This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think that’s key. The church needs to teach men to do their part, even when women sin against them, and it needs to teach women to do their part, even when men sin against them. But it’s fine for a parachurch ministry, or a church’s men’s or women’s ministry, to focus on just one of these at a time.
I do think that such a ministry needs to be willing to frankly discuss the other side’s duties. But it would be odd if that were the primary focus.
It is kind of hard to continue with these duties in the context of modern economies. Setting aside how realistic it is for middle class/working class families to have only a single income, male physical superiority doesn't necessarily mean much from an earning power perspective anymore. Why must the male be the one that takes on responsibility/authority?
In the context of a parachurch ministry, the answer is straightforward: God designed the human sexes that way, and He has commanded us to follow that design. The Bible is pretty emphatic about this:
If I were to make a secular argument, I would build it on the distribution of temperaments in men and women and how they interact within this framework, and I’d refer to studies of different subcultures with different marriage norms, being aware of the biases in social psychology. But it’s much harder to make a normative argument that way, and there would be legitimate discussion to be had about when to strengthen traditional norms to benefit the average person and when to weaken them to benefit outliers.
When you believe that the Bible is God’s Word – and that’s the conviction the Promise Keepers were working from – then it has the right to make normative claims that human prudence does not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe. But not if all such are focusing on the same one; then you're just teaching that half to be chumps. And contrary to the GPs insinuation, it's mostly not men who are demanding perks without responsibilities, and insinuating that when talking about a group specifically called the "Promise Keepers" is especially bad.
...why? Are we going to take the People's Republic of North Korea on their word that their republic belongs to the People in a higher proportion than the ones not called that?
More options
Context Copy link
Sure. People are reluctant to teach women that they need to hold up their end even when their husbands sin against them.
In a culture that is so hostile to it, low decouplers – and most low decouplers are women – will hear that as, “He’s totally allowed to abuse you.” Some high decouplers will deliberately misinterpret it that way for rhetorical reasons. A pastor has the responsibility to distinguish the two and to break through honest misunderstanding where it occurs. But it’s difficult, and it’s risky, and too many shirk that duty.
That said, there are still going to be men who want to take the benefits without the responsibilities. Reminding them of their duties is noble work, as long as you don’t use it as excuse to ignore more common sins.
Edited to add the last paragraph.
Or that they need to hold up their end at all. Or that they even have an "end" to hold up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link