Erick Erickson wants to HAVE IT ALL!

None of us can have it all. Women as primary breadwinners does make raising children harder, increasing the likelihood of harm in the development of children. While it is a reality in this world and sometimes even necessary, that does not mean we should not ignore the consequences of the increase in moms, instead of dads, as primary breadwinners (often because the man walked out). – Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson and Lou Dobbs got themselves into some hot water with their complementarian views on working mothers this week.  These men I guess you could categorize as ‘conservative’, but honestly their moronic views on this issue can be very universal as well.  I have the videos in question linked at the bottom.

I read a number of news feeds, because I don’t think any network or organization gives you all the angles to really figure out what is going on.  For myself?  I read most of them so I can get a handle on what the TRUE story is! 

ANYWAY…..

Women are Culpable for the downfall of society

Erick’s article linked to CMBW at the end of it (see above next to picture), and YES he does chant their way of thinking quite well.  Sadly, when you get too deep into this way of thinking Pastors – being the dominate of the dominate of the genders – get to dictate to others that you need to support them EVEN if there are serious questions about them habitually abusing children….and covering it UP!  Remember they seem to feel they are NOT culpable in those cases, and as it seems today they are not culpable for the ‘downfall of society’ either.  This time its not the children that need to own the blame, but the wife’s and mothers!  How ‘Adam” of them!

“Four in Ten Households now have the mother as the primary bread winner”

You notice this still reads, 6 out of 10 households still have the MALE has the primary bread winner.  Yet, the majority of the bread winners being male has no effect on society.  Nope, the minority are responsible for this.

Most people realize there are too many dynamics at play today, but lets go into this simplistic viewpoint JUST for a moment!  Yes, we will use the stereotypes, and simplistic reasoning.  It has a purpose today.

I don’t think most people would disagree that having two healthy adults raising their children together is best for families.  It’s easier for adults to have a partner to share the load, and having the influence of both parents with their children has benefits as well.  Yes, these are generic reasons, but we all know there are others as well.  We don’t need to go into all of them.

Men walk out because they can’t HAVE IT ALL!   …or is it women?

I look at the above paragraph from Erick Erickson, and I concentrated on that last sentence. 

‘often because the man walked out’

He states that if you have mother that works full time its hard to come home, and be a full time mother.  He never mentions that this factor is hard for men as well!  Is it easy for father’s to come home from working a full time job, and be a full time father?  I would assume not. 

Do Right BJU! The Principals of Protest!

I’m sure some of you remember the backlash of the Tina Anderson story.  The Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches all felt they were being branded for actions taken by the few.  Yes, you tend to hear these type of responses anytime something ugly like this happens. Unfortunately, the victims tend to be lost in most of it.

 

Sadly, Bob Jones University is showing that Chuck Phelp’s response ISN’T all that uncommon.  Sounds like the ‘few’ are the ones that can see the failings in this case.

 

On a very optimistic note, there have been students from the Bob Jones University that have stepped up to call out issues that arose that made them feel uncomfortable and unsafe.  Chuck Phelps as you may remember feels that he is the true victim in what happened.  He has taken credit for the conviction of Ernie Willis, and yet still feels justified on leaving his website up calling Tina Anderson a liar.  How can you take credit for a conviction of the rapist, and then call the rape victim a liar?  Could be one of the principals that make the students uneasy. 

 

When the students found that Chuck Phelps was on the board of BJU a protest was started.  They had a petition online for signatures, and started a Facebook page called, ‘Do Right BJU’.  BJU is a very strict school, and the students were instructed to step down (stop creation of page) and remove the Facebook page.  They have not done so at this point, and frankly it would be wise if the university addressed their concerns.  Most knew when the students were asked to stop the chances of expulsion were highly likely.   BJU also issued a statement that has been removed, but people uploaded screenshots online.

 

Sadly, the university had taken the stand in agreement with Chuck Phelps that he was indeed the victim in the Tina Anderson Case.   They decided to stand behind their man, and if you read the statement itself?  Its drips with manipulation. 

Half The Church

I was listening to a broadcast on Moody radio today, and they were speaking to the author Carolyn Custis James.  Her book I pictured here today is called, ‘Half the Church’.  She was speaking to the women ministry in the church.  I uploaded the program if you are interested in listening.

Carolyn Custis James starts with Genesis, and how it seems to her that the genders are to work together. (6:15)  I like how she called us God’s A-Team as far as image bearers!

I will summarize some of it for you, but I’m sure I missed TONS!


Half The Church Moody Program upload link!

How decisions and discussions are richer once you use the prospective of both men and women.  When men and women come together, and value what each brings to the table then decisions tend to be better (7:50).   Its not a matter of whom is better or worse.  Its not the competition that we seem to be taught, and yet I realize that isn’t what they would call it.  Women see things differently, and their insights and views can open a whole new prospective.

(9:18) They speak of the lack of women’s opinion at times, because of the doors that shut to women in ministry.  Its not about how high up the ladder the woman goes, and people that use that avenue of opinion tend to miss the point. 

Some of the fears of men and women working together?

(19:45) One pastor raised a question that if we work to closely with women won’t we be tempted?  I suppose one of the realities of living in fallen world is temptation.  We are called to be a body, and to work together.  How there seems to be a fear there.   The bible’s message is not for women to be seen only as a temptress, but to be redemptive.   Why is the church’s message at times is that women are a hazard and they are dangerous.   It seems to be a very small view of women when you have things like your computer or other types of things that don’t get talked about as much as the fear of women.  (think goodness I know plenty of men that don’t fit that description)

Immaturity seems to be key here.  I have had good relationships with Christian Brothers – as the women on the show mentioned as well – I would hate to be not allowed that due to some immature fear of women.   How we are to be models for the world, and them asking themselves, ‘what is it they have and can I get some of that!’  It would be modeled by our respect and love of not only each other, but of God. 

We get so focused on fear of gender, not doing our roles, etc that we miss what we ought to be doing.  We seem to be looking at what we are afraid of.

(20:20) God didn’t divide men and women – this is the sphere for men and this is the sphere for women.  We are to be working together as a team to fulfill God’s purpose.    We are God’s A Team, and we need to come together and respect the prospective from each gender. 

(26:20)  They got an email from a man that stated, “Men aren’t afraid of women, but they are more afraid of themselves”.   They were not able to give him a follow up question, but wondered for one: They don’t trust themselves to be alone with a women if they are attracted to her?  This is the type of fear they need to take to God, and have him help with it.

(33:20)  When our voices are heard people just assume we are only talking about women, and not the church as a whole.    A women commented, ‘When I have brought up a concern in our churches small groups, about how we should have a time to be able to share on a more personal level instead of the ‘prescribed’ format?  I was told it was a great idea, and something that needed to be the ‘women’s ministry’ for further exploration.  They seemed to think that was a good idea for women, but didn’t feel look at the fact I was talking about the small groups overall.   Sometimes I feel our brothers only feel we are answering question for our gender. ‘

(34:30) This is where we need to have more communication, because when things are said like that?  Women feel slammed, whether it was meant that way or not.  What would be a better follow up to bring it back to point. 

(38:10) They speak of the curtain between the genders during the biblical days.  It would be seen as similar to what we see today in the middle east.  How the genders did not, and would not work together as we see in other parts of the world today.  It shows how radical Jesus was towards women in that day.  How at times items like dress still today are still laid upon the women, and how they make them responsible just as the men do in the middle east today.  I’m sure they were speaking of attitudes more than extremes.

(39:10)  How women are put to death for being pregnant out of wedlock, because it is dishonoring to the men in their families.  The men are the position of power.  The men are in the position of authority, and yet God is raising women up.  

In the case of Mary and Joseph? Joseph is written about as a ‘righteous man’.   If we think about what Joseph did in that culture?  Heck even before then angel came to tell him to go ahead and wed Mary?  He was full of grace and compassion towards Mary.  She could have been put to death as well.   Joseph was ‘disgraced’ in the eyes of the culture at the time, and yet he was going to choose to ‘divorce’ her privately. No exposure, no punishing of her, no revenge upon her.   Joseph is a true man of the bible.

(48:15) Esther and Mordecai worked together to save their people.   Their goal for the bigger good, and Esther stepped out of her role. 

Men and Women should be able to work together, and to met together, and not have the fear of each other.  When you are involved in a cause that is bigger than yourself..then you are willing to do what needs to be done.  You are not to be worried about if I have enough authority, or am I looked up as equal. 

With both the Mary and Joseph  - Esther and Mordecai stories big things were at stake.  They were bigger than the people within.  When men and women aren’t willing to partner together, unwilling to work together that means that the Kingdom of God suffers.  Its not a light matter, because so do we as the body of Christ. 

(50:00)  Mary’s baby will save the world, and Esther’s King is going to save her people.  The gospel doesn’t call for us to fight for our rights, but asks us to lay our lifes down.  As the body of Christ we should be looking out for each other.   Today we are to ‘us’ focused – biblical roles for one – and yet we are to consider others more important than ourselves.  Mordecai is cheering Esther on, and encouraging her to step out!  Mary is at risk due to her pregnancy, and Joseph is standing behind her and shutting down his carpenter’s shop so that she can do what she was called to do. 

(51:40)  What you see at the end is mutual flourishing.  They are all four flourishing as God’s image bearers.  Real life examples?  When the Elder meetings start the door shuts for the women.  It doesn’t matter if they are equipped to help in that role.  There are many men that feel ‘entitled’ to make all the decisions, without the need to even consult women.  They feel they should serve only in nurturing roles only. 

It definitely was a program that gets you thinking.  Check out the facebook comments on the show.  Here and Here.

Half The Church looks like an interesting book, and I think I will purchase it!  Here is a Google preview for Half The Church for you to check out.

Technorati Tags: biblical roles of men and women,biblical roles in marriage,biblical gender roles,biblical roles of husbands and wives,women in ministry,women in the church,half the church,Carolyn Custis James,Moody Midday

Chuck Phelps now taking credit for conviction

Below is a letter that Chuck Phelps has on his website now.  He is basically attempting to take credit for the conviction that he fought very hard not to help happen in the first place.  The quoted portions are my notes.  His entitlement and diversions is amazing to me.  No humbleness is shown.  Its sad.

A Verdict Reached – Ernie Willis Guilty

The trail of Ernie Willis took place in Concord, NH, from May 23 to 28, 2011.  After a week of hearing witnesses, a jury found Ernie Willis Guilt on all counts placed before them.  There are those who may be curious about my reactions.

I am relieved.  Tina Anderson had a right to seek justice, and she is no doubt thankful that Ernie Willis has been convicted.  Ernie Willis broke the law.  No one has ever denied this.  When Tina made allegations concerning Ernie Willis in 1997, her mother and I reported the matter as a crime to the Concord police department (a fact now affirmed under oath by me, her mother, and the Concord police investigator assigned to the case).  Unfortunately, the Concord police were not diligent to follow-up on the reports given to them.  Further, it was affirmed under oath by me and a Concord police officer that I called the New Hampshire Division of Youth and Family Services and reported Tina’s situation as was required by the law.  Sadly, this report did not bring the immediate follow-up that is expected norm today.

If you note from the trial? 

Chuck Phelps and Christine Leaf both made it clear that Tina made no ‘allegations’ of rape to them – the purpose of the trial.  They both repeatedly reminded everyone she never said she was ‘raped’.  It was a ‘convert dating relationship’, and Phelps even noted on camera that he didn’t consider it rape.  By calling this a ‘covert dating relationship’ does infer that he felt it was ‘consensual’, and not a crime at least in his eyes. 

What Chuck Phelps is leaving out is they do not have record of him contacting the police, but do have a record of him contacting New Hampshire's child services.  The police officer he mentions above contacted him – after children’s services reported to the officer, and Phelps never returned the calls.  Chuck Phelps also needs to realize that he had a ethic and moral obligation – besides his duty lawfully – to follow up if he KNEW for sure Ernie Willis broke the law – as he claims no one denied.  He needs to apologize for his lack of ‘diligent follow-up’ as well, that should have been expected to be ‘norm’ now and at the time. 

At my recommendation Mrs. Leaf took Tina to see a licensed medical professional who examined her in private and never called the police (a fact also established by the medical professional’s testimony in court).

The facts posted on this website since the April 8th 20/20 program aired have now been stated under oath.  On Tuesday, May 24, 2011, the court determined that I could share what had previously been confidential information which I received from Mr. Willis many years ago.  The release of this information no doubt played a very important part in bringing these matters to justice.

Blind leading the blind ...Yet another form of confusion

Blind leading the Blind

I started to read Waneta Dawn's latest piece on her blog Submission Tyranny, in church and Society.

Her article started by speaking of a magazine cover on American Family Association Journey March Edition for 2011.  WELL the first thing I wanted to do was look at the article before I continued to read what she had to say.  I wanted to be sure I knew what she was talking about first by looking at her reference!

In my last post to everyone I pointed out that double standards cause confusion within the church.  When I clicked the article in question that Waneta Dawn was speaking about?  Something just stuck me right over the head, and I wondered is the blind leading the blind here?  Let me quote from the article:

The Billy Graham Association conducted a survey recently and the results should be disheartening to Christians. Of people in the Builder Generation, also known as the Greatest Generation, 65% profess to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. But the slide is steep from there. About 35% of Baby Boomers profess faith in Christ, 15% of Generation X, and only 4% of Generation Y.

    Why the dramatic drop? According to the 2000 census, the majority of children at that time came from single or blended families. Jim Weidmann, executive director of Heritage Builders, said this causes a society in which people don’t have good faith mentors in their lives, so they don’t know how to model faith to their children. “A statistic quoted by a pastor in Texas was that only 10% of parents talk to their kids about spiritual things,” said Weidmann. “That means 90% don’t!”

    Weidmann said one surefire way to stop the hemorrhage of faith in Christ in this nation is for men to take on their God-given duty and become spiritual leaders in their homes. He shared the following thoughts with AFA Journal.

Let me place my business hat on here for a moment, and tell me if you DON'T see what I see!

Keep in mind I realize the church isn't a business - I'm going to talk about business principals that most churches SHOULD be aware of already. 

We have a fall in numbers for people that are claiming to be followers of Jesus Christ. It fell from what would seem 90% during days past to 65% then to:

35% of Baby Boomers
15% generation X
4% generation Y

NOW as a business person if those were percentages for profits, number of customers, or what have you?  That is a SERIOUS drop!  You are bankrupt already if your company's margins went to 4%.  You were in REAL trouble prior to that, and good luck EVEN keeping your doors open with 35%!  That's the reality here, because most churches do have overhead like electricity, mortgage/rent, etc.

Now you can see also from above as well the cause they have identified or hemorrhage is also a good term. It was due to single parent homes, or blended families numbers that are growing in our society.  That's their claim okay?  According to the 2000 census, the majority of children at that time came from single or blended families.

NOW from a business point of view YOUR lucky you found your bottleneck.  Your business isn't reaching the single parent homes, or the blended families homes.  They are not doing business with you for what reasons?

This is not a tidy world of tyrannical men and victimized women

Look we exposed a new oppressive layer!

I had been reading some reviews about a book called, 'Half the Sky:  Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women'.

Christianity Today has a quote that I see as universal in some aspects, but when it comes to our culture it gets blown off.

While women do suffer at the hands of men, the authors point out that it is women who abort their female fetuses, who cut the genitals of their daughters, who favor their sons over their daughters for education and medical treatment, and who often abuse their daughters-in-law. "In short, women themselves absorb and transmit misogynistic values, just as men do. This is not a tidy world of tyrannical men and victimized women, but a messier realm of oppressive social customs adhered to by men and women alike."

All over the world we have social customs, and belief systems that can be oppressive.  It's never a tidy world, but often looks like the layers of an onion.

Once you deal with the top layer, and peel it away?  You normally have different issues to deal with underneath.

Follow The Leader Attitude

The other day I was speaking to the well known author, Jocelyn Andersen.  I remember I was telling her that I was a bit disturbed about the fact when I read articles on major Christian websites about domestic violence - they are genetic.  They generally say the same thing over, and over again.  To me there is no meat and potatoes there at all.

WELL someone upstairs must have been listening to me, because an article was placed in my email box today.  Christian Today had an article called, Towards an effective church response to domestic abuse.

“Restored is driven forward by two questions,” says Peter. “Where is the church and where are the men?”

The resource, Ending Domestic Abuse, is an attempt to answer the first question. It’s still being drafted and the final version is expected to come out sometime in 2011.

The answer to the second question is a new campaign to be launched in the next few months, First Man Standing. As the name suggests, the campaign is challenging men to be the first man to stand up in their church, in their sports clubs, in their workplace, or whatever group setting they may be in, and speak out about domestic violence.

I will be the first one to admit that woman that are outside domestic violence relationships are just plain awful in the viewpoints as well.  All you have to do is go to a forum online, and its clear as day.  It certainly doesn't matter what the gender is either.

The First Man Standing to me means stop 'following the leader'.  Its the group think and banter that is encouraged to be repeated, and the peer pressure to keep it there.

I have noticed if you are talking about a member of the family OUTSIDE of what they consider your 'immediate' family their approach is a bit different.  The article doesn't go into that viewpoint as much, but that isn't the purpose of their introduction so it makes sense why they don't.

For me personally I'm looking forward to hearing more about their program 'First Man Standing'.  Its not because the statistics state that more often women are the victims.  I don't personally look at this issue as gender based one.  It effects everyone and anyone.  The abusive individual - gender aside - effects men and women alike (this includes children).  I was more looking at it, because of the way the church views 'men's roles' within family, society and church.

If we look at how church approaches life for minute?  They concentrate a great deal on the man as the leader, the head, the authority of the family.  Yes, I'm speaking about what some view as the 'biblical roles'.  In a way his attitudes towards things should reflect what his family believes.  The man 'represents' the family type of thinking.  There is alot of peer pressure around this, and you see it in the attitude of men and women alike.

If you look at 'human nature' and not just concentrate on gender / roles for a moment?  Attitudes towards gender wouldn't be acceptable for his family, but would be more palatable towards others.   I'm talking in a general sense here, because we all know there are exceptions.  You read type of principal in loads of articles, books, and commentaries about the family all the time.  I'm talking the 'us against the world' with the examples they present.

I think it would indeed help everyone if we could place those stereotypes to the side, and recognize that we all at times use them.  If there was a way of changing that?  It would indeed help everyone in society overall.

First Man Standing is about challenging the behaviour of peers, modelling good behaviour and speaking up for positive relationships.

Peter continues: “There is a lot of peer group pressure to behave in a certain way. If you look at stag nights, the behaviour on these nights is all about what’s acceptable in a group and you need to be a courageous man to stand up in that group. There are other issues like language and jokes demeaning women. It’s about changing culture and challenging what is acceptable.”

I'm sure some of us can admit there are indeed 'peer pressure attitudes' towards issues within the church.  If you again just look at some discussions online you will see people attacked for coloring outside the lines.  It would be rather naive of others to claim such attitudes are not present within the church, but just online with 'those' people.

Its hard to admit I guess for some that there is a spirit of right and wrong approaches to what they seem to say is clearly written in scripture.  Pointing out such examples seems to be a source of defensiveness instead human nature and reality for some.

Since we hear about the women point of view in that realm a lot I wanted to point out something I saw recently that happened to a man.

I was reading a thread about man speaking of the 'entitled' attitude his wife (whom I believe is deceased at this point).  He believed in supporting his family, but he also spoke about how she should have support role as well.

I'm not talking about the spouse working outside the home, but basically a person that is a sloth.  I guess today we would call a sloth a lazy bum.  The wife in question expected to be served, and the man in question either had to do things within the home or pay someone to do them.  SHE was entitled to be taken care of.  In other words, there was no mutuality within this relationship.

He brought up this example of his wife up in another discussion of a family with two children.  The children were older, and due to the economy they had fallen on very serious hard times.  The husband in question requested that she help for a while, until things changed with their financial circumstance.

She dug in her heels and refused to get a job, because that would be outside her role.  HIS role was to 'provide'.  This the basic idea of the circumstance that I read, but I didn't see the whole discussion.  The second thread was started by the man, because of the 'entitled' attitudes of women charging to her defense of NOT working.

This man got dumped on.  The spirit of what was in scripture was ignored, and defensive responses followed.

• He didn't believe in providing for his family.
• He believed that she needs to provide her own income, and he will provide his - and the two will never meet.
• He doesn't value the job of the Stay at Home mother
• He concentrates to much on his wife that has passed, and not the value of the wife he is married to now.
• He spends to much time feeling sorry for himself.

You notice that none of their points have ANYTHING to do with the principal he was attempting to point out?

The couple he was speaking about wasn't going 'send their children to daycare to raise' since they were old enough to stay home by themselves.  The wife wasn't asked to work a full time career, but due to the scarey times was asked to give some much needed relief to their financial circumstance presently. 

If read between the lines with the responses this man got?  The women would have been more than happy to help if they also were in serious financial hardship (if their husband asked this of them), but due to this 'peer' attitude that women should be at home always?  They followed the banter and group think they are taught to follow.

The people that pointed out they missed the point completely?  They were told 'their points' made sense, but that wasn't what he was saying.  Sigh!

If you look again at what they were saying about the stag party?

Peter continues: “There is a lot of peer group pressure to behave in a certain way. If you look at stag nights, the behaviour on these nights is all about what’s acceptable in a group and you need to be a courageous man to stand up in that group. There are other issues like language and jokes demeaning women. It’s about changing culture and challenging what is acceptable.”

The principal of what the author is stating above is what happened to the man I was writing about.  The language and the jokes in the thread I read were demeaning to this man, and others like him.

He wasn't speaking about a family with a stay at home mom, and a man that was providing financially for the family in the traditional sense.  He was speaking about a woman that was taking advantage of this accepted viewpoint, and using it to her advantage.  She was basically selfish and cruel.

He was attempting to continue to make his point in regards to how his present wife approaches their marriage.  At this point in their lifes both of them decided they wanted to work part time instead of just 'retiring'.  He did mention he wouldn't have an issue with her just being a 'stay at home wife', but she made it very clear she wanted to work part time.

I think like alot of people that have worked all their lifes she felt uncomfortable just staying home, and being 'retired' in the traditional sense.  The man mentioned he had to respect that point of view, because he pretty much felt the same way.  He didn't want to 'retire' in the traditional sense either.

You could tell by how he said this the mutual respect and love they had for each other.  His point was his current wife wouldn't question if they were in a financial crisis about stepping up, and helping to support their family.  It was the attitude - the spirit of his wife and how to biblical handle the circumstance.

I was amazed at how these women were getting defensive, and felt like their 'role' within the family was being attacked.  The shear number of them, and how much they ignored the man's point of view?  It showed you what is seen as 'acceptable' to speak about, and what clearly isn't.  The discussion had nothing to do with their personal family life, but more about the attitude of his deceased wife's attitude towards - well - HERSELF!

It seemed so strange to me how these ladies admitted that they would go back to work, and some of them even had done this under similar circumstances - YET couldn't admit this man had a point.

The church can say what they want, but their 'follow the leader' attitude is clear as day.  It sets up this 'us against them' gender war, and also the treasured 'us against them' world versus church folks as well.

Myself and many others have followed the 'First Man Standing' principal.  I have been tossed aside, accused of things like the man above was, belittled and the rest.  I have noticed though that once those brave few do stand up?  You had additional 'few' that tend to stand along with you.  I have had men and woman come along side of me, and repeat how I had good points.  They would continue to validate that with their additional personal ones.

Its hard not to follow the leader due to the peer pressure you find within the church.  Its not easy to be the First Man Standing either.  The small pockets of brave people will continue to grow when more are brave enough to follow.  Its not about gender and its not about 'world versus the church'.  Its about the poisoning the principals and true spirit of how God would wish to treat others.

Egalitarian Beliefs neuter gender differences?

Example of Neuter Gender Differences

One thing that tends to come up ever so often that I can never seem to wrap my head around is the concept about people wanting to 'neuter' gender differences.

How is that possible - to neuter gender differences?  It isn't as far as I know.

By the time we are a young child we tend to realize the differences, and everyone acknowledges them for the rest of our lives.  There is no way to 'neuter' this.

I have to admit some complementarian views do make me giggle when they speak about egalitarians views of the human race.  I realize it makes others upset, but to me its so ridiculous I find it rather humorous.

You see, when people are truly committed and consistent egalitarians, they have to defend their denial of essential differences. In doing so, they will advocate a education system in the home, church, and society which neutralizes any assumption of differences between the sexes. In doing so, men will not be trained to be “men” since there is really no such thing. Women will not be encouraged to be “women” since there is no such thing. The assumption of differences becomes a way to oppress society and marginalize, in their estimation, one sex for the benefit of the other. Once we neutralize these differences, we will have neutered society and the family due to a denial of God’s design in favor of some misguided attempt to promote a form of equality that is neither possible nor beneficial to either sex.

First of all I don't know WHERE they get the idea that egalitarians deny essential differences.  Its like the picture I found today, and added the text about being 'genderless'.  Yep!  Egalitarians deny gender differences, because we see people walking the earth as genderless blobs.  I mean seriously?  How completely silly to even go there.

Now this theory mentioned above would make sense if egalitarians denied the obvious difference - genatila. If that was possible for some I think everyone would admit maybe its time to be admitted in a center for mental health!

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!

The Second WAVE..for Mary Kassian

We will move on to Part Three of Mary Kassian's You've Come A Long Way Baby.

Part Two is HERE.  
Part One is HERE


She now gets into what some people consider the roots of the 2nd rave of Feminism.



The Revolution

She continues by speaking of Simone de Beauvoir. In 2009 her book The Second Sex was revised, and released as an anniversary issue. It was revised because there was huge chucks of the book that was mistranslated, and it was not true to what her points were.  Please note: I'm not sure that was available at the time this lecture was given.

In the chapter "Woman: Myth and Reality" of The Second Sex, Beauvoir argued that men had made women the "Other" in society by putting a false aura of "mystery" around them. She argued that men used this as an excuse not to understand women or their problems and not to help them, and that this stereotyping was always done in societies by the group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy. She wrote that this also happened on the basis of other categories of identity, such as race, class, and religion. But she said that it was nowhere more true than with sex in which men stereotyped women and used it as an excuse to organize society into a patriarchy.

Kassian wants to describe this as:

She argued that in the relationship between men and women, women were the second class and men were the ruling class. They got all the perks. They had the power. They had the authority, and they got to say what the world looked like.

De Beauvoir argued that in order for women to live as full human beings, they needed to demand their rights, collectively rebel against men, and overthrow all of the societal structures that men had constructed to keep women in a state of servitude. Most specifically, de Beauvoir encouraged women to get out of the home and deconstruct the Judeo-Christian ideas about marriage and motherhood and morality.

I may not agree with de Beauvior on every count, but she does not encourage women to deconstruct the Judeo-Christian ideas about marriage, motherhood, and morality as the basic theme of her book. She may not have lived the lifestyle that Christians would consider proper, but again she isn't asking people to live as she did.

I look at this part: not to understand women or their problems and not to help them, and that this stereotyping was always done in societies by the group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy.

That's history, and that is what has happened all over the world.  This happened to men and women, people of different colors, races, and faiths.  Is that the Judeo-Christian ideal?  If she thinks so we have a different idea of what the bible says.  The bible is very clear about what God feels about those that do not help those they know need help for example. 

Ms. Kassian states the underlying message of Feminism is:

We—women—need and can trust no other authority than our own, personal truth. We need and can trust no other authority than our own, personal truth. 

I understand we can take this one or two ways.   I'm sure Ms. Kassian is coming from the position of God is our true authority.  That's fine!  I agree!  I realize she also is coming from the Complementarian position, and they look to their husbands as the authority as well.

When they speak about trusting 'authority' in the context of what de Beauvior is trying to get across?  She was speaking about 'group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy.'  We are talking about the 'ruling class' at the time.  That is an entirely different can of worms.

They didn't understand the lower group, nor could they relate to their issues.  The ruling class did make the rules for the society, and did so without the type of 'loving and benevolent' leadership that the Complementary position speaks about.   The ruling class did not care about their 'personal truth' of their lifes, nor did they care to learn about them.  If you look at it that way?  Those men and women of the lower group truly have no incentive to TRUST the higher group in the hierarchy.

Its not a slam - its history!

Be June Cleaver not Murphy Brown!

I wanted to move to the Next Video from a previous True Women's Conference.  The last portion I spoke about Part One - You've Come a Long Way Baby!

Mary Kassian states that the Leave it to Beaver had been replaced by The Mary Tyler Moore show.

By the late 1960s, the image of June Cleaver being happy at home in her role as wife and mother were gone by the wayside, replaced by the 1970s Mary Tyler Moore image of a pretty, single woman in her 30s pursuing a career at a television station. The show was lauded as a breakthrough because it had the first, independent, attractive career woman as the center.

It discreetly implied that Mary was single. She was on the pill. She was also sexually active, but the focus of the show was on her career, not on her association with men. She truly was on her own, without a recurring father or husband or boyfriend or anyone looking out for her. Every episode, the theme song proudly alluded to her autonomy. “You're gonna make it after all.” Okay? A lot of you women remember that. You remember that. You're shaking your heads.

YES Mary came to Minneapolis after her engagement fell apart, and applied for a Reception position yet was offered a producer job instead.  The theme song for the show was called, Love Is All Around.  If we stop and think about the line 'your going to make it after all'? It makes sense!  I'm sure she came to that town totally broken hearted, and wondered where her life was going to go at that point.

It was upbeat, and truly nothing ominous about it.  I don't mean to be a negative nelly here, but it was a good show at the time.  Its focus wasn't on any of what she mentioned, and I don't understand why she brings this show up for her points.  I mean if the engagement didn't break down?  Maybe she would have been another Mrs. Cleaver.

Murphy Brown

In the 1980s, we're introduced to Murphy Brown, an investigative journalist and news anchor for FYI, a fictional TV news magazine. In contrast to the gentle sweetness of Mary Tyler Moore, this character, Murphy Brown, has a loud mouth, is rash, driven, self-assured, self-absorbed, and highly opinionated. She is a divorcee and a proud atheist, and during the course of the series, Murphy becomes pregnant but chooses not to marry her baby's father. A man would cramp her style. She has the child none-the-less and leaves the baby in the care of a revolving door of nannies so she can pursue her career. The child is merely a side in the plot that revolves around Murphy's self-actualization in the workplace.

There are alot of people in power - and she was powerful - that had that power corrupt them and others.  That's hardly a gender factor if you look at history.  I can understand why she picked this character, because Murphy Brown seems like the character they use to show you how 'feminism' is bad.  The problem comes that most of us don't live the Murphy Brown life.

Being someone that has a loud mouth, is rash, driven, self-assured, self-absorbed, and highly opinionated can be tagged to most of the broken world.  They may or may not be so in your face about it as Murphy was, but these traits for humans were present - and were alive - well before any movement started.

Are we inclined the think the worse?

Tighty Whitey

I have to admit at times I truly think I must be odd compared to most.  I have to wonder if I just view life different, and it makes me the odd man out at times.  Goodness knows I'm not different, nor better than anyone else.

When I listen to someone tell me about their life, and they throw in a zigger I tend to place it in context.  I try my hardest not to get my tighty whitey's in a bunch!

I remember months ago this woman was talking about a very ugly circumstance she was attempting to help another though in life.  If she had just stopped at that point people may have the offered empathy and support that she truly needed.

Sadly, she needed to get her frustrations out over the roadblocks that others had placed in front of the circumstance.  NOW if you put to the side the way she presented it, and just plainly looked at what she was frustrated about?  MOST would be able to empathize with the roadblocks as well.

For some reason there are a lot of Christians that can’t seem to do that.  The way she presented her frustrations wasn’t as tighty whitey as Christians should be seen, and her presentation was condemned instead of empathy that she needed.

Are we inclined to think the worse?

The next thing you know there is an all out attack on her attitude of frustration, and her presentation.  I didn’t see the story right away, and instead of addressing the others shaming her for her attitude I tried to summarize her circumstance instead.

I never addressed the attitude she brought forth in the fashion others did, but I did address her frustration over the circumstance with agreement.  I said I understood the frustration, and most in her shoes would be frustrated as well.  I giggled thought most just wouldn’t react to it the way she did!  I wanted to make a point, and lighten the mood a bit!

Then it was my turn to be shamed, because these women claimed she never presented the circumstance as I did!  If she had THEY could understand it as well!  Told me that no one should be expected to ‘see’ what I saw in the way she presented it.  YEP - me being ODD again!  If what I said WAS indeed the circumstance THEN at least they would know the direction to go in which to help this women.  For right now she needs a huge attitude adjustment.

What these people don’t stop to think about?  Why would ANYONE come back to them for anything?

People claim you should be able to be ‘real’ towards the fellowship, but unless you do this in a tighty whitey way?  WELL its confusing and contradicting to say the least!  I saw someone boiling over in frustration, and they saw it as opportunity to shame her over being frustrating - and not presenting herself in the proper tighty whitey way.

I’m not going to tell you that there aren’t times in which you need to mention that presentation okay?  I hinted at that in my response, but didn’t concentrate on it.  I wanted to show I empathized with her frustration, but also wanted to point out that at times we need to let the boiling waters turn to a simmer prior to reaching out.  It wasn’t just for the audience, but when people are boiling at times they also may not hear counsel they ask for.  It was something I personally learned in life.

She responded to me, and thanked me for seeing past her frustration level.  I was indeed viewing her circumstance ‘as is’, and YES maybe she should have waited and calmed down first prior to posting her story.  You know what happened next?  She could calmly go on, and still there was ‘tighty whitey’ Christians still trying to make us see ‘how could you expect us to see what I saw’.  I’m figuring out now they are trained to see ‘culture’, and I just saw frustration.

I think at times teachings we receive train us to see this black and white world.  They don’t train you to discern at all.


I started to read the online book, ‘Biblical Womanhood” and again I started to see the trend.

MADE TO NURTURE

I remember sitting next to a woman on an airplane flight who was addressing envelopes. We struck up a conversation, and she told me she was sending out wedding invitations for one daughter and graduation invitations for the other. I was about to congratulate her when she admitted, “It’s so nice to be getting rid of both of them at the same time.”
  
I cringed when I heard that. I was thankful her daughters weren’t there to hear her words. Though it’s a common attitude for many women in our culture, it should not characterize us as Christians. God intends that we enjoy motherhood and delight in our children.

As women, we are created to be life-bearers. Our bodies have been designed with the ability to mother—to receive, carry, and bear young. In fact, our bodies prepare themselves repeatedly to conceive and bear young. We express our femininity by gratefully embracing every stage of child-bearing, receiving and nurturing each child as a gracious gift from God.

I think we all realize there are some parents that indeed GRATEFUL to have their children leave the nest.  There are many reasons for that from being selfish to looking forward to watching them blossom. YES, of course we also have our parently dread about them leaving as well!

When we get into the habit of seeing the ‘worse’ anytime someone maybe showing frustration on a level that is not tighty whitey?  We can easily claim it’s the culture, instead of viewing ourselves being so blind we miss the entire circumstance in front of us.

Her story showed she was  inclined to think the WORSE!

The author didn’t tell us enough for us to discern if this woman was indeed just selfish or just plain frustrated.

Weddings for example can be VERY stressful for everyone.  We don’t know if the stress – and maybe competition between the daughter’s events – have this women so frustrated that she would say it out of PURE frustration.

We can also admit that at times people can say things out of frustration, and not truly mean it in their heart what they are saying.  The daughters could be driving her insane, and she just wants it to be over – and if that is the case?  I think we can all assume ‘getting rid of both of them at the same time’ isn’t what is in the lady’s heart.

I’m NOT saying it’s the correct approach, but it does happen.  If we can’t see the difference at times?  We see a woman that doesn’t delight in her children due to culture.  This woman wasn’t focused like the author seems to be on their views of motherhood.  

There have been times in my life where I wanted to string my children up by the nearest tree – I’m talking a very frustrated attitude towards them.  My mind went to nasty places like ‘throw them out and pretend I don’t hear the doorbell!”  THOSE days I have feelings of yearning for the empty nest days, and ‘getting rid of both of them’ as well.  SURE I wouldn’t do any of things, but BOY do they make me MAD at times!

If I look at my attitude and circumstance towards my children MOST of the time?  They are the precious gifts that God gave to me, and I love them so much I wouldn’t hesitate to give my life for them. 

When we have our panties in a bunch over HOW someone is presenting things to us out their OWN frustration?  Step back, because chances are your response is going to be just as irrational.

Anyone else cat have this attitude?  LOL!

I mean look at what this woman may have been was thinking, and if the author was brave enough to speak her mind?  “I’m so thankful your daughters aren’t hearing those words.  I realize it’s a common attitude for many women in our culture, but women like myself that are Christian tend to enjoy motherhood and delight in our children.”

Christian women are also to try to use discernment, and be full of grace towards others.  The training – or maybe just her attitude – shows arrogance and pride.

MOST women of our culture don’t LOVE their children like WE do!  Yuck!  People can FEEL that attitude as well, and as Christ followers we should be approachable. 

When you can’t be real, but have to be tighty whitey about everything?  When you look down at others thinking they are of the ‘culture’?  How does that show characteristics of what Jesus would ask us to?  People get so caught up on how to do ‘biblical roles’, and how to look the part – feminine – they don’t realize their tighty whitey attitudes aren’t approachable.

I’m sorry but if we are all going to be trained only to see the WORSE in the world?  As the saying goes – that’s all you are every going to see!

It’s sad to see that others use this life experience to show ‘their world view’, instead of actually SEEING what is there at times!  Please realize that I'm speaking of circumstances in general, and not ones dealing with abusive personalities.  The difference between the tighty whitey 'just so', and the abusers 'just so'?  You need a crystal ball for the abusers, because they keep changing depending on ... well depending what is in their head at the time!  Tighty Whitey's can make MORE sense!

Wives submit to their husband - If you have a problem with that TALK to GOD!

You have a problem with submission?  Talk to GOD!

Wife's Submit to your Husbands....women can be scared of that verse, especially you have a man on a power trip telling you if you have problem with it go talk to God or Paul.  I wonder if they feel that 'biblical instruction' using sarcasm is good in God's eyes?

I have heard many times people commenting on Sarah, and how she called her husband Lord.  They like to use that example to show HOW they feel submitting is to be seen.  I have to giggle a bit, because if you read the story?  Sarah doesn't give me the impression she was whom they feel she was.  She could be a bit of a bugger at times, but I'm not saying she didn't love and respect her husband.  Its clear she did, but she doesn't seem like an always easy going gal.  She must have been a challenge for Abraham at times.

The other day a I was reading some statements from a gentleman on A Wife's Submission blog.  I see in a gentleman's statements clear messages that have been taught to him that aren't healthy nor loving for either himself or his wife.

I read this type of attitude from many, and it comes from an arrogant sense of entitlement.  This sense of entitlement is taught when you have men and women are pushing the 'authority' of the husband more than the WHOLE 'role' they claim he has.

They hold onto that authority card so hard and strong that they don't place as much emphasis on the rest of the role they claim they provide.  Grudem does this in my below example.  He is attempting to show there is confusion, when actually it more like he doesn't care for their version of scripture.  Why?  It doesn't mention his authority.

Grudem's book Gender Neutral Bible Controversy talks about Colossians 3:18-19:

Colossians 3:18-19 offers key instructions concerning the relation of husband and wife in marriage.

Colossians 3:18 tells us, “Wives, submit9 to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (NIV). You would never know it from the CEV, which has the highly weakened expression, “put others first.” “A wife must put her husband first. This is her duty as a follower of the Lord” (CEV). What does “put ... first” mean? Precisely what is a wife supposed to do? It is not clear. Readers might guess that a wife is supposed to put her husband’s needs before her own, as Philippians 2:4 says, “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (NIV).

But in such a situation, there is really no sense of being subject to or obeying someone else who is in authority, but only a general idea of sacrificially caring for him. In the end, a wife does for her husband exactly what the husband does for her: serve sacrificially. What for Paul are different commands for different roles have become in the CEV equivalent commands for identical roles. The CEV has distorted the picture.

I realize some different versions of the bible do upset people.  I have seen myself that items are changed into something completely different.  I think we all have our preferences, and our own reasons why.

I'm not endorsing any version, but was more concentrating on his point of authority.

Grudem states that sacrificially caring for one another is not enough, because the man's authority is not being represented.  He states that people will not understand what 'put others first' will mean.  I'm sorry but if they read the entire chapter in question?  It should be pretty clear!

If Grudem feels that the wife wouldn't  know precisely what they are suppose to do?  Then later states this is what the man is suppose to do?  You have to wonder WHY the confusion.  Why would the wife get confused, and not the husband also if this is so confusing?

Feminism and the TV dinner!

Feminism and the TV dinner

I was having a good giggle this morning, and it reminded me of the discussion at hand how organizations use a list of red flags to get across their message.

CBMW does love to use this concept of feminism as their huge threat to the family.  FOOD and feminism was the article that I read, and it showed to me how they don't use any history behind their beliefs.  To me they took the definition of a Yuppie and replaced it with feminist.

What has fast food (whether eating out or pre-packaged) done for the feminism movement?  If you think back to when these TV dinners started really hitting the supermarket shelves (or fast food icons, etc) – it would be in the late 50s and on.  Which came first – the feminism movement of the 60s and 70s or the rise of food?  Is there a correlation – yes, but I don’t think its the driving correlation. 

Now if you read about the history of TV dinners, and YES there is actually articles on this the statement above is false.  No there was no 'correlation'.  The TV dinner was invented due to an over abundance error of Turkey the Swanson company had.

Relying on frozen convenience foods is nothing new -- who actually invented them, however, is a bit more contentious. Though credit is widely given to the Swanson brothers, it took a combination of a stocking error at Swanson, a light bulb idea by Swanson company salesman Gerry Thomas after a visit to Pan American Airways in Pittsburgh and some smart marketing to give rise to the TV dinner.

and

The first TV dinners produced by Swanson were in answer to a problem they had with Thanksgiving turkey leftovers. Not just a few Tupperware containers, either -- we're talking about 260 tons (235 metric tons) of turkey leftovers. So they appealed to their workers to come up with ideas. Gerry Thomas had just seen the airplane-friendly compartmentalized aluminum trays used by Pan American Airways and introduced the idea to the Swanson brothers back home in Nebraska. They packaged turkey, corn bread stuffing, peas and sweet potatoes and hung their advertising campaign on the newest craze to hit the nation: TV. That year, Swanson sold more than 25 million TV dinners to hungry Americans, at 98 cents per package. TV dinners were a hit.

It sounds to me that this idea came along due to an error, and with 260 tons of turkey on the line?  They needed to come up with something fast, or take a huge economic hit when it spoiled.   Did they realize they were starting some ground breaking food source, and it would appeal to all those feminist's that don't like staying at home to take care of the traditional family?  I have to giggle and think that they HOPED it was a hit on some level, because they had 260 tons of turkey to get rid of!  Their abundance of food was the driving force, and not the feminist.  I mean how many single men wouldn't love to snap those up for dinner as well?  Who can blame Swanson?  That's alot of turkey, and I'm sure would have cost the company PLENTY if they didn't think of something FAST!  Their creative idea was a HIT!

Love is not a feeling! Love is an action!

Love is a verb.  Love is an action word!

How often have you read rebukes to people that struggling in life with the phrase, "Love is not a feeling.  Love is action word!"  They will tell you LOVE is a verb!  I personally believe that, but the way some like to apply it to life?  I do believe the miss the mark!

It seems to me its like the debate over roles!  Are biblical roles God given, or are they a 'feeling' as some describe them ... but say they aren't?!

I was watching a debate between some ladies and gentlemen from both the Egalitarian and the Complementarianism sides of the issue in regards to roles, and of course submission was a very hot topic.  From where I sat there were couples on both sides that have very good marriages.  They respect and love their spouses, but it seems like words like 'leader' makes the whole conversation go into a tailspin!

What is strange is both claim they appreciate differences within couples, and their gifts that they bring to the marriage.  There was a gentleman that admitted he wants his wife to take the lead in some circumstances due to her gifts that she has in that area.  To me he was showing LOVE as an action word!  It showed respect for this gift she had, and he willingly admitted he did not!  They both use their gifts for the benefit of each other.  Then you have a complementary woman that stated she also respected gifts and individuality, but went on some speech about pretty much the opposite.  How she was taking his ROLE as leader, and making herself HEAD.  How can you respect differences, and then rail against them?

ROLES ARE A FEELING!

How DARE you approach to Domestic Violence in the church!

There was a discussion on Mark Driscoll recently, and they posted his message to abusive men.  I remember the first time I heard it, and I had just dealt with a family going through a very hard time.  He said some things that I wanted to say, and I felt some of the rage he was feeling as he screamed, "HOW DARE YOU!".

It was the human part inside of me over the hurt and anger I felt over a family being terribly mistreated.  I was very UPSET over their abuser's entitled mindset over how he was justified.  I was seething over how he could find fault in everyone and everything, and not once did he step up to the plate with his own sin.

Abusive people (not just men) are great at blaming everything and anything for this behavior.  They are not capable of owning things, because it makes them feel 'less than'.  It makes them feel powerless, and it makes them vulnerable.  They look at it like some opening that people are waiting for so they can charge it to crush them into the ground.  What they don't realize?  Most people aren't interested in that, and yet that is HOW they view the world and the people within it.  Remember how I always say they tend to do things with motive?  They assume everyone does that!

You see from time to time when they will admit certain things, but if you stopped long enough to listen?  They always have a BUT attached.  There is always justification.  There is always some hurt or reason for their actions.  What they never offer up is ownership of their own poop, and yet demand it from others in a very threatening way.  They will say they have a bad temper, and yet when you get into the nuts and bolts of that aspect?  Their anger stops all conversation.  You may be able to speak of it one day, and yet the next time HOW DARE YOU!

TOOLS for change! Who is ready?

I was reading a story of a women recently, and how she is dealing with the guilt of never telling her father she loved him before he passed away. The dynamics of her childhood were not of a kisses and loads of hugs atmosphere.

If I were guessing there was a true lack of that, and that to a child is a sense of comfort. We all know some people just aren't capable of it for some reason, but it sounds like this and other dynamics caused distance between her and father during her childhood.

It sounds in part like a familiar story of a young girl rebelling, and finding herself abused, abandoned, and pregnant.

She was struggling at this point, and trying to get her life back on track. The distanced relationship with her father changed one day with a phone call. He wanted to help, and first and foremost? He wanted to babysit that grandchild, and wanted HER to go out and do something for herself. She needed a break, and he clearly saw that. It was the start of their rebuilding, renewing, and improving on that relationship of the past.

Tragically, her father had a car accident and later died from his injuries.

I never told him I love him. I had thirty days of being with him in that hospital and could never bring myself to tell him those three simple little words. Its been 14 years now and I still cry over it. How can a child not tell their own father who was dying that they loved him. Regardless of if he knew it or not, I never said those words and i cannot forgive myself. I cannot move on. I cannot let go. I need to tell him. I go to his graveside and tell him, but it doesnt help. I ask Jesus to relay the message, but it doesnt help. How do I forgive myself and move on? I cannot handle this anymore. I have to tell him!!!!

The love between them was clearly demonstrated, and YES people did mention she needs to forgive herself most of all! Her father knew, and even if words were not spoken he knows! It sounded alot like a prodigal son type of story! The story had a twist in this case!

He wasn't one that told her he loved her either, and his behavior at times in childhood sounds like alot of anger.

You could see the tools he had that may not have been healthy, and passed those tools onto his child.

I don't think she saw it, but we could all see it in what she said.

He pushed her to hard, and expected more than what she was capable of - in turn as adult she was never satisfied with her achievements. It wasn't PERFECT!

She opened up all the cans of worms of her sins after he passed away, and then wondered if her father was alive if he would have saved her those sins by his strictness.

Later on realized it was her own immaturity. It was the cartwheels of life you see either with yourself or others as you travel along that road of life.

Her guilt she knew was hindering her relationship with God as well. She was also starting to realize that the tools of her past play a part in her decisions, feelings, and patterns in her life.

She wanted to know how to change those tools - how could she change?

WHERE does she begin!

She received the, "Jesus will heal you" type of responses.

I KNEW she had just stepped on a landmine, and I'm SURE her mind was swimming! She had a hint, but wasn't sure YET about the tools of change.

BEING myself I just couldn't hold back at that point! LOL!



You can learn those tools! I did! I was a very frighten, lonely, and was abused in alot of ways as a child. I didn't know this fully at the time, but I figured it out later in life.

My parents didn't have the tools to deal with certain things the way they needed to, and I did suffer for that.

REMEMBER!!! You do the best you can with the tools you have available at the time.

My folks didn't have tools, and I can't blame them for that. It is what it is!

I had a warped way of viewing the world and the people within it due to that.

I had a different way of dealing with my faith due to that.

I'm sure some of the items I will struggle with all my life.

I didn't realize I was any different than anyone else. I was told I was a strong person, and yet I knew that was a role I played because I felt I had to. It was a way to stay safe.

I honestly thought everyone knew that, and other 'strong' people did the same thing!

Those were my tools at the time. I played a good role for a long time! No one knew about the abuse in my home, because I tried to reach out a couple of times and was ignored. I tried to confront and was belittled and shamed. You see everyone liked the role my folks were playing, and didn't want to go there. Between those parties (including the church) and the rest of the family - I learned real quick you need to hush and stay that way.

I was a child, and those tools came with me into adulthood.

I knew I wasn't strong enough to take them all on - or at least I didn't feel that way - and I just worked on my armor instead.

It was the only protective shield I had. I remember these LONG conversations with God as a child about this. I didn't blame him for NOT changing things, because I figured there must be SOME reason for it!

God was my only comfort then, and in his arms I did feel loved, understood, and had someone on my side.

I grew up, and was college educated, community oriented, successful in business, and well liked and respected by others. I still had my role, and it seemed to be working.

My personal life? WELL I was pretty much groomed in a way that didn't show me GREAT tools in that area! I figured out the game on how to make things look great on the outside, but I had no tools for a good intimate relationships.

The clues and the red flags? They were what I grew up with, and didn't have a clue on how to deal with them. I had already learned from the poundings I got as a child, and I was very scared and shamed about asking to many questions or commenting.

I was used to people telling me - what did you DO?!?! NO matter what happened!

It would be my performance that would bring good things, and a shamed based learning came if I didn't follow the formula.

I found myself in trouble (my marriage), and for the first time in my life? I realized I was abused.

Can you imagine? Figuring that out so late in the game? What did I do AFTER I got past the stage of trying to deny it? lol and believe me that was a battle in itself! HUGE BATTLE I mean WHO in their right mind would want to OWN that???

Next came that I shamed myself into thinking I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN! How could I be so STUPID! What in heaven's name was I thinking!

You know what didn't help? Statements like,

"If people go into relationships with red flags what do they expect would happen?"

"Why don't they just leave!"

"Maybe if you just got right with yourself, and showed them love and respect they wouldn't do that to you!"

Those were not only humiliating, made me feel more shame, but were down right confusing. It sent me SPINNING for years!

When you don't have the right tools? Its pretty easy to take those statements, and really bury yourself in a hole. You don't have a healthy sense of self worth as it is, and it made me feel like it was all my fault all over again. They can't help because its my fault.

My childhood nightmares coming true all over again! People expect you at times I think to have tools they take for granted, and I seem to think that is part of the blind spot.

I never cried.

It wasn't a part of the armor I was comfortable showing. It gave me a great sense of shame even doing it privately.

I learned the deal is you have to learn. Things implode on you worse if you can't find a way to get past that. I think a sense of true depression for me?

It was due to me NOT having the tools for outlet of feelings, and those energies within turned against me and worked their destruction.

I thought only certain feelings were allowed to be surfaced, and you will pay for the rest. HOW wrong was I!

My father's death taught me how to cry. It was weeks after his death, and I was in the shower. No one was home, and just WENT with the urge! I wailed in agony! I was so exhausted I dragged myself to my bed. I told God I felt alone, and Daddy left me and was everyone going leave me? I swear I felt him wrapping his arms around me, and saying, "I will never leave you!" It soothed me enough that I fell asleep.

I found after that experience its much easier for me cry, and I tried my darnest NOT to fight it. It makes me human. If people say it is weak? I learned that is their issue, because I want to be human! If that makes sense!



I got help for my issues in a safe environment that didn't push or place pressure on me. It took years to come out of the fog that was my life! I practiced and acquired new tools.

Tools that others take for granted, and I'm proud to own now.

I dealt with an anger stage as well, and you know what? I think I needed it!

I was like a pressure cooker that only allowed little spits of steam to surface all my life.

It was nice and cleansing to get that toxin out of my system! It wasn't pretty either!

Its released now, and I get to start fresh!

I think that part of the healing others don't understand. That's fine - in some ways I'm glad they don't! That means they don't have the pain I did! I don't think I can explain it any better than that!

You can learn to cry and you can learn new tools. Its an awesome journey, but it isn't instant for everyone! I hear stories about how they just laid it on out, and the next day the sun came and shined all over them! LOL That's great, but the journey worked for me!

I was right. God had me deal with things for a reason. HEY maybe I was a smart KID afterall!

When my father died I wanted to tell him things on his deathbed. Dad was one that had anxiety attacks, and he was terminal. It was just a matter of time that day. I was afraid that what I said would make him worry instead of letting go.

I asked God to pass along the message. I have no doubt he did! Don't beat yourself UP over this! Its not worth it!

You need to let go, and allow God to show you those new tools he wishes you to have. Those are MUCH better than the pain you are keeping...believe me!



I guess the word TOOL made her realize things. She is going to go and find those tools, and I pray that she does find them!

Abusive people and their victims lack the tools for life. People think they have tools that most people have, and don't stop to think maybe there is a link there! Why? Because we don't! It could be for ALL kinds of reasons!

Submitting more and trying to be a better wife? Finding ways to respect and love my husband?

I learned to submit due to fear from childhood. Telling me you don't do that didn't compute. I didn't have the tools to grasp the meaning of that.

My submitting made an angry man feel more entitled to take it a step further.

He didn't have the tools to realize that loving and sacrificing wasn't a sign of weakness. He needed the power over, and the AUTHORITY they teach? That was an awesome tool, but he couldn't grasp that wasn't what was being told to him.

The sugar sweet messages on HOW to approach husbands when you are unhappy? Those are a sign of weakness to an abuser, and he will take advantage of that. Why? That is what they do! Matter of fact they will rub your nose in the sugar sweet! They have NO GRASP on the tool of its intention!

Fixing one portion of the toolbox - the marriage - isn't going to bring restoration. Learning those tools is hard work, and it takes a commitment! I see so often these stories of seeing the sin, and the next thing you know this HUGE miracle happens...and they are transformed. I won't say that can't happen, but in most cases the journey for the tools is beneficial for the individuals. Could be why we don't see those instant transformations as often as people would like.

You can't do anything if you don't have the tools to make it happen. Don't shame yourself over the tools you didn't have in the past! That would be silly! Acknowledging tools that you need to acquire? Working for those? Those bring the change within you that God wants. TOOLS for change...Now who is ready?