"Help me, You."

[Chase]

Allow me to check my privilege before going any further with this post...

 

I am a straight, white, cis-male college student who hasn't personally experienced any of the subject matter in this thread. I understand that there may be some things I could say that some may claim I have no place saying so. Knowing this - I am going to attempt to be as delicate (that's not my strong suit) as possible and apologize in advance if any exception is taken. I am not using this post to argue a point anyway.

 

The problem at hand...

 

There has never been a brighter time for women. They are able to pursue the jobs that they couldn't in the past. They are able to hold the same legal protections as men, and to the point I'm addressing, they are more able, thanks to a wave of people coming out and sharing their stories via the #MeToo movement, to open up about times of abuse in their lives and more importantly who the abuser is.

 

This has resulted in closure for many people of all genders (despite the founder possibly intending this to be a women's movement only) and has put away people who were avoiding justice. These things are good and in many cases necessary for recovery to really take place.

 

However, with the #MeToo movement's focus being on revealing abusers just as much as it is on providing women a chance to speak out, it has caused people both close to me and in seats of power to push back rather than rejoice. My president (who may not have any room to talk) is a consistent "defender of men" when abuse is mentioned in close proximity to himself (notably) and his administration. My father is a defense attorney (who, personally, may also not have any room to talk) and deals with the accused for a living, and has become one of the most cynical voices with regards to this movement in my life.

 

It's not at all far-fetched for President Trump and Dad to be right in their claims that people are to be given due process for mere accusations against them. However, today's culture almost demands that we take the opposite approach. That in cases of abuse, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. On top that, men are being exceedingly careful on the opposite side of the spectrum to avoid being suspected of abuse in turn, which leads to unintentional discrimination against women in the workforce. An example of such would be a man refusing to interview a female job applicant until he can safely schedule a time where another female can join him in the room during the interview, causing male applicants to take precedence out of convenience. Then, you have issues where the founder of the #MeToo movement ended up getting #MeToo'd by a male, painting the movement as one borne out hypocrisy. Then you have that same founder taking exception to a transgender person's #MeToo confessional, claiming that it was supposed to be employed for the advancement of women and that her coming-out was more valuable than the transgender person's coming-out...because, one type of group is more important than all people in today's understanding.

 

All of that being said, an accusation of abuse is treated (as I believe it should) as a serious allegation by most fields, and many of the "guilty until innocent" actions taken by members of these fields is done so out of the belief that it prevents further abuse from occurring, not in a manner that proves innocence or guilt. (i.e. getting expelled by a university via violation of Title IX) The issue with seeking justice first and foremost is that it can be seen as downplaying the issue or normalizing abuse incorrectly. At worst, it's outright siding with abusers when such actions truly did take place.

 

Why it matters to me...and why I need your input...

 

I am a Christian Studies major. There is a high likelihood that I end up in a position that is people-oriented and one that may be sought as a confident. A congregation member may seek me, as a pastor - or a youth as a youth pastor - to report an abuse. The current climate around abuse seems to be turbulent, and I do have a tendency to be a cynic. The last thing I want to do in that position is tell someone who is talking to me about abuse that they are wrong or "force" them to provide "evidence" that such abuse is taking place. As I said before, I believe it to be a serious allegation and that all the correct avenues have to be reached.

 

However, I - as a male - do feel spurned by this culture of men being forced on the defensive. A male ministry hopeful often will not get invited for a job interview unless he is married, especially if the desire is to work with youth. While this is sensible in preventing abuse in the church it seems to be a redundant requirement that ignores a calling to celibacy and pre-supposes that single men are too much of a liability in the ministry field.

 

My privilege position may -allow- me to be critical where it's a non-starter for those who have been abused or aren't a male. I understand this.

 

That being said, I would like to see if you guys can offer some pointers on staying on message - that abuse is categorically wrong regardless of who initiates it and any claim should be taken seriously - from any perspective that isn't my own. Thank you all.

[Candy]

Sexual harassment definitely is a difficult topic to defend on both sides because usually there is little evidence to prove that it happened and also little evidence to prove that it didn't happen. Additionally, harassment is also difficult to define because women may feel uncomfortable with a man's actions even if they are totally normal (for example, I don't like being touched at all but male coworkers may pat me on the shoulder. I know that it's not harassment but if you define it as a touch that was uncalled for, it could be argued so lol) Cases like the Stanford rape case are really uncommon too, since many times there aren't witnesses to aid.

 

That said, I think the #Metoo movement has been either misinterpreted or misguided. The point of the movement should be to increase the volume of women's voices, which for centuries have been silenced, and to encourage women to see that reporting harassment isn't something to be embarrassed about (given that women also don't report harassment or rape much) It's too bad that men who truly perpetrated the acts are cowardly enough to deny them, because that means that they downplay their role in this toxic culture. It also makes way for this subsection of men to give a bad rep to all men while maintaining their selfish freedom.

 

I can't solve the problem because it's human nature to lie and avoid punishment, and the ways of harassment easily allows this to happen. However there are things you can do, since you might be in the place to offer guidance to women as well. I think do anything but don't argue that they're lying. Usually those who actually speak up are the few who are confident enough to say it aloud. Unfortunately I don't have many more advice to give since I don't believe I've ever been harassed myself... but since society is moving toward placing a major focus into equality and feelings, the skills to remain neutral while not being offensive will come in handy in many settings from now on.

[Eviora]

Well, for starters, if anyone does confide in you, you should probably speak to them as if they're telling the truth within that private conversation. Leave actually figuring it out to law enforcement. I doubt it's in your job description to resolve a legal conflict between, say, two members of your community. Contact the authorities if you think you can and should. If it is in your job description to resolve legal conflicts as a pastor, well, um, maybe find another job. >.> I don't think that can end well.

 

If you want people to send the message that abuse is categorically wrong, you're going to have to be consistent about it. You may like what Trump did with the Supreme Court or whatever, but the hard fact is we have the guy on video bragging about sexual harassment. That's a more divisive fact than you may realize. That tape was released for the world to see, and America's response was, in effect, "no biggie." You can try to talk your way around that all you want. I can repeat that fact as often as I want. The truth is, people have already made their individual assessments of those circumstances regardless of all arguments. I promise, many women have internalized it as a reflection of their value in the eyes of society. Perhaps they feel not-so-differently from how you feel seeing the lives of men torn apart over unproven accusations.

 

You position is especially difficult. You may not have contributed to America's deep-rooted sexism, but your holy book certainly has. I trust I don't have to convince you that it preaches women should be subservient to men. There may be times when you have to clash with your own religion as an authority within that religion if you want your condemnation of abuse to be entirely consistent. I can only imagine how much of a mess that would be.

[Chase]

@Eviora

 

Clergy, just as their fellow secular members in counseling, are strongly urged to report abuse claims to law enforcement. Confidentiality is never intended solely for the purpose of keeping secrets. It's about providing advice and aid to the person who comes to talk to you. By allowing the abuser to remain in a position where they can continue abuse, the pastor is providing no help to the person confiding in them. Failing to report is unethical in any situation, and is a particularly unloving action that is frowned upon in ministry circles.

 

Often, the best way to help an abuser is to have their abuse revealed. While initial reaction to a pastor (as would be anyone else) informing the authorities would feel like being betrayed, bringing justice to the abuser effectively can put them in a place where they can start anew and move on for the better, where keeping the victim's accusation in the dark leads to no reform for the abuser - which is obviously a bad place for the victim and a failure on the part of the minister.

 

---

I'm down with consistency, and I would be inclined to agree that President Trump did confess to abusive behavior in the Access Hollywood tape - at the very least more so than it being "locker room talk." It's consistently demoralizing watching President Trump use his office to play Devil's Advocate for issues that merely require the status quo (Abuse is wrong and we can't have Mr. Portman do that and represent the United States in such an unbecoming manner)  answer to keep the media from postulating that you are a white supremacist sympathizer or that you are fundamentally against women.

 

I also don't dispute how potentially damaging it might have been for women to have watched in early November that man become the President-Elect. If anything though, while I am not a woman and have no idea what's going on in the minds of each individual woman in America, I would contend that women have ROARED since the election. The Women's March gained more coverage than President Trump's actual inauguration and happened pretty much concurrently. The #MeToo movement has made revealing abuse "trendy" and has been used by many people to overcome what may have held them back previously. The Democratic Party is stationed to have an unusually strong Midterm election period behind a largely female pool of political hopefuls... I don't mean to be ignorant of women that are still keeping silent. I just can't speak to how large that number actually is and can only assume that there are indeed still women who are under pressure to keep their stories to themselves. Nevertheless, women have persisted.

 

And if you have any doubts as to how I feel about the situation, I believe that to be the biggest shame of them all - that in a time where so much liberation is taking place regarding this issue, that not everyone is able to be free from the shadow of abuse just yet.

 

---

I believe you have me pegged wrong. Just because my father and my president provide "true" (-ish. President Trump doesn't know what Due Process actually is, but I understand his point) realities regarding men and I have some barriers on my end regarding my choice in profession doesn't mean that I am particularly distraught at all over how men who are facing these severe allegations are treated. I merely wish to fairly acknowledge validity where it is. People -are- falsely accused. That's just as much of a reality as abuse itself. Men -are- over-correcting and harming women inadvertently in their quest to avoid harming women. Abuse -isn't- a purely women's issue. Being a sexual predator, be it as consequence for real action or being falsely convicted of such action, is life damaging.

 

I would never use my position as a counselor to advocate for the feelings of the subject of someone's complaint. If that person has something to say to me, they should come say it to me personally. At that time when someone is claiming abuse, it's the victim's story that matters and that story only. How do I assist you? Here's what I am -obligated- to do with this information, so will you stay here and tell the police what you told me, or would you like me to tell the police myself? Can I refer you to someone I know who has survived and overcome what you are going through? Would you like my wife's number so you can talk to a woman about things you may not feel comfortable telling me as a male?

 

None of those inquiries or any others that may arise would seek to level the playing field. That isn't my job. However, with debate raging and being influential on various people throughout the gender spectrum and outside of it, I want to know how to navigate the fallout in the most fair way possible and in a way the preserves my dignity and ability to effectively provide help to those who approach me with something in this ballpark. That's truly my only motive. If someone is accused of abuse, you're absolutely right in that it isn't my place to find out if they are guilty or innocent.

 

---

I trust I don't have to convince you that it preaches women should be subservient to men.

 

Spoiler

 

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

 

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 

 

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.

 

- "Paul", Ephesians, Chapter 5, Verses 21-30.

 

 

Paul and his psuedo-Pauline associates are oft misunderstood authors, by fundamentalists, to women in the church, to skeptics and opposed nonbelievers alike - and they are castigated by women in the faith the most for narrow interpretation of this passage. What you say isn't incorrect, but it's cherry-picked without supporting context in the manner that you understand it (or seem to prefer using it).

 

It's important to note how much of the supporting context doesn't seem to provide the image that a household is to be a patriarchal unit. The first verse of this section is verse 21, which states that people should submit to one another regardless of gender. Egalitarian Christians point to this opening verse to affirm women's equality in the eyes of the Pauline authors. Men tend to note that "Paul" doesn't ask women to "give herself up" for her husband as he does ask the husband to "give himself up as Christ did" for his wife. Paul draws from Christ's so-called "Golden Rule" regarding how men should love (and by proxy treat) their wives. As themselves. It would be tough to argue that the author of Ephesians is advocating for self harm, so why would he be advocating for abuse?

 

The church in Ephesus had a serious "Roman Empire" sized problem looming over them, just as the rest of the Ephesians at the time. When the author of Ephesians mentions "headship", he is using an analogy to that of the Emperor being the head of his Empire. This may be merely to use a recognizable analogy by those within the Empire's constraints at the time, but it's also perhaps more purposeful in addressing Ephesus' overarching concern (and thus, the reason "Paul" was writing to them) with how to appropriately navigate the Roman world as a Christian.

 

Women in the faith at the time this epistle was written actually had much more sway in comparison to the typical Roman woman. They often owned property, and many were leaders of churches at the time. However, it's this discrepancy between the woman in the church and the woman in the Roman Empire that drew undesirable attention from the Roman authorities. If a woman were seen shouting at a man in the public forum, the authorities could arrest her for causing a scene, and she could be killed. Paul and his associates, mission-focused as ever, would encourage keeping a low profile and not drawing Roman attention to the church - and it may be this type of "controversial" language that can be partially attributed to the survival of Christianity as a major religion. This type of encouragement in a Roman context would then leave room for Paul to say something like this elsewhere:

 

Spoiler

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus," - Paul, Galatians 3:28

 

This is Paul's assertion. The equality in oneness of God's church in Christ. In the end, we're all going to end up with the same value and there won't be silly distinctions that can be prone to discrimination or even considered as "superior" to others.

 

What about Jesus? I dunno. He was just that one weird Jew that went around everywhere talking to women on the street in a culture that looked down on men addressing women they weren't married to publicly and viewed said women as property. The Pharisees didn't like it, and even his own disciples were concerned about it. Clearly, Jesus wasn't.

 

In fact, women had the honor of being the first people to discover Jesus was no longer in the tomb. That matters, because if the Gospel writers were going for some "epic story" about Jesus and his disciples they wouldn't skimp on writing a favorable tale at the time by making the men a bunch of saddened defeatists while the women were the ones making the crucial discoveries of the truth of Christ's words. Embarrassing testimony, that also doubles as an elevation of women in itself.

[Eviora]

@Chase

 

It seems we're largely in agreement concerning what you ought to actually do if someone tells you they're in an abusive situation. I was uncertain how able you'd be to contact the police 'cause I used to be Catholic and there it's super taboo for priests to reveal anything said in confession without permission unless it would prevent a future threat. Even if someone comes in and says, "I killed someone yesterday," the priest is not allowed to reveal it.

 

We also agree that Due Process should be employed when it comes to legal matters. The trouble occurs in personal decisions. You can't stop people from judging the accused without giving them a day in court. That's just human nature. One unfair decision breeds a dozen more. Things escalate, and the unscrupulous hide lies among the earnest claims. If many people support an abuser for president, many more will lash out in response. Some will go too far and hurt the innocent. That strife will echo until some larger event stops it. But there's not much we can do but adapt until it passes. There will be no healing while what divides us remains.

 

There certainly are some verses in the Bible that fly in the face of the point I was trying to make. (Though I was so distracted by the objective, almost comical incorrectness of verse 29 in the first quote that I nearly ignored the rest.) The thing about the Bible is that it can never make up its mind. Here's a link that shows some of the other things the Bible has to say about women being submissive. https://www.openbible.info/topics/submitting_to_your_husband Many of the offenders do come from the Old Testament, but as per Matthew 5:18, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:18) all of those passages remain relevant.

 

Anyhow, I talk too much, but if there's one thing I wanted to convey, it's that life will probably ask you to weigh two or more things you value against each other. It's mean like that. It may be helpful to anticipate the choices you'll have to make before you're confronted by them.

[Chase]

Really?... Suddenly, I can see you and Mael's side of things a little bit clearer. I certainly can't speak for Catholic doctrine, but the clergy doesn't look like a fit for me in that setting.

 

---

I want to think that in regards to the Presidency making these tough decisions, that it wouldn't be as much of an issue if President Trump doesn't have a reason to be so consistently pro-men in this debate (such as trying to normalize his own case(s) of abusing women by proclaiming the innocence of other abusers.)

 

I want to believe that if Trump was able to take up normal presidential positions with regards to how "great" of a leader Vladimir Putin is or to what degree should we defend neo-nazis that maybe playing devil's advocate here wouldn't be such an issue.

 

Of course, I like to place my faith in my leaders, and use my criticisms not as a bid to usurp those in power by to improve the actions of those in power. leaving all of those boxes unchecked and then having this happen is greatly concerning and understandably begets the kind of response it has gotten. When things get bad enough that I start to counting down for the next election season, it's not because I like the political process (even though I do more than most) but because I've reached the end of my rope. The thing here is, because of this President's approach during the campaign, many of us have gotten to that point before we knew he was actually going to win the election.

 

You propose a grim, but fair view of reality - and one that I see all too clearly. If I didn't ask for advice I would have felt alone in struggling with it. Thank you, all who reply here, for being comforting and providing some wisdom.

 

Evi, what you reminded me of specifically is two things, even if you didn't actually say them yourself.

 

• Sometimes the right thing to do isn't something you want to do.
• Pastors protect their flocks as the shepherds do.

When in that frame of mind, I don't feel as conflicted. The challenge will be remembering both things at once should the issue arise.

 

--

Actually, nearly all of those are New Testament passages. A few of them were copied from larger excerpts, but it seems to all stem from the Pauline epistles and tree of influence, as well as the Pastorals written by Jesus' disciples. There are also a few that deal with fathers and sons, and not the relationship of a wife to her husband. I'll have to read some more into these to see if there's some imperial background going on or if this is more like you said, direct exhortation. Technically, all of these places do fall under the Roman Empire - but someone like Peter, the author of Hebrews, or John may have more direct teachings.

 

except in Revelation. John was either on some seriously good drugs there on that island of Patmos or speaking pretty extensively in Imperial code.