Jesus would never have called a child an “enemy.”
Yet that’s exactly what Josh Howerton did in a sermon on August 11, when he was telling men to fight for their families.
I was sent this clip by someone who attends Lake Pointe church and was concerned–I don’t go looking for these. Josh Howerton, you may remember, is the same megachurch pastor who told women to “stand where he tells you to stand and do what he tells you to do” on HIS wedding night.
Here’s the most recent clip, that has caused quite the stir on social media since I posted it:
Little girls in mini-skirts in church parking lots?
— Sheila Gregoire--She Deserves Better is here! (@sheilagregoire) August 16, 2024
Here's Josh Howerton, telling the men in their congregations that if they see such a little girl, "run, Forrest, run--you are no match for that enemy."
Because apparently little girls are tempting. And they're your enemy. pic.twitter.com/AwAdUVgoYT
I want to talk about this today not because I want to take on Josh Howerton again (I’m actually quite tired of him; here’s the big round-up post I did, hoping it would be the end. It wasn’t).
I want to talk about this today because of some of the discussion online where people don’t seem to realize why this is a problem. So let’s spell it out clearly.
He called little girls in mini-skirts in church parking lots “your enemy.”
There is no universe in which Jesus would ever call a child His enemy. Yet this is quite common in circles that blame women for men’s sin.
Steve Arterburn, the author of Every Man’s Battle, has a checklist for summer where you’re supposed to list your possible enemies to avoid, and among them are female joggers and female co-workers.
He wrote this:
First Step: Make a List of Your Enemies!
The first way to start, Fred tells us, is by making a list of your “greatest enemies”. These could be lingerie ads, either in a seemingly harmless department store catalog, or that Victoria’s Secret magazine that your wife left laying around. It could include billboards, it could be TV shows or ads, it may be female joggers, or maybe it’s that female co-worker who tends to dress a little suggestively. And then there’s always the beach.
Do you remember the Atlanta shooter who went into the massage parlors and killed Asian women? He did it for the same reason–they were his “enemy.”
Demonizing literal children is simply evil. There is no excuse for it.
Josh Howerton said that a child in a mini-skirt was more dangerous than the literal devil
In this clip, he tells men to stand and fight if the literal devil appears to him (please note that the description he gives of the devil is not in Scripture). But if a little girl in a mini-skirt appears in the church parking lot? You’re to “Run, Forrest, Run” because you’re no match for that enemy.
You’re no match for a little girl, but you are for the devil. So she is more dangerous to you than the actual devil.
He’s saying that a child can be “shady” and want to seduce you.
Adding the word “shady” to “little girl” implies that Josh believes this child is trying to seduce an adult man, and he is no match for his wiles.
This is simply horrifying. He’s ascribing seduction intent to a mere child.
“But Josh Howerton didn’t actually mean child!”
I’ve heard this a lot. People are saying we’re taking him out of context, and there’s no way he meant a child.
When I hear “little girl”, I think age 6-8. What do you think?
But let’s assume he meant an adult woman.
Then he’s saying that it’s normal to call adult women “little girls”. This really doesn’t make it any better. It just means he’s a total misogynist, who sees adult women in the same category as literal children.
There’s also this strange part of the sermon where he sexualizes his own baby boy.
He’s equating the mere existence of a little girl with sexual immorality
If there’s a “shady little girl in a mini-skirt” in the church parking lot, men should flee because the Bible says to flee sexual immorality.
Now, nothing has happened yet. All that has happened is that this little girl is existing in a particular space.
So what he is saying is that: little girl existing = sexual immorality
I want to dive into this a little more deeply and try to figure out what he’s saying.
What is the sexual immorality he thinks will happen?
There are three possible examples, as near as I can tell:
- The grown man will lust after the little girl
- The grown man will have sex with the little girl that she wants (statutory rape, doesn’t matter if she wants it)
- The grown man will assault the little girl
Let’s give him the absolute best benefit of the doubt here, and assume that he didn’t mean child, but actually meant attractive older teenager (which he didn’t–but for argument’s sake, let’s take it as that.)
Then the possibilities are:
- The man will lust after the teenager
- The man will have consensual sex with the teenager
- The man will assault the teenager
Let’s take these in turn.
1. He’s afraid men will lust merely by seeing a teen in a mini-skirt in the church parking lot.
If a man will lust merely by seeing a woman dressed like that, then that man should not be going out of his house, because women are dressed like that all the time.
Also, Jesus clearly laid the blame for lust at men’s feet, telling them to gouge out their eyes. Jesus didn’t blame the woman. In fact,
Jesus didn’t refuse to look at women; Jesus chose to truly see women. If men can’t see a woman without objectifying her, that is a HIM problem, not a HER problem.
The other issue that could be going on here is that men often confuse noticing with lusting and think they’re lusting when they’re not. We talked about this in detail in The Good Guy’s Guide to Great Sex, because many men are carrying shame they should not.
2. He’s afraid he will have sex with the girl in the mini-skirt.
News flash to the men out there: Girls are not dressing for you. A girl in a mini-skirt does not want to have sex with you. The mere fact that so many men assume that when a woman (or a girl!) dresses attractively it signals that she wants to have sex with any man who happens by is a huge problem, and responsible for much of the sexual assault crisis.
To normalize the idea that a girls’ clothes signal her willingness to have sex with you is hugely problematic, and the fact that a pastor didn’t know this is hideous.
3. He’s afraid he will rape the girl in the mini-skirt.
And now we come to the last possibility: he’s afraid he’ll rape her. If that’s the case, he should flee and he should stay locked up in his apartment and never go out, because he is too dangerous.
She Deserves Better!
Because we all deserve a big faith.
Your daughter deserves better than what you likely grew up with in church.
What would it look like to prepare the next generation without toxic teachings about modesty, sex, or consent, and instead set her up for a big faith?
In all three cases, the man is the one sinning
And yet who does Josh Howerton call “the enemy”? The girl.
This is classic DARVO. The man is posing a risk to the girl (or woman) by objectifying her or by assaulting her, and who is the one who is blamed? The girl.
It would have been a better sermon if Josh had said, “Hey, if you’re in the church parking lot and a man approaches leering at you–RUN, GIRL, RUN!” Because he’s the one posing the danger, and she’s the one in danger, and he’s reversed it all.
And now we come to the crux of this.
Do you see how framing the interaction like this enables sexual assault?
Can you see how this completely grooms the congregation to believe that it is a child’s fault if she (or he) is assaulted?
Here’s the thing: If a pastor were grooming his congregation to overlook sexual sin or sexual assault, this is exactly the kind of sermon he would give.
Think about another SBC pastor, Jonathan Elwing, who was found with child sexual abuse materials, many involving himself brutally assaulting children.
He may face the death penalty.
But for years he has also been grooming his congregation, telling them that the sexual abuse crisis in the SBC has been overblown, and the safeguards they’re putting in place will be the end of the SBC. He was one of the most vocal opponents.
I am not saying that Josh Howerton is grooming the congregation. Not all pastors who say this will sexually assault someone; but all pastors who sexually assault someone say this.
Just like not all dogs are poodles, but all poodles are dogs.
If a pastor wanted to groom his congregation to ignore sexual assault, and to blame the woman or girl (or boy!) if something happened, then they would say exactly this. That’s why the issue isn’t really what Josh meant; the issue is that this kind of talk is simply not acceptable from the pulpit, ever, because it puts people in danger.
In our survey for our book She Deserves Better, we found that girls who grew up in churches that heavily taught the modesty message, that she had to be careful not to be a stumbling block to the boys, were more likely to face abuse and harassment in their churches. The modesty message doesn’t protect girls; it puts them in danger.
The modesty message paints girls as the problem. It paints men as helpless victims to these girls (just as Josh did). And so when a girl is assaulted, everyone tends to blame her–including herself.
Josh Howerton is either deliberately dangerous or unintentionally dangerous.
There’s no other option. The fact that he hasn’t apologized despite the public outcry says a lot about his priorities and what he thinks his responsibilities are towards the women and girls in his church. I find this horrifying.
Download Our Marriage Survey
Join 40,00 others and let's change the evangelical conversation about sex
The fact that other SBC pastors aren’t calling this out I find equally horrifying.
We need to do better. Please.
I’ve got two resources to help you think more clearly through these issues.
First is our book She Deserves Better, with a whole chapter on how modesty messages in churches groom girls for assault, and contribute to girls marrying abusers. We also explain how these messages are linked to a higher chance of a girl developing a sexual pain disorder. And we show how these messages contribute to girls blaming themselves when they are sexually assaulted.
This sounds like a heavy book, but it’s actually really freeing. You’ll see that Jesus never intended to blame girls for these things, and when we focus on Him, we find freedom. Check out the book here!
We also have The Great Sex Rescue Toolkit, which comes with multiple beautifully decorated downloads and handouts you can give to others to explain why certain teachings (like the modesty messages or the “all men struggle with lust” messages) do long-term harm. It includes lots of our stats and findings, along with suggestions of what to say that’s healthy.
If you’re trying to explain to a pastor, friend, sister, small group leader–anyone, really–why this stuff is toxic, this can be really help. And we’ve priced it as pay-what-you-can, so it’s as low as $3, or you can chip in more to support us.
Remember, you’re allowed to walk out of a sermon.
If you’re ever in a sermon and a pastor says something like this, we need to normalize standing up and walking out. This isn’t okay. And together, if we refuse to put up with it, or support churches like this anymore, we can change things!
What did you think of the clip? What stood out to you? Let’s talk in the comments!
Wow! Josh Howerton is good at flipping the blame on little girls. I wonder what he tells his own daughters about their clothing style? I’m hoping we can continue to fight back at misogynistic pastors and their influences. Thank you Sheila for all your work!
Wow, such a big, strong, virile man that he can take on SATAN but a child will ruin him.
There’s a word for that: pedophile.
I hope his wife gets herself and the kids out TODAY.
I want desperately to think he didn’t understand what he was saying. But I’m not naive enough to assume that’s true.
And if THIS is the OVERFLOW of his heart, what’s lurking deep down inside? 🤢 🤮 😱
With all due respect Mrs.Gregorio, the pastors comment is more accurately interpreted as the incidence of seeing girls in mini-skirts is the enemy, not that girls are the enemy.
The fact is that God made men to be visually stimulated by women.
Men are confronted every day, several times a day with seeing women barely dressed or seductively dressed.
If we go to the pool or the beach, we see women quite literally with their privates barely covered.
What makes incidences like these the enemy to men’s spiritual walk is it take a lot of energy, commitment and focus to keep from letting the visual stimulation turn into lust.
An anowlogy would be, how exhausting it is to have been on a diet for several weeks and be in the grocery store or your favorite restaurant and have to fight off the temptation to get your favorite food?
Not mentally giving into these temptation’s and not letting lust take over our thoughts takes a lot of effort because of the sheer quantity of exposure.
As far as the pastor, he could have, for the benefit of those of you who don’t quite realize how intense the struggle is for men to constantly keep the visual stimulation of you beautiful women from turning into lustful desires, he could have worded his statement to communicate, the “incidence” of girls in mini-skirts more clearly.
His only other comment was for men to turn away (run) from exposure to inappropriately dressed girls. That helps men to keep lust from getting ignited in the first place. This was the heart of his message.
The pastor did not say, little girls are evil and wearing mini-skirts is just one of the ways they are evil.
Visual stimulation from our wife in the appropriate place and time is the only stimulation God meant men to experience and enjoy. Men need all the help we can get to keep the constant exposure of visual stimulation of women from taking over our attention.
Can you please show me a Bible verse that says that God made men to be visually stimulated in a way that He did not make women?
Can you please show me a Bible verse where it says that it’s normal for men to lust after little girls?
Can you please show me a Bible verse that says that men struggling with lust should be a normal, lifelong part of the Christian life?
Can you please show me a study that says that women AREN’T visual?
Because I can show you Bible verses that all say the opposite, and scientific studies that say the opposite.
Wow… Blaming little girls is bad enough regardless of what age bracket he’s talking, but the thing with his son… 😱 If he honestly thought that was inappropriate, why did he choose a diaper pic? He did that intentionally and then sexualized a baby boy like an adult woman… for a joke. It has to have been a joke… Which says a lot about him and his sense of humor… Mostly that he’s a creep and a half. Uuugh! Pardon me, I need to shower now to get the creepy off. 😖
I want to challenge the basis of your whole arguement, that Jesus would never….
Can we agree that without the Old Testament Jesus is just some nut that got himself killed? Jesus Himself said that He came not to abolish the OT but to fulfill it. That He and the Father are on the same page and of the same heart?
Do you then deny that God the Father actually had many children killed? The flood, the cleansing of evil ways by those taking over the promised land as just two examples but there are more. So this is my question for Sheila and her team because it seems to be the basis of almost everything that we are not even referring to the same God or agree on the same scriptures- or rather those scriptures are infallible or we get to disregard the ones we don’t like (and I’ll admit my side does this also).
I’m defending this guy. I don’t know him or his teaching. But I do understand the spirit of girls and young women who go around in mini skirts and other such apparel. You’re going to tear me apart for that and I don’t care. My job is to protect my family and myself. And I understand his message to flee and have extreme caution. Am I going to lust after a young girl, no I am not. That doesn’t mean there isn’t danger there and to have great caution. I really have a hard time thinking you’re sincere in your arguments about Jesus seeing women when there was no such display by girls or women at the time who were covered head to toe. It honestly hard to take you as truthful when such an argument is made.
I’m fine with whatever you want to believe. But have you ever considered you just don’t like God and the Bible and remake them to suite your sensibilities and likes instead of remaking yourself to fit Gods? Who is god in that scenario. It is almost like reading you have disdain for the Lord and the Bible (and 100% for men) and want to remake all three so they are what you want. He’s the clay and you’re the potter. I just don’t get it. You want the church of Sheila go for it! It’s what you’re doing already. You better hope Jesus is who you think He is and not what the Bible says He is and has done.
Jesus is the Word, Nate. We interpret Scripture through the lens of Jesus. IF we want to know what the Father is like, or what He would do, we look to Jesus.
If things in the Old Testament don’t match up to Jesus, we choose Jesus. I highly recommend reading Pete Enns’ book The Bible Tells Me So, because it sounds like you have a difficult relationship with the Old Testament, where, if it disagrees with Jesus, you choose it. That’s not the right way to handle it. We are Christians. That means focused on Christ.
So just to be clear you don’t believe God killed all of humanity except Noah and his family because they were evil- including children? Not do you believe He directed the Jewish people to kill those around them including women and children because they were evil?
If only Jesus matters what do you do with the Jesus of Revelation where in red letters He speaks of very similar things and even worse than the above and even directs them?
What do you do with that Jesus?
Again, I’d point you to Pete Enns’ book The Bible Tells Me So. And again, I’d encourage you to read the gospels and get to know Jesus. We do not worship the Bible; we worship Jesus, and we interpret Scripture through the lens of Jesus, who is the Word.
You’re asking important questions. Is God genocidal? Does God delight in murdering people? These are hard questions that pop up when you read the Old Testament.
But that’s why it’s so important to focus on the purpose of Jesus coming. He came to show us who God really is–because people got it wrong.
So keep asking the questions. Jesus is big enough to handle them. But if ever your interpretation of Scripture doesn’t match up with Jesus–choose Jesus.
Nate, Sheila’s answer is a good one. I just wanted to point something else out.
You seem quite hyper-focused and OCDing about the judgements of God in the OT and apocalyptic ages. And I’m wondering if you are wanting to go back and live there. We don’t live in the OT or apocalyptic times. We live in the church age. A special time of mercy and grace. A time that Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and all the prophet yearned for. I’m glad I live in these times and do not want to go back to Egypt or the OT.
Also, in your hyper-focused obsession with God’s judgements, you seem to miss all the mercy that God showed. Things didn’t start off an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. When Cain killed Abel, God did not require his life in payment. He gave judgement but also protection. Things spiraled after that to the flood. Long story involving Lamech, Enoch, and Methuselah which we don’t have time or space for here.
You want to talk about Noah. What about Jonah? There is a lesson there for you on God’s mercy in your beloved OT*. God sent Jonah to Nineveh. You know the story about the whale. But apparently you have forgotten about what happened after that. Jonah preached to them that judgement was coming. They repented. And God showed mercy. And this made Jonah mad.
I think you are like Jonah. You get some kind of weird satisfaction out of seeing others under the judgements of God.
Remember that Tzekel-Kan, a character in “The Road to El Dorado”.?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaIlgOMjspo
He was self-righteous and judgmental, calling the people of El Dorado Snakes when the actual snake was himself. Josh reminds me of him, calling little girls “Shady” when he’s the shady one in this scenario. He is projecting his own sins on them. He is making them the scapegoats for the sins of men. And this is completely uncalled for and totally unjust.
And you with your “But I do understand the spirit of girls and young women who go around in mini skirts and other such apparel.”
And I’m here to say, NO YOU DON’T. You are projecting on them the sins of men. You are scapegoating women and children as well. And you are unjust in your assessments.
Are there Judgements on the OT and the apocalyptical times? Why yes. Yes there are. But you sure are glossing over the fact that there is a whole lot more mercy recorded than judgement. Easy to do, I suppose if you are like Jonah and TzeKel-Kan.
[*Note: I am a student of the OT myself and do actually love it. At first I avoided the OT prophets in particular because I didn’t want to read about how mad God was all the time. Now that I study the OT prophets, I have found that, overall, there is more of a spirit of Luke 13:34″Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her young under her wings, and you were unwilling!” spirit in it rather than a Jonah or Tzekel-Kan spirit.]
I think we can look at the OT prophets and get a pretty good picture of how mad God gets about people in power hurting others who have less power.
Oh, absolutely, Lisa.
Might have mentioned that except my comment was already ridiculously long.
And I was already trying to be concise and not make it look like an outline to my OT survey class.
As the Naked Pastor said in his cartoon (which I don’t know how to link at the moment, or I would), Jesus looks at all the religious people and says, “The difference between you guys and me is that you use scripture to define what love means, and I use love to define what scripture means.” I think most of us lean toward figuring out what scripture means through the lens of love rather than accepting all the less than loving interpretations that have been put forth over the years. Let’s face it, NONE of us has the final word, and there’s always more to learn.
“I really have a hard time thinking you’re sincere in your arguments about Jesus seeing women when there was no such display by girls or women at the time who were covered head to toe.”
Yes, and to men who lived at a time when they couldn’t see any female skin in public AT ALL, what did Jesus say?
“Guys, you get to tell the women to cover up even more”?
Nope. Jesus told men, who saw women who were fully covered, to pluck out their own eyes if they lusted after a woman. If women were fully covered up, then, pray tell, what was causing men to lust? Not the amount of skin showing.
No. The problem with men lusting was MEN LUSTING.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php/?story_fbid=981844093942159&id=100063497325684
Transcript for those who can’t see it, because it’s too important to not be shared:
“Was it really my fault?” asked the Short Skirt.
“No, it happened with me too,” replied the Burka.
The diaper in the corner couldn’t even speak.
—Darshan Mondkar
Maybe this Tracey Ullman classic will be helpful:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=51-hepLP8J4
Or the latest examples from “What Were You Wearing?”:
https://dovecenter.org/what-were-you-wearing-exhibit/
I also want to push back a little on the Jesus only looked at women covered head to toe. That statement has no basis in history. If you look at greek/roman chitons and other dress of the time, women’s arms were exposed and they weren’t always sewn all the way down to the bottom for ease of movement so a foot or bottom of the leg could potentially peek out. Also many of these covered looks had much more to do with dirt and sun protection than with sin-management, so it was likely that the concept of modesty wasn’t really at issue here. Most things we think about as for modesty sake were actually thing women were already wearing for other reasons that got call biblical modesty later. Women have been wearing headdresses for ages…to keep their hair clean, it is only way way later that people decided that you had to wear it that way because modesty. It is a misunderstanding of history to think that women wear what they do because men decided that is what they aught to wear.
Yep, I wasn’t thinking of Roman and Greek styles so much. Even so, is it wrong to assume there weren’t short shorts, yoga pants, cleavage, and bikinis? 😏🤔🤣
Who is remaking the Bible to fit their sensibilities?
Not Sheila.
But rather men like you and Josh Howerton.
You have made God after your own image and decided that Jesus is just as misogynistic as you.
So sad.
Nate, you say that you’re “fine” with “whatever (we) want to believe”. You also claim not to know JH or his teachings. And yet, you’re here. So you’re clearly not fine at all. If you were, you wouldn’t feel the need to defend a guy you say you don’t know, or make the argument that “you just don’t like God or the Bible” and “remake them to suit your sensibilities”, or “you have disdain for the Lord and the Bible and 100% for men.”. You obviously feel attacked. But why? This is about a pastor who has said some really questionable things about marriage, sex and women, and if he lived in the UK where I live, it would be in all the papers and on the News and he would lose his job. But why do *you* feel attacked? Just because you’re a guy, it doesn’t make you the same as him. Did you read the accompanying blog post? Can’t you understand why JH is a cause for concern? What has happened to you to make you wary of girls and young women who go around in miniskirts and ‘other such apparel’? How has their clothing hurt you?
You seem to be basing everything you know about God on what you’ve read in the Old Testament. You obviously don’t know who God is at all. I felt really angry and distressed when I first read your post, but now I feel very, very sorry for you. My kindly suggestion to you is to get to know who God really is on a personal level. Maybe once you do, you’ll be able to see girls and young women in miniskirts as actual people.
Nate, I don’t know if you will read this, but I wanted to respond to a few of your points (fair warning: it’s a long response):
God in the OT and NT: You’re right– God is the same in the OT and the NT. The same God who ordered the complete destruction of specific cities is the same God who told us not to murder. The Bible is full of seeming contradictions that must be taken on a case-by-case basis. So let’s look at what God has to say about children, since that’s the topic at hand. We know from reading the prophets and the Law that God has a soft spot for the vulnerable and the oppressed. Children without fathers (in particular) is one of several protected classes that God promises to step in on behalf of should people around them choose to take advantage. Jesus promises that death by drowning is a better end than what He will do to anyone who trips up children in their relationship with Him. Sexualizing minors from the pulpit and then blaming them for other people’s sin has potential to trip them up– I’m not saying Josh is necessarily in danger of being the object of God’s wrath in this (because I don’t know him like that), but I do know that it behooves us to discuss things relating to children with a healthy fear of the LORD. Their angels always see the face of the Father.
Understanding the Spirits of Women and Girls Wearing Mini-Skirts: You don’t actually know this because you’re not them. Yes, some wear mini-skirts to be attractive to boys *their own age.* Some wear mini-skirts because it’s popular and they think it looks cute. Some wear mini-skirts because they can’t find anything else in their size that’s not “old lady clothing.” Some wear mini-skirts because it fits the aesthetic they want to pull off on a given day. It depends on the girl. I can’t know an individual girl’s motivation, and unless you’ve been gifted in that moment with some Holy Spirit insight, neither can you. I can, however, guarrantee with 99% certainty that none of them wear mini-skirts with goal of being ogled by “old men” (read: anyone over the age of 25). (To clarify, 25 is still too old for a minor, but I remember middle school conversations with other girls, and the oldest person anyone ever had a crush on was 23-24ish, and we all thought she was weird for liking an old guy.)
Danger in Lusting After Young Girls: I’m glad you’re not in danger of that. People who lust after prepubescent bodies are actively working against God-created biology to do so. That’s actually a serious problem, and anyone who struggles with that should very quickly seek help from a licensed professional. Now, in the interest of giving Josh the benefit of the doubt, let’s assume that by “little girl,” Josh meant girls in middle school and high school. To be honest, here’s where my knowledge on biology is lacking– I don’t know if that’s biologically normal or not. What I can, however, say is three things: one about lust, one about fleeing temptation, and one about the age of these hypothetical girls. One: Lust is not a physical reaction, or an initial attraction to a person; lust is an act of the will. We can choose whether or not to undress people in our minds, fantasize about sex with them, masturbate to images of them, etc. It’s a choice. If it doesn’t feel like a choice, it’s likely (to the best of my knowledge) become an addiction and you need help. I highly recommend Jay Stringer’s book “Unwanted.” It’s the best book I’ve ever read about lust (and I’ve read quite a few). Two: The Bible says to flee sexual immorality, but we need to discuss practically what that looks like. Sheila has a few articles about what we should do to flee sexual immorality (if we want to be effective at it), and the snapshot version is: acknowledge the attraction, recognize the person in front of you as an image bearer of the Living God, and treat them as a person with respect. If you find yourself returning to thinking about that other person, run through a list of what you love about your spouse and how awesome they are, and that should fix it (and I’ll add my own advice: repent of any known sin, claim our rights in Jesus, and rebuke any demons that are trying to get their sticky fingers where they don’t belong). Three: I used to be a teacher, and in one of our last classes (to train us to become teachers), our professor sat us down and basically said, “Look, no one wants to talk about this, but keep in mind that once kids get to be 17 and 18, they start looking like adults. They’re not. But you might find yourself attracted to them, especially if you’re stressed and lonely. So spend time with friends, leave work at work, and guard against any attraction to juniors and seniors in high school– they’re still children.” The point I want to make from this is (in the tradition of Paul): not even the pagans think it’s normal to be attracted to children under the age of 17. Our professor didn’t warn us about being attracted to sophmores or freshman–and certainly nothing about middle schoolers–because it never crossed her mind that any normal adult would be attracted to *children.* And the main warning she gave about 17 and 18 year olds was “Hey, I know they look like adults, but they’re really still children.” Because she assumed that would be enough to keep people who don’t even have the Spirit sanctifying them from sexualizing minors.
Jesus and Immodest Women: Before we argue that Jesus never experienced sexual temptation, let’s remember that Hebrews 4 says Jesus was tempted in every way we were and still didn’t sin. Which means He had the opportunity to lust, and chose not to– He chose to see women as humans instead of objects. And let’s also remember that what is considered sexually provacative differs from culture to culture. In parts of the world, breasts are not considered sexually provacative, but heaven forbid women wear pants since that exposes the separation of the legs. In other parts of the world, shoulders have to be covered but knees and the lower thighs are no more sexually stimulating than hands or feet. During 1st century Palestine (like many Muslim countries today), hair was considered especially provacative. And how does Jesus behave when a woman not only *uncovers her hair* for all the religious men to see, but also *starts wiping His body with her hair*? The religious men freak out (which, to be honest, I understand– I probably would have too), and Jesus remains unperturbed. He rebukes the men who chastise her rather than the woman herself. Now I’m not saying that girls (and women) are wearing mini-skirts now as an act of love for Jesus (like the woman with her unbound hair was). However, to argue that Jesus never had the opportunity to lust after women or that Jesus never saw immodestly dressed women flatly contradicts Scripture.
I want to add just one final thing, related especially to what Josh himself had to say. There seems to be a misunderstanding of where temptation comes from. My understanding of James (and I’m not sure I fully understand what James is saying, so I could be wrong) is that temptation comes from within, namely, when our own evil desires entice us. Temptation isn’t found in the “shady little girl” in the parking lot– opportunity might be found there, but opportunity can be found anywhere. Temptation is actually found within. Temptation to lust is often found in our own desires to dehumanize others or take advantage of others for our own (often momentary) pleasure. It’s found in our entitlement and in the lies we tell ourselves about how “it’s not so bad” or “we deserve it because ___” or “they were asking for it.”
Also, the Scriptural command is not to flee the myriad of opportunities to lust, but to flee the action itself. The focus in Scripture is, once again, on the agency of the sinner himself (or herself), not on anyone else. Our sermons should reflect that by giving sinners actual tools and proper guidance rather shifting the blame from offender to victim. (And a lot of that should also remind us about Jesus’s sanctifying work and how ultimately *He* is the one who frees us from our own sin and sanctifies our desires to make them good instead of bad).
Very well said, SB!
I say this as a wife of a sex addict: if you need to protect yourself from girls – which I take to mean they are underage – you have a problem. I hope you can get help. My husband’s SAA group talks a lot about how not to objectify women but to see them as image-bearers of whatever Higher Power you believe in. Many girls who dress “provocatively” are sexual abuse survivors and don’t really understand any other way to be; I’ve worked with many of them in treatment programs. They are not your enemy, I can assure you. The scourges of sexual addiction and sexual abuse are your enemy, just as they are mine.❤️
Well said! I wish people realized that when young girls dress “provocatively”, there’s usually a reason. We should show curiosity and care, not condemnation.
Massive creep alert! At this point, I don’t know why more of his congregation aren’t questioning his ability to be a pastor (unless they are all similar to him, which would be a massive yuck!). Every other ick thing aside, he does realize that there are many scenarios everyday where a man *can’t* run away from their temptation, right? What does he expect men to do then? I don’t know how females of any age could feel safe in his church. This is the kind of thing that makes girls and women dislike their bodies and being female in general. Even I’m not really fond of my small bosom because I know it can draw unwanted attention (and makes choosing clothes more complicated), and I’ve *never sat under a church like this*. How much worse will the women in his church feel listening to drivel like *this*?
Also seriously, would this sermon count enough to have his hard drives searched by police?
It is a serious creep alert!
Ok, so he’s covering up his son’s nipples but that little boy’s belly buttom is still exposed… oh wait, it’s just little girl’s belly buttons that are intoxicating, right? (I’m curious what does JH do in a locker room of men if he is afraid of his infant son’s nipples?) It’s so hard to keep up with the changing blame game! It’s like Who’s Line Is It Anyway- “Where the points don’t matter [but it’s always the woman’s fault!]”
Some things are so dispicably atrocious I can only use sarcasm to keep myself in check from worse. But I guess at least thanks to these guys for advertising their sick perversions? I honestly rarely ever play the clips anymore- simply hearing the voices of these “men” is nauseating to me. Seeing their smugness on mute is more than enough disgust for me.
If anyone is going to accuse another of being “the enemy,” I think that Elwing SBC “pastor” is a great place to start, not innocent little girls just trying to dress cute and fun.
Amen, Nessie!
Josh Howerton must not like Shoujo manga.
Man, that brings back memories! I loved shoujo stuff in middle school (still do!) especially mahou shoujo (things like Sailor Moon).
My dad was always bothered by how short their skirts were, and very much made it a point to point out the percieved immodesty. But now that I think about it, there was nothing sexual there, was there? It was just the artist’s style, she liked drawing girls with disproportionately long legs. zi bet josh howerton would have an aneurysm if he saw the sailor scouts!
And come to think of it, here’s an example of how young girls may dress “immodesty” with perfectly fine intentions:
One day in middle school I found the CUTEST shirt online that had all these pretty ribbons going down the front and back. I don’t even remember how much it covered, but it seemed reasonable to me, and it looked SO anime to me (and I was a huge weeb). I asked my dad if I could buy it, and he said something like “do you want to look like a little ho?”
So disheartening! I didn’t want to make anyone sin, so I just kept wearing my baggy pants and t-shirts. Thankfully, these days I wear what I like without worry, because I never intend to make strangers lust after me. That’s their problem!
I might have to do a magical girl cosplay one of these days, just for my inner child who wanted those ribbons!
If you (man or woman) are attracted to little kids (boys or girls) (Sheila says under 8, maybe I’ll say a “little kid” is anything under 12, but that’s just nitpicking), it’s not the child’s fault and the child isn’t a bad person. Your desires are internal to you.
Three other comments
>> I don’t go looking for these.
Sadly, you don’t need to do a “hard target search” to find quotes like these. They’re all over. In fact, you would have to work NOT to find them.
>> you just don’t like God and the Bible
Howerton, etc. are the ones going off-book as far as the bible goes.
>> disdain for the Lord and the Bible (and 100% for men)
This has come up here before. I have never seen any hatred for men or the Bible on this site EVER.
On this website, this is what I HAVE seen hatred of…
1. The false presentations of God/Jesus by others claiming to speak for them.
2. Blaming women for the sins of men.
3. Misquoting/Misinterpreting the bible, either through bad translations, cherry picking or just making stuff up
There are other things but I’ll stop there for now.
Okay, not stopping.
>> You better hope Jesus is who you think He is
Most of us on this site think that God/Jesus are loving beings who love all people equally, believe that all people have equal worth and dignity, believe that we are each responsible for our own actions and sins, and believe that abusing and hurting others is wrong. This is a short list, but you get the idea.
I’ll take that any day of the week as opposed to a philosophy that says that a six year old girl is a threat to an adult man.
I don’t recall Jesus ever saying anything like “If a woman forces you to lust, make her put on more clothing”.
Thank you, Nathan! Excellent responses and rebuttal! We women so appreciate men who are courageous and wise enough to stand up to other men who are still steeped in purity culture and victim-blaming. Thank you, thank you!
I volunteer at an elementary school and spend lots of time with “little girls.” The girls Josh Howerton is talking about likely still have remnants of their toddler bellies and are closer developmentally to toddlers than teenagers. They believe in the tooth fairy and quite possibly Santa Clause and think chapstick counts as makeup. They still play with dolls and sometimes coloring books.
Is Josh Howerton telling on himself?
‘Shady little girl in a mini skirt” doesn’t imply a child to me, though it’s definitely not a phrase I’d use myself. Using “girls” to refer to adult women is pretty common in most variants of English I’ve come across, e.g. in phrases like “girls’ night out”. It’s not necessarily condescending, though JH’s use of it definitely struck me that way. Would be interesting to hear from a Texan how the phrase he used sounds in local dialect.
I disagree with his basic point, which as you say seems to conflate a female existing with a man sinning against her sexually, and even setting that aside he should have been much more careful with his words. But unless there’s something else in the wider context I’m missing (only watched the brief clip) I don’t think the implication that he’s talking about temptation to paedophilia is fair or helpful. I certainly hope I’m right about that! And I worry that the focus on that might distract from the fact that what he says is pretty messed up regardless.
Given that the passage he’s talking about (actually in 1 Corinthians 6 fwiw) relates to prostitution, I think the most charitable interpretation is that that’s the scenario he has in mind. Even if I’m right, (and even giving him benefit of the doubt for the obvious hyperbole), the way he talks about that hypothetical woman is still dehumanizing and deeply concerning.
There’s a difference between saying “girl” and “little girl” though, Tim. That’s what I’m hung up on.
Thanks Sheila. At best, it’s a weird choice of words (even considering JoB’s helpful comments below). It’s a key part of his job to communicate clearly and the fact we’re having this conversation means he hasn’t managed that. But unless there are other similar comments I haven’t heard, I don’t think the most likely interpretation is that he was referring to a child.
Again, even if I’m right that he’s referring to a (probably young) adult sex worker I think he’s way out of line – we’re just discerning shades of messed-up-ness here.
Not to mention that the habit of calling grown women “girls” really needs to be changed… It definitely seems belittling.
I’m inclined to agree with Tim’s take on the phrasing… I wouldn’t even call it a regionalism but more like jargon you’re likely to hear from “country” people, and from people who don’t seriously talk that way but are such performers that they think they are being funny. It’s hard to describe. I wasn’t raised in that milieu, but we attended a Baptist church in Missouri when we got married where I heard that talk a lot. I distinctly remember the guy who was really into street evangelism getting up and talking about situations where he had inflicted the gospel on unsuspecting listeners, and he said he had shared with “a little black girl at the furniture store,” which from context was obvious that she was a (probably younger) woman and a salesperson (so she was obligated to listen to him 🙄). Why he needed to tell us her race, I had and still have no idea. It’s a fairly meaningless qualifier, but if forced to, I’d say it refers generally to someone young, or small in size/stature, or just smaller/younger than the speaker. I’ve heard “little girl,” “little gal”, “ little lady” and “little fella” used to refer frequently to adults, although out of context you might definitely think it was referring to children. Using words like “shady” also makes me think the speaker thinks he’s being funny and folksy. I call it Baptist-Pastor speak. It’s kind of like getting sucked into corporate jargon or the like. I think they think they’re really funny and entertaining when they talk this way; I thought it sounded stupid, which is just my opinion. FWIW.
I think it’s along the lines of “little old”, invariably pronounced <> “She reaches into her purse and pulls out this li’l ol’ gun”… the gun was probably the same size as most guns, and not visibly older. It’s kind of an inexplicable qualifier that seems to be intended for somewhat comic or folksy effect.
All that to say, I strongly disagree with what this guy is saying and hope the discussion of language doesn’t come across as defending him.
but he called her “a shady little girl in a church parking lot.” that means a Sunday school kid on her way into church–not a sex worker in a red light district.
Well, his other scenario was a physical manifestation of Satan in the church parking lot. I don’t know if the location is much of a clue in context.
Again, what he said is concerning either way (though one is obviously worse than the other), and at best he’s carelessly left himself open to the worst possible interpretation.
(Admittedly from the clip it sounds like he was riffing and the words were probably off the cuff, but if he cared he could post a clarification/apology on his SM/the church website, which I assume someone would have mentioned by now if he had).
Hi, Tim! Texan here, born and raised and still in the Lone Star State. If someone referred to me, an adult woman, as a “little girl” I’d be mighty peeved. Referring to “girls” as a group of females in a social setting, sure, but the addition of the world “little” would either be interpreted as demeaning and devaluing or as a reference to young female children. I don’t see that phrase being used for teens, either. I see the use of “little girl” as either truly a reference to a young child… or misogyny.
Yep.
Thanks Rebecca
Ok, I hesitate to say this because I am in absolutely NO WAY endorsing or supporting this speaker. His topic is way off base, but I hope in fairness we can have an open discussion simply about speech. As an older southern lady, it is not uncommon for me or my friends to say “little girl” when referring to young women 30-40 years younger than ourselves. It is not derogatory in the least (no different than them calling us old gals), but just meant as a colloquial endearment or descriptive amongst ourselves when identifying whomever we are speaking of, like, “Did you see that cute little blonde girl’s boots? They’re adorable. I want a pair!” That’s just old fashion southern-speak in my region. Again, not defending anyone, not being age-ist, racist or even politically incorrect. Just being real and throwing in some personal context. But not defending this man either.
I’m not sure it’s better, though, to say that a pastor just calls adult women “little girls” regularly? That reveals so much about what he thinks of adult women.
Tim, you said you’d like to hear “from a Texan how the phrase he used sounds in local dialect.” I’ve spent my whole life in Texas, and while I’ve heard a lot of different dialects here (Texas is big!), everything from backwoods redneck, to cowboy drawl, to cultured grammatically-correct formal speech, I have never heard the expression “little girl” refer to anything other than a little girl, meaning a minor, no older than mid-teens, but usually younger.
While it is true that “girls” can refer to adult women, and doesn’t necessarily mean anything disrespectful (such as “girls’ night out”), it is also true that the term is usually confined to certain expressions, such as “girls’ night out.” It’s easier to say than “women’s night out” or “females’ night out,” and both “women’s night out” and “moms’ night out” might not apply to every such situation. That expression is more of a catch-all phrase for any outing, particularly in the evening, when some combination of 2 or more females – women, young girls, teens, married, unmarried, middle aged, elderly, young adults, friends, mothers and daughters, aunts and nieces, etc., – go off to have a good time together, no guys allowed, and preferably no very small children to watch! The only times the term “little girl” was ever applied to me after I turned 12 was when it was still used by my dad as a term of belittlement, to put me down, to shame me, to remind me of my subordinate place, when I would speak up about or offer resistance to uncomfortable truths about our home. I’ve heard “girls” applied to adult women, but I think it’s fair to assume that “little girls” actually means girls who are still little, probably under 8, like Sheila said, but certainly under mid-teens. That word “little” makes all the difference.
Thanks for responding Hope! Just saw this. Rebecca made a similar comment above, and then ‘Mom’ said basically the opposite. So not sure to think, other than that using the phrase ‘little girl’ in that context was at best very unwise, and that the original comment from JH is off track regardless of how you interpret that one phrase in it.
To be clear–that Rebecca was not my Rebecca!
The idea that a woman in a skirt let alone a girl in a skirt must be a threat is absurd.
I don’t see how this is anything but victim blaming.
By the way to get a further example of how absurd that is imagine thst a little girl is dressed up as Sailor Moon. She might be doing it because she likes dressing up and she might like the character but I would feel it would be both incredibly presumptuous if not outright malicious to apply bad intent if you have nothing to back it up Considering we are talking about childreni find that very unlikely..
One of the things that’s concerning about this man is that he’s really engaging. While I think his argument was upsetting and not biblical at all, it SOUNDS convincing. If he just stated what he was arguing in a normal sort of way it would likely be even more off-putting. But when he comes at it from a powerful analogy like he does it makes it sound true if you’re not careful to hear what he’s actually saying. Also, with having had major pushback about things he’s said about sex from the pulpit it says something about his character that he’s continuing to say inappropriate things like this. We all say something inappropriate from time to time, but if that’s pointed out to us we should apologize (with our own words…) and then be more careful when we speak on those things. I don’t get that vibe from him.
I checked the video clip about J.H. and his baby boy, and I must say I felt very uncomfortable about it. The video clip itself was bizarre, of course. Whatever his intentions were, it was not good.
But I also felt uncomfortable about sharing this questionable incident on YouTube, again and again. Would it not be better to take it down? I mean, when J.H. or E.E. or someone else of these guys says something stupid or evil, I believe it is OK and even useful to capture it, make a video clip of it, and share it. Those guys should be held accountable in public for what they are doing or saying, which they also have done in public.
I believe, however, that the incidents we share should not involve innocent bystanders like family members, and certainly not children, who have no saying on the matter. It is already too bad that J.H. put a picture of his baby boy on public display. We should not repeat that by making it into a video clip and spreading it further, even though our motives are good.
It was a kind act to cover up his face, but I’m afraid it’s not enough. People will still know it was the son of J.H. and I’m afraid he will hear about it when he’ll grow up.
Dear Sheila, please, to prevent further damage and embarrassment to the child, take the video clip down. I so appreciate your work, but I believe this was a mistake.
I think if I lived near this church I’d get a bunch of my girlfriends together and go stroll through the parking lot on Sunday morning. In our favorite mini skirts, short shorts and yoga pants. Heck, maybe even belly shirts. See how many guys scatter like roaches.
“like roaches.” ROFL!
I just wish Josh Howerton would quietly remove himself from the public domain. He has had so many valid call-outs for various issues that he has no business maintaining his platform at this point. He is arrogant and enjoys far too much having himself in the spotlight. What a revolting representation of what Jesus asks of us.
I wished that for decades concerning Mark Driscoll.
The can’t do it.
It is way past time to call a spade a spade. Pastors, such as have been shared by name and/or falling from the pulpits – sermonizing and/or perpetuating these messages about young boys, young girls, and teenage girls – are behaving, and exampling pedophilia. Desensitizing and normalizing these behaviors is akin to the purposeful broad definition of sexual abuse and sexual assault where even stating words can be sexual abuse. ANY person in authority over children is a mandated court reporter, PASTORS. ANY persons in a church membership are passive court reporters, CHURCH MEMBERS. And to my point, CHURCH MEMBERS of these churches being called out for this egregious sermonizing and normalizing of the sexualization of CHILDREN, shame on you for not standing up for the innocent (Matthew 18:6). You are not only being led to the slaughter by a wolf in sheep’s clothing but you are being fitted for a millstone. THESE. ARE. CHILDREN. who trusts in YOU, the gatekeepers. Mothers of these pastors and churches, wake the heck up – trust the niggling at your neck or the pull on your conscience. Do the work yourself and start by learning your state’s law on sexual assault and/or sexual abuse of minors; know your state’s BROAD definitions of these terms and why they are BROAD; know who qualifies as a mandated court report; and, by all means know your rights as there are immunities against civil/criminal charges for reporting. It cannot be said enough – THESE ARE CHILDREN.
Well said.
Isn’t Howerton dehumanizing the little girl as well? In war the way soldiers cope and often cause atrocities is because they have dehumanized the enemy in their mind therefore, they are no longer harming someone made in the image of God rather a grotesque monster. I have to wonder if he has even read the lengthy report of the SBC sexual abuse. Or he is acting tribally and no amount of sexual misconduct against the SBC would ever be enough for him to become concerned. Howerton strikes me as incredibly arrogant, his fall is coming I just hope a lot of people don’t go with him.
Unfortunately, we already know where this leads. Little girls being subject to violence at the hands of men who dare to describe themselves as “healthy”, for failing to be invisible. Your post immediately triggered memories for me of Naama Margolese – a 7 yr old girl who made the news in Israel after she was cursed and spat on while walking to school. Even though Naama herself was religious and dressed in sleeves covering her elbows and skirt covering her knees, the fanatics didn’t think this was enough and thought it was okay to harass her and call her a wh0re. Religiously, I don’t think the real difference is between religions, but between those who would defend children and those who think it is okay to do this to girls.
I agree with you. Fundamentalist “Christians” have far more in common with fundamentalist muslims than they do with Jesus. Fundamentalists tend to focus on having power over others, and marginalizing a group of people, usually women (and others who don’t agree with their religion, but especially women). And so there really isn’t much difference, because the “religion” is just the dressing they put on their misogyny.
Male 34 and I don’t understand how people can deny what the words little girl means. In no way did I think it meant 18+ women. Why is it seen to be ok to sexually objectify girls and women? We are to treat women our own age as sisters and older women as mothers. Calling our young sisters in Christ the enemy is just what satan wants to disrupt the body of Christ. This is an attack from the enemy 100%. As a man its my responsibility to control my thoughts and heart not to lust after women, but for someone to say this about young girls is dangerous and unacceptable. I will not judge someone for the clothes they wear, that is up to them and Jesus. We need to stand up for our sisters in Christ and defend them from the real enemy the devil.
I pray in the name of Jesus that hearts are opened and that the body of Christ stops attacking itself and hurting our sisters in Christ. Amen
Thank you so much, Steven.
I’m a female. So I get it… women should be able to wear feminine clothes. Modestly feminine. Modesty is a virtue. Women wearing black “athletic” baboon butt, pants and shorts with butt cheeks hanging out, miniskirts that barely cover their crotch, are also my “enemy” it can be upsetting to see. I pray for every woman I see half naked out in public. I feel bad that may have dressed like that in my younger teen years. I’m glad I grew up conservatively and my mom never put me in tight revealing clothes as a child. I live in the south where people worship Dolly Parton the self mutilation self obsessed idol. I’ve had enough. Women and young girls don’t need to be half naked or show off every crevice to be feminine they don’t need to mutilate their bodies with implants and Botox to be feminine. This world exploits men and women sexually. Church should be the place where THE WORLD has no foothold to exploit us in this way. Everyone is way too worldly.
Do you think Jesus would have called those women the enemy?
Have you ever thought about WHY women might want to wear clothes like that? Have you ever thought of the trauma that many young girls have gone through, where they find the only way to get people to like them is to use sex (because they were abused)?
Do you think Jesus would have despised them, as you have, or do you think He would have shown them they were worthy of love in other ways?
New marketing strategy for Every Man’s Battle: it’s just a mirror with Matthew 16:24 inscribed on it.
Also, there were definitely “sinful women” in Jesus’s day and when they were coming to him to wipe his feet with tears, he didn’t shew them away or run (though the religious leaders tried). He told women who came to Him to, “Sin no more”, but He didn’t call them the enemy. He called the enemy the enemy.
There are too many comments for me to read so if this was already said I apologize.
I see your points and you could be absolutely right. I agree they are concerning. I am not sure you narrowed in on the correct issue though. I think you should have stayed on point one with Lust and gone from there with sub points. I would be shocked, although you could be right though, that he had points and 2 and 3 in mind. Instead I think he is trying not to get into lust bc he does not fully understand it himself and probably does not want to talk about this topic for whatever reason.
Here is what I think he is saying. For the sake of my point I am ignore the age argument that I see people have mentioned. I think he is saying if you see a female in an outfit that brings up arousal, you will then click on an ad on your phone or computer that leads to soft porn or actual porn. From there that leads back to or starts an addiction and as the stats will say that is a losing battle for men.
What is sad to me is he clearly does not have a stable understanding of arousal and beauty. I would recommend Sam Jolman’s new book. I think this is where you should have gone with your post. Personally your 2nd and 3rd points seemed more like click bate and extreme scenarios. I don’t think most men would get to points 2 and 3 in their head. I could be wrong, but for the majority of men I think point 1 and dealing with lust and a misunderstanding of arousal and beauty seems more logical. I just think you missed an opportunity to get at the struggle most men misunderstand and went for the extreme bc you can’t stand this guy. You have valid reasons not to like this guy and I fully agree with them and don’t like these type of pastors either. But you could have turned this post into something beautiful and instead it came across how much you just can’t stand this guy instead of correcting a serious issue.
Disliking a PASTOR who is convinced that eight-year-old girls are a danger to full-grown men is the LEAST severe response that Josh Howerton deserves.
I guess I just struggle any pastor would mean that young. If I am wrong and he did, that is very sick and I would agree with this whole post. Could be wrong and he did mean that age.
In a different context (narcissistic parents) recently, a friend shared that most people raised in the range of “normal” would not be able to imagine the thought processes a narcissist goes through and implements, nor grasp how evil and manipulative they can be.
Similarly, I think most “normal” guys, who perhaps have struggled with lust but don’t go down that path much further, cannot fathom people heading to Sheila’s points 2 and 3, much less the young age. It probably speaks well of you that you can’t really imagine those directions and so you give the benefit of the doubt- but that doesn’t mean many of us in the “church” aren’t in very real danger of sexual assault/abuse.
I, and many women, were told that we were too critical, we were in sin for assuming the “worst” of people, that the devil was using us to sow discord and to stir up trouble in the body of “Christ,” etc. … and us taking those words to heart and trying to live by them led to our abuse in varying ways. It also led some to give up on God and Jesus. So it is something we do not let slide now because we don’t want others to go down the paths we have had to travel.
I hope that makes sense.
That’s a really good explanation, Nessie!
“he is trying not to get into lust bc he does not fully understand it himself and probably does not want to talk about this topic”
Then he could have chosen another sermon topic. He could have found one online that does a better job of explaining his points (as he has no qualms with plagiarizing and has done so before.)
“if you see a female in an outfit that brings up arousal, you will then click on an ad on your phone or computer that leads to soft porn or actual porn. From there that leads back to or starts an addiction and as the stats will say that is a losing battle for men.”
If that is what j.h. meant, then he could have said that. He could have helped men see some specific, destructive paths they might be going down so they could find a way out. He could have asked for help finding the right words from the church’s extensive staff. Instead he phrased it in such a way that he places blame on the female by using “shady.”
“your 2nd and 3rd points seemed more like click bate and extreme scenarios.”
-If she was trying for click bait, she could have used these as titles or in other more prominent ways.
-She presented these as possibilities, not probabilities. The sad thing is that there are men in the church who DO ACTUALLY DO THESE EXTREME THINGS! Not a large percentage, but they do exist. When j.h. has couched his argument as the female being the devil, why should any female feel safe in that church? He has just set up the baseline of which, if an extreme situation does happen, she is the sinner because he claimed her to be the devil. How can anyone see the devil as the victim of a crime??
“…you could have turned this post into something beautiful,”
I think you truly do not yet understand just how dangerous this line of thinking people like j.h. have is to some of us out here. If you had ever been raped- like some of us have been- I *highly* doubt your thoughts would have ever considered this post to be something “beautiful.”
BTW, she already did several posts with Sam Jolman, including a podcast a few months back. So she HAS actually covered that direction for this topic. But she also sees the extreme damage these types of phrases and sermons have on many of us, and I believe she, like most of us, is ready for the abuse to STOP!
Sorry, this was meant as a reply to Joshua, above my comment.
I would like to apologize if you think I am saying there are people out there hearing this message and not doing horrible things. You are correct, there are horrible things happening to women and when his message or anyone’s message like this is heard that way, it is horrible. I am sorry if I disregarding that. That was not my attention for that I am sorry.