As of today, I'll no longer be blogging at Turning Selfish into Service.
Recently, I started thinking how much easier my life would be if I found a regular sitter for Cami, so I could think and write uninterrupted--and that's when I realized it was time to shut the operation down.
A little drastic? (A little "legalistic?") I disagree...
(Note: this post is a continuation of the last one. Please read it first.)
-----
The theme of this space has been sacrifice.
I started blogging three years ago, about giving up things God hates. And, in my last post, I alluded to the idea that God may even require us to sacrifice things that seem perfectly "good." He wants our submission, our uncompromising obedience--our ALL.
Thus, there is nothing wrong with writing as a hobby. But when I start elevating it above more important things (like my God-given, motherly duties), there's a strong chance it's becoming an idol.
I think of the story of Abraham and Isaac. The boy wasn't evil. Indeed, God gave Isaac to Abraham in his old age as a blessing. But, therein lies the danger.
Our most precious gifts--whether they are people, things, or talents--pose the biggest threat to our allegiance to God.
How can we prove the Lord matters more than anything, unless we're willing to sacrifice the most intimate and sacred parts of ourselves?
----
I've already covered the idea that not all our natural impulses need to be indulged. Today, I want to push a step further by asking: What if some of our gifts and talents are given to us precisely so we may give them up to God?
I think of the Iranian pastor, Youcef Nadarkhani, who has spent the last seven years in and out of prison--simply for practicing Christianity in a Muslim country. Does sitting in jail showcase his talents? Youcef believed he was gifted in preaching, so he pursued ministry. Yet, God saw fit to take away the physical pulpit, separate man from family, and require him, essentially, to wait...and be patient...
Doesn't that seem like a waste?
Now, what about the gifted athlete, who endures a career-ending injury? Or the successful businessman who throws his energy into a tiny non-profit? Hey, think of the mother who earned a prestigious college degree, maybe even a graduate title...and then decided to stay home and raise her children!
Talk about not reaching her potential...
Why would God allow these people to neglect their best skills?! He could have provided platforms so each of them could reach hundreds more souls "for the Kingdom" than they do now. They are squandering their ability, like the wicked servant who buried his talents in the sand...
...Unless the most impressive things about us--the things about which we're most proud--make the most fragrant offerings when sacrificed to God.
----
I'm afraid all of us are a bit obsessed with finding (and talking about) our "purpose." Consider this blogger's words about the Church's misguided approach to Spiritual Gifts...
"Spiritual gifts assessments generally serve to reveal strengths. This is because the assessments depend on human understanding and effort as given by human plans, business management formulas, and the study of psychology. The spiritual gifts assessment only seems to function as a personality profile..."
He goes on to quote Dr. Robert Klenck:
"The (false) premise is that God uses people in their areas of strength, rather than in areas where they are weak."
Let me reiterate. The things you do best may not be the skills God wants to use. In fact, your favorite parts about yourself may actually present a stumbling block, if you love them to the point of idolatry...
We spend a disproportionate time studying and "discovering" ourselves, when it's God's personality--God's strength--that really matters...
----
My savvy readers will have questions. If we can't trust our self-identified strengths alone, then how can we know what God requires of us? How do we determine when a goal should be pursued...or when God demands a burnt offering?
Two things to consider:
#1. If just the slightest bit of selfishness reigns in my action, it corrupts the entire project.
Every good plan goes sour when we start seeking our own interests instead of God's. Motivation makes all the difference. There is no room for humanism in a Christian's pursuits.
#2. Our corrupt flesh (the "Old Man") constantly tries removing God from that first position.
Selfishness is our natural state, and it doesn't take much for a relapse. Thus, we must resist our culture's emphasis on our own importance. It inevitably creates a slippery slope of ugliness.
I think of a teenager hitting his alarm clock in the morning, mumbling, "Just give me five more minutes!" Does the teen actually need more sleep--or is he just fumbling for an excuse? He asks for another five minutes, as soon the clock rings again!
Yet, even recognizing this phenomena, we allow society to tell us we need just "five minutes" of self-centeredness now and then.
"I need a break!"
"Just some time to myself!"
"Give me FIVE MINUTES of me-time, and I'll feel better!"
But five minutes of selfishness never is enough.
We will reach for the snooze again and again--always convincing ourselves we'll feel better afterward. But "Me" always requires more. According to my flesh, I'll never be sufficiently self-focused.
----
The point is coming. I promise.
I've always believed my children are mine to raise. There is nothing more important to me than godly wife-and-motherhood, and I wish to be completely sold-out to those tasks.
Thus, when my flesh started looking for ways to pawn my daughter off with someone else--just for a bit of "peace"--I saw a red flag. It's the beginning of the Alarm Clock game, but I don't want to play.
Not-so-coincidentally, I read this post at Thinking Housewife and was comforted to see I'm not the only person learning this lesson. Read:
"I am a traditionalist, married mother. But I have not been confident in this role. I have berated myself for years for not being a 'successful' career woman...
I shuddered at the thought of dumping my child with someone else while I pursued my dream. I loved my child with an intensity that truly did hurt. I protected the innocence which our world tries so hard to steal away. [Yet] Through all this, there was always the underlying yearning to be the full me. To do that thing I was meant to do if I could only find the time in the evening, early morning or when it was my off week at homeschool co-op. Then I found your site and I found myself losing those desires. Now, I can only try to wish back all those wasted hours and days yearning for something so superficial..."
This woman was tempted by selfishness. But, she finally realized she wasn't lacking time or enough help or interesting hobbies in her day. The only reason her discontentment became fulfillment is she changed her attitude.
Christians, do you see where I'm going with this?
The more I think I need "me time," the more likely it becomes that what I really need is a change of perspective. If I can't choose contentment right now, then no amount of help or break-taking will fix it.
There aren't enough babysitters in the world to lighten my load--when my biggest burden is a suitcase full of confused priorities. I'd only succeed in adding to my problems by opening the door (just a crack) for selfishness...and creating a monster.
----
So, my work at Turning Selfish-into Service has come to an end.
It has been three years and two babies since I started the site. When I start writing again, it will be at a new web address--with a theme that more thoroughly reflects my growth and new topics of interest.
Meanwhile, there's nothing inherently wrong with writing. But, like most arts, it requires LOTS of uninterrupted personal time. These last few weeks, I've found myself letting the housework pile up and perpetually "shhh"-ing my daughter.
I don't like that trend.
If the hobby leads to self-centeredness, I want nothing to do with it. I don't want what God doesn't want. I must decrease so that He may increase. And, in this case, it means giving up something I love a little too much.
When I return to the blogosphere, it will be when I can manage without slighting my husband and small children. Yes, I could find someone to stand in for me a couple days a week, so I could get Mommy Time. Or I could sneak in some work, when the babies are napping. (Eventually, I may do that.)
But there cannot be a hint of self-worship.
I'd rather sit in an empty jail cell twiddling my thumbs (and "wasting my talents") than spend another minute serving an impotent idol.
It's painful and sacrificial--and, on top of that--the world will encourage me to hit the snooze. (They say: "You'll be a better mommy if you let someone else be mommy for awhile...") But I've scoured the Bible and I can't find anything that resembles "following your heart" and "doing what you love"--most especially at the expense of others.
The overarching theme of the Christian life is what the theme of this blog has been: sacrifice.
So, until I can write without neglecting my family, I lay my gift upon the altar.
----
P.S. I have a slightly different perspective from the lady who regrets her children, huh?
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Biblical Femininity
Women who fight the cookie-cutter ideas of femininity? I get it. I totally understand the urge to yell, "Not all of us are like that!" I know why you'd rather talk about individual gifts, talents, and personalities than examine what makes someone "female."
But, I cannot agree with Rachel Held Evans that gender roles are "legalistic."
----
First, a word about my masculine traits. According to the Myers Briggs test, I have a personality which less than 1% of females possess--INTJ. While the vast majority of women settle in the various "perceptive-feeler" groups, I'm an analytic processor. You could say, with reasonable accuracy, that I think like a man.
In addition to this, I'm blunt (and even coarse); I'm impatient with others; and I completely take over situations when I think I can do a better job (which is often). Conversely, I'm NOT naturally compassionate--nor am I soft and gentle, nor what most would call instinctively "motherly" or nurturing.
Seriously, ladies, I understand balking at traditional gender roles, because very few of us fit nicely into the Bible's description of a woman's character. It would be much easier to declare, "God made we this way!" and continue doing what we find natural, rather than what God calls feminine.
But I believe God made me female for a reason, even when it feels more like chains than a gift.
----
Do you know what other types of people may claim, "God made me this way" ? Well, everybody.
That includes those who struggle with addictions. It includes people who are sexually attracted to members of the same gender. In fact, I think every, single one of us has tendencies and impulses ("natural" ones!) which should not be indulged.
So, why do women allow Church Culture to tell them, "Be True to Thyself"?
"...as a primary philosophy, ["to thine own self be true"] is merely the codification of childishness. They may as well come out and tell women and girls: don’t let anyone tell you what to do. For some reason, feminists are eternally fretting that women and girls won’t be sufficiently self-centered. They are constantly reminding us how selfless women are, and that they really need to 'take some time for themselves,' or 'follow their hearts.'"
I totally agree that society encourages selfishness--especially in women. In fact, I wrote a post complaining about the phrase "take time for yourself" (and one about "following your heart") some time ago...
We assume everything about our "natural" personalities should be celebrated, without stopping to ask whether we're behaving selfishly and growing ever-more unappealing to God.
This celebration of "me" is why I have a problem with the post by Rachel Held Evans--mentioned above. She explains why traditional gender roles are just ridiculous.
Her words:
"[Complementarianism] relies heavily on demanding that all men conform to rigid, prescriptive standards of manhood and that all women conform to rigid, prescriptive standards of womanhood, regardless of personality, giftedness, culture, circumstances...This is legalism, plain and simple, for it reduces faithfulness to a list of rules..."
Unforunately, Mrs. Evans fails to talk about what the Bible says.
Just as Jimmy Carter comes to rescue women from God's Word, Mrs. Evans also ignores the Creator's opinion about men and women. She prefers the very Oprah-friendly approach to gender studies--advising it's most important to be true to yourself.
"You see this sort of language a lot in complementarian literature: 'real men,' 'real women,' 'real marriage,' 'hardwired,' 'programmed,' 'blueprint'—as if masculinity and femininity are rigid, set-in-stone ideals to which we must ascribe, rather than fluid expressions of our unique selves..."
That's a great point! ...er, unless humans HAVE been hardwired...and God DOES have specific plans for a person's masculinity/femininity? Um, what if Christians DO have a blueprint for living?
Perhaps you recognize Rachel's name from a book she wrote--A Year of Biblical Womanhood--in which she mocks Scripture by staying home for 12 months and calling her husband "master." Far from a research-minded study in biblical authenticity, this project was nothing more than a lightweight PR stunt.
This woman does not take God's Word seriously.
I guess that's why she gives a hearty "amen" after quoting a fellow, liberal feminist "Christian" who said:
"Here’s what it comes down to for me. My gender is not something I perform; it is something I am. Womanhood is not something I do; it is something I live. Femininity does not define me; as a woman created in the image of God, I define it..." (emphasis mine)
Hm...interesting. This lady quotes the Bible when she says we are "created in the image of God." But she assumes Scripture is completely outdated and unreliable when it talks about gender roles... On that point, apparently, it's up to her what's acceptable. (After all, "created in God's image" pretty much means, "you are God," right?)
----
Dear reader, do you get to define your masculinity or your femininity? I don't define mine.
For me, embracing biblical femininity, whether I feel like it or not, is very much like asking homosexuals to abstain from their natural, sexual impulses in order to accept God's role for them. Some would ask, understandably, "Well why would God create them with same-sex attraction in the first place--if he wants all sexual relationships to look the same?"
Indeed, it would be much easier if we always wanted to do what God wants, all the time.
But where's the worship there? ...Where's the sacrifice?
President Carter and Mrs. Evans don't want Christian women to have to sacrifice. Ever. They want Christians to enjoy doing what we feel like doing, all the time. Unfortunately, without a standard other than our own feelings, we can justify ANYTHING.
Rather than Christianity, these wolves advertise Secular Humanism...which is self-worship and idolatry. Researchers interviewing teenagers about spirituality have called this religion: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. But, whatever the name, it leads to the same things: relativity and then confusion. It does not represent Truth.
----
"Be YOU! There is no standard other than the one you create. Be true to you, because God wants it!"
No, my dear sisters. God wants your complete devotion to Him. He wants obedience--total willingness to do His bidding. He has no use for a long list of reasons your way might be better. God loves when you're happy, but He knows that won't come from "Girl Power" messages, written by confused, human-worshiping bloggers with a book to sell.
Fulfillment comes from sacrifice. Dying to self. It comes from finding God's will for masculinity and femininity. And if/when you are convicted that God wants something different than your flesh wants, sacrifice means repressing natural desires as an act of worship.
----
I'm a natural leader. But I refuse to use it as an excuse to override my husband's authority. Luke generally is more compassionate and nurturing than I am. It doesn't automatically mean God wants him home with the kids while I "find myself" in the Corporate world.
Despite my tendencies (and even conflicting talents), I have been "hardwired" with femininity. And the Bible's blueprint outlines what is best for me in the long run. Anything God asks which doesn't come "natural"--anything which doesn't feel "authentic" or even comfortable--gives me the chance to prove I mean when I say: YOUR will, Father. Not mine.
When will we stop accepting excuses from our "Sistahs" in Christ, and start submitting wholeheartedly to God?
(Relevant scriptures: Proverbs 31:10-31, Genesis 3:16, I Peter 3:1-6, Titus 2:3-5, Deut. 22:5)
But, I cannot agree with Rachel Held Evans that gender roles are "legalistic."
----
First, a word about my masculine traits. According to the Myers Briggs test, I have a personality which less than 1% of females possess--INTJ. While the vast majority of women settle in the various "perceptive-feeler" groups, I'm an analytic processor. You could say, with reasonable accuracy, that I think like a man.
In addition to this, I'm blunt (and even coarse); I'm impatient with others; and I completely take over situations when I think I can do a better job (which is often). Conversely, I'm NOT naturally compassionate--nor am I soft and gentle, nor what most would call instinctively "motherly" or nurturing.
Seriously, ladies, I understand balking at traditional gender roles, because very few of us fit nicely into the Bible's description of a woman's character. It would be much easier to declare, "God made we this way!" and continue doing what we find natural, rather than what God calls feminine.
But I believe God made me female for a reason, even when it feels more like chains than a gift.
----
Do you know what other types of people may claim, "God made me this way" ? Well, everybody.
That includes those who struggle with addictions. It includes people who are sexually attracted to members of the same gender. In fact, I think every, single one of us has tendencies and impulses ("natural" ones!) which should not be indulged.
So, why do women allow Church Culture to tell them, "Be True to Thyself"?
"...as a primary philosophy, ["to thine own self be true"] is merely the codification of childishness. They may as well come out and tell women and girls: don’t let anyone tell you what to do. For some reason, feminists are eternally fretting that women and girls won’t be sufficiently self-centered. They are constantly reminding us how selfless women are, and that they really need to 'take some time for themselves,' or 'follow their hearts.'"
I totally agree that society encourages selfishness--especially in women. In fact, I wrote a post complaining about the phrase "take time for yourself" (and one about "following your heart") some time ago...
We assume everything about our "natural" personalities should be celebrated, without stopping to ask whether we're behaving selfishly and growing ever-more unappealing to God.
This celebration of "me" is why I have a problem with the post by Rachel Held Evans--mentioned above. She explains why traditional gender roles are just ridiculous.
Her words:
"[Complementarianism] relies heavily on demanding that all men conform to rigid, prescriptive standards of manhood and that all women conform to rigid, prescriptive standards of womanhood, regardless of personality, giftedness, culture, circumstances...This is legalism, plain and simple, for it reduces faithfulness to a list of rules..."
Unforunately, Mrs. Evans fails to talk about what the Bible says.
Just as Jimmy Carter comes to rescue women from God's Word, Mrs. Evans also ignores the Creator's opinion about men and women. She prefers the very Oprah-friendly approach to gender studies--advising it's most important to be true to yourself.
"You see this sort of language a lot in complementarian literature: 'real men,' 'real women,' 'real marriage,' 'hardwired,' 'programmed,' 'blueprint'—as if masculinity and femininity are rigid, set-in-stone ideals to which we must ascribe, rather than fluid expressions of our unique selves..."
That's a great point! ...er, unless humans HAVE been hardwired...and God DOES have specific plans for a person's masculinity/femininity? Um, what if Christians DO have a blueprint for living?
Perhaps you recognize Rachel's name from a book she wrote--A Year of Biblical Womanhood--in which she mocks Scripture by staying home for 12 months and calling her husband "master." Far from a research-minded study in biblical authenticity, this project was nothing more than a lightweight PR stunt.
This woman does not take God's Word seriously.
I guess that's why she gives a hearty "amen" after quoting a fellow, liberal feminist "Christian" who said:
"Here’s what it comes down to for me. My gender is not something I perform; it is something I am. Womanhood is not something I do; it is something I live. Femininity does not define me; as a woman created in the image of God, I define it..." (emphasis mine)
Hm...interesting. This lady quotes the Bible when she says we are "created in the image of God." But she assumes Scripture is completely outdated and unreliable when it talks about gender roles... On that point, apparently, it's up to her what's acceptable. (After all, "created in God's image" pretty much means, "you are God," right?)
----
Dear reader, do you get to define your masculinity or your femininity? I don't define mine.
For me, embracing biblical femininity, whether I feel like it or not, is very much like asking homosexuals to abstain from their natural, sexual impulses in order to accept God's role for them. Some would ask, understandably, "Well why would God create them with same-sex attraction in the first place--if he wants all sexual relationships to look the same?"
Indeed, it would be much easier if we always wanted to do what God wants, all the time.
But where's the worship there? ...Where's the sacrifice?
President Carter and Mrs. Evans don't want Christian women to have to sacrifice. Ever. They want Christians to enjoy doing what we feel like doing, all the time. Unfortunately, without a standard other than our own feelings, we can justify ANYTHING.
Rather than Christianity, these wolves advertise Secular Humanism...which is self-worship and idolatry. Researchers interviewing teenagers about spirituality have called this religion: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. But, whatever the name, it leads to the same things: relativity and then confusion. It does not represent Truth.
----
"Be YOU! There is no standard other than the one you create. Be true to you, because God wants it!"
No, my dear sisters. God wants your complete devotion to Him. He wants obedience--total willingness to do His bidding. He has no use for a long list of reasons your way might be better. God loves when you're happy, but He knows that won't come from "Girl Power" messages, written by confused, human-worshiping bloggers with a book to sell.
Fulfillment comes from sacrifice. Dying to self. It comes from finding God's will for masculinity and femininity. And if/when you are convicted that God wants something different than your flesh wants, sacrifice means repressing natural desires as an act of worship.
----
I'm a natural leader. But I refuse to use it as an excuse to override my husband's authority. Luke generally is more compassionate and nurturing than I am. It doesn't automatically mean God wants him home with the kids while I "find myself" in the Corporate world.
Despite my tendencies (and even conflicting talents), I have been "hardwired" with femininity. And the Bible's blueprint outlines what is best for me in the long run. Anything God asks which doesn't come "natural"--anything which doesn't feel "authentic" or even comfortable--gives me the chance to prove I mean when I say: YOUR will, Father. Not mine.
When will we stop accepting excuses from our "Sistahs" in Christ, and start submitting wholeheartedly to God?
(Relevant scriptures: Proverbs 31:10-31, Genesis 3:16, I Peter 3:1-6, Titus 2:3-5, Deut. 22:5)
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Learning Leadership with Cesar
I'm not advocating the use of a leash...
But I admit there are many similarities between a man leading his dog and learning to lead his wife.
First, in effort to preempt the complaints, a word about whether it's "Christlike" to draw this kind of comparison:
Recently I was chewed out for having the gall to compare homosexuality with incest and bestiality. Could I really not see the difference?! How utterly offensive!
But these thin-skinned people miss the point of comparing and contrasting altogether. It's not about whether you have negative feelings toward the examples used. (I could draw links between an ink pen and a powdered doughnut, if I thought long enough.) The question is: are these things similar in any way?
What do you mean religion is like a fart? My relationship with Christ is NOT toxic gas expelled from a living organism's rear! I'M OFFENDED!
...I swear, if Jesus had spoken to a modern audience about the Church being his Bride, some guy in the back would whine, "I don't waaaaaaant to wear a dress!"
I'm not in the mood to deal with ridiculous over-sensitivity. There are similarities between the way women and dogs behave. Sorry, but there are. I'm going to talk about those correlations now.
----
First, I draw your attention to this person's blogpost about how Cesar Millan (the Dog Whisperer) unintentionally offers great dating advice.
"Now before the ladies start freaking out, please allow me to explain. I’m in no way implying that a man needs to slap a collar around his girlfriend’s neck before leaving the house. However, all men must realize that most women will respond to a dominant, assertive male who isn’t afraid to lead..."
He goes on to include Five Things a man can learn from Cesar:
1. Women need balance to be happy in their relationship. (Exercise, discipline, and affection.)
2. A woman should be placed in a position where she can feel proud of herself.
3. When walking, body language and energy matter.
4. Never give affection at the wrong times.
5. It's the man's responsibility to lead.
He explains all of these in detail, and the similarities really are intriguing. I only have a couple notes to add.
It's important to keep in mind Cesar's emphasis on "calm assertiveness." The calmness is key.
If a woman gets upset and yells, the whole matter escalates when the man reacts by yelling back. Loud, angry words may sound fierce and dominant, but the use of them actually signals a loss of self-control...which is almost the opposite of assertiveness.
The more short-tempered the man, the more he must keep this in mind. What message does he really send, if he threatens and even hits his partner? Calmness--regardless of the rage being displayed by the woman--must be maintained at all times in order to signal real, inside-out leadership.
Another "Cesarism" relates to owners who confuse "love" with babying their animals. He always tells them: "don't treat dogs like humans." But, uh, women are humans--so what point could I possibly want to make?
Only: "don't treat women like men."
Many of Cesar's toughest clients want to argue with him about the "humanity" of their pets. "Fido is not JUST a dog!!!" The irony is, this statement implies being a dog is not good enough. If people really believed dogs were totally, awesomely great, they wouldn't feel the need to think of them differently--and treat them like something else.
The same goes for women... There are many people (like White Knight Jimmy Carter)--who claim to love women. Yet, they don't encourage them to find God's purpose for their femininity. They don't preach about gentleness, submission to their husbands, and practicing maternal, nurturing strength.
They don't love women if they expect women to act more like men.
Our culture focuses so heavily on equality that it virtually ignores the differences between the genders. It's not popular to talk about such things--the same way sensitive pet owners would prefer not to think of their animals as un-human. But there is nothing wrong with being an animal, if that's how it was created.
And there is nothing wrong with women being women. I'm proud of it. Why should I be treated any differently?
Treat your wife like a human, of course, but acknowledge that she is a female one...with a female brain and female biology which often processes events in a different way than males.
----
Finally, a quote from the episode I just watched, after Cesar endured a long bout with an especially aggressive pooch:
"There we go...he is surrendering. See, we don't want to hurt his heart or his spirit or his body. We are just blocking him from throwing that temper tantrum...It's not fun to have all that pent-up anger, and we help him release it."
Cesar's amazing success in training stems from genuinely loving dogs. He doesn't want to hurt them. He wants them to be "balanced." He wants what's best for them.
If a man is motivated by real, others-centered love, then he will learn to be assertive for the good of his family, even if his actions are misunderstood by outsiders. (Cesar receives tons of criticism from animal rights groups, wishing he would be more "nice.")
But the loving motivation makes all the difference between disgusting male-Chauvinists, who mistreat their ladies, and a strong, competent Head of Household whom a lady knows she can trust.
But I admit there are many similarities between a man leading his dog and learning to lead his wife.
First, in effort to preempt the complaints, a word about whether it's "Christlike" to draw this kind of comparison:
Recently I was chewed out for having the gall to compare homosexuality with incest and bestiality. Could I really not see the difference?! How utterly offensive!
But these thin-skinned people miss the point of comparing and contrasting altogether. It's not about whether you have negative feelings toward the examples used. (I could draw links between an ink pen and a powdered doughnut, if I thought long enough.) The question is: are these things similar in any way?
 |
| Are any of my readers offended by this?... |
...I swear, if Jesus had spoken to a modern audience about the Church being his Bride, some guy in the back would whine, "I don't waaaaaaant to wear a dress!"
I'm not in the mood to deal with ridiculous over-sensitivity. There are similarities between the way women and dogs behave. Sorry, but there are. I'm going to talk about those correlations now.
----
First, I draw your attention to this person's blogpost about how Cesar Millan (the Dog Whisperer) unintentionally offers great dating advice.
"Now before the ladies start freaking out, please allow me to explain. I’m in no way implying that a man needs to slap a collar around his girlfriend’s neck before leaving the house. However, all men must realize that most women will respond to a dominant, assertive male who isn’t afraid to lead..."
He goes on to include Five Things a man can learn from Cesar:
1. Women need balance to be happy in their relationship. (Exercise, discipline, and affection.)
2. A woman should be placed in a position where she can feel proud of herself.
3. When walking, body language and energy matter.
4. Never give affection at the wrong times.
5. It's the man's responsibility to lead.
He explains all of these in detail, and the similarities really are intriguing. I only have a couple notes to add.
It's important to keep in mind Cesar's emphasis on "calm assertiveness." The calmness is key.
If a woman gets upset and yells, the whole matter escalates when the man reacts by yelling back. Loud, angry words may sound fierce and dominant, but the use of them actually signals a loss of self-control...which is almost the opposite of assertiveness.
The more short-tempered the man, the more he must keep this in mind. What message does he really send, if he threatens and even hits his partner? Calmness--regardless of the rage being displayed by the woman--must be maintained at all times in order to signal real, inside-out leadership.
Another "Cesarism" relates to owners who confuse "love" with babying their animals. He always tells them: "don't treat dogs like humans." But, uh, women are humans--so what point could I possibly want to make?
Only: "don't treat women like men."
Many of Cesar's toughest clients want to argue with him about the "humanity" of their pets. "Fido is not JUST a dog!!!" The irony is, this statement implies being a dog is not good enough. If people really believed dogs were totally, awesomely great, they wouldn't feel the need to think of them differently--and treat them like something else.
The same goes for women... There are many people (like White Knight Jimmy Carter)--who claim to love women. Yet, they don't encourage them to find God's purpose for their femininity. They don't preach about gentleness, submission to their husbands, and practicing maternal, nurturing strength.
They don't love women if they expect women to act more like men.
Our culture focuses so heavily on equality that it virtually ignores the differences between the genders. It's not popular to talk about such things--the same way sensitive pet owners would prefer not to think of their animals as un-human. But there is nothing wrong with being an animal, if that's how it was created.
And there is nothing wrong with women being women. I'm proud of it. Why should I be treated any differently?
Treat your wife like a human, of course, but acknowledge that she is a female one...with a female brain and female biology which often processes events in a different way than males.
----
Finally, a quote from the episode I just watched, after Cesar endured a long bout with an especially aggressive pooch:
"There we go...he is surrendering. See, we don't want to hurt his heart or his spirit or his body. We are just blocking him from throwing that temper tantrum...It's not fun to have all that pent-up anger, and we help him release it."
Cesar's amazing success in training stems from genuinely loving dogs. He doesn't want to hurt them. He wants them to be "balanced." He wants what's best for them.
If a man is motivated by real, others-centered love, then he will learn to be assertive for the good of his family, even if his actions are misunderstood by outsiders. (Cesar receives tons of criticism from animal rights groups, wishing he would be more "nice.")
But the loving motivation makes all the difference between disgusting male-Chauvinists, who mistreat their ladies, and a strong, competent Head of Household whom a lady knows she can trust.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Jimmy Carter: Rescuing Women from the Bible
Good news!
Everybody's favorite President, Jimmy Carter, has decided it wasn't enough to fix all the problems with the government. Now, he's out to fix the Church!
Read his words:
"The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter...It's time we had the courage to challenge these [misogynist] views."
The rest of the article consisted of the vague, tired-out criticism of religious people everywhere--stop favoring men while treating women like trash! But just as the President's speech climbs toward a moving crescendo, I couldn't help wondering: who isn't challenging misogyny?
"...discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories...At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities."
Unfortunately, the President fails to call out the bad guys with any specificity. He provides no links and only talks broadly about excusing slavery and national laws. It would be helpful to know to which countries he refers. Also, perhaps he could have included a few actual Scripture references, to let us know which verses stand in question. But, as written, the article doesn't explain who he believes to be taking advantage of women.
Who hates women, Jimmy? Call out the snakes!
----
Certainly, across the globe, there are cases of brutal, heart-wrenching, less-than-human treatment of females by radical religious sects. I agree with the statement that genital mutilation is completely unacceptable...
But to my American, female peers, I ask: are you being oppressed?
No, not your friend down the street, or your mother's step-sister's niece. Are you, personally, being abused, disenfranchised, or even mildly mistreated by the Church, because of your gender?
Or are you just choking on the evil S-word, Submission?
To the modern American gals--the ones going to school on scholarship just for being female; the ones squawking over some kind of likely-imagined pay gap; the ones trying to legislate a way to have it all and the ones gaining support while demanding the right to dress like a slut: you are not experiencing abuse.
On the rare occasion you are told to knock it off and act like a lady, it's for your own good.
Hear this: you will always be able to find "white knights" like Jimmy Carter to scream "No FAIR!" on your behalf, whenever you want it. He will take up a sword and swoop to your rescue, whether a real war exists or not.
But does that really make you feel empowered in the end?...having some old, ex-politician shame religious leaders for making your life difficult, when you know, deep down, they haven't?
----
As for you, Mr. President, contrary to your opinion, leaders have a choice beyond "exalting women or subjugating them." What about treating them as the Bible prescribes--as worthy of love, but in need of leadership?
The pedestal you have created for females is just as harmful to their well-being as the doormat other people make them...maybe even worse.
I believe millions of women are unfulfilled and unhappy not because of latent discrimination, but because they already have the soul-killing freedom you desire for them. They feel free to pick and choose among the Scriptures; free to run rough-shod over their husbands in the name of "strength." And they freely receive coddling and even encouragement from ear-tickling leaders, who preach ten times the number of "MAN UP!" sermons to messages about peaceful submission.
You need game, badly, Mr. President. Meet your teacher, Professor Dalrock:
"...Christians have decided not to follow the Bible on the question of marriage in specific, and men and women in general. I’m not just talking about Christian enthusiasm for providing moral cover for frivolous divorce. I’m also talking about the numerous sections of the Bible which modern Christians are embarrassed about because the sections offend their newer and more dominant religion, feminism."
Perhaps you're proud of your Feminist identity, Jim.
But you've turned it into a religion. You admit to elevating man-made charters above the precepts of the Bible. (The Universal Declaration of Human rights? Is that God's Word now?)
More from Dalrock: "...Christians have adopted feminism over the Bible. Not all Christians have done this. For example, the Amish still follow strict gender roles including headship and submission. From what I can find they have a divorce rate less than 1%, and they are growing rapidly due to their high fertility rate...[but] for the rest of us, Christians need Game..."
Click on the link to read more about "Game" and following a traditional model for marriage. But, most importantly, pay close attention to the many examples he provides of how Feminism has taken over the American church, at the expense of Scripture.
The reason women are kept from holding church leadership positions and required to be subject to their husbands is because the Scriptures speak about both of these things. The Southern Baptist Convention does not practice "unjustifiable discrimination"--they justify different treatment of women with the Bible.
Pay attention, Mr. President.
Christians attribute their beliefs to the "Higher Authority" because their marching orders come from God's Word--not from the demands of the culture, as yours do.
And, by helping a woman abandon the One True God in favor of the impotent cultural one, you are killing her soul. A rejection of God's Word always harms women rather than helping them.
The Word contains instructions for how females best flourish--which is graciously submitting to godly leadership. By all means, stop the genital mutilation. But do NOT rush in to "rescue" the damsels whose only hardship is battling their own rebellious natures, as we all must.
I cannot speak for all women--but personally, I refuse your offer of "freedom," Mr. President. I do not need you to rescue me from the Bible. Your new fellowship of Elders are wolves in sheep's clothing, "empowering" women to rebel.
Everybody's favorite President, Jimmy Carter, has decided it wasn't enough to fix all the problems with the government. Now, he's out to fix the Church!
Read his words:
"The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter...It's time we had the courage to challenge these [misogynist] views."
The rest of the article consisted of the vague, tired-out criticism of religious people everywhere--stop favoring men while treating women like trash! But just as the President's speech climbs toward a moving crescendo, I couldn't help wondering: who isn't challenging misogyny?
"...discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories...At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities."
Unfortunately, the President fails to call out the bad guys with any specificity. He provides no links and only talks broadly about excusing slavery and national laws. It would be helpful to know to which countries he refers. Also, perhaps he could have included a few actual Scripture references, to let us know which verses stand in question. But, as written, the article doesn't explain who he believes to be taking advantage of women.
Who hates women, Jimmy? Call out the snakes!
----
Certainly, across the globe, there are cases of brutal, heart-wrenching, less-than-human treatment of females by radical religious sects. I agree with the statement that genital mutilation is completely unacceptable...
But to my American, female peers, I ask: are you being oppressed?
No, not your friend down the street, or your mother's step-sister's niece. Are you, personally, being abused, disenfranchised, or even mildly mistreated by the Church, because of your gender?
Or are you just choking on the evil S-word, Submission?
To the modern American gals--the ones going to school on scholarship just for being female; the ones squawking over some kind of likely-imagined pay gap; the ones trying to legislate a way to have it all and the ones gaining support while demanding the right to dress like a slut: you are not experiencing abuse.
On the rare occasion you are told to knock it off and act like a lady, it's for your own good.
Hear this: you will always be able to find "white knights" like Jimmy Carter to scream "No FAIR!" on your behalf, whenever you want it. He will take up a sword and swoop to your rescue, whether a real war exists or not.
But does that really make you feel empowered in the end?...having some old, ex-politician shame religious leaders for making your life difficult, when you know, deep down, they haven't?
----
As for you, Mr. President, contrary to your opinion, leaders have a choice beyond "exalting women or subjugating them." What about treating them as the Bible prescribes--as worthy of love, but in need of leadership?
The pedestal you have created for females is just as harmful to their well-being as the doormat other people make them...maybe even worse.
I believe millions of women are unfulfilled and unhappy not because of latent discrimination, but because they already have the soul-killing freedom you desire for them. They feel free to pick and choose among the Scriptures; free to run rough-shod over their husbands in the name of "strength." And they freely receive coddling and even encouragement from ear-tickling leaders, who preach ten times the number of "MAN UP!" sermons to messages about peaceful submission.
You need game, badly, Mr. President. Meet your teacher, Professor Dalrock:
"...Christians have decided not to follow the Bible on the question of marriage in specific, and men and women in general. I’m not just talking about Christian enthusiasm for providing moral cover for frivolous divorce. I’m also talking about the numerous sections of the Bible which modern Christians are embarrassed about because the sections offend their newer and more dominant religion, feminism."
Perhaps you're proud of your Feminist identity, Jim.
But you've turned it into a religion. You admit to elevating man-made charters above the precepts of the Bible. (The Universal Declaration of Human rights? Is that God's Word now?)
More from Dalrock: "...Christians have adopted feminism over the Bible. Not all Christians have done this. For example, the Amish still follow strict gender roles including headship and submission. From what I can find they have a divorce rate less than 1%, and they are growing rapidly due to their high fertility rate...[but] for the rest of us, Christians need Game..."
Click on the link to read more about "Game" and following a traditional model for marriage. But, most importantly, pay close attention to the many examples he provides of how Feminism has taken over the American church, at the expense of Scripture.
The reason women are kept from holding church leadership positions and required to be subject to their husbands is because the Scriptures speak about both of these things. The Southern Baptist Convention does not practice "unjustifiable discrimination"--they justify different treatment of women with the Bible.
Pay attention, Mr. President.
Christians attribute their beliefs to the "Higher Authority" because their marching orders come from God's Word--not from the demands of the culture, as yours do.
And, by helping a woman abandon the One True God in favor of the impotent cultural one, you are killing her soul. A rejection of God's Word always harms women rather than helping them.
The Word contains instructions for how females best flourish--which is graciously submitting to godly leadership. By all means, stop the genital mutilation. But do NOT rush in to "rescue" the damsels whose only hardship is battling their own rebellious natures, as we all must.
I cannot speak for all women--but personally, I refuse your offer of "freedom," Mr. President. I do not need you to rescue me from the Bible. Your new fellowship of Elders are wolves in sheep's clothing, "empowering" women to rebel.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
No More Miss Nice Girl
I'm really processing this idea of Christians being nice.
They're supposed to be peaceful and turn the other cheek. They're supposed to be meek, with the ultimate goal of Christlikeness. And the world believes most Christians are doing it wrong.
You don't have to search hard to find complaints of "hypocrisy" and "hatred." Most critics agree that, except for a handful of Christians they know and endorse, the Church does not represent Jesus.
More times than I can count, I've personally been asked, "Aren't you supposed to be a Christian?!"
I think the pagans are right: Christians fail to imitate Christ fully...but, not because we're being too mean and hateful.
Part of the trouble is that many who call themselves Christians aren't actually alive in Christ at all. Seventy-percent of America self-identifies as belonging to Jesus, whether they move their feet toward Him or not. And all of us are judged by their conduct.
But I believe the other problem is: even those who genuinely want to obey Christ and His commands have been fed a steady diet of just one half of His personality. Our patience becomes passivity. Our gentleness becomes supplication to the world.
We have allowed the world to believe "Jesus" means WEAK, and now they wish to hold us to that standard.
Does anyone else have a difficult time picturing the Modern Caricature of Jesus, flipping the tables over in the Temple? Don't we kind of assume he always held a slight smile? Aren't his glassy (blue) eyes gentle and comforting? I bet that Jesus rarely spoke above a whisper... (rolls eyes*)
Jesus was gentle, when appropriate. He spoke of gathering the lost souls of Israel, like a hen gathers her chicks. He describes himself as a Lamb... but, what was that other animal?
Oh, yeah, a lion.
Thus, by refusing to model the straight-forward, no-nonsense side of Jesus, Christians are not actually representing Him at all. The lost souls need Him...ALL of Him. That includes His authority; His leadership.
Jesus was tough when he needed to be.
----
To practice the authoritative side of Jesus, I've been thinking of the whiny, "Christians-are-Haters" crowd as if they are tantrum-throwing toddlers. (Bets on how long it takes one of their representatives to scold me on that?) Anyway, there's no question I love my young daughter, but that doesn't mean I let her define what makes a "nice mommy." When she gets unreasonable, I put away the word "sweetheart" and get out the strong voice...
As a parent, God's love isn't always "nice," and our love for unbelievers shouldn't be, either.
All humans have the tendency, every once in awhile, to shut off our rational brains and throw a fit--which no amount of "niceness" can fix. Thus, when trying to dialog with combative, anti-religion people, I try to establish I will not tolerate subject-changing, screaming, or other childish attempts to gain power.
This rarely makes that person feel good.
In fact, he/she usually indulges in MORE screaming and subject-changing, in what psychologists may call a "meltdown." But the last thing you want is to fall into the trap of bargaining or giving weight to their demands. "You're just so hateful!" sounds very much like "You're the meanest mommy ever!"
"Why can't you be like Jesus?!" might as well be "Daddy would let me!"
So why do we respond to religious tantrums by saying, "I don't mean to offend! I'm very sorry. I'm just a humble sinner... PLEASE, for your own good, listen to what I have to say... I LOVE YOU!!!!" How effective are apologies and pleading, for swaying rebelliousness?
Is this nice or weak?
----
People often ask me, "Well, what do you mean?" "Are you suggesting we should verbally throw mud at people, or maybe even get into fist fights, in order to be more tough?"
I'd prefer not turning my stream-of-conscious thoughts and observations into a Do/Don't formula for Christians. I assume the Holy Spirit should be able to offer some specifics, for those earnestly seeking His ministry.
Instead, I just want to encourage believers to keep "balance" in mind, to avoid further emasculation of the image of God Incarnate.
While picturing Jesus the Mother Hen, we must remember he called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers" three verses before that. When begging the world to come and let Jesus love them--remember He let the rich man walk away. Jesus used sarcasm, hyperbole, and other forms of satire, in ways which seem downright rough at times.
When imagining Christ humbly, wordlessly submitting to death--remember He will return on a war horse...
For too long, we have allowed ourselves to be controlled by critics who imply: if Christians just behaved more like my idea of Jesus, I might become a Christian! Don't fall for it. Recognize this behavior as manipulation, and channel that side of our Lord which tells us "love" does not equal "nice."
They're supposed to be peaceful and turn the other cheek. They're supposed to be meek, with the ultimate goal of Christlikeness. And the world believes most Christians are doing it wrong.
You don't have to search hard to find complaints of "hypocrisy" and "hatred." Most critics agree that, except for a handful of Christians they know and endorse, the Church does not represent Jesus.
More times than I can count, I've personally been asked, "Aren't you supposed to be a Christian?!"
Part of the trouble is that many who call themselves Christians aren't actually alive in Christ at all. Seventy-percent of America self-identifies as belonging to Jesus, whether they move their feet toward Him or not. And all of us are judged by their conduct.
But I believe the other problem is: even those who genuinely want to obey Christ and His commands have been fed a steady diet of just one half of His personality. Our patience becomes passivity. Our gentleness becomes supplication to the world.
We have allowed the world to believe "Jesus" means WEAK, and now they wish to hold us to that standard.
Does anyone else have a difficult time picturing the Modern Caricature of Jesus, flipping the tables over in the Temple? Don't we kind of assume he always held a slight smile? Aren't his glassy (blue) eyes gentle and comforting? I bet that Jesus rarely spoke above a whisper... (rolls eyes*)
Jesus was gentle, when appropriate. He spoke of gathering the lost souls of Israel, like a hen gathers her chicks. He describes himself as a Lamb... but, what was that other animal?
Oh, yeah, a lion.
Thus, by refusing to model the straight-forward, no-nonsense side of Jesus, Christians are not actually representing Him at all. The lost souls need Him...ALL of Him. That includes His authority; His leadership.
Jesus was tough when he needed to be.
----
To practice the authoritative side of Jesus, I've been thinking of the whiny, "Christians-are-Haters" crowd as if they are tantrum-throwing toddlers. (Bets on how long it takes one of their representatives to scold me on that?) Anyway, there's no question I love my young daughter, but that doesn't mean I let her define what makes a "nice mommy." When she gets unreasonable, I put away the word "sweetheart" and get out the strong voice...
As a parent, God's love isn't always "nice," and our love for unbelievers shouldn't be, either.
All humans have the tendency, every once in awhile, to shut off our rational brains and throw a fit--which no amount of "niceness" can fix. Thus, when trying to dialog with combative, anti-religion people, I try to establish I will not tolerate subject-changing, screaming, or other childish attempts to gain power.
This rarely makes that person feel good.
In fact, he/she usually indulges in MORE screaming and subject-changing, in what psychologists may call a "meltdown." But the last thing you want is to fall into the trap of bargaining or giving weight to their demands. "You're just so hateful!" sounds very much like "You're the meanest mommy ever!"
"Why can't you be like Jesus?!" might as well be "Daddy would let me!"
So why do we respond to religious tantrums by saying, "I don't mean to offend! I'm very sorry. I'm just a humble sinner... PLEASE, for your own good, listen to what I have to say... I LOVE YOU!!!!" How effective are apologies and pleading, for swaying rebelliousness?
Is this nice or weak?
----
People often ask me, "Well, what do you mean?" "Are you suggesting we should verbally throw mud at people, or maybe even get into fist fights, in order to be more tough?"
I'd prefer not turning my stream-of-conscious thoughts and observations into a Do/Don't formula for Christians. I assume the Holy Spirit should be able to offer some specifics, for those earnestly seeking His ministry.
Instead, I just want to encourage believers to keep "balance" in mind, to avoid further emasculation of the image of God Incarnate.
While picturing Jesus the Mother Hen, we must remember he called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers" three verses before that. When begging the world to come and let Jesus love them--remember He let the rich man walk away. Jesus used sarcasm, hyperbole, and other forms of satire, in ways which seem downright rough at times.
When imagining Christ humbly, wordlessly submitting to death--remember He will return on a war horse...
For too long, we have allowed ourselves to be controlled by critics who imply: if Christians just behaved more like my idea of Jesus, I might become a Christian! Don't fall for it. Recognize this behavior as manipulation, and channel that side of our Lord which tells us "love" does not equal "nice."
Friday, March 29, 2013
Can Fish Hold a Pole?
We've heard: "The church will die, unless we get out there and fish!"
I guess I can jive with that statement.
Except, I'm afraid too many of the people sitting in the congregation and hearing that message haven't yet been "caught" themselves.
I believe: the Church is dying because many (most?) of those within it are, themselves, still dead.
----
We claim to have Jesus--but He was magnetic. People swarmed to hear His stories. He was the ultimate "fish bait," so to speak.
By contrast, I'm afraid the modern church is like a piece of bark on the end of a hook that's shaped like a worm... not at all what the fish want (or need).
We Churchians try to "wiggle" the right way, to get the fish to bite. We expand our children's program and we vamp up the worship and we pass out fliers to advertise our new sermon series. But, for the most part, membership across the nation continues to dwindle.
----
Folks, the lost fish will be drawn to us, naturally, when we come alive.
When we're growing, learning, asking questions and searching for answers, people want to investigate. And, if they're really hungry, they'll open wide and chomp down on the Gospel.
A breathing, growing Christian is like a fat beemoth, wriggling at the surface of a seaweed-filled pond... (My fisherman husband adds: "...in early spring, at the edges of the lake, where the fish spawn." His mind wanders for a few seconds, and he smiles a bit. "You can catch just about as many as you want that way...")
The question is: are you alive? Forget about inviting friends to church. Stop worrying about "writing your testimony." These are formulas for "evangelism," which any robot can be programmed to follow. It's dried-out tackle.
If you are walking the talk--struggling and discovering answers--doubting and working through it--questioning and then growing, you are alive. THAT'S your bait and hook, wrapped into one. Drop into the water and the fish will sense your presence. Whether they bite will depend on their level of hunger--but it will be hard to resist a swim-by to check you out...
----
Do you have spiritual life? Or are you still a fish, lost and waiting to be hooked?
No wonder we're struggling to reel in new Christians... I've never seen a fish hold a pole.
I guess I can jive with that statement.
Except, I'm afraid too many of the people sitting in the congregation and hearing that message haven't yet been "caught" themselves.
I believe: the Church is dying because many (most?) of those within it are, themselves, still dead.
----
We claim to have Jesus--but He was magnetic. People swarmed to hear His stories. He was the ultimate "fish bait," so to speak.
By contrast, I'm afraid the modern church is like a piece of bark on the end of a hook that's shaped like a worm... not at all what the fish want (or need).
We Churchians try to "wiggle" the right way, to get the fish to bite. We expand our children's program and we vamp up the worship and we pass out fliers to advertise our new sermon series. But, for the most part, membership across the nation continues to dwindle.
----
Folks, the lost fish will be drawn to us, naturally, when we come alive.
When we're growing, learning, asking questions and searching for answers, people want to investigate. And, if they're really hungry, they'll open wide and chomp down on the Gospel.
A breathing, growing Christian is like a fat beemoth, wriggling at the surface of a seaweed-filled pond... (My fisherman husband adds: "...in early spring, at the edges of the lake, where the fish spawn." His mind wanders for a few seconds, and he smiles a bit. "You can catch just about as many as you want that way...")
The question is: are you alive? Forget about inviting friends to church. Stop worrying about "writing your testimony." These are formulas for "evangelism," which any robot can be programmed to follow. It's dried-out tackle.
If you are walking the talk--struggling and discovering answers--doubting and working through it--questioning and then growing, you are alive. THAT'S your bait and hook, wrapped into one. Drop into the water and the fish will sense your presence. Whether they bite will depend on their level of hunger--but it will be hard to resist a swim-by to check you out...
----
Do you have spiritual life? Or are you still a fish, lost and waiting to be hooked?
No wonder we're struggling to reel in new Christians... I've never seen a fish hold a pole.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Redacting and Backtracking--A Blogger Revisits an Old Post
If you blog long enough, you're bound to regret some of the older stuff eventually.
We grow. We change. And, at some point, we go back through the archives to discover something which gives us the urge to slap our younger selves...
Thus, with all my criticism of "the Church" and "the world" and "the media"--it's only fair I put myself under the microscope for a change. I draw your attention to the Post I Wouldn't Write Today. (Originally called, "Two Words You NEVER Say to Your Wife.")
First published almost three years ago (in June 2010), this story was meant to convey a personal victory I experienced: forgiving my husband when I felt like staying angry...
"The urge to hold a grudge was strong, and I allowed myself to brood for at least 30 minutes before I thought about...the fact that I was acting according to my feelings and not based on my beliefs. And you know what? I won! I prayed--okay, begged--that God would help me be a grown up and forgive Luke. And I decided I didn't want to be a slave to my emotions..."
I still consider this part of the story a good thing. In the past, I've been guilty of stewing and fuming for a long time, wallowing in self-pity. So, the events of that evening were a victory, of sorts.
But what did Luke DO, to warrant my wrath in the first place?
He had a phone conversation with a friend, the length of which I did not approve. Seriously, that was the spark that lit me on fire!
Sure, I used three paragraphs to explain the "whole story," but here's what it boils down to:
"Don't get me wrong. This person [on the phone] is a dear friend of both of ours, and I appreciate the wisdom and support he offers Luke. Their relationship is a blessing when they get a chance to talk at the appropriate times. However, Luke doesn't always choose that appropriate time... And that is why I was dismayed when he jumped up and took the call."
What an arrogant, self-righteous little thing I was!
"Appropriate time" according to whom?! Should a grown man consult his wife before taking a phone call? Yikes. But, the story continues.
"...twenty minutes into their conversation, I may have wandered into range of Luke's hearing and mumbled, 'This isn't how I pictured this morning.' What I didn't expect was for Luke to look up with his eyes narrowed at me and mouth the words 'Shut up' before returning to his conversation... OH, NO HE DIDN'T!"
So, there you have it. Luke told me to shut up, and it sent me into a crazed tail-spin of shock, anger, and excuses. I'm sure there are many, many women who would have been equally upset. But, here's the important part, which I need to redact today:
"Now, this is not a post about how a change of perspective showed me I was wrong. At least not totally. Maybe I shouldn't have mumbled my complaint--but..."
I'm ashamed of everything after the "but." And, what's right before, too! Maybe I shouldn't have complained? Maybe I shouldn't have disrespected the head of my household, with some immature, passive-aggressive hissy fit? MAYBE?
Even after I supposedly forgave my husband for his supposed sin, I told my readers he was "wrong, wrong, wrong!"
What I should have done was shut up.
----
In that old post, I said a change in perspective didn't show me I was wrong, but now it has. At the time, I was upset with Luke for not displaying leadership in the phone conversation. I wanted him to take charge, display authority, and tell his friend the conversation was over (rather than "act like a victim," which is the phrase I used.)
What I completely missed was that choosing to disregard my helpful suggestion (that is: my selfish demands) amounted to taking leadership over me.
I've been learning this lesson very sloooooowly over the last three years--but I pray it will help another wife understand much quicker. I pray she will examine how very backward her actions are, when she tries to nag her husband into leading like she wants.
Wives, we honor God by honoring our husbands, and we are to submit to them as unto the Lord. (Eph 5:22) Do you ask God questions? Yes, I do, too. Depending on the nature of the question, I think this is fine. But do you nag God about the "correct" way to do something? Do you roll your eyes at Him? Do you get sarcastic and mock His decisions?
Do you do this to your husband?
----
If the same scenario took place tonight--if I decided Luke should do things my way and allowed my tongue to wag unchecked--he would have every right to say, "You are out of line, woman." To me, this sounds more to-the-point and less an emotional outburst than "shut up." But, it's basically the same thing.
It's what I need to hear sometimes.
Now that both Luke and I better understand our roles in the household, I want to hear him point out when I'm wrong and lovingly (but firmly) demand respect. Oh, sure, I hate it at first. And I would much prefer to watch him demand respect of other people, like his friends on the phone--all while letting me and my attitude walk all over him, of course...
But, after a little reflection and prayer, I count myself lucky to have both a God and a husband who will hold me to a higher standard.
We grow. We change. And, at some point, we go back through the archives to discover something which gives us the urge to slap our younger selves...
Thus, with all my criticism of "the Church" and "the world" and "the media"--it's only fair I put myself under the microscope for a change. I draw your attention to the Post I Wouldn't Write Today. (Originally called, "Two Words You NEVER Say to Your Wife.")
First published almost three years ago (in June 2010), this story was meant to convey a personal victory I experienced: forgiving my husband when I felt like staying angry...
"The urge to hold a grudge was strong, and I allowed myself to brood for at least 30 minutes before I thought about...the fact that I was acting according to my feelings and not based on my beliefs. And you know what? I won! I prayed--okay, begged--that God would help me be a grown up and forgive Luke. And I decided I didn't want to be a slave to my emotions..."
I still consider this part of the story a good thing. In the past, I've been guilty of stewing and fuming for a long time, wallowing in self-pity. So, the events of that evening were a victory, of sorts.
But what did Luke DO, to warrant my wrath in the first place?
He had a phone conversation with a friend, the length of which I did not approve. Seriously, that was the spark that lit me on fire!
Sure, I used three paragraphs to explain the "whole story," but here's what it boils down to:
"Don't get me wrong. This person [on the phone] is a dear friend of both of ours, and I appreciate the wisdom and support he offers Luke. Their relationship is a blessing when they get a chance to talk at the appropriate times. However, Luke doesn't always choose that appropriate time... And that is why I was dismayed when he jumped up and took the call."
What an arrogant, self-righteous little thing I was!
"Appropriate time" according to whom?! Should a grown man consult his wife before taking a phone call? Yikes. But, the story continues.
"...twenty minutes into their conversation, I may have wandered into range of Luke's hearing and mumbled, 'This isn't how I pictured this morning.' What I didn't expect was for Luke to look up with his eyes narrowed at me and mouth the words 'Shut up' before returning to his conversation... OH, NO HE DIDN'T!"
So, there you have it. Luke told me to shut up, and it sent me into a crazed tail-spin of shock, anger, and excuses. I'm sure there are many, many women who would have been equally upset. But, here's the important part, which I need to redact today:
"Now, this is not a post about how a change of perspective showed me I was wrong. At least not totally. Maybe I shouldn't have mumbled my complaint--but..."
I'm ashamed of everything after the "but." And, what's right before, too! Maybe I shouldn't have complained? Maybe I shouldn't have disrespected the head of my household, with some immature, passive-aggressive hissy fit? MAYBE?
Even after I supposedly forgave my husband for his supposed sin, I told my readers he was "wrong, wrong, wrong!"
What I should have done was shut up.
----
In that old post, I said a change in perspective didn't show me I was wrong, but now it has. At the time, I was upset with Luke for not displaying leadership in the phone conversation. I wanted him to take charge, display authority, and tell his friend the conversation was over (rather than "act like a victim," which is the phrase I used.)
What I completely missed was that choosing to disregard my helpful suggestion (that is: my selfish demands) amounted to taking leadership over me.
I've been learning this lesson very sloooooowly over the last three years--but I pray it will help another wife understand much quicker. I pray she will examine how very backward her actions are, when she tries to nag her husband into leading like she wants.
Wives, we honor God by honoring our husbands, and we are to submit to them as unto the Lord. (Eph 5:22) Do you ask God questions? Yes, I do, too. Depending on the nature of the question, I think this is fine. But do you nag God about the "correct" way to do something? Do you roll your eyes at Him? Do you get sarcastic and mock His decisions?
Do you do this to your husband?
----
If the same scenario took place tonight--if I decided Luke should do things my way and allowed my tongue to wag unchecked--he would have every right to say, "You are out of line, woman." To me, this sounds more to-the-point and less an emotional outburst than "shut up." But, it's basically the same thing.
It's what I need to hear sometimes.
Now that both Luke and I better understand our roles in the household, I want to hear him point out when I'm wrong and lovingly (but firmly) demand respect. Oh, sure, I hate it at first. And I would much prefer to watch him demand respect of other people, like his friends on the phone--all while letting me and my attitude walk all over him, of course...
But, after a little reflection and prayer, I count myself lucky to have both a God and a husband who will hold me to a higher standard.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Changing My Stance on Gay Marriage
I'm ready to wave the white flag and grant marriage licenses to homosexuals...
Today, I realized there's a really good chance I've been misunderstanding exactly what the Equal Rights side has been requesting. For clarification, I just need to ask, why do same-sex couples want to get married? What's the purpose of the institution? I think I've been confused, and I'm ready to admit it.
Things clicked when I read the poster below:
So, homosexuals only want the state to issue documentation acknowledging they "love" each other?
No wonder there has been so much controversy! We've been arguing about two different things!
There may be some confusion regarding the word "love," too. But, I think it's fair to say most Americans believe it is a state of intense feelings...often prompting the desire to make promises of commitment. If that's true, same-sex couples should be free to participate!
And, if all they want is for everyone to agree that, yes, they "love" each other and they are "married," then I feel silly trying to stop it all this time. The government can tell people whatever they want. I don't care.
Marriage licenses for everybody! (Provided they looooove each other, of course.)
Now that I've joined the Human Rights Campaign, I suggest we do something about the fact that people can't marry someone who's already married.. Nor can anyone marry a close relative...or even have sex with them, for that matter. What's that all about? What's the problem if they love each other?
Furthermore, why can't someone fall in love with a dog or an ape? Orangutans, especially, have proven they can learn to communicate with sign language. ("Do you take this man to be your husband?" *Monkey nods*) It's a shame millions of animals are being discriminated against--prevented from marrying the ones they love.
----
I suspect there are people who believe I'm not serious, but I truly am. No sarcasm. (Well, there was a little sarcasm above.) But I'm fine with gays marrying, by the above definitions. In fact, the decision is being weighed by the Supreme Court right now, and I would not be surprised OR ANGRY if the traditional, Christian understanding of marriage is judged irrelevant.
Don't worry, all you folks who think judging is the next worst thing to murder. I'm not upset that any ruling in your favor necessarily excludes my beliefs. Because, unlike the squeaky, special interest groups of this country, I don't need or want the government to agree with me regarding what's okay and what's not.
Capitol Hill doesn't get to define the terms in my life.
-Capitol Hill says two people can get married, and then agree to dissolve that marriage at a later time--at no fault. That's not my understanding of the institution.
-Capitol Hill says (or likely will say) that two people of the same sex can enter into a marriage union of equal value to society as a union of the opposite sexes. That's not my understanding of the institution.
-Capitol Hill says it gets to decide whether a marriage is valid, either by presenting or withholding some type of official documentation. That's not my understanding of the institution.
If these represent the new meaning of marriage, I apologize for voting against the Equal Rights movement on many occasions. By all means, y'all, get married.
----
Meanwhile, I do NOT want my children to get married. It sounds horrible, unstable, and frankly, unnecessary. If my daughter tells me she wants to get married, I really mean to ask, "Why?"
"Marriage is what the world does, sweetheart," I'll say. "Marriage is for same-sex couples and those who want the option to split when they 'fall out of love.' I want so much more for you than a mere marriage."
I want my kids to enter into a Covenant.
The purpose of a Covenant is for one man and one woman to complement each other--both in their physical bodies and their functional roles. Within a Covenant, those two people become one flesh, and their union often results in children. The safety provided by the Covenant Union is the best place for said little ones to be raised.
And, in staying faithful to the vows of the Covenant, the spouses fulfill their purpose to model Christ and His church, to teach the Gospel to the next generation, and to bring glory to God.
Covenants are permanent. Covenants are God-witnessed. And their validity is not decided by the Supreme Court.
Perhaps my kids will get tired of hearing the speech, but I'm not ashamed of harping when the lesson is important. "The Government is the God of the pagans, my dears. Let the Followers of Uncle Sam beg him for recognition of their flimsy and fleeting emotions. As for you, sweet children: if God so directs, never settle for less than a Covenant union. It is something the world cannot have."
----
P.S. I guess I get to display one of these now. Look! Did you ever think I'd be this Progressive?!?!
Today, I realized there's a really good chance I've been misunderstanding exactly what the Equal Rights side has been requesting. For clarification, I just need to ask, why do same-sex couples want to get married? What's the purpose of the institution? I think I've been confused, and I'm ready to admit it.
Things clicked when I read the poster below:
So, homosexuals only want the state to issue documentation acknowledging they "love" each other?
No wonder there has been so much controversy! We've been arguing about two different things!
There may be some confusion regarding the word "love," too. But, I think it's fair to say most Americans believe it is a state of intense feelings...often prompting the desire to make promises of commitment. If that's true, same-sex couples should be free to participate!
And, if all they want is for everyone to agree that, yes, they "love" each other and they are "married," then I feel silly trying to stop it all this time. The government can tell people whatever they want. I don't care.
Marriage licenses for everybody! (Provided they looooove each other, of course.)
Now that I've joined the Human Rights Campaign, I suggest we do something about the fact that people can't marry someone who's already married.. Nor can anyone marry a close relative...or even have sex with them, for that matter. What's that all about? What's the problem if they love each other?
Furthermore, why can't someone fall in love with a dog or an ape? Orangutans, especially, have proven they can learn to communicate with sign language. ("Do you take this man to be your husband?" *Monkey nods*) It's a shame millions of animals are being discriminated against--prevented from marrying the ones they love.
----
I suspect there are people who believe I'm not serious, but I truly am. No sarcasm. (Well, there was a little sarcasm above.) But I'm fine with gays marrying, by the above definitions. In fact, the decision is being weighed by the Supreme Court right now, and I would not be surprised OR ANGRY if the traditional, Christian understanding of marriage is judged irrelevant.
Don't worry, all you folks who think judging is the next worst thing to murder. I'm not upset that any ruling in your favor necessarily excludes my beliefs. Because, unlike the squeaky, special interest groups of this country, I don't need or want the government to agree with me regarding what's okay and what's not.
Capitol Hill doesn't get to define the terms in my life.
-Capitol Hill says two people can get married, and then agree to dissolve that marriage at a later time--at no fault. That's not my understanding of the institution.
-Capitol Hill says (or likely will say) that two people of the same sex can enter into a marriage union of equal value to society as a union of the opposite sexes. That's not my understanding of the institution.
-Capitol Hill says it gets to decide whether a marriage is valid, either by presenting or withholding some type of official documentation. That's not my understanding of the institution.
If these represent the new meaning of marriage, I apologize for voting against the Equal Rights movement on many occasions. By all means, y'all, get married.
----
Meanwhile, I do NOT want my children to get married. It sounds horrible, unstable, and frankly, unnecessary. If my daughter tells me she wants to get married, I really mean to ask, "Why?"
"Marriage is what the world does, sweetheart," I'll say. "Marriage is for same-sex couples and those who want the option to split when they 'fall out of love.' I want so much more for you than a mere marriage."
I want my kids to enter into a Covenant.
The purpose of a Covenant is for one man and one woman to complement each other--both in their physical bodies and their functional roles. Within a Covenant, those two people become one flesh, and their union often results in children. The safety provided by the Covenant Union is the best place for said little ones to be raised.
And, in staying faithful to the vows of the Covenant, the spouses fulfill their purpose to model Christ and His church, to teach the Gospel to the next generation, and to bring glory to God.
Covenants are permanent. Covenants are God-witnessed. And their validity is not decided by the Supreme Court.
Perhaps my kids will get tired of hearing the speech, but I'm not ashamed of harping when the lesson is important. "The Government is the God of the pagans, my dears. Let the Followers of Uncle Sam beg him for recognition of their flimsy and fleeting emotions. As for you, sweet children: if God so directs, never settle for less than a Covenant union. It is something the world cannot have."
----
P.S. I guess I get to display one of these now. Look! Did you ever think I'd be this Progressive?!?!
Girls and Boys; Men and Women
Here's to all the REAL women out there.
Girls demand freedom to have sex "like a man" and to ban the word "slut;" women have one partner, until death.
Girls expect help raising another guy's children; women accept their own consequences.
Girls miss the irony in lecturing boys who want someone to "take care of them;" Women wonder, "Isn't that what you're doing with this speech about Real Men, sweet girl?"
Girls encourage each other for sharing this crap;
Women try offering a dose of reality--the Men won't come running to rescue spoiled girls who shame them.
Men build homes, men produce success, men give respect...when they find a woman who is worth it.
----
I've lost count how many times I've seen that meme about boys/men scattered across cyberspace. Is it being shared by the "Real Men," to warn boys what not to do? Um, no. It's being shared overwhelmingly by girls--both young and old.
Can you imagine if a bitter, middle-aged MAN posted something like my version? Do you think the online community would respond as favorably? I kind of doubt it.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Hit My Home
The other day, I was dismayed to hear home-robberies are on the rise in my town. The loss of property is bad enough--but I imagine the victims feel violated in ways only another victim can understand. Will they ever feel safe in their own beds again?
On the other hand, comments by the Chief-Investigating Officer horrified me more than the crimes themselves.
"The actions of this criminal are appalling, and we are working round-the-clock to bring our suspect into custody. Meanwhile, I advise members of the community to take certain precautions, in order to avoid becoming the next victims: install quality locks on windows and doors, keep your property well-lit, and ask a neighbor to get your mail when you're gone a few days... We know some houses are easier to hit than others. So, with a little foresight and strategy, we may be able to prevent another attack."
So much for protecting the people, huh? Apparently, the police are more interested in blaming the victims! They might as well say, "It's your fault if you get robbed!"
I'm sick of being told I must compensate for the bad behavior of others. Instead of blaming the scumbags who actually commit the crime, I'm expected to respond by locking my doors. Why should I pay for expensive locks and/or security systems, when what we really ought to do is let the robbers know their actions are wrong?
Maybe I like letting huge piles of mail gather on my porch when I'm gone... Maybe I don't want to leave my lights on. Isn't this America? Am I not free to do as I please?
It's a sad day when the professionals hired to protect us would rather hold us responsible for the bad-guy's sin. And this is why I'm organizing a protest.
The Chief Investigating Officer believes certain homes are just begging to be broken into, so we'll show him what we think of that! On Easter Sunday, before you go to church, leave all your windows open and your doors unlocked.
Turn the lights off.
Pull the "Brink" sign out of the flower bed.
And, of course, tell all your friends the plan...post signs in the neighborhood. I suggest, "We ought to be free to leave our jewelry on the lawn!" Or, "A thief's lack-of-control is not my fault!"
If you believe it's not okay for criminals to walk into a stranger's home and steal things, then show your support by participating in the "Hit My House" movement! Lock up your dogs. Throw open the shutters. And tell the police who's really responsible for home-invasions...
----
Please go here to read about "Slut-walks." (Toronto Sluts respond to a statement by the local police: “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.")
On the other hand, comments by the Chief-Investigating Officer horrified me more than the crimes themselves.
"The actions of this criminal are appalling, and we are working round-the-clock to bring our suspect into custody. Meanwhile, I advise members of the community to take certain precautions, in order to avoid becoming the next victims: install quality locks on windows and doors, keep your property well-lit, and ask a neighbor to get your mail when you're gone a few days... We know some houses are easier to hit than others. So, with a little foresight and strategy, we may be able to prevent another attack."
So much for protecting the people, huh? Apparently, the police are more interested in blaming the victims! They might as well say, "It's your fault if you get robbed!"
I'm sick of being told I must compensate for the bad behavior of others. Instead of blaming the scumbags who actually commit the crime, I'm expected to respond by locking my doors. Why should I pay for expensive locks and/or security systems, when what we really ought to do is let the robbers know their actions are wrong?
Maybe I like letting huge piles of mail gather on my porch when I'm gone... Maybe I don't want to leave my lights on. Isn't this America? Am I not free to do as I please?
It's a sad day when the professionals hired to protect us would rather hold us responsible for the bad-guy's sin. And this is why I'm organizing a protest.
The Chief Investigating Officer believes certain homes are just begging to be broken into, so we'll show him what we think of that! On Easter Sunday, before you go to church, leave all your windows open and your doors unlocked.
Turn the lights off.
Pull the "Brink" sign out of the flower bed.
And, of course, tell all your friends the plan...post signs in the neighborhood. I suggest, "We ought to be free to leave our jewelry on the lawn!" Or, "A thief's lack-of-control is not my fault!"
If you believe it's not okay for criminals to walk into a stranger's home and steal things, then show your support by participating in the "Hit My House" movement! Lock up your dogs. Throw open the shutters. And tell the police who's really responsible for home-invasions...
----
Please go here to read about "Slut-walks." (Toronto Sluts respond to a statement by the local police: “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.")
Sunday, March 24, 2013
My "Brand" of Christianity
Today, I read this post on Traditional Christianity, regarding the relationship between Theology and Science.
It's interesting enough... but what really caught my eye was the comments section. The author, Alte (Vanessa) sounds so much like me!
"I actually left the Church because of its anti-intellectual bent, which is what a lot of people do. I had hard issues and all I got in return was, 'Jesus loves you and stop asking so many questions.' It wasn't until I started really delving into the Magesterium that I realized those people were just clueless about the academic riches of the Church. The blind leading the blind, as it were."
No, I have not left the church. But, I've been ranting and raving about it's "anti-intellectual" bent for a good while now. The average service provides very little mental stimulation for me. (Unless I'm brainstorming with my sister about how to improve communion.) Time after time, I find answers to my questions on my own muuuuuch easier than I find them in the pew.
Part of me feels like a jerk for saying that, but it's true. Church provides plenty of pretty images and motivational speeches...but hardly the lectures I crave.
I resonate with commenter, Daisy:
"Many people from my past seem to have an irrational and anti-intellectual faith that appears to be a passionate love affair that never ceases. They are the dance in the pews, wave their hands in air, Christianize everything sort of people. There is precious little in life that can bring forth such outward emotional expression in me and it’s not a fiery love affair that I can sustain for long...certainly not for years or even decades like so many I know."
Alte responds:
"LOL. There were 'dance in the pews and speak in tongues' people at the Pentecostal church I attended for a while, but I was led there by the quieter, more introspective types. They tend to become invisible when everyone else is dancing around and shouting for the love of Jesus. As they are invisible everywhere else, for that matter.
I tend to fall in love mentally first, and the emotion builds over time to a sort of low smolder when I’m not paying attention. It flares up occasionally, and then it smolders again for a while. It’s the beauty and the coherence of traditional Christianity that convicted me, not all the emoting and speechifying."
And a little further down, she continues...
"While I admire the sort of childlike faith that some people have, I just don’t think I’m wired to it. I also don’t appear to be wired to the 'social justice' or 'do good deeds' brands of Christianity...or the potluck dinner and rosary circle crowd. I have so many questions and thoughts running through my head at all times; I’m insatiably curious and I need a faith with thought-provoking and heart-changing answers."
The honest testimonies of these women both encourage and convict me. First, I'm thrilled to know I'm not the only one who feels the way they do. Second, I appreciate the gentle way they reference those who relate with God differently. They speak kindly of those "passionate" and "emoting" types. Alte believes they simply represent "different brands" of Christianity.
I tend to get annoyed at the "immaturity" of those with child-like faith...
----
Anyway, say what you will about the rightness/wrongness of a Feely Faith, I'm just going to go on record with my own preferences. Here's what my soul craves, in a place of worship:
-Please stop telling me how much God loves me. I'm starting to feel smothered--worshiping the Cosmic Helicopter Parent.
-Please don't talk about how amazingly, superbly awesome I am. Any goodness in me directly reflects God; none can boast. Besides, even Marilyn never had this much wind blown up her skirt.
-No more formulas. No more how-tos. No more "simplifying" [marriage, evangelism, prayer, etc.], with three easy steps! Intellectual Christianity isn't easy. We doubt, search, stay up late, and wrestle with truths daily. We argue with God, like rebellious teenagers--and, yet, even when we surrender (and grow!) we must go on to face the hardest part: being one of very few to understand the process...to share in the discovery.
-Finally, please stop telling me to invite people to church. Most of my friends would be unimpressed by the ceremonies--and I don't blame them. When I'm searching for God, I want an intense, one-on-one question/answer session, hold the fluff, please. If I have a friend who needs to be told God loves her, ad nauseum, I know where to go without being told.
----
I'm just so very wary of the messages meant to lift the spirit and tickle the senses, while the brain goes largely untouched. The average service would almost feel grandiose and powerful, except...I want to laugh at the level of silliness. (If you don't know what I mean by "silly," watch the video "40 Motivational Speeches in 2 Minutes.". Lol, do you not see the comparison?)
I can't be the only one to feel this way, right?
Well, regardless, I have found many new blogs this year which have made me feel less alone. I'm devouring the words of people who benefit from my "brand" of Christianity. And I will continue learning from the ideas and experiences there...even if the organized church never stops feeling contrived and shallow.
It's interesting enough... but what really caught my eye was the comments section. The author, Alte (Vanessa) sounds so much like me!
"I actually left the Church because of its anti-intellectual bent, which is what a lot of people do. I had hard issues and all I got in return was, 'Jesus loves you and stop asking so many questions.' It wasn't until I started really delving into the Magesterium that I realized those people were just clueless about the academic riches of the Church. The blind leading the blind, as it were."
No, I have not left the church. But, I've been ranting and raving about it's "anti-intellectual" bent for a good while now. The average service provides very little mental stimulation for me. (Unless I'm brainstorming with my sister about how to improve communion.) Time after time, I find answers to my questions on my own muuuuuch easier than I find them in the pew.
Part of me feels like a jerk for saying that, but it's true. Church provides plenty of pretty images and motivational speeches...but hardly the lectures I crave.
I resonate with commenter, Daisy:
"Many people from my past seem to have an irrational and anti-intellectual faith that appears to be a passionate love affair that never ceases. They are the dance in the pews, wave their hands in air, Christianize everything sort of people. There is precious little in life that can bring forth such outward emotional expression in me and it’s not a fiery love affair that I can sustain for long...certainly not for years or even decades like so many I know."
Alte responds:
"LOL. There were 'dance in the pews and speak in tongues' people at the Pentecostal church I attended for a while, but I was led there by the quieter, more introspective types. They tend to become invisible when everyone else is dancing around and shouting for the love of Jesus. As they are invisible everywhere else, for that matter.
I tend to fall in love mentally first, and the emotion builds over time to a sort of low smolder when I’m not paying attention. It flares up occasionally, and then it smolders again for a while. It’s the beauty and the coherence of traditional Christianity that convicted me, not all the emoting and speechifying."
And a little further down, she continues...
"While I admire the sort of childlike faith that some people have, I just don’t think I’m wired to it. I also don’t appear to be wired to the 'social justice' or 'do good deeds' brands of Christianity...or the potluck dinner and rosary circle crowd. I have so many questions and thoughts running through my head at all times; I’m insatiably curious and I need a faith with thought-provoking and heart-changing answers."
The honest testimonies of these women both encourage and convict me. First, I'm thrilled to know I'm not the only one who feels the way they do. Second, I appreciate the gentle way they reference those who relate with God differently. They speak kindly of those "passionate" and "emoting" types. Alte believes they simply represent "different brands" of Christianity.
I tend to get annoyed at the "immaturity" of those with child-like faith...
----
Anyway, say what you will about the rightness/wrongness of a Feely Faith, I'm just going to go on record with my own preferences. Here's what my soul craves, in a place of worship:
-Please stop telling me how much God loves me. I'm starting to feel smothered--worshiping the Cosmic Helicopter Parent.
-Please don't talk about how amazingly, superbly awesome I am. Any goodness in me directly reflects God; none can boast. Besides, even Marilyn never had this much wind blown up her skirt.
-No more formulas. No more how-tos. No more "simplifying" [marriage, evangelism, prayer, etc.], with three easy steps! Intellectual Christianity isn't easy. We doubt, search, stay up late, and wrestle with truths daily. We argue with God, like rebellious teenagers--and, yet, even when we surrender (and grow!) we must go on to face the hardest part: being one of very few to understand the process...to share in the discovery.
-Finally, please stop telling me to invite people to church. Most of my friends would be unimpressed by the ceremonies--and I don't blame them. When I'm searching for God, I want an intense, one-on-one question/answer session, hold the fluff, please. If I have a friend who needs to be told God loves her, ad nauseum, I know where to go without being told.
----
I'm just so very wary of the messages meant to lift the spirit and tickle the senses, while the brain goes largely untouched. The average service would almost feel grandiose and powerful, except...I want to laugh at the level of silliness. (If you don't know what I mean by "silly," watch the video "40 Motivational Speeches in 2 Minutes.". Lol, do you not see the comparison?)
I can't be the only one to feel this way, right?
Well, regardless, I have found many new blogs this year which have made me feel less alone. I'm devouring the words of people who benefit from my "brand" of Christianity. And I will continue learning from the ideas and experiences there...even if the organized church never stops feeling contrived and shallow.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Women in the Workforce
A friend and I recently discussed this article about Japanese mothers experiencing difficulty when trying to return to work, post-baby...
"Nobuko Ito is the very model of a modern professional Japanese woman. She is a qualified lawyer and she speaks fluent English. She has years of experience working in international contract law. But Nobuko no longer works in a big international law firm. In fact she hardly does any lawyering at all these days. Instead she has three children. In Japan it is still one or the other. Doing both is extremely difficult."
The author arrives at her thesis sentence a little further into the article:
"Women who are having children are not working. Women who are working are not having children. Both are terrible for Japan's future..."
Really?
It's a terrible problem when women realize they can either have careers or care for their own children? In all honesty, I wish the choices were that obvious to women in the U.S. Right now, I'm afraid some of us are kidding ourselves... Er, no pun intended.
I don't know much about Japanese culture. But, where I live, women seem to believe they can "have it all." Working ladies are common, childcare is relatively easy to secure, and nobody thinks twice if a woman claims, "I'm a full time mommy with a full-time career!"
Wait, you're what? Doesn't that sound a lot like the old sport-commentator favorite, "He gives 110% effort, every time!" ? We all know what they mean... but, it's logically impossible.
You can't do both, all the time.
American women, you need to hear this. You've been spoiled with options that Japanese women don't have...but, in the end, we ALL have the same choice: take care of the children ourselves--or conclude it's better if someone else does it.
Think about it. Someone must care for the kids. (Teachers, other family members, nannies, etc.) If that regular caregiver is someone other than their mother, she doesn't cease to be "mom" in title. But she does not act the mother "full-time." Few women put it into words, but they are making the statement, "When I'm gone, [this person] does just as well as I do."
Are you replaceable?
I do not believe the fact that Americans have affirmative action and friends who support female careers andfeminized husbands men who will help with chores makes us better off than Japanese women. It only makes the ultimatum less clear. If the national motto becomes "DO BOTH," we can fool ourselves into believing we've accomplished the impossible. We've had our cake and eaten it, too! (Or, perhaps, "had our paradise and eaten the fruit, too.")
We've become Supermoms!!!!
But the fact is, any time spent devoted to the children is time not invested in your career. Any time you are concentrating on being a good employee, someone else is mothering your babies...
----
My friend posed several questions related to the issue of working women, and I've included them here:
-What about situations in which two incomes are required to survive?
-What about after the children are grown? Shouldn't the woman have the choice to re-enter the workforce?
-What about women who are better at "bringing home the bacon," and their husbands who are better at childcare? Why can't the wife go to work and the husband tend to the children?
These are valid points, which I would enjoy unpacking if I were sitting down with someone actually facing one of these situations. In real life, I've counseled many women--including my sister and sister-in-law--tossing around ideas about what it means to be a wife/mother and how we can best honor God with our lot.
However, in this context, I'm hesitant to dive too far into "hypotheticals." I'd hate to give the impression I've considered every possible scenario in which a woman could find herself. Frankly, it would take waaaaay too long to create a flowchart titled How Women Should Make Decisions About Work--and I'm not qualified to do it, anyway!
Instead, I would prefer listing a few facts which color the way I process the issues surrounding working women. These are places I believe we can find relative agreement, and which may serve as a springboard for pursuing the question, "How, then, do we live?"
----
1. Men and women are different. They were created to fulfill different roles. Similarly, being a mother changes a woman...and it changes her in a different way than fatherhood changes a man. (This is a very beautifully-written anecdote about becoming a mom. It made me tear up...)
2. Regarding laws, I don't believe women should be prevented from getting jobs. (i.e. it should not be illegal) However, as a good Libertarian, I don't believe bosses should be required to hire them, either.
3. Following point #2, I don't see why women "shouldn't" try to re-enter the workforce after their children are grown. However, they will need to prove their value to the company, compared with a fresh-from-college applicant OR a person who has been gaining field experience for the last 15-20 years (rather than being out-of-commission). When deciding whether or not to stay home, women should recognize the very real possibility their competition will overtake them in the meantime.
4. I've no doubt there are cases where a mother *has to* work outside the home. But, I believe it's a faaaaaar more common occurrence for a woman merely to think it's unavoidable. In my experience, if you announce there is an "exception," a curious majority starts believing they're it.
5. If it's culturally acceptable for women to work, they will go to work...in droves. Unfortunately, the shift starts a ball rolling which is difficult to reverse, and it impacts a country's economy profoundly.
6. I don't want someone else raising my children. Unless they literally will starve without a second income, I can't see how it could be worthwhile to let another feed them, educate them...kiss their owies when they fall. When I say being a mom is important, I don't mean it's just a beautiful hobby--on level with hundreds of other worthwhile pursuits. (Answering phones and sending emails and filing...) I mean to say, I'm irreplaceable at home.
----
(Addendum: Wow, I just found this post about a mom leaving her kid with a stranger in order to go to work. But, I draw your attention to the comments. Down a ways, "mary d." writes: "...it's a dirty secret -- we're supposed to WANT to stay home, and if we don't, we get judged. So we pretend we 'have' to work and then get judged for our lifestyles...I schlep my younger son to an expensive daycare so he's NOT in front of a tv/Wii all day... The teachers love him and frankly do a better job with him than I would if I were home with him all day." So, apparently, it's NOT hard for some women to admit, "I'm replaceable.")
Moms who don't want to mother. (*shakes head*) What next?
"Nobuko Ito is the very model of a modern professional Japanese woman. She is a qualified lawyer and she speaks fluent English. She has years of experience working in international contract law. But Nobuko no longer works in a big international law firm. In fact she hardly does any lawyering at all these days. Instead she has three children. In Japan it is still one or the other. Doing both is extremely difficult."
The author arrives at her thesis sentence a little further into the article:
"Women who are having children are not working. Women who are working are not having children. Both are terrible for Japan's future..."
Really?
It's a terrible problem when women realize they can either have careers or care for their own children? In all honesty, I wish the choices were that obvious to women in the U.S. Right now, I'm afraid some of us are kidding ourselves... Er, no pun intended.
I don't know much about Japanese culture. But, where I live, women seem to believe they can "have it all." Working ladies are common, childcare is relatively easy to secure, and nobody thinks twice if a woman claims, "I'm a full time mommy with a full-time career!"
Wait, you're what? Doesn't that sound a lot like the old sport-commentator favorite, "He gives 110% effort, every time!" ? We all know what they mean... but, it's logically impossible.
You can't do both, all the time.
American women, you need to hear this. You've been spoiled with options that Japanese women don't have...but, in the end, we ALL have the same choice: take care of the children ourselves--or conclude it's better if someone else does it.
Think about it. Someone must care for the kids. (Teachers, other family members, nannies, etc.) If that regular caregiver is someone other than their mother, she doesn't cease to be "mom" in title. But she does not act the mother "full-time." Few women put it into words, but they are making the statement, "When I'm gone, [this person] does just as well as I do."
Are you replaceable?
I do not believe the fact that Americans have affirmative action and friends who support female careers and
We've become Supermoms!!!!
But the fact is, any time spent devoted to the children is time not invested in your career. Any time you are concentrating on being a good employee, someone else is mothering your babies...
----
My friend posed several questions related to the issue of working women, and I've included them here:
-What about situations in which two incomes are required to survive?
-What about after the children are grown? Shouldn't the woman have the choice to re-enter the workforce?
-What about women who are better at "bringing home the bacon," and their husbands who are better at childcare? Why can't the wife go to work and the husband tend to the children?
These are valid points, which I would enjoy unpacking if I were sitting down with someone actually facing one of these situations. In real life, I've counseled many women--including my sister and sister-in-law--tossing around ideas about what it means to be a wife/mother and how we can best honor God with our lot.
However, in this context, I'm hesitant to dive too far into "hypotheticals." I'd hate to give the impression I've considered every possible scenario in which a woman could find herself. Frankly, it would take waaaaay too long to create a flowchart titled How Women Should Make Decisions About Work--and I'm not qualified to do it, anyway!
Instead, I would prefer listing a few facts which color the way I process the issues surrounding working women. These are places I believe we can find relative agreement, and which may serve as a springboard for pursuing the question, "How, then, do we live?"
----
1. Men and women are different. They were created to fulfill different roles. Similarly, being a mother changes a woman...and it changes her in a different way than fatherhood changes a man. (This is a very beautifully-written anecdote about becoming a mom. It made me tear up...)
2. Regarding laws, I don't believe women should be prevented from getting jobs. (i.e. it should not be illegal) However, as a good Libertarian, I don't believe bosses should be required to hire them, either.
3. Following point #2, I don't see why women "shouldn't" try to re-enter the workforce after their children are grown. However, they will need to prove their value to the company, compared with a fresh-from-college applicant OR a person who has been gaining field experience for the last 15-20 years (rather than being out-of-commission). When deciding whether or not to stay home, women should recognize the very real possibility their competition will overtake them in the meantime.
4. I've no doubt there are cases where a mother *has to* work outside the home. But, I believe it's a faaaaaar more common occurrence for a woman merely to think it's unavoidable. In my experience, if you announce there is an "exception," a curious majority starts believing they're it.
5. If it's culturally acceptable for women to work, they will go to work...in droves. Unfortunately, the shift starts a ball rolling which is difficult to reverse, and it impacts a country's economy profoundly.
6. I don't want someone else raising my children. Unless they literally will starve without a second income, I can't see how it could be worthwhile to let another feed them, educate them...kiss their owies when they fall. When I say being a mom is important, I don't mean it's just a beautiful hobby--on level with hundreds of other worthwhile pursuits. (Answering phones and sending emails and filing...) I mean to say, I'm irreplaceable at home.
----
(Addendum: Wow, I just found this post about a mom leaving her kid with a stranger in order to go to work. But, I draw your attention to the comments. Down a ways, "mary d." writes: "...it's a dirty secret -- we're supposed to WANT to stay home, and if we don't, we get judged. So we pretend we 'have' to work and then get judged for our lifestyles...I schlep my younger son to an expensive daycare so he's NOT in front of a tv/Wii all day... The teachers love him and frankly do a better job with him than I would if I were home with him all day." So, apparently, it's NOT hard for some women to admit, "I'm replaceable.")
Moms who don't want to mother. (*shakes head*) What next?
Friday, March 22, 2013
Civil Disobedience and the Christian
The argument goes like this: "You cannot rebel against the Laws of the Land. God has placed those governing authorities over you. (Romans 13:1) If you will keep your guns, even when national laws prohibit them, you are rebelling against GOD as much as the government. Submit."
----
Obey the laws of the land. Respect earthly authority. But I ask: who is an American's authority?
Well, the Supreme authority in this country is the Constitution, which gives its citizens the right to bear arms. The Constitution was written with respect to the principles explained in the Declaration of Independence, which states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."
Therefore, the Fathers instituted a system in which we don't elect rulers. We elect representatives.
And, if they cease representing--and start ruling--the Law of the Land states we have the right to object and start over. (Other documents referencing the right to abolish are here.) That's not rebellion against laws and God. It's legal!
----
The Pharisees were good at taking an indisputable chunk of Scripture and making a solid case for their beliefs. They told Jesus, "Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath," when a crippled man needed healing. In all seriousness, their justification sounds air-tight to me.
How could Jesus argue with that? Weren't the Pharisees given their place of Jewish authority by God? Well, yes.
Except Jesus IS God. The authority of a religious leader held no sway next to HIS. (It reminds me of a politician's authority when compared with mine. See where I'm going here?)
But let's talk in spiritual terms for a minute.
Jesus explained that for all their efforts to "simplify" the law, the Jewish Pastors missed the whole point. They wanted to help their flock understand what God meant when He said "keep the Sabbath holy." But they only succeeded in constructing man-made rules, tediously hanging on that single verse.
Until Jesus pointed out the silliness, the Pharisees had turned the Law into a crazy dance of spirituality, full of impossible standards and contradictions. That's what happens when we miss the point.
So, as Christians who genuinely want to align our actions with the Truth, what do we DO with the directive to respect governing authorities? Trust me, I love solid, "Thou Shalts" as much as the Pharisees. But I don't know!
Humans need definite boundaries. There is comfort in knowing exactly what's expected of you. Yet, I'm afraid understanding the Christian's response to civil disobedience is NOT simple. Consider these questions, for which I struggle to find answers:
-Does God want us to avoid taking any action against any earthly authority--unless a soldier hands us a gun and tells us to kill?
-Are immigrants to this country wrong for leaving the authority of their governments behind? Shouldn't they passively submit to the leaders God has placed in their homeland--rather than running?
-What happens when two or more groups try to claim national authority? How do we know which is God-ordained?
----
EVERY politician in history, from King James to Hitler, believed God was on his side. (Or at least made that assertion to the public.)
Unfortunately, well-meaning Church people are notorious for nodding and agreeing with whoever talks the loudest, without asking some of the questions I did above. They cling to what may be another Cutesy Christian Motto, "Jesus wants us to respect authority!" not knowing fully what they mean. Often, it's just another way to say: "For the love of God, don't rock the boat!"
But I believe our Founding Fathers had it right when they recognized GOD possesses the only true, lasting Authority. And, by His design, the citizens of the United States have created a government "of the people, by the people."
Therefore, I argue the REAL rebels--the ones disregarding BOTH the Scriptures AND the "Law of the Land"--are the ones to whom many Christians say we should surrender. These "lawmakers" seek to impose more gun control (and a thousand other things) in order to acquire authority to which they are NOT entitled.
On the other hand, I am within my rights to disregard a government that becomes corrupt. That's what the governing authority says.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Aaaaah, Liberation! (Or: "Who Needs Love?")
A surprising number of young feminists have admitted to feeling guilty for wanting romantic relationships.
There is some crass language in this article, Feminist Self-Annihilation, but please read it. The author explains how the call for "liberation" has begun to require girls to deny basic human instincts--including the desire to LOVE and be loved. More and more women associate romance with weakness. Relationships are considered anti-feminist.
The author then quotes the reactions of several women to this news; their comments are tragic.
For example, when one woman learned that her younger "sisters" were suppressing their desires for families, she cheered them on.
"I don’t mean to be unsympathetic, but I am kind of thrilled that [wanting love] is considered embarrassing among smart, young women. Having a boyfriend and/or being well on the way to marriage used to be the default for twenty-somethings..."
Another woman writes:
"On the other side of this, I feel a lot of guilt for having a wonderful, stable relationship with my boyfriend of two-plus years. I’m anxious about missing out on what the zeitgeist says the 20s lifestyle 'should' be (playing the field, etc.)..."
So, this smart, free-thinking woman has opted to go ahead with the relationship path she wants. But she still feels guilty. And she wonders, "Would one-night stands be better?! More empowering?"
Even the girl who says relationships may be beneficial for feminists still offers repulsively self-serving reasons for this conclusion.
"What strikes me as weird about this conversation, and why this shift in priorities doesn’t seem like a complete feminist victory, is that it discounts the idea that a relationship can be an incredible source of support for career and life goals. Having someone who, say, helps with chores to give you more time to study or work, or who encourages you when you’re discouraged, or works in a similar field and helps you with ideas, who backs you publicly, etc?"
So, you see, feminists? You shouldn't be embarrassed that you want a boyfriend. He can wash your dishes and rub your feet. Overall, men are great ways to reach your more-important career goals. And they're warmer than robots!
----
By the end of the article, I agreed with the author that this doesn't make me angry as much as sad. These women don't seem aware they are starving their own souls--and they're being spurred on by well-intentioned (but equally misguided and broken) females.
Yet, when I read the comments, I can't help but think men are better off without entering relationships with self-gratifying females like these. Perhaps modern girls aren't ready for Real Love, anyway...since they believe wholeheartedly, "My 'freedom' is more important than anything else--including you."
There is some crass language in this article, Feminist Self-Annihilation, but please read it. The author explains how the call for "liberation" has begun to require girls to deny basic human instincts--including the desire to LOVE and be loved. More and more women associate romance with weakness. Relationships are considered anti-feminist.
The author then quotes the reactions of several women to this news; their comments are tragic.
For example, when one woman learned that her younger "sisters" were suppressing their desires for families, she cheered them on.
"I don’t mean to be unsympathetic, but I am kind of thrilled that [wanting love] is considered embarrassing among smart, young women. Having a boyfriend and/or being well on the way to marriage used to be the default for twenty-somethings..."
Another woman writes:
"On the other side of this, I feel a lot of guilt for having a wonderful, stable relationship with my boyfriend of two-plus years. I’m anxious about missing out on what the zeitgeist says the 20s lifestyle 'should' be (playing the field, etc.)..."
So, this smart, free-thinking woman has opted to go ahead with the relationship path she wants. But she still feels guilty. And she wonders, "Would one-night stands be better?! More empowering?"
Even the girl who says relationships may be beneficial for feminists still offers repulsively self-serving reasons for this conclusion.
"What strikes me as weird about this conversation, and why this shift in priorities doesn’t seem like a complete feminist victory, is that it discounts the idea that a relationship can be an incredible source of support for career and life goals. Having someone who, say, helps with chores to give you more time to study or work, or who encourages you when you’re discouraged, or works in a similar field and helps you with ideas, who backs you publicly, etc?"
So, you see, feminists? You shouldn't be embarrassed that you want a boyfriend. He can wash your dishes and rub your feet. Overall, men are great ways to reach your more-important career goals. And they're warmer than robots!
----
By the end of the article, I agreed with the author that this doesn't make me angry as much as sad. These women don't seem aware they are starving their own souls--and they're being spurred on by well-intentioned (but equally misguided and broken) females.
Yet, when I read the comments, I can't help but think men are better off without entering relationships with self-gratifying females like these. Perhaps modern girls aren't ready for Real Love, anyway...since they believe wholeheartedly, "My 'freedom' is more important than anything else--including you."
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
My Hero!
Husband: I have something to tell you.
Wife: Okay, I'm listening.
Husband: Maybe you should sit down. I was debating whether or not to say anything...but...
Wife: You can tell me, sweetheart!
Husband: It's just I don't want you to think I'm looking for praise. But your health may in jeopardy. So, I think I must risk sounding like Superman, coming to your rescue.
Wife: If ever a man deserved praise, it's you, my love. You may not be perfect, but there was never a more perfect man for me. If I picked Superman, I would be settling! (*wink*)
Husband: (*blushes) Well, okay then. You need to visit the doctor and get tested for HIV. See, it turns out one of the prostitutes I've been seeing without your knowledge was infected. I just got a call from the clinic...and it turns out I have it, too.
Wife: ...Why, darling. You're MY HERO!
Husband: (*relieved) I thought you might be a little upset...about the affairs?
Wife: Didn't you hear me say "no one is perfect," you wonderful man? We all make mistakes. But obviously you love me, if you care so much about my health. You might have saved my life!
Husband: ...er...I never thought about it like that. I guess I was just hung up on the fact that it was my fault your life is at risk in the first place.
Wife: Nonsense. The important thing is that you are doing the responsible thing NOW. If that's not the definition of a hero, I don't know what is.
----
We can agree this man isn't being "responsible" and "heroic," right? By coming clean to his wife, the husband is doing the bare minimum required of any decent person who made big mistakes and doesn't want to punish his loved ones any more than he has already.
I'd like to propose: you're not a "hero" just because you're doing the best you can to control the damage caused by your own choices...
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Skin in the Game
I've seen this picture (and similar ones) floating around a LOT.
Perhaps you've heard the same solution offered for other political problems. The basic logic is: people making decisions should have some skin in the game. If politicians are getting paid--regardless of the job they do--there is little motivation for doing that job well.
I agree with this premise. And, I find it most intriguing that citizens on both sides of the aisle seem to share photos like the above. It's not just a Democrat or a Republican thing. We all see the benefit of holding politicians accountable.
Good. Then, everyone should be on board with my next suggestion.
Why don't we return to the days when the only folks who could vote were landowners--that is, taxpayers? Who thought it was a good idea to hand out voting privileges like candy to anyone who happens to be in the States on Election Day?
Oh, yes, I know the average Joe "pays" for his vote by doing a super awesome job at work. And you "contribute to society" by raising super awesome kids. And let's not forget you're just generally a super-awesome person, who deserves a small database of perks and comforts just for existing.
But, honey, please!
Why do you get to make financial decisions when you don't contribute to the national pool of finances? At least those greedy politicians actually did something to convince a majority of folks in their district to give them their title. If you still want to freeze their salaries until they pull their weight, fine. I don't blame you.
Now pull yours.
For crying out loud, 47 million of us are on food stamps. That means being paid by the government--just like a politician. I totally understand why Americans are outraged by Congressmen putting money in their own pockets. But what are Welfare Families doing???
People who want to direct the future of the country ought to make a little sacrifice for it. With sacrifice comes a sense of duty. Responsibility. Loyalty. Having a horse in the race provides the motivation for better decisions across the board. (To quote the picture, it's the best way to "resolve a mess.")
At the very least, putting skin in the game makes you look less like an entitled, self-serving jerk writing checks for yourself with other people's money.
Perhaps you've heard the same solution offered for other political problems. The basic logic is: people making decisions should have some skin in the game. If politicians are getting paid--regardless of the job they do--there is little motivation for doing that job well.
I agree with this premise. And, I find it most intriguing that citizens on both sides of the aisle seem to share photos like the above. It's not just a Democrat or a Republican thing. We all see the benefit of holding politicians accountable.
Good. Then, everyone should be on board with my next suggestion.
Why don't we return to the days when the only folks who could vote were landowners--that is, taxpayers? Who thought it was a good idea to hand out voting privileges like candy to anyone who happens to be in the States on Election Day?
Oh, yes, I know the average Joe "pays" for his vote by doing a super awesome job at work. And you "contribute to society" by raising super awesome kids. And let's not forget you're just generally a super-awesome person, who deserves a small database of perks and comforts just for existing.
But, honey, please!
Why do you get to make financial decisions when you don't contribute to the national pool of finances? At least those greedy politicians actually did something to convince a majority of folks in their district to give them their title. If you still want to freeze their salaries until they pull their weight, fine. I don't blame you.
Now pull yours.
For crying out loud, 47 million of us are on food stamps. That means being paid by the government--just like a politician. I totally understand why Americans are outraged by Congressmen putting money in their own pockets. But what are Welfare Families doing???
People who want to direct the future of the country ought to make a little sacrifice for it. With sacrifice comes a sense of duty. Responsibility. Loyalty. Having a horse in the race provides the motivation for better decisions across the board. (To quote the picture, it's the best way to "resolve a mess.")
At the very least, putting skin in the game makes you look less like an entitled, self-serving jerk writing checks for yourself with other people's money.
Monday, March 18, 2013
It's Not What's on the Plate...
Seattle Church Offers Gluten-Free Communion Bread (And a WHOLE Lot More!)
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (AP) - When most people think of Holy Communion, they envision a small cup of juice or wine, a flavorless wafer, and a few moments of personal reflection. However, the Abounding Love Church of God in Seattle is testing the limits of this ancient sacrament.
What started as a desire to accommodate a member's allergy has become a full-fledged, ground-breaking outreach program...one which is raising eyebrows across the country.
Senior Pastor, Dr. Rick Proffit, explains, "One of the young adults in our church has Celiac's disease, which means she can't ingest many bread products. It just didn't seem fair to exclude her from half the communion experience if there was something we could do to help."
So the leadership at ALC agreed to make Communion as inclusive as possible, by offering the congregation gluten-free wafers with their juice. Those with special dietary needs were satisfied. But the ball didn't stop rolling there.
"We started wondering, 'Are there others who would get more out of their Communion experience if we expanded our horizons a little bit?'" Dr. Proffit grins. "I was just joking when I suggested we serve soft drinks."
Yet, all kidding aside, if you visit Abounding Love Church of God this Sunday, you can observe Communion with any of 6 different beverages--including white milk and Diet Pepsi. If the regular or gluten-free wafers don't appeal to you, why not grab a pretzel stick instead? Or a small hunk of cheddar cheese?
"Change is always shocking in an institution as old as the church," says Dr. Proffit, "But we're really most concerned with taking Jesus out of the box and making him accessible to everyone." And if numbers are any indication, the local community really appreciates how easy it is to touch the Messiah at ALC.
Their attendance is up 50%.
Some skepticism still remains from other congregations, regarding whether Dr. Proffit's new program is entirely biblical. One critic, who wishes to be unnamed, describes ALC's version of communion as "an utter desecration of Jesus' body and blood."
But, to objectons like this, Dr. Proffit replies, "The Acts disciples ate full meals together, and they were still following Jesus' command to memorialize His death."
He adds, for good measure, "It's not what's on the plate that's important. It's what's in the heart."
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (AP) - When most people think of Holy Communion, they envision a small cup of juice or wine, a flavorless wafer, and a few moments of personal reflection. However, the Abounding Love Church of God in Seattle is testing the limits of this ancient sacrament.
What started as a desire to accommodate a member's allergy has become a full-fledged, ground-breaking outreach program...one which is raising eyebrows across the country.
Senior Pastor, Dr. Rick Proffit, explains, "One of the young adults in our church has Celiac's disease, which means she can't ingest many bread products. It just didn't seem fair to exclude her from half the communion experience if there was something we could do to help."
So the leadership at ALC agreed to make Communion as inclusive as possible, by offering the congregation gluten-free wafers with their juice. Those with special dietary needs were satisfied. But the ball didn't stop rolling there.
"We started wondering, 'Are there others who would get more out of their Communion experience if we expanded our horizons a little bit?'" Dr. Proffit grins. "I was just joking when I suggested we serve soft drinks."
Yet, all kidding aside, if you visit Abounding Love Church of God this Sunday, you can observe Communion with any of 6 different beverages--including white milk and Diet Pepsi. If the regular or gluten-free wafers don't appeal to you, why not grab a pretzel stick instead? Or a small hunk of cheddar cheese?
"Change is always shocking in an institution as old as the church," says Dr. Proffit, "But we're really most concerned with taking Jesus out of the box and making him accessible to everyone." And if numbers are any indication, the local community really appreciates how easy it is to touch the Messiah at ALC.
Their attendance is up 50%.
Some skepticism still remains from other congregations, regarding whether Dr. Proffit's new program is entirely biblical. One critic, who wishes to be unnamed, describes ALC's version of communion as "an utter desecration of Jesus' body and blood."
But, to objectons like this, Dr. Proffit replies, "The Acts disciples ate full meals together, and they were still following Jesus' command to memorialize His death."
He adds, for good measure, "It's not what's on the plate that's important. It's what's in the heart."
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
More Bad Marriage Advice--"He Needs to Make you Feel Secure"
This clip from "MarriagetodayTV" was brought to my attention this afternoon. Many of you may not be bothered by the following four minutes of marital/financial advice. But, to those who recognize and despise how churches have begun catering to the selfish instincts of women, hold on to your lunch...
First, I'd like to draw attention to the very first few minutes of the video, when Mr. Evans shares an anecdote about a poor, divorced woman who had trouble getting "anything" from her ex-husband.
"[after the divorce] he gave her as little as he could. She had to take him to court to get everything that she got. Now she's over here, and he's over there still making...a significant income. And because their children are grown, she got very little out of the divorce settlement."
Um, is Mr. Evans really implying the man in this story should continue supporting his ex-wife, out of some type of obligation to God? I wonder, is the woman obligated to continue providing her ex-husband with a clean home and sex, or is this lesson in "duty" only for males?
The wife is described as a good wife and a good mother--so, naturally, her ex owes her.
Notice Mr. Evans tells us the couple "went through a divorce." It would make his case stronger if he stated "the wife was abandoned," but he doesn't. He definitely implies the husband is greedy and heartless, but he doesn't specify who left whom.
Perhaps because, statistically, it's likely the woman was the one who filed. In the U.S. 70% of all divorces are initiated by the wife. If she is college educated, the wife walks away 90% of the time.
Yet, Mr. Evans seems to believe men are financially responsible for their exes--even if she did the leaving--because, well, women want security. Give her what she thinks she deserves, men! It's the only manly thing to do!
I certainly hope I have it wrong here. A person with that kind of female-bias wouldn't be giving advice to Christians, right?
"The more secure women are, the more babies they have. The more secure they are, the more babies they want to have. But, the insecurity in America today is the character of men."
WHHHHHAAAAAAAAT?!?! No, really, he said it! Did you watch the video? It's at minute 1:20. Only a Church which has completely given itself to Women Worship can make a statement like that. Is it any wonder so few men want to go to church?
Think I'm over-reacting, ladies? Would you sit at the feet of a pastor who said, "The reason we have [this problem] is because women have bad characters" ?
Continuing...
"Women have had to fight for the right to vote. They've had to fight for the right to equal pay. They've had to fight for everything they've got, and that's wrong. We should have given it to them on a silver platter."
Well, from a man who believes women deserve money and property even after dissolving a marriage, this isn't entirely surprising. But it still makes me almost physically sick. First of all, he assumes that "women's suffrage" has led to inherently good things, and it's only a shame selfish men didn't get out of the way and allow feminism to take root sooner. I'm not convinced.
But, regardless of your own views, Mr. Evans uses political issues affecting all Americans to make some kind of point that individual men are mistreating their wives.
In fact, if men don't cater to women with silver platters, they are deadbeats.
No, seriously, what's with this silver platter talk? Even his live audience is a little hesitant to applaud Mr. Evans on this one. The imagery revealed his bias a little too clearly. Women are beautiful and precious. They are daughters of God. And men are...dropping the ball unless they learn to wait on the Princesses.
But, anyway, Mr. Evans finally gets to his main point: women need to feel secure.
"If you're going to have intimacy in your relationship with your wife, she has to know that she can trust you financially. She has to know that you're going to be a faithful provider and that you're going to be a faithful leader and that you will never ever, ever, ever, ever use any superiority you have over her financially against her to control her*, to threaten her, or one day to abandon her."
On the surface, I agree with this thesis. Women are designed to crave protection and leadership. And there can be no intimacy without trust.
But, ladies, here is something the butt-kissing, silver-platter-carrying Mr. Evans probably doesn't have the [male parts] to say: you are responsible to follow your husband's lead, whether you "feel" secure or not.
Oh, for sure, husbands should love their wives like Christ loves the church--never leaving them or forsaking them, regardless of how bratty they become after years of Entitlement Princess Class (every Sunday!) Buuuuuut, there is a flip-side to that coin.
And I can't figure out why we rarely here about a woman's responsibility, considering 61% of congregations are female and two-thirds of us are doing the abandoning in our relationships. You promised to submit and to respect. There is no way for your husband to "lead" without "taking control," so stop whining about unfairness. Stop demanding he make you feel a certain way first.
At the end of the day, no man can make you feel anything--including security--and you are required to control your selfish, nagging tongue regardless. That means we are dead wrong when we say this:
"Honey, you just need to be a better leader...Oh, I will respect you when you earn it! If you were doing your job right, I would feel safe and happy--not controlled and insecure!"
It sounds disgusting on paper, doesn't it? That's sin for you. Unintentionally, Mr. Evans (and hundreds like him) have given women everywhere ammunition for our ugly sin natures. These words are the rantings of a Princess gone out of control--after far too many women's devotionals talking about how special she is, and very few hard-hitting sermons about where she's failing. It's much easier to keep delivering the same "Man-up" sermon, time after time.
Well, here I challenge my sisters to "woman up," and stop making excuses for the way you override your husband's authority. Stop demanding he make you feel a certain way. Stop demanding he lead--then cutting him off at the knees when he tries. ("You're controlling!") And, for Heaven's sake, can we stop supporting Churchian leaders like Mr. Evans when they put us on pedestals while pinning all relationship problems on our men?
---
Here's another blogger's take on the "feminized church." I highly recommend this article!
First, I'd like to draw attention to the very first few minutes of the video, when Mr. Evans shares an anecdote about a poor, divorced woman who had trouble getting "anything" from her ex-husband.
"[after the divorce] he gave her as little as he could. She had to take him to court to get everything that she got. Now she's over here, and he's over there still making...a significant income. And because their children are grown, she got very little out of the divorce settlement."
Um, is Mr. Evans really implying the man in this story should continue supporting his ex-wife, out of some type of obligation to God? I wonder, is the woman obligated to continue providing her ex-husband with a clean home and sex, or is this lesson in "duty" only for males?
The wife is described as a good wife and a good mother--so, naturally, her ex owes her.
Notice Mr. Evans tells us the couple "went through a divorce." It would make his case stronger if he stated "the wife was abandoned," but he doesn't. He definitely implies the husband is greedy and heartless, but he doesn't specify who left whom.
Perhaps because, statistically, it's likely the woman was the one who filed. In the U.S. 70% of all divorces are initiated by the wife. If she is college educated, the wife walks away 90% of the time.
Yet, Mr. Evans seems to believe men are financially responsible for their exes--even if she did the leaving--because, well, women want security. Give her what she thinks she deserves, men! It's the only manly thing to do!
I certainly hope I have it wrong here. A person with that kind of female-bias wouldn't be giving advice to Christians, right?
"The more secure women are, the more babies they have. The more secure they are, the more babies they want to have. But, the insecurity in America today is the character of men."
WHHHHHAAAAAAAAT?!?! No, really, he said it! Did you watch the video? It's at minute 1:20. Only a Church which has completely given itself to Women Worship can make a statement like that. Is it any wonder so few men want to go to church?
Think I'm over-reacting, ladies? Would you sit at the feet of a pastor who said, "The reason we have [this problem] is because women have bad characters" ?
Continuing...
"Women have had to fight for the right to vote. They've had to fight for the right to equal pay. They've had to fight for everything they've got, and that's wrong. We should have given it to them on a silver platter."
Well, from a man who believes women deserve money and property even after dissolving a marriage, this isn't entirely surprising. But it still makes me almost physically sick. First of all, he assumes that "women's suffrage" has led to inherently good things, and it's only a shame selfish men didn't get out of the way and allow feminism to take root sooner. I'm not convinced.
But, regardless of your own views, Mr. Evans uses political issues affecting all Americans to make some kind of point that individual men are mistreating their wives.
In fact, if men don't cater to women with silver platters, they are deadbeats.
No, seriously, what's with this silver platter talk? Even his live audience is a little hesitant to applaud Mr. Evans on this one. The imagery revealed his bias a little too clearly. Women are beautiful and precious. They are daughters of God. And men are...dropping the ball unless they learn to wait on the Princesses.
But, anyway, Mr. Evans finally gets to his main point: women need to feel secure.
"If you're going to have intimacy in your relationship with your wife, she has to know that she can trust you financially. She has to know that you're going to be a faithful provider and that you're going to be a faithful leader and that you will never ever, ever, ever, ever use any superiority you have over her financially against her to control her*, to threaten her, or one day to abandon her."
On the surface, I agree with this thesis. Women are designed to crave protection and leadership. And there can be no intimacy without trust.
But, ladies, here is something the butt-kissing, silver-platter-carrying Mr. Evans probably doesn't have the [male parts] to say: you are responsible to follow your husband's lead, whether you "feel" secure or not.
Oh, for sure, husbands should love their wives like Christ loves the church--never leaving them or forsaking them, regardless of how bratty they become after years of Entitlement Princess Class (every Sunday!) Buuuuuut, there is a flip-side to that coin.
And I can't figure out why we rarely here about a woman's responsibility, considering 61% of congregations are female and two-thirds of us are doing the abandoning in our relationships. You promised to submit and to respect. There is no way for your husband to "lead" without "taking control," so stop whining about unfairness. Stop demanding he make you feel a certain way first.
At the end of the day, no man can make you feel anything--including security--and you are required to control your selfish, nagging tongue regardless. That means we are dead wrong when we say this:
"Honey, you just need to be a better leader...Oh, I will respect you when you earn it! If you were doing your job right, I would feel safe and happy--not controlled and insecure!"
It sounds disgusting on paper, doesn't it? That's sin for you. Unintentionally, Mr. Evans (and hundreds like him) have given women everywhere ammunition for our ugly sin natures. These words are the rantings of a Princess gone out of control--after far too many women's devotionals talking about how special she is, and very few hard-hitting sermons about where she's failing. It's much easier to keep delivering the same "Man-up" sermon, time after time.
Well, here I challenge my sisters to "woman up," and stop making excuses for the way you override your husband's authority. Stop demanding he make you feel a certain way. Stop demanding he lead--then cutting him off at the knees when he tries. ("You're controlling!") And, for Heaven's sake, can we stop supporting Churchian leaders like Mr. Evans when they put us on pedestals while pinning all relationship problems on our men?
---
Here's another blogger's take on the "feminized church." I highly recommend this article!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)