Promise Keepers Washington Rally

It is perhaps the most disastrous public relations blunder by Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority and Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women in criticizing the Promise Keepers revival, in comments on cable TV. The visuals don’t lie; millions of men collectively trying to improve their morals and selves trump the radical feminists’ protestations (“Christian Men Hold Huge Rally on D.C. Mall,” Oct. 5).

The radical feminists have lost the image contest badly. The angriest of them are lesbians and hold positions of control over the movement. How can the 2%-3% lesbian population kid themselves that they speak for the 98% rest of America’s womanhood?

Thank God that men are being held to be responsible, not oppressive, as our feminist sisters would have us believe.

LELAND P. HAMMERSCHMITT

Ojai

How can you pretend to support responsible journalism when you fill pages about the Promise Keepers march in Washington with only one little tiny paragraph about their very troubling attitude toward women? If you want to mention that they have “come under fire from some feminist groups,” why not include the fact that they call their female counterparts “Promise Reapers”?

I wish these men would do themselves a favor and grow up without having to stand on the back of some woman. We would all reap the benefit of a promise to uphold gender as well as racial equality, don’t you think?

REGINA SADONO

Sylmar

The pictures and news coming across the television screen of men sobbing and holding on to each other in some form of spiritual renewal at the Promise Keepers gathering reminded me so much of the behavior of the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran. Then, of course, I remembered that fundamentalism is the same wherever it is, only the group changes.

But for Christians to behave in this manner goes totally against the teachings of Jesus who said, “When thou pray, go into the closet and pray quietly.” Now, where is it written to gather together and appeal to every hysterical emotion?

VICTOR GENTILE

Beverly Hills

Re Karen Grigsby Bates’ Oct. 3 column on the Promise Keepers: I can’t understand why the aims of Promise Keepers are not universally applauded. Instead, power-oriented feminists can’t seem to realize that the fundamental premise of the movement is repentance before God for past failures, and commitment to improve as fathers and husbands.

Evidently Bates and others think this is a subterfuge. But what Promise Keepers are urging on men is unselfish love for their wives and children, not an agenda for controlling power. Men are urged to say, “We have failed to take spiritual leadership, and we will do better.” And what does that mean? Bates completely misunderstands the biblical basis of this when she shows alarm at the idea of women “submitting” to their husbands. She should read Ephesians 5:21-33, preferably not in the King James version. Paul asks both partners in a marriage to think of the other first.

Men are asked to take spiritual leadership in repentance and recommitment to the ideals of Christian marriage. How can anyone object to that?

PASTOR ED BUSCH

Solheim Lutheran Home

Los Angeles

Re Bates’ commentary: I find it very curious that the “feminist” opponents of the Promise Keepers never speak with the wives of these men. The reason for this is because the response they would receive would not fit their agenda. As a wife of a Promise Keeper, I can testify that after attending a conference my husband comes home a more loving, caring and serving husband, not a dictator as they describe.

KELLY K. GOOD

Chino Hills