"What must be noted in conclusion is: (1) That the prohibition of speaking in the church to women is precise, absolute, and all-inclusive. They are to keep silent in the churches — and that means in all the public meetings for worship; they are not even to ask questions…"
Paul on Women Speaking in Church by Benjamin B. Warfield
(Originally Published in The Presbyterian, October 30,1919)
Nearly a century has passed since B.B. Warfield, a professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, penned Paul on Women Speaking in Church. It seems that there continues to be much confusion regarding what women can and cannot do in church. Recently, the Sharper Iron website featured a forum which posed the following question:
Should women be called upon to publically pray in a Sunday morning worship service? link
Before we go any further, please allow this blogger (who majored in English) to correct a couple of grammatical errors in the above question. First, the correct spelling is "publicly", and that word is splitting the infinitive 'to pray'!
So what is Sharper Iron (SI)? According to the website:
SI is a site hosted by people of historic fundamentalist conviction (See "Fundamentalist?!” It may not be what you think).
Our aim is to provide a place where Christians can interact thoughtfully and respectfully on a wide range of topics, including our articles and the news items and blog samples we post daily.
So far the responses to the above question break down into these percentages:
30 % – Yes, women should be allowed to pray aloud during the worship service
53 % – No
17 % – Undecided
As you might imagine, there has been some interesting commentary on SI's website to go along with the responses. Here are three:
I voted "yes." Not sure exactly why this would be a problem for anyone, although I am sure that y'all will let me know if you disagree. If there is concern about a woman "usurping authority," the fact that she is called on, presumably by the pastor/worship leader, indicates that she is acting under the authority of the male leadership of the church.
I voted "no" because I see public prayer as a male activity.
The role of men, as best we know in the New Testament, is clear – men are called to be spiritual leaders. Men are called to be the leaders of their homes. Men are called to be leaders (Elders/Deacons/Pastors) in the church. To allow women to lead the church in corporate prayer, chips away subtly at that teaching.
We would be very interested to know how our readers would respond to this question, so please chime in!
John Piper, who recently retired after a long career as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, addressed a similar question — Why don't women read or pray in Bethlehem's church services? Take a look…
Much to our surprise, there are differing opinions on the matter among those belonging to The Gospel Coalition. Thabiti Anyabwile, a Council Member and blogger for TGC, weighed in about women and prayer in a post entitled: I'm a Complementarian. Here is a key excerpt that makes his position patently clear:
Women and Prayer
I’m a complementarian, but women should pray to God in public. Restrictions in public prayer provides an example, I think, of the protective fences of complementarity being pushed over into our neighbor’s yard. In an effort to rightly protect areas God sovereignly reserves for qualified male leadership, some have began to annex and “protect” anything that looks like “leadership.” In their practice, some have basically reduced the complementarian vision to “never allow a woman to do anything ‘up front’ in the public meeting,” including prayer. In the process, they’ve also reduced “leadership” to up front marquee performance, rather than humble, loving, sacrificial service to all.
But it seems clear to me that women prayed in the public gatherings of the early church. As the disciples waited for the promised gift of the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, they “were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers” (Acts 1:14). Presumably as the Lord added thousands of women to the ranks of the disciples (Acts 2:41), these women were among those devoting themselves to prayer (Acts 2:42). During times requiring fervent intercession, the disciples gathered and prayed together with women–even in the home of a woman (Acts 12:12). The book of Acts generally depicts the female disciples devoting themselves to prayer along with the rest of the church.
In August 2009 the Desiring God website featured John Piper's response to the above question (via audio and transcript). A year and a half later, Anyabwile felt it necessary to address the matter in a blog post. We are grateful that there are those in the Calvinista camp who support women praying publicly during worship.
We absolutely LOVED how Thabiti Anyabwile ended his post:
"May our sisters pray for us–publicly!"
Never let it be said that we failed to compliment a Calvinista…
If you are involved in a congregation (or have been in the past), we would love to know whether women are allowed to pray publicly during the worship service.
Lydia's Corner: Nehemiah 7:73-9:21 1 Corinthians 9:1-18 Psalm 33:12-22 Proverbs 21:11-12
Women can do anything and everything at our church. There are 3 pastors, one is a woman, they share duties equally. All 3 take turns speaking/sermoning. There is nothing either gender cannot do. All are encouraged. There is great productivity. Where someone is gifted or simply interested or ready willing and able, there is always room and encouragement.
I simply cannot fathom curbing productivity, passion and potential (so sorry–the p’s were pure coincidence) on some principle (…blast).
Surely, everyone knows women are only good for watching the nursery, cleaning the church, and cooking fellowship dinners. 🙂
No shock about the Sharper Iron poll. Maybe some day they will enter the 21st century.
I co-pastored a Sovereign Grace Baptist church in Texas almost 20 years ago. Women were not allowed to speak during business meetings, though they were allowed to pray ONLY at the Wednesday night prayer service. We had a young married woman say she desired to be baptized. It was our custom for the person being baptized to give a public testimony before being baptized. Her husband refused to let her do so. This went on for weeks. One day she came into my office crying and she told me that she really wanted to be baptized. I told her to obey her conscience. Boy was her husband mad at me. 🙂 She was baptized the next Sunday.
Deb,
This ties in with your TWW post on head coverings, and raises some questions I have with the whole view of 1 Cor 11.
If women aren’t allowed to pray or prophesy without a head covering, why do they even need head coverings if they aren’t allowed to pray or prophesy at all? Later on in the chapter, Paul speaks of a woman’s HAIR as being the head covering. So why would they even need a head covering if their HAIR is their head covering? I am quite confused on this.
p.s. Hi, Bruce. 🙂
Oh my gosh. This one has me fired up. Restrictions on public prayer? Please!
I can’t believe that this is even up for debate, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. In addition to the points already brought up, I believe the early church in Paul’s day allowed women to be deacons. I imagine they would have a hard time fulfilling that role if they couldn’t say a public prayer. Also, what about Pricilla? She got an honorable mention for her public role as a teacher of the gospel with her husband.
I’ve never been part of a church that put public prayer restrictions on women, and I wouldn’t ever join one that did. In fact, I would run away screaming.
I have this funny scene going through my head of a pastor at the Gates of Heaven, speaking to a bemused Jesus and saying “Oh yeah, Jesus…I totally kept it cool for you back on earth; no woman at our church was allowed to publicly pray in your name on my watch! How dreadful would THAT be, am I right?”
I have to laugh at this, because the only other option is to just get more angry.
I have to limit my time at SI. It’s not good for my health. But it makes for some good Tweeting material 🙂 Dee – a while back, some guy from SI came over to my blog and made up some fake initials arguing with me about why it was wrong for me to have my name listed as a “partner” at Homeschoolers Anonymous blog because so many of those young adults had left their faith. This person with initials was not man enough to identify himself on my blog (yet they require names on SI and I use my real name there).
Sola Scriptura?
And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2:36-38, ESV)
One of the reasons (among many) we left our former church was the new leadership forcing the removal of female deacons.
We would never attend/join the membership of any church that prohibited female participation.
Recently, at a church we were visiting, a male deacon got dizzy during communion service and handed the bread plate to a female to continue in his place. No one had a hissy fit, no one was offended. It was a normal and natural thing to do.
It’s unnatural, not normal, to have half the body of Christ, silent and disengaged.
Couple of things here.
Firstly, and most importantly, the validity of the prohibition on splitting infinitives is disputed. There is good reason for this; exemplified by the famous line from one of Conan Doyle’s stories (I think it was The Naval Treaty) in which Sherlock Holmes describes an adversary throwing a punch “which I failed entirely to avoid”. This is ambiguous – did he entirely fail, and get it full on the jaw, or did he (as the context suggests) merely fail to avoid its full effect? It is very hard to state this succinctly unless we allow the more Star-Trek-friendly “which I failed to entirely avoid”. Arguably, this is not a split infinitive but a “double-barrelled” verb, but that’s only true if “entirely” is not an adverb in this context. Interestingly, this ambiguity can be removed in audible speech with careful inflection.
I’m glad that’s settled. Have some chocolate.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Thabiti Anyabwile is perfectly correct. There are numerous perfectly clear instances in the Bible of women praying publicly. The others are also correct; there are verses in the Bible explicitly banning women from praying publicly. Frankly, ISTM that this shows the absurdity of treating the Biblescriptures as a New Covenant Talmud. Nor is it acceptable to my mind to pick your favourite scribshers, use them to stab the ones you don’t like in the back, and then state some banal variation on “the scribshers clearly teach that…”. We are required, as sons of God and co-heirs with Christ (and his bride, to balance out the apparently-gendered metaphors), to make an adult decision on how we will conduct ourselves that seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us in the context in which we live and work.
Broadly speaking, it might have been the case that in the first century it made sense to silence women in church. Today, when a woman can be Prime Minister, your boss, your boss’s boss, your CEO, the Secretary of State or (in principle at least, and it will happen sooner or later) your President, and can risk her life in a combat role in the armed forces or as a member of the emergency services, it very rarely makes sense.
@ Elastigirl:
Great comment!
I can't help but think of the God-given gifts that have been squandered because Christian women have been prevented from exercising them. It's mind-boggling.
@ Bruce Gerencser:
Thanks for sharing that! I really appreciate your godly counsel to that young woman – "obey your conscience". I hope others will heed your advice.
@ Dis:
I appreciate your musing. No doubt some Christian leaders glory in restricting women in the church.
I guess they wear it as a badge of honor.
Not surprised by Sharper Iron’s poll. I grew up in that network of churches — indy, fundy, Baptist. I taught for 17 years at Bob Jones University. When, as a dept head at BJU, rarely one of my (male) peers would ask me to lead a meeting in prayer, our division chairman was visibly uncomfortable.
Sharper Iron is a useful gathering of that world’s “best” (read: most explicit) arguments in that world. I’ve gotten beaten up there more than once for daring to disagree. Letters were written, the BJU administration told me, to have me fired for stating I do *not* spank my kids. Did you get that? I stated that I did (and do) NOT spank my then 2.5 and 6mo sons, and members there wrote the BJU administration telling me to fire me.
My husband’s term for them: “Pit of vipers.”
@ Julie Anne: Keep up the great work!
TW wrote:
Thanks for sharing those important Bible verses. Anna is one of my heroes of the faith! (or should I say heroines?)
@ Nick Bulbeck: Thanks for the chuckle. I needed it.
Camille Lewis wrote:
That is horrible! We'd love to share your story here at TWW.
Just the other day our Pastor made an announcement would those willing to pray in public please let him know men or women. He did not want to call on someone who was uncomfortable praying in public. The question was comfort not gender. The male only is just desire to control. All religions fundamental sects restrict women. Restrictions of women has to do with males showing their insecurity in their own maleness.
I have a bone to pick with the idea of women being silent in church (including not praying publicly or teaching, gasp!). The issue I have is from this verse:
“Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” (NASB, 1 Cor. 14:34-35)
It’s the phrase: just as the Law also says. Where is this found in the old testament? I have yet to come across it in the law. Now, it is found in the oral law, that dreaded word that we rail on the pharisees about. If Christians are liberated from the law, then why bring up this point, especially from the oral law? To me, why is Paul pointing out a point from the disregarded oral law?
Deb wrote:
Yes, how many talents and insights have been silenced because verses are cherry-picked? I hope my rant made sense…I’m in a mood this morning.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Three things:
(1) The current bishop of the North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church is a woman, She has her BA and her MDiV both from Duke. I say this because of the obvious pro-Duke bias of certain people we all know on this blog.
(2) For those of you who may have some incorrect ideas about the Bible Belt of the American south, we are a heterogeneous group in religious ideas as well as in other ways. It is up to you to modify your ideas about us if you need to.
(3) The people who struggle with women praying and prophesying (think Phillip’s daughters) may really be doing the best they can to make whatever adjustments they need to make in the process of growing up and being tough with oneself in some areas left over from childhood. I understand that. I struggle with being nice to people who majored in English in college. I know that some of them really are believers, and on an intellectual level I know that Himself loves them too (stay with me here, this is supposed to be about 90% funny). but when I think of some of the pain and fear inflicted on me from just freshman English in college, I find forgiveness hard. Really, some of them may be good Christians, but would you want your daughter to marry one of them? See how they take swipes at each other. I was abused by them in college. There was one professor who made it plain that I would not pass the course (required course for crying out loud) if I could not tell her what the author was really saying since she knew that he was not saying what he actually said. Of course, I was equally a sinner because I shot my mouth of that he was not worth reading, therefore, if he could not express himself well. But what did I know. I majored in biology with an area of concentration in chemistry and physics and a little philosophy to keep my GPA up. (That’s a little in your face defensiveness right there to show that you do not scare me–which, of course, you do.)
So, the pastor of my church is a young married woman with two young children. God bless her. She went to Duke. I did not. God bless her anyhow.
Deb wrote:
Love to! Here’s the specific part of that story from my blog from 2008:
http://www.drslewis.org/camille/2008/02/28/ebenezer-vista-the-big-outing/
Lola wrote:
Lola, I did a ton of research on this years ago and there is a very plausible explanation considering the entirety of Corinthians.
First we know they are not “silent” (which in the Greek means more as in no sound at all) because we know they prophesy in Chapter 11. So it has to be something else.
yes, you hit on it when you mention the oral law. Such wording as we see in that verse is found there in several places.
We also know that Paul is answering questions put to him in 1 Corinthians. In some cases, the translators put quotes around the questions which Paul then answers.
There is a good indicator that is what is happening in chp 14 because of how Paul responds. Ironically, the KJ is one of the better translations of this passage:
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Paul responds with “what”!? The word of God came out from YOU or ONLY to you?
In verse 37, the word translated as “man” is “tis” which means ANYONE.
So why would Paul respond that like if he was writing a rule for women? And why would he write this rule for women he would be contradicting himself in chapter 11 where he mentions them prophesying in terms of whether to cover their heads or not?
the word “silent” in this passage would mean you could not even sing in church. And yes, any sound from women was verboten in the oral law. It is not verboten in God’s OT law at all.
I cannot believe SI actually had a poll on this. The only thing it tells me is how biblically ignorant they really are. And I include Piper and all his minions in that, too.
One cannot even make a case for women not praying or reading scripture in a group of mixed believers based upon the OT much less the NT.
Bruce Gerencser wrote:
I am sure the Bible says that somewhere. right? That one made me laugh which is good because usually i get rant when I see other such SGM nonsense.
How are you doing? Are you still preaching? Are you still a believer? Wouldn’t blame you if you weren’t after being mixed up with that crowd.
@ Anon 1:
Yes! You said it so much better than I did! It gets my goat when verses are randomly picked to support a position, but are taken out of context and there’s no critical thinking about it!
Steve Scott wrote:
It needs to be below shoulder length with bangs, preferably curled, like Michelle Duggar and free of all hair products. Then it is holy and they do not need to wear them 🙂
Bruce Gerencser wrote:
My husband and I still laugh about a moment at the local IFB church. The church was having a picnic after service. A man we refer to as “Burl Ives” invited us to stay for it, but mentioned that we will see the ladies leave at the end of service to get it all ready! This was about 6 months ago and we’re still laughing!
Julie Anne wrote:
Didn’t you know that Christians should never, ever work with unbelievers. The faith is only for the ones who are already there. So, be quiet and grow your hair like Michelle Duggar and get on a head covering. Your salvation is riding on this, Julie.
@ TW:
You are so awesome in the way you find these Bible verses.
@ Lola: LOL!
Sometimes my husband and I fight over who's gonna clean the dishes, and usually i submit to his leadership. 🙂 No, I'm not kidding… I am a blessed wife!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You always make me laugh!
Deb wrote:
It's easier to be boss when you shut up 60% of the attendees.
Camille Lewis wrote:
You are one incredible person to stand up under that nonsense. Are you still there? Do they believe in spanking wayward department heads?
Shary Hauber wrote:
Give your pastor a hug from TWW.
Lola wrote:
Why do I get the feeling that the Almighty might make up for things in heaven?
dee wrote:
It's amazing she's still vertical and moving forward. My respect, Camille!
Rachel Held Evans posted a “Submit One To Another” series recently. The two articles below were enlightening for me, mostly by giving me reasons for beliefs I already held. It’s probably my exposure to SI-style fundies that made me this way, but if a teaching fails the sniff test by being oppressive or not showing basic human decency, I’ll reject it post haste and reason my way back to logic later. So, these articles resonated with me on patriarchy in general, not specifically public prayers by women:
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/four-interpretive-pitfalls-around-the-new-testament-household-codes
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/aristotle-vs-jesus-what-makes-the-new-testament-household-codes-different
She also had a guest post on the eternal subordination of the son, but our hosts have already covered ESS numerous times.
I thank God every time a dear woman prays publically in the church I pastor. Most of the men in my church won’t even do it.
@ Lola:
Lola, All I can say is I got so sick and tired of this one being trotted out that I spent quite a bit of time on it. In effect, the interpretations used with this makes Paul out to be either totally confused or one big contradiction. It is quite insulting to Paul when you think about it. :o)
Steve Scott wrote:
Hee Hee. So is John McArthur when he teaches on that passage. He says men are not to grow their hair long. Seems strange when we know that Paul took a Nazarite vow which means he was to grow his hair long for it. He does give women a pass to use their hair as a “covering” though. Isn’t that nice? (Amazing to me how they leave out historical context in these passages. That was a big deal in the 1st Century)
The other part of that passage so many conveniently ignore is when Paul says, “because of the angels”. (Never mind there is no “symbol” of authority in that passage in the Greek. Just “authority” over their own heads)
If we go back to chapter 6, we learn that ALL of us believers will judge the angels. Women, too. Paul is referring back to chapter 6 and telling the “questioners” to get a grip on reality as we are all interdependent in the Lord. (Women came from man but now man comes from woman)
dee wrote:
Well, they gotta have somebody to lord it over.
Anon 1 wrote:
Thanks for the laugh. 😀
Some fundies add contradiction upon contradiction by teaching that men should not grow facial hair. John MacArthur is probably smart enough not to teach this, but I’ve heard it from other more extreme sources. Sadly, at the early age of 26, my potential for long hair is already over. But I still maintain some stubble as a convenient anti-fundy cultural boundary marker. Yes, I should probably repent. :-\
Josh wrote:
Be careful, you might be identified as a YRR. :o)
What kills me is that if you listen to these guys long enough and make sure you are doing your own studies, you pick up on the contradictions all the time. One could do it full time with Piper. The reason people do not pick up on them is they are only listening to that tribe and they have been taught to “respect” their teachings.
Where I come from we were drilled to be Bereans and NOT believe everything we were taught but to test everything. I really believe that is the better way.
Deb wrote:
You’re welcome! Have some chocolate.
dee wrote:
What? I was being serious.
Have some chocolate.
Nancy wrote:
Er – have some chocolate?
So that you’re all up to speed here, I’ve just had some chocolate.
Anon 1 wrote:
This will probably land in moderation, but I’ll always remember a quote from Varsity (the Cambridge University newspaper) back in 1987:
You have to laugh.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
But, Nick, the enforcers of no female prayer would just say that your last paragraph is full of all the things that women have no business doing . . . they must even give directions to a man submissively 🙄
Of course God created us and we stood before him naked and unashamed. I can only believe that he also has no problem hearing us women pray to him in front of whoever, wherever!!
Josh wrote:
Josh – as you can tell if you look closely at my avatar fotie, you and I are barking up very much the same hymnsheet when it comes to follical adventures.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1, is “tis” used often in the Bible? And why do no modern translations write “human” for that word if they are so concerned about accuracy?
When I was about 12 years old, my youth group was asked to conduct the entire church service, everything but the actual sermon. We had it all figured out except for the question of who was brave enough to do the two prayers. It was then that I learned that people are actually afraid of public speaking – I never have been so I was chosen to do both. We would have been in trouble had praying been limited to the guys in the youth group. My brother would have turned it into a comedy routine and the other guys would have wet their pants. 🙂 I don’t understand why some people crave so many rules instead of letting the Holy Spirit lead them. I guess freedom is a scary concept.
@ Steve Scott:
My study suggests that Paul was in one of his “y’all are taking things to a ridiculous extreme, and if you’re gonna do that, then do this as well” periods. How in the world is this whole issue relevant in the Pauline epistles when circumcision, ordered by God in the OT, not. Paul is doing something other than giving a universal for all time ordinance, and I believe it was tongue in cheek.
Patrice wrote:
Why not just translate it as “anyone”? “Tis” is also used in 1 Tim 3 instead of “man” and some translations do use anyone or whoever. But here is how King James V translated it:
This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work.
The reason it is not a problem here for the magisterium is because this passage has always been interpreted as only for men and people bought into it. But it says “Anyone” who desires….” Still it is taught as only meaning men….even when the context of the passage used to teach it that way would mean that neither Paul or even Jesus would qualify as an elder. :o)
The contradictions are always astounding if you stick around long enough to see them clearly.
The bottom line for me is this: There is NO prohibition to women leading or even teaching men in the OT which was a patriarchal society (sinfully so). So why would I believe there is not only a NEW but even more strict law concerning women operating in the Body of Christ in the New Covenant?
So we have to surmise there is a problem with translations/interpretations. And that some folks are going to be in big trouble one day for spending so much energy trying to silence their sisters. (wink)
@ Arce:
Arce, I agree! When read with that literal wooden determinist lens, people are not seeing Paul in his sarcasm, playing on words (saved in childbearing) and even his cruel snark streak to make points. (I wish they would emasculate themselves)
This is what happens when we read “letters” like “how to” manuals and forget the historical context.
@ Anon 1:
Apparently Paul was dead serious (and had a personality change) when the discussions in his letters included the word “w” word!
@ Anon 1:
Yes, Paul, in regard to the Judeaizers: “Not just the foreskin, cut it all off!”
Anon 1 wrote:
“Anyone” sounds good to me. (But it might allow cows to become leaders someday, because slippery slope to bestiality pffft)
Obviously we need a translation done by women Bible scholars. Aren’t there enough of them by now? I’ll bring the coffee.
@ Patrice:
Just don’t try to get it published at Crossway . . . and be ready for the call to arms that might arise . . .
I’m thinking that a translation by women is surely on the no no list. Can you imagine JP reading from such a book in public??
@ Patrice:
The closest thing we have is Bushnell’s God’s Word to Women which focuses on ALL the passages used against women. She was quite the scholar, btw. I strongly recommend buying the book so you can mark it up. It is well worth it. You will be amazed at the lengths she went to research, learn Hebrew, Greek and have her lessons critiqued by scholars of her day all over the world…by snail mail. All the while, a doctor and missionary to China. I praise God for those who put her book back into print.
Here is the book
http://godswordtowomen.org/about_bushnell_book.htm
this blogger has put some of the lessons from the book online:
http://godswordtowomen.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/gods-word-to-women-by-katharine-bushnell/
The lessons are listed down the right side of the page. I cannot tell you how much scripture came alive after reading this. Even obscure passages in Isaiah that have been used against women are detailed by her. She was a treasure to the Body but as a woman had very little influence in the 1940’s.
Enjoy!
@ Bridget:
hee hee. Evidently…….sigh.
Patrice wrote:
Well Patrice, there might be something to cows as leaders in the creation food chain. After all, cows were formed before Eve…….
(snark alert)
@ Bridget:
Didn’t one of those guys think it ok to read a book by a woman biblical scholar? So if they’re just reading it, why not? JP will still be able to use his superior man-vessel publicly.
And anyway, women wouldn’t be “leading” anything. They’d just be good secretaries, typing/transcribing a very old text without grammatical/spelling/translation errors.
In fact, it’s the proper job of females. All those male translators have been sullying themselves in a mistaken desire to “serve” the Lord. Shame on them. They need to repent.
😆
@ Anon 1:
Thanks! It might help me to finally remove those ghosts that I have to keep batting away whenever I open the Bible.
@ Patrice:
Patrice, her scholarship will blow your mind. Keep in mind she is not some agony aunt type. She is very bold, resolute in her search for truth and I suspect I would have been intimidated by her! Muff has read her and knows what I am talking about. :o)
@ Anon 1:
I generally expect people who go forward in ways so definitely outside cultural norms to be a tad bullish. How else could they be, really? But I’ll keep it in mind.
Thanks again!
Okay stick with this post. There is a point at the end.
The first church I was ever a part of after I became a Christian was AMAZING when it came to prayer. We had corporate prayer meetings every Monday. Anyone could show up, and anyone could pray out loud if they wanted. Generally, there was a theme for the night to start off with, and at the end, individual people could request specific prayers.
What started out as a simple, small monthly meeting of around 10 people grew into a weekly gathering of over 700, all praying together. Other people from other churches would come too. It was pretty awesome. Some modifications had to be made to accommodate the amount of people. The church set up a system during the Sunday service where people could write down anonymous prayer requests. They would then print out each request on a card and pass them out to every individual who came in to pray on Monday, and there would be a moment where it was called to individually pray over those requests. There was also always a set time where people who wanted prayer were asked to stand up, and little groups would form around them to just pray about whatever they needed. A prayer team was formed, consisting of both men and women, that would lead the public parts of the prayer at the pulpit, and then stand in the back at the end of the service so people could be prayed with one on one. Anyone could volunteer to be a part of the prayer team. “Open mic” type nights would happen where anyone could come up and pray for whatever the Holy Spirit put on them. Public prayer wasn’t restricted just to Mondays. Anytime there was a service, the prayer team had volunteers front and center. It also wasn’t uncommon for one of the pastors to come up to random members (male and female) out of the blue and say “Hey this is *insert name here* who is visiting our church. You mind praying for them?” before and after the service.
I am not a charismatic, and neither was this church. In fact, I probably struggle with being skeptical to an unhealthy degree. This church had a practical mindset. The pastor one time even gave a sermon once on why it he thought the earth was indeed billions of years old, and then why it didn’t matter if it actually was or wasn’t.
But let me tell ya…during my 5 years at that church, I saw some SERIOUS prayers answered, defying all imaginable odds. You could also tell beyond a doubt when the Holy Spirit was guiding the words of whoever was leading whatever prayer at the time, and the Spirit certainly did not discriminate between male and female prayees when they were leading the congregation. Same thing with our worship team. Worship music was seen as an extension of prayer. There were two paid worship leaders on staff. One was male, the other female.
My point with this long description is this: I saw great things during my time at that church, based on the power of prayer alone. Talk about the Holy Spirit having a presence when you and 700+ people are all in a room and praying for the same thing! Talk about serving others and being served! I can’t imagine churches that restrict half their membership from taking part in such an amazing thing see much fruit. It’s my opinion that you are hobbling the Body of Christ by telling women “you can’t pray out loud here.” There is no foundation for it, unless you want to cherry pick a couple of verses and ignore the vast, overwhelming scriptural content that flies in the face of that. How amazingly oppressive and counter-productive to a core part of Christianity. Saying “no” to women and public praying is essentially saying “God does not listen or speak to you…go away.”
It saddens me, I mean REALLY saddens me, to think that this happens and that it occurs on a large, mainstream scale still. Let the Spirit lead where it will. Stop trying to restrict its movement, for cryin’ out loud.
Dis wrote:
Dis – you have my motto in a nutshell.
Anon 1 wrote:
I can 🙂 Just go spend a little time reading. I pick my battles there. I do have to say, however, that the first time I spoke out publicly there against SGM/Mahaney, I was not treated well. I’ve stayed and fought that battle each time it comes up. Now, many articles later, providing many links and proofs to back up my comments, my words are generally respected with regard to SGM. That was a turning of the tide and frankly, I was surprised to get that positive response now. Other stuff, not so much. Oh well.
In honor of International Talk Like a Pirate Day, I would like to leave my Pirate talk comment:
The pirate speaks,”I do not see anywhere in t’ Bible where it says beauties cannot pray. Why t’ guys at Sharper Iron want t’ focus on this ridiculous subject be beyond me. ”
(Change your comments to pirate lingo here: http://www.talklikeapirate.com/translator.html)
sorry, Dee/Deb – I couldn’t resist.
Julie Ann, Is Sharper Iron mainly Independent Fundamentalist Baptist types? Like Hyles, Bob Jones, etc?
@ Anon 1:
Before Adam as well 🙂
I’ve never understood why the women praying publicly thing is even an issue. If Paul had wanted to ban women praying publicly, the entire discussion in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 would never have happened. Done. End of story. Any and all attempts I’ve ever read to deny the obvious meaning of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 are, to use internet terminology, “fail whales.” You can maybe argue about headcoverings but it’s a huge duh that women can pray in public. The better question is what to do about 1 Cor. 14:34-38.
The best attempt to subvert 1 Cor. 11 I ever read was in a Ryrie study Bible where Ryrie claimed that Paul’s “tone” in the passage showed that he really didn’t want women to pray publicly after all. I mean really, just think of the state we’d be in without Charles Ryrie to inform us that Paul was actually passive-aggressive and a horrible communicator.
@ Dis:
… but on a less frivolous note, the church you describe is a fantastic examplar of an assembled group of believers, to my mind. Everyone contributes (to the degree that it is at all possible given the numbers present); everyone learns over time to recognise the voice of the Holy Spirit, who (obviously) is known by his fruit, so everyone can see that it is indeed Him.
The point being that nobody can stand up in such a gathering and say “God is saying to me…” when God isn’t saying to him, nor vice versa, because everybody present knows the Holy Spirit. So the question of how the elite few can assert rule over everyone else on God’s behalf never needs to arise.
It’s a great tragedy that so few Christians (with or without the “charismatic” label) never get the chance to be immersed in this environment; and therefore are able to be convinced that the big bad devil will get them and deceive them if they aren’t rigidly controlled by an educated teacher at the front.
Anon 1 wrote:
They seem to be. I haven’t really investigated who they are, but they fit that stereotypical image. I originally found it when following hits from my site. SI shared an article by Fred Butler who was trash talking me and my “survivor blog.” He was also giving misinformation about my case which I promptly corrected 🙂
@ Patrice:
Superior man-vessel (yes indeed)! That’s why God chose to present himself to the world through the womb of a woman. That, alone, pretty much levels the gender debate for me 😉 . . . it’s pretty out there to think that Mary (or any woman) shouldn’t pray publicly during worship.
Roman Catholic group Fix the Family says
Don’t send your daughters to college, raise them to be wives and mothers only
@ Steve Scott:
Yeah, I was a bit surprised not to see 1 Corinthians mentioned in the above arguments. Paul’s so adamant on the issue of head covering, I guess a lot of people missed the obvious implication that women praying in public (but with their heads properly covered, of course) must have been perfectly fine to him, or he wouldn’t have been writing about the head coverings so much….
Daisy wrote:
Perhaps they have not gotten the memo that this is no longer economically feasible for most of the population.
Since there is/are no “male or female” in Christ…case closed.
Deb wrote:
Christians in some churches or denominations seem to think that the only gifts God has given women are
-baking muffins
-making babies
-babysitting babies
-cleaning dishes
I don’t see those “gifts” mentioned in the Bible, but I do see gifts of
healing, faith, teaching, prophecy, distinguishing between spirits, etc (1 Corinthians 12).
The writer addresses this passage to “brothers and sisters” not just “brothers,” and it says
But it’s just easier to pretend those types of verses don’t exist, to ignore them, and to ignore ones like God putting women in power (such as Deborah, who was a judge of Israel), and just laser focus on the two or three “I permit not a woman to teach,” type verses (which was in one letter to one particular church 2,000 years ago, addressing a problem that was unique to their specific church).
Anon 1 wrote:
The guy addressed that issue, but still maintains that one should not pursue a college education or career if female. At one point he states,
@ Daisy:
Oh dear. He really needs a reality check. I know a few women who were VERY careful and still married an abuser. Guess it does not occur to folks they are on their best behavior until the deal is sealed.
I think there is another angle going on with some of these folks. Now that our economic pie and tax base is shrinking, I am hearing grumbling from seminary quarters that women are getting higher paying jobs that men should have to support their families. And that is because they are educated and capable.
This stuff is so hurtful and just plain beyond ridiculous.
Yet another reason I’m glad that I’ve reverted to ELCA Lutheranism. Of course, the Methodists have *always* (historically) had women preachers and public pray-ers, and thank God for that! (I think John Wesley was very much ahead of his time, in many ways.)
@ numo:
That was because of his rather intelligent and educated mother.
@ Alice: For a closed case, the discussion is rather heated. The gender role folks believe that we are all positionally equal before God but have different positions in life. Separate but equal is the new manta. Caused lots of trouble for race relations and it will continue to cause trouble with gender relations.
RE female bible translators: (Sorry for all the links, shorter that way)
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/library/exhibits/incomparable-treasure/julia-smith
http://newlife.id.au/female-bible-translators/
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2009/02/women-bible-translators-index.html
@ Anon 1:
Here is the link to the Roman Catholic Fix the Family “women should not attend college and only be wives and mothers” post itself:
6 Reasons (+2) to NOT Send Your Daughter to College
It’s too late for me, I already got a college degree.
@ Daisy:
Yeah, that college article has been going around my FB for about a week now. Thankfully the only two people on my friends list who picked it up, posted it as an example of how backwards some people can be.
Did you catch that the author quoted a (most likely, the person’s first name was Kim) female OBGYN to prove one of his points about why women shouldn’t go to college?
FWIW, this Calvinist has no problem with women publicly praying (or reading Scripture) during a Sunday morning worship service. Not during a Saturday morning worship service, though, which is when we met at the congregation I attended for 22 years.
No, but, in all seriousness, women did both, among many other things, at that place.
And, Deb, I thank you for correcting one of my pet misspelling peeves, “publically.” I would of done the same.
JeffB wrote:
“I would HAVE done the same.” would be preferable.
Arce wrote:
I think most conservative evangelicals underestimate the use of sarcasm and subtle humor by the biblical authors.
Daisy wrote:
… then you’d better make sure he was born without sin, laid his life down as a ransom for many, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and lives for ever and ever to intercede on your behalf.
Oh… wait…
Daisy wrote:
Never heard of that group before, but I keep thinking of “Focus on Fixing the Family”…
Oh great. That’s what it is. “Focus on the Family” with Rosaries….
@ Hester:
I didn’t see that. I admit to only skimming his page, because reading it word for word carefully would cause me to put my fist through my wall in anger.
If I read correctly from what I did skim, though, I think one argument he made is that going not college makes a woman sexually active?
I went to college, even lived on campus in dorms, for about two years, and am still a virgin over age 40.
The problem is not going to college, it is, does the young man and woman decide to abstain from sex, no matter where they go or live?
I don’t see how attending college = becoming sexually active.
Some youths might, if college is the first time they’re away from Mom and Dad for the first time and going crazy with freedom and have not decided to abstain, but they can also do that if they stay at home.
Steve Scott wrote:
No skubalon, Sherlock.
I remember first reading Jesus’ recorded statement “But anyone else comes in his own name, and you accept him” as Jesus getting snarky about all the flocking to Messiah-of-the-Week jokers. Like “This joker comes out of nowhere, says ‘I’m the Messiah’, and you go all groupie over him. I come out, show the credentials, and what do I get? ‘Who da hell is this jerk-o?'”
Then I was told the Correct interpretation of this passage: An End Time Prophecy of the Coming Antichrist. (This was during the heyday of Hal Lindsay.)
Now, some 40 years later, I come back to my original first impression — that Jesus was getting snarky. Because I get snarky like that under similar circumstances.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I like how the guy’s reply was rather circular in reasoning or totally side stepped the issue.
The question was, ‘What if the husband dies, or leaves the wife, would she not need an education to get a career to support herself?,’
He was basically like,
“No, she still needs a husband, but one who won’t die or ever leave her!”
❓ 😕 ❗ The guy is not really answering the question. Is he living in La La Land, where no man ever leaves his wife, becomes disabled, or dies?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Well put Nick and I heartily agree. There’s hope for Protestantism yet. Hopefully it will finally catch up with the Enlightenment and move into the 21st century.
Daisy wrote:
Only if you’re a grey Pegasus with blonde mane and eyes looking in two directions at once (DERP!)
What is it with Woman = Making Babies? That’s thet pointy-haired boss in Dilbert! Or male-supremacist cultures where men were human and women were breeding stock. (Many of which cultures had quite a tropism towards male homosexuality — under those attitudes, the only way to have sex with another PERSON.)
How is dishwashing “women’s work”?
I’m male and I clean dishes all the time.
Daisy wrote:
That explains the “JEESUS is My Real Boyfriend/Husband” attitude I got at all those Christian dating services….
Bridget wrote:
Maybe that’s why so many Prots are so down on Mary?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Haha thanks for slogging through my rant! I’m glad you hit the nail on the head with my point, as muddled as it might have been.
Yeah, I toally agree that an experience like that really teaches a person to listen to the Spirit. As a new Christian, I had NO idea how to pray. I didn’t know what “listening to the Spirit” and other Christaneese sayings meant. It was fairly confusing.
Needless to say, the first time I took part in a corporate prayer session, any confusion was knocked right out of me. I was able to identify Him, and there was no sorta ambiguity about it. Having it happen in a big way just solidified my new faith. It also helped that everyone was on the same page, and “leadership” wasn’t a position given to anyone. God was 100% in control. Having that guided sort of experience made prayer and the Holy Spirit make so much more sense to me. It also made it easier to listen for Him during my own private prayer and study time, because the concept wasn’t so foreign to me anymore.
It was a pretty deliberate thing that the prayer service was structured to be pretty much lead by congregation members instead of the pastors. I’m really thankful for that. I think that manipulating the idea of prayer only being allowed to be lead by a select group (men only, pastors only, parents only, etc etc) just creates a situation where spiritual abuse is more likely to occur. It becomes about power and control then, and not about God.
@ Dis:
yeah, God doesn’t need to be managed.
Perhaps it’s like water in a pool & swimming. The water just is. You get in it, relax, and not fear it or fight it but learn to work with it.
there’s a better analogy, i’m sure.
@ TW:
Good catch TW. Scripture only? Indeed when it suits them. Let’s not forget Hulda. She’s one of the enigmatic women mentioned in Scripture who always puts a monkey wrench into the works of ideologues who insist upon cast-in-concrete-gender-roles as sovereignly ordained by the Almighty.
Dr. Wayne Grudem has written a rather lengthy tome: Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. In it he attempts to deconstruct any and all perceived ‘authority’ in the great women of the Bible. He attempts it with circular reasoning, false dichotomy, and special pleading. The fearful, those who refuse to think for themselves, and the cowed are easy prey.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
LOL……
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HUG, Focus on the Family (not to be confused with the Catholic “Fix the Family”) is having financial problems. They have had to fire staff.
In the meantime, they are begging for donations, up to five million dollars, to make and distribute a movie telling Americans how important the family is.
Clearly, the “family of Christ” (body of believers) takes a back seat to the “nuclear family” with those guys.
Two Colorado Springs ministries [one is Focus on the Family] laying off a total of 60 employees
HUG said,
And I bet you are awesome at it. 😆
HUG said,
I don’t know. At my age, should I get married soon, I think I can’t have one any more anyway.
I’ve been okay with the idea of having one of mine own but have always felt totally uncomfortable around other people’s babies and kids, even when I was a kid myself.
I do not know why a lot of Christians limit women only to baby making and being wives. It really excludes those of us who did not accomplish either criteria.
HUG said, <blockquoteThat explains the “JEESUS is My Real Boyfriend/Husband” attitude I got at all those Christian dating services…. That makes me want to hurl, too.
I used to see adult women (some were teens and college aged, but plenty of age 30 and up) talk away on a singles Christian forum I used to visit, and some of them did describe their ideal mate, and it sounded a lot like Jesus Himself, or a mix of Jesus plus Moses plus Edward Cullen.
I am not interested in a guy like that, myself. Did I want a Christian guy? Yes. Did I want one who had good morals? Yep.
But did I just want a guy to discuss Bible verses non stop, or do nothing but take me on trips to give rice to orphans in a third world nation? No.
I’ve been around Christians like that in a platonic friendship sense, and they weird me out, and I cannot relate to them. I could not imagine dating one.
Muff Potter wrote:
Is that re the Split Infinitive Controversy, or the stuff about the bible?
Anon 1 wrote:
Indeed I have. She can think rings around Grudem, Piper, Packer, MacArthur,…well you get the picture. She reminds me too of Hypatia of Alexandria. Had she not been murdered by a mob of zealots who felt it was wrong for women to teach men, she might have gone on to predate Kepler’s work on the elliptical paths of the planets.
I will never understand why people hate women so much.
@ dainca:
Thanks, Dainca, I will enjoy reading those links.
JeffB wrote:
Both the Reformed Church of America (RCA) and The Christian Reformed Church (CRC) have women pastors. The RCA is the denom that Kevin de Young is pastor in and he makes trouble for them.
Anon 1 wrote:
I sent away for God’s Word to Women back in the 1970’s when a gentleman by the name of Ray Munson in upstate N.Y. and some friends financed the reprinting of Bushnell’s book. It cost $5.00 at the time. The first printing, I think, was 1923 and has been since reprinted several times.
I still refer to this book quite often though it’s almost falling apart. Excellent study!
JustSomeGuy wrote:
Although I don’t agree with everything Greg Boyd writes, I do lean toward his take on spiritual warfare. It’s the devil who pulls the strings and animates the hatred of women because the Almighty promised that a deliverer would come through her seed (genome) and destroy both him and his works.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Both accounts Nick. Although I must plead ignorance on the split infinitive. Thanks go to both you and Deb for pointing it out!
@ JustSomeGuy:
“I will never understand why people hate women so much.”
++++++++++++++++++
insecurity and fear
@ HUG:
More like Vision Forum with rosaries from what I read.
@ NIck & Muff:
I know some people who would consider dissent on both topics to be heresy. 😉
JustSomeGuy wrote:
It’s pathological. When pathology becomes theology there is something truly rotten in the state of Denmark.
@ elastigirl: Not to mention wanting a convenient scapegoat…
@ Hester: Well, yes, since they sound awfully QF, what with the stay-at-home-daughters thing…
No. Women should not be allowed to pray at all. Women must go through their husbands to get to God. The husband is the priest in the home. A woman cannot have a relationship with God apart from her husband. He is to be her priest. He is to go to God on her behalf. Anything she needs, she just needs to ask her dh for.
Praying in church then obviously is very wrong.
…sorry, I was feeling rather snarky tonight. I haven’t read any of the comments on the thread yet, so I hope I’m not copying someone else’s snark here. I’ll read all the comments tomorrow.
I’ve just heard this so many times it makes me want to scream and shake someone. It might be a sore spot.
I’m going to bed now.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I’m male, and dishwashing is a machine’s work (I just find it boring and distasteful, and I suspect I’d hold that opinion regardless of my sex, gender, gender expression, or orientation). 😀
kindakrunchy wrote:
I snarkily change 3 words in a quote from Fix the Family:
“Catholic OB-GYN Dr. Kim Hardey notes that a woman is naturally very observant of God’s faults as long as she is in a platonic relationship with him. Once she becomes prayerfully active with him, she releases hormones that mask his faults, and she remains in a dreamy state about him.”
JustSomeGuy wrote:
Maybe those guys want to be with a man, but can’t bring themselves to admit it. 😉
Sorry, I’ll stop now. 😮
Women sing, pray, take up the offering, pass out communion, give testimonies, lead in worship etc.
But we believe the public teaching time in the service is for the pastor and other elders, whom we believe are to be men.
I have been saying for a long time what Thabiti says in his post.
By the way, your partner might be upset at your criticizing split infinitives – “To boldly go where no man has gone before.”
I prefer to exercise charity and tolerance with my Christian brothers and sisters, even those with whom I disagree, but some fundamentalists (Piper, Challies, etc.) have taught publicly that women should not read Scripture in church or pray in church. Friends, this is a Satanic doctrine. It is making up new laws and adding to the word of God. The Bible is chock-full of women praying and ministering in public and in church, and refusing these gifts of worship to some of Christ’s children on the basis of genitalia is frankly working against God. I believe we do a disservice to the body if we are silent about these false teachers.
This discussion reminded me of Ann B. Ross’s wonderful title character:
“I tried my best to tune him out, tired of church politics that pitted one group of men against another group of men over women’s role in the church. I already knew Pastor Ledbetter’s position. He held that women’s duties consisted of covering their heads, their mouths, and their casserole dishes, and I’d done all three about as long as I wanted to.”
from “Miss Julia Speaks Her Mind”
This absolutely boggles my mind… I just… can’t…
I became a Christian in my early 20’s (currently in my late 20’s) and reading stuff like this makes me wonder what I got myself in to. Good grief.
@ Steve Scott:
You stalking me 🙂
dee wrote:
I left that mess years before I left the ministry. I am no longer a believer. I still have a desire to help people who gave been hurt and abused by Fundamentalism. Not out to make atheist converts. If people can find a gentler, kinder form of Christianity I am happy for them.
I was a reluctant traditionalist until I read top New Testament scholar N.T. Wright’s explanation of Galatians 3:28, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy 2.
Here’s his reasoning on why women can be pastors.
http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
@ Arce:
“JeffB wrote:
I would of done the same.
“I would HAVE done the same.” would be preferable.”
I know. I wrote it that way because it’s another example of today’s illiteracy.
@ numo:
what a sad state of affairs. makes me love the men who champion women. I wonder if they realize how much it means to (us).
@ Lola:
“just as the Law also says. Where is this found in the old testament? I have yet to come across it in the law. Now, it is found in the oral law, that dreaded word that we rail on the pharisees about. If Christians are liberated from the law, then why bring up this point, especially from the oral law? To me, why is Paul pointing out a point from the disregarded oral law?”
You got it Lola! It doesn’t fit – if the rest of the letter either. Here is what Gord Fee has to say about it:
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1156/is-1-corinthians-1433-35-an-interpolation
or
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/interpretations-applications-1-cor-14_34-35/
(scroll down to interpolation on this post – its long)
The primary arguments by those who are convinced that Paul did not write 1 Cor 14.34-35 are:
– It does not fit with the surrounding context.
– It contradicts Paul’s teaching about women elsewhere.
– It has Paul referring to “the law” as a basis for Christian behavior. (what law?)
– The Western text places those verses after vs. 40 others omit it, one indicates it is problematic in a margin note, all these combined indicate that they are a later addition to the text. (no other verse in the NT has this problem, so it was likely a marginal note that got inserted into the text by a scribe)
So, yes, it doesn’t fit because early scribes wrote notes in the margins. In this case, a marginal note slipped into the text, but it wasn’t there originally.
@ elastigirl: Yes, it is a very sad state of affairs, and I feel much as you do on this whole topic.
One of the places women get bashed a lot (no surprise here): xtian blogs.
Janey wrote:
N.T. Wright is a brilliant theologian. I am currently reading his book “The Resurrection of the Son of God” and, as Charles Joseph Mahaney is fond of saying, it is serving me well. 🙂
After I finish Wright’s book I hope to read another weighty work by the Gospel Coalition’s point-man Kevin DeYoung called “Crazy Busy.” 🙂 Just kidding.
http://thouarttheman.org/2013/09/09/crazy-vacuous/
TW wrote:
Oh, yeah. Me too. Now I am reading Justification. In it he is defending/elucidating/explaining his understanding of “justification” and “righteousness” against his opponents, especially and specifically Piper. If Wright is right about God, then God himself can in fact be held in awe, loved, believed, trusted and His purposes are magnificent beyond comprehension. If Piper is right about God–not so much.
Some of you need to read this. Once Wright takes you through the radical inclusivity of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant you will never again take very seriously the folks who want to get into a tis-to0/tis-not about women or anything else. Once he shows you the God whose purposes do not change and will prevail you will never again be happy with the preaching of a god who can’t make plan A work so has to go to plan B and C and on. Once you get a glimpse of a bigger God then the puny preachers of a puny god will not seem nearly so threatening.
Sorry about this, I am not a preacher. I am just al little old lady (sort of.)
And now a word to the grammar police. Are you not aware that there are people who have something to say but they cannot sling words majestically nor can they produce impeccable grammar. is it your intent to silence these people? Is there evidence in Holy Writ that Jesus ever denied healing or forgiveness or for that matter rebuke to someone unless and until that person phrased the request perfectly? How absurd.
Let me bring this home. When to go to the doctor and need to tell him/her why you are there are you aware that you do not say it just perfectly? Are you aware that the whole blipping health care front tine establishment is trained to try to make sense out of your pitiful and half-ignorant babbling in order to try to help you. If you are then the recipient of that sort of common human kindness how can you not be kind to your fellows if they split an infinitive or are careless with the positioning of their prepositions.
emr wrote:
One of the finest books of all time. I give it to friends who move to North Carolina.
Miss Julia did not have much respect for the church in her area. Her husband died, having fathered a baby with another woman and the pastor was trying to get money from her husband’s estate. She outsmarted him at every turn.
Not only that but she had the former girlfriend and baby move in with her, showing an incredible amount of forgiveness and grace, far more than the pastor. And, in the midst of it all, you laugh your guts out.
Awesome book! Thank you for reminding me! Everyone, read this book. You will not be disappointed.
Muff Potter wrote:
If the Lord tarries, I believe that future generations will shake their heads at their nonsense. To used gender as the rallying cry for the faith, is taking the eye off the real deal, Jesus.
@ JustSomeGuy: They really do not believe that they hate women. They are like the guys who didn’t want women to have the vote and didn’t want women to inherit estates. Those guys believe that women did not have the mind for it and needed men to take care of them. However, if one looks at the preceding 1900 years, men had not done a particularly good job “taking care of it.”Could it be that some of that was due to the marginalization of 50%+ of the world?
So, as women showed they had the “mind for it” some believed that the Bible shows the “natural order” of things. I believe that there folks really, really believe that this is godly. I also believe that they do not “hate” women but they do have trouble explaining why baking brownies for the church is as important as leadership and direction of the church. They claim that it is but tis not and everyone knows it. Women are marginalized in decision making and I believe that is to the detriment of the church as a whole.
I believe that will change over time. The men who take on these causes demonstrate a singular inability to change the hearts of many who listen to them. The were unable to do with with racial segregation and they will be unable to do it now.
JeffB wrote:
Then there is “woulda.”
Anonymous wrote:
Not only did the show break racial and gender barriers, it broke through the literacy barrier, bringing a whole new way of communicating!
However, it is important to note that even in those future centuries, they were unable to cure male pattern baldness…
@ dee: An observation from my decidedly hirsute challenged husband.
Bruce Gerencser wrote:
Have you ever written you story of why you left the faith? I know many might be interested in your journey, as would we. We would be happy to post your story.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist: I think that these guys are part of the last “hurrah” and their thinking on the role of women will go down as an historical curiosity.
@ Janey: I love NT Wright. He is an interesting character. The Neo-Cal crowd like to claim him but he constantly picks at their boundaries. I must do a post on him sometime.
Moxie wrote:
As an encouragement, Moxie, I am a middle aged woman who did not know this stuff existed until the last decade. That is directly related to the Internet. What i now going on is what I call “discovery and clean-up” operations. Now, when they say something stupid, we can prove it and highlight it.
numo wrote:
They do not realize that they are doing it most of the time. They are just trying to be true to what they think the text says. But, i have a question for the CBMW crowd-they seem to be more concerned about the “place” for women than they are about the true Gospel. Can you imagine some of these folks? “I spent a life time justifying why women cant be leaders. It really was the gospel.” What a drag.
TW wrote:
This versus Crazy Busy…such a difficult choice….
Nancy wrote:
So am I.
Bruce Gerencser wrote:
I enjoyed wandering over to your blog and reading your letter to Ann, your fundamentalist grandmother. I don’t blame you for walking away. What a story. My grandparents were similar in their judgmental fundamentalism, although Grandma was loving to us personally. None of their children wanted to live anywhere near them, and moved as far as possible. Only 20% of the grandchildren identify as Christians today.
dee wrote:
True dat. Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who is marginalized in such church decision making. If He has gifted and called and empowered someone to a certain vocation/function in the church, be it “leadership” in one of its variations, or “service” be it brownies or Moravian chicken pie making, or whatever, who is mankind to resist the Spirit and make up rules to suit ourselves and our prejudices. Jesus used the term “My church.” His-not ours. God help us to just get over ourselves and do the hard work of being His church.
I noted that Dr. Fundystan did not hesitate to use the word “Satanic.” He called that right.
Love you guys.
@ dee
Dee, so am I. Wouldn’t it sweet victory if little old ladies shook up their little man powered world!
@ dee:
And “would’ve”, which is what one says but it is phonetically too similar to “would of”. BTW, all in good humor. We all have quirks in our writing, especially of anything informal.
Nancy wrote:
To me, that is why radical democracy in the church reflects the scripture. Not only did Jesus teach against having strong “leaders” in the church, but if the church body, after prayer, votes on something that has been well discussed and subject to amendment, then we should assume that the HS has influenced the outcome. A church I was in operated on that principle, to the point that the pastor rarely made any comment on issues other than to say the decision was up to the congregation.
I find it interesting that the fundamentalists love to bash women so much when throughout history it is widely understood that women are the civilizing, calming influence in cultures. In the American West, mail-order brides were a desperate necessity to calm the disorderly men. It is the women who insisted on the recruitment of preachers, Sunday services, school for the children, prohibitions on gambling, etc… And they kept beds warm at night, discouraging the need for prostitution. I wandered over to the link posted upthread about reasons why not to send your daughters to college and I could easily write the same article about the opposite gender. It seems that a lot of these men sharing their opinions would benefit from some history lessons.
@ Joy Huff:
Great comment!
Daisy wrote:
That’s why I call it “Jesus is my Edward Cullen (sparkle sparkle sparkle).” I had encountered the attitude before, but it wasn’t until the rise of the Twitards (Twilight fangirls) that I was able to put a name to it.
And just like with Twitards, how can a mortal guy compete with UTTER IMMORTAL PERFECTION? (There’s a filksong by Hank Green titled “I’m Not Edward Cullen” that says it all, but every copy I was able to find on YouTube didn’t have SOUND.)
That’s what I’m also afraid of re Christianese girls. (And every “What I’m like” and “What I’m looking for” list in Christianese dating services bears that out.) Sometimes I wonder if they’re that way because they think that’s what they’re SUPPOSED to do? More Christianese Than Thou? Either way, it’s a complete turn-off. GET A LIFE, FANBOY!
Add both the above together, and you know why I screen My Little Pony off YouTube and wish Rarity and Fluttershy and Twilight Sparkle were real.
Hester wrote:
You want to talk “Fill-in-the-Blank with Rosaries”, try scaring up some paperback SF novels by a “Simon Lang”. The only way to describe them is “Star Trek with Tridentine Latin Mass and Rosaries.” (I am NOT making that up.)
@ dee:
Someone mentioned separate but equal in regards to american overt institutionalized racism. It was pretty much the last gasp of that movement.
Perhaps this exact same approach towards gender with complementarism etc is similarly a last gasp of overt institutionalized sexism in the church.
In 30-40 years, will this even be an issue except among the isolated extremist christains? One can hope.
Nancy wrote:
There is a vast gulf of difference between constructive critique and mean-spirited twaddle. I think Deb employed the former choice admirably.
JustSomeGuy wrote:
I think you are correct. Those who are pushing this issue believe that they are saving the faith. Some Christians do not understand that we have lost the culture wars. There are many issues that Christians will need to face in the coming years.
Yet, we are blowing the remainder of goodwill on complementarianism which is so wishy washy that even the self avowed founders of the movement cannot agree, beyond no women pastors and elders, what it is all about. That inability, along with statements by Piper and Wayne Grudem’s infamous list of what women can and cannot do, will come back to dog them through the years.
dee wrote:
Why on earth would anyone want to “cure” male pattern baldness? You may as well try to find a cure for growing up.
As Tony Campolo said: all men are born with a certain allocation of hormones. Some prefer to use theirs growing hair.
Julie Anne wrote:
I titter & giggle at what Gasher the river pirate (from Stephen King’s The Waste Lands) might have to say on the subject. I can assure you it would never pass muster with the moderation po-leece.
dee wrote:
I have thought for years that when women stop buying into this, it will eventually go away. This ridiculous teaching could not maintain without women supporting it in this day and time. It is mostly women buying the books, conference tickets, etc.
The men can teach it to the men all they want. But if women do not support and affirm it, it goes nowhere.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Thank you, doctor. Finally someone with the guts to call it what it is. Can you imagine answering for trying to shut up over half the Body of Christ?
My plumb line for whether or not I will visit a church is if they have a female pastor. If they are all men, I swerve a U turn right out of the parking lot.
No women in leadership means one thing: biblical roles first, people second
Recipe for a horror show
@ dee:
Just Some Guy wrote: “In 30-40 years, will this even be an issue except among the isolated extremist christains? One can hope.”
dee wrote: “…complementarianism which is so wishy washy that even the self avowed founders of the movement cannot agree,… That inability, along with statements by Piper and Wayne Grudem’s infamous list of what women can and cannot do, will come back to dog them through the years.”
++++++++++++++++
I don’t think one has to be prescient to foresee how the very names of these individuals and their ideological companions will be forever branded with the letters misguided fools (in that particular order) in the general consensus & literature yet to be written.
Yes, very regrettable personally and corporately. I almost feel sorry for them.
@ elastigirl:
…or the very mention of their names & a metaphorical branding (since you can’t brand a word with another word). (ah me…)
I’m sure I was Metaphorigal in my previous super life.
@ dee: Some of them *do* realize it and do it anyway….
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
And that was the statement of the week!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Speaking of hormones, you may be the best person to write a “comeback” for this statement by Fix the Family. Consider this your *straight line*:
” a woman is naturally very observant of a man’s faults as long as she is in a platonic relationship with him. Once she becomes sexually active with him, she releases hormones that mask his faults, and she remains in a dreamy state about him. We can see why God would arrange things in such a way so that when in a proper state of holy matrimony, she would be less sensitive to his faults and thereby less tempted to be critical of him.”
Dave A A wrote:
What? Is he consulting Ken Ham’s staff scientists? :o)
Actually, I know men who would argue the exact opposite happens!
Such as:
“She was fine until we married and now she wants to change everything about me”
Fix the Family also warns that parents saving for a daughter’s education might be tempted to cut corners on family size through “illicit NFP”, amongst other things. Illicit NFP?? Cranium-Free One-Horned Fellow or Mark, help me out here. Does the RCC teach that some NFP is “illicit”?
@ Nancy:
I had in mind mainly the written, not spoken, word, although I wish people would think for a moment before uttering “very unique” or some such nonsense. (“Free gift” is too much a part of our language for me to hope for its demise.) And I don’t expect perfection in the written word; I certainly don’t expect it of myself. But “could of” is inexcusable for anyone who has reached middle school in this country. And continually writing “tenant” for “tenet,” “lead” for “led,” and “myriads” or “myriad of” for “myriad,” bespeaks, I think, laziness and insouciance. (I rarely have an opportunity to show off with that last one.)
JeffB wrote:
I’ve noticed several well-known, well-edumacated church leders write about “Elder lead Churches” 🙂 Often.
I also noticed in a prior thread, someone corrected the mispeling of another comennter by saying a word has two ‘s’s while speling it stil wrongly with just one “t”. Don’t know if it was on purpuse but was humorus. 🙂
Anon 1 wrote:
I’ve known more than a few men who’ve been married more than a few years, and none have yet noticed the “love is blind” hormone properly kicking in….
While I was in the SBC for a while, I’ve spent many years out of it in egalitarian churches.
One thing I was taught at one of the egalitarian churches was pretty simple. No matter which side you are on–egalitarian or comp, women’s ordination or not–before you say anything at all to ask yourself this:
If the scriptures were to be absolutely clear (and they aren’t, but IF they were) and proved “the other side” was right would you live in obedience.
Until you are willing to be obedient no matter what the scripture says, your opinion is only that–your opinion. And in the grand scheme of the church, not worth two cents.
After the preacher taught us that, lots of folks were seeking light on the subject and whole lot less were producing heat.
Anonymous wrote:
That phrase has a ring to it, so I let is slide… 😉
Dave A A wrote:
Haven’t a clue. Might depend on the definition of NFP.
From the very little I’ve heard of “Fix the Family”, they are probably Uber-Trads. I would expect them to have a different definition than the Catholic mainstream; you don’t become a Trad unless you DON’T like what happened in the mainstream. (I think Pope Francis has commented about “experiences” he’s had with Uber-Trads still stuck in 1940.)
@ dee:
I’ve never heard a Neo-Cal claim N. T. Wright. Granted, I haven’t really kept up with that whole debate, but last time I looked he was being framed as a heretic who was destroying justification, esp. by Piper.
Dave A A wrote:
1) First time I have EVER heard of that.
2) Can you say “Wishful Thinking on the guy’s part”?
3) Sounds uncomfortably like “Salvation by Marriage Alone” with additional weirdness as to what constitutes “One Flesh(TM)”.
4) Tip: Overuse of the word “Holy” is not a good sign. “Holy” is too often Catholic for “Biblical” or “Gospelly”.
The more I hear of “Fix the Family”, the flakier they sound. Does their site:
1) Speak of Vatican II in a bad way?
2) Make any mention of “The Three Dark Days”?
3) Seem obsessed with Mary?
@ Dave A A:
It’s a little late here in Blighty to do it the noo, but I (among others, I think!) would certainly have no end of fun writing a comeback to that…
I almost hate to ask, but was that guy for real?
@ Dave A A:
Law of the internet grammar nazi:
If you attempt to correct someone’s grammatical error, you will make the same grammatical error in the correction sentence.
😀
linda wrote:
Hey, Linda. That is an interesting idea but I don’t agree with it. If “the other side” were right, we would have a different god. And if we had that god, the world (including me) would be created differently. So I do not see how we could answer that kind of obedience.
I obey God because He/She loves me and made me beautifully and enjoys (!!!) hanging out with me. I am healthiest when I love Him/Her back with all my heart, and I want to do what God wishes because I know that He/She is truly looking out for my (and the world’s) best interests.
Our God has nothing to do with cutting people down from how He/She made them. And that’s what women-submission does—it requires me to act as if I am smaller than how I was made to be. That is an insult to God, as I see it.
Plus I’ve not found that God asks for obedience for its own sake. I don’t think He/She wastes time/effort that way.
IMO
Dave A A wrote:
Thanks that made my day, haha
Anon 1 wrote:
I tried to buy into the whole submission thingy back around the time the BFM2000 was adopted. My husband (who was raised Southern Baptist) would have none of it. Now I'm counting my blessings!
I am a happily married woman, and that translates into a wonderful marital relationship for both of us. 🙂
Pulpit phallic worship need not imply elitist status in heaven.
(off topic)
There was recently a study released by Life Way Research where in over half of the (Christian) respondents think that mental health problems can be cured by prayer and Bible reading alone. 🙄
Evangelicals largely believe prayer can cure mental illness, survey finds
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yep. From the article linked last night @ http://www.fixthefamily.com/
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Definitely obsessed with Mary, but didn’t notice the other two.
Dave A A wrote:
Reading along and came to this – ARGH! I may be ill the rest of rhe weekend.
Where do they think this stuff up???
Bridget wrote:
I usually hesitate to call something Satanic, but…
I think those in servitude to small Satanic systems (sorry for the alliteration) feel compelled to use all their creativity to support them.
Dave A A wrote:
Thanks again for the invite there, Dave; here’s my first attempt (on which you’re all warmly invited to improve – come on, let’s have a good laugh here).
A woman is naturally very observant of a man’s faults as long as she is in a platonic relationship with him. Once she becomes sexually active with him, she releases hormones that mask his faults, and she remains in a dreamy state about him. We can see why God would arrange things in such a way so that when in a proper state of holy matrimony, she would be less sensitive to his faults and thereby less tempted to be critical of him.
We must add an urgent warning, however. If this matrimony is unholy, then quite a different hormone is released. If a woman’s sinful urges are not properly disciplined by her father when she is young, she releases a hormone which breaks down a man’s own self-control and godward desire so that he is seduced by her into a sinful sexual relationship. Furthermore, this hormone attracts not only the hapless male, but harmful and hostile imps: spirits of criticism and fault-finding that will roost in the unholy corners of the woman’s sinful soul and cause her to become ever more critical of him. He will then be compelled to subdue her with greater effort and, if necessary, forceful godly discipline. Thus we see that God justly punishes the sinful woman.
“My prayer to God is a simple one: ‘Lord, make my enemies ridiculous’. God has granted my request” (Voltaire – adapted a little.)
And yes, I do know the difference between a hormone and a pheromone. But I doubt whether those responsible for this quote do.
Bruce Gerencser wrote:
No, Bruce. You the computer geek who can find out what site I’m reading and then post just ahead of me! 😛 🙂
@ linda:
Linda,
Did your pastor ever mention the Holy Spirit?
Here is a comment left over at Facebook.
Billie wrote: “Sure, William Gil wants to fix the family, but I think it’s more likely he’s looking for that big break into Hollywood first.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4903512/resume?ref_=nm_ov_res
@ Nick Bulbeck:
:0
Whether or not a pastor/elder allows women to pray/speak publicly has less to do with Scripture and more to do with their own personal psychological issues involving gender and gender roles.
When I hear some of the ridiculous things these guy say, I just want to say, “Tell me about your mother/aunt/sister…”
@ Sopwith:
My favorite Sopwith comment ever!
@ Mr.H:
napoleon reprise.
no secure person requires the decrease or demotion of another human being, group of human beings because of who they are.
no conscionable person enables or suggests it.
no decent person tolerates it.
My wife is an MBA with five times my earning potential. The submission thing is just a lie I’d be living. In almost every category I lose.
I just don’t buy the “biblical roles” fallacy.
Sad thing is, there are families who intentionally become indigent because it’s “biblical” for the man to provide. He’s a truck driver while she’s sitting on a computer informations systems masters degree. But she stays home because that’s her role.
Sorry, but Christianity doesn’t equal masochism in my book. The bible is just an instrument of medieval torture to some people, I swear.
@ elastigirl:
….hiding behind the “God” stamp just adds cowardice to the biography.
they will all regret it at some point in the future.
Dee, Deb: I would like to post a link to my blog regarding this subject but will not do so without your permission. You can reach me @ randall.slack@gmail.com.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
So UNholy Matrimony leads to Demon Possession. For Women Only. Who then become Demon-Possessed Jezebels luring Godly men into Sin.
Never mind The Debbil, The Hormones Made Me Do It!
Anyone got the guy who wrote Malleus Malefacarium on speed-dial?
Dave A A wrote:
Well, the first indicates a Trad.
The second indicates an End of the World obsession.
And the third is THE characteristic way for Catholics to flake out.
Daisy wrote:
Now all they have to do is extend that to physical illness (not much of a stretch for some) and they can make pilgrimage to Mary Baker Eddy.
As a father of two daughters and a pastor (former full time), I have strong views on this subject. I was going to comment, but it grew too large so I posted it on my blog. You are welcome to read it at aputtinginmind.com
Blessings…
@ randall slack:
I tried pasting the URL you gave into my broswer, but it didn’t work, so I searched your name/ blog URL and found this (I assume this is your blog):
Women in church (and other places)… – from A Putting In Mind blog
A quote from that page:
Yes, you have to do a lot of assuming on things like this.
I’ve said it on other threads, but a lot of Christian focus and teaching about gender roles usually totally ignores never-married and childless women over 30 years of age.
It’s odd that virtually no concern is giving to unmarried, adult women in these discussions.
I think conservative Christians who are into gender roles and complementarianism should call themselves “married couples complementarians,” since about 99% of their writings and opinions only pertain to the activities and definitions of “biblical womanhood” for married women, and on occasion, commentary about what “biblical manhood” is as it pertains to married men.
Apparently, one is not truly a (biblical) man or woman, and one does not possess sexuality, unless one marries and/or has children.
linda wrote:
This has, and will always be, a one way street.
I was raised by a Christian mother who believed in traditional gender roles.
Mom did not even approve of, or believe in, women being in secular leadership positions (she did not like the idea of a woman being President of the USA).
I used to think that the Bible taught all this traditional gender role stuff, but as I got into my 20s, I began having doubts.
I noticed there were verses that contradicted the two or three verses gender comps trot out, about a woman not speaking in church, and so on.
By my mid or late 30s, I completely abandoned the gender comp view. I was someone who sincerely believe in gender comp at one time and tried to live by it. But I finally realized it was false.
I’m afraid the gender comps will likely never abandon the gender comp views, especially the males, because they are benefitting of it, by keeping women down. Their sin natures crave power and control. They have a vested interest in the status quo.
Even if you can prove that the Bible is egal, the comps will keep finding rationalizations or justifications to ignore or explain away the pro-egal type passages or themes.
Biblical Gender Complementarians have a vested interest in seeing the Bible through male- hierarchy colored lenses, so I don’t see most of them giving an inch.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes, there are definitely double standards in several facets of Christain views on things, this being one of them.
If you have a headache, most Christians (other than perhaps the ‘Word of Faith’ guys) are fine with you taking an aspirin, but if you have depression, you’re supposed to just ‘pray about it’ or go read the Bible for an hour.
Goodness forbid if you have depression and you seek therapy or go on anti depressants, anything other than reading the Bible, praying, or going to church.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
You know what’s odd though? Christianity in the States is reluctant to admit that women even have ‘urges’.
We’re told (in Baptist, evangelical, and fundamentalist culture, and even in some Non Christian culture) that only men are sexual and crave sex. Men are supposedly all visual (they get turned on by the female form), they want sex all the time suppsedly.
Side bar on that:
I’ve read some Christian men online say that sort of teaching makes them feel bad, like freaks, or as though there is something wrong with them.
They say, “I like pretty ladies as much as the next man, I am interested in having sex, but I do not live, eat and breath sex 24/7 like Christian teaching says men do. Is there something wrong with me?”
Christian Women are said in sermons to only care about emotional and spiritual things.
We ladies supposedly don’t care about sex, nor do we want sex.
We ladies supposedly don’t care if a guy is 500 pounds over weight, balding, and has a triple chin; we’ll still date or marry him.
Even stranger in most sermons and in Christian blogs I’ve seen – it’s like Christians can’t make up their minds – they think only men want sex and women don’t, but, they, at the same time, make all unmarried women out to be harlots who will bed a married man in an instant.
Maybe their unspoken assumption is that only unmarried women want sex, but the moment those single women marry, they lose all interest in sex, and only want to read cook books and watch Martha Stewart’s television show.
Because there is most certainly this split thinking going on, where in sermons, the preacher advises husbands, “Husbands, meet your wife’s emotional needs, but wives, remember, men want hot sex, so meet his sexual needs.”
I’ve yet to see a male preacher encourage the male folks to meet the wive’s sexual needs/desire.
Preachers assume wives have to be encouraged to have sex, because they assume women just hate, hate, hate sex and would rather be baking cookies.
But then, married Christians keep telling married men to stay away from single Christian women, because all single women are sexed up sexy tarts with insatiable lust for married men.
I don’t know what the disconnect is in Christianity in the States, where preachers (and other Christians) assume that single women dream about or want sex 100 times a day, but married women never think about it, nor do they ever want it.
This approach also works against the common attempt at keeping singles pure: tell singles the sex will be great if they just wait until they marry to do it!
But what I’m getting from these sermons is that married sex is a bore chore, and a boring duty one must perform, because the preacher has to keep asking the women to put out more.
If married sex is so great, as Christians claim in their purity sermons and books, wouldn’t the wives be ripping the clothing off their husbands the moment hubby gets home from work? Why does the preacher think the wives need to be convinced to do it more?
Daisy wrote:
Ha! Someone forgot to tell my wife…
That being said, Daisy, I for one am very thankful for your open and honest conversation here. You have taught me much.
I have taken to “begging to differ” when in my local church, in a discussion setting, people make gender-based assumptions of the type to which Daisy et. al. have referred. You wouldn’t believe (ok, I take that back; this crowd would totally believe) the amount of pushback I get on this. As a guy who doesn’t fit most of their “Wild at Heart” stereotypes, it only took a few brain cells to rub together to postulate that there must be women in a mirrored image of my situation. I’m not sure that speaking up has actually effected any growth in others’ views toward a position more in line with reality, but I can only hope…
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist,
I’ve picked up a lot of odd and conflicting things about Christian beliefs and teachings about gender, sex, dating, and marriage.
I used to believe a lot of it, but when you want marriage but still find yourself single past 40, despite following all the Christianese instructions on How to Get Married, you begin seriously re-assessing what you were taught, and all these big discrepancies, inconsistencies, and double standards start becoming more obvious.
I’m glad you got something out of my post 🙂
@ Josh
There was a really good Christian review of the “Wild at Heart” book I saw, I think on “Christians for Biblical Equality.” The review mentioned several of the things you did.
CBE review: Wild At Heart Essential Reading or “Junkfood of the Soul”? | by Brynn Camery-Hoggatt and Nealson Munn
Yes, very rigid gender stereotypes can be very insulting. They can also be frustrating if you (like me) perceive them as being one reason you’re still single but you’re wanting to get married.
I feel for you. It is tough when you don’t fit the Christian cookie cutter idea of what a man (or in my case, a woman) is “supposed” to be.
So who gets to decide what is “allowed”. Do not women have the freedom to pray or read scripture? The big issue is that some are usurping the place of the HS in the life of individuals and the church, making human rules over the church Jesus died to create, and by that self-aggrandizing action, taking the place of God in the lives of believers.
@ Josh:
@ Daisy:
You’ve both raised some really interesting points there, as there are many heads on the gender-stereotyping Hydra. When a quiet, sensitive, self-effacing man is targeted by a self-assured, aggressive and sociopathic woman (as happens in case of male domestic abuse, for instance), what is he supposed to do? If he doesn’t defend himself he is doubly mocked for being a weakling, and if he does, he’s demonised as an abuser. Exactly like the capable and intelligent woman, under patriarchy he must become something he isn’t before he stops being attacked from within the very church in which he is supposed to find significance and belonging.
Oddly enough, though, I can tell you something about why Eldridge’s book took off in the UK at least. For some decades, church culture and Christian literature over here has been weighed down with a surfeit of books and ideas that infantilise the believer. Everyone’s a hurting baby who needs to be pacified and soothed; everything is relaxed, gentle and non-threatening; “churches” attempt little if anything beyond the safety of their own walls and anybody who does is incessantly warned about the horrifying power of the enemy that will be unleashed if we ever come out of hiding. Everything is about healing, covering and protecting, and nothing is about spurring on to good deeds. The minority of church-attenders around whom, and for whom, that culture has evolved are replete and contented. Others of us are bored stiff and, sometimes, actively repelled at the patronising, suffocating kindergarten our “churches” have become. We are “loved” like infants or teddy-bears but not respected like human beings. As I understand it, respect is an integral part of ἀγάπη.
Now, I admit that the Eldridge’s may not offer a fat lot to bored and infantilised Christian women. But I don’t entirely blame bored and infantilised Christian men for seizing on it like a long-lost brother. I myself found it a breath of fresh air in the choking cloud of talcum powder and baby-lotion. The books are a rather desperate lurch in the right direction. But as Proverbs 27 puts it:
Daisy wrote:
Perhaps part of the problem is that many of those authoritarian men are boors in the bedroom. A couple of years of that, and a woman loses interest, if you know what I mean.
And then you load her up with a passel of kids, which is a 24-hr job x 5-10, and ice cream becomes the best one can do for pleasure. 🙁
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I don’t begrudge anyone who finds Eldridge’s material beneficial. That won’t stop me from giving grief to people who try to beat me up with it while assuming that his “theories” of manhood and womanhood apply equally and fully to all humankind. But I’m still glad to hear that his material provided some edification for you and others in your context.
(Sorry, that came out like an insult sandwich, though I don’t intend it in that way. I’m truly glad that you got something helpful out of Wild at Heart.)
My take on Wild at Heart is that it surely is a burlesque of what manhood really is. Either that or some childish retro (as in 2 centuries) to a life style long past that was necessitated by those who were attempting to tame the frontier and establish a more modern and less physical and violent society.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Excellent comment. Shows how over emphasis on any position/response can bring problems of their own.
So, in your church culture, when Eldridge comes along it is a breath of fresh air UNTIL it is overemphasized and the women become pricesses in flowy dresses waiting for the brave Knight to save them and make them happy ever after. I always want to break out in a West Side Story redition of “I feel pretty, Oh so pretty….” when Eldridge is trotted out.
That is Eldridge in a sad little nutshell. And I have seen his books applied to several sad marriages. I was astounded at how many young women were reading his books when they came out.
I am not so sure his books would have gone far without his start with Focus on the Family which gave him a platform and instant street cred with many fundies.
Anon 1 wrote:
While we’re on the category “Responses to Wild at Heart: The Musical,” I’ll take Spamalot for 400, please.
“His name is Lancelot
And in tight pants a lot
He likes to dance a lot
You know you do”
@ Nick Bulbeck: but… Eldredge says in the intro to that book that men are really just little boys who need to be able to play out their inner pirate (or Davy Crockett, or whatever) IRL, as grownups.
He also slams men who are working in “unadventurous” occupations – like shoe salesmen.
His “xtian” reworking of Robert Bly’s book Iron John + other staples of the men’s movement (80s-90s over here) just grates on all kinds of levels. The sad thing is, there’s a bit of truth mixed in with the rest of the bad-for-your-digestion material in that book; just enough for people to swallow it whole.
And *then* not all that long ago, he and his wife Stasi (yep, she spells her name like the E. German Stasi) published a book for women called Captivating that’s even more loathsome. I’ll leave it to you to hunt that one down – see if you – or your wife – can read it without feeling utterly sick!
I, too, raised an eyebrow at anyone’s calling themselves Stasi. (Though as it’s short for “Anastasia” it probably isn’t pronounced “shtarzee”.) And yes, we’ve read “Captivating” as well.
I remind Honourable Members of my citation of Proverbs 27. All I can say is, different people find different things unpalatable or inedible. My wife and I both found them readable enough that whatever we couldn’t use we just ignored. Whereas I was given a book last Christmas on “experiencing Father’s embrace” that I gave up on. Endless references to weeping, crying and wombs of liquid love overloaded my cringe-meter. Thing is, I don’t doubt that the (male) author was a fine fellow in every important sense. I just can’t read that kind of thing.
I have a love/hate relationship with Eldredge’s book. I wrote 16 blog posts that at least mention it by name and a few posts that focus on it, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Long and short, I see his heart and what he was trying to do for men. At the same time, I see the limitations to his one pronged approach to heal the inner, male child.
Rather than link several of my blog posts I’ll leave you with just one that questions the foundation of his approach. The foundation is based on a false assumption, therefore the house that is built on it cannot stand for long or in adverse situations.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/04/my-main-issue-with-wild-at-heart.html
@ Nick Bulbeck: I doubt I’d be able to read anything that talks about wombs of liquid love!
As for how S. Eldredge pronounces her nickname, my guess is “Stacy.”
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Wombs of liquid love? eeek.
Uh…..I would not make it through that, either. :o)
Here is where some of us may be coming from. Eldridge hit the Christianese charts and you could not walk into a mega church without everyone holding a copy. He was all over Christian radio as the answer to the gender role problem. Bible study groups popped up on the book.
I did read the books as I was in a position where I had to refer to them in some publications. I basically came away with the impression Stasi was crying all the time in the castle waiting for John to come and rescue her by simply reminding her how pretty she was. I tend to go on a trajectory with these things and wondered how that was going to play out when they were in their 70’s and she was having to change John’s depends.
I think perhaps we are coming into some cultural differences in how these things play out on our side of the pond. That is the reason I appreciated your pov.
So for Stasi, there seemed to be some of that ‘wombs of liquid love’ while John had all the fun in the wilds.
It worried me so many women were buying into this at the time. Now, people are saying, John who? Another flash in the pan that at the time was all the rage. The Cinderellas are truding to work and looking for a miracle wrinkle cream, the Prince’s are also trudging to work and a few bucks poorer for buying the books.
Such is the Christian world of marketing.
@ An Attorney:
“…The big issue is that some are usurping the place of the HS in the life of individuals and the church, making human rules over the church Jesus died to create, and by that self-aggrandizing action, taking the place of God in the lives of believers.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
metaphor-mode, here. I see it like people not learning to swim. Church and its employees put life jackets on everyone, and they all get in the water. But it’s too scary to take off the life jacket (fear of the unknown, fear of chaos, fear of lack of control, fear of not having something to control — if not people, then one’s career).
Or, perhaps people don’t know that they can actually take off the life jacket.
People are leery of the water, and so they stay sort of afraid of it. They never learn how to relax in it, learn how to move in it and with it, how to let it support you, how to work with it to propel you, how to float on it peacefully and therapeutically. How to work with it to build muscle and endurance.
Anon 1 wrote:
Most of the women that I talked to that were “into this” were not into it for the gender roles. There was a longing for a ‘wild and free’ side to church and Christianity that was missing. There was a desire to throw off legalistic restrictions and to be ‘wild at heart’ for ourselves.
Eldredge hit on something. But it was incomplete and played too easily into the gender hierarchalist hands.
Hence, my love/hate relationship with the book.
Never read ‘captivating’.
It was ‘wild at heart’ that inspired something in me.
Mara, I might add that one of the most alarming aspects was when I saw single college/young adult women form a study group around the book at one mega.
I am failing to see how Stasi was being positioned as “wild at heart” for Christianity from the book. Perhaps I missed that part, which would not surprise me. I would rather hang out with John on his rock climbing escapades. :o)
I have faint memories of Stasi crying when she did not get the house she wanted……not exactly “wildness” for Christendom. :o)
@ Mara: Well… the intro to Captivating has Stasi imagining herself as “Sacajawea, Indian princess.”
Sacajawea was *many* things, but one thing she was most emphatically not: a “princess.” Guide, enslaved captive, teen mom, linguist, etc. – but NOT a princess. Just wrong, historically and otherwise.
it all goes downhill from there. She and her husband really view women as people in need of “heroes” to “rescue” them + lots of twirly princess cr*p.
She needs to read Dorothy L. Sayers’ essay “Are Women Human?,” believe you me!
This whole “gender” issue is the issues that forced me to examine the history of the scriptures, eventually leading me to conclude the Bible is not the word of God.
If God is all knowing, than he surely could’ve have seen the confusion and hurt that would be caused by the conflicting commands concerning women and public prayer.
numo wrote:
Amen to that.
@ Anon 1: Not sure if she’d *like* it, though!
@ Nick Bulbeck: One thing to keep in mind is that over here, Eldredge and his books became a franchise, and were heavily promoted in evangelical publications “xtian” bookstores, etc.
There’s merchandise aplenty for everyone! [/sarcasm off]
doubtful
Thank you for keeping up with us. Thank you, as well, for helping us to understand the issues that impacted you and caused you to reexamine your faith. I appreciate the kind and thoughtful way you engage us. I always learn things whenever you comment.
Thanks dee….I love that you guys (I mean gals) always tackle the “tough stuff” and allow for an array of opinions (including mine).
This site always reminds me that there are a lot of caring/thoughtful Christians out there…makes me less of an “angry” agnostic and more of a “live and let live” type of ex-christian. Hope that makes sense 🙂
doubtful wrote:
I have never known you not to make sense.
Christiandullacation (TM): A Complete Wasting Away Of A Part Of The Body Of Christ, Perhaps?
hmmm…
(since you comment guyz brought it up,)
So ok, JohnE made a few fast bucks off a couple un-wild at heart dudes asleep in their comfy lounge chairs.
hum…
It would seem, they lost but a few proverbial winks,
What?
Wild at heart?
Zzzzzzzzzzz…
Wake um up?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Give um back their remotes.
$ure.
-snicker-
I am reasonably sure that the religious faith of Christian men everywhere has atrophy’d into da barco lounger, appendaged to the remote; electron voyeurs to the very last sip of a cold beverage…rob’d of their very wits, while their women fill-out their shorts…
hmmm…
Sounds like business as usual…
(grin)
hahahahahaha
😉
…is it any wonder da Calvnestas are doing a brisk business?
Sopy
___
Comic relief rerun: “A Sheep In The Deep”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0_VftPUtb8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
—
@ numo:
“She and her husband really view women as people in need of “heroes” to “rescue” them + lots of twirly princess cr*p.”
+++++++++++
bemused look, I’ve got. I can readily see how I could rescue almost every man I can think of, in a variety of areas of life.
@ Sopwith: It’s pretty hardcore complementarian stuff, Sopy, and it infantilizes women – and men, too.
Gah!
@ elastigirl: Heehee – they wouldn’t like hearing that, I think!
It’s really sad stuff: women are supposed to be rescued by men who are supposed to be knight in shining armor types; Stasi even asks readers to imagine the scene from “Titantic” where Di [de?] Caprio and Winslet are up at the bow of the ship… with ourselves as Winslet’s character, and Jesus in place of Di Caprio. I wish I was making this up; you can probably find that section via Amazon.com’s book preview function. (Or Google’s – or both.)
I will now make this conversation awkward by pointing out that 1% to 3% of knights would rather go on an adventure with another knight in lieu of rescuing a damsel in distress. And there are a few damsels who long for an adventure with another damsel, a knight being completely superfluous. 😀
@ Josh: Indeed. 😉 But that’s not something they’re likely to accept. (Sadly.)
Hmmm….being related to a knight, this is often heard: If you’re looking for a knight worth having around, look for the one whose armor is dented and worn. The one whose armor is shiny has never used it.
@ numo:
“Stasi even asks readers to imagine the scene from “Titantic” where Di [de?] Caprio and Winslet are up at the bow of the ship… with ourselves as Winslet’s character, and Jesus in place of Di Caprio.”
++++++++++++++
as if strong and very courageous doesn’t apply. no, I think Jesus & I can do great things together as a team, rescuing whoever is in need. but no capes. not even jesus. (someone help me dream up a super suit for Him — Edna’s on vacation at the moment)
A family friend, due to some logistical complication which I can’t remember, had her copy of Wild at Heart shipped to our house when she bought it so so she could come by and pick it up. Before she showed up I was paging through the first chapter, where Eldredge explains the alleged difference between men and women. I do remember that he said men want to have MANLY MAN MASCULINE ADVENTURES, but what struck me more was that, if I recall correctly, he boiled womanhood down to “women like to be looked at,” and used the example of a little girl playing dress-up running to show her dad her costume when he got home from work.
Apparently he hasn’t noticed that little boys do the same thing – though granted, usually not with dress-up? Maybe he thinks it’s different because the boys are showing their dad something they did or made instead of something they are…? But even that fails because girls will run to show their parents things they made too. Anyone who knows a kid who draws can tell you that.
Of course I never ran to show my dad a costume…but then I never played dress-up in the first place. I guess that settles it. I’m really a man.
At the time I processed it as “woman are all vain fluffheads” and after that, it really didn’t matter what else Eldredge said. So I read my mom the dumbest sections of the first chapter and laughed at it until our friend got there.
Loon-matic: “Petrified Church Atrophy, Perhaps?”
Proverbial Religious BobbleHeads created the complementarian concept “word”, proscribing what the “word” creator’s envisioned the biblical view was: (such as…)
1. Precluding women from specific functions of ministry within the Church, such as leadership roles, thereby relegating them to support roles only.
2. The word creators then proceed to push this perceived biblical conceptualization stuff in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere, etc.
Yak, Yak, Yak…
Spelling it out?
hmmm…
(Esss Poo, Comrad…)
-snicker-
Funny, these “word” inventors, are the same 501c not-for-profit ‘religious’ authorities that have condoned and supported the proverbial ‘religious’ poster child, Reverend Charles Joseph Mahaney, and his alleged : church grab, & subsequent pedo-coverup.
I don’t think John E was pushing this type of HorseHocky.
Sit with John & Stacy for an hour, and you would maybe refrain from spouting off so quickly about his alleged loonatic marital control mechanisms, and such.
John is devoted to helping people discover the heart of God, recover their own hearts in God’s love, and learn to live in God’s Kingdom.
Stasi loves the joy and freedom that comes from knowing the passionate, stunning love of Jesus Christ and lives to see others come to know him more deeply.
Bonus: Their devotion, and their demonstration of Christ’s love is undeniable to all who know them.
Come ta think of it, I think the word John was searching for when he wrote his ‘wild’ book was the word “atrophy”, the potential, both in the marriage relationship, and in the church, as seen today.
That he got the ‘Lay’ portion of his religion wrong at times, well…
When you first don’t succeed, Try, Try, Try, Try….
again…
huh?
He explained ta me some time ago over coffee, dat spiritual w-a-r-f-a-r-e being ‘what it is’ these days, most church folk will just forget about what he has written, or spoken, a short time after they become “aware”.
Not to worry, numo, it’s another zero sum gain.
(grin)
hahahahahaha
I am holding out for Fusion, and Mag-Spatial-Displacement,
And da “Guy” wit da bobo marks, comin’ from da proverbial sky…
Cheeeeeeeeeeese! 😉
Sopy
—
Anon 1 wrote:
Sounds like something Johnny Bravo would say, baby.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
In other words, the Brit church scene is like shipboard life from WALL-E.
But what happens when reality kicks in the door?
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, that sounds so much like normal guys who’ve been exposed to a LOT of porn. To the point where they think what the porn shows is NORMAL and they’re Abnormal.
This is just the Christianese version of the Victorian ideal of “The Angel in the house”.
And “only care about emotional and spiritual things” is an incredible turn-OFF for me.
You know the latest rev of My Little Pony is a LOT more grown-up than this?
Daisy wrote:
As in “How do you stop your girlfriend from having sex with you? Marry her.”?
Daisy, that assumption is also straight out of porn. Where sex is found (and dynamite) everwhere EXCEPT in a marriage. And the justification for keeping mistresses and guys getting nookie on the side. Like Victorian husbands keeping their “Angel in the House” pure by hitting the brothels every night.
@ Sopwith: Well, we need to agree to disagree, I guess. I see the Eldredges as being part of the same crew as Quiverfull and Vision Forum, albeit not *quite* as awful.
But that’s me. Obviously, your mileage can/does vary, and I can see why. (So grateful that I kept politely refusing the many invites I got from SGM-affiliated friends to join their “churches.” Narrow escape indeed!)
@ elastigirl:
🙂 I suggest Bob McLeod’s ‘Superhero ABC’ for inspiration (http://www.bobmcleod.com/) while Edna’s away but I think the Carpenter prefers to go around in civvies, or in disguise as ‘one of the least…’
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
What happens is simple: hungry people leave.
This usually works in one of two ways, and oddly enough, I’ve done both in my time. Either we discover something better outside of church, which gradually replaces church as a priority in our lives until we reach a point where church no longer matters. Or, we abruptly come up against something that convinces us we’re wasting our time, and we set off in search of something else. In either case, those who are contented with the status quo bemoan our “leaving the church” (because The Church comprises their immediate circle of friends, you understand) and put our decision down to either being carnal and self-seeking, or “hurt” and too demented with “pain” to be held responsible for our actions.
@ numo
Numo, I don’t think that JohnE’s motivation is to subjugate women, and remove their ‘voice’, in what ever setting, ‘religious’, or otherwise.
Is JohnE, a comp person, as defined by that “minted” religious conceptional term, complementarian?
humm…
Maybe Wartburg readers can ask um over @ his blog site or @ his Facebook account.
It would be of interest, what his response is?
hmmm…
could b.
Share with the Lord’s people who are in need? Practice hospitality?
hmmm…
Sounds good ta me.
(grin)
“The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed?”
huh?
I believe that may very well be ‘essentially’ the message of what JohnE is attempting to convey, however clumsily the ‘attempt’.
Sopy
—
@ Estelle:
Estelle — I think you’re right. but some “garments” are simply impractical. Like 1st century robes (in the way that a long flannel nightgown & sheets is totally annoying — like wearing vel cro). And those long gaping sleeves get caught on every door & drawer handle. I can’t imagine this robe idea is the best choice for him.
Jeans and faded T-shirt…. perhaps. But jeans are a bit constricting. A supersuit would simply be so much more comfortable and promote ease of movement. So, based on your line of thinking, I suppose red, yellow, orange, royal blue and purple are out of the question for him. Something with a more neutral color palette.
@ elastigirl: Tai chi silks, maybe? Not at all constricting, kind of flowy and comfortable…
@ Sopwith: John & Stasi Eldredge certainly *do* want to define extremely strict boundaries for gender roles, behavior and more.
Personally, I find that stifling and not something I can live with.
Have you ever read Dorothy L. Sayers’ essay “Are Women Human?” She comes to grips with lots more, on a more fundamental level, than the Eldredges, imo – and her message is much more hopeful (again, imo).
@ numo:
possibly. Although i’m partial to the supersuit. but maybe Jesus and form-fitting are mentally irreconcilable. If anyone has been typecast in fashion, it’s him.
@ Sopwith:
“I don’t think that JohnE’s motivation is to subjugate women, and remove their ‘voice’”
++++++++++++++++
Can’t imagine this is his intention. But perhaps he’s redefined things, or hasn’t thought things through to their logical conclusions.
Building on this supersuit theme, his writings / viewpoints make me feel like a mindset-modifying uniform of sorts is being imposed on me.
I twirl for no one.
@ elastigirl:
White T over motor mechanic blue overalls (not too baggy but I also can’t visualise form fitting), across chest a gold stripe that only becomes visible once he’s on his way, leaving you with an ‘OMG was that the King of Kings?!!’ feeling.
By the way, I once did have to sew a super hero suit from Bob McLeod’s book: used blue, turquoise and orange velour to make tracksuit pants and pullover long sleeve T in size 4T for my Zingerman. He wore it for about 36 hours straight after I’d finished. It’s starting to get small on him now and I need to patch one knee.
elastigirl wrote:
Baryshnikov in ‘White Nights’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02EvsGal-Wc
I’d only get 2 roubles. Sigh
@ Estelle:
now if I could do that, i’d pirouette real good for free.
elastigirl wrote:
thank you for the much-needed laugh!
@ Estelle:
you made your son’s supersuit?? I’m not familiar with Zingerman — what are his superpowers? What did you use for his supersuit? Vanishing Velour? Kevlar?
You must be a super, too, then. Care to share your true identity, Estelle?
Yes, blue mechanic overalls are just the right image for Jesus. But a little restricting of movement. I don’t think he could keep up with me when doing the rooftop cartwheeling thing. But perhaps he teleports. But then we wouldn’t really be doing our exploits together — he’d sort of come & go. I still think a supersuit is most practical.
What about you? Could Jesus keep up with you in mechanic overalls when you’re doing your thing?
@ numo:
hi, numo.
Perplexing: “Sowing Da Good Seed, Perhaps?”
@ numo
@ elastigirl
It appears to me that JohnE’s motivation is to rescue as many kind souls from apathy & spiritual darkness, as considered possible.
I saw this when JohnE attempted, in a seminar he gave, to encourage individuals to put down the remote, and to rise from apathetic behavior that was sacrificing their spouses and their children, indeed possibly their communities as well.
*
hmmm…
I remember Jesus said these words in ‘the parable of the sower’:
“Behold, a sower went out to sow.
And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
(And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” )
Jesus answered and said to them:
“Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.
Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive; for the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them…”
Jesus continued : “But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
Therefore, hear the parable of the sower:
When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart.
This is he who received seed by the wayside.
But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while.
For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles.
Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful,
But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”
hmmm…
To the extent that JohnE (or any one for dat matter) is sowing the good seed of what Jesus has done for us, I am sure their ministry will continue to flourish, and aid many a kind folk.
*
“Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
T’was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.”
~ Hymn Written by John Newton (1725-1807), a slave trader turned saved person, who took the time ta sowed da good seed; who indeed bore fruit and produced : a manyfold. 🙂
amaz’in grace, amaz’in grace…
S“㋡”py
___
P.S. (side note) I could really, really, use you all’s prayers for stuff in my life, if you don’t mind… Many Thanx, and Kind Regards. (tears)
😉
—
@ Sopwith:
I will be praying Sopy.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I had to look him up on the interweb – we don’t get him over here. On the plus side, we have Danger Mouse. The cringe-worthy chord change near the end of his signature tune notwithstanding, Danger Mouse is one of the best cartoon characters ever invented.
@ Nick:
Whoa! Flashback! I last saw Danger Mouse when I was two years old. Not sure how he got over to the American side of the pond though…that being before the interwebs and all. 🙂
I watched it with my children in the late ’80s or early ’90s! Great cartoons.
Sopwith,
Praying…
@ Bridget
@ Victorious
“Thank You !”
…means a lot (tears)
㋡
—