Patriarchy: Its not the remedy

The question egalitarians have never satisfactorily answered for me is if you’re raising an eight year old little boy or little girl, you're mom or dad, and that little girl says to mom mommy what does it mean to grown up and be a woman and not a man?  Or the little boy – daddy what does it mean to grow up and be a man and not a woman?  It will not do to just talk in terms of plumbing – biological – cause that's not your personhood.  And it won't do to simply say courage, humility, righteousness, Christ's likeness.  Cause [the] little kid's gonna say no, no I mean a woman and not a man. – John Piper

 

There seems to be loads of debate recently that Patriarchy maybe losing some of glow of the past. 

 

Is patriarchy really God’s dream for the world?

 

It was such a short time ago that those that truly felt lead to uphold Patriarchy would give examples of marriages, families and relationships that were healthy, happy, and they would indeed hint at ‘holy’ as well.

 

These are the example to those families destroyed by the ugly side of the misuse of the power and authority of the father figure (most of the time).  The message tended to be ‘try harder and you too can have this holy family life’. 

 

That’s not a remedy.

 

It reminds me of a family suffering from a raging alcoholic destroying not only THEIR life, but those that they ask to suffer along with them.    The answer being to show them a ‘happy’ family  that has one member that partakes of couple of a beers on Friday night, and all is still well with them.

 

Yes, this example of the remedy is nonsense.  Showing an example of a family living with (loving – ahem) Patriarchy at its core is also a nonsense type of remedy for the family in trouble.

 

Live Life Counter Cultural

 

They are preaching from the rooftops that Patriarchy is the biblical way, and people need to live life ‘counter cultural’. 

 

How many thousands of years, and how many cultures has it been the norm? 

 

How many places is it still the norm, and you will see that it has effected that culture in more negative ways than positive.  Most of the time you have barbaric treatment of not only women, but men and children as well.  Look at the overall poverty that surrounds them, because they want to keep people – especially women – ignorant to put it bluntly.  These factors have HUGE impacts on their society, and you can see it anywhere that ‘power over’ concepts are placed upon others in abusive ways.

 

I would HOPE that we can agree that feminism isn’t the issue in these parts of the world.  The fact is if it showed up at all?  I’m pretty certain that woman – or women would be stoned on the spot.

 

Mob attacks women protesting sexual assault of women in Egypt

 

No Patriarchy group deals with abuse within their movement effectively, and when the remedy is the attitude of if you don’t like this hierarchy GO talk to Paul or GOD ?

 

I say NO!  Answer the questions, and learn to deal in solutions not diversions.  If the Patriarchy crowds wishes us to answer questions along the lines of John Piper’s quote above?  They need to provide answers as well, and stop minimizing the ugly effects this can have on humans, and of course then stop diverting to go ask God if you don’t like their answers.  It should be a clue that something IS NOT WORKING with their counsel.  We are to look deeper, and not just blow it off.

 

That’s not a remedy for the fear and reality of families.  Sadly, it is a show conceit and arrogance. 

 

To give an account and to intercede for their wives

Shirley Taylor over at Baptist women for equality had an article this morning about Advent. The article title did make me sigh a little bit!

 

Should women be looking for the Christ child, or a husband?

 

Towards the end of her article she had mentioned Cindy Kunsman, and educational program that Cindy had presented in 2008.

Cindy Kunsman can tell you that Baptist seminarians believe it. At a conference in 2008 at a Southern Baptist Seminary, Cindy says “Several young men asked how it was that I believed that they would not stand before God…to give an account and to intercede for their wives….These (young men) were Baptist Seminary Students.” (ethicsdaily.com April 2008).

Cindy’s video is very interesting, and I learned a lot!  She hits on all kinds of areas of beliefs regarding Patriarchy.  When she mentioned some teachings from representatives from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Federal Vision,  and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?  They pretty much threw a hissie fit, and claimed she offered ‘misinformed accusations’.  Did they pony up with the evidence, or actually point out the errors in question?  Nope.  Funny how that happens isn’t it?

 

This belief about how husbands are accountable for their wives and children's actions before God is crazy talk! We are asked to love and care for another. We aren’t asked to be held responsible to intercede, give an account or be responsible for another in this fashion.

 

When you face God its between you and him. It won’t matter if you were a popular pastor, head of the seminary, dutiful wife, wonderful mother, etc. He isn’t interested your office or role. Gender doesn’t give you leverage!

 

When I read things like this I truly feel badly for the men and women that are taught these things. It’s a very heavy burden if it were true for them, and being that humans can be selfish? No humanly incentive for women to do their best. It’s a teaching that states we don’t need Jesus, but a good husband to give account and intercede for us.

 

No offense, but they need to find another seminary.

Is Bachmann Offering Two For The Price Of One?

I'm sure I was not the only one that watched the Debate in Iowa this week. The blog world and the media are still on fire about a question that was asked to Michelle Bachmann about submission.  I found the clip in question that they keep referring to.

Is she saying we will get two for the price of one if she is elected?

can’t see video – click here
At first when I heard about her comments I was surprised she would say what she did to a general audience.  Then I found out she said them within church walls. 

‘…and from there my husband said, ‘Now you need to go and get a Post Doctorate degree in Tax Law . And I said, ‘‘TAX Law??  I hate TAXES!  Why should I go and do something like that?  But the Lord says, Be Submissive!  Wives you are to be submissive to your husbands! ‘

I realize people felt it was sexist to ask the question they did of Michelle Bachmann about submission due to her comments.    I don’t agree. 

There is plenty of preachers out there that teach an authoritative position in which the husband is the ‘boss’, and you are to respect him in that fashion.  The clip in question does bring her position into question.  Yes, I realize they wouldn’t use the word ‘boss’ but in essence that is what they teach no matter how much spiritual pixie dust they place on it. 

The way she answered the question in this church, and the way she answered the question in the debate were two very different positions.   

“but by faith!  I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband. “

On the complementarian side of things you do have those that stress more of the authority within marriage, and would very much appreciate what she said about being submissive to her husband.  Although we do need to admit the complementarians WILL have issue with her being President due to her gender alone. 

Half The Church

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

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

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


Half The Church Moody Program upload link!

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

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

Some of the fears of men and women working together?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women?

Pastor Versus Feminist

Patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women.

This one small sentence sure does pack a punch doesn’t it?

Do I buy that 100%?  No.  I do think at times patriarchy can be a contributing factor to abuse towards… WELL anyone!

I have family, and I have known families that tend to live by the ‘father rule’.  If the sentence, ‘patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women’ you would see it in every instance of patriarchy.

You don’t find that to be the case, because not all people view patriarchy as authority and power based.

I’m talking a heart and attitude issue here more than anything.  My uncle for example would NEVER use the trump card, ‘I have the last word’ type of thing.  He respected and loved his wife to much to even condone such a stand.  

I realize some people would think their decision making within their household would come to standstill.  Guess what? It didn’t.  Matter of fact I’m sure he would scratch his head, and wonder why that even needs to be factor.

When you have an abusive person I do believe there are many issues at work.  I don’t believe when we get up close and personal that everyone has the same backgrounds and issues involved.  I have mentioned so many times that people are custom, and I do believe when it comes to abusive people?  Its no different.

‘Never the twain shall meet’

Have you ever heard that term before? Its Defined as: something that you say when two things or people are so different that they can never exist together or agree with each other.

A great example of this would be feminists, and complementarians.  Can you imagine?

One group telling the other they are responsible for the fall of society and are man haters.  

Then you have the other side the coined the phrase: Patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women.

I mean WHEN have you ever seen them ‘admit’ they agree on anything?!  The extremists in both camps would rather be put to death it seems like.

I guess I seem to get more angry at the complementarians, because of their bull headedness towards being right.  I’m not saying the feminist’s don’t do that, but complementarians should know better.   

Whether or not they like the feminists they are to be Christ like towards them, and they have just as much fun throwing out myths and downright lies about the group overall.

Both groups I have seen use scare tactics, and it personally seems to me Christians are called to be above that.  

Since complementarians love the word ‘worldly’?  Their behavior shows they are projecting it, and please don’t use the excuse ‘we are all sinners’ okay?  Its been going on long enough they should have grasped a clue a while ago and stopped.

There are VOLUMES written on authority and submission – biblical roles for the genders, etc.  When it comes to family violence, or domestic violence very little is mentioned at all.  Have I seen even a small approach to address this?  Yes. 

What is sad is then you see video’s like John Piper and Wife submission, and you sit there wondering if they actually believe what they say.  Why?  It tends to go against the ‘stand on abuse’ that they wrote prior.

Things everyone has to admit

If we look at history, and the treatment of women from the past to the present?  No one can deny the abuse that has gone on, and is still present even today.  The children suffered as well, because they were at the bottom of the totem pole.  I honestly don’t understand why people get defensive about that fact.

We have removed laws that made beating of wives legal, and we have even had past church leaders such as Augustine blame the women if they were being beat.  The extremes of the past?  We all know there were abuses.  

Extreme form today?  Look at the middle east.  The misogynist attitude has always been around, and its amazing that people wish to deny it.

In the Christian context?  How often do we hear if women would do their part properly:  Submission, modesty, roles, etc. they wouldn’t get raped, abused and mistreated.

Too often you hear pastors, and female mouth pieces telling women they are to take it with humility.  On the other hand, excuses about how people can only take it so long before they lash out with justification.

Steven Tracy, author of Mending the Soul reminds us that:

So for many abusive men, in order to maintain their fragile sense of masculinity, they use physical force to keep their wives in their “proper place” and to squelch all threats to their limited male potency. This dynamic of insecure, powerless men using force to control their wives helps to explain why assault and homicide rates are highest when a woman separates or threatens to separate from an abusive husband or boyfriend. In other words, abusive men must be in control, and threats to their control of the relationship must be dealt with by force if necessary. Physical abusers also tend to employ many other forms of control (verbal threats, control of the finances, control of her relationships, etc.) to dominate and subjugate their
wives.

The fragile sense of self isn’t just based in gender, because women can be dangerous as well when they feel powerless.

No More Justifications

You often read about how its selfish to proclaim your ‘rights’, etc.  I firmly believe that is a diversion, because everyone needs a healthy sense of self.  Normally, those that are quick to call you selfish are also quick to remind you of others ‘God Ordained’ role, position, etc.  It’s a spiritual pixie dust way of proclaiming their ‘rights’.

There is no doubt in my mind that faith in Jesus Christ has moved men and women to be more kind, compassionate, grace filled, and in short transformed their lifes!  My uncle I mentioned above was a missionary, and it was clear how Jesus was a primary role in how he lived and treated others.

What seems to be lost on the complementarians is that certain men will use their teachings as justification of power and enforcement.  I have seen too many use the excuse that God will transform them, and all will be well with the world!  Sadly, after that they encourage their family members to act in ways that would enable the sinful behavior. 

I was truly taken back when Shirley Taylor quoted Dorothy Patterson:

Dr. Dorothy Patterson said “Whenever my husband tells me to do something, and even though I know it is wrong, I just have to do it, and he stands accountable before God.” (used by permission Christianity Today 1998)

It seems to me that complementarians have a real problem noting the limits of what they see as men’s authority, and headship.  Jesus noted:

Matthew 20:25-28 ISV  But Jesus called the disciples and said, "You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them and their superiors act like tyrants over them.  (26)  That's not the way it should be among you. Instead, whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant,  (27)  and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.  (28)  That's the way it is with the Son of Man. He did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many people."


The above scripture doesn’t say that no one can have authority, but it does place limits or boundaries upon the role – even a biblical role.

How often do we hear that truly abusive circumstances are few and far between?  Phyllis Schlafly decided since she has never dealt with domestic violence, or know someone involved with domestic violence?  If you run into a friend like that – get new FRIENDS!

John Piper attempted to deal with submission and domestic violence, and his example of it?  Group sex. 
Now how to apply realistic forms of domestic violence in the church when well known pastors aren’t even comfortable talking about it?  Seriously. How.

Learn to deal properly with the least of these

It is much more realistic that a wife will face the dilemma of how to respond to a husband’s verbal abuse, harsh punishment of the children, or demeaning treatment.  Its all well and good to say you should NOT submit to sin, but at what point does biblical submission allow a wife to go against her husband’s decisions?

John Piper encourages you to come to the church for help, but his ‘example’ using group sex to show how he understands domestic violence in the church?  It shows he doesn’t, and people will be afraid to come to the church.

Bruce Ware got into a lot of hot water with his comment:

and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged,

Now if you look at the above quote?  Does it show the boundaries of authority, headship, or his biblical role?  No.  It puts men in a box as well.  Bruce Ware decided that if you don’t treat men in the fashion he sees as biblical he will either get abusive or act feminine (laid back).

Keep in mind some complementarians are softer in their beliefs.  There are men that truly understand the serving of others. 

When you look at history that shows the domination, control, and abuse towards women and children JUST due to gender or position?  Then you have silly examples of how the church claims they understand domestic violence in the church by using things like:  Group Sex, men get aggressive when a threat to their authority is present, get new friends if know victims, etc?

Why they can’t grasp that the impression that their form of patriarchy can encourage abusive men to take their teachings and run with it?  Back off the hatred of feminists, and think about it.

While I don’t agree with, ‘Patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women.’ I can certainly understand WHY they get that impression.

They need to point out the boundaries clearly, and speak against those with a low sense of self – that take the teachings and use them as competition.  It doesn’t mean I’m on top and you are below me.  I’m in control and you are to follow me.  You are to do as I say, when I say and how I say – or else I have the biblical justification as HEAD to make you remember WHO is in charge!



If complementarians can’t admit that happens?  Which sadly, they seem to think NOT so much – the fear will remain towards them as NOT being safe.

Formulating lies and scare tactics towards feminism is just going to cement that fear even more firmly.

The bible does state how to deal with the ‘least of these’, and so far?  They have completely missed the target.

Playing with words, and their meanings…

Since the dust has begun to settle around the Tina Anderson Rape trial we have all been able to look at things more closely.

I had mentioned on my blog talk radio interview with Jocelyn Andersen, and Cindy Kunsman that I questioned what Chuck Phelps had actually told the police when he claimed he reported the rape.  In most cases in life presentation is key to getting your message across.



Let’s take a portion of his online website for his defense (Chuck Phelps):

I immediately complied with the statutes of the State of New Hampshire by reporting the situation to Officer Jim Cross of the Concord Police Department.  I also reported to Erin Dickson of the New Hampshire Division of Children, Youth, and Families.

It was at my recommendation thirteen years ago, that Tina's mother, Mrs. Christine Leaf, also reported this relationship to law enforcement.  Even though Tina begged her mother not to report, Mrs. Leaf did report this sexual relationship with Mr. Willis to Lieutenant Gagnon of the Concord Police Department.

The Concord Police never contacted me further about the reports or about the welfare or the whereabouts of Tina Dooley Anderson.  They also never contacted Mrs. Leaf for any investigation or additional information.  There was certainly no intent to cover up the allegations, or hide this 16 year-old girl.  I have always been committed to a police of compliance and partnership with official investigations of any kind.

Unfortunately, what Pastor Chuck Phelps DOESN’T say was he was informed that he must make a report in writing at the time of his phone call.

He called the police and ‘reported’ the rape as a consensual sexual relationship.  Basically, he didn’t follow through on all compliance needs to file a report.   So his ‘numerous’ reports is not factual.  It was more like phone calls to say this happened, and didn’t follow through with the rest of the obligations he was told about.

I was trying to find a word that matches how he seems to be approaching things.  He will say things that would seem obvious to most regarding what he means, and yet what he means is something else completely.  The best term I could come up with was ‘double entendre’.  It ‘is a figure of speech in which a spoken phrase is devised to be understood in either of two ways. Often the first (more obvious) meaning is straightforward, while the second meaning is less so: often risqué or ironic.’

Phelps knew he had to do the ‘report’ in writing, but he never did.  That is the type of report he knew the police and investigators had in mind, but figured the layman would never figure that out.

I believe at trial he made the excuse that he never received the paperwork, and yet again we see he never followed up either.  Now tell me does that show, ‘committed to a policy of compliance and partnership with official investigations’?

Emotional Abuse and Your Faith Interview

I was interviewed on Blog Talk Radio this afternoon, and it seemed to go very well.

Jocelyn Anderson and Cindy Kunsman discuss relevant issues within the church each week. I encourage you to check out the archives from their past shows.

What is NEAT is

• You can have an email sent to you with reminders for the shows, and what the shows will be about.
• If you get a signon name on the site you are able to participate in the chat that does on during the shows.
• There is also a phone number that you can call during the show to make you own points.
• Its neat to hear the personalities online I think!
• You can also listen after the show is done if it doesn't fit your schedule.

I have been listening to their show for a couple of months now, and they truly do have some great interviews and prospective.

Listen to internet radio with jocelyn andersen on Blog Talk Radio
If you can't see player click here.

Here is the player to listen to today's show, and I'm going to place their station on my side bar as well. You can access any of their past shows there.

Thank you so much Jocelyn and Cindy for this opportunity.

You will not certainly die - Its a lie!

Scripture written on Toilet Paper is like False Teachings

Recently, I had a number of people contact me regarding their circumstances that involved abuse.  For whatever reason the email they gave me was returned stating they couldn't delivery my message back to them.

I hope you are still reading, because this post is for you all.

I can't tell you how frustrating at times it is when I get notes from people, and the church doesn't recognize how they have fallen into the trap of 'enabling' sin.  The church sadly has become the sin enabler of the world.  I'm not going to tell you that most of the time their intentions aren't good, because I'm sure they are.  The church does enable, and they don't wish to face that.

What are enablers?  You will see people wanting to help, and have the very best intentions with that help.  It goes against the grain of what we have been taught not to 'help' others.  The helping is NOT the issue, but the form of helping is.

For example, you have friends or relatives that know an addict has spent all their money on their addiction of choice.  Then they don't have the money to pay rent, and plead for help.  Their friends or family either will pay that rent for them, or have the addict move in with them so rent won't be issue in the future.

Helping someone in times of trouble is NOT what I'm referring to here.  I'm speaking more about 'helping' them get out of trouble due to a repeating pattern of sinful behavior.

Enablers tend to make excuses for the addict.  Lets say the addict is stealing from the person they live with, and the person can't bring themselves to 'throw them out' because they would be homeless at that point.

Another example may be they will continue to give them money, because they are afraid of what they may do to get it otherwise.  I remember reading a story about some parents that were afraid their child would sell their body if they didn't.

Its easy to look from outside, and say to these people you must take a firmer stand.  Its easier to say "I won't put UP with that!"

Is the enabler part of the problem at this point?  Yes of course.  When the enabler stops their behavior does that make the addict stop their behavior?  No. You are talking two different dynamics here.

Domestic Violence and the Church

I'm contacted so often about how the church places people's safety and well being on the back burner, and places the marriage to the forefront.  In Matthew 6:²⁶ Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

God's people are more important, and we are NOT placed on the back burner in his eyes.

Diversion and Smoke Screens

I was reading a summary of Egalitarian and Complementarian views written by Bruce Ware.  I don't know about anyone else, but this man reminds of a politician.   Someone brings up an objection to something they hold dear, and they claim they will explain their position.  Politicians know how to spin things so they don't actually answer anything.  They throw out diversion and smokescreens.

Objection: This complementarian understanding is in reality a fully hierarchical view, with women subordinate to men, and as such it is intolerable and contrary to the freedom of the gospel. While it claims to uphold the  essential equality of women with men, it in fact leads inevitably to seeing women as inferior, as second-class citizens, who are not as important to God and His purposes as are men.

Response: Would you feel the same way about a parent/child relationship? Or of the relationship between an employee and his/her supervisor? Do you believe we should eliminate all manifestations of relational hierarchy, as demeaning to those under the authority of another? Relationships within authority structures surround us. We live and work in them every day. We would have utter chaos without them. But such authority structures do not entail the greater  human value or essential superiority of those in charge, or minimize the human value or imply the essential inferiority of those under their charge. Furthermore, if we are correct to think of the Trinity as analogous to the male/female relationship, consider this: surely the Scriptures do not intend to suggest Christ is inferior in value to the Father because He came only to do His Father's will. Likewise, the Scriptures do not intend to suggest that women are inferior to men because of male-headship. In fact, just the opposite is true, viz., men and women only experience their full humanity when they function in the manner God intended in His creation of them. We are most free as humans when we affirm the legitimate authority structure God intended, and work within that.

When we look at the relationship of parent and child there comes a time in which being subordinate to the parents does end.  The same goes for the employee and their supervisor.

I suppose I can throw out a complementarian response about wives!  The wife’s submission to the husband ends in death.  So her subordinate role could end as well.

Deceitful Practice of Educating on Abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pattern of Behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets look at a good example of this:

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

It hasn’t lost it’s meaning at all. 

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

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

According the author society in general doesn’t understand:

Definitions of ‘corporal punishment’ versus ‘child abuse’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian Authority is Freedom

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

Mark 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets go back starting at Mark 10:29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agunah is to stay chained

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deuteronomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malachi

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Matthew

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romans

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

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

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

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

Putting away and divorce is NOT the same thing!

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

What helps us follow the leader?

I was reading today about the Milgram experiment. 

The experiment basically showing people’s obedience to authority figures even when they realize something is wrong.  They were asked to do things that went against their personal conscience, and they wanted to measure the individual’s willingness to obey the authority figure.  They were asked to do things for the ‘overall good’ even at the expense of others.

This experiment has been done more than once, and the results did surprise me.  On average 65% of participates did finish the experiment even with knowing they were harming another person.  If you read anything about these types of experiments the ‘harmed’ person was an actor.   The people doing the ‘harm’ didn’t know this until they experiment was complete.

I think most of us would predict that society, as a whole wouldn’t go as far as these people did.  I think most of us if we were not familiar with these experiments would think if you can’t stop yourself YOU must be some type of monster!  I will admit before I knew about this experiment, and as I watched the videos online?  I thought the same thing as most of us would – no way would I do that!  If you look at the percentage what does show about human behavior?  I think it reveals things about us as humans that we may not have realized.


Here is a video series on the Milgram Experiments.



It reminds me of peer pressure in a way.  It shows there are situational forces that have a much greater impact on our behavior than most people recognize.  It also shows me that people will do evil things if the personal responsibility is taken away.  I will say not everyone took pleasure in the act, but continued doing it anyway, I found that to be oddly comforting, and sad at the same time.

I realize some would say there are good people, and there are BAD people!  Those individuals that went all the way, and finished the experiment all the way to the end?  THEY ARE bad!  I want to agree with that statement really badly myself!

I remember doing stupid things in my life where I didn’t open my mouth when I KNEW I should have!  I questioned if I was missing something, and everyone else saw it but me.  Come to find out I was right, and if I had been brave enough?  It would have saved a lot of grief.  I guess that makes me that bad person doesn’t it?  Sigh!

I believe I remember reading the original experiment was trying to learn WHY people in Germany would go along with all the awful, evil things that were happening there during World War II.  How most of them would say, “I was just following orders!”  It seems to be a bit more than that.

People today still believe that every German who fought for the Nazis was a demon incarnate, and that no decent person would have done what our troops ultimately did at Abu Ghraib. Meanwhile, systemic abuses of power continue because people refuse to see the value of basic safeguards. This was one lesson about human nature that went largely unlearned.

Pretending that humanity is comprised of angels and demons is just another form of denial that does nothing to protect us from the next holocaust.

In 1965, Milgram wrote, "With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts."

In 1974, Milgram more generously noted, "It is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act."

If you look at the church, and see how people willingly allow themselves to be railroaded by doctrine?  How they feel certain leaders have more biblical knowledge, and instead of questioning things just feel it must be written in stone?

We not go around zapping people with electric shocks when they get the wrong answer, but we are capable of doing other things aren’t we?  Under Much Grace as a lecture that she did at the Seneca Falls 2 Evangelical Women's Rights Convention, and she also included a  second lecture on this very theme.  YES that is what got me thinking!  I think Cindy’s presentation helps us think along these lines, and how people seem to willingly just ‘accept’ some things the church says … and we truly shouldn’t.

Divert when you don't want to admit something!

Divert!  Divert!  DIVERT!  Did you ever notice that people tend to do this when they wish to STAND UP for what they believe in, and not admit that someone on the other side of the stand MAY have a point on something?

I mean you do see this in politics, but this type of things shouldn't be done within the fellowship.

I want to show a classic example of a rebuke over opinions, but they never address the points.  Today I will be using two newspaper stories.

I wrote about the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition a few weeks back, and mentioned a letter they had written to CBMW about their stand on biblical roles.

One of the topics brought up in a convention in Florida this year as CBMW's Danvers Statement.  They had deep concerns over this Danvers statement, and also the effect it could have on both men and women. 

The Women's Coalition decided it was time for a harder stand this time, and wrote their concerns in hopes that they would be addressed - unlike so many others that had gone before them.  To this day they have been ignored just as others have been in the past.  I predicted that happening, because it seems to be a pattern for them.

Shirley Taylor of bWe Baptist Women for equality  was one of the authors of the demand for the apology, and she also followed up with an article written in the Baptist Standard, along with other newspapers.

When a theology is so bad, something must be done. A group of women took a bold step  this summer and demanded an apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood for a subversive teaching of the Scriptures.

Texas Baptist Forum The council came into being with the express purpose of suppressing women and elevating men. That is arrogance, and they should bow before God and confess their sin.

From birth, boys are told they are to be the leaders over women. It begins in the churches and finds favor in the homes, and the result is these boys grow up with an inflated belief in themselves and their ability to speak for God.

We can find no words Jesus spoke that would give men authority over women or a man authority over his wife. We find redemptive power in the blood of Christ to both men and women equally. We don’t want to control anybody. Why should anyone be in control of us?

The council claims the redeemed husband has leadership over his wife, but when a boy is taught from birth he is superior to all females, his mother included, you cannot suddenly tell him he is to exercise this power only after he is redeemed. From his point of view, he was redeemed the moment he came out of the womb.

Will you speak up for women?

Shirley Taylor

The concerns she speaks of have been brought up, and then dismissed shortly after wards to many times.  Their teachings claim they mean one thing, and tell you that your worth is another.  Talk about confusing!

The long and short of it is if you don't esteem and respect your leader within the home (man), then you (woman) are creating an atmosphere of gender confusion.   If you are not being the proper man (leadership) in the home then you follow the 'feminized' church movement.  Its shamed based teaching.

A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THIS

I thought it was funny!

I have seen men cut to ribbons that don't fit their mold, and tell them to rid themselves of the effeminate Characteristics.  STOP being 'girly' type of teachings.  They have this mold that men and women should fit into, and they don't celebrate the uniqueness that God gave them!

It reminds me of the type of teasing that certain boys took while on the playground as children.  "YOU throw like a GIRL!" type of thing.  They take this hurtful circumstance from childhood, and place NICE adjectives in its place hoping you will start to tow the line as they see it. Its awful how they use this sensitive soft spot they knew would push buttons, and PUSH it! 

What they don't seem to wish to admit is some get defensive, and are out to prove them wrong.  I think we all know this doesn't include EVERYONE, as they seem to train people to react.  I mean ever heard, "My husband/wife aren't like that!"  You hear this when you are trying to make a point, and its a nice diversion tactic so they don't have to admit the point.


They speak a ton about 'submission', and yet the definition they use is substituted for subjection. They clarify by stating you don't understand the concept of 'complementary roles'.  They changed Genesis around to read, 'Women will attempt to rule over' when the text clearly reads 'and he will rule over you'.  You can't grasp the concept because your a feminist.

To me I see fear tactics in their teachings as well.  I spoke about one story last time.  Are we inclined to think the worse?  From where I stood a women on an airplane made a comment out of frustration in life, and the author took it as she doesn't cherish her children - as with most of the culture - they way they should.  Sometime back I wrote about another article where the author made comments due to his mother working, and how she wasn't able to do 'normal mother things'.  He said, "so my brother and I would go grocery shopping, cook, prepare our breakfasts, and eat school lunches."  He also used shamed based language about how women need to make sure they are buying their organic food out of the proper motive.  lol Hinted how the TV dinners help the feminist get out of her responsibility for caring properly for her family.

GET IN THE BOX!

Lets look at a response in newspaper to Shirley Taylor's short piece you read above.

Speaking up for God


In her rebuke of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood (Aug. 16), Shirley Taylor rightly points out the obvious—men are pigs. She woefully omits the reality—women are too.


Experience should confirm what Scripture declares: The human heart is “desperately sick, deceitful above all else,” whether it’s wrapped in the stride of a man or the touch of a woman, the ebony of a Kenyan or the ivory of a Scot, the jingle of the rich or the groan of the poor. All wallow gleefully in the hog-slop of sin until the Savior washes them clean.


On the wickedness of both men and women, Taylor and I agree. When it comes to her assessment of the council, she flirts dangerously with libel. “The council came into being with the express purpose of suppressing women and elevating men,” she states. That’s a pretty stout accusation.


Her charge runs directly counter to the council’s stated vision—“proclaiming God’s glorious design for men and women.” I would not begrudge anyone who would want to argue those words spin cleverly from the world of marketing and politics, but I would simply point out the council has consistently affirmed a tenable biblical position “that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function.”


Taylor wonders who will speak up for women. I’m thankful the council speaks up for God. Does not the Potter have a right over the clay?


Ben Mullen

The Colony

First Diversion:  Lets look at this gentleman's first diversion tactic in his very first paragraph.  Was the article about 'men are pigs'?  No.  She was speaking about the teachings of leadership and submission.  Elevating men and subjection of women.  How its not true to scripture, and can have harmful effects on the families.

Second CONFUSING diversion:  On the wickedness of both men and women, Taylor and I agree...

(I thought she said ALL MEN ARE PIGS...and he had correct that statement by saying BOTH are???)

Third Diversion:  Using the flowering adjectives they have trained their followers to parrot:

• proclaiming God’s glorious design for men and women. 
• That men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function.

Their true colors come to the surface when he accused her flirting with libel over disagreement of their doctrine.  Projection is used with their marketing and politics over changing Genesis for one example, and their marketing of if you do life they way we teach you will be within God's will. 

With the fear mongering they do towards feminism, and how they place thoughts in men's minds about how if they don't do things in such a way they are effeminate?  


Its very arrogant to think the council speaks for God.  When people try to speak up about bottlenecks within the teachings, and they are ignored completely?  God listens when will the CBMW?  I guess they are to busy being the potter, and molding their followers.

FINAL DIVERSION:  Did you notice he never addressed the true concerns of the coalition or her letter?

Divert!  Divert! DIVERT!!  Lets not address ANYTHING, and maybe no one will notice!

Hint!  HINT!  They do notice!  I'm not the only ONE!