Thread: The wife stays at home and has loads of kids Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030653
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
I'm happy to be told otherwise, but I couldn't this in dead horses.
The Pastor of my Church (which is conservative) has very strict views on Women and Children which in summary boil down to:
a. Women should not go to work.
b. Christian couples should have lots of children because that way they can make lots of christians.
I've never come across these views held so ferevently before and can't really see a Biblical principle for them - I know you can make links or quote the odd verse, but ISTM that this is more of a 'traditional' view. Any shipmates got experience/ comment/ opinions on this?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Bollocks to both. Thanks for asking.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
On A, it would be nice if women had a choice instead of having to earn for economic reasons. If women choose to pursue a career, more power to them; if they choose to stay at home to raise children, more power to them; if they choose to do both, more power to them.
On B... I mean, what a dickhead that priest is! Quality is better than quantity! A life lived properly in Christ will bring people to Christ, we don't need to make them on a production-line.
deano - 2 kids, wife used to work in a job but now stays at home to look after said 2 kids, elderly mum with dementia and most important... me! (Except she never cooks me liver any more!)
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
The Pastor of my Church
How old is this person?
If this person happens to be married and female (I'm guessing not female), how does she justify holding her job?
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
. . . (which is conservative) has very strict views on Women and Children which in summary boil down to:
a. Women should not go to work.
Who takes care of all these kids, then? Trust me: if the wife sought paid employment outside the household, the couple would be laying out hefty sums for child care. Why is childcare "paid work" when someone else looks after your kids, but nothing at all when mothers perform these same activities themselves?
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
b. Christian couples should have lots of children because that way they can make lots of christians.
As long as this pastor and his congregation are prepared to help out with the expenses of raising all these kids, why not? Except, of course, for the pressures all these new humans place on an already stressed planet . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I've never come across these views held so ferevently before and can't really see a Biblical principle for them - I know you can make links or quote the odd verse, but ISTM that this is more of a 'traditional' view. Any shipmates got experience/ comment/ opinions on this?
I think if you look up about the scriptural woman whose price is far above rubies, you'll find she engages in business transactions as well as attending to domestic duties.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
On A, it would be nice if women had a choice instead of having to earn for economic reasons.
It is an indictment of society, and the economic oppression that we all contribute to, that for so many people it is neccessary for both partners to hold down full-time paid employment. Rents and mortgages are often at such a high level that you need two incomes to pay them, it would IMO be far healthier for society if every couple could afford to live on one income, freeing one of them to take up the full-time job of raising children (or, volunteering with some worthy cause, or whatever else that they want to do). Of course, there's no reason why the mum shouldn't go out to work and leave dad to raise the kids.
As for having lots of kids .... well. The population of the world is one of the biggest drivers of poverty and environmental degradation there is. To actively encourage having large families, to the detriment of those who are poorer and less able to compete for the limited resources of the earth, is IMO recklessly irresponsible.
The overall approach of said pastor is one that would more often than not produce results the exact opposite of his intention. If the aim is to "make more Christians" then preaching things that make people think we're a bunch of loonies living sometime in the 16th century is not going to be very effective. You're going to alienate people who are not part of your congregation, and it is highly likely that most of those kids in those large families will reject the faith you're trying to force down their throats.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
This pastor's views on children could be a useful corrective in places where the failure to reproduce at replacement level threatens the economy. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
... b. Christian couples should have lots of children because that way they can make lots of christians....
Goodness! Have they made the Holy Spirit hereditary? I didn't get the memo.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Any shipmates got experience/ comment/ opinions on this?
Unless he can give you book, chapter and verse he is just giving you one dude's opinion. My dad told me that if I ever wanted to get rid of all of my friends I will need to start giving them advice about cars and women.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
This horse is so dead. Down you go...
Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
a. Women should not go to work.
This is utter bollocks harking back to 19th century attitudes. Ask him to imagine being told he couldn't pursue his chosen path? Inhuman.
quote:
b. Christian couples should have lots of children because that way they can make lots of christians.
This is interesting.
I think Catholics had the same attitude at one time?
It's based in fear for the future of course - and fear of 'others'. Building your tribe as quickly as you can will give security. So, not 19th Century then, more like Bronze age.
Why do you still go to that Church Stoker? I would run 100 miles!
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
On A, it would be nice if women had a choice instead of having to earn for economic reasons. If women choose to pursue a career, more power to them; if they choose to stay at home to raise children, more power to them; if they choose to do both, more power to them.
It would be nice, and as said further down the thread from this quote, it is an indictment on the type of society we have produced for ourselves...
As the nominated 'woman' (proper '50's style, cook, clean, do the washing, have dinner and a drink ready for when Mr. S-M comes home (I must point out this is by choice not being forced to ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)) in my relationship, and in the interests of equality, can I get the 'women shouldn't work' directive moved to include those gay men that play at wife? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It is amusing, and also alarming, that he assumes via (b) that the children of a Christian couple would themselves become Christians. That view seems to conceal a whole load of assumptions, for example, that the parents would bring their kids up as Christians, and that this would 'take'. Somehow I doubt that.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Of course it'll take.
You just have to beat the devil out of them.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
Stoker, it sounds like you've encountered a Quiverfull pastor.
Do a bit of online searching, and read up on QUiverfull and Christian Patriarchy. You won't like what you read. But you may understand your pastor a little bit better.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
As the nominated 'woman' (proper '50's style, cook, clean, do the washing, have dinner and a drink ready for when Mr. S-M comes home (I must point out this is by choice not being forced to )) in my relationship, and in the interests of equality, can I get the 'women shouldn't work' directive moved to include those gay men that play at wife?
I was the one who went to work and my husband looked after the house and children for years when our kids were small.
As has been said it should be the choice for all couples to be able to live on one salary. The stresses of modern life would then be far easier for everyone to deal with imo.
(Ducks as single people put their two-pennorth in!)
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
... b. Christian couples should have lots of children because that way they can make lots of christians....
Goodness! Have they made the Holy Spirit hereditary? I didn't get the memo.
My response was going to be 'was it not the Holy Spirit who made Christians'.
I know heterosexual married procreation is supposed to be powerful juju - from the conservative point of view - but that just seems to be giving it a little too much power!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
As has been said it should be the choice for all couples to be able to live on one salary. The stresses of modern life would then be far easier for everyone to deal with imo.
(Ducks as single people put their two-pennorth in!)
I don't know why you'd need to duck. For many people, renting or buying somewhere to live needs two incomes. A change in social/economic attitudes such that property prices become more reasonable, and affordable on a single income would benefit single people as much as couples.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
I do actually have a sensible point to make as well thinking about it:
I know where the Biblical bit comes in "Be fruitful and multiply" but in my reading of some of the Church Fathers of late (in particular Augustine) there crops up the occassional theme that procreation isn't all that important, and that really it would be better for it not to happen, for the sooner that humanity stops producing on earth the sooner the Kingdom of God will come (althought the reference alludes me at the present - I will endeavour to find and post back...)...
This raises the interesting question for me about the importance of procreation in general, and when coupled with an imperative to take care of God's creation, should we not, as mentioned above, be less concerned with making little children to run around the place...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
a. Women should not go to work.
b. Christian couples should have lots of children because that way they can make lots of christians.
There's a British-based (and non-confessional) sociologist, Eric Kaufmann, who proposes that the future of Western religion (not to mention the rest of the world) will be in the hands of very conservative religious people, because they'll be the ones having the children, with a higher likelihood that their religious beliefs will therefore be replicated. He explains his ideas in some interesting Youtube lectures, and articles online.
The idea that women don't do anything other than raise children and do housework doesn't seem especially biblical to me, though. Isn't it more influenced by the feminisation of the domestic sphere in the industrial/capitalist era? Inpre-industrual times all hands were needed for agricultural labour, and although frequent childbirth was a fact of life for married women, children couldn't expect to be coddled by their mothers for many years, as is often the case today. They would add to the family's income, rather than detracting from it.
Capitalism stresses a much greater distinction between the dometic and professional spheres, which makes it harder for couples to contemplate having large families, even if they'd like to. The elevation of childhood also discourages excessive fertility, paradoxically.
How does your pastor suggest that couples maintain these large families? Do local jobs (for male workers) pay that much? Should families live off the state - and what's the theology around that?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
As has been said it should be the choice for all couples to be able to live on one salary. The stresses of modern life would then be far easier for everyone to deal with imo.
(Ducks as single people put their two-pennorth in!)
I don't know why you'd need to duck. For many people, renting or buying somewhere to live needs two incomes. A change in social/economic attitudes such that property prices become more reasonable, and affordable on a single income would benefit single people as much as couples.
'tis the evil of modern consumer society, where happiness is to depend on your economic station, where selling to people works better if they're unhappy and the purchase is promising to cheer them.
The difference between the pastor's view and the current one, is that in the "olden days" when women did as he suggests, the incidence of unhappiness was higher for women than men, at least considering visits for health care/mental health care. Today, the unhappiness is is more equal, with both genders/sexes being at least as likely to be depressed and anxious.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Of course it'll take.
You just have to beat the devil out of them.
And beat the bejasus into them. I think sometimes it backfires.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
The Pastor of my Church (which is conservative) has very strict views on Women and Children which in summary boil down to [ignorant bollocks].
Don't feed the troll, Stoker.
Why is this guy your pastor?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This pastor's views on children could be a useful corrective in places where the failure to reproduce at replacement level threatens the economy.
So that would be "nowhere", then?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Russia?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Russia?
Is the Russian economy in trouble due to lack of native-born Russians? (As opposed to being in trouble due to the ongoing effects the Great Recession?)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The other thing that occurs to me is that, with the high rate of divorce in the USA, especially among American evangelicals, any woman who agrees to have a large family with her husband would have to be completely convinced that they weren't going to split up, leaving her struggling to raise the children alone, in reduced financial circumstances. I assume that in such a situation the state would step in, but I don't know to what extent these churches are supportive of single mothers.
In the UK, large families tend to be associated with ethnic minority communities, mostly Muslim ones.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Russia?
Is the Russian economy in trouble due to lack of native-born Russians? (As opposed to being in trouble due to the ongoing effects the Great Recession?)
No, but the population declined from 1991 to 2009.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
And people wonder why single people find some evangelical churches a pain in the rear ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is the Russian economy in trouble due to lack of native-born Russians? (As opposed to being in trouble due to the ongoing effects the Great Recession?)
No, but the population declined from 1991 to 2009.
Which is beside the point that Freddy was asserting. Namely, that such a situation can damage an economy on a national scale.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, but the population declined from 1991 to 2009.
BTW, Russian GDP in 1991: US$509.4 billion
Russian GDP in 2009 (the worst point of the Great Recession): US$1,222.6 billion
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm the stay-at-home husband who did encounter, and was surprised to encounter, a few people - evangelical men - who were prepared to tell me to my face that what I was doing was sub-Christian.
We do, more or less, live off one wage - Mrs Tor is relatively well-paid (and so she bloody well should be, highly responsible job requiring highly trained professional). I, of course, have two-and-a-half full time jobs, only one of which pays.
What the Pastor forgets, conveniently or otherwise, is that child birth is dangerous. Still dangerous, despite modern medicine. Young Miss Tor could have seen me a widower, and Master Tor likewise. We decided that we really ought to stop chancing our arm and call a halt there.
It does sound a fairly ridiculous attempt to keep the ladies barefoot and in the kitchen. Best ignore him.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
As has been said it should be the choice for all couples to be able to live on one salary. The stresses of modern life would then be far easier for everyone to deal with imo.
(Ducks as single people put their two-pennorth in!)
Well, not this single-person ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. Bringing up children - whoever does it - is an incredibly important thing. And if income allows one of the parents to be a stay-at-home parent I can't help seeing this as a good thing. (After all, there might be some single person looking for the job otherwise occupied by a married!)
Seriously, it's a great blessing for a child to have a 'full-time' parent during the early years. The home environment, the family contact and parental example - vital. I'm not saying, by the way, that parents who use child-care are wrong or short-changing their child. Far from it. Where there is the will, much love and good sense, any reasonable combination of child-care and parental input, I'm sure, would be effective.
But if I had married and had children I know my preference would've been to be at home, making their environment and upbringing my job, so to speak, for those early years. Whether I would've had the choice or not, I'll never know!
As I see it, though it is a privilege rather than a right. Rather like parenthood or guardianship itself.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The other thing that occurs to me is that, with the high rate of divorce in the USA, especially among American evangelicals, any woman who agrees to have a large family with her husband would have to be completely convinced that they weren't going to split up, leaving her struggling to raise the children alone, in reduced financial circumstances. I assume that in such a situation the state would step in ...
Why would you assume that?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Does the USA have a benefits system for low-income and single-parent families?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Very patchy, never enough, and varies wildly by state.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Does the USA have a benefits system for low-income and single-parent families?
If your income is extremely low, there may be some benefits available. But a woman can't assume that finding herself struggling in reduced circumstances is going to mean she qualifies for benefits.
As I understand the rules, a family of four with an annual income over $22K-ish won't qualify for benefits (Medicaid, food stamps, TANF) in most states. The exact limits vary depending on which program you're talking about (i.e., Medicaid limits and TANF limits aren't identical) and what state you're in.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The other thing that occurs to me is that, with the high rate of divorce in the USA, especially among American evangelicals, any woman who agrees to have a large family with her husband would have to be completely convinced that they weren't going to split up, leaving her struggling to raise the children alone, in reduced financial circumstances. I assume that in such a situation the state would step in ...
Why would you assume that?
Because in the UK, the state would take on the role of provider. But I admit, I'm hazy as to how this works in the USA.
It's sometimes said that the only people who can afford to have large families are the very poor and the very rich. I'm sure this is an exaggeration, and it depends on lifestyle, but any poor family that's legally entitled to be in the UK will have financial assistance towards the care of the children. I don't think this encourages Christians here (evangelicals or otherwise) to have large families, but it's possible that they have slightly larger families than the non-religious middle classes. I think Kaufmann says something to this effect.
[ 28. January 2013, 17:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
I think Josephine is wondering why you assume in the case of a split, the woman's stuck with all them kids.
If that's not the case, that's what I'm wondering.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I think Josephine is wondering why you assume in the case of a split, the woman's stuck with all them kids.
If that's not the case, that's what I'm wondering.
No, actually I was wondering why anyone thought that a divorced woman who had custody of the children would be getting money from the state. You raise a good question, but I would assume that the mom will have primary physical custody of the kids just because that's almost always the case.
So the mom gets primary custody of the children. The dad (typically) gets visitation every other weekend and during the kids' vacations from school. The dad will pay some portion of his income as child support, based on the number of kids and (in some states) the amount of income the mom has. If the mom's income is taken into account in the calculation of child support, then the court can require her to get a job if she doesn't already have one.
If the combined total of the child support payment and the mom's income is low enough, she may qualify for food stamps or TANF or Medicaid for her and her children. If the combined total is low, but not that low, there's no public assistance.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
No, actually I was wondering why anyone thought that a divorced woman who had custody of the children would be getting money from the state. You raise a good question, but I would assume that the mom will have primary physical custody of the kids just because that's almost always the case.
The standard most states use in cases of contested* child custody is that, unless there is some factor indicating parental unfitness, custody of children is awarded to whichever parent was the child's primary caregiver prior to the divorce.
--------------------
*The majority of U.S. child custody agreements are arrived at by mutual consent.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I think Josephine is wondering why you assume in the case of a split, the woman's stuck with all them kids.
If that's not the case, that's what I'm wondering.
No, actually I was wondering why anyone thought that a divorced woman who had custody of the children would be getting money from the state. You raise a good question, but I would assume that the mom will have primary physical custody of the kids just because that's almost always the case.
So the mom gets primary custody of the children. The dad (typically) gets visitation every other weekend and during the kids' vacations from school. The dad will pay some portion of his income as child support, based on the number of kids and (in some states) the amount of income the mom has. If the mom's income is taken into account in the calculation of child support, then the court can require her to get a job if she doesn't already have one.
If the combined total of the child support payment and the mom's income is low enough, she may qualify for food stamps or TANF or Medicaid for her and her children. If the combined total is low, but not that low, there's no public assistance.
In the UK, the state would only step in if it was financially necessary. But certainly there would be no court order for a mother to get a job.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I think Josephine is wondering why you assume in the case of a split, the woman's stuck with all them kids.
If that's not the case, that's what I'm wondering.
No, actually I was wondering why anyone thought that a divorced woman who had custody of the children would be getting money from the state. You raise a good question, but I would assume that the mom will have primary physical custody of the kids just because that's almost always the case.
Obviously, it depends on the financial status of the family to start with, but families often experience a dip in the finances after divorce (at least in the UK). My assumption is that these large religious families in the USA tend not to be particularly well-off to start with, and so are likely to see a reduction in their finances after divorce. (Is this entirely incorrect?) In the UK, this would mean extra reliance on state help.
By the way, in some conservative religious cultures, it's expected that the father has custody of the children after divorce. I'm guessing that this isn't the case for American evangelicals, though.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I suspect that families which believe that God mandates lotd of kids also tend to see the mother as their primary csretaker, which in the event of divorce would indeed means she winds up with them.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I think Josephine is wondering why you assume in the case of a split, the woman's stuck with all them kids.
If that's not the case, that's what I'm wondering.
No, actually I was wondering why anyone thought that a divorced woman who had custody of the children would be getting money from the state. You raise a good question, but I would assume that the mom will have primary physical custody of the kids just because that's almost always the case.
Obviously, it depends on the financial status of the family to start with, but families often experience a dip in the finances after divorce (at least in the UK). My assumption is that these large religious families in the USA tend not to be particularly well-off to start with, and so are likely to see a reduction in their finances after divorce. (Is this entirely incorrect?) In the UK, this would mean extra reliance on state help.
By the way, in some conservative religious cultures, it's expected that the father has custody of the children after divorce. I'm guessing that this isn't the case for American evangelicals, though.
Considering the Dominionist theology of most large evangelical families in the US, I doubt they'd even take the benefits they would be entitled to. Given that some within that movement advocate not getting their kids a birth certificate (see Michael Pearl), they may not be able to get assistance for those kids. Quiverfullers tend to be unique to the US, with some Canadian, UK and Australian families but only tiny groups in those countries. Certainly Dominionist theology (linked to Quiverfull) is unique to the US.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Jade: quote:
Because in the UK, the state would take on the role of provider.
Judging by the rhetoric coming from Whitehall, this state of affairs is unlikely to continue for much longer. There is increasing social pressure to limit the amount of child benefit, for example (for non-UK readers, at the moment you get about £18 per week for the first child, slightly less for each additional child. There are proposals to pay child benefit only for the first two children). There is also considerable social pressure for single parents to work; of course if they do find a job they are also criticised for neglecting their children, so they can't win whatever they do.
And you're not factoring in the NHS. An American family that doesn't qualify for Medicaid has to fund health care out of its own pocket or go without. We don't have that worry in the UK - medical and dental treatment is free for children under 16.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Considering the Dominionist theology of most large evangelical families in the US, I doubt they'd even take the benefits they would be entitled to. Given that some within that movement advocate not getting their kids a birth certificate (see Michael Pearl), they may not be able to get assistance for those kids. Quiverfullers tend to be unique to the US, with some Canadian, UK and Australian families but only tiny groups in those countries. Certainly Dominionist theology (linked to Quiverfull) is unique to the US.
That's interesting. The birth certificate thing seems problematic, though.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The birth certificate thing seems problematic, though.
For one thing, it means none of their kids will ever be president!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade: quote:
Because in the UK, the state would take on the role of provider.
Judging by the rhetoric coming from Whitehall, this state of affairs is unlikely to continue for much longer. There is increasing social pressure to limit the amount of child benefit, for example (for non-UK readers, at the moment you get about £18 per week for the first child, slightly less for each additional child. There are proposals to pay child benefit only for the first two children). There is also considerable social pressure for single parents to work; of course if they do find a job they are also criticised for neglecting their children, so they can't win whatever they do.
And you're not factoring in the NHS. An American family that doesn't qualify for Medicaid has to fund health care out of its own pocket or go without. We don't have that worry in the UK - medical and dental treatment is free for children under 16.
Sorry, it was Svitlana who commented on the state providing in the UK, not me!
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
The Pastor of my Church (which is conservative) has very strict views on Women and Children which in summary boil down to [ignorant bollocks].
Don't feed the troll, Stoker.
Why is this guy your pastor?
Good question - one slight problem is that I'm an (growing more and more frustrated by the day) Elder - which is a whole new subject.....
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
The Pastor of my Church (which is conservative) has very strict views on Women and Children which in summary boil down to [ignorant bollocks].
Don't feed the troll, Stoker.
Why is this guy your pastor?
Good question - one slight problem is that I'm an (growing more and more frustrated by the day) Elder - which is a whole new subject.....
What is the Pastor/Elder relationship of your church? Is it plural leadership, pastor as first amongst equals or more like rubber stamp dictatorship?
If it's either of the former, aren't there ways for you to express that there are other Biblical ways to do things to the congregation?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suspect that families which believe that God mandates lotd of kids also tend to see the mother as their primary caretaker, which in the event of divorce would indeed means she winds up with them.
I expect households taking that view of what God intends for women would also be a long way down the road to denial when divorce and its consequences are considered.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Russia?
Is the Russian economy in trouble due to lack of native-born Russians? (As opposed to being in trouble due to the ongoing effects the Great Recession?)
Wikipedia provides a variety of statistics showing population growth. Many states of the former USSR have -ve growth but there a few others with -ve or surprising low population growth. The stats for countries like Malta, Italy and especially Poland are worth noting, given the predominant denomination in those places.
Maybe the Stoker's pastor is worried that the Cafflicks will overrun "Christians Like Us", though he shouldn't worry.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0