I was reading an article about how Anne Rice stated on Facebook that she has quit Christianity. There were those that yes got bent out of shape over it, but I wanted to read more about her decision before making up my mind.
There are more people than the church will admit that think they can use a 'tune up' so to speak. They oppose the use of dogma with no mercy because it is hollow.
The LATimes had an interview with her, and the tag line to this article did strike a cord with me.
The novelist says she still believes in God, but she couldn't find a basis in Scripture for some positions taken by churches. (She is referencing the dogma of the church)
There are straws that break the camels back with people. I have heard from people that wish to leave over the issue of domestic violence, and how the church just can't seem to deal with it at all logically.
What Anne Rice seems to be talking about is the Dogma.
People will claim over and over that people leave the church, because they can't handle what scripture is saying. Yet if you get deep down into it? Its the question of the dogma more than scripture.
She mentioned that she had already accepted the stand on homosexuality prior to going back to the Catholic church, and yet to often you read THIS is the reason she left! I have to admit that portion has to be hard on her, since her children were gay.
What people don't look into is that she stepped further than that. They look at the gay factor, and then just DROP IT!
I read an article recently on Christianity Today, about a man I think most of us have heard of. Do you remember Mister Rogers?
I remember when I was young my mother had us watch his show, and told us that he was a Presbyterian minister. The picture was an Album my parents got us one year, and the rectangle shown in the picture was a mirror. You looked in the mirror on the cover, and Mister Rogers was reminding you how special you were once again. I was a little old for the album, but I remember using it when I babysat.
Mister Rogers reminds me of the scripture: Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit the earth. His message not only to children, but to everyone was 'accept everyone for who they are'.
To me it wasn't just lip service for him, and as I was looking on Youtube I saw an interview with on the Rosie O'Donnell show. Rosie is controversial on many realms, but has a big heart for children. When I saw the interview I could just hear many Christians saying, "I don't know if I would go on her show. It might be seen as endorsing her lifestyle (She is a Lesbian) !" His grace filled nature just shined through, and his kindness wasn't just for show. It was who he was towards everyone.
Lady Elaine
I was watching an interview with him as well, and he spoke of the stereotype we hear about 'how men should be' when it comes to showing their feelings. We have all heard the sayings right? Men don't cry! Men don't get emotional! Society wanted men to be STUFFERS, and he mentioned that he used to use music to allow those feelings to surface. If he was upset, sad, happy whatever it was he could freely show them with his music. He mentioned it never hurt anyone.
He found an acceptable way of doing this, and he was very clear about how this gift came from God. He was able to throw off the society's rules, and show his feelings. His wife mentioned that it takes a certain amount of courage to tell his feelings. How he has been liberated for a very long time, and she was sure there were many men that would very much like to me that way.
...Because if you are trusted then people will allow you to share their inner garden with you. What greater gift? - Fred Rogers
What does it mean to be MEEK?
I think there are so many people that look upon the word as a sort of weakness. Someone that is naive, and easy to run over. Someone silly and maybe not all that intelligent. I guess they seem to think of maybe children's show like Winnie the Pooh or Sponge Bob.
Daniel the Tiger
There is talk about how RIGHT is MIGHT now days, and how men aren't allowed to be MEN anymore. I also think people get the wrong idea about men that are filled to the brim with the Holy Spirit, and their gentle nature is taken as 'feminized' today. Most define the word as mild mannered, spine-less, weak, submissive, subservient, passive…ineffective.
To me in today's culture we get so CAUGHT up in placing everything into 'roles', or categories of 'male and female' that we seem to miss something very important.
Jesus was meek, and you have to wonder if they ever stopped to think MAYBE they have the wrong impression of the word meek. The definition of meek I guess is hard, because it has many aspects to it. Its a multi faceted word, and maybe that is why people don't understand it. I know if they truly knew the meaning? I doubt pushover would come to mind.
ANGER
Lets take how a person would approach anger! I think we all know that the bible states we can be angry, but do not sin in that anger. Anger can be a selfish response to the world and other people. We feel angry when we feel don’t get our way or we feel like we are not being noticed.
The meek get angry, but they are angry for the right reasons. Some things in this life should make you angry.
When someone does something to hurt someone else, or you…the proper response is anger! When we encounter injustice, prejudice, and hatred it causes righteous anger inside us, which helps us have the courage to strive towards change at times!
The meek have more self control when it comes to anger if you wish to compare them to most. They seem to understand this passage in James 1:19 My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. 21Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
I'm sure we are all familiar with this passage, but lets look at one sentence again! "for man's anger does not bring about the righteousness that God desires." Human anger rarely accomplishes divine purposes does it? The wrong type of anger is prevalent back then, and of course it is still today!
The Trolley to the Land of Make Believe
The meek don’t confuse their own immature, angry responses to life as God’s anger.
You hear to often people comparing their angry to that of God's. James says that human anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness. People feel since they are angry so is GOD! The meek know the difference and seek to focus on God’s anger rather than their own. We want to GO with that anger, and the meek have enough self control to focus on God's!
When I think about that? God gave them a WHOLE lot of inner strength! Strength that is disciplined, strength that is truly strong, and strength that God wishes us all to have. People say the meek are: mild mannered, spine-less, weak, submissive, subservient, passive…ineffective. If we look at how those deal with angry compared to how God wishes them to? We have to realize WHOM is truly the weak ones!
Gentleness
The Strength of the Lion, and the Gentleness of the Lamb. That is what I think of when I think of the second aspect of meek. It takes great strength to deal with anger the way God would ask us to, and yet he also asks us to be gentle.
Gentleness doesn't mean wimpy by any means. Indeed, this characteristic will largely determine how much peace and contentment are in our lives and how well we do during trials.
To often we get the message in this world of, 'Blessed are the strong, who can hold their own.'
“Gentleness” forces us to take inventory of our attitudes and behaviors. It expresses itself in our attitudes toward God, ourselves and how we treat others.
A humble attitude toward God and others makes us gentle, humble, sensitive and patient in our dealings with others.
The Holy Spirit enables us to over come these worldly behaviors. For example, "Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity, idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!" (Galatians 5:19-21) To overcome these passions and behaviors we need more than self-control. We need God’s help! God can indeed help us in this area.
There is an aspect to Mister Rogers that always gentle. He was a very intelligent man, and it seems no matter whom he ran into in life they were special to him. Watch a video of his introduction prior to winning an award.
He was very approachable, and YES people trusted their inner most thoughts and feelings to him. Today some would call that 'feminine', and yet its very healthy for everyone to have someone 'safe' to speak with regarding our inner thoughts if we feel led to.
He also wasn't one that you have to place some 'acting role' out there in order to do this. To often you see people wanting to play this 'role' of goodness, gentleness, etc that is so fake in church, and yet when you meet the real them outside the doors of the church their personality is completely different.
Its not BAD to me, but shows how people can't be real at times. People don't feel comfortable coming to the church with problems the church claims you should when their is an atmosphere is having to deal with things within an acting role.
Today I suppose they would call that an aspect of 'feminizing' the church, but has been there for longer than I can remember. No one can truly be the 'real you' within the atmosphere of the church, but instead have this list of acceptable 'roles' instead. People feel stifled, and since most of us don't fill the role that is placed out there? It almost makes you feel ashamed. Not good enough. Not filling the mark. It doesn't make the church feel safe and approachable. Mister Rogers didn't present that road block. He was genuine, and wanted to see and accept the real you.
That's not feminine, but how God would wish us to all strive for. Today it seems we are to busy looking for aspects to slam others with instead. Mister Rogers wanted to look for the good, and accepted YOU as a unique special creature of God. To me? That's refreshing! People don't have to do this the Mister Rogers way, and I have wonder if there are so few examples out there that is HOW we get to thinking: I don't want to be some man with sweaters, bow ties, and sing to children like he does! THINK outside the BOX people!
On February 28, 2003, the day after Fred's death from stomach cancer at age seventy-four, I published an essay in the Star-Telegram describing our unlikely friendship. For the next several days I was inundated with hundreds of letters, e-mails, and telephone messages from newspaper readers eager to share their own memories of Mister Rogers, and the impact he and his long-running children's program had on their lives. Scores of young adults wrote of the sense of security they felt growing up with him, of learning from Mister Rogers about their own value and what it meant to love. Parents wrote of entrusting their children to Mister Rogers for a half hour each day; the kindly, wise, civilizing influence in a world increasingly bereft of kindness, wisdom, and civility.
As I answered those messages, I was pleased to assure the readers that Fred Rogers and Mister Rogers were indeed one and the same, that in real life Fred was as he appeared on television, the gentle embodiment of goodness and grace.
People poked fun at him due to his view of life, and how he wished to treat others. His wife doesn't give me the impression of someone that wore the pants in the family, but she was showing her true respect towards him. I learned the sweaters that he wore were presents that his mother 'hand made' just for him each Christmas. He didn't have to talk down to people, but could acknowledge their pain. He would be the first to say he still loves them despite their faults. He was very slow to judge.
Jesus had a gentle nature to him. It may at first seem impractical, foolish and even wild, but Jesus was no sentimental dreamer who dealt in empty platitudes either. He was an unflinching realist who has given us a great key to prosperity and dominion under God's purpose. YES in ways he was different in some ways from Mister Rogers. People can do 'gentle' in different ways. What is true of both is they were easy to approach, and save to be with. They were easy to share with, and you could count on the grace towards you. Can you imagine either of them saying you have problem with biblical roles, authority of men, you must be a feminist? That's certainly wasn't their priority in life was it?
Mr. McFelly - Speedy Delivery!
People that are meek used their strength, but also was done cautiously. Just because you can does not mean that you should!
Being able to push others around or force things usually has the opposite result than the one you imagined or planned. The exercise of strength must be judicious, or it can cause more resentment and ill will than any problem it forces to bend to its desire.
To often people don't stop to think of that, and their urge to just tell them how 'ungodly' they are seems to be the norm. When someone tells you if you have problem with the message GO talk to GOD? Does that cause a desire to truly do that the way they intended, or see them as they are..a blow hard!
They say the world can't handle the truth? Yet, they truly need to stop and listen, read scripture again, and maybe take a look at ourselves.
We all know what it is like to have someone use their strength in that way… the overbearing boss, the school yard bully, the older brother or sister, the cop who has let their authority become a license to push rough shod over reason...or to show off at the expense of others!
We see it in churches when people NEEDING to remind others of 'whom is in authority' within their homes. Think about who Mister Rogers concentrated on when it came to authority! It wasn't about HIM, but about God! Mister Rogers could laugh at himself, but had enough inner validation not worry about feelings of others thinking he wasn't a 'true man'.
Who was accepting the truth and whom wasn't? We are to busy pushing agendas, and proving our points. We are to busy showing others THIS is what scripture means, and if you can't accept it you are out of God's will! You see arrogance and not people that are approachable. What happened to a gentle nature being an asset? Now we call it feminized.
Humility
Here are some sayings we maybe familiar with! "You can't teach an old dog new tricks!" or "it is hard to teach a person who knows it all already".
A person who is meek knows that they are gifted, talented, intelligent, but they attribute these gifts to their creator rather than taking credit for it themselves. Mister Rogers always spoke of the gifts others gave to him to enrich his life. He was very gifted, very talented, and as I mentioned very intelligent. He always attributed those gifts from God, and the blessings of the gifts from others enriched his life. He was always looking to learn MORE as well!
Many people have the wrong idea about God, the Bible and humility. They seem to think being humble means groveling in front of others, or thinking we're no good and others are good. I guess people like to take things to the extreme, but the humble person can view balance in life. The bible pictures a humble nature as someone that is free from pride and arrogance. To me a humble person KNOWS who they are in Christ, and also knows that in the flesh they are inadequate.
Scripture says the humble person is the peace maker. They walk in life not by their own 'personal power', but walk humbling in life with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The humility that God grants you if you ask him also shows you that you can be comfortable with WHO you are in the Lord, and show this by putting others first. Loving others as God asks us all to do is not being a wimp. 'Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.' Phil 2:3
This so goes against what is seen in the world. It does against all the stereotypes that culture places out there. People take it to the extreme, and it make it sound like you can never make any decisions for yourself.
Lets look at Mister Rogers acceptance speech of a Lifetime Achievement award that he received. YES he did thank all those that contributed to his life, but he also showed others how to place those before himself.
The Meek will inherit the Earth
People seem to look at that statement, and wonder HOW that can be so? People mistake it seems to me as a 'female' trait. They seem to be looking at something that truly isn't there. William Barclay adds that meekness is "the most untranslatable of words in the New Testament". I can believe it!
King Friday
Jesus was meek…and he inherits the kingdom. The scripture in Philippians…where Jesus humbled himself and became meek as a servant. God exalted him!
“Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him a name that is above every name. The Name of Jesus every knee shall bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.” (Philippians 2: 6-11)
The gentle man knows his own ignorance, limitation and needs. It is freedom from all self-importance. The push for roles to me shows self-importance.
Jesus described this attitude in Matthew 5:3-4 when He said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.”
Meek and Humble Spirit? It describes the proper “balance between too much and too little anger.” There are some things in life that should make us angry as we mentioned. Here is the person who is "always angry at the right time, and never angry at the wrong time" with just the precise amount of anger. The gentle man is the man who can patiently endure. He is proactive instead of aggressive.
How do you handle pride, self-glory, aggression, manipulation, the tendency to withdraw and give the old silent treatment, the demand for position, power, privilege, and status? These are manifestations of the flesh or our sinful human nature. Some label it as worldly! Its so easy to go with those, and yet that is not what God tells us to do.
Meek? Again Most define the word as mild mannered, spine-less, weak, submissive, subservient, passive…ineffective. We need to check our spirit! Do we say those things out of demand for power, privilege, status, and self glory that we as humans seek in this world?
We don't all have to be Mister Rogers with his bow tie, knitted sweaters, and asking children 'won't be my neighbor?" That is the part people seem to be giggling about. We are talking about how people need to balance their anger, being gentle enough that others trust and want to approach us, and humble enough to realize that this isn't about us - its about God.
Mister Rogers approached Rosie O'Donnell with grace and kindness. I use her as an example, just because I can just HEAR the comments from others. He didn't worry about 'how it would be seen', etc. He accepted her as who she was. Just like Jesus went to eat with sinners, as the legalistic 'religious' crowd was outside wondering HOW could he do such a thing?
Mister Rogers handed her a shell for a present, and he placed water on it. Told her it looked more beautiful when it was wet. It reminded him of life. That tears and sweat often bring out the best in us.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.
Let’s claim our inheritance. God has something wonderful waiting for us. "1How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[a]we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. " (1 John 3:1-3).
Barbara Roberts and her husband James Synot wrote a Critique on CBMW's Statement on Abuse, and you can find it on their website www.notunderbondage.com Read the whole critique on their site - its very good, but I wanted to talk about one of their first points today.
One of the first items they mentioned truly caught my attention! I learned from their paper HOW people come up with this thought of women wanting to 'rule over' their husbands, instead of what the bible actually states.
One of CBMW's points was:
We believe that the biblical teaching on relationships between men and women does not
support, but condemns abuse (Prov. 12:18; Eph. 5:25-29; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7-8; 1
Pet. 3:7; 5:3).
Barbara Roberts and James Synot partial response was:
Ephesians 5:25-29 tells husbands to love their wives, a command which clearly implies that it's wrong to abuse their wives. Abuse and love are polar opposites; no-one would argue with that. But citing Colossians 3:18 (Wives submit to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord) is below the belt. It implies that in the case of wives, being abusive and being submissive are polar opposites. Only CBMW, with their distorted understanding of the woman's desire in Genesis 3:16, think that way. They claim that the woman's desire for her husband is a desire to usurp authority over him, and they base this claim solely on one author, ironically a female author, Susan Foh, who in 1975 advanced a totally novel interpretation of Genesis 3:16.
Can you imagine? A FEMALE opinion!
Foh noted syntactic and semantic parallels between Gen. 4:7 and Gen. 3:16 and concluded that
the meaning of the two passages must be the same. Just as sin crouched on the threshold,
desiring to destroy Cain, and Cain was told he must overrule this temptation, so the wife desires to control her husband (by usurping his divinely appointed authority) and the husband must master her if he can. This interpretation dovetails perfectly into the lying claim of the abusive husband (and his pastor-ally) that the husband was harsh towards his wife because the wife wasn't submissive. The perfect theological excuse for abuse!
Only if you accept this aberrant interpretation, one that no commentator had conceived of for the
first 1900 years of the Christian era, do you swallow the notion that wifely in-submission is, by
definition, abusive to husbands. There has been surprisingly little debate about Foh's interpretation within complementarian circles; they have gladly accepted and promoted it, and we count this as reprehensible on their part.
I posted her Foh's paper above, and all I have to say WOW! Seriously? If we look at the story of Cain and Abel we see two brothers with opposite mindsets if you will.
Cain’s sacrifice was the result of his own works, while Abel’s was the result of his love for his flock. “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.” (Genesis 4:3-5) Cain sought reconciliation by his works, demonstrating pride, while Abel sought reconciliation by presenting a lamb (a metaphor of Christ perhaps?) that he loved.
Remember when they gave these offerings to the Lord it was a means to wash away sin, and be restored with God if you will. Cain and Abel gave to the Lord out of opposite prospectives. One was of sincerity and love towards God, and one was given out of pride. Cain got his pride hurt when the Lord rejected his offering, and he became ANGRY!
God tries to warn Cain about the power of pride, of all sin, really. “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” (Genesis 4:7)
Now if you look at the last sentence YES it is similar, but what this is speaking about his SIN of pride. God asks him to not let the sin of pride rule over him. Compare this to what was said about Eve:
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
When we surrender to temptation, in Cain’s case the temptation of inflated self-worth, we give that sin a foothold. Once established, sin can grow deep roots and eventually conquer us if we let it. God said that Eve shall have this desire for her husband, and her husband will rule over her. In the case of Cain? Cain was asked to place his pride away, so that his pride didn't not conquer him. If he would have placed it away, and gave proper offering to God as Abel did? Would not God be pleased with him also? God told him YES!
Cain ignored God’s warning about sin and seethed with anger and resentment, and allowed this to rule over him. These feelings put down deep roots in him and he finally was pushed to action against his brother. “And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.” (Genesis 4:8)
What about the case of Eve? Sin had already happened, and God spoke of consequences. Cain ignored God's counsel, and allowed his pride and anger to rule over him instead. Cain was given a choice. He choose sin. Cain allowed sin to rule over him, and Eve was told man was going to rule over her. COMPLETELY OPPOSITE! Abel had the proper mindset towards God, and Adam had sinned in God's eyes! COMPLETELY OPPOSITE! How can God's words on how the man will rule over her, and Cain's choice of which way he will go can equal 'same type of desire'?
We are talking apples and oranges here! Foh is trying to say the type of 'desire' was the same. I notice that CBMW doesn't point that part out to often, but now I know where they got the idea from. Thank you Barbara and James!
Cain's pride reminds me of the story in the NT in Luke 21:1-4 ASV And he looked up, and saw the rich men that were casting their gifts into the treasury. (2) And he saw a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. (3) And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than they all: (4) for all these did of their superfluity cast in unto the gifts; but she of her want did cast in all the living that she had.
Cain did the same as the rich men in the story. If we look closely the bible does have repeating themes. The woman in the story gave out of the correct attitude, and the rich men did not. Cain did the same. God called him on it, and told him basically if you also give with the right attitude I will also bless your offering. Cain instead allowed his angry and pride to rule him, and ended up killing his brother.
Who really suffered in the story of Cain and Abel? I believe in the end the sufferer was Cain. Abel went on to the live with God, while Cain had to live with the scars that he created by his sin. God’s hope for us is that we will come to understand the suffering that sin brings into our lives and this is why He asks us to repent. Like any good father, He wants to spare His beloved children pain. The same goes for the consequence of the fall. When it comes to ruling over people? If you look at human nature and history? We see that present even to this day.
I have to wonder at times if certain men take that as a slam against their gender, instead of just HISTORY! If you look at church history Eve has been blamed in the past more often than Adam. I think part of that is just culture as well. I have also heard if Eve would have 'consulted' Adam prior? If she didn't usurp his leadership PRIOR to eating the apple? WHO knows where we would be I guess. That's another silly item though. To repeat such dribble is blaming Eve again, but coming in the back door while doing it. It's silly.
ANYWAY...........
The logic isn't there to compare the two stories over 'ruling over', or 'desire'.
Cain: Your desire will be the sin of pride, but it will rule over you. (man's choice)
Eve: Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. (God's words)
Cain 'allowed' the desire to rule over him, but God told Eve about her desire for her husband, and how he will rule over her.
Scripture doesn't say that Eve's desire is for her husband, she wants to RULE over him! It just another excuse man makes to 'take control'. Thank the Lord there are good men that don't do this! I pray for the ones that seem to think that is right in God's eyes!
Wife's Submit to your Husbands....women can be scared of that verse, especially you have a man on a power trip telling you if you have problem with it go talk to God or Paul. I wonder if they feel that 'biblical instruction' using sarcasm is good in God's eyes?
I have heard many times people commenting on Sarah, and how she called her husband Lord. They like to use that example to show HOW they feel submitting is to be seen. I have to giggle a bit, because if you read the story? Sarah doesn't give me the impression she was whom they feel she was. She could be a bit of a bugger at times, but I'm not saying she didn't love and respect her husband. Its clear she did, but she doesn't seem like an always easy going gal. She must have been a challenge for Abraham at times.
The other day a I was reading some statements from a gentleman on A Wife's Submission blog. I see in a gentleman's statements clear messages that have been taught to him that aren't healthy nor loving for either himself or his wife.
I read this type of attitude from many, and it comes from an arrogant sense of entitlement. This sense of entitlement is taught when you have men and women are pushing the 'authority' of the husband more than the WHOLE 'role' they claim he has.
They hold onto that authority card so hard and strong that they don't place as much emphasis on the rest of the role they claim they provide. Grudem does this in my below example. He is attempting to show there is confusion, when actually it more like he doesn't care for their version of scripture. Why? It doesn't mention his authority.
Grudem's book Gender Neutral Bible Controversy talks about Colossians 3:18-19:
Colossians 3:18-19 offers key instructions concerning the relation of husband and wife in marriage.
Colossians 3:18 tells us, “Wives, submit9 to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (NIV). You would never know it from the CEV, which has the highly weakened expression, “put others first.” “A wife must put her husband first. This is her duty as a follower of the Lord” (CEV). What does “put ... first” mean? Precisely what is a wife supposed to do? It is not clear. Readers might guess that a wife is supposed to put her husband’s needs before her own, as Philippians 2:4 says, “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (NIV).
But in such a situation, there is really no sense of being subject to or obeying someone else who is in authority, but only a general idea of sacrificially caring for him. In the end, a wife does for her husband exactly what the husband does for her: serve sacrificially. What for Paul are different commands for different roles have become in the CEV equivalent commands for identical roles. The CEV has distorted the picture.
I realize some different versions of the bible do upset people. I have seen myself that items are changed into something completely different. I think we all have our preferences, and our own reasons why.
I'm not endorsing any version, but was more concentrating on his point of authority.
Grudem states that sacrificially caring for one another is not enough, because the man's authority is not being represented. He states that people will not understand what 'put others first' will mean. I'm sorry but if they read the entire chapter in question? It should be pretty clear!
If Grudem feels that the wife wouldn't know precisely what they are suppose to do? Then later states this is what the man is suppose to do? You have to wonder WHY the confusion. Why would the wife get confused, and not the husband also if this is so confusing?
I have to admit I haven’t seen myself some of the examples they claim is real life in some churches. I’m no spring chicken, and have been to many churches in the past. I have never had an issue with God as the Father, and using the male terms in regards to him.
I have wonder if they like to repeat this so often that people actually believe it.
I realize there are some people that have had ugly experiences with men in general, and that doesn’t always have to be women I’m speaking about. They have a hard time not using those experiences with humans, and not transferring that image to God the Father. I have also seen people overcome this fear and struggle. How? People could empathize with them due to their experiences, and helped them with this image.
I’m sure in the past some people would change the term “God” into something more female, and just outright rejected God due to fears within the human race. I’m also sure there are some true radicals that find the masculine terms towards God offensive as well, but I truly haven’t experienced this in mainstream society like they seem to have.
Mainstream is what they are claiming here!
They are attempting to use a small segment of the population, and making it into a one eyed, one horn flying purple people eater!
For example, she used:
Nancy: Was this just a matter of semantics or did altering those symbols really alter something more important than the symbols?
Mary: Whenever you change the symbol, you change the meaning. We have before us here, Nancy, just an example of the Lord’s Prayer that really illustrates this.
Nancy: I thought this was fascinating because you have side-by-side the traditional reading. Let me just read a few phrases from that, and then you tell me what the modified reading with the more inclusive, feminized language would say.
For example, the traditional reading starts, “Our Father, who art in heaven.” And the modified says . . .
Mary: The modified would say, “Our Mother/Father or our Heavenly Parent who is everywhere.”
I just finished Woman this is WAR! By Jocelyn Andersen author of another book called, Woman Submit!
It was Chapter 20 called, Smokescreens, Mantras and Slogans that truly resonated with me today. I think that is because we see these parroted statements all the time, and yet there is no foundation to it. In fact if you truly stop to hear the statements, and not just take some ‘organization’ or ‘authors’ word for it? You can see and feel the twists and turns they take to make a point out of pretty much lies.
Gender Equality denies differences between male and female!
From the time we are born it doesn’t take your parents to point it out to you that there are indeed differences. I mean seriously? What a silly statement!
There are intrinsic differences between the genders that would be impossible for anyone to change. You can deny it all you want to, but with most people if you do claim this? They are going to wonder about your sanity.
CBMW claims that gender equality makes ‘men become more like women, and women become like men’ intrinsically. What they are truly trying to get across? Women that wish equality resent men’s authority that we claim God gave us.
Matthew 7:
A Tree and Its Fruit
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
If we look at history anyone can see that women have been fighting for basic ‘human’ rights. They were not trying to be men at all. The same lame statements had been made of women of the past as well.
The ‘place’ of women if you will, and their basic rights as humans is what they are striving for. They aren’t looking to abandon their families, abort their babies, run all over men, and ‘have it all’. I mean according to their theory if women are trying to be like men? Are they saying men want it all?
Jocelyn Andersen has finally released her new book, Woman this is War!
“Woman this is WAR!...,” takes a new look at old arguments traditionally used to keep men and women enslaved in illegitimate bondage based on sex, and just as the Bible did not condone the sin of slavery based on skin color, it also does not condone a slavery-like caste system based on gender. Jesus said we would know the truth and the truth would set us FREE. Andersen challenges Christian men and women to embrace and appreciate God-given gender differences without giving place to haughty spirits of superiority, degrading feelings of inferiority, hatred, prejudice, fear of one another’s differences, or the sinful need to either be in charge or to submit in an idolatrous manner.
I have to mention you will enjoy her footnotes just as much as the information she shares. I also enjoy history, and she discloses history in a way that others may not wish to have it remembered. I plan on writing more about this book at a later date!
Quivering Daughters is another book that has been released recently, and Hillary has been speaking about it as she wrote it on her blog. You can read her first chapter that she shares on the Quivering Daughters blog itself.
"It is a grave disservice to the heart, soul, body and spirit of a woman when she is given the subtle message that the truth of her own pain is not as important as the reputation of the ones who inflict it."
However, the domestic violence workers say the best predictor of domestic murder is verbal/emotional abuse. What causes a person to use verbal/emotional abuse against the very person they claim to love? It is an attitude and belief of entitlement. The belief that he is entitled to have his way, to have what he wants. Verbal and emotional abuse are caused by the belief that he is entitled to cast the deciding vote, to have authority that his spouse does not have. It is a belief in his own superiority, that the rules don’t apply to him.
Men defying scripture to become "high priest of the home". Unfortunately for this methodology, the Spirit of God doesn't reside in a temple made by man (Acts 17:24) and doesn't dwell in the "home". This negates the need for any "high priest of the home", as the high priest, literally defined, is one who deals with God on behalf of the people. WE are the temple. I repeat...WE are the temple. WE, through the completed work of Christ, house the Spirit of God within us. There is ONE who deals with God on our behalf: Jesus Christ (1st Timothy 2:5). All of the scripture speaks against the notion of "the high priest of the home". It's a dangerous, destructive, and spiritually abusive idea. No more need for a high priest. We have a perfect and eternal High Priest who doesn't need our help. His work is complete.
We understand that CBMW teaches that men may have to "reestablish rulership" over their wife, and "exert leadership." This is a proactive attempt to ensure that the wife does submit. The language for leadership of the wife, is similar to that of the children, and the question may be asked by the husband "how do I enforce subordination?" The husband may resort to punitive measures.
But what does CBMW say that submission of the wife looks like?
At this link you will find what CBMW views as a summary of the complementarian/egalitarian debate. Here is my analysis.
The summary of the egal. position seems fair enough, if over-simplified. But the summary of the comp. position seems to have been written as though they forgot what they just said about the egal position. Hopefully they’re only reciting the positions and not issuing the comp side as the rebuttal. We’ll see.
Under I-A they start off with the adjectives: ” the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man”. Take away the over-used adjectives and the teaching is much clearer: in spite of there being scriptural grounding for full equality before sin, the woman is asserted to be the underling of the man. They engage in circular reasoning by first presuming that Gen. 2 “bears out” different “expressions” of humanity (no specific verses are cited, since none exist), then presuming that this assertion is what Paul would later read there as well. They change the true complementarity of male and female (like the left and right hands) into the hierarchy of dominance and submission, which somehow is made legitimate by flowery adjectives alone.
Very interesting read, and also she has very good points!
Shirley Taylor of Baptist Women for Equality's Blog was one of the Seneca Falls speakers I spoke about recently.
She wrote an article, called 'What SBC pastors won’t tell men'. It's about a preacher that preaches the Danver's Statement to the extreme, and how he arrogantly shouted during a sermon '“Women, if you don’t like it, take it up with Peter. He’s the one that said it. I just read it.” Nice huh? Anyway, she wrote him a quick note afterwards...
Thanks for taking the time to write. I’m sorry you see the SBC position as a “hard line stance against women.” I would respectfully disagree. I believe the SBC has accurately interpreted the Scriptures and desires to obey our loving Lord on this issue.
This is obviously a cause you are very passionate about and committed to, and there is little chance of me changing your mind. But if you are genuinely interested in learning more about what the Bible teaches on this subject and would be willing to yield to God’s teaching, I would be happy to pass along some Scriptures and recommended reading.
After I got his email, my husband checked him out on his website. This pastor had just finished a 12 part sermon and he summed it up in the last sermon by saying:
“men are ordained to be the head of the household, and the church.” Same old story. Men are ordained to lead, and it is just women stopping them again. How big is that apple?
He is in California and I had great hopes that he would be supportive! But you can see his mind is as closed as mine is when it comes to equality for women.
I wrote back and said, “I got a chuckle out of your reply. I was so with you when you talked about my passion, but then you told me I had a closed mind and was unwilling to yield to God’s teaching.”
Then I said, “I’ll see you in heaven someday. I guess I will be in the women’s section. I’ll wave.”
I had to giggle at her response to his passive aggressive response to her.
Anyway, this is my partial list of links of interest! I have more, but ran out of time!
Let the name calling begin! I just did a quick web search on the recently released, FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIAN WOMEN COALITION demand for an apology over teachings that can lead down the wrong path. As usual when you speak out against how approaches to this could lead to dangerous circumstances? The dysfunctional men that stand behind them (Counsel of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) start fanning the flames of some feminist uprising, because they refuse to see past the end of their nose. To me you see agenda.
Why do say AGENDA? Way of Life it seems got extremely defensive over it, and without knowing WHOM the people are behind the request! Lets look at the their point of view, because it shows the attitude right away. CHRISTIAN FEMINISTS DEMAND APOLOGY FOR “TEACHING THAT DENIGRATES WOMEN”
Does David Cloud know the sources in which he calls 'feminists'? It doesn't seem so, or he wouldn't have placed that out there. A respected author would know their sources, and its a shame he got lazy on that part. A respected writer always tends to allow their writers to make up their minds, and get people thinking as well! Sadly, you can tell by his agenda ridden article that it wouldn't have mattered anyway WHOM the people are. He didn't like it, and so they are feminists. It sounds like a title that may catch some attention though doesn't it?
The saddest part is? He never read the apology before he starts making strange over the top comments about it. If he claims he read it? I think he may wish to go back, and read it again.
A group that calls itself the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition has issued a “Demand for Apology” from those who teach that women should submit to their husbands and that they are forbidden to preach.
I mean look at the very first statement? Does that sum up the apology at all? Not even close. Its a way of getting his readers all fired up.
is another book that has been released recently, and Hillary has been speaking about it as she wrote it on her blog. You can read her
