Mini-Me Jesus?

I have never watched the Austin Power’s movies, but I have seen clips here and there.

 

I was communicating with Cindy Kunsman, and she was speaking about the huge load that men are handed in terms of scripture at times.  The load she spoke about to me was a misinterpretation of scripture – to Cindy as well I will point out.

 

This is the impression I came away with of certain people’s views on Ephesians 5:

 

You hear at times about how men will be held in account for the actions/sins of their family/wife.  They take that command from Ephesians 5.    This has always boggled my mind, and I never did figure out how they got there.  For some reason Mini Me from Austin Powers popped into my mind.  He is the little person pictured today.

 

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ²⁶ to make her holy, cleansing^[a] her by the washing with water through the word, ²⁷ and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

 

This scripture concentrates more on how Christ loved us, and how he gave himself up for us.  He gave himself up for her (the church) to make her holy.  He did this by washing with the water through the word, and then presents her (the church) to himself as the radiant church without stain, wrinkle, or other blemish.  Jesus makes us holy and Blameless (by the forgiveness of sins).

 

Cindy describes some gentleman’s reactions to her scholarly presentations.  They told her that they will be held responsible for their wife in this way.  To me?  It was as if they were taking on a Mini Me position of Jesus.  They were going to held accountable for their wives, because he was the one to present her without stain, wrinkle, etc.  Ephesians isn’t asking this of the husband.  That’s crazy talk!

 

Men – no matter what their position – are never held responsible for other human’s sin.  We are all held accountable for our own sin.  This scripture doesn’t say that husbands are the mini me of Jesus.  He isn’t saying you are able to do the things that I (Jesus) do for those that believe in me.  We are saved through Jesus, and to me this scripture is speaking more of a comparison.  LOOK at how I love you, and how I show my love for you.  I ask that you show a comparable love for your wife.

 

²⁸ In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— ³⁰ for we are members of his body.

 

Husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies (comparing in a way to Jesus love for his body – the church).  We feed and care for our literal body, and it’s the same principal of how Jesus cares of his body (the church).  We care and feed our bodies differently of course, but to me he is more speaking of a principal.   Humans are not able to present anyone – let alone themselves – to Jesus without stain being holy without Jesus.  That would be like stating I can present a person that has been given no food as someone that will not starve.  We can’t do that as humans.

 

Teaching men are accountable for their wives in this way?  Its like saying I gave no food to my wife, but I am the one that is starving (literally speaking).    Jesus could pull that off, but we as humans aren’t able to no matter what.  Jesus does not ask this of husbands.

 

³¹ “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”^{[b] 32} This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. ³³ However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

 

Now, if you view the husband as some mini me of Jesus?  I guess that is how they get this ‘head of authority’ thinking.  The one flesh in their eyes at this point is – husband is the head of the body, everyone else is the body.  The head being the mini me of Jesus.  He will be in authority since he is responsible for the family, and the covering of his wife’s sin.    I guess they solved the profound mystery.

 

Could be how this ‘biblical role’ thinking started.  The only problem with that is men are not the mini me of Jesus.  The passage was speaking of how Jesus loves us – washing, etc.  He was not saying husband you are to be, and do my role like I do.  It seems to me they are taking the comparison the wrong way.   Humans can never be the mini me of Jesus.  Its not possible. 

 

Doing your biblical roles would be ‘works based’ in order to get salvation.  Women are to treat their husbands as the mini me Jesus.  When you think of yourself as the mini me of Jesus – you would see yourself with power and authority over others.  Then Jesus would be asking wives to respect the mini me – and not the human.  In other words, you need to respect the role – not the person.  Do we do that with Jesus?

 

If husbands truly had the power of the mini me of Jesus?  All this yacking about how wives treat their husbands either make them wimpy, dominating, or Godly?  It places the woman in position of making the Mini me in the family.

 

So we are all given unrealistic burdens that Jesus never asked us to take.  Women can’t respect a person enough to make them a mini me Jesus, and the man –being the mini me Jesus can’t be responsible for the other’s person sin. 

 

I realize they like to use this ‘military’ visual, but heck even solders are held accountable for their actions.  In the past year a soldier is being held for trial due to the fact he got into a fight with fellow military personnel, and then shot them dead.  Do we see the commander and chief being held responsible for the murder or do we see the soldier?

 

According to what I’m reading with this teaching?  The commander and chief of the family would be held responsible for the murder in the eyes of Jesus.  You see these men that love the position of the Mini Me Jesus, but when it comes to being held responsible for others actions?  They don’t want that role so much anymore.    They resent being told if something bad happens in the family – its all their fault.  Heck, I can’t blame them!

 

The problem is you can’t expect people to be ‘literal’ in just one direction to suit the mini me Jesus.  If you are the Mini Me Jesus you take the whole burden to make it light. 

 

Come to me all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matthew 11:28-30

 

If you look at that scripture?  We realize there can be no mini me Jesus.  Sadly, there are huge burdens of that role that Jesus did not ask men to take.  They can’t take them, because only Jesus can.

 

Just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ²⁶ to make her holy, cleansing^[a] her by the washing with water through the word, ²⁷ and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

 

This portion of scripture is speaking about Christ.  It isn’t NOT asking men to become the Mini Me Jesus.  Jesus loved the church, and this is how he shows his love.  We say that sin separates us from God.  Jesus takes away the sin.  Mini Me can’t do that.  That is something Jesus does for us out of love.  Why would people feel Jesus is asking the husband to do this for his wife?  Its not possible.

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

Its not a Communication Problem. Its not an Anger Managment Problem.

Can't see Video?  Click here.


All to often when abuse victims try to describe what is happening in their life they are told they have ‘communication’ problems.

That is one of the biggest misunderstandings it seems to me.  It isn’t a communication problem between the two parties at all.

On occasion my children and I watch Teen Mom.  One of the couples since the show started was Amber and Gary.  Amber in this case is the abusive party.  Gary on the other hand seems to be the enabler, along with the victim.

I don’t think most people blame a couple for trying to stay together, because they have a child.  If you watch Amber she got herself into trouble for physically attacking Gary, and like most abusive people has a really hard time dealing with the consequences.

I wasn’t able to upload these video clips to youtube due to copyright, and you may have to download Adobe Flash in order to view it the video I have supplied.

One thing you notice is that abusive people refuse to handle the ugly sides of things most of the time.  I can empathize being scared because you know the police and child protective services is looking to speak to you.  Anyone in their right mind would be a bit intimidated and scared.  Amber on the other hand handles this in true abuser fashion.

It’s the way they handle anxiety that causes conflict.  Its not a communication problem, and its not an anger problem.  They divert this anxiety to other things, and attempt to start fights.  They next thing you know they are saying things to bait you into saying something they can attack you over.  They are screaming irrational stuff that makes no sense.  You are often left confused, and wondering how the conversation got to the point it did. 

Lets look at the first scene:

Right away Gary is trying to approach this ugly circumstance in a smart way.  He wants to speak to Amber about getting lawyer, before they deal with the police or Child Protective Services.  Notice how they can’t even have that conversation!

The police want to talk to Amber, and she doesn’t want to deal with this at all.

“So you do thing it would be smart for me to get a lawyer, or do you think it would be smart for me to go to jail?”

“So, if a lawyer is more than jail should I just go to jail?”

You can tell by Gary’s face he realizes she is attempting to bait him into a fight.  She rambles off two irrational questions right off the bat.

She doesn’t want to deal with this.  She doesn’t want to get a lawyer.  She doesn’t want to talk about this.

Gary at this point is attempting to communicate with a person that is going into her irrational mindset.  When abusers get like this?   There is no talking to them. 

I realize some people would tell you then approach it at a different time.  What they REFUSE to acknowledge is this is HOW abusive people deal with anxiety and fear – and there IS no GOOD time to approach this.

Amber would much rather fight if Gary doesn’t shut up, and make this go away.  Amber would rather blame Gary for this happening to begin with.  We all know that things can’t be approached in that fashion.  The victim is placed between a rock and hard place.  You already know a fight is going to happen, because the irrational nature has already started.

She is combative because she thinks the world should leave her alone, and if it has to happen GARY can pay for it!  Why?  Its his fault this happened, and he needs to pay for the consequences.

“The next time someone calls for me how about your give me the phone” – as if she could handle this circumstance.    As if that has anything to do with the conversation. 

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!”