Rachel Evans demands the right to name a significant part of the female anatomy. What do you think?

[Bob Hunter]

I like Rachel Evans, don't always agree with her. She's very provocative and sassy, I kinda like that in a blogger. I'm just wondering if her latest blog is a little over the top. She claims she is being censored by her publisher for using the word "vagina" in her latest book on women. She insists that other authors (e.g., Donald Miller) get away with naming the male anatomy in their books; therefore, she should have the right to spell out what she wishes.

Is there really sexism in the Christian marketplace? Does she have a valid claim? Or is this all just petty baloney?

http://rachelheldevans.com/vagina-ch...ical-womanhood

[Jim Chabot]

I like Rachel Evans, don't always agree with her. She's very provocative and sassy, I kinda like that in a blogger. I'm just wondering if her latest blog is a little over the top. She claims she is being censored by her publisher for using the word "vagina" in her latest book on women. She insists that other authors (e.g., Donald Miller) get away with naming the male anatomy in their books; therefore, she should have the right to spell out what she wishes.

Is there really sexism in the Christian marketplace? Does she have a valid claim? Or is this all just petty baloney?

http://rachelheldevans.com/vagina-ch...ical-womanhood

I kinda went back and forth as I read the article, couldn't really make up my mind. And I'll admit that Christian self help books aren't anything that I would read or recommend, which kind of makes me think that maybe I shouldn't comment. In any case I couldn't make up my mind if I viewed this through the context of fairness. As to my overall impression, I think that she is pushing the envelope without a real need to. I don't know or follow her, but I have to wonder if this pushing of the envelope is her stock in trade and may be required to maintain sales. And then I'm reminded why I don't read much of this sort of stuff, so I don't know.

What I did notice was that she plans to speak directly with lifeway. Just going on what I hear about lifeway from friends who work there. I'm thinking that this may not work out too well. Beth Moore seems to represent their ideal, just sayin?

[Bill Morrison]

I like Rachel Evans, don't always agree with her. She's very provocative and sassy, I kinda like that in a blogger. I'm just wondering if her latest blog is a little over the top. She claims she is being censored by her publisher for using the word "vagina" in her latest book on women. She insists that other authors (e.g., Donald Miller) get away with naming the male anatomy in their books; therefore, she should have the right to spell out what she wishes.

Is there really sexism in the Christian marketplace? Does she have a valid claim? Or is this all just petty baloney?

http://rachelheldevans.com/vagina-ch...ical-womanhood

I have taught Anatomy at the college level for 31 years. NEVER a problem till you get to the reproductive chapters. I have had everything from students coming up in wide-eyed wonder after class and telling me: "I can't believe you said those words out loud in class" to students going to my bosses (of whom I have many at MNU and trying to get me in trouble for things we covered in class or sometimes even getting me in trouble for things I didn't even say in class! Then there are the pictures in the textbook and on and on. I do my best to be sensitive and skirt around most controversial topics but anatomy is anatomy and if you are going to be a doctor or a nurse you need to know about all the parts. If all people in the medical profession were like the (few) ultra conservative Christian students I have had from time to time, you might be OK if you had lung conditions or heart ailments but you better pray you never have a problem with your wee wee.
Therefore I will refrain from getting involved in your good and fair questions and the heated debate that is likely to result, especially since we are dealing with woman parts and I am not a woman..

BILL

[Cam Pence]

I like Rachel Evans, don't always agree with her. She's very provocative and sassy, I kinda like that in a blogger. I'm just wondering if her latest blog is a little over the top. She claims she is being censored by her publisher for using the word "vagina" in her latest book on women. She insists that other authors (e.g., Donald Miller) get away with naming the male anatomy in their books; therefore, she should have the right to spell out what she wishes.

Is there really sexism in the Christian marketplace? Does she have a valid claim? Or is this all just petty baloney?

http://rachelheldevans.com/vagina-ch...ical-womanhood

She should maybe consider Mark Driscolls publisher

[Doug Ward]

I read the post, and sadly, I am not surprised. Instead of editing out the cheap, idiotic, and dishonest practices of the youth rally speaker, we miss the point and edit out the use of the word vagina. What is next - shoulder? When I was 14, I could become quite intrigued by the sight of a shoulder, belly-button, or nothing but my thought processes.

So we hold conferences on how to engage the world and culture in which we live, but then our culture reads about this word game, and we wonder why we do not reach them. The censoring of the word vagina (I used it again in protest) is perhaps the dumbest thing I have heard about in some time. OOps, make that second dumbest behind these pledges, and pressuring kids to sign in a group environment with only seconds to prepare. I am proud that in a world where millions are dying of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, we at least are keeping vagina out of books. What a bold stand.

[Dwayne Petry]

Don't know anything about her, but I wonder why Christians try to get as close to the "world" as they can, instead of being "different" as instructed in GOD's Word. Christian concerts often resemble the rock concerts I attended before receiving Christ as Lord and Savior. Christians today are indistinguishable from unbelievers. I believe the "early Church" would have been distinguishable from non believers of their day. The "persecuted Church " today is "different" from the world around them.

Christian marriages break up at the same rate as non Christian marriages, Christian teens are as sexually active as non Christian teens,..... need I go on!

We bemoan the fact that the Church (in America) is not growing! How would the "world" know the difference?

[John Kennedy]

I think it's time for some Christiani creativity here -I mean God is on our side: There was a time when certain Christians couldn't go to movies - we got TV; we couldn't dance so we got John W. Peterson; we couldn't play poker, so we got Rook; we couldn't drink wine - we got Martinelli's. The list goes on and on.

Sooooooooooo- how about an acronym: TWSNBN (pronounced twisinbin)- ___ (THAT WHICH SHALL NOT BE NAMED - #___). A list could be compiled for the numbered parts - the possibilities are endless.
There's a certain equivalence to it - kind of like in OKLAHOMA "Ranchers dance with the farmers' daughters - farmers dance with the ranchers' cows".

[Wilson Deaton]

I have taught Anatomy at the college level for 31 years.

...but you better pray you never have a problem with your wee wee...

Given that you've taught this at the college level for 31 years, may I assume that "wee wee" is the proper technical term?

Wilson

[Bob Hunter]

Don't know anything about her, but I wonder why Christians try to get as close to the "world" as they can, instead of being "different" as instructed in GOD's Word. Christian concerts often resemble the rock concerts I attended before receiving Christ as Lord and Savior. Christians today are indistinguishable from unbelievers. I believe the "early Church" would have been distinguishable from non believers of their day. The "persecuted Church " today is "different" from the world around them.

Christian marriages break up at the same rate as non Christian marriages, Christian teens are as sexually active as non Christian teens,..... need I go on!

We bemoan the fact that the Church (in America) is not growing! How would the "world" know the difference?

Mmmmm...some of this puzzles me. I attended a Christian Rock concert last Sat and it was heavily attended by those adorning tattoos, piercings and mohawks. I kinda would like to think Jesus loves people of this type. And no doubt the gospel was clearly communicated. But yes, there was smoke, screaming guitars, soaring vocals, stage antics, mosh pits, etc. It was glorious.

[Valisha Trammell Hall]

I'm cool with the word vagina being used. From the beginning of their lives, I have spoken to my kids using the anatomically correct terms for their bodies.

[Bob Hunter]

I'm cool with the word vagina being used. From the beginning of their lives, I have spoken to my kids using the anatomically correct terms for their bodies.

Could it be that folk are misinformed and somehow view "vagina" in a derogatory sense instead of properly identifying it as the correct anatomical descriptor? There doesn't seem to be this problem with the word "penis." Or maybe there is and I don't know about it. ?But I've been around a lot of little boys and "penis" is pretty common way to describe what exist between the legs. Just wondering what the problem is here. Not sure if it is sexism as Evans claims.

[Gina Stevenson]

I'm cool with the word vagina being used. From the beginning of their lives, I have spoken to my kids using the anatomically correct terms for their bodies.

Right. And Bill (ref Wilson's post ) was just illustrating the absurdity of not doing so.

[John Kennedy]

I'm glad this subject came up. I was beginning to tire of trying to decide about pledging allegiance and/or whether it was ok to shoot intruders, although I don't know whether I'm gonna' stick around if someone decides that we really need to come to grips with the issue.

[Jim Chabot]

Could it be that folk are misinformed and somehow view "vagina" in a derogatory sense instead of properly identifying it as the correct anatomical descriptor? There doesn't seem to be this problem with the word "penis." Or maybe there is and I don't know about it. ?But I've been around a lot of little boys and "penis" is pretty common way to describe what exist between the legs. Just wondering what the problem is here. Not sure if it is sexism as Evans claims.

I have never heard the word used as anything other than as the proper descriptive term, I don't think there is a problem there.

Hard to say if it is sexism. They did allow use of the word where she used it as descriptive. According to her, the problem came up when she used it in a sentence which seemed to be a sarcastic rebuke to the chastity pledge. She did use the word properly, maybe it was seen as too provocative in that context.

I don't see the need to criticize the folks who are promoting chastity. Help them find better methods perhaps but I thought her criticism of well meaning people was over the top.

[David Parker]

I'm cool with the word vagina being used. From the beginning of their lives, I have spoken to my kids using the anatomically correct terms for their bodies.

I was in grade school before I learned that the proper name for my 'thing' wasn't Oscar. I kid you not. My mother always referred to it as Oscar as did my brothers. It was an absolute scandal when I first met a real person named Oscar. I ran home and asked my mother why in the world someone would name their kid Oscar. I thought is was scandalous. Was surprised to learn it was just a nickname.

Parents do the craziest things...

[Ryan Scott]

I'm much more offended by the word "privates" than vagina. Call things what they are. We're not going to be using any euphemisms with our daughter.

Of course, I don't frequent Christian book stores and won't spend money in them anyway, so no real loss.

[David Pettigrew]

Put me down as pro-vagina. Wait, what?

[David Pettigrew]

During foster parent licensing classes, we were once required to say aloud as many slang terms for sex organs and the sex act as we knew, with the instructor chastising us if we didn't say them loudly enough. The reasoning behind this is that you are likely to hear these words often in your home out of the mouths of very young children, many of them from highly sexualized environments, and responding with shock, shame, or anger would be less than helpful.

It was an akward exercise. The good news is I knew the most words of anyone in the class.

[John Kennedy]

Put me down as pro-vagina. Wait, what?

You're gonna' have to come up with a good fall-back position if that GS candidacy ever gets going again.

[Kevin Rector]

I have never heard the word used as anything other than as the proper descriptive term, I don't think there is a problem there.

Hard to say if it is sexism. They did allow use of the word where she used it as descriptive. According to her, the problem came up when she used it in a sentence which seemed to be a sarcastic rebuke to the chastity pledge. She did use the word properly, maybe it was seen as too provocative in that context.

I don't see the need to criticize the folks who are promoting chastity. Help them find better methods perhaps but I thought her criticism of well meaning people was over the top.

Yeah, from what I've read, she didn't seem to actually be talking about a vagina, but using the notion of her vagina as a metaphor for her womanhood or her feminine sexuality. So I'm not all that surprised that editors at a Christian publisher would suggest she find different wording. Seems like she was just being snarky and negative in her blog post.

But to be fair, I think she must have come from a pretty conservative background and is still dealing with the ramifications of that fact.

[Todd Erickson]

It also helps to note that the background the Evans emerges from and speaks to is Baptist, not nazarene. And we baptists don't mention anything to do with S-E-X.

it might lead to dancing.

[Benjamin Burch]

Yeah, from what I've read, she didn't seem to actually be talking about a vagina, but using the notion of her vagina as a metaphor for her womanhood or her feminine sexuality. So I'm not all that surprised that editors at a Christian publisher would suggest she find different wording. Seems like she was just being snarky and negative in her blog post.

But to be fair, I think she must have come from a pretty conservative background and is still dealing with the ramifications of that fact.

I have never heard the word used as anything other than as the proper descriptive term, I don't think there is a problem there.

Hard to say if it is sexism. They did allow use of the word where she used it as descriptive. According to her, the problem came up when she used it in a sentence which seemed to be a sarcastic rebuke to the chastity pledge. She did use the word properly, maybe it was seen as too provocative in that context.

I don't see the need to criticize the folks who are promoting chastity. Help them find better methods perhaps but I thought her criticism of well meaning people was over the top.

I know folks don't always agree with me, surprise surprise! However, I think I can speak to this issue.

1) Kevin nailed it here:

but using the notion of her vagina as a metaphor for her womanhood or her feminine sexuality.

Feminist writers are very free about the use of the term "vagina" and it will absolutely be a different encounter when reading feminist work - especially as a male.

2) Christian pop/publishing culture is very patriarchal (much of Christianity is in general)

3) Patriarchal societies don't like women:

(a) Freely expressing sexuality that is not viewed through the lens of male sexuality
(b) Talking about vaginas and menstruation

This last point is evidenced by much of the "unclean" language surrounding women and their menstruation periods in the OT. Men don't like that stuff, and we don't like vaginas being talked about except when it has to do with reproduction, which specifically relates to our own sexuality.

Feminism is generally very frowned upon in good "Christian culture" and, when you bring in the above-mentioned considerations, it's pretty clear that the problem lies exactly with what Kevin said. She was using it in a way that simply wasn't acceptable to the patriarchal Christian publishing culture.

I have no doubts in my mind that it was sexist. Not in the least.

[Eric Frey]

I was in grade school before I learned that the proper name for my 'thing' wasn't Oscar. I kid you not. My mother always referred to it as Oscar as did my brothers. It was an absolute scandal when I first met a real person named Oscar. I ran home and asked my mother why in the world someone would name their kid Oscar. I thought is was scandalous. Was surprised to learn it was just a nickname.

Parents do the craziest things...

Sorry... somehow I misread this as grad school... oops!!!

[Jim Chabot]

It also helps to note that the background the Evans emerges from and speaks to is Baptist, not nazarene. And we baptists don't mention anything to do with S-E-X.

it might lead to dancing.

Which is why having a nice friendly chat with lifeway just might not go so well.

Not sure what she is thinking on that one.

[Bob Hunter]

I know folks don't always agree with me, surprise surprise! However, I think I can speak to this issue.

1) Kevin nailed it here:



Feminist writers are very free about the use of the term "vagina" and it will absolutely be a different encounter when reading feminist work - especially as a male.

2) Christian pop/publishing culture is very patriarchal (much of Christianity is in general)

3) Patriarchal societies don't like women:

(a) Freely expressing sexuality that is not viewed through the lens of male sexuality
(b) Talking about vaginas and menstruation

This last point is evidenced by much of the "unclean" language surrounding women and their menstruation periods in the OT. Men don't like that stuff, and we don't like vaginas being talked about except when it has to do with reproduction, which specifically relates to our own sexuality.

Feminism is generally very frowned upon in good "Christian culture" and, when you bring in the above-mentioned considerations, it's pretty clear that the problem lies exactly with what Kevin said. She was using it in a way that simply wasn't acceptable to the patriarchal Christian publishing culture.

I have no doubts in my mind that it was sexist. Not in the least.

So men don't like all the negative stuff that comes along with female anatomy. Hmmmm....did you care to explain why most OB/GYN's are of the male gender? What is the attraction to that profession? Is the it the hours, new life, or opportunity? You wouldn't be generalizing would you? That could be dangerous on NN. I can assure you that there are very few women who specialize in male urology. As it turns out, most women prefer a male OB/GYN, so I'm told, correct me if I'm wrong here (another generalization...guilty!).

I also take issue with the notion that Christian history has nothing but a negative patriarchal track record. That bothers me, because it would mean we are not following Christianity's founder very well. It would also mean that all men are dirty rotten scoundrels that can never shake off the need to suppress women. It would also mean that women are unable to overcome those obstacles even though God is on their side. I have a multitude of problems with the claim...so you will have to enlighten me a great deal.

[Glenn Messer]

Reminds me of the time I had to pay a visit to a urologist. My primary care physician wanted to have my bladder scoped out. I was undressed from the waist down and lying on an exam table under a blanket -- waiting for a 60 year old male doctor to enter the room. Imagine my surprise when he turned out to be about 25 years old, attractive, and endowed with traditional non-male body parts. She (YES!) smiled and told me that she was there to do the preparation for the old geezer to come in later and run the dye test. I smiled back and gave her my routine spill. "No Problem! The last thing I do before heading out the door to go to the doctors office is to pause long enough to hang my dignity on a hook by the door." She paused for a moment and then said, "Yeah, I do that every day." At that moment I realized that this was a "piece of cake" for me. I'm in and out; probably won't ever be back again, but she had an endless line of Toms, Jims, and Harrys (yes, I made a substitution), Mary Janes and Sues and every one of them received her professional attention. I made a point to express my appreciation of the professional care that she and her co-workers gave me. I left with my dignity intact. I also left with a renewed appreciation for the professional health care folks and the care they provide. To this day if I'm in a doctors office or hospital setting and they tell me they need me to remove my clothes, I tell them they better be specific or in about 30 seconds they're going to have one naked man standing in front of them.

I have a friend who will use street terminology in discussing any facet of the human body or human sexuality. When I complain about it his standard reply is, "They are only words; they shouldn't upset you." I tell him that 'in our society some words are insulting and generally unacceptable -- besides, you can act like you're educated and use proper terminology'. Generally speaking, I'm not upset by proper terminology in discussing any facet of human sexuality, but I am somewhat suspicious of individuals who seem to manufacture opportunities for its use.

[Bob Hunter]

Reminds me of the time I had to pay a visit to a urologist. My primary care physician wanted to have my bladder scoped out. I was undressed from the waist down and lying on an exam table under a blanket -- waiting for a 60 year old male doctor to enter the room. Imagine my surprise when he turned out to be about 25 years old, attractive, and endowed with traditional non-male body parts. She (YES!) smiled and told me that she was there to do the preparation for the old geezer to come in later and run the dye test. I smiled back and gave her my routine spill. "No Problem! The last thing I do before heading out the door to go to the doctors office is to pause long enough to hang my dignity on a hook by the door." She paused for a moment and then said, "Yeah, I do that every day." At that moment I realized that this was a "piece of cake" for me. I'm in and out; probably won't ever be back again, but she had an endless line of Toms, Jims, and Harrys (yes, I made a substitution), Mary Janes and Sues and every one of them received her professional attention. I made a point to express my appreciation of the professional care that she and her co-workers gave me. I left with my dignity intact. I also left with a renewed appreciation for the professional health care folks and the care they provide. To this day if I'm in a doctors office or hospital setting and they tell me they need me to remove my clothes, I tell them they better be specific or in about 30 seconds they're going to have one naked man standing in front of them.

I have a friend who will use street terminology in discussing any facet of the human body or human sexuality. When I complain about it his standard reply is, "They are only words; they shouldn't upset you." I tell him that 'in our society some words are insulting and generally unacceptable -- besides, you can act like you're educated and use proper terminology'. Generally speaking, I'm not upset by proper terminology in discussing any facet of human sexuality, but I am somewhat suspicious of individuals who seem to manufacture opportunities for its use.

Thanks for sharing. Reminds me of the Eurodynamics test I had a couple years ago. It was conducted by a woman! Yeah, she tortured me for 1 hour. I'll spare you the graphic details. I kept thanking her for her patience. She was very professional and I was grateful for that.

[Mike Schutz]

Don't know anything about her, but I wonder why Christians try to get as close to the "world" as they can, instead of being "different" as instructed in GOD's Word. Christian concerts often resemble the rock concerts I attended before receiving Christ as Lord and Savior. Christians today are indistinguishable from unbelievers. I believe the "early Church" would have been distinguishable from non believers of their day. The "persecuted Church " today is "different" from the world around them.

Christian marriages break up at the same rate as non Christian marriages, Christian teens are as sexually active as non Christian teens,..... need I go on!

We bemoan the fact that the Church (in America) is not growing! How would the "world" know the difference?

Dwayne, I'm confused here. I don't understand what this has to do with the issue of Rachel using a particular word as a metaphor.
Oh, and by the way - I do know Rachel. She is trying to get closer to Christ, and represent God in a realistic and relevant way to people, some of whom have been turned off to the church due to the people of God "majoring in minors."

[Hans Deventer]

Don't know anything about her, but I wonder why Christians try to get as close to the "world" as they can, instead of being "different" as instructed in GOD's Word. Christian concerts often resemble the rock concerts I attended before receiving Christ as Lord and Savior. Christians today are indistinguishable from unbelievers. I believe the "early Church" would have been distinguishable from non believers of their day. The "persecuted Church " today is "different" from the world around them.

Christian marriages break up at the same rate as non Christian marriages, Christian teens are as sexually active as non Christian teens,..... need I go on!

We bemoan the fact that the Church (in America) is not growing! How would the "world" know the difference?

Well, hopefully in the behaviour of Christians. Not because they speak a language no one understands. So I think it goes both ways, Dwayne. We need to speak the language of the world, be a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks, as Paul would say. But we should definitely not copy its behaviour.

[Benjamin Burch]

So men don't like all the negative stuff that comes along with female anatomy. Hmmmm....did you care to explain why most OB/GYN's are of the male gender? What is the attraction to that profession? Is the it the hours, new life, or opportunity? You wouldn't be generalizing would you? That could be dangerous on NN. I can assure you that there are very few women who specialize in male urology. As it turns out, most women prefer a male OB/GYN, so I'm told, correct me if I'm wrong here (another generalization...guilty!).

I could be wrong about the next two observations, but I don't think I am:

(1) OB/GYN's make up a very small percentage of the male population - very small
(2) OB/GYN's hardly make up a culture
(3) In no instance that I can think of does a "culture" stand for 100% agreement

I also take issue with the notion that Christian history has nothing but a negative patriarchal track record. That bothers me, because it would mean we are not following Christianity's founder very well. It would also mean that all men are dirty rotten scoundrels that can never shake off the need to suppress women. It would also mean that women are unable to overcome those obstacles even though God is on their side. I have a multitude of problems with the claim...so you will have to enlighten me a great deal.

Bob, you'd only have to look at our history. To this day women don't have equality in the Church with men, except for in a few liberal denominations. The patriarchy is exacerbated in conservative evangelical circles who - to my knowledge - have a pretty strong hold on the publishing market.

I would highly suggest reading feminist perspectives of both Scripture and the Church (especially Church history).

[Bob Hunter]

I could be wrong about the next two observations, but I don't think I am:

(1) OB/GYN's make up a very small percentage of the male population - very small
(2) OB/GYN's hardly make up a culture
(3) In no instance that I can think of does a "culture" stand for 100% agreement




Bob, you'd only have to look at our history. To this day women don't have equality in the Church with men, except for in a few liberal denominations. The patriarchy is exacerbated in conservative evangelical circles who - to my knowledge - have a pretty strong hold on the publishing market.

I would highly suggest reading feminist perspectives of both Scripture and the Church (especially Church history).

Ben,

There are a ton of OB/GYN practices, we're talking a lot of men. I was simply trying to point out a glaring inconsistency in your logic. There are always exceptions with any generalization. And I was taking pride in point out one. So give me a little credit.

You didn't address a single issue raised in my second paragraph. You only corrected me for not ripping Christianity to threads for it's partriarchal roots. I would actually agree to there being room for criticism. But you didn't address a single issue, not one.

[Dwayne Petry]

Don't know anything about her,

Should have put a period after that statement. The rest of my post had nothing to do with "her". My bad, should have expressed myself better.

Our Christian beliefs are influenced by our past, our upbringing, life experiences, etc. My concern is that we as Christians, in some instances, try to get as close to the "edge" as possible and in doing so, some go "over" the edge.

My reference was to a Christian rock concert I attend several years ago. It as attended by some of the teens from our district. I was the District NYI President at the time, and being a layman having been saved only 6 years before, it reminded me of my life before Christ and that was chilling. I could not understand the words (they were projected so I guess most others could not either), I watched teenage boys and girls jumping up and down to the beat of drums and squealing guitars, dancing on chairs, crowd surfing, etc. I felt a chill run through my body as I thought of our teens being introduced to the "world of Rock and Roll". While some say that we may "reach" some, my fear is that we may "lose" some. Because of my responsibility to the teens and their parents, I have never been able to get over that feeling.

We as Christian parents and teen leaders "preach" non violence, Christian morals, against vulgarity, etc. and attend and allow our children to attend movies, "Hunger Games" comes to mind, which have all and more of the things against which we "preach".

Just had a thought, my SS lesson tomorrow is on hypocrisy!

Jesus reached out and ministered to the world, but the world could see HIM' because HE did not look like the world.

I know that my views will not be popular on NN, but I was one of the teens "swept" off the edge and paid a terrible price for it. My life was so messed up when I accepted Jesus Christ at age 32 that it took the Holy Spirit 2 years to mold me into a person worthy of taking my place as a proper Christian husband and father.

Not apologizing, but I do not like to write, and therefore may not always express my self as eloquently as others. My thoughts are given in Christian love and concern for the lost.

[Jim Chabot]

Dwayne, I'm confused here. I don't understand what this has to do with the issue of Rachel using a particular word as a metaphor.
Oh, and by the way - I do know Rachel. She is trying to get closer to Christ, and represent God in a realistic and relevant way to people, some of whom have been turned off to the church due to the people of God "majoring in minors."

Mike, I'm not trying to be critical, rather I'm concerned regarding the criticism that she presents against some folks who were looking out for her. And yes I understand that there are those who "major in the minors" I've been exposed myself. But we aren't going to move forward by "kicking against the goads" as negativity rarely brings good results.

I realize that this may be an unpopular opinion around here, yet it must be said nevertheless if I'm to be honest. Feminism is "majoring in the minors", Feminism is sexism. The difference between misogyny and feminism lies with the gender affected, otherwise their is no difference, both are to be avoided.

Many women's groups in our area and churches have made good use of Beth Moore's materials, and have been helped by her positive approach. I fully realize that she is not of our faith tradition. Positive outweighs negative though, it would be great if a wesleyan Beth Moore would emerge, until then I'm glad for her ministry.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Mike, I'm not trying to be critical, rather I'm concerned regarding the criticism that she presents against some folks who were looking out for her. And yes I understand that there are those who "major in the minors" I've been exposed myself. But we aren't going to move forward by "kicking against the goads" as negativity rarely brings good results.

I realize that this may be an unpopular opinion around here, yet it must be said nevertheless if I'm to be honest. Feminism is "majoring in the minors", Feminism is sexism. The difference between misogyny and feminism lies with the gender affected, otherwise their is no difference, both are to be avoided.

Many women's groups in our area and churches have made good use of Beth Moore's materials, and have been helped by her positive approach. I fully realize that she is not of our faith tradition. Positive outweighs negative though, it would be great if a wesleyan Beth Moore would emerge, until then I'm glad for her ministry.

You may be right about some of the feminist expressions that are out there. Feminism like most things is NOT a uniformed doctrine. It has many different expressions. I am, proudly, a feminist. Not all of feminism is just trying to trade who is on top of the hierarchical power structure, some of it actually tries to undermine that structure. In so attempting it frees all, male and female, black and white, Jew and gentile. I've read Rachel for a bit over a year now. Have read her book. Read other feminist bloggers who are similar. I don't believe Rachael is of the man hating, wanting women to be on top subjugating their former oppressors type. She would fall more closely into a category of those trying to undermine the power structures. I see NO reverse sexism in any of her writings.

[Jim Chabot]

I also take issue with the notion that Christian history has nothing but a negative patriarchal track record. That bothers me, because it would mean we are not following Christianity's founder very well. It would also mean that all men are dirty rotten scoundrels that can never shake off the need to suppress women. It would also mean that women are unable to overcome those obstacles even though God is on their side. I have a multitude of problems with the claim...so you will have to enlighten me a great deal.

I agree wholeheartedly Bob. My wife and I were helped incredibly by Emerson Eggerich, our marriage has never been better and I'm not talking about the last couple of months, I'm talking about five years or so. One of the things that he stresses is that unless the man in question is in fact "a dirty rotten scoundrel" then it should be assumed that he will do the right thing, same for women. We live in a culture of fear, doubt and suspicion, we are doomed to fail as couples if we allow this into our relationships. Too often we hear the terms "all men are pigs" and "they're all sisters", too often we compete, and it's no surprise that too often marriages fail.

We need to purge this sort of indecent talk from our fellowship. The carnage of broken homes and spirits insist upon it.

[Jim Chabot]

You may be right about some of the feminist expressions that are out there. Feminism like most things is NOT a uniformed doctrine. It has many different expressions. I am, proudly, a feminist. Not all of feminism is just trying to trade who is on top of the hierarchical power structure, some of it actually tries to undermine that structure. In so attempting it frees all, male and female, black and white, Jew and gentile. I've read Rachel for a bit over a year now. Have read her book. Read other feminist bloggers who are similar. I don't believe Rachael is of the man hating, wanting women to be on top subjugating their former oppressors type. She would fall more closely into a category of those trying to undermine the power structures. I see NO reverse sexism in any of her writings.

You may be correct. All generalization are doomed to fail. I didn't note any blatant sexism in the article, rather I'm speaking more toward the label. If you embrace it, I'm not ok. Feminism is the antonym for Misogyny.

Actually I wasn't offended so much by her use of the word "vagina" as I was by how she used it. In fact the section that offended me didn't need or include the word.

"The youth leader said he planned to hang the corkboard in the hallway outside the sanctuary so that parents could marvel at the seventy-five abstinence pledges he’d collected that night. It was a pretty cheap way to treat both our bodies and God, come to think of it.”

She is treating the youth leader pretty badly here. Now she could be right on this occasion, but I know that she is wrong if she seeks to paint a broad brush. I'm proud to say that our older son attended a youth group with similar methods and values. Our younger son will as well. The importance of abstinence becomes so much more important as societal pressures continue to move against it. How I wish I could roll back the clock of my own life, I would be so thankful for influences like this youth leader. These scars are deep.

[Paul DeBaufer]

You may be correct. All generalization are doomed to fail. I didn't note any blatant sexism in the article, rather I'm speaking more toward the label. If you embrace it, I'm not ok. Feminism is the antonym for Misogyny.

Actually I wasn't offended so much by her use of the word "vagina" as I was by how she used it. In fact the section that offended me didn't need or include the word.



She is treating the youth leader pretty badly here. Now she could be right on this occasion, but I know that she is wrong if she seeks to paint a broad brush. I'm proud to say that our older son attended a youth group with similar methods and values. Our younger son will as well. The importance of abstinence becomes so much more important as societal pressures continue to move against it. How I wish I could roll back the clock of my own life, I would be so thankful for influences like this youth leader. These scars are deep.

Well I do embrace it and I'm quite okay with you not being okay with it. Women have been disenfranchised, marginalized and oppressed for a very long time throughout the history of civilization and it is high time it stops. Yes, feminism is antithetical to misogyny, but that does not mean it promotes hatred, marginalization, oppression of men. As I said there may be fringe groups for whom it does, but they are not in the main, and especially not amongst Christian feminists.

In the segment you find Rachael to be offensive I find her correct and the action of the youth pastor offensive and unBiblical in that it facilitates pridefulness. Pride in the things of the flesh. I do not disagree that abstinence is important and should be encouraged. But to post it in public view, "Oh look at me I'm so hyperspiritual, I'm a superChristian!" (which also says, tacitly, and you're not!) Just stuff and nonsense. She was certainly kinder than I would have been.

[Jim Chabot]

Well I do embrace it and I'm quite okay with you not being okay with it. Women have been disenfranchised, marginalized and oppressed for a very long time throughout the history of civilization and it is high time it stops. Yes, feminism is antithetical to misogyny, but that does not mean it promotes hatred, marginalization, oppression of men. As I said there may be fringe groups for whom it does, but they are not in the main, and especially not amongst Christian feminists.

Not a big deal, so long as we quit making such a big deal out of misogyny. It's existence in any form that would oppress women is pretty rare in this country. I'm ok with your portrayal and acceptance of feminism, so long as your ok with my portrayal of misogyny. Actually I'm ok with you either way Paul, we are just exchanging views. Luckily the feminists that you describe won't be throwing rocks at me.

In the segment you find Rachael to be offensive I find her correct and the action of the youth pastor offensive and unBiblical in that it facilitates pridefulness. Pride in the things of the flesh. I do not disagree that abstinence is important and should be encouraged. But to post it in public view, "Oh look at me I'm so hyperspiritual, I'm a superChristian!" (which also says, tacitly, and you're not!) Just stuff and nonsense. She was certainly kinder than I would have been.

I'm glad that you regard abstinence as important. I don't see anything hyperspiritual or superchristian about it at all. This reflects the sad state that we are in. We are so far away from being that peculiar people that our holiness forebears sensed that God wants us to be. It's worth crying over, it really is. Take some time and spend it with some of the old timers, you will yearn for the days gone by. Just think of what our church would look like if just half of the men were men like Nelson Bradford. Wow! I don't think that we would be having this conversation. There were men like that when I came to Christ, dear, dear men of God who patiently, lovingly and with an unwavering faith would bring young folks along in the faith.

The pride that you are seeing was injected by her description, not necessarily displayed by the youth leader who more than likely was joyous about the level of participation and possibly happy that he had possibly influenced someone to follow God's leading in this area. You have judged the youth leader upon her say so, that's not good.

This isn't intended as a barb, more of a heartfelt observation. We desperately need more youth leaders like the one she has described. I would have been incredibly thankful to have that experience as part of my youth. It's been over thirty years and the angst and pain never really go away. Just a couple of weeks ago I was alone with my thoughts and recounted an episode from my youth, I had a good cry over what I had done even though I had gone to this person and reconciled.

Think twice before you criticize folks who are trying desperately to keep us as that peculiar people of God, and a force that will influence society rather than follow along. After you have thought twice, just don't do it. It is possible that you are attacking the work of our Lord unaware.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Not a big deal, so long as we quit making such a big deal out of misogyny. It's existence in any form that would oppress women is pretty rare in this country. I'm ok with your portrayal and acceptance of feminism, so long as your ok with my portrayal of misogyny. Actually I'm ok with you either way Paul, we are just exchanging views. Luckily the feminists that you describe won't be throwing rocks at me.

And the ones you describe will be throwing rocks at me

Misogyny is alive and well in certain Christian circles in America. I know several young women who have been victims of misogynist attitudes and actions within Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches and schools. A place several of these bloggers have come from.

You may not agree that abstinence is important, yet there is another Paul who, under inspiration of the Spirit, seems to value it highly. Scripture is abundantly clear, it's abstinence or marriage, and marriage is till death do you part.

The pride that you are seeing was injected by her description, not necessarily displayed by the youth leader who more than likely was joyous about the level of participation and possibly happy that he had possibly influenced someone to follow God's leading in this area. You have judged the youth leader upon her say so, that's not good.

This isn't intended as a barb, more of a heartfelt observation. We desperately need more youth leaders like the one she has described. I would have been incredibly thankful to have that experience as part of my youth. It's been over thirty years and the angst and pain never really go away. Just a couple of weeks ago I was alone with my thoughts and recounted an episode from my youth, I had a good cry over what I had done even though I had gone to this person and reconciled.

Think twice before you criticize folks who are trying desperately to keep us as that peculiar people of God, and a force that will influence society rather than follow along. After you have thought twice, just don't do it. It is possible that you are attacking the work of our Lord unaware.

I probably shouldn't've used a double negative when I said I don't disagree. I should have said I agree that abstinence IS important. I do not agree with the method of encouragement as described. I think that there are better ways to encourage abstinence, or hope that there are.

[Jim Chabot]

And the ones you describe will be throwing rocks at me

Don't worry buddy, there's plenty of rocks for the both of us................................................ .................Duck!

Misogyny is alive and well in certain Christian circles in America. I know several young women who have been victims of misogynist attitudes and actions within Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches and schools. A place several of these bloggers have come from.

I can agree somewhat. There are some who do not believe that it is biblical for women to be in positions of leadership in the church, this alone is not misogyny. Unless Beth Moore is a misogynist. Is there real live misogyny in fundamentalist baptist circles? Why yes there most certainly is, although I've found that they persecute most everybody, they seem to be pretty much equal opportunity oppressors. Mike Warnke wasn't kidding when he said that "I know some baptists who are so narrow minded that they can look through a keyhole with both eyes!"

I probably shouldn't've used a double negative when I said I don't disagree. I should have said I agree that abstinence IS important. I do not agree with the method of encouragement as described. I think that there are better ways to encourage abstinence, or hope that there are.

Hey look back, I actually caught it and fixed it before you posted. Sorry that I read you wrong. Really glad that you didn't say what I read the first time through.

Are there better ways? Great, then lets get doing them, and lets leave good intentioned folks who are trying real hard to do the right thing alone.

Hey, I had that fixed within a couple of minutes, how come it took you twenty minutes to post after you had captured it? Are you working on a network that uses cups with a string stretched between them or something?