Sunday, August 14, 2011

Is Bachmann Offering Two For The Price Of One?

0 comments Posted by Hannah at 10:20 AM

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. 

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Afraid of Conflict Resolution

0 comments Posted by Hannah at 11:01 AM

The Light of GodI will admit at times I get apprehensive about being ‘real’ around certain people.  I used to be REALLY bad at that, because I was taught that you should always be the sugar sweet person at all times. 


That means instead of voicing your opinion about why something makes you upset?  You have to stop, think, and possibly go a different route to voice this – or you know not to voice it at all. 


Why?  People tend to point out your attitude as they see it, and wish to deal with that more than the substance of the point or hurt in question.


I’m not going to say that it’s a bad thing to watch your tone and approach.  I will say at times we tend to go a little to far in that realm.  If your approach isn’t ‘just so’ that is what is pointed out and concentrated on more than the true hurt that people need to deal with.


The Wartburg Watch recently had an article called the confessions of a SGM Pastor.  They speak of two awful stories about people within a fellowship that found out their children had been sexually abused by another party within the fellowship.  The principals that church followed were to help bring ‘peace’ among all parties.  The problem is in order to have this ‘peace’ they basically avoided dealing with the circumstances completely.  The families couldn’t speak of the hurt and betrayal they felt over the molestation, because to the church it showed their lack of forgiveness.

These were situations where the family of the victim and the family of the perpetrator were friends. There were pre-existing, close relationships. As they’re trying to sort these things through, when relational conflicts arose between the victim’s family and the perpetrator’s family, we unwisely used a Peacemaker model for conflict resolution. This resulted, put them on an equal plane – get the log out of your eye, get the log out of your eye, go for the speck, go for the speck – this resulted in the victim’s family being corrected when they should have been gently cared for as sufferers.

I read this and I thought of the many stories we have all heard not only that dealt with this issue, but also the theme of the blog – domestic violence in the church.  This is more doctrine that fact.


How often are men, women and children asked to look at their own sin before they speak about verbal abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse?  I think of Tina Anderson , and how she was asked to own 1% of the sin of her being raped.  How many stories have read over at Danni Moss’s Blog, Because It Matters in which she spoke of boy and girls being molested by people in the church, and adults feeling very justified in attacking the children to defend the adult.  How these children were running after the molester to be with them – thus they must have wanted it.    How the adult in the church was a 'Godly’ person, and just made a mistake.


How often do we hear hints of BE more submissive, watch your tone and approach, and make sure you are ‘encouraging’ to the person that is abusing you verbally, emotionally or physically? 


We don’t do well in gently caring for sufferers.  When a spouse or child are being abused we see more often than not how we need to realize a relationship is 50/50 in fault, and we never attempt to deal with the dangerous brokenness of character – or obvious sinfulness of that person.  We are asked to look for the GOOD qualities, and don’t be so nasty that all you see is the BAD ones! 


Yes.  There are always assumptions about your motivation, character, and how you dealt with things so far.

Monday, August 08, 2011

Women in the Church Compared to Homosexuals

1 comments Posted by Hannah at 9:34 PM

patronizingI was over at Shirley Taylor’s blog this morning, and she had written a piece called “They’ve stolen Jesus!”


The quotes she mentioned are patronizing, and shows the low opinion of the ‘other’ gender.  They can claim all they wish about how they LOVE women, but no offense I don’t wish to have their type of love.


If you look past the sugary spiritual pixie dust so many use instead of speaking in plain English?  The patronizing attitude is clear. 


We all know by now I suppose that supporters would RUSH to their defense, and say things like how they are misunderstood, etc.    How scripture is clear in their eyes as far as women in certain positions within the church.  What they don’t do?  Is separate their ‘belief’, and listen very closely to how it is being presented.


All these years of being ‘misunderstood’, and yet you see no true effort to clarify these things. Its tells you something.


We all have our own journeys we must travel in order to be led by the Holy Spirit, and to know in our hearts where God wishes us to go.  At times I will admit I wonder why some paths have to be so painful, and but I also realize God can use those hurtful things to bring us close to him.  He can use our experiences and challenges to help others.


I have people I know that are very uncomfortable with this topic, and don’t mean to offend but believe that women should not be in a place of leadership within the church.   What they never do is patronize others in their belief.  Honestly?  I don’t mind talking about this topic with them, because I know they will not attack – and know I would never attack either.  Strange how some can have a decent conversation without all the ugly stereotypes, and labeling isn’t it?


Those friends realize that you don’t compare women to homosexuality.  These friends would never throw the radical men hating feminist label at others while having a conversation.  They understand human dignity, and view others self worth as God would have them do.  YES we can disagree on many topics, and that doesn’t have to place us in the enemy camp. 


Presentation is Key

When we look at Jesus in the bible, and see his presentation we never see a patronizing attitude.  He will call out the religious leaders at the time, and he will point out how some will not be capable of living the life they say they want.  He never even went NEAR speaking down to people.


There seems to be a new marketing ploy in how to NOT talk about women in ministry.  Today they are compared to homosexuals.  They will speak with their sweet sugary spiritual pixie dust, and their followers just swoon and believe they didn’t mean it in a way that would be offensive. 


If you dare challenge them you must be one that wishes to be in leadership and usurp men, or of course labeled a feminist with all their radical ideas about what that means.  I for one am not interested in leadership.


Did you ever notice the threatening response to those that DO NOT cow town to how they believe?


Lets look at a quote from Shirley’s blog.

I have a PhD in ministry. I studied under Wayne Grudem, and did so well that Wayne Grudem urged me to get a PhD.  I asked him what I could do with a PhD?  He said “Teach children in Sunday school.”  I told him that I don’t need a PhD to teach children.  Finally Wayne Grudem could only come up with this: I could write books under the authority of some man.

If some could place their beliefs to the side about women in leadership, and LOOK at what is being said?  They would need to also replace the name ‘Grudem’ with Jack Flash or something as well!


Most people that are honest with themselves could see the patronising attitude.

patronising - (used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who treat others with condescension

superior - of or characteristic of high rank or importance; "a superior ruler"

Grudem realizes this ‘woman’ had  gift, and encouraged her to go further.  He was then reminded of his ‘group think’ about women when she asked her question, and he stumbled along with the rest of his parroted language.   Could it be the Holy Spirit’s way of knocking at his door?


I mean who in their right mind would recommend someone to and get their PhD to teach Sunday School? He caught himself in a fumble if you will.


Women compared to Homosexuality


I attended John Piper’s church.  I told John Piper of my calling into full time preaching/teaching.  John Piper said, “You are just like the homosexual, right desire, wrong gender.


A church hired a graduate of The Master’s Seminary, founded by John MacArthur.  This seminary will not accept any women in leadership position and the seminary will not allow a woman to take Bible classes. This graduate told a church board: “Listening to a woman preach is like listening to a homosexual.”

woman cryingI have to mention here that I don’t ride the ‘pet sin’ train of homosexuality.  I don’t agree with the demonizing people in this way.    I realize its really popular to do so, and then in the next breath chant the ‘love the sinner – hate the sin’.  I’m not one for parroting the popular lingo, especially when I don’t believe those that state this.  Its pretty plain how they feel by other statements they use, and quite frankly is shameful and hypocritical.   You can’t tell people you offer them grace, and then back stab them. 


I personally don’t understand the desire for the same gender okay? I don’t have to in order to realize their treatment by some Christians is sinful.  I believe most of the popular things that are said along these lines are more fear mongering than anything.  Its amazing to me that some seem to think they will saved when they are graded on a curve due to being straight.


The statements made by the two pastors do not show dignity and worth towards women.  They meant these things as derogatory statements towards both women and homosexuals.  Why?  As we know the word homosexuality is almost used a spiritual swear word in the church.  Its like the mean high school boys that are picking on a smaller boy by calling him ‘fag’ when they know he isn’t.


Women are the threat here!


Cindy Kunsman forwarded me a link this week about a church in the southern states that hired a female pastor.  The local ‘faith’ association quickly disassociated that church from their group. 

Only a week after Pastor Nelson’s first Sunday in the pulpit — on July 10, 2011 — Flat Rock Baptist Church

“received a letter from the association’s membership committee citing “concerned pastors” and asking for a meeting to discuss “possible solutions” to the issue they said threatened the fellowship of the association.”

These “concerned pastors” were so worried about the grave situation of a woman preaching in one of “their” churches that they had to act within a week of the young lady assuming her pastorate.  Don’t want to let her settle in or even meet her before moving to oust the church.  If I had to guess, these pastors would probably not be as gravely concerned about obese pastors preaching in one of their churches, as long as that overweight pastor was a man, but I digress!

I realize its not funny, but I do have giggle at the ‘threatened’ part.  Its quite amazing how much power they give away isn’t it?  They make it sound so ominous.  I guess it is to them, and that is why they react the way they do.  Its hard for me to understand personally.


When you have such a view of women?  Its easy I guess to speak in court like Chuck Phelps in the Tina Anderson Case.


Recently notes from the trial were posted online.  From what I have been told they are awaiting permission to get the actual transcripts.  The notes are from day five of the trial, and with Chuck Phelps speaking:


Phelps: Ernie Willis had more to lose than Tina Anderson. That is why I naturally assumed Tina was lying to me. I did not understand why Tina would go out to eat with Ernie, if he had just raped her. She was being dishonest. When I told her that, Tina turned and looked at me with anything but love on her face. The Bedford Inn is not McDonalds. They both went to the Bedford Inn for Tina’s birthday. Tina was very angry with me. So it was obvious this was consensual.

Wayne: Did your wife, Linda, ask Tina at one point if she “enjoyed it?”

Phelps: That is a lie! (starts crying). That is so outside the character of my loving wife! It was not a discipline service. I wanted to prepare the church for the news, and I knew the media would get ahold of this story, and I wanted to prepare our church family with how to deal with the false media reports. I wanted Trinity Baptist Church to know so they could embrace Tina and Ernie. If I am not a compassionate person, I am not fit for ministry.

I would never have someone involuntarily come before the church. Tina Anderson’s success as a person, her success in life, success as a mother, wife, teacher and citizen of America is all attributed to the loving church family she had here at Trinity Baptist Church. Some people have the inability to make good choices in life. This time of confession might have been interpreted as “painful” by Tina. The news media definitely made her story look painful. I can’t say this any stronger. I never said “forgive and forget.”

Wayne: Did you make Tina go and apologize to her stepfather while he was in jail? Did you make her ask forgiveness for his molesting her?

Phelps: If the social workers are telling Tina to work with her stepfather, and rebuild their relationship, then she should listen to them.

So when a pastor doesn’t agree with your story, and calls you a liar?  If you get upset about that you are then labeled guilty.  Keep in mind also they look to the one they feel has the most to lose, because THEY will be the truthful ones.  It goes against logic doesn’t it?


Stating that he presented to two cases separately – calling them a discipline action – then NOT a discipline action – then stating he had to do this to ‘prepare his church’ for WHAT they could not have known.  Why?  As far as everyone was concerned – they were told they were separate issues.  Notice the flip flops this man makes as well?


On a last note, I wanted to quote something from the blog The Unspoken Words that Mara mentioned this week in her blog.    Its speaks of some of the stereotypes we hear about women, and from the description you often – how women are a threat because they want to take over or something.  You hear stereotypes from dress, makeup, the way you walk, sit, talk and interact.  How you raise your children, treat your spouse, and if you step into the working world or stay at home.


It just resonated with me.


The women’s movement of the 1960s and 70s (and continuing today) fights hard against the idea that women are objects to be looked at. Women wear what they wear because they want to wear it. Maybe they want to look good to themselves. Maybe they want to look put-together for the next job interview. Maybe they want to correct a few perceived flaws like thin eyelashes. Maybe they want to look better in photographs.

But here’s another thought: what if the things women wear aren’t all about how they look?

  • Some women wear bikinis to look attractive. Some wear them because they like the feeling of the sun on their skin and they don’t care if anyone looks at them.
  • Some women wear pants so that they can take longer strides, ride horses or climb walls, not because they want to “usurp male authority.”
  • Some women wear sleeveless dresses because they enjoy the freedom of movement in their arms and find such dresses comfortable in the summer.
  • Some women wear high heels to look attractive, but some women also wear them to appear taller so that people will treat them with more respect.
  • Some women wear nail polish because they enjoy looking down at the different colors and matching them to their outfits, not because men notice them.
  • Some women wear makeup because they like playing with colors on their faces and feeling decked out makes them more confident, not because they want men to perceive them as more sexually desirable.
  • A woman might even want to look attractive to a particular man, but not to all men under all circumstances.

You get the idea. The Message teaches that women are always, always, always constructing their daily lives around the male gaze. Everything they do is to attract men. Women, however, know from experience that it isn’t true. When I wear my swimsuit, it’s about my relationship with the sun, wind and water – it has nothing to do with a creepy lecherous dude who might ogle me as I walk by. (Trust me, they’ll ogle no matter what you wear – I’ve gotten sexually harassed in public more often in sweats and long skirts than I ever have in a swimsuit.) I’ll talk more about the dangers of the belief that women’s clothing has power over men’s behavior when I tackle Branham’s disfigurement of Matthew 5:28.


The way the preachers preach it?  They also objectify women. 


The last part where you mentioned she got ogled more often in her conservative dress?  Women can feel it without words being spoken.  Its strange how men pastor’s seem to think they can tell the world what women’s motivations are.  Somewhere along the line they lost sight of the dignity and worth that God sees in his creation.


Don’t get me wrong – we all know all men aren’t like this.  Yes!  Yes!  I realize ANYTIME you mention these things its like an attack on the entire gender.  Sit and back LOOK who screams the loudest.  They are normally like the ones mentioned here today.  How does the saying go again?


The squeaking wheel gets the grease! 


We are worth far more then those types give us credit for.  I’m thankful for the men that stand up and state this on our behalf.  I pray MORE do so as time goes along.


Women aren’t a threat to the church.  Homosexuality isn’t a threat to the church.  Pastors that preach bigotry?  I think we have something there.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Blog Archive



Blog Of The Day Awards Winner

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Privacy Policy

| Emotional Abuse and Your Faith © 2009. All Rights Reserved | Template by My Blogger Tricks .com |