Like many women, the days following aftermath of the tape revealing Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault—and the numerous women who have reported him behaving in just that manner—have felt painful, heavy, charged for me. Like Michelle Obama put it in her powerful response, “It hurts.” It’s personal. For many women, it triggers memories of the most painful experiences in our lives or other women we love. I’ve talked to several friends who, like me, have chosen to avoid Facebook and conversations, even with some we’re close to—not because we don’t want to talk about what happened, about the insanity of a person of his character having support for the White House, but because we cannot handle one more person downplaying the gravity of those words. Each time this happens from someone we thought would get it, it hurts. It feels like a betrayal.
But it’s not just those words and those who dismiss them as “locker room talk” that hurts. (The “locker room talk” excuse may be the ugliest excuse possible. If it was true that some men regularly brag about sexually assaulting women in locker rooms—which many athletes flatly deny—that would be an additional outrage, not an excuse.) There were allegations of assault and harassment against him before this happened. His words in the past have not shown respect for women. It was almost surprising to me that there was as much backlash from previous supporters at the tape’s revelation as there was. Didn’t his supporters already know this about him?
For many Christian women, the source of hurt, of betrayal, comes especially from men, evangelical Christian leaders in our lives and in the public eye who continue to downplay Trump’s character. He still holds a majority of evangelical support. Many evangelicals, especially white evangelicals, tend to not vote Democratic, have many concerns about Hillary Clinton, and want Republicans in seats of power, so this election is a difficult one. Acknowledging these concerns about the Republican candidate comes at the very real likelihood of loss of political power.
But, “what good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” (Mark 8:36). Women are waiting to hear the men in their lives, in their churches, say that this matters, that they matter.
And many women are not waiting at all. They are sick of waiting for men in the church to fight for women. Many female Christian leaders are confidently speaking their truth despite the high percentages of evangelical support for Trump. Consider this: many news outlets have covered prominent leaders like Jerry Falwell Jr. and James Dobson’s continued support for Trump. But Beth Moore and Jen Hatmaker, two of many female Christian leaders to publicly speak against Trump, have significantly more of a following than either Falwell or Dobson.
And some, although far from the majority, of evangelical male leaders are standing with them. Wayne Grudem has withdrawn his endorsement. Russell Moore, who has opposed Trump from the beginning, says because of his public opposition to Trump he regularly hears privately from women who long for their brothers in Christ to stand with them. Closer to home, within the CRC, many leaders have publicly spoken against Trump, including Calvin seminary prof and ethicist Matthew Tuininga, who has written a powerful piece, “Donald Trump and Sexual Assault: What Else are Evangelical Voters Willing to Accept?” in response.
This is a painful election that is in many ways dividing this country and the church. But please, when it comes to assault against women, let’s not be divided. Let’s openly and boldly stand together and say that this is a big deal, that this unacceptable. As Tuininga put it, “If evangelicals publicly support Donald Trump, the chief result will not be the advance of the sanctity of life or of religious liberty, let alone of family values. The result will be the collapse of any evangelical credibility on moral issues whatsoever.”
Comments
Yes! Let's stand together against the degradation of women, who are created in the image of God. I agree that when evangelicals are silent about this issue, we lose credibility and don't rightly reflect our Lord, who honored women during his life on earth. We are called to look like Jesus, to be his body in the world. No candidate will ever embody Christ, none of us can. However, we must not give up kingdom values to pursue political power. Jesus never sought political power, that is not his way. The Gospel of Christianity suffers as it becomes tied to political power (from Constantine to the present). The Christian right has led us down this path of pursuing power for far too long, and our faith and witness has suffered for it. Now may be a good opportunity to break away from the unholy tie to political power, for the sake of the honor of our Lord and Savior. Hallowed be his name.
Well put, Bonnie! Thank you.
I agree that we stand up for women. But in my opinion, this should be done by voting for the platform that will agree to fight abortion. If we are truly interested in protecting women, it should start with the unborn and the mothers that feel they have no other choice. I cannot vote for a platform that encourages abortion through the entire length of the pregnancy.
Nancy
Thanks for your thoughts, Nancy! I certainly think it is an ethical choice to abstain from voting due to pro-life positions, and this isn't a post promoting Hillary's candidacy. Whether a Trump ticket would actually solve the problem of abortion is debatable, but "ends justify the means" logic inherent in supporting someone who demeans so many people groups and is likely to oppress them as president I don't find compelling. I am simply asking for Christians to abstain from publicly endorsing this particular candidate or at the very minimum being stronger in their condemnation of his consistent behavior and attitudes about women. You may find Prof. Tuininga's article (linked in the article) helpful as a perspective on why being pro-life isn't a good enough reason to support Trump. Even if at the end of the day we disagree about the ethics of a Trump vote, I hope our Christians leaders can be more honest in their assessment of the moral character Trump's words and actions demonstrate.
A sanctity of life ethic must extend beyond the womb as well as inside it. I'm a member of an organization called Feminists For Life. They show a consistent sanctity of life ethic focusing on the underlying issues that cause so many women to choose abortion. Some of those issues are poverty, health care, education, child care, etc. Consider the issues of healthcare (how many people die of preventable diseases?) or immigration (how precarious life is for displaced people) - then which party better reflects a sanctity of life ethic? It's not as simplistic, or black and white as we make it out to be. And we can't have meaningful conversations about these important issues if we're not willing to look deeper and see the much bigger and more complicated picture behind the sound bites.
Amen sister!
There has been some history of occupants of the White House disrespecting women. Pres. Clinton claimed, "I did not have sex with that woman!", but most of us would consider what he did with Ms. Lewinsky to be "having sex", and it certainly was an example of using one's position of power to take advantage of a subordinate. He ruined Ms. Lewinsky's life and there is evidence beyond mere gossip that he has a history of sexual predation, and it is puzzling that Mrs. Clinton is so selective regarding which abused women she stands with.
I find it astonishing, also, that the Obamas are selective with respect to whose language they object to. The language in the Trump video was mild compared to the language used by rappers and hip-hop artists who have been guest entertainers in the White House and thus have been given the presidential seal of approval. Mrs. Obama reportedly even cited Beyonce as a suitable role model for their daughters.
Bad behavior is bad behavior regardless of who engages in it and equally deplorable whether it involves one's friends or enemies. In an election year, it would behoove us to look hard at all candidates with the same criteria. I suggest that we judge our favorite candidates with the same standard with which we judge their opponents. There is reason to be embarrassed and ashamed about both major candidates for president this year, and I'm not sure whether some of us are actually blind to the disgusting and disturbing history of our favorite candidate or if we are just trying to divert attention away from our favorite candidate by pointing out how bad the opponent is.
Some believe that whichever candidate wins the country loses. They hope that, whichever it is, Congress will be in control of the other party so that there will be four years of gridlock and not too much damage will be done before a more honest and sensible president will be elected in four years. God help us!
Thanks for your thoughts, Ken! I agree that we need to be sober, fair, and consistent in our evaluation of candidates.
I have many feminist friends who don't like Hillary because she stayed with Bill. Was she weak? Or was she strong? She chose to faithfully stay with Bill, despite his unfaithfulness. And she lived through it all in front of the public eye. I can't imagine being in that position, or how I might respond. Marriage is for better and for worse, right? What does her faithfulness to Bill say about her character? How does that compare to her opponent and his faithfulness? These are the two we have; one will become president of the United States. Bringing others into the conversation is a distraction, a smokescreen. The choice before us stands.
We don't really know why Hillary stayed with Bill. There is a lot of political opportunism involved, and her whole life has been almost nothing but politics. We assume she was faithful to Bill, like we assumed he was faithful to her. And maybe he was; they just had a more materialistic view of sex. Maybe. The real issues are how these things impact the policies of the country. And certainly there is a trade-off between the immorality of divorce, unfaithfulness, and random sex, and the loss of lives of the unborn, of the military, of terrorism victims. While the immorality of some marriages is certainly an issue, also at issue is the immorality of condoning homosex, and destroying the real meaning of marriage through legislation. Also at issue is the persecution of Christians for their beliefs that same sex marriage is wrong. This too is serious immorality. I would argue it is of more significance. If these issues are not addressed, then divorce becomes almost insignificant in comparison.
Sho Baraka, Christian rap artist, writes an excellent article in Christian Today titled Why I Can't Vote for Either Trump or Clinton (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/october/sho-baraka-why-i-cant-vote-for-either-trump-or-clinton.html?start=1). He comments that As an African American, I’m marginalized by the lack of compassion on the Right. As a Christian, I’m ostracized by the secularism of the Left.
Mr. Baraka clearly articulates a biblical perspective when he states that he wishes that soon there will be a movement of folks who protest both police brutality and abortions without feeling disloyal to one party or the other. These Christians comprehend an unabridged concept of life, that it is to be protected from the cradle to the grave. This is a comprehensive outlook that seeks justice in community development, education, prison reform, and job creation. These people recognize honoring humanity is a service to God and not a partisan policy.
God is in control. I pray that we have the faith and strength to live this out everyday and especially in the voting booth.
Thanks for providing that link, Jane! Yes, there's a deep need for such a movement of coming together towards a more holistic ethic of life.
I especially appreciate the opening comment from the article you link: "As a black Christian in an urban environment, I consciously struggle to give my allegiance to either political party. In this way, this election gives many white evangelicals a sense of what it’s like to be a black believer in America today."
The first thing that struck me is that there is no mention of Trump's apology for what he said 11 years ago. And there is no mention that that being born again Trump is nevertheless guiltless and perfect in the sight of God who remembers his sins no more. And neither should we. We are one body in Christ. I'd rather have Trump with all his faults who promises to protect all Americans from radical Islamic terrorists and put a stop to the crucifixions and beheadings of Christians by ISIS, than Hillary Clinton's same sex relations and pro-choice agenda.
Hi Joe,
Trump has not taken real responsibility for those words or behavior. "I apologize, but this was locker room talk" is not a sincere apology. I also see little to no evidence of faith in Christ. He continues to mock, belittle, and lie, and rarely if ever apologizes for cruel comments. He has since mocked the appearance of one of the women accusing him. Jesus said we guage true belief by behavior. I do not see any evidence of following Christ in his behavior. His comments on that tape, made as a married I believe close to 60 yr old man, are completely consistent with how he's talked about women throughout this campaign.
This post wasn't about Hillary, it was about taking these words and his many other comments about women seriously. Even if that means there's no candidate you can support.
One of the things that makes America great is that we have religious freedom, not only for Christians, but for all religions. Another thing that makes America great are the freedoms that we have, freedom to disagree, as we've seen in these many responses. And we are greatest when the freedoms we share as Americans are extended to each and every person, equal rights for all people. The concern expressed in this article is the degradation of women in our culture. This is more than locker room talk, and it extends far beyond Donald Trump - his comments only served to bring to light something that was already very present in our culture. Women are not treated as equals, as people created in the image of God, and in our Christian communities as fellow-heirs with Christ. Safe Church Ministry's concern is abuse. This devaluing of women, or indeed the devaluing of any person or people group, can often serve as a backdrop or provide a context for abuse. The first step, which can lead to abuse, is seeing the other person as "less than". The results of being considered "less than" are cumulative, and so harmful to women and others who experience that. And the effects of abuse can be devastating to individuals and communities. That's why this is so important. We would like to continue this conversation - but it would be most helpful if we could take it beyond this election (as important as this election is) and focus on the theme of how women are valued and treated in our culture.
One person I know, as a result of the publicity surrounding Trump's comments, posted on Facebook several painful incidents that she's experienced, simply because she is a woman. It led to an outpouring of support, and other stories. She's not alone. What can we do to make sure that as Christ followers, we reflect his love and value to ALL people? How can we bring healing to those who have experienced the deep pain and humiliation of abuse?
Again, let's continue the conversation - but let's move it beyond this one election to our present culture that has produced it.
If you'd like to hear the stories of two courageous women, who have suffered gender-related violence, please attend an event sponsored by Safe Church Ministry and the Calvin College Sexuality Series on Nov 4th 7-9 pm at the Chapel at Calvin College. More details are available on the link below. The event may also be seen and heard by video live or after the event using this link. We gain understanding as we listen to others; it's such an important first step.
A Conversation: A Church Response to Interpersonal Violence featuring Ruth Tucker and Ruth Everhart; both have written memoirs about their experience.
Hi Monica
I doubt the ability of anyone to differentiate between an “apology” and a “sincere apology”. There is only one who can make that judgement. Something I do not see is the word “forgive”. If anything is evidence of faith in Christ, it is the ability to forgive, not just once, but seventy times seven.
Yes, Trump made crass remarks when he was a Democrat, just like Bill Clinton. But since he was “converted” he has apologized and I for one can forgive him. He has promised to clean up the ghettos, end the massacre of Christians and improve the economic conditions in this country. He has pledged to root out corruption in both the Democratic and Republican establishments. He may not be the first choice for Sunday school teacher, but he certainly has his heart in the right place.
On the other hand, we have a candidate who has reveled in an avalanche of corruption, lies and destruction that makes Tammany Hall look like child’s play. Someone who is dedicated to killing babies, undermining our constitution and using the office for personal enrichment without any thought about who or what gets destroyed in the process.
Even more appalling is the public stance of our denominational leaders in support of this corruption. We have lurched so far to the left that most Republicans have left or are leaving. We got rid of about a third of our conservative members about 15 years ago. Since then we continue to work to drive the remainder out. Evangelism has become a sham. We have hung a shingle over the door that only Democrats need apply. We need to convert potential members from Republicans to Democrats before they make profession of faith. Otherwise, there can be no communion of the saints.
As a denomination, we are guilty of bigotry, discrimination and racism, not in terms of ethnicity, but in our treatment of fellow Christians who are Republicans. Our leaders disparage them every chance they get. After more than seventy years in the CRC, I find myself praying for the early demise of our denomination so that individual churches can work at the much greater tasks that Christians have in common – that of building the Kingdom.
Hi Edward!
Thanks for interacting here.
I know many people who, like you, feel Donald Trump is the lesser of two evils in this election. Obviously my blog makes it clear my assessment of his character, but I understand Christians have freedom to disagree about this. And I too have concerns about Ms. Clinton. (I may vote 3rd party this election.) Ultimately, my goal here is to highlight how shocking the words and attitudes toward women have been in this election and help readers understand how painful his words and treatment of women are. Even if we cannot agree on his politics, I would urge for more concern and compassion for how his behavior and words about women affect women, and at least more understanding for why many women will not vote for Trump. I would like leaders to understand why a lot of women, like myself, are in pain because of how regularly he demeans women. The tape just confirmed for many of us what we suspected. Obviously, I am not God and cannot ultimately determine whether his life has or has not changed since that tape by God's power, but the track record of his comments in this election alone has given me sufficient reason for doubts. Indeed, when asked about his faith, Donald Trump said he does not need to ask God for forgiveness, which seems pretty fundamental.
In regards to "crude statements," -- the issue here isn't the crudeness of the language, but bragging that power and fame allows you to not wait for consent, allows you to assault. That is unusual, even for "locker room talk." I'm aware that men brag about sexual conquests; I believe significantly fewer of them brag about assault.
In regards to our forgiveness of Trump: I'm not sure that's relevant here. Donald Trump has not asked me for forgiveness, and has not personally wronged me. I don't feel I need to forgive him any more than I need to forgive Hillary Clinton (who also professes to be a Christian) for her poor decisions regarding email servers. It is up to his alleged victims to forgive him for misconduct, and up to voters to decide whether his character is trustworthy enough for the highest position in our country. What we are highlighting here is a troubling pattern of misogyny, and our culture's seeming willingness to not take that seriously. Vote where your conscience leads you, but I'd also urge an openness to the wounds his words and behavior have opened for many women, as Bonnie's comment and link highlight.
Since abortion has been brought up here, we might note how often that is an assault on women. Sometimes done in facilities with less safe conditions than a veterinary clinic because pro-choice politicians do not want any restrictions on access, abortions often do not actually involve "choice" because they are coerced by boyfriends, husbands, or even "grandparents". Moreover, approximately half of the victims of abortion, the little ones, would become women if allowed to continue to live and grow, so we could call this an assault on women-to-be. (The women who abort them are often victims in various ways, too.) And Mrs. Clinton has stated that abortion should be legal right up to birth, so no ban on partial-birth abortion or anything like that. Doesn't that give you nightmares?
But wait, there's more. We often get a twofer on abortions because along with infanticide there's something else. I don't know whether to call it genocide or simply racism. The abortion rate is highest among African-Americans, and in some American cities, more black babies are aborted than are born. You can read the shocking statistics here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/21/j-kenneth-blackwell-black-abortions-a-crisis-in-am/.
What kind of nation have we become when we think something like this is a good thing? It reminds me of the people in the Bible sacrificing their children to Moloch! But a friend of mine at church says abortion is just a "wedge issue" in the political discussion.
This comment is off-topic, please read the original article that was posted.
I think we need to look at the bigger picture not just one issue. Is Trump the man we want in the White House? Nope! But is he a better choice that Clinton? Yes! Is a vote for a 3rd party candidate a vote for Clinton? Yes. Is Trump the same man he was 15 years ago? Probably not. Hopefully, we all grow and mature as we go through life. I believe Clinton to be a less moral person than Trump. Listen to what her former secret service agents have to say about how she treats her help. She is awful! But you will never hear about her faults in our liberal press. So the press emphasizes events that took place 15 years ago to discredit Trump but ignores completely thing that Clinton has been accused of in recent months. Neither of these are good moral people, so I will vote for Trump because there is a chance he will appoint quality judges to the Supreme Court. With Clinton there will be NO chance of that happening.
This comment is off-topic, please read the original article that was posted.
I don't know why you make his comments of 11 years ago such a big issue when he has apologized. Look at the bigger issue of how many Supreme Judges will be chosen. They will serve for decades. If you think what he said is unforgivable you haven't read all the things Hillary has done in her years of government.
This comment is off-topic, please read the original article that was posted.
Thanks, Bonnie. A good reminder to keep comments related to the original post per The Network's Comment Guidelines.
I smile about the "off topic" complaints. This article tightly wraps two subject matters: assault on women and why folks should abhor and impliedly vote for Trump (no, the second is not so explicit but a crystal clear implicit message).
Given the tight wrapping of the two subjects, I don't see any of the responses as off topic. You can't talk about assault on women by launching directly off of statements made by one of the major parties weeks presidential candidates weeks before the election and expect responses to not talk about the politics of the election, because those responses relate to the topics raised by the article.
Thanks, Doug - I can understand why, given the timing, some readers would feel I was suggesting an implied vote for Hillary, but that was not at all the intent of the article. Perhaps I could have made that clearer in the initial blog, but I thought I was writing to an audience of Christians, who, whichever way they vote, are regretful that a person of his character is the Republican candidate.The issue was raising awareness of how painful his character issues and treatment of women is for women such as myself, and for conscientious Christians, whichever way they vote, to not shrug off his treatment of women. I was responding to the phenomenon of Christians we've all heard saying things like the words and behavior is "not that big a deal." My disagreement isn't primarily with those who vote Trump, but those who shrug off his behavior toward women. Saying we cannot talk candidly about how a politician's words and actions affect women because that might be interpreted as supporting the other candidate is troubling to me. Hence, using the comments section to discuss the alleged flaws of Hillary is missing the point. It was important to avoid the comment section becoming a prolonged debate about the morality of a Hillary or Trump vote.
Monica: Thanks for your reply -- I appreciate your willingness to dialog with your commenters (which is not common).
I would suggest though that excepting those few Christians who think they have the job (or "job") of doing what they can do to get Trump elected (in which case their real purpose would be to put the Republicans in greater control of the federal government than Democrats, and not to elect Trump as president even though the latter must happen to make the former), none of these Christians "support" or "shrug off" Trump's statements about or treatment of women. Literally, none.
Still, while I am abundantly on record as having absolutely nothing good to say about Trump from the time he began his primary campaign until now, I have always said I will yet vote for him in the general election (certainly, not in the primaries). Why? Largely because if Trump is elected and Clinton is not, the constitutional perspective (from 'originalist' as was Scalia to 'living/breathing document' as are some others) of one to three Supreme Court Justices will be VERY, VERY different, and that difference will be more impacting to the United States (for good or bad) in the next multiple decades, or perhaps forever, than will be the presidential terms (of either Trump or Clinton) for the next 4 or 8 years. For the same reason, I would vote for Trump over Bernie Sanders had he been the Democratic nominee, even though I thought and think Bernie is a pretty honorable guy. Yes, this is complicated.
Back to the abuse of women issue: that issue has existed and still exists, whether or not Donald Trump said or did whatever, candidate or not. So why does Trump's recent statements somehow bring up the abuse of women issue? The only possible answer to that question would be one that relates to politics and this election, not? Which is why I'm suggesting that comment responses that address the politics brought in this article are not "off topic."
Hi Doug,
Trump's recent statements bring up the issue of the abuse of women because they are, as I opened the piece, painful and difficult words to hear, trigger words for women who've been abused in just the manner Trump describes. Check out the hashtag #notokay to read some of the millions of stories those words provoked. http://www.refinery29.com/2016/10/125801/twitter-trump-women-not-okay-hashtag. If an honest conversation about how painful those words are is taken as a "political pitch" I think that's a risk we need to take, because women need to talk about how these words affect us.
Even if you ultimately conclude, given your political convictions, that a Hillary presidency is one you cannot support and you think a 3rd party vote is wasted, a person running for president who openly disparages women on a regular basis and shrugs off his sexual assault comments as locker rock talk is a serious situation that should be discussed as such. It is a serious situation if we've had people with similar character in the White House in the past as well, and I think it speaks to the success of abuse awareness that we're having this conversation surrounding Trump's comments today.
We are trying to avoid this descending into a discussion of Hillary's flaws, because although you're right that a piece critical of defending / supporting Trump will provoke such questions about how we should vote, this forum isn't the best place to sort through those questions. There are lots of good resources to assess the strengths and flaws of each candidate outside of Safe Church, and we dont' have the capacity to respond to all such questions/concerns.
You say that no Trump supporter defends the comments - that just isn't true. That was in part what prompted the post, the pain I and other female friends of mine have felt at hearing people in our lives act like it isn't a big enough deal to merit a serious conversation about the implications of his character. In my own (Christian) circles, I've heard several people defend Trump's comments, literally saying they didn't think it was "that big of a deal," that "he's apologized; we need to forgive and forget." Those words were used. Others have tried to say Trump is a baby Christian whom we "must" forgive despite any apparent change of character. Christians are saying these things. That is what troubled me, our sudden abandonment of any honest moral assessment of our candidate just because he's a Republican, and what I was responding to.
I don't know that I'll have time to continue to respond to comments today, but I hope that's helpful in clarifying.
The Trump comments brought this issue to light, again, making this article timely. As we've said, the issue goes far beyond this election, and this country. I'd say it goes back to Genesis 3 - see v. 16 when God says to the woman, "your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." That's not God's original plan, only a sad descriptor of fallen humanity. Thank goodness we've been redeemed in Christ, able to be restored to God's original intention, men and women as partners in the mandate to steward creation, men an women as joint heirs in Christ and members of his One Body... There is no place in Christian community for devaluing and denigrating women; and yet it happens, even in our congregations. Other articles have been posted here on the Safe Church Network focusing on this topic; and they've been posted completely apart from this election moment in time. Please see:
Teaching Boys to Respect Girls: Why it Matters
Where is the Church
What Would Jesus Do?
Hoping for Change
Football, Gender, Rape Culture and the Glory of God
And there are many, many more. All of these articles speak to the topic at hand. Trump only gives us a timely reason to talk about it yet again; and shows us the need to continue our efforts.
There is nothing in your above that I would disagree with Bonnie. But when you say that Trump having said and did what he said/did "gives us a timely reason to talk about it yet again," and on that basis suggest that more political responses are "off topic," you ignore what others' clearly saw in the main post, which was, among other things, that the Clintons (both of them) engaged in pretty similar stuff (Bill the actor, but Hillary the defender/enabler) but that doesn't get comment in this article. Hmmmm.
When that happens, and when we are weeks before an election (especially like this one), readers will reasonably read an article like this as a political pitch, intended or not by the author, because it actually is (again, intended or not). And in that case, political responses are simply not "off topic."
The topic is women, how they are degraded and devalued in our culture. So many women are hurting in our congregations and in our communities because of unjust patriarchal systems that have been in place for so long. I encourage you to listen to their stories!
And if you must be political, then let's discuss what can be done to change this culture. Perhaps we can begin with equal pay for equal work (As a Senator, Clinton championed the Paycheck Fairness Act and cosponsored the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in an effort to achieve equal pay and help close the wage gap)
What about acknowledging that this is a real problem (As Secretary of State, Clinton created the first ever Ambassador-at-Large for global women’s issues, which has become a permanent position. She also helped launch the first U.S. strategy to prevent and respond to gender-based violence globally.)
Where women thrive, societies thrive. There is a lot of evidence to back that up. Yes, it's a political issue, but it's it's so much more. It's also a kingdom of God issue.
Hmmm. Seems now that you are off topic Bonnie, having expanded the conversation it to the Paycheck Fairness Act and Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. :-)
The topic is how women are disparaged and devalued in our culture; one evidence of that is certainly that they are not equally compensated for their work. Another evidence is the way that they are treated, and also the way people talk about them. Women are not treated the same, or given the same value and respect as men - That's a problem.
A number of comments have been made. But we need to realize that the only reason we are talking about this, is because of the election. If Trump was not running for pres, this article would not have been written. The reason why Trumps liabilities are discussed and not Clinton's? who knows. There was trial and investigation regarding Clinton's behaviour, none that I know of with Trump. Could Trump have changed? Possibly. Could Clinton have changed? Possibly, but less likely. She has less regard for life and for people, as evidenced by her lack of concern for the most helpless. She appears to be more concerned about her reputation and image and vote gathering power than any other principles, that I can see, and that has me concerned. Trump bucked the trends, and many people responded. Sure he is rough around the edges. He is rich and in that sense elite, but not politically elite as evidenced by how many of the politicos whether in either party, or in the media, do not like him. Yet it is the politically elite who continually refuse to protect the preborn, who continually add to the monstrous debts that future women and men, our children and grandchildren will be burdened by. How will that be paid? Eventually by taxes. How will the taxes be paid? By virtually forcing all women to work, to reduce their attention for their children, perhaps to abort unborn females, because they feel they cannot afford children. Simplistically thinking or saying that only crass remarks are most vile, is missing the bigger more complex issues of caring for society as a whole, and protecting the most vulnerable as captured in the plight of the unborn.
John, see above responses for my response to this comment.
As I pointed out in a previous post - we have talked about this a lot! For a long time, unrelated to the U.S. election.
In parading Donald Trumps' shameful sayings you say Evangelicals are wrong to support the Republican nominee. Hence, that means Hillary Clinton is the better choice. Surely, you must be fully aware that Hillary is pro-choice and has no problem with the killing of millions of unborn babies - even in the ninth month. That's apart from lying to congress, the FBI and the general public. That's the president you'd prefer in the White House? I've read the comments - and yet the key factor is mostly ignored. We are Christians. Our first obligation is to follow Christ, not the secular world's view. Trump has a lot of faults however, he's pro-life and wants to protect the Christian faith. As a believer, when all is said and done, that's what really matters to me. .
Hi Joe,
It doesn't sound to me as if you've heard the message that we were trying to convey. Perhaps after the election is over, we can engage in reasonable conversation around some of these important issues, including a sanctity of life ethic that extends beyond the womb. But that's a different topic.
There is no sanctity of life for anyone beyond the womb, who does not survive the womb.
"Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of Him who is the head, that is, Christ" - Ephesians 4:15.
Missing in many, many of these posts and in this presidential election cycle is speaking the truth in love. By speaking in truth, we build up one another; it is how God gives grace to others through us, and builds unity.
It is my fervent prayer that we speak the truth in love to one another so that we will grow to a strong maturity to do the work God has appointed us to do.
God is in control.
Monica thank you for a thoughtful, timely, and much-needed article and your responses to the comments here. Bonnie thank you for your contributions to the discussion. Clearly, the topics of sexism in general and sexual assault/abuse in particular need much more attention in the CRC. There is much ignorance out there concerning these subjects. Blessings on the work you do in educating the church!
Thank you Nancy for your encouraging words.
"Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of Him who is the head, that is, Christ" - Ephesians 4:15.
Missing in some of these posts and in this presidential election cycle is speaking the truth in love. By speaking in truth, we build up one another; it is how God gives grace to others through us, and builds unity.
It is my fervent prayer that we speak the truth in love to one another so that we will grow to a strong maturity to do the work God has appointed us to do.
God is in control.
And the truth is this: every man is born of a woman. Any man who degrades women, degrades himself. Without a man, no woman could be born. Any woman who degrades men, also degrades herself.
I'm disappointed that this has become a "men-vs.-women" discussion. Unfortunately, that feeds into the perception suggested in the title of the topic.
It's also unfortunate that some have resorted to the labeling that has become a strategy at even the administrative levels of CRCNA. Should we ban such labels as anti-immigrant, anti-women, Christian right, and others that unfairly characterize individuals, and are just as hurtful as ethnic slurs, labels referring to sexual orientation, or disparaging references to one's religion? Such labels and the half-truths they convey are used by some politicians, but why here?
As the husband of a terrific woman (my dear wife for 57 years) and the adoptive father of two sweet babies who now are wonderful wives and mothers, I respect women. Participating in a discussion such as this one as I have shouldn't make a man feel obligated to say something like this, but I suspect that such participation may leave me indelibly labeled as one of the bad guys.
Does anyone wonder how many faithful, long-time CRC members feel that their views on issues of the day are not Christian from the perspective of the denominational leadership? I do.
Sorry if this is off-topic.
Hi Ken,
Thanks for this comment. I think it gets at why this is a difficult conversation to have. I understand how hurtful it can be to be too feel one is too quickly labeled or characterized. And yet, I think we do have to acknowledge the difference in gendered experiences. I don't think it's labeling to acknowledge women as a group have experienced more objectification and sexual violence than men. It's not labeling to talk about the problem when many men don't seem to quite understand, and women shouldn't need to silence or apologize for their frustration and pain out of fear that some men might feel unfairly targeted by virtue of being male. If men are standing with women, hearing their stories, and not dismissing their feelings on this, there is no reason to feel shame or guilt.
Discussing the dynamics of abortion, etc., are valid conversations, but the post was in response to a staggering lack of sensitivity from many men in response to the misogyny so prevalent this campaign. The men I've heard make hurtfully dismissive comments in regards to Trump's words and behavior towards women, which I still can't talk about without starting to physically shake, did not seem to understand what it like to be a woman and how serious such behavior is. That doesn't make them villains, but it does mean it's valid to talk about this. In such an atmosphere, a call for men to stand with women, to hear their stories, and refuse to engage in conversation that minimizes the character implications for who Trump is seems valid to me. Comments like "it's not that big of a deal," "he apologized," "it was 10 years ago," all demonstrate ignorance of the dynamics of abusive behavior and the connection between the blatant misogyny Trump shows on a daily basis and the abuses he speaks of and seems very likely to have committed. "Forgive and forget, he apologized," in particular, a line I heard quite a few times, is the same kind of logic regularly used to silence abuse victims after their abuser makes any sort of apology, however surface level. Again, this doesn't suggest that all or even most men are making those kind of comments, but they have been happening pretty regularly, so it's not inappropriate to appeal to men in particular to use their power to oppose such statements, and to listen to the stories Trump's words are reopening from women, instead of immediately pivoting to the flaws of the other candidate.
I think you're right that race, immigration, and shifting views in the CRC are too off-topic to really dive into, but I think on each of those issues making space to hear and respect stories of experiences of life different from our own can do a lot to heal perceived divides.
I agree that this was not the place to dive into politics and other issues. That made it more hurtful for those women who are already hurting and already feel unheard in their struggle against gender-based violence. I apologize for my part in getting "off topic" at times in my comments. I will freely acknowledge my own bias toward social justice, which doesn't always fit with the political right in this country. But I don't always fit with the political left either; I am a member of Feminists for Life after all. It can all be quite frustrating - but this was not the place for that, and so again, I apologize.
What seems critically important to me is to make space to "hear and respect stories of experiences of life different from our own". I agree wholeheartedly that this can do a lot to heal perceived divides. Where are those spaces in our congregations? In our denomination?
I am a wife, a mother, and a grandmother; and I long for my grandchildren to grow up in a world where the value of each and every person honored; and where each person is treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve as image bearers of their Creator. That's what Safe Church is all about. I believe that the experience of women is not the same as that of men, we are less valued generally speaking (I realize that I don't speak for all women). There is much evidence to show this is true (if you doubt, read the book Half the Sky). I've prayed for many years and will continue to pray that my daughter and my granddaughter, and all of our daughters, will never have to go through the gender-based violence that I've experienced, that continues to impact my life. And I have prayed and will continue to pray that those who have suffered will find compassion and healing with the Lord and with his people; this includes so many women in our congregations who have suffered gender-based injustice. And I have prayed and will continue to pray that the Church, men and women together, can become a force for change, building a better world, a world where all people are valued and honored. And I pray with hope in the redeeming power of our Lord.
"Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me" Ps. 51:10.
Thank you for this beautiful testimony. If I had to write the piece over I too would adjust it to avoid implying the point was endorsing a candidate, so I too apologize for any misunderstanding. Your heart for justice in both the church and the political realm is so laudable, and those conversations critiquing both left and right are so needed, it just became clear this wasn't the best forum for that. What I was trying to hold up was the experiences of women and the gravity of such behavior, ideas which you communicate here so gracefully.
Let's Discuss
We love your comments! Thank you for helping us uphold the Community Guidelines to make this an encouraging and respectful community for everyone.