No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry

Freedom for Christian Women Coalition having busy uploading the videos from their conference.  Its nice to be able to see these men and women in action, and able to watch the expression, body language that doesn't always come across as well in writing. 

I have problems with buffering at times with videos online.  Buffering in short means when the video stops and starts all the time, and it basically annoys me having to wait.  People will be getting me so excited, and BAM right in the middle their sentence I have to WAIT 10 million years for the video to finish loading to hear them finish!  Isn't that annoying?

On VIMEO they have uploaded entire segments of the program they put on, and they also mentioned this site has a section where you can download them.  Keep in mind that video downloads can be pretty large, and you may wish to burn it to a DVD or delete once you are done viewing.

Here is the link to the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition's entire video library, and descriptions.

Jocelyn Andersen, Author of her newest book Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery & the Evangelical Caste System did a presentation responding to the Danvers Statement of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by offering their own set of "Rationales" and "Affirmations."


Responding to the Danvers Statement from FreeCWC on Vimeo.

I downloaded the entire thing to listen to, and you can view this after you download them in real player, quick time, or DIVX players.  All of those are free for download, and I would update the software completely so you get the smoothest play.

In this video she goes over some of the reasons for the demand for apology from CBMW.  If you wish to see that document again here is a link to her site on Woman Submit blog.

I personally don't expect a reaction from CBMW over the document, because they tend to ignore challenges like this all the time.  Healthy organizations will encourage dialog, and as you imagine the opposite is true of those that refuse.   

No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.  This one will get you branded "rebellious".

Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

Feminism! Individuality! Decaying western society! Government! Public Schools! Television! Hollywood! Rock music! Processed food! Doctors! Lukewarm Christians! Did I mention feminism? This is a movement NURTURED on paranoia with a persecution complex that's the stuff of legend.

 The reactions so far that I have seen that try to 'support' the Danver's statement once the Demand for the Apology went out?  The above was the reactions.  They were rebellious, and just a group of feminist trouble makers.  If you read their responses?  They never stepped foot towards addressing any of the concerns.  Can we say RED FLAG?  I showed an example in my article about divert!  Divert!  DIVERT!
(By the way, Commandments of men has a complete list of these quotes, and other characteristics of unhealthy organizations!)

The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

The author that rebuked Shirley Taylor loves to divert (and never tries to address any concerns) is telling when you look at his last statement about knowing the 'truth':

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?

 Its quite telling isn't it? HIS leaders speak up for God.  Her concerns are not credible. 

Tickle for Tuesday!

Tee HEE! I thought everyone would like this video!

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.

Links of Interest!

Commandments of Men had a discussion on "Love is an Choice".  I think we can agree with how some people use that phrase, and others frankly use it as a tool of manipulation and guilt.

I don't deny that a part of loving is a choice, but it must be emphasized that it is indeed only a part of the larger equation. Love, itself, isn't really a choice at all. To ACT upon it, or to ACT in a loving manner even when devoid of emotion and feelings of love, is a choice - not love in and of itself. Love, in and of itself, is only a verb in a portion of it's meaning. TO love is a verb. I'm afraid the phrase "love is a choice" ultimately devalues the emotional aspect and power of love, and I don't believe for a second that this is something God wants. It also makes for the fodder of warfare for authoritarian types. My ex, for instance, was coerced into believing that she'd made a "choice" to love me, a choice which she could "correct".

A Wife's Submission, Charis wrote a piece called, I am weak.

It starts with:

I am weak.
I can’t bear the name-calling
toward myself
toward the children
Joey is not a “wuz”
Timmy is not an “idiot”
Sarah is not “retarded”
Susy is not “lazy”
I am not a “bitch”

and ends with:

I am weak
“if ______ causes you to stumble, cut it off!”
Yes, Lord!
I will cut off the head that causes me to stumble
and move forward by myself, but not alone
I will no longer partake of the deceptive fruit and follow Adam out of the garden
I choose to live in freedom and victory
walking with the Lord in the cool of the day
I am weak
But He is strong

 Now go read the middle part - its very good!

Shirley Taylor video from the Seneca Falls 2 Evangelical Women's Rights Convention.  She establishes why addressing the problematic Danvers Statement is relevant today and the far reaching effects it has had on Christian thought and doctrine.

Wade Burleson is writing again.  Who has authority in marriage?  The husband or the wife?

I have to say I enjoyed not only the article but the comments as well.  The article stemmed from a comment left on John McArthur's blog, and went unanswered.  Below is the comment in question:

"I am concerned about a marriage situation in which the husband is a ob/gyn doctor. He believes they should not use birth control and delivers all their children at home. She is exhausted with the load of the continual pregnancies and the little ones. He is not willing to allow her to have outside help in the home. She would like to be able to limit the pregnancies. He rules! She submits. How does this fit in with God's balance of the man loving the woman? What are her options in this type of marriage? How can she disagree and be biblically correct? Any insights on this? I would love to hear them.

Internet Monk wrote, "Why I am an "Egalitarian""

Complementarians would thus limit opportunities available to women for Christian vocation, particularly those of ordained, pastoral, or authoritative teaching ministries in the church.

I humbly disagree. In my view, complementarians misread the creation narratives, ignore one of the great consequences of the fall, neglect to appreciate the significant role of women in the Biblical story who subvert man-made authority systems to cooperate with God in bringing to pass his redemptive plan, fail to grasp the significance of Pentecost and the nature of the new creation community in Christ, and misread NT passages that restrict women as universal rules.



My own position has been called “egalitarian” (though I dislike the term). I believe the ideal situation is full partnership of men and women in the service of God’s Kingdom. I do not believe that strong role distinctions were part of God’s creative plan. Though men and women certainly do complement each other in many ways, are not identical, and do have some different tasks unique to their respective sexes that they are to fulfill in life, these differences do not indicate universal hard and fast “authority” and “role” structures.

I would encourage you to go and read the list, and the interesting comments.

If you looking for support there is a online board called, Our Place.  It people - both men and women - from all walks of life, and different parts of the world.  They have a section just for the faith portion of domestic violence, and of course the main portion of the board.  They do an email verification for members, so check your spam folders!  If your abuser checks your email get a free one at yahoo for example that they don't know about.

Are Females Equal in Dignity, or the 'source' of derogatory terms?

Definition of DEROGATORY

1: detracting from the character or standing of something —often used with to, towards, or of

2: expressive of a low opinion : disparaging <derogatory remarks>

 Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby 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. - CBMW

feminization of the Church

feminization of Leadership

feminization of males

feminized male temperament

feminization of the social order

feminized male temperament

feminization of manhood

feminization of our homes and institutions

feminization of church leadership

feminization of deity

 For some reason today it seems acceptable to use the female, feminization, feminist, etc as a derogatory term, and yet its pretty acceptable to also state that women are: equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature...

Why does this sense to people?  Do we show the equality in dignity, value and essence of women when we use feminine words to describe what is wrong with the world?  Its used in a derogatory way, and yet we are accept that we are seen with dignity, value and essence. This should not be.

We heard about 'gender confusion', but the way they describe it at times?  It sounds like Androgyny. To the secular world gender confusion would mean more about sexual orientation.  Androgyny in very simplistic terms is: a person who does not fit cleanly into the typical masculine and feminine gender roles of their society.

The truth is there are times that people don't cleanly fit into what society says is strict gender roles.  Lets take a man that can be sensitive at times.  According to today's theories that is because they got 'chick a fied' (Driscoll).  From what I see they take the term sensitive, and overuse the characteristics of that word into what seems a 'drama fied' presentation of their own justification instead.

Here is a example of what I'm talking about:

The sensitive man represents a cultural attempt, then, to correct John Wayne masculinity. Where his father or grandfather never wept, never talked much, never said "I love you", the sensitive male weeps readily, chatters away, and reassures anyone within earshot of his love. In seeking an emotionally alive masculinity the sensitive man seems to have sped past "properly balanced emotional life" and landed in the once-foreign land of "traditionally feminine ways of speaking and feeling".  CBMW

 Then to make sure they don't want to tell you being 'sensitive' isn't all together WRONG:

Men of the Bible are by no means silent or unemotional. The father of the prodigal son, for example, weeps openly and deservedly when his son returns home (see Luke 15:11-32). Christ Himself wept when He heard of Lazarus's death (John 11:35). Christ was compassionate, tender, gentle, and merciful throughout the course of His ministry. So we ought to be a balance of strength and gentleness, not either/or.  CBMW

What we seem to miss is that not all women are characterized as: weeps readily, chatters away, and reassures anyone within earshot of her love.

I know I don't see myself like that, so am I 'dude a fied'? Did I buy into the masculinist movement?  Is that a masculinization of females?  Do I have a masculinized female temperament?  OH I KNOW I'LL BE - MACHO FIED!  That sounds so much better doesn't it?

Although that might sound derogatory...

Most parents would tell their children NOT to tell their male friend  that he throws like a girl.  How it will hurt their feelings, and because its cruel.  We all know how it is used, and what it means to a boy to be told this.  We see it used all the time, and yet as a woman I'm not to feel 'less than' because females traits are being used as a cut down.

It would make about as much sense if they choose to pick on Red hair.  Red Hair is awesome, Red hair is honorable....Add in all their superficial praises here.  Then use the red hair as a derogatory cut down to another person, because its 'culturally cool'.  THEN turn around and tell the person they love next to them with red hair, and repeat the mandra:  Red hair is honorable, Red hair is awesome....

Those rules about calling a male a female seem to have changed ONCE you become an adult.  I wonder how they explain that to their children? I mean now it is totally acceptable to tell them they are acting like a female.  What seems confusing is God honors females, but its okay to use culturally 'female' traits to attack men.  Yet, that isn't because they don't honor females.  Why does that make sense?

Their Conclusion:  We need to realize women are equal in worth, dignity, etc but SON we do need to use the 'feminine' characteristics to show the world WHAT is wrong with these men!  THEY act like all a bunch of WOMEN!

For some reason its okay to use those derogatory terms to hurt the feelings of men, and at the same time show women by the use of such derogatory female terms also means no disrespect to women. 

In the end?  There really should be no confusion!

Seriously?  I personally feel its insulting.

I love the way you lie - Ugh!

Its Your Fault TOO!

I have been reading opinions about the latest Eminem song, called, "Love The Way You Lie".  (Video Link highlighted)

Some people say they 'get' the song, and others feel it glamorizes domestic violence.  I found a short interview with Rihanna, and the part that bothered me is her almost childlike response, "I wanted to be part of a HIT!"

I tried for a number of weeks to figure out WHERE the attraction was for this song, and how it is strange that none of them (Characters in the video) truly try to explain the message behind it.  Rihanna got the snot kicked out of her, and I can't believe that she would truly wish to 'glamorize' what happened to her.

WELL below is my STAB at a theory!  

Lets look at the chorus of the song:

Just gonna stand there and watch me burn
But that's alright because I like the way it hurts
Just gonna stand there and hear me cry
But that's alright because I love the way you lie
I love the way you lie

This is the first part I think some are truly bothered by.  WHY would she said such a thing?  I like the way it hurts?  I like the way you lie? Huh?

To me personally?  It sounds like opinions towards victims of domestic violence from society.  She must like it or why wouldn't she leave?  She must have done something to trigger him like that!  She isn't innocent after all. 

I'm talking about how those justifications we read about after she got beat up, and had to listen to people justifying Chris Brown actions towards her.  She PUSHED him to beat her.... right?  Abusers for the most part are out for themselves, and in their sick viewpoints towards the relationship?  Watching her cry or burn isn't something that moves them in reality.

For the chorus she is playing the part that society had labeled her with.  I'm not talking ALL of us, but the ones that stood up for Chris Brown in a fashion that justified what he did to her.  How she pushed his buttons, and she loves the way he lies. Why else would she stay in a relationship with him?  RIGHT?!

maybe he was defending himself against her

WHY YALL ON RIHANNA SIDE HE HIT HER FOR A REASON SHE MIGHT HAVE DID SUMTHIN TO **** HIM OFF OR PUSH HIM TO HIS LIMIT

im guessing that rhianna hit him first and if she did, then she got what she deserved.

We have heard cruel attitudes towards victims, and maybe Rihanna is playing the part they asked her to in the chorus.  It was the opinion of society towards her, and it shows to THEM at least she has twisted thoughts towards the relationship as well.

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!

Are we inclined the think the worse?

Tighty Whitey

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

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

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

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

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

Are we inclined to think the worse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

MADE TO NURTURE

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

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

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

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

Her story showed she was  inclined to think the WORSE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone else cat have this attitude?  LOL!

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

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

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

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

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

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