girls the way the CoC does it seems to result in harm to young girls.

7.  It seems like that it is a big giant flag that we’ve got the interpretation wrong.  In other words, it seems to signal that 1 Cor 14;34-35 and 1 Tim 2 do not mean that women are to be prohibited from speaking, teaching, etc.  And that boat-load of verses that tell women to speak, teach, lead, and have authority over men were trying to tell us something.

8.  Some see clear instructions in those passages, but there is a boat-load of clear instructions telling women to speak, lead, teach, and have authority over men, in an assembly and elsewhere, in many other passages and there are those ~3 sentences to which people point to claim the contrary. And I think a quick look at those sentences makes one think that oh, it’s clear instructions that women can’t speak. But a slightly longer look makes one think, wait, this makes no sense (if silence in the church, they can’t sing…. If they should ask their husbands at home, they can’t ask questions in Sunday School or in the hallway …. Saved through childbearing, but what about John 3:16 …. Etc.). But when one spends some time looking at those in context, it turns out that those ~3 sentences don’t mean women can’t speak/lead/teach in the assembly.  There’s lots of “clear instructions” that when one pauses and thinks about it and looks at other verses and in context that one realizes, oh, they don’t mean what it looks like when just the sentence is read alone. Like these:

+ Jesus said “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:25-26)

+ And he said “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (Matthew 6:6) …

+ “What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not …. For this world in its present form is passing away.” (1 Cor 7:29-31)

9.  Examples of men who are uneducated, are poor speakers, talk too long, etc., as people elders prohibit from speaking are not analogous examples. It’s not an immutable characteristic (like race and sex), it’s one re merit, not one that is at the core of their being and identity, etc.

10. What evidence would cause you to believe that barring girls and women from speaking and teaching as most Churches of Christ do (in the worship service, etc.) causes harm to many of them?

11.  Saying that some women have never felt devalued does not tell you that barring women from speaking does not harm some women, by the way. Of course, some women have no desire to speak or teach, so they feel neutral about it, for example.

12.  Do you think that barring black people from speaking, etc., would not cause harm to them and would not be inherently devaluing? It’s the same concept, discriminating based on an immutable characteristic.

13.  The practice itself can be considered abuse from the viewpoint of the girl and women (even if not intended by those doing the prohibiting). It is inappropriate to point to the “attitude” of the women and girls about being subjected to discrimination as something that discounts or is the actual cause of any harm or to decide that their “perceived harm” is no harm at all.

14. Some women who now express no desire to preach or speak might have had a desire to preach (or even read scripture or lead prayer or even lead singing ….) at some point, but that is part of the point that those kinds of desires are “put down” / indoctrinated out of young girls by this form of practice and is part of the harm to young girls.

15.  Part of my pausing on this issue and part of what I think is missing is this:

a. It seems to me that it is the little girls and the young girls that suffer most of the harm I outlined, being subjected to it during their formative and impressionable years and are impacted long-term.  b. They don’t have a choice.  c. The parents and the women who are comfortable do not realize the harm issue, I think. Would they be comfortable if they knew that this was harmful to other people, young girls in particular?  Of course probably not to all.  But to many.  And I don’t think one could pick out which young girls will and will not be harmed by it in advance.

16.  There are plenty of women who were raised without female church leaders who are confident and well-adjusted women.  That many women are confident and well-adjusted after being completely prohibited from speaking and leading in the worship service and after watching other females be prohibited from speaking, reading scripture, leading singing, praying out loud, etc., in front of boys and men because of their sex for all those years growing up doesn’t tell us whether many other young girls are harmed by it.  It doesn’t even tell us whether those confident and well-adjusted women were harmed by it, as their confidence and well-adjustment might have been hard-earned through some work to overcome some struggles between those years and now, for example, or their confidence, education, etc., might have been even greater, or …..  In other words, that person X is confident and well-adjusted doesn’t tell us that persons Y and Z were not harmed by the practice. It doesn’t even tell us that person X was not harmed by the practice.  This is part of the reason the testimony of women who explain yes, that experience as a young girl had a negative impact on me and here is how and why matters.  And why the professional study like the one described matters.  And why the inherent harm of sex discrimination matters.

17. Here, the practice is harmful to: those discriminated against (the young girls in particular), those who go without the benefit of the gifts of half those made in God’s image, those who carry out the discrimination, those who watch the discrimination being carried out as they then mimic it, those who are discriminated against by those mimicking the churches’ discrimination teaching, the witness of the church as a whole, those who are repelled by the discrimination, non-Christians who are repulsed by the presence of discrimination, …..

18.  Plenty of women do not feel harmed, but I don’t think that negates the girls, women, men, and boys who are, those who do feel harmed, etc.

19.  My subsidiary point, after pointing out the harm the interpretation and resulting practice causes, is that, to me, the harm is a big red flag that we, as a religious body as a whole, ought to take it as a signal that we highly likely have the interpretation wrong & ought to take a very hard look at it now.

20.  I think that having women in elder and deacon roles would increase safety in that regard, too, between some girls feeling more comfortable talking with a female leader about such things, role models, awareness, etc.

21.  People can tell girls they are equally valued, etc., but doing that while continuing to carry out the action of discriminating against them and their moms by prohibiting them from speaking/teaching and by continuing to interpret and teach them that 1 Cor 14:34-35 says they can’t speak b/c it is a disgrace or a shame for them to speak in the church and that 1 Tim 2 means they can’t have authority or teach men at all in the church because their prototype Eve was deceived while the boys’ prototype Adam wasn’t etc., there is a disconnect between actions/words and the conclusion part. These girls pick up on that. The action of discrimination and the interpretation that God thinks it is a disgrace / shame for women to speak in the church, etc., is harmful to those girls.

22.  Sex discrimination, like race discrimination, is inherently harmful. Here, it is harmful to those discriminated against, those who go without the benefit of the gifts of half those made in God’s image, those who carry out the discrimination, those who watch the discrimination being carried out, the witness of the church as a whole, those who are repelled from the church by the presence of the discrimination, ……

23. Our feelings — including love for others, fear of God, desire to bear the burdens of others, desire to serve others, …. — is one of the things that guides us as we approach God’s words and truths.

24. We are called to consider how our actions impact others in everything we do.  In taking an action or inaction — any action or any inaction — we are called (many would say commanded) to consider others and the impact of our possible action or inaction on them, and to not only love them as ourselves, but carry out the even higher standard of loving others as Christ loved others and to bear other’s burdens. (See, e.g., John 13:15, 34-35; Galatians 6:2; Mark 12:28-34).  So, of course, approaching God’s word, including taking the action of interpretation, involves approaching God’s word and reading holy scripture with and employing this realization and calling.  I would say, too, that taking the inaction of not re-visiting this interpretation with due care when such harm to little girls has been identified deviates from what Christ has called (many say commands) us to do.

25.  Part of interpretation involves making a decision among a range of possible meanings.  When one of those possible meanings harms people (not love); conflicts with such things as the fundamental nature, teachings, examples of Christ; places burdens on others; etc., then the very calling we are given suggests that that possible meaning is highly unlikely — virtually certainly not –the correct meaning.  A couple of examples:

+ Jesus said “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:25-26)

+ “What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not …. For this world in its present form is passing away.” (1 Cor 7:29-31)

26. Here, the practice employed by the CoC generally harms young girls, conflicts with the fundamental nature, teachings, and examples of Christ, places burdens on young girls, etc.  So, the very calling we are given suggests that that possible meaning is highly unlikely – virtually certainly not – the correct meaning.  When — as here, relative to 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:12 — there is a reasonable interpretation of the text that does not harm people or conflict with such things, that is more likely the correct meaning.  One can go further in considering the competing interpretations and their reasonableness, etc.

27. I rejoice that people —- like the women who are speaking up about the harm this practice does, researchers who conduct studies like the one noted in the article, scientists who tell us about the negative physiological effects of discrimination, etc. —- bring to our attention discoveries, deeper understandings, new revelations, etc., that allow us to know that a practice is harmful.  This allows us to better understand ourselves and our world and better understand scripture.  Our — human species — understanding of the meaning of a passage will change as time goes by. (See the Reformation!)  New discoveries, deeper understandings, more information, time, etc. give us the opportunity to better understanding scripture. Our eyes are opened wider. We discover the Earth is not fixed at the center of the universe and the sun does not revolve around the Earth. Does this change our interpretation of scripture? Yes. It should. We should be glad we can better know God’s revelation to us.  Here, while it is painful to learn of the harm I caused by supporting this interpretation for years, it seems like the better course is to be glad to learn of things like this rather than have it stay hidden from us, as it gives us an opportunity to better understand scripture, to apologize and change and stop causing harm.

28.  Could the carrying out of the CoC interpretation that girls and women must be completely barred from speaking, leading, etc., be right, but something else in the application of it is off and causing all the harm.  No, the something else might cause more harm, but the carrying out of the interpretation is sex discrimination.  Sex discrimination, like race discrimination, is inherently harmful.  I outlined some of those ways above.  Its harm is something that is evident in just thinking about it. It’s been known for a long time that discrimination based on an immutable characteristic is inherently harmful.

29.  Is completely barring black people from speaking, etc., when white people are present in the church would not cause harm to them and would not be inherently harmful and devaluing, but the problem could just be in the follow-through? It’s the same concept, discriminating based on an immutable characteristic is inherently harmful.

30.  That discrimination based on an immutable characteristic is inherently harmful has been known for a long time. The central point of Brown v. Board of education, for example, in finding “separate but equal” schools for black people unconstitutional was that such discrimination in inherently harmful. The Court asked whether even if “the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal,” are the “children of the minority group” harmed (there, in the form of being deprived of equal educational opportunities)?  The Court explained that, even with all else equal, “To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”  The Court, quoting a lower court, explained “‘Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.” Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority.'”

31.  Referring to the CoC view as “complementarian” overstates the view.  There is a giant gap between the Churches of Christ interpretation of scripture and the vast majority of those referred to as complementarians (a misnomer, btw).  Even the vast majority of complementarians — Southern Baptist, etc. — do not interpret scripture the way the CoC does and do not completely prohibit women from speaking and leading in the worship assembly, etc.  The extent of the sex discrimination embodied in the CoC’s interpretation is the most discriminatory or close to it among all of Christianity among groups of size, in the U.S. at least.  Only somewhere around 1-4% of Christianity completely bars women from speaking and leading in the worship service, and the CoC makes up the lions share of that. Parts of IFB comes close.  Islam completely bars women from speaking and leading in the worship service, but it is not monolithic about it — it is cultural.  In other words, the the CoC-type interpretation of the scripture is a very small universe, so saying “complementarians” when talking about the CoC interpretation overstates the team and overstates who is responsible for the interpretation and its continuing impact and for making changes.

32.  God discriminated.  God was discriminating relative to priests, but many misdescribe the point of discrimination — God did not simply prohibit women from being priests.  It was not discrimination against “Jewish women.” The requirements for priests were Levite, direct (blood) descendant of Aaron, male, healthy, not disabled or with a handicap, not unclean, right age, etc.  The scope of the qualifications for priests were quite narrow.   And, of course, God declared all Christians — regardless of from whom they descend, male and female, healthy or not, clean or unclean, young or old, etc., priests now — a royal priesthood, the universal priesthood. (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9)

Regardless, the comparison is inapposite.  That God does something does not give human beings license or permission to do it.  God killed children, the first-born of the Egyptians.  God had an entire group of people (children, women, men, etc.) killed.  God stands by and lets genocide occur.  God is sovereign and can kill, harm, wipe us all out, … or discriminate.  It does not give *us* license to kill, harm, wipe people out, … or discriminate.

33.  As to emphasizing that we put too much emphasis on the worship service and that those who serve in the worship service are not greater than or superior to others, just performing a different role:  First, do you think, then, that a person reading scripture, leading singing, preaching, leading prayer, etc., in the worship service is not exercising authority over the people sitting in the pew?  I think they are not and are instead serving, but the general Churches of Christ interpretation holds that they are exercising authority and prohibits women from doing those things under 1 Tim 2:12.  Second, Sex discrimination, like race discrimination, is inherently harmful, even when, for example, the person being discriminated against is not being discriminated against relative to a “superior” situation but is instead being discriminated against relative to an ”equal” or lateral situation, btw. Third, here, we are talking about service that women feel called to do by God, for example, and that they are asked to do by God, so the service is viewed as “superior” to the person called, regardless.

34.  Should ministers continue to be in the Churches of Christ congregations that discriminate based on sex?  Most of the talk is around ethics, Christ-centered ministry, impact on the minister’s ethics and ability to minister (tendency to reconstruct our personal ethics to fit our personal needs vs. doing it too quickly and never having an impact), and self-care.  If you can ethically stay in and stay healthy doing so while advocating for change, it seems like it.  But there is a very serious ethical problem. If you are not advocating for change while young girls continue to be harmed, what are the ethics and morality and sin in that?  And it can have a serious impact on our self-care (can negatively impact our own health) and our personal long-term ethics (can erode our ethics).

35.  Some of the ethical issues that can come into play for a minister re women’s roles are (a) lying — e.g., the minister lying and/or being deceptive about his view on the matter or his knowledge relative to other views on the matter, (b) breach of fiduciary or fiduciary-like duties or love — e.g., the minister putting his interest (his income and status) ahead of the interest of the young girls in the congregation, (c) negligence — e.g., not acting while knowing that barring women/girls can harm people while having a duty to act or while knowing that people want to do the right thing, and (d) dereliction of duties – e.g., if the minister is paid, then part of what they are paid to do is to tell the truth, raise matters that those for whom the congregation is “home” cannot, etc. There are more.

36.  For me, I think that if one can avoid (a) — not lie / be deceptive — then (b) – (d) are solvable ethically if one is making genuine and diligent efforts towards giving women a voice and ending the discrimination.  That’s a big if.  Taking to long or doing very little, etc., is not a genuine and diligent effort.  E.g., if one has a plan and is working that plan to the end of ending discrimination against girls and women. You can make much more of a difference on the inside than the outside. I’ve found it helpful to think about it analytically in this regard.  My take is that excuses, like not having a plan with a reasonable time-line, or doing little, or just putting it off for a couple of years, or talk of a “congregation not being ready” (essentially, blaming the congregation) when it is full of people who have been Christians for 20+ years, giving up, etc., or thinking that if I am fired it’s a major factor in the congregation (like someone else can’t do it), etc., doesn’t sufficiently solve (b) – (d).

37.  It is a whole lot less riskier to not have a plan and have no time-line, do little, etc.  Unfortunately, it seems that ethically going about this involves meaningful risk to your job and status and reputation within the CoC in most places. The need to feed one’s family complicates all this and feeds the ethical equation.

38.  And your mental, spiritual, and physical health is super important.  Seeing those young girls sitting in the pews can have a negative physical impact on the minister who knows the problems, as well as a mental and spiritual one. So, if you know or realize it is something that is going to have such a negative impact on your health, then you probably ought to give it second and third thoughts about staying in, or figure out if you can manage that, too. A therapist can help; exercise can help; seeing that you are helping to make progress can help; …. But it’s vitally important and you shouldn’t neglect it. ……. And staying in ethically questionable situations long-term can impact one’s personal ethics if you have to compromise and make excuses, etc., in that it wears those down and is not healthy, either. It normalizes situations and erodes your sense of right/wrong. These are all things that would need attention when staying in.

39.  Additional sources regarding impacts on  women and girls of sex discrimination:

https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-health/interventions-resources/discrimination (“Experiences of discrimination based on gender have been shown to have negative health impacts for women. One study found that after adjusting for other influences, levels of unhappiness, loneliness, and depression are about 30% higher for women who reported experiencing recent discrimination compared to those who did not. Additionally, in a national sample of U.S. women ages 18 to 55, perceived discrimination was associated with lower likelihood of self-reported excellent/very good health. Another study with a sample of U.S. women found that reports of discrimination due to physical appearance or gender were strongly related to reduced self-reported receipt of Pap smears, mammography, and clinical breast exams. These findings suggest that perceived discrimination may be related to reduced utilization of health care services and worse self-reported health for women.^“)

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2015/impact-of-discrimination.pdf

https://nursing.usc.edu/blog/is-discrimination-bad-for-your-health/

https://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/eri/hecer/disc/159/developm.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5959880/

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-09537-003

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1519813?seq=1

40.  Lots of folks opposed to prohibitions on women and girls have a point of view along these lines:

a. Complementarianism itself is violence and/or physical abuse against women and girls.

This is in part because action involved is directed at the physical bodies of women and girls.

For example, it can involve men exerting force directed towards and on the physical bodies of women and girls to meet the objectives of those men relative to the physical bodies of those women and girls (e.g., to require them to remain seated, not get up to lead, not speak, not preach, remain silent, etc.). It is the physical bodies of women and girls that is the subject of physical control, that is the recipient of such force, etc.

The force exerted towards the end of controlling their physical bodies might be physical, it might be psychological, some combination, or other Physical force exerted towards those physical bodies to meet those ends may not be “hands on,” but might be things like standing up in the pulpit and preaching, the physical exertion of acting in a manner that provides an example of excluding women and girls from various functions, the physical action of walking into a meeting and telling the person typing up the worship assignments an all-male line-up, speaking in support of excluding women, ….), etc. Psychological force is exerted, too, often more directly on their bodies.

b. So complementarian action is closely akin to domestic violence or domestic physical abuse, as this referenced perceived violence / physical abuse is typically towards the physical bodies of women and girls who are very close to the perceived perpetrator (towards women and girls in their congregation), from such a point of view.

c. And so a complementarian referring to themselves as “soft” “or not as strict” or something along those lines might mean to them something akin to “less strict domestic violence perpetrator” or “less strict domestic physical abuser.”  In other words, it might mean to them applying less force towards and on women and girl’s bodies but still continuing to do it.

41.  There is also much out there on complementarianism’s contribution to domestic violence (see, e.g., even Al Mohler’s comments — https://www.christianpost.com/news/al-mohler-complementarian-theology-can-and-has-led-to-the-abuse-of-women-in-the-church.html).

42.  See, e.g., https://www.thehotline.org/is-this-abuse/abuse-defined/ (domestic violence, abuse description, National Domestic Violence Hotline)

43.  Physical abuse definition — some use / define the physical part as the effect on the person or the result (e.g., their physical body is harmed) and some define the physical part as the activity of the person doing the abusing (they use physical force) in combination with the result (e.g, physical harm) and some define the physical part as the force that impacts the person (e.g., there is “hands on” or other physical contact between the two people).

Similar with violence — some emphasize what kind of force is used (physical) by the person in combination with a result (e.g., harm or abuse) ; some emphasize the physical result (e.g., treatment or usage of a person that results in physical harm or physical interference with the person); some emphasize a physical force used that makes physical contact; some emphasize action or conduct characterized by any of these things.

See, e.g, https://www.oed.com/oed2/00277885 (“1. a. The exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or property; action or conduct characterized by this; treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom. b. In the phr. to do violence to, unto (or with indirect object): To inflict harm or injury upon; to outrage or violate. †Also to make violence. ….”)

44.  On body-control — that leaders who teach, reinforce, facilitate, etc., prohibiting women and girls from speaking, leading, etc., in the church are thereby seeking to control the bodies of the women and girls in the church does not seem disputable.

Control includes “to exercise restraining or directing influence over : REGULATE.”  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control

Those church leaders are seeking to do so relative to female bodies —- to sit, not speak, or not lead in the church, for example.  That hierarchical complementarianism involves seeking to control the bodies of women and girls in the church seems straightforward to me.

45.  As to domestic violence in the home — Even Al Mohler acknowledge that complementarianism “can be, and … sometimes is” “a cause of the abuse of women and girls” (see Christian Post 10/20/19 article to see more, and he, as you might expect, expresses it as charitably and as favorably to complementarianism as one can).  See https://www.christianpost.com/news/al-mohler-complementarian-theology-can-and-has-led-to-the-abuse-of-women-in-the-church.html.

46.  On spiritual abuse and related matters:  https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/march/spiritual-abuse-definition-uk-churches-timmis-fletcher-ccpa.html

47.  On describing such things as benevolent sexism.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/benevolent-sexism

48.  Ambivalent sexism discussion:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism

49.  More on benevolent sexism:  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/benevolent-sexism/ 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/life-after-50/202001/does-benevolent-sexism-cause-harm

https://wp.nyu.edu/steinhardt-appsych_opus/the-role-of-benevolent-sexism-in-gender-inequality/

50.  On benevolent sexism in the church:

https://www.apadivisions.org/division-36/publications/newsletters/religion/2014/10/conservative-christianity

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045317/

https://www.ashleyeaster.com/blog/hidden-sexism

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00241.x

51.  As abuse

https://www.ashleyeaster.com/blog/why-patriarchy-is-abuse

52.  Also see

https://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=07334273&asa=Y&AN=122870054&h=m5TvMVUmCVmEHqbCj%2b05rBSMvXICXJV0utAferxLNFttRDodgkhp%2fsB9RIELL7Stl6yziDpXXTO3%2bG%2f9nPNJ6g%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d07334273%26asa%3dY%26AN%3d122870054

https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/handle/2104/10667

https://search.proquest.com/openview/180953646cf04727169812557528355a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-23401-001

53.  Lots of people who engage in abuse are “people of conviction,” “are following their convictions,” “trying to follow scripture,” etc. — they believe at the time that what they are doing is right and true.  That the person engaged in the action thinks it is right or good, etc., however, does not make their actions not abuse.

Pointing out that something is abuse or that a person is engaged in abuse is not, by itself, an assignment of motive, bad or good.  A person can abuse with a good motive, a bad motive, negligence, etc.  That they engage in abuse with a good motive or via negligence, for example, doesn’t make their actions not abuse.  Well-intentioned or unknowing people can abuse and can promulgate and support a system that promotes abuse, just like bad-intentioned people can.

54.  On spiritual growth for women:  https://kingdomupgrowth.com/2019/05/11/helping-women-grow-spiritually-with-dr-anessa-westbrook/

55. See Davis, C. A. (1996). Patriarchal leadership and african-american women’s self-concept and well-being (Order No. 9713072). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304342259) (addresses Churches of Christ)

56. Johnson, L. K. (2011). Keeping women silent: A study of female leadership in faith-based institutions (Order No. 3465391). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (883589308). (addresses Churches of Christ colleges)

57.  For relevant comments by many Churches of Christ women across the country, see https://www.facebook.com/tufftaffy/posts/10101959843006411.

58.  Melissa De Witte, “Who people believe rules in heaven influences their beliefs about who rules on Earth, Stanford scholars find,” Stanford News (Jan. 31, 2020), https://news.stanford.edu/2020/01/31/consequences-perceiving-god-white-man (“The researchers, led by Stanford psychologist Steven O. Roberts, conducted a series of studies with U.S. Christians and found that when people conceptualize God as a white man, they are more likely to perceive white male job candidates as more fit for leadership than black and female applicants, Stanford research has found.”)

59.  Testimony of many Churches of Christ women regarding its treatment relative to their sex.

60.  The teaching that the “head” verses and 1 Tim means males are the God-ordained authority over females embodies the concept that males have authority over the bodies of women and girls (e.g., the location and function of women’s and girl’s bodies, such as only in the pew and not behind the pulpit, required silence, not an overseer, etc.), so the distance to the concept that such authority includes authority to go hands-on to physically control females is not far.

The typical response to this is that men are supposed to love women, but since the complementarian and patriarchal traditionalist concept of love includes (even requires!) discrimination against women and girls and control of their bodies (e.g., barring them from speaking) and the discrimination and control is modeled and taught via actions in church every Sunday, that a boy or man comes away with an embedded view that “love” includes (even requires!) such discrimination and treatment of women and girls outside of church is no surprise.

***

61.  https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Frel0000154 (“We observed positive associations among Calvinist tradition-specific religious beliefs and the 3 indicators of the latent construct of hierarchical relationality (i.e., hierarchical relational expectations, gender complementarianism, and existential defensiveness). We also observed (a) a positive indirect association between Calvinist beliefs and DVMA through the latent construct of hierarchical relationality, and (b) a negative indirect association between Calvinist beliefs and social justice advocacy through hierarchical relationality. Last, we observed evidence of suppression as the significant positive bivariate association between Calvinist beliefs and DVMA became significant and negative. Findings supported the conceptualization of domestic violence myths as comprised by nonacceptance of out-group members, hierarchical relationships, and gender inequality, and that an aspect of Calvinist ideology is similarly defined.”)

62.  Collection of some material with brief notes:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(15)00013-3/fulltext (“Especially predictive of the geographical distribution of partner violence are norms related to male authority over female behaviour (0·102, p<0·0001( …”)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20778531 (“… Christian fundamentalism was positively associated with both violence approval and acts of intimate partner violence …”)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J070v06n04_02 (“Persons sexually abused by a relative were much more likely to be affiliated with fundamental Protestant religions. Persons sexually abused by a non-relative were much more likely to rarely or never be involved in church and religious activities and were affiliated with liberal religious denominations or indicated they were atheists or agnostics.”)

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-19760-001 (“Likewise, results indicated that as gender role ideology became more traditional, body shame, self-silencing behaviors, hostile sexism, and benevolent sexism increased.”)

https://www.proquest.com/openview/e07cf4d669e3c98626caebbaffa287b2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (“More than 100 African American women from Churches of Christ … data suggest that patriarchal leadership in churches of Christ undermines African American women’s self-concept and sense of well-being, and that androcentric theology and practices foster negative self-esteem and self-efficacy.”)

https://www.facebook.com/tufftaffy/posts/10101959843006411 (“Calling all Church of Christ people (current and former), let’s start a thread! Tell me a story about when someone (or a group of someones) from the church made you feel bad about your gender.”; 2100+ comments, 197 shares)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/31/feature/the-epidemic-of-denial-about-sexual-abuse-in-the-evangelical-church/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_cases_in_Southern_Baptist_churches#:~:text=Widespread%20sexual%20abuse%20cases%20in,over%20700%20victims%20since%201998.

https://currentpub.com/2018/12/09/hundreds-of-sex-abuse-allegations-found-in-fundamentalist-baptist-churches/

***

https://www.godswordtowomen.org/Preato3.htm (including brief literature review)

***

Picture by Greyer Baby.  https://pixabay.com/en/users/greyerbaby-2323/