I came across an article called, The Truth about Men. The author seems to feel that Christian Manhood can be Illustrated with this list of behaviors from women.
It’s articles like this that make me feel angry for the way some portray men. It seems to follow the opinion that being a man of God depends on Women to make them so. Everything women do, say, believe, act, etc. is responsible for how men become men. For some reason men – they seem to hint – they are unable to handle the journey themselves with God’s help. God can’t transform them, but it is dependent on women to treat them just so. This belief system is so childish. GROW UP ALREADY!
A man NEEDS to be the man God has created him to be. Since the beginning of time, God has instructed man to tend, guard and care for all that was on the earth. It is only natural that he will have that very same desire to do the same for the woman he loves, so please let him. Scripture tells us that after God formed man, He fashioned woman and presented her to him as one of God's most precious gifts. Allow him to see you as the gift you were fashioned to be.
Being a man of God is dependent on the man, and their efforts toward being what God wishes them to be. He can SEE the gift if he views women through the lenses God asks him to. Its that simple! The bible is very clear how we are to treat others EVEN if we don’t care for them. Its not dependent on them at all. We would never get anything done in God’s name if it were. That’s just plain common sense! This belief system is full of entitlement and narcissism. Its not a biblical role! It’s man made doctrine, and it will fail people because you don’t depend on God but others.
I’m not saying that as humans we can’t have others help us in life’s journey. God placed people in our path for a reason – his reason. We will all have people in our life's that are a source of encouragement among other things. We will also have some that are a source of dread. We can't use those people that bring hurt into our life's as an excuse NOT to be what God ‘fashioned’ us to be. Our spiritual journey would halt before it even got started if we did!
THINK about that for a moment! Do we need others to be a certain way to be proper Christian? To be the way Jesus asks us to be? That is what this author is saying. Its not true for ANYONE! For all the speeches on the ‘weaker vessel’, and the stereotypes they place out there about women? Lets be honest and say if man were depend on woman? IGNORING the fact that man teaches women are to be dependent on THEM (among stereotypes in the other direction)….we are all screwed! The gender deal can’t do it for US! Why is this so hard to wrap their heads around?
Notice how they left God out completely! His word means nothing. It becomes a tool for an agenda instead.
To me this type of thinking is considered tunnel vision. I can only tend, guard and care for things IF they are as I need them to be. He is basically stating that others are responsible for his actions. THEY MADE ME! People in general tend to use this type of excuse all the time. Its not just men. Its been a popular way of thinking for ages – if not forever! I can only treat people the way they need to be treated if they can be x, y and z. In other words, our behavior is not dependent on what God asks of us but of our perceived treatment from others. People in general will always be disappointed I have to admit. Poor things.
Notice how Jesus treated those that were looked down upon in the society he was in at the time. He saw them as God’s children WITHOUT the list of rules to ‘allow’ him to see them this way. Jesus came because MAN is not capable of caring, guarding, and tending to this world the way it should be. We need him. The human race has a bad track record – YES even within the church – and the fault lays in sin.
When Paul was jailed, and it was written that he converted his jailers. Was it dependent on their treatment of him? Did David become what God was leading him towards due to the treatment from Saul? I would assume the jailers at one time, and YES Saul was beyond acting ugly. If you apply this author’s way of thinking – it’s a wonder they got anything accomplished!
Can you imagine some poor man’s reaction to God once he reaches Heaven, and gives God the excuse that he didn’t treat women as you asked me too BECAUSE they didn’t let me FEEL my position as a MAN! I need Christian Manhood Illustrated! They didn’t HELP ME GOD!
I’m sorry but it reminds me of a whiner. Doesn’t it?
This type of tunnel vision makes people weak and wimpy. It makes us dependent on others to be the person God had in mind. Humans will always fail us, so why concentrate on this dependency? Let just say it…it’s a bigoted view, and helps no one.
Remember God makes ‘Godly’ men – not women! The same principal applies the other way around.
God please help me see what you have in mind for me, and help me do as you wish me to do. Help me pull off my own lenses of dependency on things that should not be. In Jesus name…AMEN!
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.
All to often when abuse victims try to describe what is happening in their life they are told they have ‘communication’ problems.
That is one of the biggest misunderstandings it seems to me. It isn’t a communication problem between the two parties at all.
On occasion my children and I watch Teen Mom. One of the couples since the show started was Amber and Gary. Amber in this case is the abusive party. Gary on the other hand seems to be the enabler, along with the victim.
I don’t think most people blame a couple for trying to stay together, because they have a child. If you watch Amber she got herself into trouble for physically attacking Gary, and like most abusive people has a really hard time dealing with the consequences.
I wasn’t able to upload these video clips to youtube due to copyright, and you may have to download Adobe Flash in order to view it the video I have supplied.
One thing you notice is that abusive people refuse to handle the ugly sides of things most of the time. I can empathize being scared because you know the police and child protective services is looking to speak to you. Anyone in their right mind would be a bit intimidated and scared. Amber on the other hand handles this in true abuser fashion.
It’s the way they handle anxiety that causes conflict. Its not a communication problem, and its not an anger problem. They divert this anxiety to other things, and attempt to start fights. They next thing you know they are saying things to bait you into saying something they can attack you over. They are screaming irrational stuff that makes no sense. You are often left confused, and wondering how the conversation got to the point it did.
Lets look at the first scene:
Right away Gary is trying to approach this ugly circumstance in a smart way. He wants to speak to Amber about getting lawyer, before they deal with the police or Child Protective Services. Notice how they can’t even have that conversation!
The police want to talk to Amber, and she doesn’t want to deal with this at all.
“So you do thing it would be smart for me to get a lawyer, or do you think it would be smart for me to go to jail?”
“So, if a lawyer is more than jail should I just go to jail?”
You can tell by Gary’s face he realizes she is attempting to bait him into a fight. She rambles off two irrational questions right off the bat.
She doesn’t want to deal with this. She doesn’t want to get a lawyer. She doesn’t want to talk about this.
Gary at this point is attempting to communicate with a person that is going into her irrational mindset. When abusers get like this? There is no talking to them.
I realize some people would tell you then approach it at a different time. What they REFUSE to acknowledge is this is HOW abusive people deal with anxiety and fear – and there IS no GOOD time to approach this.
Amber would much rather fight if Gary doesn’t shut up, and make this go away. Amber would rather blame Gary for this happening to begin with. We all know that things can’t be approached in that fashion. The victim is placed between a rock and hard place. You already know a fight is going to happen, because the irrational nature has already started.
She is combative because she thinks the world should leave her alone, and if it has to happen GARY can pay for it! Why? Its his fault this happened, and he needs to pay for the consequences.
“The next time someone calls for me how about your give me the phone” – as if she could handle this circumstance. As if that has anything to do with the conversation.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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.
I remember as a young girl the town next door just opened a sports center. My parents felt it would be a great idea for myself, and my brother to learn how to play tennis. The next thing I know I got a tennis racket for my birthday with Billie Jean King's autograph on it. It was actually pretty exciting for me at the time.
I remember the first day for my very FIRST tennis lesson. It was summer time, and my brother and I walked everywhere - or rode our bikes. I had my tennis racket in hand, and my tennis outfit my mother got me as well. I walked along the busy streets on the sidewalk to get to the indoor sports center where my lessons were being held.
The next thing I know is a car full of men were whistling and cat calling out to me. At that point I had already hit the area where there were many stores, and I remember this surge of fear at the time. I was looking around for a place of safety, and was afraid to finish my walk to the sports center for my lesson.
The next thing I know the street light changed on the main street I was trying to cross, and their car moved forward. I noticed they had made a U turn at their very first opportunity, and I ran into the department store on the other side of the street. I remember hiding behind the first display that was available, and at the same time watching to see if that car full of men would follow me into the store.
To say I was scared at the time was a huge under statement. My stomach was turning over in knots, and I was thinking of what my next move would be if they indeed came into the store I had just escaped into.
At the time behind all the stores in the area were farm fields behind them, or small areas of homes. I knew the sports center wasn't far at this point, and I decided I was going to finish my journey through the fields. I was to frighten to finish it along the main road.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have been reading opinions about the latest Eminem song, called, "Love The Way You Lie". (Video Link highlighted)
Some people say they 'get' the song, and others feel it glamorizes domestic violence. I found a short interview with Rihanna, and the part that bothered me is her almost childlike response, "I wanted to be part of a HIT!"
I tried for a number of weeks to figure out WHERE the attraction was for this song, and how it is strange that none of them (Characters in the video) truly try to explain the message behind it. Rihanna got the snot kicked out of her, and I can't believe that she would truly wish to 'glamorize' what happened to her.
WELL below is my STAB at a theory!
Lets look at the chorus of the song:
Just gonna stand there and watch me burn
But that's alright because I like the way it hurts
Just gonna stand there and hear me cry
But that's alright because I love the way you lie
I love the way you lie
This is the first part I think some are truly bothered by. WHY would she said such a thing? I like the way it hurts? I like the way you lie? Huh?
To me personally? It sounds like opinions towards victims of domestic violence from society. She must like it or why wouldn't she leave? She must have done something to trigger him like that! She isn't innocent after all.
I'm talking about how those justifications we read about after she got beat up, and had to listen to people justifying Chris Brown actions towards her. She PUSHED him to beat her.... right? Abusers for the most part are out for themselves, and in their sick viewpoints towards the relationship? Watching her cry or burn isn't something that moves them in reality.
For the chorus she is playing the part that society had labeled her with. I'm not talking ALL of us, but the ones that stood up for Chris Brown in a fashion that justified what he did to her. How she pushed his buttons, and she loves the way he lies. Why else would she stay in a relationship with him? RIGHT?!
maybe he was defending himself against her
WHY YALL ON RIHANNA SIDE HE HIT HER FOR A REASON SHE MIGHT HAVE DID SUMTHIN TO **** HIM OFF OR PUSH HIM TO HIS LIMIT
im guessing that rhianna hit him first and if she did, then she got what she deserved.
We have heard cruel attitudes towards victims, and maybe Rihanna is playing the part they asked her to in the chorus. It was the opinion of society towards her, and it shows to THEM at least she has twisted thoughts towards the relationship as well.
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!
I read an article recently on Christianity Today, about a man I think most of us have heard of. Do you remember Mister Rogers?
I remember when I was young my mother had us watch his show, and told us that he was a Presbyterian minister. The picture was an Album my parents got us one year, and the rectangle shown in the picture was a mirror. You looked in the mirror on the cover, and Mister Rogers was reminding you how special you were once again. I was a little old for the album, but I remember using it when I babysat.
Mister Rogers reminds me of the scripture: Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit the earth. His message not only to children, but to everyone was 'accept everyone for who they are'.
To me it wasn't just lip service for him, and as I was looking on Youtube I saw an interview with on the Rosie O'Donnell show. Rosie is controversial on many realms, but has a big heart for children. When I saw the interview I could just hear many Christians saying, "I don't know if I would go on her show. It might be seen as endorsing her lifestyle (She is a Lesbian) !" His grace filled nature just shined through, and his kindness wasn't just for show. It was who he was towards everyone.
Lady Elaine
I was watching an interview with him as well, and he spoke of the stereotype we hear about 'how men should be' when it comes to showing their feelings. We have all heard the sayings right? Men don't cry! Men don't get emotional! Society wanted men to be STUFFERS, and he mentioned that he used to use music to allow those feelings to surface. If he was upset, sad, happy whatever it was he could freely show them with his music. He mentioned it never hurt anyone.
He found an acceptable way of doing this, and he was very clear about how this gift came from God. He was able to throw off the society's rules, and show his feelings. His wife mentioned that it takes a certain amount of courage to tell his feelings. How he has been liberated for a very long time, and she was sure there were many men that would very much like to me that way.
...Because if you are trusted then people will allow you to share their inner garden with you. What greater gift? - Fred Rogers
What does it mean to be MEEK?
I think there are so many people that look upon the word as a sort of weakness. Someone that is naive, and easy to run over. Someone silly and maybe not all that intelligent. I guess they seem to think of maybe children's show like Winnie the Pooh or Sponge Bob.
Daniel the Tiger
There is talk about how RIGHT is MIGHT now days, and how men aren't allowed to be MEN anymore. I also think people get the wrong idea about men that are filled to the brim with the Holy Spirit, and their gentle nature is taken as 'feminized' today. Most define the word as mild mannered, spine-less, weak, submissive, subservient, passive…ineffective.
To me in today's culture we get so CAUGHT up in placing everything into 'roles', or categories of 'male and female' that we seem to miss something very important.
Jesus was meek, and you have to wonder if they ever stopped to think MAYBE they have the wrong impression of the word meek. The definition of meek I guess is hard, because it has many aspects to it. Its a multi faceted word, and maybe that is why people don't understand it. I know if they truly knew the meaning? I doubt pushover would come to mind.
ANGER
Lets take how a person would approach anger! I think we all know that the bible states we can be angry, but do not sin in that anger. Anger can be a selfish response to the world and other people. We feel angry when we feel don’t get our way or we feel like we are not being noticed.
The meek get angry, but they are angry for the right reasons. Some things in this life should make you angry.
When someone does something to hurt someone else, or you…the proper response is anger! When we encounter injustice, prejudice, and hatred it causes righteous anger inside us, which helps us have the courage to strive towards change at times!
The meek have more self control when it comes to anger if you wish to compare them to most. They seem to understand this passage in James 1:19 My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. 21Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
I'm sure we are all familiar with this passage, but lets look at one sentence again! "for man's anger does not bring about the righteousness that God desires." Human anger rarely accomplishes divine purposes does it? The wrong type of anger is prevalent back then, and of course it is still today!
The Trolley to the Land of Make Believe
The meek don’t confuse their own immature, angry responses to life as God’s anger.
You hear to often people comparing their angry to that of God's. James says that human anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness. People feel since they are angry so is GOD! The meek know the difference and seek to focus on God’s anger rather than their own. We want to GO with that anger, and the meek have enough self control to focus on God's!
When I think about that? God gave them a WHOLE lot of inner strength! Strength that is disciplined, strength that is truly strong, and strength that God wishes us all to have. People say the meek are: mild mannered, spine-less, weak, submissive, subservient, passive…ineffective. If we look at how those deal with angry compared to how God wishes them to? We have to realize WHOM is truly the weak ones!
Gentleness
The Strength of the Lion, and the Gentleness of the Lamb. That is what I think of when I think of the second aspect of meek. It takes great strength to deal with anger the way God would ask us to, and yet he also asks us to be gentle.
Gentleness doesn't mean wimpy by any means. Indeed, this characteristic will largely determine how much peace and contentment are in our lives and how well we do during trials.
To often we get the message in this world of, 'Blessed are the strong, who can hold their own.'
“Gentleness” forces us to take inventory of our attitudes and behaviors. It expresses itself in our attitudes toward God, ourselves and how we treat others.
A humble attitude toward God and others makes us gentle, humble, sensitive and patient in our dealings with others.
The Holy Spirit enables us to over come these worldly behaviors. For example, "Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity, idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!" (Galatians 5:19-21) To overcome these passions and behaviors we need more than self-control. We need God’s help! God can indeed help us in this area.
There is an aspect to Mister Rogers that always gentle. He was a very intelligent man, and it seems no matter whom he ran into in life they were special to him. Watch a video of his introduction prior to winning an award.
He was very approachable, and YES people trusted their inner most thoughts and feelings to him. Today some would call that 'feminine', and yet its very healthy for everyone to have someone 'safe' to speak with regarding our inner thoughts if we feel led to.
He also wasn't one that you have to place some 'acting role' out there in order to do this. To often you see people wanting to play this 'role' of goodness, gentleness, etc that is so fake in church, and yet when you meet the real them outside the doors of the church their personality is completely different.
Its not BAD to me, but shows how people can't be real at times. People don't feel comfortable coming to the church with problems the church claims you should when their is an atmosphere is having to deal with things within an acting role.
Today I suppose they would call that an aspect of 'feminizing' the church, but has been there for longer than I can remember. No one can truly be the 'real you' within the atmosphere of the church, but instead have this list of acceptable 'roles' instead. People feel stifled, and since most of us don't fill the role that is placed out there? It almost makes you feel ashamed. Not good enough. Not filling the mark. It doesn't make the church feel safe and approachable. Mister Rogers didn't present that road block. He was genuine, and wanted to see and accept the real you.
That's not feminine, but how God would wish us to all strive for. Today it seems we are to busy looking for aspects to slam others with instead. Mister Rogers wanted to look for the good, and accepted YOU as a unique special creature of God. To me? That's refreshing! People don't have to do this the Mister Rogers way, and I have wonder if there are so few examples out there that is HOW we get to thinking: I don't want to be some man with sweaters, bow ties, and sing to children like he does! THINK outside the BOX people!
On February 28, 2003, the day after Fred's death from stomach cancer at age seventy-four, I published an essay in the Star-Telegram describing our unlikely friendship. For the next several days I was inundated with hundreds of letters, e-mails, and telephone messages from newspaper readers eager to share their own memories of Mister Rogers, and the impact he and his long-running children's program had on their lives. Scores of young adults wrote of the sense of security they felt growing up with him, of learning from Mister Rogers about their own value and what it meant to love. Parents wrote of entrusting their children to Mister Rogers for a half hour each day; the kindly, wise, civilizing influence in a world increasingly bereft of kindness, wisdom, and civility.
As I answered those messages, I was pleased to assure the readers that Fred Rogers and Mister Rogers were indeed one and the same, that in real life Fred was as he appeared on television, the gentle embodiment of goodness and grace.
People poked fun at him due to his view of life, and how he wished to treat others. His wife doesn't give me the impression of someone that wore the pants in the family, but she was showing her true respect towards him. I learned the sweaters that he wore were presents that his mother 'hand made' just for him each Christmas. He didn't have to talk down to people, but could acknowledge their pain. He would be the first to say he still loves them despite their faults. He was very slow to judge.
Jesus had a gentle nature to him. It may at first seem impractical, foolish and even wild, but Jesus was no sentimental dreamer who dealt in empty platitudes either. He was an unflinching realist who has given us a great key to prosperity and dominion under God's purpose. YES in ways he was different in some ways from Mister Rogers. People can do 'gentle' in different ways. What is true of both is they were easy to approach, and save to be with. They were easy to share with, and you could count on the grace towards you. Can you imagine either of them saying you have problem with biblical roles, authority of men, you must be a feminist? That's certainly wasn't their priority in life was it?
Mr. McFelly - Speedy Delivery!
People that are meek used their strength, but also was done cautiously. Just because you can does not mean that you should!
Being able to push others around or force things usually has the opposite result than the one you imagined or planned. The exercise of strength must be judicious, or it can cause more resentment and ill will than any problem it forces to bend to its desire.
To often people don't stop to think of that, and their urge to just tell them how 'ungodly' they are seems to be the norm. When someone tells you if you have problem with the message GO talk to GOD? Does that cause a desire to truly do that the way they intended, or see them as they are..a blow hard!
They say the world can't handle the truth? Yet, they truly need to stop and listen, read scripture again, and maybe take a look at ourselves.
We all know what it is like to have someone use their strength in that way… the overbearing boss, the school yard bully, the older brother or sister, the cop who has let their authority become a license to push rough shod over reason...or to show off at the expense of others!
We see it in churches when people NEEDING to remind others of 'whom is in authority' within their homes. Think about who Mister Rogers concentrated on when it came to authority! It wasn't about HIM, but about God! Mister Rogers could laugh at himself, but had enough inner validation not worry about feelings of others thinking he wasn't a 'true man'.
Who was accepting the truth and whom wasn't? We are to busy pushing agendas, and proving our points. We are to busy showing others THIS is what scripture means, and if you can't accept it you are out of God's will! You see arrogance and not people that are approachable. What happened to a gentle nature being an asset? Now we call it feminized.
Humility
Here are some sayings we maybe familiar with! "You can't teach an old dog new tricks!" or "it is hard to teach a person who knows it all already".
A person who is meek knows that they are gifted, talented, intelligent, but they attribute these gifts to their creator rather than taking credit for it themselves. Mister Rogers always spoke of the gifts others gave to him to enrich his life. He was very gifted, very talented, and as I mentioned very intelligent. He always attributed those gifts from God, and the blessings of the gifts from others enriched his life. He was always looking to learn MORE as well!
Many people have the wrong idea about God, the Bible and humility. They seem to think being humble means groveling in front of others, or thinking we're no good and others are good. I guess people like to take things to the extreme, but the humble person can view balance in life. The bible pictures a humble nature as someone that is free from pride and arrogance. To me a humble person KNOWS who they are in Christ, and also knows that in the flesh they are inadequate.
Scripture says the humble person is the peace maker. They walk in life not by their own 'personal power', but walk humbling in life with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The humility that God grants you if you ask him also shows you that you can be comfortable with WHO you are in the Lord, and show this by putting others first. Loving others as God asks us all to do is not being a wimp. 'Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.' Phil 2:3
This so goes against what is seen in the world. It does against all the stereotypes that culture places out there. People take it to the extreme, and it make it sound like you can never make any decisions for yourself.
Lets look at Mister Rogers acceptance speech of a Lifetime Achievement award that he received. YES he did thank all those that contributed to his life, but he also showed others how to place those before himself.
The Meek will inherit the Earth
People seem to look at that statement, and wonder HOW that can be so? People mistake it seems to me as a 'female' trait. They seem to be looking at something that truly isn't there. William Barclay adds that meekness is "the most untranslatable of words in the New Testament". I can believe it!
King Friday
Jesus was meek…and he inherits the kingdom. The scripture in Philippians…where Jesus humbled himself and became meek as a servant. God exalted him!
“Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him a name that is above every name. The Name of Jesus every knee shall bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.” (Philippians 2: 6-11)
The gentle man knows his own ignorance, limitation and needs. It is freedom from all self-importance. The push for roles to me shows self-importance.
Jesus described this attitude in Matthew 5:3-4 when He said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.”
Meek and Humble Spirit? It describes the proper “balance between too much and too little anger.” There are some things in life that should make us angry as we mentioned. Here is the person who is "always angry at the right time, and never angry at the wrong time" with just the precise amount of anger. The gentle man is the man who can patiently endure. He is proactive instead of aggressive.
How do you handle pride, self-glory, aggression, manipulation, the tendency to withdraw and give the old silent treatment, the demand for position, power, privilege, and status? These are manifestations of the flesh or our sinful human nature. Some label it as worldly! Its so easy to go with those, and yet that is not what God tells us to do.
Meek? Again Most define the word as mild mannered, spine-less, weak, submissive, subservient, passive…ineffective. We need to check our spirit! Do we say those things out of demand for power, privilege, status, and self glory that we as humans seek in this world?
We don't all have to be Mister Rogers with his bow tie, knitted sweaters, and asking children 'won't be my neighbor?" That is the part people seem to be giggling about. We are talking about how people need to balance their anger, being gentle enough that others trust and want to approach us, and humble enough to realize that this isn't about us - its about God.
Mister Rogers approached Rosie O'Donnell with grace and kindness. I use her as an example, just because I can just HEAR the comments from others. He didn't worry about 'how it would be seen', etc. He accepted her as who she was. Just like Jesus went to eat with sinners, as the legalistic 'religious' crowd was outside wondering HOW could he do such a thing?
Mister Rogers handed her a shell for a present, and he placed water on it. Told her it looked more beautiful when it was wet. It reminded him of life. That tears and sweat often bring out the best in us.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.
Let’s claim our inheritance. God has something wonderful waiting for us. "1How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[a]we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. " (1 John 3:1-3).
I came across an article called, The Truth about Men. The author seems to feel that Christian Manhood can be Illustrated with this list of behaviors from women.
.
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.
