Tickle for Tuesday!

This is a quick 25 second video, but make sure you to keep your eyes BEHIND the men that are flying the plane!

People that redefine abuse for motive

Look out for teachers that redefine words and concepts!

It seems we need to find a way to separately define common abuse (a general failure to love as we ought) and damaging abuse (serious, habitual harm to another person).

For instance, if a man neglects or speaks unkindly to his wife (and this goes both ways) he has in fact abused her. She was given to him to love and cherish; yet, he has failed to love her as he loves himself. And in a husband’s case, he has also failed to love her as Christ loved the church. He has sinned. He should repent and win back his wife’s trust.

Still, most of us would not view him as an “abuser.” We can’t go around labeling every person who sins against others an “abuser,” unless we’re willing to claim that label for ourselves as well (Romans 2:1-3).

The first paragraph assumes that most of the world doesn’t recognize a ‘pattern of behavior’ when speaking about abusive behavior.

The author herself as taken it upon herself to 'redefine' the word, and then use it.  She pointed to an definition from an old dictionary, but ignored what they stated about 'pattern of behavior'.  As of today we have a NEW definition of abuse that involved no pattern of behavior according to the author.

The author's second description more fits the 'global' meaning.  The first definition is her own personal one to show how she and others misuse the one referenced in the dictionary.

Abuse has been, and chances are always WILL BE a 'habitual' or 'pattern' of harm to another.

In her example, she is attempting to show an individual that may have sinned against their spouse one day by being unkind.  I think we can all agree that is indeed sinning against another by failure to love as we ought.

Stating this makes you an abuser is a personal definition, and one that is not applicable to the one referenced in her own dictionary.

Rather than stretch the meaning of abuse (which has been redefined into oblivion) to include anything that offends our sensibilities, and instead of labeling anyone an “abuse” who gets in the way of what we want to do, let’s examine legitimate ways people harm one another, and discuss when and if the church or civil authorities must get involved.

The author once again has 'redefined' the word abuse to include now a third definition.

It went from: a general failure to love as we ought to now 'anything that offends our sensibilities'.

In other words, the author is saying labeling everything you don't care for as abuse.

Its strange how the author speaks on how others 'redefine' the concept of abuse, and then turns around does it herself.  Then to make sure the point is made, she redefines it yet AGAIN to another definition to use against others.  Notice the 'selfish' slant she attempts to spin with her final definition.

WELL to be fair she is adding to her own definition of abuse with the slant to show how the world gets it wrong.   She basically loaded up her own definition, and slanted it show how others misuse it for their own selfish motives.  Don't know how that is possible since it was recently just invented.

Its quite amazing how others will divert in such ways in order to NOT deal with the correct concept isn't it?

This leap is not uncommon sadly.

The author wishes her audience to realize we are ALL abusers!

We have a bit of a dilemma. Webster’s “maltreatment” definition may simply describe the way we all regularly sin against one another. Jesus tells us in Matthew 22:37-40 that all the commandments are summed up in the two commands: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind,” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

So, maltreatment (or abuse) could be described as failing to properly love one another. Of course, that means, to varying degrees, we all abuse one another, since we all fail to perfectly love. Defined this way, each of us has been abused, and each of are abusers. “Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:10)

Yikes!  You notice the setup for the shaming?  "No one is perfect, so we all are abusers?"

But, again this shamefully detracts from the seriousness of true abuse—the scary kind—the kind you read about in the news. It also minimizes other forms of real abuse that may not leave visible marks. Obviously, there are varying degrees of harm people inflict upon one another, and sometimes the extremes create crisis.

Now that she has shamed everyone SHE will educate us on the 'real' forms of abuse.  The poor author just doesn't seem to get it does she?

There are other ways man harms man—actions that are rightly called abusive: physical or sexual assault, spiritual exploitation (cults), harmful neglect of the helpless under our care, and cruelty to the elderly or infirm. More extreme situations call for more drastic measures, and some situations necessitate the involvement of civil authorities.

Can anyone recognize the 'habitual' pattern of behaviors in the above paragraph?  There are additional concepts of course that fall into her above description.

The author then generates four different types of abuse in which she has come up with, but do not line up with dictionaries.  At this point you need to wonder WHY she would do this.  What is the motive?  She will give you hints when she redefines the concepts for you.  Lets take a look her catagories:

Type A: A general failure to love as we ought, which is not habitual and which occurs within the context of an overall healthy relationship. This, at the very least, includes every one of us. (In other words, we are all abusers.  Which of course is not what the dictionaries say.)

Type B: A habitual and ongoing failure to love as we ought that escalates to the point of damaging the physical or emotional health of those around us. (Getting closer she mentions 'pattern')

Type C: This type of abuse includes physical or sexual assault, or serious wrongful neglect. (Hmm.  Must be the 'real' abuse she mentions prior.)

Type D: This type of abuse is sometimes (ironically) abused. It describes the behavior of groups which are marked by false teachings or a false teacher—a cult. Unfortunately, there are those who use the loaded term spiritual abuse to label true brothers and sisters in the faith with whom they disagree. (Can we say not even close the definition of spiritual abuse?)

When people attempt to 'redefine' concepts like abuse?  When they can't even stick to the dictionary definitions, but go way beyond that?  When they try to tell you most people will claim 'abuse' when they don't like something?  You need to start sniffing out motive on their part.

When I look to the list above with the types of abuse?  Since Type A and Type D are completely incorrect, and off the charts?  Chances are good the motive as they continue will focus on these.

It will also show how their sensibilities were offended by something, and they have decided they must redefine some concepts to show how either something is or isn't abusive.  Since they have loaded the true definitions we need to keep that in mind as they continue to 'teach'.

Since New Oxford American Dictionary hasn't announced they have revised new definitions for words like they did for Palin with repudiate?  All we can do is wait and see if they will accept the new definitions, until then sadly we will have assume motive.

Deceitful Practice of Educating on Abuse

I have noticed in some circumstances in which people speak about abuse they tend to ‘generalize’ it, or even try to incorporate everything they see sinful into the definition. 

You might ask WHY they would do this, and I have begun to see a pattern. 

They do this so they don’t have to deal with what they seem to see as more ‘minor’ offenses to them.  

They twist the definition to show that ‘everyone’ is guilty.  That way it can be addressed in a more general manner, and dealt with as such as well.   

HOW everyone can be sinful at one time or another, and downright hinting how everyone can be abusive.

The strange part of that is then they generally go into HOW the word abuse is over used.  What do they think they just did themselves?

Pattern of Behavior

What they seem to not deal with is the part of the definition that speaks of ‘pattern’.  There is a pattern of behavior.  

They take an individual that may have done something ugly one day.  I think we all can agree that being ugly isn’t acceptable either.  The problem with their example is they aren’t using the pattern that is incorporated within the definition. They label the ‘ugly’ abuse instead of what it is, and enforce the idea that everyone can be ugly at times.

At this point they will attempt ‘blur’ the line of what a pattern is.  If we take a person that has an addiction to drugs or alcohol that seems to be something they can comprehend when see their patterns of behavior.

When you attempt to show the same principal in other areas?  They mysteriously appear as if they can’t grasp the connection. 

I view this as a convenience more than ignorance.  It reminds me of a game my mother would play when she didn’t want to admit she was wrong.  I called it the ‘Southern Belle Act’.  They claim they don’t understand, but you know they do. If you can see the pattern of behavior in an addict then you know what people are talking about.  They play like they don't realize it is the same.

My mother is a very intelligent person, but when she didn’t wish to deal with something she will act as if she didn’t grasp something.  I’m not slamming my Mother, because once the issue is pushed she would admit what she was doing.  We all have our quirks don’t we?

Sadly, the parties that are trying to ‘redefine’ the concept of abuse aren’t so fore coming.  They will take examples of people that misuse the word abuse to their advantage in their presentation of how the world seems ‘confused’ as to what it means.

Lets look at a good example of this:

However, sometimes, when people use the word abuse, they mean other things. Today, the word abuse is used to describe everything from violence, rape, molestation, and verbal cruelty to any form of corporal punishment, hurting someone’s feelings, offending the religious views of another, or even “grounding” a child from something he wants to do. In society’s effort to extend the definition of abuse, the word has nearly lost its meaning.

It hasn’t lost it’s meaning at all. 

You notice that the author didn’t bring in the ‘pattern’ part of the definition?  It shows their start of the ‘Southern Belle Act’.  Unfortunately, the author will attempt show most of society are guilty parties playing the Southern Belle Act.

The first portion of her statement are seen as legitimate forms of abuse, and the last segment is where she will attempt to show US our ‘confusion’.

According the author society in general doesn’t understand:

Definitions of ‘corporal punishment’ versus ‘child abuse’

Definitions of  ‘hurting someone’s feelings’ versus ‘emotional abuse’

Definitions of ‘offending another’s religious views’ versus ‘legalism’

The last portion when she speaks of ‘grounding’?  It was some strange news story taken from Canada about how a girl was upset at her father for grounding her from a school trip, and took him to court over it.  The controversy was over HOW the child could the win this case, and how the father’s authority within the child’s life was taken from him.  The child wasn’t mistreated, and from what you read about the case?  She was being disciplined over a legitimate act that needed discipline.

How some strange court hearing that is being appealed to me doesn’t even fit into ‘example’ of society’s ignorance of abuse.  From what I have read of the case 'abuse' wasn’t even mentioned.  The author ‘used’ this example of how we as society have twisted the word abuse none the less.  How?  It must be something personal, because she never did connect the dots on that one.

This to me is a red flag when someone is attempting to educate you about abuse in this fashion.  They approach you as ignorant, and have to dumb down segments to make their points. 

How everyone can be ugly at times, and we are all sinners – thus hinting we are all abusers.  The ‘key’ concept of abuse is pattern of behavior. 

When they point out silly things like we don’t know the differences between polar opposites such as ‘hurting feelings’ and ‘emotional abuse’? 

You can be rest assured the rest of the discussion is going to be focused on how they need to speak DOWN to you to make sure you understand.

YES that is part of the “Southern Belle Act” as well.  They know they are being rude and condescending.  Unlike my mother, most of those types aren’t willing to admit it.  They claim they are trying to educate, but that is just the start of their deceitful presentation.

The ignorance is that they don’t seem to think people can see it for what it is. 

Tickle for Tuesday!

I was catching up with some of my reading this morning, and  A Wife's Submission had this video posted on her site.




While we can giggle at this you also feel a ring of sadness as well.

Christian Authority is Freedom

One of the huge differences that I see within the church is the meaning of authority. We see to often that the church tends to use a worldly use of the authority, and the use of enforcement of that authority. Jesus spoke more than once against that type of authority, and his actions back that up!

Mark 10

There is a couple of times within Mark 10 that Jesus is trying to get across the type of authority he had in mind. This type of authority tends to go against the grain for us humans, or if you will definition of how you and I may define it.

Mark 10:13 One day some parents brought their children to Jesus so he could touch and bless them. But the disciples scolded the parents for bothering him.
14 When Jesus saw what was happening, he was angry with his disciples. He said to them, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.” 16 Then he took the children in his arms and placed his hands on their heads and blessed them.

The kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children.  If we do not received the Kingdom like a a child we will not enter it. We need to pay attention to ONE more statement, "I tell you the truth".

Jesus is speaking of a characteristic of humility that children have. Humility is a theme that is spoken about throughout the bible.  Jesus was giving them an example - a visual if you wish - of the type of humility a Christ follower is to have.  He is taking one trait of children that is treasured, and basically asking us not to lose it.

James 4:6  But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

1Peter 5:5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

How often do people use 'humility when they describe those in authority that are known for true enforcement of that earthly authority?  We are CLOTHE ourselves in humility.

Lets go back starting at Mark 10:29

“Yes,” Jesus replied, “and I assure you that everyone who has given up house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or property, for my sake and for the Good News, 30 will receive now in return a hundred times as many houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and property—along with persecution. And in the world to come that person will have eternal life. 31 But many who are the greatest now will be least important then, and those who seem least important now will be the greatest then."

The last sentence is speaking of our place in Heaven. The humble - or least important - will be the greatest.  Where does that leave those that 'use authority' in the opposite manner that the Lord intended?

Mark 10:39 “Oh yes,” they replied, “we are able!”
   Then Jesus told them, “You will indeed drink from my bitter cup and be baptized with my baptism of suffering. 40 But I have no right to say who will sit on my right or my left. God has prepared those places for the ones he has chosen.”
 41 When the ten other disciples heard what James and John had asked, they were indignant. 42 So Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. 43 But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

When this scripture speaks of the drinking of the bitter cup, and the baptism of suffering?  He is speaking also to the indignant 10 disciples present.  We are to be the opposite of those within worldly authority positions.

Lets look to Luke for an example of authority! When He cast out demons, He exercised authority over the demon, but not the person whom He set free.  When the disciples returned from their mission Jesus made it clear that he had given them authority over serpents and scorpions and all the power of the enemy, but not over humans. 

Luke 10:17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”
 18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

Do not 'rejoice' that spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.  If we wish to 'twist' this verse like the world we could show the 'authority' the world has in mind.  Jesus stated the opposite is what they should be rejoicing about.  You should be rejoicing over your name being written in heaven, and NOT how someone 'submitting' to you.  Jesus states that the authority he has given them?  The power of the enemy will not harm you, and yet according to some followings?  This authority is threatened by all kinds of earthy and human aspects.  What I take from that?  It must not be the authority Jesus gave to them if that is the case.

The nature of the authority of Jesus may be seen in the authority that he used, and which he gave to the disciples when he sent them out as apostles.  He gave them authority and sent them to, “Proclaim the Kingdom of God, to heal the sick, and to cast out demons.”

Matthew 10: 5 Jesus sent out the twelve apostles with these instructions: “Don’t go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, 6 but only to the people of Israel—God’s lost sheep. 7 Go and announce to them that the Kingdom of Heaven is near.[d] 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cure those with leprosy, and cast out demons. Give as freely as you have received!

Does anyone get the impression in that scripture that Jesus gave them the authority to go out, and remind others since Jesus gave them the authority you better listen or ELSE?  You had better 'respect' my authority?  "I" am in the position to tell you 'what's what'?  Does that attitude give freely as they have received?

When Jesus met them at the mountain after his resurrection, he cited His authority and sent them out to make disciples and teach.  

When He appeared to them on the first day where they were hidden, He authorized them to receive Holy Spirit and remit Sin.

In none of that authorization did He exercise any enforcement of his way of life.  Instead, Jesus invited them to enter the Kingdom of God, which is at hand, and to meet the King.  To know the King is eternal life.  When we are authorized to proclaim the Kingdom we are to let people know that they too might know Jesus so they might be set free, not subjugated in bondage.

When He forgave Sin, Jesus set people free from the bondage to guilt and shame that besets much of the human race.  

The authority He gives us is to do all that He has done for us as well as for others.  He has given us the ministry of letting humans off the hook, rather than hooking them with guilt.  Anyone who uses guilt as a motivation in the faith community is exercising the authority of the world, not the authority of Jesus.

Jesus has given us the authority to share the life that he has given for us and to us.  He has not given us the authority to judge one another.  All of the authority Jesus has given is compatible with Forgiveness.  It is in His love and the forgiving nature of that love that we find the meaning and nature of Christian authority. To often we concentrate on 'worldly authority', and try to melt the two together. 

We do not seek so much to change people as to bring them into the love and presence of the one who is able to recreate them and make them new.  It is not for us to order them about, but to allow Jesus to reach out to them through us to make them His own.

Headship - A Monster Of Their Own Making

Greetings!  My last post started at the beginning of Philippians 2, and how the nature of Jesus was described.  How we are to follow his example to the best of our ability, and how some in the headship crowd treat that portion of scripture with disdain.

Philippians 2

 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
   did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
   by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
   being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
   he humbled himself
   by becoming obedient to death—
      even death on a cross!

Jesus did not use his equality with God to his own advantage.  Yes, it seems the bible used that 'dirty' word.  Equality and Mutuality are not intended to ‘take’ or ‘give’ power.  Today it is taught, and almost drilled into people the complete opposite.  It shouldn't seen as a threat, and to often it is.  You have to wonder when they will contact the ‘dictionary’ companies to update their records.

We can all look at the world, and see humans taking advantage of a position of power when they have it.    Jesus did not use his equality with God to his advantage, and he reminds people that authority within the spiritual sense is not the same.  We don’t see him going around reminding everyone of his position constantly like the headship crowd.  You see him speak with authority most certainly, but he always showed humility in his teachings.

I have noticed that once you compare the way the world views positions of power, and compare that to Jesus?  They look completely different.  We all are able to acknowledge this.

Sadly, as a diversion tactic the headship crowd needs to remind everyone that not ALL people in power are corrupt.  They seem to have to remind others to not view them as corrupt while in their position of HEAD.

The point was more concentrating on scripture like Matthew 20:20-28, and how Jesus was speaking out about vain ambition.  The theme seems repeated in scripture like Matthew 18:1-4 as well.

¹ At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
² He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. ³ And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. ⁴ Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Most in the 'lowly' position aren't going to remind others how their power doesn't corrupt.  They seem to make this a 'power issue', and it clearly isn't.  Its speaking more of attitude, and/or a heart issue.  If we look closer?  "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

At that point they tend to ramble on about how others just like to view themselves as victims.  Next, they bring in the ‘feminism’ stand, and all the generalizations that come along with it.  You notice when you try to speak of the nature of Jesus they turn it around, and make it about them – the victims of feminism.  It’s amazing to watch at times. 

Do you notice how they skipped, jumped, and hopped over the scripture so they didn't have to deal with it? They firmly stood on the ground of 'authority', but wouldn't acknowledge the 'lowly' state Jesus states goes with that position.  Then the diversion tactics they are taught about feminism is brought in to cement the deal over not having to go there.

Feminism wouldn't stop anyone from what Jesus is calling us to do.  Its pretty clear, and he also asks us to 'change' and mentions what will happen if we do not.  Their mantra over, "Its those FEMALES you gave us..."?  It sure doesn't sound to me like this be acceptable at the entrance of Heaven.

Honorable Men

When I see honorable men rebuking the 'headship' crowd about this attitude or diversion?  They give examples of how humility works with their wife and children.  These honorable men also mention that it would foolish not to consider the wife’s input and acknowledge her strengths.  The glaring response from the headship crowd is quite telling!

They can give their wife's viewpoints a consideration, but THEIR wife know HE has the last word. 

Can we say ‘obsession’?

I don't think they can see the lack of humility in those statements.  I don't see it as a hard concept to grasp, but I do see sadly that some place their ego above the Lord.

They seem to be more worried about the ‘role’, and how someone may take it from them more than anything else.  We don’t see Christ worrying about such things.  Why can’t they connect the dots?

Lets look to God's reward for Jesus and his sacrifice and obedience to his call:

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
   and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
   in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
   to the glory of God the Father.

Boastfully stating 'someone has to be in charge' or 'I get the final say' isn't showing the humble and mature nature that God would ask of them.  Dressing it up as the 'will of God' doesn't change the arrogance, but makes it stink of 'lording it over others'.  Which it seems they don't understand is something God is against.

The circle of men that scream they must have their office of headship respected?  Their arrogance at times is almost asking for all knees to bow to them as well. 

Do they understand that they are coming off like that?  They claim you are (insert the insult of the day), and how you seem to not have a proper respect for scripture.  Do they not see their personal ambition in those words?

I think that is part that is MOST disturbing to me, because it seems they have almost been trained to not see the ‘entitlement’ that comes across in their statements.

The Scapegoat

It’s clear from the loads of articles, books, and websites that the fear of feminism is put forth.  If something goes against the grain for them?  It seems they have their scapegoat to lay the blame on.

If people believe differently than they do?  They have feminized mindset.  If other places of worship view scripture differently than they have in mind?  THAT church is feminized.

They have women’s studies that SPEAK OUT against the feminist’s agenda.  Heck the True Women’s Conference that I wrote about twisted and turned parts of history around to make it sound more evil to make their points.


What THEY don’t see is the fallout from the men or women that tend to truly make their ‘views’ look foolish.  I won’t say organizations like CBMW don’t acknowledge them, but they sure don’t seem to realize how much damage they do to their views of scripture. 

If they did?  Wouldn't we see the 'all out attack' like we do against feminism?  Why would 'acknowledgment' be ENOUGH in this case? 

The headship crowd have picked up their feminist rant, and are using it to their advantage.  They have created a paranoia within their midst, and yet they don’t seem to address this issue at all.  To me they have created a monster!

Those that misuse the ‘headship’ concept  - compared to the way they claim it is intended  - are handed a scapegoat to justify themselves.  These men hide behind their ‘superior’ attitudes, and most can see their outright contempt and fear of females.  How women can ‘take’ something away from them that they claim God ‘entitled’ them to.

Its funny how much ‘power’ they hand females with this fear.  I mean ‘females’ can take something away that God gave to someone?  To me that concept is completely silly, but that is the monster they have created.  

THEY have people actually BELIEVING IT!

Does Complementarianism plan on addressing this?  Sadly, from past history they tend to ignore it and hope it goes away.  Meanwhile, they allow the fools to speak for them.

What does that say to others?  Our fear of feminism  needs to take center stage due to the fact they are tearing apart families.  The men full of entitlement?  WELL, we will acknowledge they are over handed at times.  Their attitude is a direct result of feminism, and they are acting out to show the fear of the damage it has caused.


Sadly, they refuse to address the monster of their own making.

Sigh!

Someone has to be in CHARGE!

I was watching a discussion about 'headship'. The term isn't in the bible, and I have noticed that certain circles have placed the word 'biblical' in front of it to make it sound 'holy' I guess.

On the one side all it bubbled down to the phrase, "Someone has to be in charge!” That would be Jesus, but that is not what was meant within their conversation of course.

Unfortunately, some men make their position as they see it anyway - as some sort of power grab.  You see it and feel it within their responses when they must remind others WHOM is in charge - whom the HEAD is, etc.

To me I see projection in their response.  They normally state how the current culture is telling women if they aren’t in a position OVER men they are seen as a doormat.  I see quite the opposite.  You can see how they must feel like a doormat if they are not seen as OVER someone.

Mutuality isn’t ‘power over’ someone.  When there is mutuality there is no doormat.

The bible states we need to work towards being “one in Christ”, but it seems the headship crowd are more worried about reminding everyone who the ‘head’ is.  Their focus is off, and should be more on Christ.

Humility

Philippians 2

1 Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

Humility today seems to be a dirty word, and certain men would even say it emasculates them in some fashion.  Jesus asked us to find comfort from his love, and to make his joy complete we would all be like minded, and one minded.  Humility allows us to not value ourselves, or our interests more than we should.

The way 'headship' crowd go around reminding everyone of men’s place? This shows to me the selfish ambition or vain conceit.  Reminding everyone WHOM is in charge is placing their own interests above others.  How?  They must be recognized properly.  To me its quite the opposite of what Jesus asked them to do. 

Honorable Men

When others call them on this 'attitude' that is seen as arrogance?  They seem to try to justify themselves.  I know most would think it was the 'ladies' that pointing this out, but more and more often I see men doing the same thing.

The response these honorable men receive is along the lines of: Your view avoids scripture because of a reflex reaction based out of your disdain for a "male dominated society" rather than an appreciation for the will of God. 

Male domination is in their own interest, and they tend to try to downplay that.  I mean how often do you see humble servants reminding everyone else they get the last word? The contradiction comes when they have to remind others WHOM the top dog is!

Emasculation is not what Jesus is after, but the fear of that emasculation - in headship crowds eyes - is what they would be left with.  God's will asks for humility, and reminding everyone of their headship with the attitude in question?  Who is showing the true disdain?

I think the real problem is they can’t admit their ‘headship’ banter doesn’t sound humble.  The deception is they feel it will emasculate them, and yet Jesus wasn’t anywhere near that was he?  They believe a lie.

Authority Is A Dirty Word?

To often the headship crowd reminds others that they feel ‘authority’ is a dirty word.  If you watch closely they are also the ones most of the time that are telling others to lift them up.  They will be the ‘interpreters and enforcers’ of the law.  They assume the right to show you what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, and also feel the right to enforce it.

When I read about the approachable nature of Jesus in the bible he certainly doesn’t come off like others that wish to remind ‘people’ of their place.  Jesus had authority, and the bible speaks about how others could ‘feel’ that authority when he spoke.  People gravitated towards him due to his compassion, humble nature, and because he spoke with love and grace.

It looks to me like there may more than one definition of authority.   One seems to wanting to use their ‘authority’ to their advantage, and to remind others whom it is in charge.  Why they don’t realize when you come off like that you are seen as threat?  You are not seen as safe?

They speak with a ‘big head’, and you can feel the threat of being squished!  That is NOT what the bible had in mind!

Agunah is to stay chained

I was directly recently to an article called, "Why are Christian Divorce Rates so High?"

In that article they mentioned the term 'agunah' or literally translated is 'chained woman'.  The man had the power to desert the family, and leave her without the 'get' or divorcement.  She was what they term as the chained women to the man, because she was not allowed to remarry at that point.

If she did remarry she was looked upon as adulterous, and her offspring were literally labeled as illegitimate or bastards. What isn't mentioned so much is that men also had this position laid upon them, but the consequences were not as severe.

What you don't see today in the church?  Is the proper definition of  'putting away' and 'divorce'.  If you 'put away' your wife she was 'chained' to the man.  If he gave the woman a 'get' she was no longer chained, and was free to remarry.

Putting away was a big problem, and the 'get' was a form of mercy.  You really don't hear to much about that at all.  I will be speaking in general terms about 'putting away' and a Jewish 'get'. 

There are plenty of ins and outs to this concept, but I want to look at it generally in terms of how it is presented in scripture.

Deuteronomy

In Deuteronomy 24 it mentioned: 'he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house.."  They are talking about a 'get' in Jewish tradition.  If the husband didn't give the 'get' to the wife she wasn't allowed to remarry, and she was still 'chained' to her husband.

An honorable man of society would not 'put away' his wife, but if he was hard hearted enough to do so he would be bound to give her a 'get'.  A man that wasn't honorable enough to do so was at times threatened with excommunication which was very serious as you can imagine.

There were times in which a wife would request from the leaders of the temple to approach the man about a 'get'.  Women were not allowed to issue 'gets', but religious leaders did approach the husband at times on her behalf.  The Law of Moses mentioned three main reasons that women applied for a 'get'. 1) Husband following a disgraceful vocation. 2) cruelty to the wife 3) refusing to provide. The courts would 'compel' the husband to agree to the 'get' by threatening him with excommunication. If that didn't work they would go non Jewish courts to take care of it.

If you look at the times we are speaking about it makes sense.  The woman was left in a very vulnerable state, and her options were extremely limited if she was 'put away' without the 'get'.   The relatives or the society at the time would be left to care for her, or she was left with little options.  To me God is on the side of the 'underdog' if you will.  His sense of compassion towards her and the children, and a sense of mercy was given with the 'get'.

I think we realize that there are some people that would leave their spouse out of just plain spite.  I'm sure part of the motive to withhold the 'get' was the dowry, among others things she would be entitled to once she received the divorce.  If she received no 'get' she was out of luck.

I think some have heard of the 'get' when it came to times of war when you husband would not return, and was presumed dead.  I have always heard about receiving a 'get' when the spouse was marked 'insane'.

Malachi

If we move on to Malachi 2 it again mentions 'putting away' or lack of a 'get':

 ¹⁴Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
 ¹⁵And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
 ¹⁶For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

If you look at the principal of the 'get' refusing one would be dealing treacherously with the wife of your youth.  If he didn't hand her the 'get' or divorce papers she was chained to him for life.  She was left with little options, and very vunerable in soceity.

If you look at this passage from that viewpoint?   If you look at the culture and laws of the day?  This passage makes so much more sense.

The husband basically profaned the covenant and the Law of the Lord by abandoning his family, and then came to the temple to worship the Lord.  If you are to be seen as an honorable man in the eyes of the Lord you would follow his commandments towards your family.  Scripture speaks to those that did not:


¹¹Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
 ¹²The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
 ¹³And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
 ¹⁴Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
 ¹⁵And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

God basically tells the men that abandon their families WHY are to questioning my reaction to you in the temple when you come to worship and give me offerings.  Why do you think I have refused them?  Did you not treat my laws with contempt?  He also mentioned the man will be 'cut off' that doeth this.

¹⁷Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

In other words you did evil towards your family, and you want me to delight in your worship of me?  You live a life of treachery, and you wish me to ignore that with no judgment?

As the kids would say today, "You ain't all that!"

Matthew

Matthew 19: ³The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
 ⁴And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
 ⁵And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
 ⁶Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


If you look at the passages above?  It again speaks of 'putting away' without a 'get' by Jewish Law.  Without a 'get' if you remarry it is seen as adulterous.

At that time from what I understand if a women was found committing adultery they were put away in certain circumstances, and as we know stoned in other circumstances.   The bible speaks of how both parties were to be stoned actually, but when you read about the woman that was brought to Jesus you notice she was brought alone.

I'm sure we have all heard about how there was two schools of thought regarding marriage at this time, putting away, and divorce.  One school of thought was very restrictive, and the other was very frivolous. 

Matthew 19: ³The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
 ⁴And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
 ⁵And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
 ⁶Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

God said we are to keep marriage Holy, and the couple is seen as one flesh.  God does not wish man to put that asunder.  Now if you look at it from that prospective would God feel it is lawful for a man to 'put away' his wife (no 'get') for every cause?

⁷They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?  ⁸He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
 ⁹And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

They basically asked Jesus HOW come Moses said it was OKAY?!

In my eyes he was correcting their arrogance.  God allowed the 'get' to protect the wife, because of the treacherous nature of the hard hearted men during that time that would abandon the family.  Due to the nature on how they 'put away' their wifes, and left them vulnerable and destitute? Moses commanded that the men give them a writing of divorcement so they were not 'chained' to the man out of his own spite.

From the beginning it was not 'so', because God views marriage as a Holy union of one flesh.  The hard hearted men that 'put away' the wifes put it asunder.  She was given the 'get' so she was not 'chained' to him for life out cruelness of his actions, and how it left her socially and morally.

To me again God wanted to save the underdog in this circumstance, and the 'get' was a form of mercy.  The 'get' was the divorcement papers to place in her hands so she could remarry, and not be left destitute due to hard hearted men.

Without the 'get' or divorce if you remarry another it will be seen as adultery.  If you marry someone that was married without the 'get' you are committing adultery as well.

So NO you can't just 'put away' your wife for any reason, and be right in the eyes of the Lord.  In the light of the law of Judism 'adultery' isn't the only way OUT of the marriage as it has been taught for centuries in the church.  These verses were speaking of  'putting away' your wife without the divorce papers or 'get'.  They don't say you can only divorce due to adultery as the church seems to teach.

Romans

In Romans 7 I have heard this referenced to 'the law of the husband'.  They are speaking of Jewish law of marriage.  The law has dominion over a man as long as he lives.  He was bound by the marriage until death as well.  This passage isn't speaking to divorce by 'get', widowed, or single people.

If you look again that the times, and the husband 'put away' his wife and she married another?  It would be adultery.  The 'dominion' of the law was the same for the man.  If he 'put away' his wife to marry another he also would be in adultery.

In that light, the 'law of the husband' is not what they seem to think it is.  Those who KNOW the law also realize that it has dominion over him as well.  People seem to miss that part.

¹Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
 ²For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
 ³So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Putting away and divorce is NOT the same thing!

When you look at the difference of 'putting away' and divorce?  You see the scripture in a different light.  I'm ending this by quote part of the article I linked to above:

Leaders need to grasp the Biblical truth that the law kills, but the Spirit brings life. Leaders have been heaping dump trucks of man made doctrines which violate the core relationships of couples and families. We have placed laws over love. Marriages should be based on and grounded in love. We know love is the greatest, yet the church does not take love seriously. We have called love wishy washy and undependable even though the Bible says that love never fails.

The Bible says that the Law failed. Yet the basis of most Christian marriages is law rather than love. Dishing out prefab roles in the name of Christianity is destructive to marriages because every person and every marriage relationship is unique.

We have changed the original enlightened Biblical message of equality in marriage to one of hierarchy and false submission. Thus we have separated two who God intended to be one. God's idea of oneness does not mean the front end and the back end of a jackass. But that's exactly what our recipe calls for. The promotion of hierarchy in marriage also causes us to have high statistics of domestic abuse and it causes many divorces.

If you look at how churches approach divorce in the light of many uglies such as domestic violence, etc?  They seem to take the opposite approach compared to the Jewish culture they preach about.  You are to be agunah (chained to) a hard hearted spouse that has abandon the spirit and purpose of marriage - the one that put it asunder.  The 'get' doesn't exist according to the church, and God's mercy towards those that the 'get' was to protect?

¹⁷ You have wearied the LORD with your words.
      "How have we wearied him?" you ask.
      By saying, "All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD, and he is pleased with them" or "Where is the God of justice?"


I think they have the backwards.  The 'get' was for justice.  The church label it as selfish and sinful.  The  agunah is to stay chained.  If you look at in the terms of Jewish culture?  The church seems to be teaching this incorrectly.  Putting away and Divorce were two different concepts, and yet they treat it as one.

Goodness no wonder we are confused!  The Agunah or 'chained woman' God was looking to protect with his mercy towards them.  We tell the Agunah to celebrate their place of honor and dedication to the chain.  We tell them they have no choice - its law!  Then they sprinkle it with spiritual pixie dust to make it look better than it is.  No wonder they look at love as wishy washy, and not dependable.  It wouldn't fit the doctrine otherwise.

Tickle for Tuesday!

My son found this one.  Its funny!

Hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore

I was writing about Mary Kassian presentation, "You've come a long way Baby!" from the '08 True Women's Conference.  Part Four I am going to breeze through quickly.

Part One , Part Two, Part Three

She used a good example of what Consciousness raising was.  That is where she left off the last time.

Consciousness-raising was actually a political technique used by the revolutionary army of Mao Tse-tung. His slogan was, “Speak bitterness to recall bitterness. Speak pain to recall pain.” To promote discord and instability in a village, his political revolutionaries would call the townswomen together and get them to talk about their hurts. “Come tell me about the hurts that you've experienced.”


So the women were encouraged to speak bitterness and pain, and the initial reluctance gave way to collective anger as woman after woman told stories of being raped by landlords, being sold as concubines, or physical abuse. As women vented their bitterness, they experienced a newfound strength and resolve that empowered them to corporate action.

For example, in one village, a peasant man was physically pummeled to a pulp and attacked by an entire group of women because he hadn't been treating his wife well. Together, the women found the strength to act and to confront their situation and the resolve to be active in forcing change, and that is how Mao Tse-tung got his revolution.

The man in the story about getting plummeled by a group of women made headlines.  Being raped by landlords, sold as concubines, or being physically abuse doesn't.   

Yes this makes the point of how things were very one-sided very well I thought.

The one-sided entitlements were also spoken about here with Consciousness-raising groups, and just like the army of Mao Tse-tung were aware of this circumstance (why else would he use it) it was also brought to light here.  Its very true it grew like wildfire just like the Faberge commercial.  "And she told two friends...and she told two friends...and so on and so on and so on".  Men, Women and Children started to talk about why things were so one sided, and what Mary Kassian doesn't seem to speak about is how everyone KNEW it as well.