Use Silly Examples for the 'you don't get it' Generation?

I started reading CBMW’s new e-book they released online.  If you read the Foreword by John Piper it seems this is a introduction to the NEW group of complementarian leaders of our future.  ,

 

I’ll begin with the first chapter of their new e-book. 

 

Owen Strachan is continuing the theme of humans being ‘confused’ by their gender.  How if you allow him to show you the truth about gender and God?  Things just magically work I guess.  WELL at least you are doing it the biblical way anyway right?!  Problem is they are taking the same approach as the past leaders, and using scenes, stories and descriptions in a way that only their ‘group’ can relate to.  Sadly, not their intended audience.  Isn’t that whom they are trying convince…I would think right?

 

Owen Strachan spoke about a movie scene in ‘Juno”, and it made me realize they just plain see things differently compared to how they truly play out.  They read things into circumstances that might not even be there, and apply assumptions that totally miss the mark.

 

Owen Strachan’s description of a scene from the movie, “Juno’. 

The lips of the young woman quivered. Tears rolled down her face. Her angry father stared at her. “I thought you were the kind of girl who didn’t get into this sort of trouble,” he said. She looked back at him confused and adrift: “I guess I don’t really know what kind of girl I am.”

This exchange came in Juno, a poignant film made a few years ago. It’s a quick scene, but it has stuck with me ever since. In this young woman’s reply, I heard the confusion of an entire generation. So many young men and young women don’t know who they are.

Now you can see the scene in question online, and you just google Juno telling her parents she is pregnant.  Otherwise, just click my highlighted link.

 

There was no lips quivering, tears rolling down her face – no an angry father telling her he didn’t think she was that type of girl.  It was a pretty matter of fact scene, and I’m not going to say her father wasn’t disappointed.  He was indeed disappointed.

 

Juno announced that she found a couple that would adopt her child, and pay for all her medical expenses.  Dad wanted to come with her to the meeting to make sure she wasn’t taken advantage of. 

 

Then he says to her, “I thought you were the type of girl that knew when to say when”.  Yes, she did indeed say she didn’t know what type of girl she was.  In the very next scene, the father felt the blame was clearly on his shoulders.  Was he NOT a good enough father?!

 

Her sense of confusion is NOT what he describes – or approaches within this chapter.  He just plucked out, and used it.  Sadly, that’s what’s confusing.

Grant Layman, "No we didn't call the police!"

A Christian leader, charged with any credible, serious, and direct wrongdoing, would usually be well advised to step down from public ministry. No such accusation of direct wrongdoing was ever made against C. J. Mahaney. Instead, he was charged with founding a ministry and for teaching doctrines and principles that are held to be true by vast millions of American evangelicals.

 

The above quote is included in the support letter of CJ Mahaney after parts of a lawsuit were dropped against Mahaney and his church due to the Statue of Limitations.  Translation?  According to the law they waited to long to file. 

 

Many states are changing these laws, because adult survivors should have their day in court against the person that harmed them.  Some states have already changed the timeline.  I think the movement to change it is growing in other states to thankfully. 

 

Sadly, what should have been a moment of transparency turned into a spiritual version of ‘Not Guilty’ for CJ Mahaney by his many Celebrity Pastor Friends.  What I never did understand is they KNEW that parts of the lawsuit was going forward, and if they couldn’t see the bias in the above statement?  Their discernments skills are WAY off.

 

To me it showed the habitual snarky attitude they tend to use when people question their belief systems, personal values, etc.  They preach about humility, benevolent leadership and authority.  I do question how people can’t see the hypocrisy at times.

 

You don’t use a political spin when transparency is clearly needed.  This is why many question their sense of ‘biblical authority’, and all that jazz.  They are supposed to be ‘mature believers’, and in their rush to say SOMETHING?  They basically put their foot in their mouths instead.

 

James 1:22  But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

 

Sovereign Grace Ministries Scandal and Conviction

 

This week:  Nathaniel Morales, 56, who most recently served as a pastor in Las Vegas, was convicted of three counts of sexual abuse of a minor and two counts of sexual offense by a jury in Montgomery County, Md. He will be sentenced Aug. 14 and faces up to 85 years in prison.

 

Nate Morales is going to trial soon stemming from additional accusations from others as well.

 

Just to fill in a little history…..

 

Sovereign Grace Ministries has been described as a family of churches, and Covenant Life was the Flagship Church until 2012.  In layman’s terms?  The Corporate Headquarters.  Shortly after the lawsuit surfaced -  if I remember correctly - Covenant Life voted to remove themselves from Sovereign Grace Ministries family of churches.  They were not the only church either.

 

Nathaniel Morales used to be part of this Covenant Life church before he moved to Las Vegas, and was part of the lawsuit that the Brotherhood of Celebrity Pastors SPOKE against.

 

This week Covenant Life’s longtime executive pastor Grant Layman testified that he should have reported alleged abuse to police but did not.  Grant just happens to be CJ Mahaney’s brother in law, and worked with CJ Mahaney in leadership at this church during the time the abuse happened.  Grant recently left his position at the church, and now works in some sort of paint business.

 

Nate Morales was part of CJ Mahaney’s church (Covenant Life), and he and his church were accused of knowing about the attacks towards children there.  They basically dealt with it internally – as in did nothing about it.  You can read they felt it was their Constitutional right to do it that way as well in the document I have uploaded.

 

Keep in mind I uploaded the ‘revised’ statement.   They felt that the lawsuit harmed their ‘confidentially’ with their members.  I guess despite KNOWING its their lawful responsibility as a mandated reporter to also contact law enforcement.

 

The new statement on the ministry website said allowing the courts to second-guess a church’s pastoral guidance “would represent a blow to the First Amendment that would hinder, not help, families seeking spiritual direction among other resources in dealing with the trauma related to any sin including child sexual abuse.”

“Child sexual abuse is reprehensible in any circumstance, and a violation of fundamental human dignity,” the statement said. “We grieve deeply for any child who has been a victim of abuse. SGM encourages pastors from its associated churches to minister the love, grace and healing of God to any who have suffered this horrific act.”

 

Spiritual Slang for, “I shouldn’t have to report we are handling it just fine in house!’

 

Keep in mind it was noted in court that they claimed they would ‘take care of it’ (ie the predator), and yet the habitual sexual abuse by Nate Morales continued.  I suppose your not to question their ‘spiritual direction’ there huh?

 

You have to wonder now if Grant Layman – along with others will be charged with NOT reporting this to the police.  My prediction?  They will throw him under the bus as far as blame goes.  WELL until more evidence surfaces, and the story will change again.

 

If you remember back a couple of years we spoke about the Tina Anderson trial, and how her pastor Chuck Phelps did call the police…but then basically blew them off when they wanted to do an interview with him over his ‘mandatory’ report. 

 

So, he followed the law legally but his actions MORALLY?  Not so much.  Chuck Phelps actually blamed the police, because he claims he didn’t receive any follow up.  They showed in court that they did, but you know how that goes…..

 

The spirit of WHY this law was enacted is lost on them.  Makes you question their pastoral ‘wisdom’ doesn’t it?  This is what happens when they feel their biblical authority trumps what they don’t wish to face. 

 

Now, we have a church that had to admit IN COURT they didn’t even bother calling the police at all. 

 

Grant Layman was sworn in next.  Under oath he told the jury he did not report the crimes told him by Scott and Charlene Bates in 1992 that were committed by Morales against their son, Samuel Bates.  He also stated that within one year, he learned of the sexual abuse of Brian Wolohan and did not report it to the police either. 

Under cross examination by the Defense Attorney Drew (which was surprising), he was asked “Did you have a responsibility to report to police” the crimes committed against Samuel Bates and Brian Wolohan.  To this Layman said, “I believe so.”  Drew responded, “Did you report to police?”  Layman answered, “I didn’t do it.”

 

 

It should be interesting to watch HOW the group of celebrity pastor’s explain how their friend and head pastor of the church in question STILL had no clue about this.  How the lawsuit was over his teaching and doctrine.   Please.

 

1 John 3:18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

 

No Comment From The Together for Mahaney Crowd?

 

I find it curious that Al Mohler, John Piper, and the rest of the celebrity Pastor group has not released one statement since the conviction this week.  They sure did RUSH to judgment when parts of the lawsuit were denied due to the Statue of Limitations.

 

In other news:  The Southern Baptist Task Force released their report about declining membership and baptism numbers this week.  Many are claiming this downward spiral is the fruit of ‘our spiritual lukewarmness’. 

 

What is sadder is what happened this week (conviction of Nate Morales), and the often the insensitivity and callousness of their responses.  Does that even enter their minds? 

 

Hmmm…

 

• This not the nasty way they deal with abuse within the church. 
• Its not the ugly names they call people that don’t believe as they do. 
• Its not the attacks on so called, ‘feminists’ who are more likely a group that disagrees with their role theory. 
• Its not the awful approach to homosexuality…

..NOPE its just lukewarmness.  I guess they feel their nastiness isn’t nasty enough.

 

Who would wish to enter their churches, be baptized by their pastors, and be encouraged to follow their band of celebrity pastors who allows one of their ‘friends’ to enable a child predator.

 

In reality is their coldness towards humanity.  Their indifference towards the reality of some families life’s.  Their stuffy attitude towards those they feel aren’t the ‘chosen’ ones.  Its their empty words and actions that I call spiritual pixie dust.

 

They wouldn’t know how to reach the world if their life’s depended on it.

 

Yep, and I did I mention they call that ‘love’.

 

Matthew 21:28-32

“What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

 

Additional Resources:

BrentDetwiler.com

GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment)

Brief History of Sovereign Grace Ministries

Copy of Lawsuit in Question

Why Sovereign Grace Ministries Doesn’t Like Victims

An Example of the Anatomy and Physiology of Spiritual Abuse: Mahaney, T4G and the Gospel Coalition

Olympic Lesson or Spiritually Correct Rudeness

I read something on Desiring God that to me seemed like nothing more than a propaganda piece, and it truly shows how some will only see what they want too.  In the meantime, WHY not throw a couple of barbs towards the other side just for good measure.

It has always amazed me how some can come across as so soft and sweet on the surface, and then you feel their whip of mockery towards others as a show of some TRUE gift they feel they have.

As you read the piece, you learn why it is so hard to speak to them.  It also reminds me why I find it so hard to trust, or even respect their views at times as much as I try. 

To me quite frankly…they aren’t safe people to be around.  I don’t care how much they use the word biblical, or Godly to describe the individuals that represent them.  When you read articles like this?  Its so far off the ‘biblical’ map that is quite amazing that they don’t see it too!.

My parents always taught me that individuals that take time out of their day to tear you down just so they can feel uplifted…aren't’ decent people you should spend time with.

It reminds me of the political realm we have presently within the United States.  You question one portion of what the other side is proposing, or how they are approaching it?  You labeled a hater of the group of individuals that the program was drafted to help. 

They all do it today, because it seems popular within the atmosphere we have presently. Is it any wonder why its almost impossible to find that middle ground somewhere?  They have too many excuses that they allow themselves…not too.  Then WE The People get to live that reality.

Below is example of this that I truly felt was off color.  Groups of Christians are labeled with what they TRULY stand for…well in their eyes of course. To me, it would hard to explain how this in any way shows, “Mature Masculinity’ of the benevolent kind.

It’s an Art Form

They do not fight for equality on the ice; they possess it as a given. They are not jostling about fairness. They are focused on doing their part well. No one yells, “Oppressor!” as he leads her around the arena, lifting her up and catapulting her into a triple spin. No one thinks she is belittled as she takes her lead from him, skating backwards to his forward. No one calls for them to be egalitarian. “She should get to throw him into a triple Lutz half the time!” They complement each other in their complementarian approach to becoming one majestic whole. No one, least of all him, minds that the roses and teddy bears, thrown onto the ice when they have collapsed into each other’s arms at the end, are for her. It is his joy.
This is a visible model of what male leadership and female support are all about. It’s an art form, not a mandate. It’s a disposition, not a set of rules. When it’s done well, it’s a welcome sight in which both partners are fulfilled in themselves and delighted in the other.

If this is all the author has heard from the Egalitarian position?  I feel like I’m in the political arena, and the other side is purposely ignoring things so ONLY their opinion can be heard.  In this case – he is speaking to his base.  Sadly, whipping up the show of mockery that seems acceptable to them.

Look at us compared to THOSE people…Its just so Christian right?!

We have all seen it!  The Politian telling their audience THIS IS what my opponent ‘really means’.  This is what they REALLY said.  This what they REALLY stand for!

Then they go on to point how they have never offered up anything of substance.  How WE are the ones that truly represent you.  It really doesn’t matter what side of politics you are on – they all say pretty much the same thing.

Then they go off to Washington, and they have to play their game there as well.  We at home get to roll our eyes at all the silly politically correct stuff that never truly matches reality…they just try to convince us it does.

Today, it seems popular to be ‘Spiritually Correct’.  View your fellow Christians that don’t view things as pink and blue, and turn them into those 1960’s bra burning feminists.  Its perfectly acceptable to belittle their women, and mock their beliefs.  I mean it’s the Spiritually Correct way.

God gifts us all  - everyone of us.  We learn from scripture that God is pleased when we use these gifts to gloried him.  If you are Christian this is truly something you wish to do as well.

God made us all just a little different.  Some may have the same gifts, but the way they use that gift is different.  People may have similar styles, but there is always a uniqueness there as well.  It seems to me like God made everyone like that.

If we look at leaders?  We can find some very effective ones in history, and yet their styles are unique just to them.  They may use tactics, forms of speech that similar to past leaders that they admire…yet they are never EVER the ‘same’ or interchangeable. 

If we look at teachers?  Encouragers?  It’s the same thing.  Their unique gift is all their own, and they use it to Glorify God in their own way.  To me this is a good thing.

In reality of the Olympic Pair Skaters?  Their coach is the leader, and both individuals come together with their gifts, strengths, and work ethic to put on a performance that is awesome to watch.  They follow the lead of the coach if you truly wish to get down to it, and rely on their partner in more ways than I guess this author can comprehend. 

When you look closer?  You have many other staff members that work with the skaters, and the energy goes into each individual skater themselves – strength, athletic ability, etc. is honed even before they are paired together.  There is so much to see in their performance that is outside the realm of leader and follower.

If being an egalitarian to this author is all about, “She should get to throw him into a triple Lutz half the time!”   Its clear he didn’t take the time to listen. 

In reality that isn’t a show of MANHOOD, or leadership, authority, headship or any of the other labels you need to use to identify yourself in your ‘role’.  It just shows to me anyway your lack of capacity to hear what other’s have to say.

I realize that is the 'SPIRITUALLY correct way, but it really doesn’t show to anyone outside your ‘group’ the traits you claim is there. 

Quite frankly, its rude and shows a completely lack of understanding and compassion for others different than yourself.

You want to speak of the oneness we all saw?  That’s great!  We all saw it!  Heck I bet we would even agree there! 

You want to use that as a weapon towards others because some strange beliefs you have about how ‘those’ people believe?  That’s isn’t okay.  It shows an ugly underbelly.

An Olympic Lesson for Husbands and Wives?   Hardly.  You do get the Gold Metal for rudeness.  Congratulations!

Mary Kassian, the Beta Boy Husband, and the gaslight SPECIAL!

Mary Kassian wrote an article about Alpha Woman and Beta Boy: She is pointing out once again how to avoid the mindset that is:  celebrated by those who have swallowed the feminist/egalitarian claim that male-female roles are interchangeable.




Mary Kassian article though tends to contradict the teaching itself, and is also short on facts.   To me is seems like a good example of gaslighting!


Her teaching speaks about women breadwinners turning their female role into a position of the Alpha power seeker, because of the unnatural balance of income generated.  So don’t make more money than your partner, because it shows your possible usurping of his headship.  Why?  Less income makes the Beta Boy!

(Where do they come up with this stuff??)

Now, she does say woman can have jobs, and make a decent living.  Yet, they have to be OH so careful.  Then uses examples off another article where even myself felt the women were rather short sighted, and self centered.  It seems to be a norm in her examples.  She doesn’t like to use everyday women to make her point, but searches out examples most never come into contact with.

Yes, she found a feminist to use as an example of how everyone else lives, believes, and does life outside the complementarian belief system.  Its just not realistic for most people, but she uses it anyway.

Mary Kassian’s article is called, “Alpha Woman and Beta Boys’.  Her beginning paragraph makes you think she is basing it off a Pew Research Poll based on Breadwinner Moms.  The study was based off the rising numbers of women’s incomes, and goes into many factors that are a reality in this world. 

Yet, its not based on any power grab that Mary tends to present as the true message, nor interchangeable roles.

According to Pew Poll nearly two-thirds of homes where women are the primary or sole breadwinners are homes headed by single moms, while the other one-third percent are homes where a woman earns more than her husband. Both of these groups have grown dramatically over time. 

So, actually the majority of the women in this study?  Don’t have a beta boy or husband, so it’s a little misleading.

The second article Mary Kassian was referencing was from a successful older woman, that has a retired husband.  I did a little reading about the author herself, and sounds like she was pretty independent for quite a while.  She also started her family late in life.

What the author found is even as the bread winner of the family she still finds herself responsible for most of the domestic work around the house as well.  Cooking the dinners, planning the Birthday parties, etc.  I, myself would also find that rather odd if my circumstance was the same.  I mean what does he do with his retirement time?

Now, remember we are speaking of a one third that would be considered having a partner, and we still may not even know their circumstances (disability for example).  The ladies the second article references seem to be professional women on the higher ranks of their profession.  Most of us – don’t fill that description.  So, again it not really relatable.

So using them as a ‘see what I mean ladies’ type of example is rather silly.  They aren’t the norm here after all.

Its quite a spin!

Income doesn’t make a person ‘Alpha’

The “Alpha’ personality is normally something people are born with, and its cultivated in life.  They naturally tend to take charge, are outgoing, and seek solutions without ‘blaming or whining’ about others not giving them the affirmation that certain people claim they need. 

Don’t get me wrong its always nice to hear affirmation, but they don’t ‘need’ it in order to be an Alpha Personality.   Their personality is normally that of confidence.  They tend to be risk takers, and are successful in life. 

Income in that sense may follow of course, but that doesn’t make them the Alpha.  The natural confidence is normally the key trait. 

That is NOT to say it doesn’t have its negative side, and people don’t push their confidence into power hungry positions.  Yet, it doesn’t automatically happen that way either. 

From what I have seen in life those ‘power hungry’ positions normally have enablers that hand over this power to them.  It can quickly turn into arrogance and conceit. 

This is one of the biggest issues non complementarian’s have with their belief system.  Yet, one comp’s will claim isn’t present if you ‘do it right’.  Forget human nature and all that. 

Could be why God doesn’t’ encourage his followers to seek this power to begin with.

Don’t make your husband the Beta

As much as the Complementarians don’t wish for others to view their lists of traits of gender roles in a negative light, and not entirely ‘biblical’?  Its not that hard to put the puzzle pieces together with their descriptions, and articles that they write such as this one.. 

To be perfectly honest?  Mary Kassian herself tends to have some ‘alpha’ traits herself, but I doubt she would view that part of her as non feminine.  Yet, it’s quite the opposite of what they claim to be feminine.  There is nothing wrong with her Alpha traits, because that is how God made her.  Its just kind odd if you compare that to what they present as the proper lady.

No doubt her diversion in response is that her husband is the breadwinner.  Yet, that doesn’t make any sense in light of the reality of many pastors within their group aren’t the bread winners. Also, it doesn’t address their stereotype of women that goes against her VERY nature (I mean that is what teach right?).  It also has nothing to do with Alpha Traits.
 
The opinion that Mary Kassian takes is that the ‘breadwinner’ status places her in the man’s role, and her husband then must be in the ‘Beta’ role (using the second article as the prime example).  Yes, pretty much the role reversal they whine so much about. She uses the professional women in the other article to prove her point.  Yet, realistically?  The point wasn’t made.  They are in the minority.  Also, bread winner women don’t all act like this – remember the Pastor wifes!

I believe a more realistic example is needed.  I have friends where the husband is in construction for example, and his work is seasonal.  She does customer service, and works all year round.  Now depending on the construction season?  She may or may not be the ‘bread winner’. I mean in his off season he does find work, but it can be hard to find at times.

What Mary never mentions is that MOST people are able to be realistic about these arrangements. 

What Mary Kassian hints at is: If she makes more money she will have a hard time dropping her ‘Alpha’ mode when she gets from work, and it makes things even harder in the bedroom.  He on the other hand is placed automatically in the ‘beta’ mode.  OR she wants him the beta mode, and he is only allowed to surface to Alpha mode in bed only!  Notice it doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with personalities types, but job incomes.  Income makes the ALPHA right?  In reality, NO.

Heck, I have seen beta males that were bread winners….never mind that doesn’t fit here!

Conflicting Messages about the Alpha

In our present day most mature couples view supporting the family as a JOINT effort, and they are both doing their parts to help the family unit as a whole.  The way this article is presented is that men should be almost threatened by the woman’s part if she happens to find a job that generates more income.  She is at risk of stepping over that imaginary line, and turning into the ladies in Mary’s second article!

No acknowledgement of any kind that this is a sense of insecurity that is very unhealthy for his sense of self….nope!  It’s a threat to his manhood!  Yeah, That's common sense and a healthy outlook right?!  Sigh.

This is NOT a healthy elevation of the husband, but playing games in life to make him FEEL his role.  Notice the ‘emotional’ component there.  It also doesn’t prove their ‘male-female roles are interchangeable’ fear either.

I think the part that really eats at me is the negative, and almost doomsday opposing views in response to this disagreement.   The Christian Post had an article about this issue, and showed opposing views even within the complementarian realm.

What does the bible say about men being the breadwinner

"The American man is struggling – I think we will have a monument for the modern 21^st Century man, and he will be on a couch, etched in stone, playing an X-Box," said Owen Strachan, vice president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and assistant professor of Christian Theology and Church History at Kentucky's Boyce College. In an interview with The Christian Post on Wednesday, he argued that "men are called by God to take responsibility for provision for their families."

Notice the women will be like the professionals that Mary Kassian pointed out in the second article, and the man will be like Owen Strachan describes above – The Xbox professional. 

Notice once again the ‘emotional component’ they use to WIN their argument.   Your suppose to ignore all the real life examples that tend to go against their stereotypes they have presented.  That’s not persuasive, but the use of rhetoric we see to often today in politics.

Now, the second pastor in the article on the Christian Post?  I may not agree with whole heartily, but you notice his definition of ‘headship’ isn’t so hard nosed and unrealistic.

"I think the man should be the head of the house, but a wise 21st century position would be consultative leadership," the pastor said. He referred to I Chronicles 12, when King David consulted with the heads of tribes after becoming king. "He consulted with them because they had functional authority because of their experience, their knowledge of warfare – he was wise enough to get help." Jackson argued that a wise man would "utilize a wife who may be a medical doctor with a multimillion earning potential."

Quoting Ephesians 5, Jackson argued that the order for wives to "submit to your husbands and to the Lord," is a military term, which means for a wife to align herself to the strategic goals of her husband. The husband, on the other hand, is told to love his wife as his own body. The pastor argued that this means "he's going to have to take into account her career, her passions, her desires, and put them on at least the same level as he would put his own career and personal aspirations."

This opinion of course sent Owen Strachman into a tizzy! (Tizzy Definition:  a state of nervous excitement or agitation.)  Owen feels that he doesn’t need to take her into account, but remind the world of their roles – and his account.

Most mature couples I know look at income generated as ‘our’ money, and there isn’t any power grab that Mary and Owen concentrate so much on.  They can say what they will, but their definitions of ‘roles’ in their presentations do reveal this.  Owen no doubt feels the power struggle is from Genesis, but has a hard time some realizing people find ways of moving past these ‘curses’ he uses to justify the roles.  To him?  It has to be there!

Yet, these types of articles and teachings that Mary Kassian and Owen Strachman tend to encourage this type of stinkin thinking!  It encourages the THREAT to power structure they claim they are against, and then hand you a boogey man reality in its place.  Their logic just doesn’t follow reality.  I mean you are suppose to go WITH the ‘curses’ of Genesis – not work against them!  Its only natural right?

Addendum To Add the Interchangeable Pastor Wives

Mary Kassian’s final note in her article about the Alpha Women and the Beta Boys was rather telling to me.  It seems she heard from Pastor’s and their Wives, and because of HER salary.  So Mary attempts at the end to change the tone:

Note:  I’ve heard from several complemententarian pastors who say their wives must work and do out-earn them. However, they also tell me that though this is the situation, they don’t feel it’s ideal. They wish they earned more, and wish that their wives didn’t have to bear the burden of being primary breadwinner.
It’s not “wrong” for a woman to out earn her husband. That wasn’t my point. My point is merely that such a circumstance can and often does put an unnatural strain on relationships, and that a woman in this situation needs to take care to make sure that her higher wage doesn’t cause her to usurp her husband’s headship in their home.

Hmm.  How sad.  Their churches don’t pay their pastor’s enough so their own families don’t have an ‘unnatural strain’ on their marriage.  Leaders within this belief system are to busy writing books, having seminars, and push teachings that their own pastor’s don’t even have the luxury of living.  Wow.

Somehow I think we all know that isn’t the reality for these couples.  He was called to do God’s work, and she is doing her part to support him in this call.  They live their life’s against the roles they preach, and if she believes in his work?  No doubt its not such a heavy burden for her in that sense – even though its ‘unnatural’. 

So, as their pastor’s live life is in this ever present ‘danger’? The families that attend their church live this as well.   That’s the reality of it from their viewpoint.  I will never understand WHY they feel this ‘think the worse’ about aspects of life like this are in anyway encouraging. 

Think about it!  She hints in her article that the greater salary from the wife creates the Alpha Woman whom is: celebrated by those who have swallowed the feminist/egalitarian claim that male-female roles are interchangeable.


Yet, ends her article with an example of those who do make greater salaries WHOM I would assume she states is NOT the Alpha Woman with her Beta Boy.  They are living the feminist/egalitarian male-female interchangeable roles in life…but really aren’t.  Why?  She takes great care in making sure her salary doesn’t usurp his authority. 

Okay Then.  Sounds like gas lighting to ME!

Mary’s article:  Alpha Women Beta Boys

C.S. Lewis describes that kind of alliance—a real partnership/a deep friendship—as he lamented the death of his beloved wife Joy.

“For a good wife contains so many persons in herself. What was [she] not to me? She was my daughter and my mother, my pupil and my teacher, my subject and my sovereign; and always, holding all these in solution, my trusty comrade, friend, shipmate, fellow-soldier. My mistress, but at the same time all that any man friend (and I have good ones) has ever been to me. Perhaps more.... Did you ever know, dear, how much you took away with you when you left?”

Fascinating Womanhood Review: feminine role vs. working wife

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. 

John Piper: Women teaching Men

I think John Piper has now ‘confused’ the biblical manhood crowd.  I’m serious.

 

No doubt we have all heard the speeches about Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.  The lists of do’s and don’ts are constantly being added.  Some of them are indeed quite odd.  This one can be added to the oddities list.

 

Before I start I have to wonder if John Piper actually plans what he wants to say, or the message he wants to get across to people.  I honestly don’t think he does on this type of platform.    I think of all the strange things that have come out of his mouth, and I KNOW he can’t actually STUDY before he says this stuff.  To me it would be WORSE if he did!

 

The question that was presented to him, “Would a pastor who uses a biblical commentary written by a woman be placing himself under the biblical instruction of a woman.  If so, would this not go against Paul’s instruction in I Timothy 2:12?”  (I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.)

It might be.  Uh.  He may feel it that way.  And if he does, he probably’s not gonna read it.  He shouldn’t read it.  It doesn’t have.  It doesn’t have to be experienced that way I don’t think.

In other words, he doesn’t know.…I think.

Don’t worry, it gets better.  Or should I say – MORE confusing!

So, I think the point of that text is not to say that you can never learn anything from a woman.  That’s just not true.  It’s not true biblically, and it’s not true experientially, because the reason for saying that I don’t permit a woman to teach or have authority over men here is not because she’s incompetent.  It’s not because she can’t have thoughts.  In fact, the women in your church, and the woman in, the woman you are married to, have many thoughts that you would do well to know. [laughs] And to know, and learn, and to learn from.  And so the issue there is not that she doesn’t have thoughts that you wouldn’t benefit from.  Or that she can’t, uh, teach you anything.

The, the issue is one of how does manhood and womanhood work.  What is the dynamic between how men flourish and women flourish as God designed them to flourish when an act of authority is being exerted on a man from a woman.

And so I distinguish between personal, direct exercises of authority that involve manhood and womanhood.

Okay then.   This says pretty much a whole lot of nothing right?  You can tell he has heard or read some comments from women towards his past teachings of this verse.  He wants to be sure you realize he doesn’t think women are dumb.  Why THANK YOU….I think.

Now we will glance at ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ examples of women in ‘authority’.  The point is more about the ‘teaching’, but of course as we know ‘authority’ to him is the UPMOST of importance.

Because it’s personal.  She’s right there.  She’s woman.  I’m man.  And I’m being directly, uh, pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way.  Should she be doing that?  Should I be experiencing that?  And my answer’s, No;  I think that’s contrary to the way God made us.

So those two words:  Personal and direct.

Here, here would be an example of what I mean.  A drill sergeant that gets in the face and says, Hut One, Hut Two, Keep Your Mouth Shut Private, Get Your Rifle Up Here, Turn Around Like I Said.  I don’t think a woman ought to be doin’ that to a man – because it’s direct, it’s forceful, it’s authoritative, it’s compromising something about the way a man and a woman were designed by God to relate.

Now, lets put our common sense hat on for a moment!  Tell me what anyone learns from, ‘Hut One, Hut Two, Keep Your Mouth Shut Private, Get Your Rifle Up Here, Turn Around Like I Said.’  That’s not teaching – I guess we can say authoritative drills?

Yes, there is a purpose to drills within the Army.  I realize he wouldn’t be comfortable experiencing this and being pressed on like this FROM a WOMAN, and you have a way of avoiding that.  Don’t join the Army!  I mean she is ‘submitting’ to her authorities by doing her this.  She is following the chain of command.

I guess it never dawned on him that WOMEN don’t ‘flourish’ under those circumstances either – by design!  I’m not sure what he is trying to say here.  It’s rather confusing.  I’m not sure I know anyone that likes to be bossed around like that.  To be honest?  This is an example of ‘authority over’ if you get right down to it.  In the biblical or personal context  – that’s SIN!  (Yes, I took the military context out of it)

Uh. The opposite would be where she is a city planner.  She’s sitting in an office at a desk drawing which street should be one way and which street should be two way.  And thus she’s gonna control which way men drive all day long.  That’s a lot of authority, and it’s totally impersonal, and indirect, and therefore has no dimension of maleness or femaleness about it, and therefore I don’t think contradicts anything that Paul is concerned about here.

So I would put a woman writing a book way more in that category of city planner than of a drill sergeant.   So that the, the personal directness of it is removed.  And the man doesn’t feel himself, and she wouldn’t feel herself, in any way compromised by his reading that book and learning from that book.

(LAUGHS!) Yes, she can’t directly give you cooties I guess!  Sorry I couldn’t help myself. 

I think I understand WHAT he is attempting to say.  One example of a woman – of course in the extreme – that gets in the man’s face and bosses him around.  Again this would be an example of authority ‘over’ him.  How does ‘bossing someone around’ have any dimension of maleness or femaleness?  It doesn’t.

Then you have the woman as the city planner.  In reality she is following a traffic pattern, and laying out how it works with local traffic laws.  To me that isn’t authority at all.  It also isn’t ‘teaching’.  We now have two bad examples of the point he is trying to make.

Using these two examples – that I suppose your could use for his purposes – women are to be impersonal and indirect so they have no dimension on maleness and femaleness when ‘teaching’ to men.

Quite honestly that doesn’t remove the ‘authority’ he speaks of.  I mean I assume if she taught something he hadn’t gleamed prior – it was authoritative.  To Piper the ‘authority’ portion is the important part.  That is the ‘maleness’ part that women shouldn’t have.  Confused yet?

So that, that’s the way I’ve tried to think it through, so that, in society, and in in academic efforts, and in the church.

So that, that’s reading and benefitting from a woman’s exegesis in private.
Would you have any reservations about quoting from that commentary by a women in a public sermon?

I just think that’s an extension of the same principle.

You know there, here’s truth.  A woman saw it.  She shared it in a book.  And I now, I now quote it.

Uh.  Because I’m not having a direct, authoritative confrontation.  She’s not lookin’ at me, and, and confronting me, and authoritatively directing me, as woman.  There’s this, there’s this interposition* of this phenomenon called “book” and “writing” that puts her out of my sight, and, in a sense, takes away the dimension of her female personhood.

Whereas if she were standing right in front of me, and teaching me, as my shepherd, week in and week out, I couldn’t make that separation.  She’s woman. And I am man.  And she’s becoming to me my shepherd week in and week out, which is why I think the Bible says that women shouldn’t be that role in the church.

*Interposition - To place (oneself) between others or things

 

So he can learn from a women within the privacy of his own home while reading, but face to face is just too much for him….biblically.  You know the whole God’s design deal.  It reminds him of the woman drill sergeant I guess.  The book without her personal presence to teach allows him takes away her female ‘personhood’….in dimension (shakes head).  (Does he pretend she is MALE that way as well?  It won’t hurt him that way right?)

Man can have ‘indirect’ authoritative confrontation or directing, because she is only (ahem) preaching in a book.  It will allow his manhood to flourish and not be threatened by the mere fact he is reading a female author.  If she is in front of him?  WELL that might mean she could teach him again, and again and again.   That COULD make a shepherd.  Does this make anyone else dizzy?

I’m sorry but this man has some gall.  To THINK his manhood is protected by a book, because HE can take away that ‘dimension’ of being female away?  HE must separate those aspects, because otherwise its not GOD’S Design?  It’s insulting, and quite frankly I have to wonder if he hasn’t completely lost his cotton pickin MIND!  

How does that work when he is to speak at the True Women’s Conference?  Can you imagine…he is waiting for his time to get up on stage with his ears plugged saying ‘la la la la’ due to the fact a woman is on stage ‘teaching’….it’s a wonder he wasn’t diminished!

 

Okay – on a serious note:

He does realize that God’s word is NOT to be ‘indirect’ in this fashion right?  I’m pretty sure God’s word is to be ‘direct’.  Hmmm.  Maybe he can apply or not apply that interposition deal.  I guess he figures he is safe – remember that God has a ‘masculine feel’ afterall.  To me the more he talks about this biblical roles, or gender roles the more emasculated he sounds.    I never understand WHY he doesn’t realize how insecure and fearful he comes across.  Seriously.  He sounds like he is scared to death of woman.

 

What you think?  Confused yet?! Or just downright outraged?

 

MANHOOD, WOMANHOOD AND THE FREEDOM TO MINISTER
(1 Timothy 2:8-15)

John Piper’s thoughts back in 1989.

 

Additional articles on his podcast:

John Piper: “women’s books keep men safe from their direct, authoritative womanhood”

The Absurd Legalism of Gender Roles: Exhibit C – “As long as I can’t see her…”

CBMW, John Piper, Women Drill Sergeants, and Biblical Roles

Women Can Write Sermons; They Just Can’t Preach Them: Karl Barth vs John Piper

what John Piper sees when women teach

Drawing Source Used

Church Leaders that Hide the Truth are Cowards! Can we admit that?

We all know that churches – or shall we say more directly HUMANS make mistakes.  It happens, because we all have screwed up royally at times.  Church leadership isn’t immune.  For me its how they handle their mistakes that show their fruit.    Then you have times in which tragedy hits, and if they make mistakes hiding the tragedy instead of facing it?  It’s hard to wrap you head around WHY they refuse to face the truth.  The more they bounce around?  The more trust they break along the way.

 

We have a saying that goes, ‘The larger they are the harder they fall’. 

 

Today when we look at large congregations in trouble?  It also depends on how they handle that fall, because if they handle it badly?  They don’t just fall hard…they tend to bounce. 

 

The more they bounce along they are also asking others to endure one hard fall after another.

 

I think we have all experienced that in life.  We blew it in some way, and when the time came to face our error….we hid it instead.  We may have been scared of the consequences, or just wanted to get away with it.  We may have told just part of the story, and were hesitate to share the entire circumstance.

 

Then before we know it we get nailed with a full out wrath that tends to be worse than if we had just LAID out our sin the way we were suppose to in the beginning.  Most individuals tend to give all up at that point, because its clear to them the truth is out.  There is no denying it.  Its scary, and its hard but its time to let it all go.

 

It seems lately we have very LARGE organizations within the faith bouncing all over the place by choice.  Now realize I’m not saying ‘literally’ by choice, and I guess the better way to phase that is bouncing due to ‘choices’.  Okay, YES I guess I was right the first time….they bounce by choice.

 

They have some ugly, awful thing happen within their congregation.  They wait until they HAVE to say something, and then they choose to say as little as possible.  They fall hard, and then BOUNCE up with business as usual. 

 

Then another piece comes out, and they fall hard once again and BOUNCE up once again.  The circumstances tends to settle in, and more comes to light.  BOUNCE! BOUNCE! BOUNCE! 

 

Keep in mind its not different types of sin that surfaced, but the same one that they attempted to silence to begin with.  What’s even harder to understand is the people that back up their decision to go down this silly path to begin with.

 

You normally hear all these excuses about how they had to weight what was appropriate to share, and when they needed share it.  You would think the first or second time they BOUNCED they would have realized its time to lay it all out there. 

 

They have a hard time admitting that they break that bond of trust they have within their congregation each and every time they decide to bounce instead of just falling…and then slowly getting up to learn from their mistake.

 

It’s rather scary for me to realize that these leaders are really true cowards at heart.  They are quick to preach what the bible says, and refuse to learn a darn thing themselves.  Yes, that is part of the reason they are called Pharisees.

 

When you read the bible during those times in which Jesus got truly upset with the sin of others?   It was normally directed towards the religious leaders at the time.   

 

They got so consumed with their power, prestige, and role within the community.  They had all the answers, and they expected people to fall into line when it came to what they had to say.  All that power in a sense went to their heads, and not their hearts. 

 

They lost the essence of their position, because they wanted to LEAD not GUIDE.  They got more out of sin sniffing, because they knew they were almost immune from it themselves.  If people questioned that part?  They had their own personal thugs (they call supporters) waiting for their time to tear you apart for not doing as you were told.

 

I have known many truly decent pastors in my lifetime.  They also had some hard circumstances come their way, and they were the first to admit how agonizing it was.  Hiding these things just wasn’t within their character.  They looked to themselves, their church policies, and everything else under the sun to see HOW this failure could have happened.  They wanted to be sure it could never happen again.  They wanted everyone else to watch for it as well!

 

They were the ones that were quick to take the blame, and really own it.  They knew their position, and they felt the responsibility.  They mourned with those that mourned, and along with that asked for forgiveness.  I think most of us realize unless they did the sin themselves it wasn’t ultimately their responsibility, but none the less they owned it.  They will be the first to admit they dropped the ball somewhere, and they will point it out…and take their lumps that comes along with it.  Notice they aren’t the ones that need the thugs – errrr ‘supporters’ either!  At least not in the same way the bouncing ball pastors do!

 

I would say that most people respond to that type of leadership, because we have all lived similar circumstances yet in different ways.  We can empathize with it if nothing else.  That is the firm foundation of being able to grow past it.  The foundation was firm because there was no bombshell waiting to be the next earthquake to smash it to pieces.

 

We always struggle with HOW on earth these men in leadership can allow themselves to keep bouncing like a ball, instead of just facing things that God would have them face.  I look at the attitude that we clearly see today that was spoken of in scripture so long ago: ⁴² Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; ⁴³ for they loved human praise more than praise from God.

Here is the entire passage:

 

John 12:37-43

³⁷ Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. ³⁸ This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”^[a]

³⁹ For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:

⁴⁰ “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”^[b]

⁴¹ Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.

⁴² Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; ⁴³ for they loved human praise more than praise from God.

 

Tragedy will always hit churches at one time or another.  Its how we handle this that shows our true faith in God.  The truth will help the survival of the church, and hiding things just tears at the organization’s foundation.   No doubt everywhere you go you will find the ‘yes men’, and they will hide things even knowing the truth.  A leader with integrity will not allow the errors the church made be hidden, because they know God will find a way to heal them.

 

Yes, that is the harder road to travel.  Isn’t that what we hear preached all the time anyway?

 

When they hide things, and allow their churches to bounce, bounce and bounce again?  To me it shows they just don’t get it, and honestly shouldn’t be in the position within the church.  It’s bad enough having the deal with the sin all by itself, but breaking the bond of trust towards the position by hiding things?  It makes things worse.  The eyes are blind, their hearts are hardened. 

 

Then you have those that know better, and would rather play the supporters for these cowards then speak for truth themselves.  Both the leadership and their thugs will be the first to attack anyone that questions their way of doing business.  They also encourage others to do the same. 

 

What the church doesn’t see is with each bounce they ask members to endure they lose trust, and members leave silently.  Secrets kill churches, and individuals faith.

 

It’s not an easy place to stand up against that type of force, but it is God’s way.  At times you lose your place of worship, friends, family, and even your own position. 

 

Truth isn’t always a very easy place to stand with.  Gods asks us to anyway.  He has a plan, and we must have faith enough to wait on him.  He has a plan even when we may not see one.  Truth is what sets us free, and a church that plays a bouncing ball just isn’t.

 

C. J. Mahaney Leaves Leadership of Sovereign Grace Ministries

Prestonwood Baptist Doesn't Call the Cops on the Molester, But They Call the Cops on the Church Member Who Asks Questions About the Molester

PSA: Penitent Pedophiles and CrossWay Community Church (SGM)-Graphic

Breaking: Major Win For Alex Grenier/Tim Taylor vs Calvary Chapel’s Bob Grenier

The Importance of Reporting Abuse in a Religious Setting (especially if you attended Bob Jones U)

When men have to be Lords and women subservient, THIS can happen

Biblical Roles could cause Division

What can I do, if anything,about this?
I have my role, I don't want his too!!!!
If I keep submitting to my husband,is there a chance that he might come to see what his role is??
Please pray for us!!!!

I read the above about the ‘biblical roles’ all the time.  Instead of certain churches teaching to appreciate the individual’s gifts?  You see the division starting because these gifts don’t mold into their version of ‘God Given’ biblical roles.

Don’t get me wrong I see it the other way around as well.  The men stating that the women aren’t doing what they were taught women should be doing as well.

I have to wonder if people don’t seem to understand that its causing division more than the unity that the Lord had in mind for all of us.  You read all the time about the wife or husband complaining about how they aren’t doing their role, and how they are forced to do both.  WHEN will they step up??

In turns into people feeling resentment towards their spouse, and they start to ignore the true gifts their spouse brings to the table for their relationship.  I don’t believe that is what God wanted.  You see he made that person, and they are wonderfully made!  Although according to doctrine in certain circles of faith it makes you question things that may not even be there.

If their gifts aren’t in the uniform style of what the preacher is teaching you?  It causes all kinds of issues within the relationship.  The woman I quoted above sadly doesn’t recognize the awesome aspects of her relationship, because her husband doesn’t ‘lead’ the way she was taught.  She doesn’t even see the ways he does lead, because she has a checklist that she was given.  You see the check list doesn’t line up how she is taught he SHOULD be.  Teachings should show her to appreciate what he is instead, or he may not be.  What could be an awesome relationship is being torn apart.  Why would this be good?

Let me give you an example of what I feel is God given gifts:

My daughter loves drawing.  She is darn good at it too.  One area she loves to draw is Anime.  I personally don’t understand the draw for the Japanese programs for Anime, and they really do nothing for me.  The art style in the drawing of the characters can be very complex.  I will admit it is very beautiful.  So I may not enjoy the programs with Anime characters, but I can appreciate the style of the art.

It’s quite amazing to watch her with her pencil and paper as she breezes along, and creates normally her friends in the Anime style.  Its funny to watch each of them step up, and tell her they want to be NEXT!  She gives these drawings away as gifts, and they are truly treasured.  She makes them feel great about themselves, and are proud of this drawing.  Not in a conceit type of way, but a normal healthy self image way.

Her drawing started as a young child, and her style of course was different.  It was awesome to see her get better as the years went on.  She was always good, but as she cultivated her gift her craft grew more complex.

She will always have this gift, and even if you took away the pencil and paper the gift would still be there.  The way she sees the world, and how she would create it in her own style will always be present.  It just IS... with her.

This is a gift that God blessed her with, and its something that no one can take from her.  Everyone has their own gifts that the Lord has blessed them with, and they don’t always align with the boxes I read about, or hear preached about.

When people have God given gifts?  To me it just is, and you can’t take it from someone.  It will always be present.  Telling her she must not use it, or must rid her self of it is just not possible for us humans – we all have our own gifts. God blessed us with them, and they will always be there.

I truly believe these ‘biblical roles’ according to gender at times does cause division due to my view of personal gifts.  You either have the gift or you don’t.  If you have the gift of course it can be cultivated, and improved.  It will always be there, and nothing can take it from you.  Its the way God made you.  Sadly, we don’t always learn to appreciate them, because of biblical roles we are taught we are use those instead.

The way you use that gift shows how you can honor or dishonor your relationship with Christ.  My Daughter for example, could ‘teach’ drawing to others if she wanted too.  She doesn’t usurp anyone by showing them certain skills she learned along the way.  People in general could learn from her, and its true even if they never learn to draw with excellence like she does.  She could also do things with her gift that would dishonor her relationship with the Lord by using this gift to demonize things.

When people claim that others should NOT use gifts because it dishonors the other gender?  They never stop to think about the fact these gifts are used to honor God, and he gave them to this person for his purpose.  The ‘dishonor’ crowd may not get anything from the gift, because their nose is too out joint to handle it.  Those with an open mind can appreciate it, because they realize the Lord gave it to them to use for HIM!

People will never always fit into the checklists of the gender roles, because God may never have intended us to live that way.  He may have created them totally opposite in fact.  He has a purpose for this, and it amazes me that people would question him in this manner.

Our world has enough issues as it is without us dreaming up issues that we seem to want to see there due to some silly checklist.  We won’t always see what God has intended us too, and we may miss out on wonderful things.

If we see a women  that is good at business?  We may think feminist, and how she elevates this skill above family.  When we see a man that children LOVE to play with?  We may think emasculated, and a product of this feminized world.  She shows a strength that only men are to have, and he shows nurturing that should be a trait for women. 

In the end you learn to resent these people instead of appreciating the gifts that the Lord has given them.  We dishonor God when we refuse to fellowship with them, because they don’t fit into some box our teaching has in mind.   We see a grab for power, leadership, etc. with her, and a man that folded in his masculinity for him. 

Most are able to discern if those characteristics are indeed present (power grab, emasculating), but we don’t use those discernment skills anymore.  We use our checklist instead.

This is why I see biblical roles to the point of legalism causing disunity within marriages and the church.  This should not be.

Baby Bear plays with doll - CBMW reacts ...world goes on

I know Christians freak out over stuff sometimes. I’m not encouraging you to spaz about “Baby Bear’s Baby Doll.” I don’t think the world is ending as a result of this episode. I actually think that this show is silly, and worth laughing at, because the God-encoded truth about sexuality and gender is obvious, and boys playing with dolls is foolish. Furthermore, the world–in point of fact–has not ended as of October 2011. So make sure you don’t misconstrue my take or CBMW’s take. - Owen Strachan CMBW

Sigh! I can't believe the CMBW stand about dolls and young boys.

If we read anything about the history of dolls you will find that in ancient Greece ‘children’ played with dolls.  I believe that these are some of the oldest toys they have found so far.  They have found dolls in graves of young children – and note here I didn’t say just girls.  Sadly, what Owen Strachan doesn’t tell you is when they started to make ‘fashion’ dolls?  The marketing of this toy was more focused on girls.

Lets put on our preschool cap on here for a moment, and think about this:

Baby Bear wanted to pretend he was a ‘Daddy Bear’.  Is Owen stating playing Daddy is foolish?  Its okay for girls to want to be a Mommy, but BAD for boys of this age to want to be a Daddy.  They want to play their role model, and aren’t born with this hyper sense of masculine and feminine.  Sadly, our culture in time does push that part to the extreme.

Its okay to appreciate their innocence at this age!

Boys do play with different types of dolls all the time.  We have stuffed animals, my brother had a couple of GI Joes, and then we have action figures.  All those things are considered dolls.

Although the stuffed animals?  THOSE must be the ones that are confused!  They are played with by BOTH boys and girls!   Poor things…. They must be confused about their roles!

The message that seems to be lost on Owen Strachan is it is not right to make fun off, laugh at, or hint to a child that wants to play ‘Daddy’ that he is somehow bad for doing so.  That is the child’s innocence talking, and we need to push away our cultural lenses and come down to the child’s point of view.

Boys play with their sisters, and at times dolls are involved.  That doesn’t change any part of their DNA when it comes to their sexuality or gender role. 

Father’s have been known to sit down for tea parties with their daughters.    Daddy’s allow their girls to create hair styles on their males heads, Including putting barrettes in.   

I remember my brother and I putting his GI Joe in my Barbie Camper, and we pushed it down the road in front of our house.  How confusing is that right?  GI Joe has no business in a Barbie camper does he?  It’s a wonder we understand our masculine or feminine side due to that tragic experience!

Baby Bear’s Masculine Side

One additional thing that Owen Strachan seems to miss was Baby Bear putting a ‘boy’ spin on things when he turned the doll’s bib around to make it into a superhero’s cape!  I mean how BOY of him! 

What about the part when he played with a tractor, or football?  That part seems masculine enough.  If we are going to play this game?  You need to stop that notice the ‘masculine’ parts of the short as well.  Sadly, he instead decided to get his nose out of joint instead.

This is the type of stuff that drives people nuts when it comes to CBMW.  A young child wanting to be ‘daddy’ is now not ‘gender role’ enough.   This has nothing to do with gender roles, and has more to do with this man’s discomfort over a boy playing with a doll.  You can tell that by all the ‘male’ dominated things Baby Bear did while playing, and that Owen Strachan completely missed.  I mean seriously SHOOSH right over his head!

Toys of this type are used to model healthy behaviors of their parents, caregivers, grandparents, etc.  Watching a young father nurturing his baby isn’t foolish, nor does it show how gender neutral he is.   Although I will say most people may wonder about the people that think it does!

My parents had a picture of brother when he was about 2 years old, and we just got back from Easter services at church.  He had his adorable little suit on, but he seemed to have this fascination towards my Easter hat, gloves and purse.    Dad took a picture of him wearing all of them.  Who knows what the reasons were for the fascination, but it wasn’t foolish.  He was 2 for goodness sakes.  Nor did it ‘confuse’ him in any fashion as far as his gender, sexuality, etc. 

Masculine and Macho – there is a difference!

I have wonder – seriously – if Owen Strachan took a little to much of the ‘macho’ traits from his child’s play, and incorporated it into adulthood.  There is a huge difference between macho, and manhood keep in mind. 

Macho Definition:
1: a strong sense of masculine pride : an exaggerated masculinity
2: an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength

Yes, Macho with all its exaggerated masculinity would read into Baby Bear’s actions as being foolish.  A child’s viewpoint, maturity level, innocence, etc. don’t even factor into it.  Sadly, what he seems to miss is the exaggerated masculinity is what is foolish.  Jesus reminded us when he spoke of children, ‘the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.’

The times, how they have changed. We’ve now transitioned culturally to an era in which the basic foundations of the Protestant worldview are under assault. This is true on many levels, from MTV (obviously) to sexual education in public schools to, apparently, the television shows aimed at tiny kids. This episode, “Baby Bear’s Baby Doll,” is subtly but directly overturning long-held conceptions of manhood and boyhood. Boys can play with dolls; there’s no reason they can’t do exactly what girls do.
The boundaries between the sexes are fluid. Behind this teaching is of course the view that there really aren’t what we call “gender roles” given us as a fact of our existence. Gender is a construct, to use academic language; it’s the differentiated vision of boys and girls our society has historically bought into, but there’s nothing fixed or unchanging behind it. We’re free in this modern and enlightened age to blur the boundaries, and to raise boys and girls in essentially the same ways, without specific training of any kind for distinct manhood or womanhood.

I seriously think Owen Strachan needs to stop looking for evil around every corner.  We are talking preschoolers here, and not teenage boys playing with a baby doll OR watching MTV.  Allowing a child to play with a doll at that age does not make the boundaries between the sexes fluid.   I mean WHO thinks like that???

He acts like children today playing ‘house’ will get it wrong now too.  Don’t you know they reverse the genders just to make things equal. (okay – so I threw out some sarcasm…sue me!)  Most of the time?  That thought never crosses their mind, and yet you would never know it from his reaction of Baby Bear wanting to play Daddy Bear.  Playing ‘Daddy’ is masculine last time I checked! 

We need to put on our ‘child’s mind’ before making assumptions like this.  It’s so ignorant.  We are talking about children right out of babyhood here!

Although he seems to feel its okay to make a child feel badly about how he plays, and seems to forget the mindset of the child during this age.  It’s not okay to allow the child to be a child. 

Why not appreciate the fact he looks forward to being a Daddy?  That he wants to be gentle with his children?  You see those are assets, and it doesn’t mean other aspects of manhood aren’t present at the same time.

No.  They don’t have these silly notions of manhood that he no doubt will learn, and in the case of Baby Bear is starting to learn.  That is why Baby Bear was embarrassed after all.  Notice how girls playing with Ken (Barbie’s male doll) doesn’t blur the gender roles?  How it doesn’t warp the distinct womanhood viewpoint.

Will wonders ever cease!

"The Lord made man and woman, Adam and Eve, distinct as an outworking of his intelligence ..."
Love it (not!) how Owen emphasizes the difference between Adam and Eve when the first man actually emphasized the similarities, "The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” (Genesis 2:23.) - Marg Mowczko

Muppet Wiki – of Baby Bear Short

Youtube of Short Baby Bear’s Baby Doll.  This the best quality in the world, but at least you can see what was said.

What is Masculine?

Christian Manhood Illustrated

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!