Biblical Roles could cause Division

What can I do, if anything,about this?
I have my role, I don't want his too!!!!
If I keep submitting to my husband,is there a chance that he might come to see what his role is??
Please pray for us!!!!

I read the above about the ‘biblical roles’ all the time.  Instead of certain churches teaching to appreciate the individual’s gifts?  You see the division starting because these gifts don’t mold into their version of ‘God Given’ biblical roles.

Don’t get me wrong I see it the other way around as well.  The men stating that the women aren’t doing what they were taught women should be doing as well.

I have to wonder if people don’t seem to understand that its causing division more than the unity that the Lord had in mind for all of us.  You read all the time about the wife or husband complaining about how they aren’t doing their role, and how they are forced to do both.  WHEN will they step up??

In turns into people feeling resentment towards their spouse, and they start to ignore the true gifts their spouse brings to the table for their relationship.  I don’t believe that is what God wanted.  You see he made that person, and they are wonderfully made!  Although according to doctrine in certain circles of faith it makes you question things that may not even be there.

If their gifts aren’t in the uniform style of what the preacher is teaching you?  It causes all kinds of issues within the relationship.  The woman I quoted above sadly doesn’t recognize the awesome aspects of her relationship, because her husband doesn’t ‘lead’ the way she was taught.  She doesn’t even see the ways he does lead, because she has a checklist that she was given.  You see the check list doesn’t line up how she is taught he SHOULD be.  Teachings should show her to appreciate what he is instead, or he may not be.  What could be an awesome relationship is being torn apart.  Why would this be good?

Let me give you an example of what I feel is God given gifts:

My daughter loves drawing.  She is darn good at it too.  One area she loves to draw is Anime.  I personally don’t understand the draw for the Japanese programs for Anime, and they really do nothing for me.  The art style in the drawing of the characters can be very complex.  I will admit it is very beautiful.  So I may not enjoy the programs with Anime characters, but I can appreciate the style of the art.

It’s quite amazing to watch her with her pencil and paper as she breezes along, and creates normally her friends in the Anime style.  Its funny to watch each of them step up, and tell her they want to be NEXT!  She gives these drawings away as gifts, and they are truly treasured.  She makes them feel great about themselves, and are proud of this drawing.  Not in a conceit type of way, but a normal healthy self image way.

Her drawing started as a young child, and her style of course was different.  It was awesome to see her get better as the years went on.  She was always good, but as she cultivated her gift her craft grew more complex.

She will always have this gift, and even if you took away the pencil and paper the gift would still be there.  The way she sees the world, and how she would create it in her own style will always be present.  It just IS... with her.

This is a gift that God blessed her with, and its something that no one can take from her.  Everyone has their own gifts that the Lord has blessed them with, and they don’t always align with the boxes I read about, or hear preached about.

When people have God given gifts?  To me it just is, and you can’t take it from someone.  It will always be present.  Telling her she must not use it, or must rid her self of it is just not possible for us humans – we all have our own gifts. God blessed us with them, and they will always be there.

I truly believe these ‘biblical roles’ according to gender at times does cause division due to my view of personal gifts.  You either have the gift or you don’t.  If you have the gift of course it can be cultivated, and improved.  It will always be there, and nothing can take it from you.  Its the way God made you.  Sadly, we don’t always learn to appreciate them, because of biblical roles we are taught we are use those instead.

The way you use that gift shows how you can honor or dishonor your relationship with Christ.  My Daughter for example, could ‘teach’ drawing to others if she wanted too.  She doesn’t usurp anyone by showing them certain skills she learned along the way.  People in general could learn from her, and its true even if they never learn to draw with excellence like she does.  She could also do things with her gift that would dishonor her relationship with the Lord by using this gift to demonize things.

When people claim that others should NOT use gifts because it dishonors the other gender?  They never stop to think about the fact these gifts are used to honor God, and he gave them to this person for his purpose.  The ‘dishonor’ crowd may not get anything from the gift, because their nose is too out joint to handle it.  Those with an open mind can appreciate it, because they realize the Lord gave it to them to use for HIM!

People will never always fit into the checklists of the gender roles, because God may never have intended us to live that way.  He may have created them totally opposite in fact.  He has a purpose for this, and it amazes me that people would question him in this manner.

Our world has enough issues as it is without us dreaming up issues that we seem to want to see there due to some silly checklist.  We won’t always see what God has intended us too, and we may miss out on wonderful things.

If we see a women  that is good at business?  We may think feminist, and how she elevates this skill above family.  When we see a man that children LOVE to play with?  We may think emasculated, and a product of this feminized world.  She shows a strength that only men are to have, and he shows nurturing that should be a trait for women. 

In the end you learn to resent these people instead of appreciating the gifts that the Lord has given them.  We dishonor God when we refuse to fellowship with them, because they don’t fit into some box our teaching has in mind.   We see a grab for power, leadership, etc. with her, and a man that folded in his masculinity for him. 

Most are able to discern if those characteristics are indeed present (power grab, emasculating), but we don’t use those discernment skills anymore.  We use our checklist instead.

This is why I see biblical roles to the point of legalism causing disunity within marriages and the church.  This should not be.

The Gospel Coalition, and Biblically Correct Crowd

I saw an incredibly inspiring video this week.  The speaker’s name as Dr. Benjamin Carson.

It spoke on the current culture of today, and goodness yes it could even be applied within the faith culture as well.

Yes, he brings up his opinions on the political atmosphere, but I agreed with him on the Political Correctness.  We see people police EVERYTHING to death, and attach motive when it doesn’t need to be there.

The silliest example I can come up with recently was when Brent Musburger commented that the quarterback’s girlfriend Katherine Webb was a beautiful woman.  Everyone was having a hissie fit over this comment, and honestly there wasn’t anything wrong with it.  It was a compliment, and there was no ‘dirty old man’ motive behind it.  He was being complementary.  Then ESPN was pressured to have him apologize for the compliment.  It’s stupid.  Now we can’t compliment people nicely anymore?  She is beautiful…and??  Katherine herself commented that no apology was needed, because it wasn’t a ‘sexist’ thing to say.

Today in the faith community we see similar types of attacks – just as you seen the secular realm.  If you are comp, egal, liberal thinking, conservative thinking, etc.    Watch the debates, and you will see the similar tactics you see in the news media and secular politics today.  I guess we have our own brand of ‘biblically correct’ now.  How nice.  Sigh.

They take one thought or sentence and get all bent out of shape over it, and completely dismiss the overall message.  OR lets say you wish to speak about a debit in a line of thinking.  Do they stop to think about the debit?  No, they tell their readers what they REALLY meant.  Yes, most of the time it has NOTHING to do with what the principal of discussion or point they were trying to make.  How Christian of us.

We can’t debate anymore, because we are too busy demonizing.  If you are on THIS side then you automatically believe X, Y and Z.    We as a culture have completely lost the respect factor for fellow human beings.  It’s more popular to tear them down so we can hate them instead.  It breaks my heart.  Now we see to much of it within the church….of all places.  Shame on US!

Dr. Carson states:

Now, it’s not my intention to offend anyone. I have discovered, however, in recent years that it’s very difficult to speak to a large group of people these days and not offend someone. [laughter]
And people walk away with their feelings on their shoulders waiting for you to say something, ah, did you hear that? The pc police are out in force at all times. I remember once I was talking about the difference between a human brain and a dog’s grain, and a man — and a dog’s brain, and a man got offended. You can’t talk about dogs like that. [laughter] People focus in on that, completely miss the point of what you’re saying. [laughter] And we’ve reached reach the point where people are afraid to actually talk about what they want to say because somebody might be offended. People are afraid to say Merry Christmas at Christmas time. Doesn’t matter whether the person you’re talking to is Jewish or, you know, whether they’re any religion. That’s a salutation, a greeting of goodwill. We’ve got to get over this sensitivity. You know, and it keeps people from saying what they really believe.

And you have to wonder if that maybe the point of all this ugliness. Keeping people from saying what they really believe. We can’t point out nonsense anymore, because you get attacked with motive attached automatically.  It’s the popular thing to do! 

Sadly, this game is damaging to the fabric of our world.  Our Politian's do it, the media does it, and sadly the church also has used this craft as well.  The church sadly just spiritualizes it to justify themselves.

Dr. Carson starts out with some scripture verses:

Proverbs 11:9 With his mouth the Godless destroys his neighbor, but through knowledge the righteous escapes.
Proverbs 11:12 A man who lacks judgement derides his neighbor, but a man of understanding holds his tongue
Proverbs 11:25 A generous man will prosper. He who refreshes others will himself, be refreshed.
2nd Chronicles 7:14 If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land.

I had this video sitting on my computer for some days, and I didn’t know what I was going to do with it.  Then Mara From Bitter Waters to Sweet dropped a perfect example of what Dr. Carson was speaking about in the quote I mentioned above RIGHT in my lap!  The principal of the ‘biblically correct’ crowd that refuses to listen to what others have to say, but instead tells you they said something that wasn’t there at all.

Elizabeth Esther, among other bloggers started to speak about the ‘purity’ movement, and how some of its views can do more harm than good. 

On the surface the purity movement does have some decent ideals on the surface.  Here is a quote from their website:

The Father Daughter Purity Ball is a memorable ceremony for fathers to sign commitments to be responsible men of integrity in all areas of purity. The commitment also includes their vow to protect their daughters in their choices for purity. The daughters silently commit to live pure lives before God through the symbol of laying down a white rose at the cross. Because we cherish our daughters as regal princesses—for 1 Peter 3:4 says they are “precious in the sight of God”—we want to treat them as royalty.
One of the most memorable highlights of the ball is when the fathers stand in the middle of the ballroom and form a circle around their daughters standing all aglow in their lovely ball gowns. The fathers place their hands on their daughters, and together we pray for purity of mind, body, and soul for generations to come.

Now one item they do talk about is the role of father within their daughter's life.  They wish for them to feel treasured, because they feel if they do not they may stray to someone else’s arms and be hurt in the end.  There isn’t anything on the surface that is wrong with that premise!  A man of integrity is a treasure to anyone he encounters is my belief! 

What about the problematic parts that tend to hurt the fathers and the daughters?  It seems according to the Gospel Coalition you aren’t suppose to talk about that.  If you do you are questioning God’s plan for marriage, and you want a commitment free LOVE zone.  Problem is if you don’t talk about it YOU don’t SOLVE anything!

For example, when the girl fails when it comes to her virginity.  If we look at part of their mission statement above?  Her father doesn’t value her, or will no longer value her.  When you tend to overcompensate on one aspect, and you FAIL at that aspect….you start to question your worth.  The young girls at times are given the impression that their worth as a human has been lessoned in God’s eyes due to their sin.    If you listen to the documentary on this movement?  They are told this one failure will cause insurmountable damage to their husband and marriage.

Mr. Wilson – a founder of the movement – acknowledged ‘that 88 percent of girls who take a purity pledge would fail to keep the pledge until marriage, but placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of fathers who neglect to guide their daughters in decisions about relationships.’   So now you have girls that feel like damaged good, not valued by Daddy, and Daddy is to take on the entire responsibility because HE failed as well.  He not doubt will on some level, because the young man has to get his permission to court his daughter to begin with.

Isn’t there are more Christ like approach to this QUOTE failure – if and when it happens?  It’s okay to deal with what happened, and find a healthy way of moving on.  Christ will forgive us, and we shouldn’t  act like our world have just STOPPED and will be plagued from then on.  We can admit our guilt to God, but he doesn’t wish us to hold on to it as a badge of disgrace.  Consequences may follow of course, but we always need to remember his love, forgiveness and grace.  We can balance these things.  We can!

In the documentary, “The Virgin Daughters” a young lady named Jessica is very different. When she became 19 years old a young man asked her parents for permission to court her.  She intended to remain a virgin until marriage, and a result of not having any sex-education, she became pregnant .  Her story starts about the 18 minute mark in the documentary that I linked too.  The circumstance that she fell into – the guilt, shame, etc. was one aspect bloggers were wanted to start the discussion about.  You also need to talk about the guilt trip they are laying their Father’s as well!  Talking about this DOESN’T mean they endorse ‘sleeping around’ for goodness sakes.  Yet, for some reason the Gospel Coalition seems to say it does MEAN this.  So they had to ‘apply motive’.

So what does this all have to do with the Gospel Coalition? Well, check this title out for a discussion starter: Commitment-Free Critics and the 'Christian Virginity Cult'  Nice right?  They are loading their guns!

How I do know this?  Well they introduced Elizabeth by a description of: Former fundamentalist and current feminist. 
So we know right away they need to find something wrong with what she has said, and those that tend to agree with her opinion (Remember keyword FEMINIST here).  Although at the beginning they wanted to make you think they ‘somewhat’ agree with a feminist:

They all have a point. Too often in an over-sexualized culture, Christians engage in what Elizabeth Esther calls "reverse objectification." Purity policing leads to a strange objectivism—a surrender to the sexual message of the age. Christians risk ceding the argument that a woman is a purely sexual object when it comes to her visible physical nature. So in response, her body must be hidden or else made ugly to keep the spirit clean and pure. In the end, much unjust suffering comes down upon girls and the rest of society because of various abuses.

Then you realize they are coming from the Definition of feminist that Mary Kassian proclaims as truth!  How?  Look at their title of the first section of debate:  
‘Individualism Gone Wild’  Remember Mary Kassian’s website is called, Girls Gone Wise.  Her definitions of feminism is like a broken record that just keeps playing over and over and over again!  You take any aspect of life, and the feminist have GONE WILD with it, and of course they (Mary Kassian, or Gospel Coalition) have GONE ‘wise’ instead.  We have all heard the stereotypes about how feminism gets to define everyone, and whatever her definition of words/concepts are just IS!  Everything is individualist, and of course against what God had in mind.

Mary Kassian is the one that tends to remind us that feminist live the ‘sex in the city’ type of lifestyle, and if Elizabeth Esther and the others actually went down that road? They may have a point, but they didn’t! Just like in politics today, or the slanted media they decided to inform their readers what they were ‘really’ saying instead of what they actually DID say.   Just as a reminder – lets look again at one of Mary Kassian’s descriptions of the feminist:

We changed the rules of male-female relationships. We became loud, demanding, and aggressive. We boldly pushed back against traditional definitions of gender and sexuality. We claimed our freedoms. We traded in the “Leave it to Beaver” model of womanhood for the “Sex in the City” one. We bought into the feminist promise that woman would find happiness and fulfillment when she defined her own identity and decided for herself what life as a woman was all about. – Mary Kassian

Lets start with Gospel Coalition’s critique, and possible comprehension issues.

At the same time, all is not well with these virginity critiques. The underlying complaint seems to demand that we accept different decisions without critique or even regret. But sin—especially sexual sin—affects the entire community. Likewise, fornication (as with any other sin) interrupts communion between God and man and thus must be reconciled through Christ.
The sin of fornication is not minimized by "mutual consent." Contrary to popular belief, the Old Testament is not chauvinistically patriarchal, and the Scriptures are clear on sexual mores. The most honest skeptics intimate sexual standards based in an old book should be thrown out altogether. Couples "really committed" to each other, we hear, should be able to do as they please outside the bounds of traditional matrimony.
What a strange understanding of commitment! This new standard eliminates the risk of love. The traditional understanding of the marriage covenant requires trust, especially in the sexual realm. A couple is taking a plunge into the world of family life because they love each other. Couples who abstain until marriage tell one another, "I love you so much that I will surrender my body to you. I have denied the pleasures of a moment for a life tied to only yours in this dangerous world, from this point on."

Frankly, the definition of anyone they feel is a feminist seems to jade their comprehension of what was being said.  It’s almost as if they didn’t read the material AT ALL!  Shall we look at some of what was said by Elizabeth Esther?

Like other Christians, I talked about the “sacrifice” of abstinence. There were princess-themed books about saving our first kiss. Some of us wore purity rings and made pledges to our Daddies not to have sex until we’re married.
Ultimately, we implied that a woman’s inherent worth and dignity could be measured by whether or not a man has touched her.
I understand why we do this. Christians are alarmed by what we see as a sexually permissive society. America no longer seems to share our values. This scares us. The less sacred sex seems to the broader culture, the more sacred we insist on making it among fellow Christians.
The intention might be good but over-emphasizing the specialness of virginity has unintended, harmful consequences.
We start by making ridiculous promises to our daughters. We tell them that “sexual purity” is a guarantor of a more intimate married sex life. We tell them that if they “lose” their purity, they will never really get it back. Oh, yes. They can be forgiven. But. You know. They’re damaged goods.
Christians say that the world objectifies women through immodest dress and a permissive sexual ethic. However, by idolizing sexual purity and preoccupying ourselves with female modesty and an emphasis on hyper-purity, Christians actually engage in reverse objectivization.

Notice that Elizabeth Esther mentions that America no longer seems to share our values – and she is speaking about abstinence.  She acknowledges the ‘sexually permissive society’.  So how they get the ‘do as they please outside the bounds of traditional matrimony’?  Seems to be a VERY popular tactic in the  ‘we must attach a motive even if it isn’t there’ train of thinking.  OR – as I said before a serious ‘comprehension’ issue!  Take your choice!

They seem to accusing people that want to have this discussion that ‘losing your virginity’ is no big deal.  That’s NOT what they are saying.  They want to discuss how we handle it if people do.  BIG DIFFERENCE! 

Then the others I have read about state they bring this up so people don’t ‘feel bad’ about losing their virginity.  Yet, that was never addressed either.  Talking about what to do with those feelings, doesn’t mean not having them.  Hello!

The point was the term they acknowledged as: reverse objectification.  Sadly, it seems the Gospel Coalition has to much “Sex in the City” type of viewpoint towards her and others.  They have bent it so badly out of shape they honestly can’t seem to grasp what was being said.

People focus in on that, completely miss the point of what you’re saying.  - Dr. Benjamin Carson

For Heaven’s sake TAKE OFF the ‘Sex in the City’ glasses, and READ what was said!  There was no ‘commitment free’ comment there, and if there was?  No doubt you would have quoted it!  You didn’t though!  Why?  It wasn’t the point of the articles you linked too!

It’s bad enough that our Politian's and our media have to twist facts, quotes, and leave out the context of what is being said!   For an organization called, “The Gospel Coalition” to do the same?  Seriously?!  What happened to honesty, integrity?   Is this your example of ‘Godly Leadership’?  These beliefs are hurting the fathers, mothers, and children. 

If you watch the documentary they glorify relations to the point most virgin daughters are going to be surprised on the first night.   They don’t talk about the pain.  They don’t go down roads that need to discussed in other areas either within the marriage bed that happen.

They build up these poor fathers to be something quite honestly only CHRIST can be for them!  Father’s are important, but we need to find our value in Christ…no? 

If you listen to what they were saying?  They don’t get that part.  No doubt Christ is part of their life, but we seem to be placing loads to heavy on the fathers and children.  We can teach, guide, love etc. our children.  We can’t always hide the pain from life from them.  We may be successful in certain areas of pain, but life as a way of showing you other ones.  They seem to teach the men in their lifes will FIX that, and he just can’t do that.  It’s not possible, and they are setting up a train wreck.  Did you not notice that? 

My prospective on this, and the ones that are speaking out against this movement… and then we have the Gospel Coalition that is so tied up in their ‘sex it the city’ vision they can’t even acknowledge the issues!  It’s almost as if they go searching for that ‘sex in the city’ attitude, because it has to be there…I mean she is FEMINIST…RIGHT?!  How biblically correct of them.

No one said you shouldn’t save yourself for marriage.  They asked for discussion on how to handle things if you didn’t.   How would Jesus have us handle it?  What would he ask us to do with the guilt?  The shame? 

For generations, this model of marriage has proven remarkably resilient. In this context, love can be truly maddening—people do crazy things like have children together, stick together through debilitating diseases, and mutually endure declining health. On the other hand, what reason do the "really committed" have not to jump from one sex partner to the next? One could conclude that such "commitment" is merely strong emotion—a passion of the moment—that has little to do with true resolve.
Thankfully, healing is possible for couples who do not abstain. The gospel of Jesus Christ can overcome any sin! Still, pastors who counsel couples tell me the process of restoring trust is long and painful. Virginity does not make someone "better," but young Christians deny themselves the fullness of romantic love by fornication. They will only make things worse by lying to themselves about it.
For the longing singles among us, we have heard it said that love is patient. So go out there, date, and maybe get married. Just do not make allowance for the lustful flesh.

Guess what?  If you read the articles you linked to?  They were not asking people to LIE to themselves about it, but learn to move past it.  Big Difference. 

They were not tearing down the aspect of abstinence, or telling people to go for a commitment free relationship.  Hello!  Take off the sex it in the city glasses, and read what was SAID!  You might learn that even feminist’s don’t live the life Mary Kassian has been telling you about.  Shocking that it is – it can happen!

It’s okay to talk about this.  We MUST talk about this.  What they are scared of?  Talking about it doesn’t endorse it.  No doubt it started to happen after Adam and Eve…don’t you think its time to start?   I have to wonder if that isn’t the point of the silly commentary.  They feel people might think they are endorsing something that they can’t in good conscience.  Do they doubt their power of communication, or fear that others may put words or motives in their mouths?

What?  They don’t want the biblically correct crowd doing the same to them?

This article just SCREAMED we need to use our stereotypes about feminist’s, and wrap it around what was said so we can have the proper BIBLICAL aspect.  Did anyone else see the connection?  I saw it right away, and bugs me.

We’ve got to get over this sensitivity. You know, and it keeps people from saying what they really believe.  - Dr. Benjamin Carson


Other Articles of Interest

The Purity Conversation - My Two Cents
Sex, Marriage, and Evangelical Purity Culture

Differing Applications of Home and Church - So why is Mary Kassian upset when you write a book about it?

Mary Kassian wrote a review of Rachel Held Evans new book, and it seems she is taking things a bit too personally.  First I want to point out one GREAT comment she wrote, and show you how she sadly doesn’t apply it there after.

I pointed out that though complementarians agree on the principle of complementarity, we often differ as to its application in the home and the church. I emphasized that even those involved in CBMW have a divergence of opinion as to the specifics of how to apply the principles of manhood and womanhood. – Mary Kassian

So why OH why is she getting so upset about Rachel Evans mentioning  the different groups that call themselves complementarian?

Can she not see that maybe it was not her personally that the book represented entirely, but those that use applications differently?  I mean she already admitted even her and Nancy Leigh DeMoss don’t agree on all fronts.  Note:  there is nothing wrong with disagreement, but the way you disagree?  That is where the trouble begins.

She starts by playing games with quotes from the book itself:

A few sentences later, I had my first and best laugh of the whole book. “Evangelical complementarianism,” claims Rachel, “[is] a movement that began as a reaction to second-wave feminism and found some of its first expressions in the writings of Edith Schaeffer (The Hidden Art of Homemaking, 1971) and Elisabeth Elliot (Let Me Be a Woman, 1976).” Rachel goes on to explain that complementarianism rests on the “uncompromising conviction [that] the virtuous woman serves primarily from the home as a submissive wife, diligent homemaker, and loving mother.” (p. xix).

Seriously? “The Hidden Art of Homemaking???!!” I just about fell off my chair. That book was written seventeen years before the inception of CBMW and about twenty years before we adopted the term “complementarian.” I have never even heard of it. I highly doubt whether John Piper and Wayne Grudem—the founders of CBMW—have read it.

Just for a giggle here…The Feminine Mystique by Betty Freidman (1963).  Notice Mary loves to reference this 50 year old book ALL the TIME in her presentations.  What does that say?  Moving on…….

Now Mary Kassian just as Denny Burk both used sections of whole paragraphs out of context to make their point.  We can all admit they are both educated people, and that is why I assume they know what they are doing.  I don’t think they are counting on others to check the entirety of the quotes they write about.  If they did?  They may have a number of comments and questions.

I think they are counting on people NOT checking the sources…lets be honest here!

I don’t view either of them as dumb, so what else can I possibly assume?  Well people that tend to do this – take things out of context – maybe don’t have such a strong point after all.  That is what most people feel when others take on this tactic.

Mary took parts of the introduction in the Rachel Held Evan’s book.  Now, lets look at the statement in its entirety.

Over the next few years, I found myself drawn into more and more of these conversations, especially as my girlfriends and I began getting married and starting families of our own.  Many were influenced by evangelical complementarianism, a movement that began as a reaction to second-wave feminism and found some of its first expressions in the writings of Edith Schaeffer (The Hidden Art of Homemaking, 1971), and Elisabeth Elliot (Let Me Be A Woman, 1976). Hailed as the model wives and homemakers, these women are highly esteemed in the Reformed tradition, where the oft-repeated saying is, 'As many people were brought to the Lord through Mrs. Schaeffer's cinnamon buns as through Dr. Schaeffer's sermons."  But behind the winsome prose lies an uncompromising conviction:  the virtuous woman serves primarily from the home as a submissive wife, diligent homemaker, and loving mother. 

Now, CBMW may not have been started out of the expressions or writings of the author’s (that Mary never heard about) mentioned, but the ‘winsome prose’?  Ahh.  Yeah – its in THERE! I realize she wants to ignore that point.  Anyway…

Women In Ministry: The Feminine Feel..and the World of Church

I read an interesting article this morning about women in ministry.  To me it could also be women in leadership.  When you run a ministry – that is leadership.  It could be Sunday School teacher right over to Top Coffee Server!  Preacher to Janitor!  The leadership is in the serving of God and others.

A well rounded couple decided to take on their youth ministry together.  They trained together, studied together, and worked together.  He took the high school students, and she took the junior high.  Together it was THEIR ministry. 

In the world of ‘church’ its more like his ministry, and she helps…as a proper ‘help meet’ should.  Yes, she does the same job in a different age group.  She is a woman in ministry, and lets face facts here…in leadership as well.  I know.  I know.  How usurping of me huh?!

Why is that so hard to admit?  I’m sorry but it seems so childish to me.  Her husband is okay with it, but the ‘world of church’ doesn’t seem to be.

What stuck me was the paragraph:

I was also raised as a missionary kid, and had a front-row seat to the full-throttle partnership missionary couples brought to their ministry.
Yes, it was usually the man’s name on the paycheck. But the women worked too, often at great cost. Until recently, it was not uncommon for mission agencies to require children to be sent to boarding school, freeing the women up for full-time service. It was/is a crappy policy. But those women? They got the job done, paycheck, title, status, or not.
So I get a little prickly when people criticize, belittle, or get affectionately patronizing about the contributions of the "helpers": the hyper-involved homeschooling moms, the "controlling" church matrons, the ministry wives who seem to live at the church. I mean, I’d like to see a church try to run without those powerhouse women, women who have dedicated their whole lives to the service of God and others.
I’ll see your hot-shot pastor and raise you my grandma.

No kidding!
She made this comment after she told of a story of an encounter with one of the youth’s fathers.  He wanted to know basically what she does.  This was after she mentioned all that THEY have done.  Her husband appeared, and it seemed all was well with the world.  The father was able to speak with someone in ‘guard’ finally.
 
For some reason it seems women should be okay with a concept that is familiar in the business world.  We have all hear about it.  The lower status person comes up with a great idea, or does a great job at something.  The boss or the one in charge takes the credit.  The person responsible for the achievement is to be okay with basically keeping their mouth shut.  It’s a game in business, but it shouldn’t be the same game in our places of worship.  God sees the truth, and do we forget that matters? 
 
This type of ‘ouch’ approach is what hinders the church’s image, and makes women feel stepped on.   Its is seen as sexist, and lets face facts here – it is.  Preachers can parrot that women are equal in the eyes of God, but have differing roles all they wish.  How that statement should satisfy everyone.  When they see this attitude that is prevalent in the ‘world of church’…clue one that is why they don’t take you seriously!   Its not because they a feminist.  Men wouldn’t appreciate this attitude either.  This attitude is why you have to constantly back up and justify your beliefs.  The spin you place on how it isn’t wrong…isn’t working.  Your attitude – not beliefs – doesn’t line up with common sense and rational thinking.  It just doesn’t.   I mean lets face facts here if it was done in reverse?  It wouldn’t feel very honoring would it?  Would it help you ‘feel’ your role?
 
Yes, God is proud of the women that seem to take the backseat.  He knows.  Its not the back seat to him, and he sees the selfishness in it.  They know they will get the reward later on when it really counts.  If you mention appreciation of same sort towards these women of God presently?  Well, lets just say I’m glad SOME men and women know the real truth and don’t project this ‘religious’ brand of politically correct junk to heart.  If acknowledgement of sorts is somewhat pride for women – it’s the same for the male gender as well.  Yet we all know its not….

Did Doug Wilson Drop His Disclaimer?

I wanted to do a follow up piece about my last blog post, Shock Jock Doug Wilson Penetrates The Gospel Coalition.   I did modify the last post because Jared Wilson decided to take down his articles that brought such offense to many.  I did kept the cache of these pieces so that the article still had its reference.

Jared Wilson posted an apology.    Some Reflections, Just one Explanation, and an apology.   Some aren’t truly satisfied completely with it, but it is a good start!

My first foolishness in posting the original excerpt was not to heed Douglas Wilson’s disclaimer in the beginning of his book. He characterizes it as a “blunt instrument” and describes the particular audience he is writing for. That should have been my first indication either not to post the piece at all or to have at least posted it with a sufficient prefatory warning or more parsing of context. Either way, the blame for the insensitive bluntness of the blog post is not his, but totally mine.

What did the disclaimer say?  He maybe referring to the beginning of Chapter one of Doug Wilson’s book called Fidelity.

This book was written for men and their sons.  I suggest that wives read this only when their husbands give it to them, and no the other way around.  The introduction mentioned the issue of 'straight talk' - and this means, in part, a rejection of euphemism.  Some of what is said here may be offensive to some Christian women, but the point is certainly not to give offense.  The point is to provide biblically specific and pointed help to Christian males.

Euphemism - the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.

From what I gather since this book was for men only, it seems that Doug Wilson feels they wouldn’t have been offended by how he words things.  I know my brother and my father would not have appreciated it anyway, but maybe he feels some men can’t grasp his point without them.  To be honest, I think it is just a disclaimer due to his style of communication more than anything.

I’m not going to link to Doug Wilson’s comments, but I did grab the cache of his article as well.  The Politics of Outrage

Polarization of Egalitarians

Recently on the website ‘girls gone wise’ Mary Kassian wrote an article called, ‘complementarianism for dummies’.  Once again they seem to claim that people do not understand their positions, and feel the need to put it in clearer terms.  Some of the items she speaks about that are incorrect to her came from her own words she spoke in the past.  For example, Mary states:

June Cleaver is a traditional, American, cultural TV stereotype. She is NOT the complementarian ideal. Period. (And exclamation mark!) Culture has changed. What complementarity looks like now is different than what it looked like sixty or seventy years ago. So throw out the cookie-cutter stereotype. It does not apply.

Mary Kassian used the stereotype of June Cleaver in her presentation of, “You have come a long way Baby!”  She used this stereotype to show how our culture has changed from wholesome, moral, Godly belief system to acceptance of a Murphy Brown type of stereotype.  It was her own presentation of this that brought about this ‘cookie cutter’ idea. 

In today’s society when you use such extreme models for how things ‘should be’ and how things ‘are’ outside your belief system?  You need to learn from your mistakes, and not try to demonize aspects in such an extreme manner.  People see it for what it is, and you need to accept the backlash.  You created it!  Some will see it for what it is – scare tactics – and others will wonder how extreme YOU are?

I realize she is attempting to ‘theme’ this article after the ‘for dummies’ series you see in bookstores, but I also have to wonder due to her past remarks if it also had a ugly twist to it.  She does seem to have a habit of talking down to her readers.  Mary Kassian also has a habit of using the most awful examples you can come up with, and tell her readers this is how ‘most’ believe or accept things.  This is just not realistic. 

Sadly, with her presentations she also encourages other women/men that are complementarian to react in a defensive manner, because she models this for them.  ‘We believe like this, and they believe like that’ type of thing doesn’t seem to be working for them.  No doubt Mary Kassian sees her rhetoric copied and used by others.  The part I don’t think she counted on is people basically turn it around, and use the opposite extreme towards her beliefs.

They have to ask themselves….how is this polarization working for them so far?

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. 

 

Violence Against Women Act Submitted Changes, Phyllis Schlafly and convicted Felon Timothy Johnson Opposed. Surprise Suprise.

VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) is being held up in the two different houses of the USA’s government.   Please Note: This law does not just cover women, but men who are abused are covered as well under this act. 

I hesitated to write about this, because I was confused as to what they were fighting about in congress.  The media is so biased that you can tell which side of the aisle they are on just by their writing style, and its hard to make out what the true issues are.  You can always figure out what their issue is, but you can’t get a straight answer as to what the true issues are.  Politics shouldn’t be played with people’s lifes in this way.

I will first mention some of the changes some members of congress wish to see happen to the VAWA, and end with a “Christian” organization that opposes it altogether.

Slutwalk Myths Encouraged By CBMW

Its sad that Mary Kassian is yet again spreading ‘I believe’ opinions as fact that can be disproven.  I started to speak about this in my part article called, Adventures in Missing The Point.

 

On her site “Girls gone Wise” she has a reprint of the article about the slut walks that I wrote about in the past.  She then responded to a comment left on her article.

 

Mary Kassian says:
April 7, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Daniella, I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

Yes. Rape is rape.
Yes. It’s wrong to blame victims.
Yes. Rape has nothing to do with the way a woman dresses.

Where we differ is this: I believe a culture that promotes sexual promiscuity will have a higher incidence of rape than one that promotes sexual continence. Encouraging women to embrace sluttiness is neither empowering, nor does it help to prevent the problem of rape.

Her last two sentences are falsehoods, and its clear she doesn’t wish to know the ‘true’ facts. 

 

A Culture that Promotes Sexual Promiscuity will have a Higher Incidence of Rape – False

 

I guess that would seem like common sense to those that don’t wish to fact check first.

 

There have been numerous reports in the world about this ‘myth’, and sadly it doesn’t line up. 

 

If you google worse places for women on the globe?  The United States (or Canada since that is where she lives) isn’t topping the list.  The worse places listed have a very high percentage of rape compared to the United States as well.  Imagine that Mary?!  No doubt they aren’t very nice to men either.

 

So Mary Kassian’s ‘I believe’ statement is at best irresponsible.  Dressing up your beliefs as fact in this manner is showing her agenda far to much.

 

Her ‘I believe’ statement is ‘wrong’ because it does blame victims.  She states that rape has nothing to do with dress, and yet in the next breath states that your dress does encourage it. 

 

For an organization that speaks about ‘confusion’ far to much in a accusatory manner towards others?  She seriously needs to take a good look at her own statements.

 

Targeted violence against females, dismal healthcare and desperate poverty make Afghanistan the world's most dangerous country in which to be born a woman, with Congo a close second due to horrific levels of rape. Pakistan, India and Somalia ranked third, fourth and fifth, respectively, in the global survey of perceptions of threats ranging from domestic abuse and economic discrimination to female foeticide (the destruction of a fetus in the uterus), genital mutilation and acid attack. A survey compiled by the Thomson Reuters Foundation to mark the launch of TrustLaw Woman*, puts Afghanistan at the top of the list of the most dangerous places in the world for women. TrustLaw asked 213 gender experts from five contents to rank countries by overall perceptions of danger as well as by six categories of risk. The risks consisted of health threats, sexual violence, non-sexual violence, cultural or religious factors, lack of access to resources and trafficking.

The countries listed above are very patriarchal.   Promiscuity isn’t rampant, and so Mary Kassian’s theory doesn’t seem to work there.  There is nothing wrong with speaking of modesty, but preaching outright falsehood is completely different.  People will not take your opinions seriously anymore.  Mary is so jaded against feminism that she seems to apply things as she goes along.  Sadly, she doesn’t seem to care if they are true or not.

 

Encouraging Women to Embrace Sluttiness is Empowering – False

 

You have to wonder if Mary Kassian even read any material on the slutwalk.   Despite her claims the majority of participates in this protest were not dressed as she portrayed.   If you look closely to the pictures in most places people can coats on.  If the purpose was to encourage being slutty would they NOT wait until it was warm enough to do so?

 

As I have said before, I’m not thrilled with the name of the march.  I understand WHERE they took the name from (Mary doesn’t seem to).  I am able to look past that to grasp the purpose.  It doesn’t bother me that much that I have to be completely blinded to it.

 

Its sadly a bald faced lie to say that the protest had a purpose to show women that dressing like a slut was empowering.

 

Frankly, it’s a regurgitating theme in most of her Mary Kassian’s material.  If you check out enough of her books, articles, blogs material and sermons?  Its something she states time and time again to any characteristic she sees as against her beliefs towards feminism.

 

No doubt there are some women that feels this is empowering, but the majority don’t seem to ‘live it out’ in the extreme manner that Mary describes on a regular basis.

 

Her response was not only contradictory towards facts that have been proven, but ‘confusing’ in content.

 

Does she live under a rock?  Seriously.  Is misrepresenting people a show a ‘true woman’?

Trustlaw.org

Choice.org

Adventures in Missing The Point

Mary Kassian is twisting and turning the truth once again to make her point.  Does she really make it in a honestly and upfront way?  Not so much. 

In fact she completely misses the point, but pretends she knows was the point was.  You don’t have to like all of the presentation of a message in order to ‘grasp’ the concept of the message.  In Mary’s reality unless it is dished up in her flavor she seems to ignore it.  Here is the article. 

Rape is a crime of opportunity or at times even a means of shame (not to say there aren’t other reasons).  Adults and children get sexual assaulted all the time sadly. 

This story started innocently enough on a college campus when a police officer was asked to come and give a talk about rape prevention, risk management, etc.   These things will help you recognize ways to lesson your chances of being attacked, but will not guarantee it.

Dress is cultural myth that society uses to blame others for being raped.  Majority of these cases are NOT people that were dressed in the way that society seems to hint at.  This myth has been proven false, but this culture has a hard accepting it.  Repeating it and using dress encourages the continual use of the myth, instead of dealing with the proven issues.

The police officer in question decided to use this myth during his presentation – even after being taught and instructed not to.  He informed the crowd if they were stop dressing like sluts they wouldn’t get raped.  The after effect of his words started the march all over the globe to bring awareness to others. 

They used the word ‘slut’ because of the police officer using it.  I’m sure many did not like the presentation due to the wording, and the fact that some showed up dressing the part on purpose.  This march started organically as news spread of the officer’s insulting ignorance. 

Keep in mind when you read about sexual assaults on men or women in the news the clothing myth is not prevalent in the facts of the case. That should clue society in, but sadly it doesn’t seem to sink in for whatever reason.  Here is a RAINN article about different types of sexual assault.

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. 

Women in the Church Compared to Homosexuals

I 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.

Or

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.”

I 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.

One year of Silence or Ridicule?

It was year ago that I had written about the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition.

With the ‘political’ atmosphere within the church about gender at this point?  I was expecting pretty much silent from the Top Dogs, but I also realized that would encourage their mouth pieces to speak instead.   Silent on that was also very telling.

To me it is a very sad sign about how ‘leadership’ skills are viewed today.  I assumed they would be blown off as unbelievers, feminists, rebellious – you know the labels.  What happens to people when they get labeled by the an organization – even without knowing what they are about?  They don’t have to acknowledge you.  Nice for them huh?  Still waiting for those leadership skills to to appear though.

They have tendency when something is mentioned in a negative light about their approaches?  It isn’t repented of, but silently disappears. 

For example, it was less than year ago that I found out that a video I had uploaded to youtube with John Piper clearly showing his ignorance towards the abuse issue?  His transcript and video vanished from the website.  It was as if it never happened. 

I believe my video upload is the only thing that remains – besides transcripts.  I have it burnt on a DVD as well just in case, because their site clearly states you are allowed to use their work.  Yep.  Documented that as well.

Another tendency I find is what I call the Southern Belle Approach.  They play ignorant to the issues around them on purpose, and play the ‘I don’t understand’ approach when confronted.  You see a proper Southern Belle if they don’t like something or someone?  They don’t say anything in order to be polite, or just play ignorant.  When placed against the wall?  They whip out the name calling, divert off the subject, and blow people off as ‘so confused’.    In the past it was Yanks, Scoundrel, etc.

Just like the Southern Belle?  We know the group isn’t confused, but it goes against the group think to admit it.  If they or their mouth pieces can throw out enough labels that are packed to ignite?  It helps to shut the discussion  so they don’t have to deal with it at all.   The points, organization, or issues brought up?  They are ignored, and those that brought them to light are encouraged to hush or they are also looked upon as enemies.  Ie: labels they use.

Personally?  I find it very cowardly approach.  Its very secular, worldly, fleshy, and unbiblical – take your pick of additional labels they use regularly.

Recently at the SBC convention Frank Page stated:

It is time to come together, he said. "It is time for Baptists to be known for what we are for and not for what we are against." Unified ministry, he said, is one aspect for which he wants Southern Baptists to be known.”

Nice dream, but you have to do something to make that happen, acknowledge where you lost your way.  There is way to much fear and pride to do that, and those are nice words – but meaningless unless they step up.

Then you have Al Mohler who is either playing the Southern Belle, or has what is called a convenient memory.  The Associated Baptist Press ran a story about Mohler’s embarrassment of youth when it was pointed out that he didn’t believe as those within the leadership of his group did on women in the church.

"With the insouciance of youth and with the stupidity of speaking more quickly than one ought, I gave him my position," Mohler recalled. "He looked at me with a look that surprised me, and he simply said to me, 'One day this will be a matter of great embarrassment to you.'"
Mohler said that for him, the embarrassment was immediate.
"I went to the library. I looked for every book that I could possibly find on the subject," he said. "Frankly, the urgency on me was such that I didn't think I could eat or do anything until I found out why I was going to be so embarrassed. The campus was full of people who appeared to be wonderfully unembarrassed about the whole issue."
Mohler said he didn't find much, but there was a book by Stephen Clark titled Man and Woman in Christ that "led me, thankfully, into some Scripture study."
"I ended up staying up until I could figure this out," he said. "Somewhere between Carl Henry saying what he said to me and the dawn of the next day, my position had completely changed."

Most good teachers if they see that there seems to be a misunderstanding (difference of opinion, doctrine, etc), and the teacher was once in their shoes?  They will acknowledge it, and then show what changed their opinion.  Today things have changed, and you either pretend you didn’t hear it – or as Mohler did on his twitter claim regarding his  ‘old belief’ system others still feel is valid are ‘confused and not quite together'.


It also seems that Al Mohler and the CBMW didn’t read the confusing document, because it didn’t come from an Egalitarian group.  Could be his dementia like memory again. 

A decent person would acknowledge the letter, and it would show leadership skills even if there is a disagreement.  Tweeting instead?  It shows immaturity instead.  Seriously.  Children do that kind of stuff.

Do they train people at seminary on how to divert in order to show followers they are wrong, and make it sound like you aren’t doing something deceptive, deceitful, etc?

What happened to all this ‘trust’ that organizations realize has been broken, but say they want to change that…yet you have leaders that play these games.

I believe this was the only response out of all the organizations that were contacted.  A tweet to ridicule.  Nice.

This response and the attitude is rude and very disrespectful.  It’s a prime example of what people within the church speak about when they feel stone walled or ignored.

It’s the same attitude no matter what the subject is, and honestly doesn’t even have to do with the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition.

  It’s a pattern when they don’t like something.  Strange how a church leader feels its acceptable behavior to openly mock others isn’t it?  As others would say, “Scripture Please!”

Some have learned accepted principals of human dignity, and others still refuse to accept or acknowledge them. They tend to get legalistic, or come up with exceptions to the rule.  If you read a newspaper about a church scandal?  You see the church speak parroted as they were taught.

For years individuals and groups have tried the soft approach – you get more flies with honey than vinegar type of the thing.  Extremism and stereotypes was the response.  Equality has always meant the same thing in history.  It’s a principal most understand. 

Some individuals now show responses that ignore the meaning in the past.  Let’s try to apply the approach to other circumstances in history that asked for a sense of equality!   Lets see if their approach works shall we?  I mean most look at the term ‘equality’, and understand the universal meaning.  Does their approach show this?

• Did the African Americans get ‘skin confused’ and want sameness?

• What about the American Indian?  While they were being unfairly persecuted at the beginning of American History their rights were a dirty word.  We realize now the error, and we know why.  I mean were they just looking to usurp the white man?

Doesn’t seem to apply does it?  Why does it make sense towards others?  WELL it doesn’t there either.  They just pretend it does.

Sadly certain groups of people are just trying to confuse its meaning. It has always meant the thing same, and today’s rhetoric that is based in fear doesn’t change the meaning no matter how hard they try to show you differently.

These concepts aren’t as complicated as some may wish you to think.  They are about principals of dignity and respect as a fellow human.  Nothing has changed from that definition, and yet you have groups that write articles, books, seminars, sermons, etc all trying to redefine the concept to create fear.

Sadly, the more they talk the more they sound like this is about competition compared to being ‘complementary’ in nature.  The radicals they speak of from the pulpit aren’t in their churches.   Its strange how they claim they run into them all the time.  The attempt  to talk about issues of dignity shouldn’t be approached as if you are opening Pandora's box.  The statements of how if we accept women in a certain fashion – what’s next homosexuals?  Its degrading and please don’t whine when you are called a bigot.  It is what it is.

I pray that by the time my grandchildren come into this world?  History will play the role it always has when it comes to this kind of thing.  They will look like fools for the attitudes and their propaganda.    Yes, the children will be able to acknowledge the radicals did exist but they were far from the majority within the church.  They will scratch their heads, because who knows what they meant by ‘seeing it all the time’.  They will also see the games they played to make others see things the way they want them to.  That is how propaganda works.  The fact they state they are speaking from Christian point of view?  Where is the truth they will ask!

Will they acknowledge the ridicule they dish out?  I doubt it.  If they do people will ask for more.  It might be sexual abuse, domestic violence, emotional abuse, child abuse, spiritual abuse!  They would have to acknowledge the stone walling and deceit that was present as well.  Their careers maybe in jeopardy, because asking for that much repentance is TOO much to ask.  How dare the helpmeet require so much from them!

The disrespect towards one gender is acceptable, but darn it all don’t you dare emasculate the other!

Join me in breaking the silence, and stopping the lies and spiritual pixie dust!  If they are ignored they would call it what it is.  Disrespect.  Why is it any different for anyone else?

It's First Anniversary of the Freedom For Christian Women's Demand for an Apology from CBMW  Make sure you go and click on the tweet in question on her site!

A Year Ago This Coming Sunday...

Discussion about Apology Demand – Part 1

FIVE SMOOTH STONES

When biblical means Shut up