To my readers at Selfish Into Service.
It has been a little over a year--but now I'm back!
There's more sarcasm, satire, and snide commentary on culturesatwar.wordpress.com.
Also, you can follow me on Twitter: @Mrs_McMommy
Come visit! I'll leave the light on for you.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Sunday, April 14, 2013
The Final Post--Burning the Blog Idol
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)