Insecurity, and the ‘MANHOOD’ race that breeds it

Culture is a very powerful thing no matter where you live.  I mentioned that last time I wrote when I spoke of India’s Daughter.

 

It’s very hard to speak about the dangerous aspects of culture, because ‘this is how it is’ type of statements are used to shut down the conversation.

 

What they refuse to do is acknowledge that YES you can change aspects that harm your society, but it reminds me of the saying ‘you can’t fight city hall’ at times.  Their insecurity wipes out all common sense.

 

In India proving your womanhood is accepting your second class status, and revering the authority of men.  They are much more upfront about this second class status, whereas here in the states places like CBMW tend to use women mouth pieces like Mary Kassian to get a blunt as they are.

 

Both places tend to enrich insecurity in men by asking them to prove their manhood.  They need to learn to display it, prove it to the world around them.  That is the only way they keep their ‘authority’.

 

Greg Hahn started to blog recently, and he spoke of some statements that John Piper had made.  I encourage you to read his post – its very good!

 

When you listen to what John Piper is saying about how people can’t explain to a little boy what biblical manhood is – or little girl about her role as far as that goes….it seems to come down to authority.  That is the only difference.  If Egalitarians can’t tell a little boy about his manhood in terms of his authority…they can’t tell that little boy how to be a man….biblically.

 

Insecurity

 

“Most American men know perfectly well the qualities they must display to be considered fully creditable as men: power, competitiveness, and toughness.”

That’s the prize, right there. You have to be “considered fully creditable as a man”. And the unspoken understanding of many is that you don’t just get that from having X and Y chromosomes and reaching adulthood. You have to earn your manhood, so as to be seen manly by those around you. If you can feel it, all the better, but in the very least you need to be seen that way.

 

I quoted part of Greg Hahn’s article, because he makes a great point here to me.

 

To me culture within certain faith communities, and YES that includes complementarianism are individuals having to prove our ‘gender hood’ constantly.  They play into fears – of secular culture – in order to raise your insecurity.  Most of the time they love exaggerating these fears about culture as well.  That way you drive even harder to disprove the misconception.

 

Men are always told how to show their ‘manhood’, and women in this circle are shown how they can prove they are not a FEMINIST!

 

If you have read enough of the complementarian model you know authority within manhood is very important.  Yes, they claim this authority is based in Christ-like servanthood.  Yet, if you listen to the messages this servanthood is based in the ‘this is how it is’ model.

 

It’s similar to India’s viewpoint towards their females:  She should not be put on the streets just like food.  The ‘lady’, on the other hand, you can say the ‘girl’ or ‘woman’, are more precious than a gem, than a diamond.  Its up to you how you want to keep that diamond in your hand.  If you put that diamond on the street, certainly the dogs will carry it out.  You can’t stop it”   - Attorney for Rapists

 

The man is constantly proving his manhood, and if the woman steps out of ‘this is how it is’ mode?    It’s ultimately the man’s fault for not treating his gem or diamond as he should.  He placed her out of the street, and let the dogs carry her out.  The women should know their place in the home – where they are safe from the dogs.

 

In India, if you are out after the time some man feels you shouldn’t be?  If they think you are with a man that is NOT a family member?  They teach you a lesson by rape.

 

They seem to feel they are taking their authority, but there is no true authority there.  Its just cockeyed.

 

This is what happens when you don’t follow my authority.

 

Women are told to make sure their men ‘feel’ their manhood, and men are constantly having to show their manhood. 

 

It’s not really manhood they are speaking about, but authority if you want to get down to it.

 

You also notice it’s a never ending race to earn your manhood, and yet you are told you are ‘wired’ that way.

 

It really makes no sense does it?

 

If your woman doesn’t show the ‘this is how it is’ model of biblical womanhood it reflects badly on your manhood or authority.  This lack of authority within his household helps feed the insecurity, and the threat of him having a feminist within his home?  You need to MAN UP!  (I hate that term!)  This normally leads to cruel things happening in order to teach her a lesson.

 

The insecurity over his threat to his manhood is the justification.  Its similar to India’s justification of rape we read about above.  This is what happens when you don’t follow my authority.  Heck, they will take it a step further – for dramatic purposes – stating she emasculated him.

 

When people are taught that is how you treat a gem or a diamond?  It reflects the sense of worth they truly have towards the other gender, but you are told you don’t get it if you point this out.

 

It seems to me that they breed insecurity in men, and when you have an insecure person – be it man or women – they tend to lash out.

 

Insecurity leads to contempt

 

Insecure people also tend to use stereotypes, and project irrational fears that they want to come across as normal.  Owen Strachman shows this when he speaks about Baby Bear, and how he think boys playing with dolls is foolish.  He wants to speak about, ‘God-encoded truth about sexuality and gender’!  Yet, we are talking about a preschool kid playing ‘Daddy’.

 

Yes, it’s a great example of ‘this is how it is’!  Yet, its not in reality.  As Greg said, “You have to earn your manhood, so as to be seen manly by those around you. If you can feel it, all the better, but in the very least you need to be seen that way.’'

His father feels shame, because there maybe something in his son that isn’t ‘manhood’ enough.  So, they encourage him to tell his son only girls play with dolls.  You don’t want to be a ‘girl’ do you?

 

His son’s innocent playtime wanting to be a ‘Daddy’ now turns into a show of how the father isn’t teaching his son properly, and Dad’s (manhood) authority is threatened.  You don’t earn your manhood stripes by allowing your son to play with DOLLS!

 

Why people can’t see that is a major brain fart in the realm of common sense is beyond me!  I also don’t understand why they can’t see their reaction as dishonoring women. I mean that is authority gone haywire!  They also – like India – turn women or femininity into the realm of ‘them’.

 

Then you are reduced to ‘them’ contempt isn’t far behind.  Contempt is also a byproduct of insecurity.

 

Culture is hard to change.  Society is learning to accept, love, and grow in diversity..and moving away proving your gender. 

 

Let’s pray that ‘this is how it is’ goes away, and we finally learn to live with the here and now.  Yes, lets turn this around to:  That is how it was.  No fake show of authority needed, and no pressure to earn your manhood that comes from those fake needs.

 

Learning to love and respect humanity just as Jesus did.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sovereign Grace Ministries Scandal and Conviction

 

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

 

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

 

Just to fill in a little history…..

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

No Comment From The Together for Mahaney Crowd?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Hmmm…

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Matthew 21:28-32

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

 

Additional Resources:

BrentDetwiler.com

GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment)

Brief History of Sovereign Grace Ministries

Copy of Lawsuit in Question

Why Sovereign Grace Ministries Doesn’t Like Victims

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

Now you get 'juice bars and skinny jeans’ at church. Seriously? That’s all you heard?

The church claims they hear the Millennial generation, but are they listening?  They haven’t been listening for generations now!  Sadly, they just think they are.

I’m NOT a millennial, but I would be guilty of the generation that gave birth to them.  Yet, I can understand their complaints.  Our generation raised complaints, and we were ignored and spoken down to as well. 

I realize some of the older generation – like mine – will throw out the stereotype about the generations ‘issues’.  WELL all generations had them, and some young people walk away from church….and come back when children are born. 

Once they leave again after that?  Chances are pretty good its not over all the labels or issues that the present generation is handed.  Its normally MUCH larger than that.  To me?  That’s where they miss the boat…

Things have been going downhill since the 1980’s – if not sooner.  I guess its our children’s chance to have a running start, and bang into that brick wall now. 

Acknowledge and Deal with the Changes in Culture

When you don’t listen to the millennial generation’s parents?  You can be pretty much secure in knowing their children will figure it out as well.  Problems don’t go away when you ignore them, but tend to get worse.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

In the present culture you have the internet, and in my generation you had the start of cable tv (when I was teen I believe).  Our worlds were starting to open up, and come to find all the messages you told us about being the ONLY one that felt that way?  Hmm.  I guess NOT so much!  That’s why we are questioning you….

Your words had power when we were isolated, but now that the world as opened up?  We find others that realize some of the things you say don’t make sense either. 

For me personally at times the church’s viewpoint was almost superstitious. You need to keep sheltered, because otherwise you will be contaminated.  That doesn’t say much for our strength in faith.

You have to act a certain way, dress a certain, worship a certain way…so as we see it the church created an environment at times that made people compelled to hide sin.  You can’t show that ‘contaminated’ side.   If you point that out?  We were told this church attitude isn’t there, and we are seeing things or making things up so we can sin.  It’s a smoke screen!

John Piper: Women teaching Men

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So those two words:  Personal and direct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Okay – on a serious note:

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

 

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

 

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

John Piper’s thoughts back in 1989.

 

Additional articles on his podcast:

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

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

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

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

what John Piper sees when women teach

Drawing Source Used

Patriarchy: Its not the remedy

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

 

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

 

Is patriarchy really God’s dream for the world?

 

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

 

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

 

That’s not a remedy.

 

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

 

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

 

Live Life Counter Cultural

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Mob attacks women protesting sexual assault of women in Egypt

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

To give an account and to intercede for their wives

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No offense, but they need to find another seminary.

Is Bachmann Offering Two For The Price Of One?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respect My Authority!

I had a neighbor years ago that just LOVED to giggle at Cartman from South Park.  I have watched the show a couple of times, and yes it is for mature audiences.   The show lampoons reality for some, and yes it is satire.

 

Cartman is loud, obnoxious, racist and obese—is often portrayed as an antagonist whose has a anti-Semitic attitude.  He is a child of a single mother, and she oozes the meek and mild attitude of ‘how women are to be’ attitude.  On the other hand, she also represents an extreme model of free love if you catch my drift!  Cartman tends to be in denial about the one side of his mother, and yet loves to control and manipulate the other side.

People tend to giggle at Cartman because he is one to demand you respect his authority, and yet you see the loud, obnoxious and immature boy that doesn’t have much to respect.

 

I found this description of him: Cartman is frequently portrayed as an antagonist or villain whose actions set in motion the events serving as the main plot of an episode. Other children and classmates are alienated by Cartman's insensitive, sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-sematic, lazy, misogynistic, self-righteous, and wildly insecure behavior, but are occasionally influenced by his obtrusive, manipulative, and propagandist antics.

Okay.  I have to admit there are some in the church to me that represent Cartman to a tea!    Jack Schaap we wrote about within the last couple of months, and YES his attitude is the extreme case of what I’m talking about.  You remember how he started his ‘holy’ tirade?

ABC news called me this week and said "We heard that you believe that men should be in charge of their wives"
I said, "No sir, I didn't say that. I said God said that. He said husbands are the head of the wife."
I said, "You got a problem with what I said when I'm quoting the Bible, then maybe you should take it up with God."
He said, "Do you think that's appropriate?"
I said, "Son, anything God says is appropriate. I think you better get that straight right now."
I never apologize for standing where God stands. I never worry standing where God stands. Somebody says, "You know what they are going to say about you?"
Pffft, who cares?
Stand in line, pick a number, slob!
Get you little squirt gun out and squirt away.
Bigger things to worry about. Heaven, Hell, life, death.

Does anyone doubt that such a man would also love to scream out, “RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!”

 

David J. Stewart wrote an article that I picked apart many years ago.  He was asked about divorcing an abusive spouse.

Interestingly, and sadly, all we see on the internet and in society today is talk about domestic violence; but NEVER do we hear anything about statistics on wives who refuse to obey their husbands. It is evil. It is just as sinful for a wife to frustrate her husband through insubordination and disobedience as it is for a man to commit domestic violence. I am not lessening the sin of domestic violence, I am emphasizing the sin of wives who rebel against their husbands by not being obedient. I realize this is ancient mentality to feminists today; but it is 100% Biblical doctrine. A wife is expected by God to obey her husband. Feminists are eagerly willing to crucify abusive husbands; BUT they won't even address the issue of wives who disobey, mistreat, and frustrate their husbands. It takes two to tango.

Does anyone doubt that such a man would also love to scream out, “RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!”

 

Reb Bradley wrote an article about Emotional Abuse and Marriage.

Let us remember that the apostles who gave us God's commands were themselves the victims of severe emotional and physical abuse. They, like Pastor Richard Wurmbrand, endured torture beyond anything we have ever seen. In his books, Pastor Wurmbrand describes his 14 years in a Romanian prison at the hands of communist torturers. His love and compassion for his torturers testifies of the assurance we have as Christians that we too can selflessly love our wives and husbands.

Certainly if those tortured on a daily basis can see the good that comes from suffering, then we as minimally suffering, soft Americans can handle the opportunities for growth that come our way through the difficulties of marriage. If we are able to cease our "giving to get" mentality and begin simply "giving" we would finally be able enjoy the fulfillment that comes from loving selflessly in the image of Christ.

Mr. Bradley feels that you came into marriage to ‘get’ instead of serve. You must be like Pastor Warmbrand, and have love and compassion for your abuser as you stay and be tortured.  If you can’t your to soft!

 

Does anyone doubt that such a man would also love to scream out, “RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!”

Why Women Can't..

“I’m sick of it.  I’m sick of writing about equality for Christian women in our churches and homes,” I emailed a woman equality blogger.
But as long as pastors and bloggers and “Bible scholars” tell the world that women just don’t measure up, I will keep on.

Above is a quote from Shirley Taylor, and she can quoted a pastor’s reasons why women would not be good in certain positions compared to men.

I searched for the article, and I believe I found the one in question.  It was titled, Why women can not be head pastors.  I had to admit I’m getting rather used to silly examples that are said to used to make points that are somehow suppose to make sense to the general public.

To quote one of his comments to his ‘ahem’ points that made me giggle, and also has a sting of truth to it?

“I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony; I don’t know where to begin!”

To me?  That said it all!

I seriously don’t think people that come from this point of view truly realize how completely racist and bigoted they sound.  I really don’t think they stop long enough to hear themselves at times.  Its truly sad!  

I guess it shouldn’t surprise me because the Christian faith has been fighting bigoted overtones for how long?  Almost since it began?

The pastor in question used a common circumstance we have all giggled about in the past.  Wife hears noise in the house.  Wife wakes up husband, and has him go and investigate.

You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.

It also seems to be human nature to pick the biggest and strongest when possibility facing a battle of strength.  If we look at the story of David and Goliath?   It seems to slap the theory the pastor made in the face.  If people didn’t know the story?  WHO would have thought that David would have creamed the bigger, stronger, and more aggressive Goliath?  Can people deny that those at the time felt he would get beaten as well?  I mean seriously, if we didn’t know it came from the bible?  We would SWEAR it was a movie made by Walt Disney!

When humans are faced with dangerous circumstances gender doesn’t always play a role.  The term, ‘momma bear’ for example.  A tough, aggressive, and protective mother. Often going to extreme lengths to protect her children and herself.   We have to admit we have used this term to describe more than the animal.  

Why Women can’t?

God gives everyone the strength needed in combat of different sorts. 


What has that got to do with being pastor?  According to the author the pastor is also better at confronting false teachings.  He feels since men are better at being physically and mentally stronger?  They are in a better position of confronting false doctrine. 

To make matters even MORE confusing?  It was pointed out that Christian faith has been pelleted with false doctrine (again I would say since the beginning), and pastor agreed.  One poster’s ending point was:

I am seeing few men with the characteristics needed for true shepherding. That troubles me.

His response?

I too am troubled by the lack of male leaders. Frankly, think that there are many reasons, but one that is very important, in my opinion, is that men are not taught to be men anymore. They don’t know what it means. They are taught that they don’t have too many essential differences between them and women. They are taught that they don’t have a particular role. They are taught to suppress their masculinity and embrace their “feminine side.” It is confusing. In the end, I think we need more people who are complementarian leading the church and expressing this value with greater confidence and boldness.
Men will still be wimps because we are still sinners. Adam still followed Eve.

I have to wonder if this pastor doesn’t see that he can’t seem to grasp ‘essential differences’!  His examples sure don’t show them.  I mean according to what he says above?  Sinner equals wimps.  Okay then.

Half The Church

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

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

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


Half The Church Moody Program upload link!

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

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

Some of the fears of men and women working together?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They Turned Out Despite THEM!

I sitting here praying this morning for Tina Anderson, and all those that are watching and waiting for the jury to come back.  Will there be justice? 

I think some justice has happened even before this trial started.  Willis will go to jail no matter what the jury comes back with today. 

I pray for a different type of justice – that people will open their eyes and hearts to those families that don’t give their children a chance.

What I saw at this trial – among other things – is adults at the time trying to SHAMEFULLY take ‘credit’ for the awesome adults that Tina and Tom turned out to be.  It amazes me because their ‘safe adults’ in childhood were just as dangerous as their stepfather Daniel Leaf at the time.

These adults – Tina and Tom – turned out despite the outrageous conduct, behavior, and ghastly beliefs the adults in their life's made them endure.

The church’s ignorance is killing children, and if we are lucky enough to have some survive?  It wasn’t due to the adults in their life's – they survived despite them.  Can we get REAL for a moment!  Its shameful that people TRY to take credit where CREDIT isn’t due!

Tina and her brother Tom never had a chance.  It is their faith, and their push to have a life later on that should teach others.  Yet you have people like Christine Leaf – their mother – that use their mostly awful judgment as a parent to say it wasn't all that bad – look at how they turned out!

The truth is they turned out well despite their mother.

I am an Agitator! Want to join me?

Like they were always on guard thinking that
we are going to do something to him
- while they were doing it to us.

I watched the Freedom Riders last night on PBS.  I have to say I was terribly moved.

I don't think the younger generation can truly understand how ugly those attitudes were back then.  Don't get me wrong in saying bigotry is a thing of the past - its not.

Have we forgotten today how much non violence had moved a nation not even a generation ago?  At times I wonder.

You watched blacks and whites - male and female - go directly into the line of fire.  You watched how mobs of people allowed their hate and fear turn to violence.

They had the control, and they will tell you that their Negros liked it that way.  Sound familiar?  The world wasn't going to tell them how they should treat those under them.  They were happy with the status quo, and they spoke for 'their' blacks as well telling the world they were content as well.

When you are raised with this belief, and it is encouraged and lived as much as possible?  It amazes me how much people will just accept it.  I have no doubt that even some 'Negros' as they were labeled believed in their inferior status, but that is NOT to say some or even MOST believed that lie.

If you were in the south you got killed for stepping out of line, or maimed at the very least.   I'm not saying the North were not bigots as well, because we all know they are all over even today.

Jocelyn Andersen has a book, 'Woman this is War' in which she looks at past history to challenge the gender roles.  If you see this documentary (Freedom Riders) you can clearly see Jocelyn's points in her book.  Its like history trying the same old tired excuses, but focuses in a different direction of gender now.

Instead of calling people feminists?  They were called, "Agitators".  Why were they called that?  They felt that people should be able to sit where they wished on the bus.  The 'Negros' were to sit in the back of the bus.  They were not allowed to use the same facilities, or water fountains.

They were to be 'separate but equal' as the saying went to keep the systems of segregation.  The law stated the separation would exist as long as you had equal facilities for each.  We all know that didn't happen.

You hear the whites claim that this system has been in place for hundreds of years, and its just the way the whites like it - and blacks like it as well.  After all, they claim 'the whites are the best friend a negro has!"  If you give him a chance (the white man) he will even show you, and tell you about his benevolence towards 'their' Negros. Makes you sick doesn't it?


Agitators

It's hard to wrap my mind around the fact I grew up in this period.  There was so much toxic hate.  My parents were part of the 'agitators' group, and they raised my brother and I to be agitators as well.  White agitators were the worse kind according to the 'normal red blooded' whites.  We were traitors and a disgrace to our race. 

Here is a quote that truly hit home for me from the movie.  There were many others, but it rang true for today in the world of 'equal in value, but differing roles'.

We dealt with violence everyday in the south.

They didn't treat us like we were human.

They treated us like we were vicious animals.

Like they were always on guard thinking that we are going to do something to them - while they were doing it to us.

The sentence I underlined?  That is called projection.  You project your sins to others.

Fannie the Feminist and other scary straw women of NON complementarians!

I had a good giggle today when I read Mary Kassian's article: “Dora the Doormat” and other Scary Straw Women of Complementarity

Why the giggle? I guess a person on twitter called her a 'uber' complementarian. I can't stay I blame her for fluffing off the label, but it did encourage her to throw out some silly stereotypes for an article.  She listed some for everyone to read to show how the straw women misrepresents truth.

As Ms. Kassian defined: A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position, knocks that position down, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. It’s a common, but faulty way to argue against an idea.

So how about we have some FUN today, and see if we can come up with some stereotypes of our own - in the other direction of course.

Ahem - lets start with everyone thinking about ominous music for the background before we begin!

Ready? Lets GO!

Lets meet our first stereotype:

'Fanny the Feminist'

....Virtually all the women portrayed in the media in the past decade. From children's cartoons to television series to movies, women are portrayed as having an in charge—don't need a guy—I'm powerful, traditional marriage and family and morals are outdated—I have the right to rule—how dare you tell me what to do—mentality.

In the past decade, we've been inundated with the message that when it comes to relationships, women can hook up, be in a casual or long-term relationship, live common-law, get married or not, get married and then get divorced, get pregnant or abort the babies, sleep around, live with a guy or a girl, have sex with a guy or a girl, and participate in a whole assortment of immoral and perverted behavior as long as they are friends. In other words, woman makes her own rules and sets her own standards, and as long as she is nice, it really doesn't matter what she does. Who are you to judge?

And WHO can never forget of the FAMOUS

Nancy the Narcissist

...As long as women are first loyal to themselves and second to their female buddies, they're on the right track. Single, married, lesbian, heterosexual, promiscuous, perverted—they can be vulgar, crude, and crass, but if they are for themselves and for other women and are caring and nice, then they're okay.

In the new worldview, men are whiny and needy and not too bright and totally unreliable. They're marginalized and de-masculinized, used, regarded, and discarded like Kleenex out of a box.

...Now days, the epitome of empowered womanhood is to live a self-serving, self-righteous, neurotic, narcissistic, superficial, and adulteress life. The main character in Sex in the City series wraps it up well when she counsels women that, “The most exciting, challenging, and significant relationship of all is the one you have with yourself.”

So in a few short decades in the span of my lifetime, the ideal of a happy, fulfilled woman has gone from one who serves and exalts her children, her husband, and her community to one who serves and exalts herself and has a very different type of commitment, very different type of idea towards men and women.

 We can NEVER leave out...

REBELLIOUS RUBY!

...authority role is what caused woman's heartache and heartbreak. It wasn't just an abstract concept of men having more power and authority than woman. It was woven throughout our entire society's family and social and political and religious structures. It was laced throughout our social etiquette and our customs, our rituals, our traditions and laws, our entire system of education and division of labor, and all of these things were responsible for keeping men in a dominant position and women in a submissive, subservient position. Patriarchy was seen as the ultimate cause of woman's discontent, and only the demise and the deconstruction of all patriarchal structures would lead to her freedom. Only when woman broke free from the traditional, male-defined, Judeo-Christian roles and rules would she find meaning and fulfillment, and thus, the trigger was pulled.

• Full self-determination—woman needed to decide who she was and needed to have the legal right to act independently of her husband.  
• Freedom from biology—that prompted feminists at that time to lobby for birth control, for legalized abortion, state daycare, reproductive technologies, such as test tube babies, anything that took the burden of bearing and caring for children off of a woman's shoulders and put it more on society as a whole. 
• Economic independence—pay equity, equal pay for work of equal value, changes to financial practices, total and equal integration, affirmative action.

 and ONE of my Favorites....

Consciousness-raising CASSIE

SPEAK bitterness to recall Bitterness!  SPEAK PAIN to recall pain - Mao Tse-tung

...if they gathered women together in small groups and got all those women talking about their hurts and grievances against men, then all the women in the group would begin to get upset with men, even those women who didn't have any hurts and grievances themselves, and then their anger could be directed into action. They could be empowered to rebel against the authority of the males in their homes and also in society as a whole and change the rules of the game, and this technique was called consciousness-raising.

...the most powerful, effective tool to lead women to a personal, “aha” moment of consciousness-raising—the moment that she accepts and she understands that all the problems in the world and all the problems of women are due to the rule of men and that she has the right to take things back into her own hands. 

The moral of the story?  DON'T be known as 

Henrietta the Heretic

The fundamental premise of feminism is that women need and can trust no other authority than our own personal truth, and that was a really quick fly-over of just where we've come from in the last 40, 50 years.


It was a philosophical quake that shook underground, and like a tsunami—the waves of the implications of that have come back over society in wave after wave after wave, and the carnage is unbelievable. The carnage in young women's lives, in older women's lives, the carnage is unbelievable. We are so broken. 

We have been taught that we ought not to bow and submit to any external power, but that's not the message of the Bible. God created us. He created us male and female, and that's not inconsequential. That means something. 

Now wasn't that fun?  Heck I didn't even have to WRITE most of it!  I just took statements from Mary Kassian herself!

On the article where she states her own brand of stereotypes?  Lets look at her conclusion and rebuke:

If you want to talk ideas, let’s talk ideas. Let’s talk hermeneutics. Let’s talk presuppositions. Let’s talk biblical exegesis. Let’s talk principles of interpretation and application. But stop misrepresenting the complementarian position. Stop using syllogistic fallacies, non sequiturs, disambiguations and fallacies of propositional logic. But most of all, please stop parading out those silly straw women!

Nice!  HEY!  can we start with the article I just quoted?

 Sorry...but that was to easy.

When you blame Victims - You Get What You Honor

I have been reading around the Internet covering all the different opinions regarding the Tina Anderson Story that was released on 20/20.

Its quite amazing the different stands that people can come up with.

There was one quote that truly stuck a cord with me:

You Get What You Honor - from one article I read.

Ever since the sexual abuse scandals has come out within the Catholic Church others have loved how they can point fingers at them. They love to act as if it’s only a CATHOLIC problem.

Danni Moss of Because It Matters used to write articles about all the different scandals that broke regarding basically the same ‘root’ issue, but different versions of it. If you read the comments on her blog regarding these scandals you see people sticking up for the accused, and blaming the victim.

It’s a repeated theme on every story she wrote about. How adults shouldn’t be made responsible for the adult’s choice alone, and how the children need to step up and accept their share of the blame.

It’s a matter of convenience for adults. They teach their children they are not ready for adult choices due to their immaturity, and yet when something seriously happens? The opposite seems to be the case.

They are not yet prepared for those choices, and we must not treat them as if they were.

To quote Kevin T. Bauder and his article responding to the Scandal

WELL it seems until your honored hierarchy is involved in some cases.

You can read dozens of rants on how people within the IFB are angry about being broad brushed, and yet again if you read Danni Moss’s blog the response to sexual abuse is very common. No one speaks out about that.  Where is the angry over that?

So what can we conclude?

You Get What You Honor

The Holy Hush - commentary on article Pt. 2

There was a quote in this article by a Christian lady that I so relate to.

She said something close to, “How can I go to my friends in the church, and admit that stuff like this is happening in MY HOME?? Christians have this “ideal” thing going on in their heads…how you are to live, behave, wear, etc. I’m not living that “safe” environment they consider normal!”

Sometimes finding the right term, word, concept for abuse in the homes of Christians can be a very contentious issue.

Crisis center workers or advocates of this issue refer to women that are harmed physically or psychologically by their husbands (or partners) as “woman abuse” or “Wife Abuse”. They see this as male violence against women. They are basically stating that Women and Children become targets in their home from unrestrained male aggression. They don’t see it as a “family issue”, but see it as a REAL example of male violence against women. When a woman flees her home and escapes to a shelter trying to get away from the abuse from a man – they visualize her as an example of male control over a woman. The true example of gender inequity!

While one side sees this as a gender power imbalance, conservative Protestant views regard this abusive behavior as evidence that God’s design for us in marriage has been misunderstood or abandoned.

They view abuse as “family violence”, and their new label is now considered a “family issue”. They do of course hold the male (at times) accountable for their actions, but they also believe that both sides hold some responsibility for what happened and there has be to potential for repair to the relationship.

Since the traditional family is idolized within the faith society, abuse is seen as “spiritual confusion” over God’s plan for the “happily ever after” family!

To me this shows a very big difference in attitudes towards abuse.

What is really strange to me is the difference in how they view abuse within their faith community families, and how they view the secular community on the same matters.

If a Christian man abuses or get violence with his wife that is looked upon as “spiritual immaturity”. The church will recognize society’s definition of abuse, and use their explanations for abuse among non-church families.  On the other hand, they are unwilling to use those same views within the church community.

The focus on this as just “another” sin, and it must be some type of spiritual warfare between good and evil! Since the abuse must have some roots in spiritual factors it must also have its cure! The secular world doesn’t have that asset! The Secular help in the best position to help the man that abuses, and that woman than their church!

Since the church has such difference views or models on how Christians abusers and non-Christian abusers are seen answers MY questions as to why they are VERY reluctant to make referrals outside their church’s network of help. Refusal to refer to secular agencies that deal with abuse shows their unwillingness to see “non-spiritual” forces that are at work within their church. Very interesting I think!

When is the last time you heard your Pastor use the pulpit to clearly CONDEMN abuse, and offer hope and refuge to its victims? According to this study only 31% of clergy reported that they preached a message on wife abuse and/or child abuse. When they did the follow up personal interviews with the church going woman very few even recall hearing such a message.

If they did ONE they would suggest to their church going victims that they have safe place to go to with their pain.

TWO it would be very healing if someone would give voice for their experience.

THREE it would send out a VERY clear message that communities of faith WILL NOT tolerate abuse of any kind, and do actually promote abuse free family lifestyles.

FOURTH it would send a message to many of the abusers in a very rare opportunity – a GROUP setting instead of an individual setting what church's stand actually is!

This “HOLY HUSH” maybe in attempt not to scare off the men. Pastors report that they preach mostly to women. Maybe if clergy realized how essential the condemnation of abuse is to a woman’s healing journey, or that it may help her speak up about her suffering – or possibility for an abuser to stop hurting and seek help…. maybe possibly our pastors may reconsider their silence.

I'm actually enjoying this article!

There is way more detail to it - I just noted a couple of highlights in my own words. Again they are more professional with the subject!