More Christian - Conservatives or Liberals?

Last time I tried to argue this, I did so on Boundless and was accused of having a distorted view of Conservatism...

I thought that funny, because it came straight from the dictionary. And the guy failed to provide me with a definition. So until he does, I'll stick with the dictionary.

Conservativism - a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.

Problem with that definition is the use of "best in society" - who determines what is best? Lets find another one that's less objective.

Conservative - disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Now with the next one:
Liberalism - a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

And...
Liberal - favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

You know, traditionally (*giggle*) Christianity and Judaism are Conservative. You do things because they've always been done that way. At some point, tradition is accepted simply because that's the way its always been. Other times, tradition is held to beyond rationalization...to the point that the reason for it is completely lost (Pharisaic Sabbath, anyone? Mark 2:23-3:6).

However, Liberals are guilty of the same exact thing. Yes, I did just say that. Conservatism and Liberalism are far more alike than either would like to credit the other with.

You see, Liberals will debunk tradition and traditional values SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE TRADITIONAL. They automatically assume that there was no good reason for the tradition and throw it out. They are against doing "what has always been done". They will refuse to look into reasons of why that tradition is in place.

You see, contrary to popular belief, we really aren't that much smarter than people were a thousand years ago. Notice how society and knowledge fluctuate through time? I even heard it mentioned we could be in a Dark Age NOW. Though I'd never go so far as saying THAT, per se, I will acknowledge that there were far more brilliant minds in existence a thousand years, two thousand years, even three thousand years before now.

I think that both Liberals and Conservatives need to stop doing things simply because "that's the way its always been". They need to stop and ask themselves - what is the BEST way? Even if occassionally it means holding to tradition or completely debunking tradition.

And Christians, like Christ, need to do the same thing. Of course, we define the BEST way by Biblical standards - and therefore everything needs to be tested by the scriptures (1 John 4:1). Sometimes, Tradition is biblical (like remembering the Sabbath and the Lord's Supper). Sometimes, its not (like praying to Mother Mary and the Saints). Sometimes, we'll be conservative - like Christ. Other times, we'll be liberal - like Christ.

Who does more work - Men or Women?

I've heard this before - that men will work their 40 (sometimes more) hours per week and then come home and do some things around the house... their time working comes up to more a week than women.

Is this true? Maybe I just came from an EXCEPTIONAL family background, but my experience has been thus.

Roles of dad:
Up at 7, out the door at 8 - took those who went to school to school (unless gram and gramps were around).
Got home around 5 or 5:30.
Watched TV til dinner was ready (or played with us some).
Ate dinner.
Went and watched some more TV.

Roles of mom:
Up at 7, getting us up for school. Dressing anyone under the age of 8 so they could sleep longer. Made breakfast and made us get out of bed. Those that went to school, out the door with packed lunches.
Homeschooled those left behind, did laundry, cleaned kitchen, kept most of the house "tidy".
Made dinner, ate dinner.
Busy-bodied around the kitchen until my dad *literally* forced her to have a glass of wine and watch tv with him.

Roles of kids:
Get up at 7:30, eat breakfast, go to school (or be homeschooled)
Come home, do chores (clean bathroom, vacuum, dust, clean bedroom...depended on day of week), do homework/play.
Eat dinner, help mom clean kitchen, do homework/play.

Weekends - dad mowed lawn, mom/kids cleaned pool, kids raked yard/picked up sticks, mom did grocery shopping (not for things SHE wanted...dad had to force her to spend money on herself...and still does) and balanced the checkbook.

I don't know - everything felt BALANCED. I know (now...not when I was a brat of 15) that my dad did a lot of work outside the home. I know (now) that the work my mom did in the house was NOT easy and not minimal. She worked just as hard as my dad...do you know how much clothes pile up in a family of 5 kids??? Or how often the kitchen floor has to be mopped (which is everyday in that big a family)? How often dishes need to be done (often twice a day, unless its a weekend - then maybe 3x's a day...all by hand because we didn't have a dish washer)?

Ok - so not every family is like that...I do recall friend's homes where clean and dirty laundry are indistinguishable because they're all piled up in someone's room (usually the parent's). I have seen homes that rely on tv dinners and the mother sits in front of the tv all day. But there were families that were just as balanced as mine...and it WORKED. It just DID.

I just wish a little more respect and credit would be given to the mom who actually does WORK AT HOME. It really isn't THAT easy. Maybe it is when your the only one, but not so much when there's 7 people your cleaning up after.

Self-Control

The Fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. On this, hangs all the law.
Galations 5:22

I have the feeling that Americans today have not been taught self-control. No matter, its a christian discipline so I can't expect the world in general to hold to it. But it also seems to me that American Christians are lacking in this discipline, as well.

There's this general consensus on this continent that following your heart, and doing what you feel like doing, and trusting emotions is a GOOD thing - and evidence of a free life; a liberated mindset.

As such, the consequences that have been born out of the lack of self-control are being worked through and dealt with by the government. Such issues include (but are not limited to) Abortion, No-Fault Divorce, Welfare, and the bailing out of the Credit Industry.

I will have a follow-up on this, but first feel free to leave your comments on agree/disagree. I get much more controversial in my next couple of posts, so establishing my premise is incredibly important here.

Don't Look in the Mirrors

Much to my chagrin, I did in fact see this movie.

It was one of those joke things that guys who don't really think about it take their girls to a scary movie just to get the girl to cling to them all night.

I think my bf realized how dangerous that was when he almost had his thumb broken. I spent the entire evening with my face buried in his chest praying "God, keep me safe!"

Normally, I don't have a problem with dark movies. I have a HUGE issue with blood and gore (yet I can stomach The Patriot and Gladiator well enough...). But this movie went beyond the blood and gore and got me in the darkness of it. That's unusual for me - but I know exactly why it did.

The Grudge was a great (melodramatic, yes) thriller movie. Still violent, but it had some truth in it. Holding a grudge can turn into a nasty and evil feeling and almost take on a life of its own. I liked that about The Grudge - the way to defeat such evil? Don't hold a grudge! Simple as that.

The Exorcist (have not seen this, so I may be wrong), the defeat was found *in movie* in Christian Theology. That works for me - Christ defeats demons. No matter how theologically incorrect movies can be, Demons will not dwell where Christ is.

See that last line? Demons will not dwell where Christ is.

**SPOILERS BELOW: BUT PLEASE DON'T WATCH THE MOVIE YOURSELF!!!**
That's what my issue with Mirrors was. There was a great evil present in that movie. It was very much like Legion was inhabiting the mirrors. He had been removed from a girl and captured there. And there they wreak havoc until someone can return them to that girl. And where is that girl? In a monastery. Afterwards, she became a nun. A rather devout one. So, she had Christ in her heart, right?

And yet that did not stop the demons from reinhabiting her. THAT bothered me. I coulda handled anything else, except that. That the movie portrayed an evil *more powerful* than Christ bugged me.

Now, I know this is NOT true. And I really wish I hadn't watched the movie. I know that Christ defeats all. And I will trust in him to keep me safe from the evil that dwells around me.

Thankfully, my boyfriend now knows what I can handle and what I can't. And he understands and agrees with my reasons. He just has a higher tolerance than I do, apparently.

I can do all things...

This made me cry. Make sure you have tissues nearby...

The Cliche'd "Perfect Man"

I was flipping through channels while curled up on the couch with my Prince Charming when the Keira Knightly version of Pride and Prejudice came on.

And I started thinking...

What was the cliche'd Perfect Man before Mr. Darcy? It certainly wasn't always so cliche. And this cliche was even around in the 1890's with the birth of Anne Shirley - her prince was tall, dark, and handsome... All of Montgomery's princes were so. And the 5 Little Peppers? Mary's prince (Jasper) grew up to be tall, dark, and handsome... And how about Joe's Boys (Louisa May Alcott - continuation of Little Women), when Nat sweeps Daisy off her feet?

There was a time that blonde was in (especially in Rome), but not so much anymore.

You think its possible that Mr. Darcy has subliminally altered young women's minds over the course of 200 years?

Generalizations, Specifics, and Spirit of Words

I have a very odd background in academics. I thrived in mathematics while being horrible in all things science. I'm incredibly gifted with words and communicating while being horrific with grammar.

While writing and commenting in the blogosphere, I've found myself constantly ending up in the circles of Engineers. This is ok, because engineers and I have much in common. The number one being that I'm an engineer, too.

However, I'm not your typical engineer. I'm good at communicating with people who aren't engineers. I don't need my words to be as precise and locked down as an engineer needs numbers and logic to be exact to the most miniscule detail.

I spent half a semester of college taking nothing but English courses. I did incredibly well in English in High school, especially when it came to literary criticism. I am incredibly good at seeing details in light of the big picture (one of the things that distinguishes me as an engineer, because I'm really not that good at writing code). I can easily look an entire picture and then focus in on one detail while keeping in focus the entire picture. This isn't exactly a common trait. Its why I'm so good at Calculus - I'm spatial, visual, AND able to think in the abstract; Geometry, meet Algebra.

So, when I write, I tend to not be as - what would you say? - exact with my words. Yes, prejudices may creep up into my writing. But more often than not, an engineer needs to apply a bit of grace to my words. I'm not above using traditional literary means to communicate my message as succintly as possible. I'm not going to place a "/Woman" to every "Man" I write. I'm not going to always write "with exceptions" or "in general" when writing about generalizations. I will not always clarify that I'm stereotyping just to avoid offending someone.

I'm not as meticulous in that way as some are. Like an artist, my goal isn't to accurately depict how something looks to the observer's eye, but to capture the spirit of my subject.

Yes, there are times when I will be cool, methodical, exact, and completely logical. But that will not happen every time I take pen to paper. I do not write to be logical. I write to communicate. And sometimes, communication requires logic. Other times, it requires words used in such a way that it conveys the feelings that are not tied to logic.

If there is EVER a phrase that sounds as if I am over-generalizing, stereotyping, male-bashing, female-bashing, please feel free to let me know, but keep in mind that there is more to my words than may meet your eye and I would appreciate a bit of grace being extended to me in your critique of my word use.

In other words, don't assume the worst from me.

Complacency

What is it about the world being rose-colored that cultivates a sense of complacency in your walk with God?

I definitly have cycles...and its not that I think any less of God...its just that...well...I don't know, really.

When I pray, my heart is overflowing with joy and thankfulness for what he's given me. But there isn't this NEED for him that is there when my world is crumbling around me. Of course, I always need him...and this is where the mind comes over the heart in terms of spiritual walk - I KNOW I need him to live. But I don't FEEL like it. Just like in those dark times, I KNOW he loves me and cares about me, but I don't FEEL like it.

It seems that in times of comfort, discipline becomes ever more crucial.

Cold-blooded Killer

For the record, I absolutely DETEST people who villainize all women who have had an abortion.

Yeah, some of them just get one for their bodies, money, irresponsibility, lifestyle and fully know exactly what they are doing.

But not all of them. And it makes me sick to my stomach and want to scratch a man's eyeballs out when he refers to all of those women as cold-blooded killers.

I have no idea why I'm so passionate on this subject, but it is one of the ONLY things that has truly found a home in my heart...a passion to have compassion for pregnant women seeking an abortion and women who have already had one.

Doesn't make me pro-choice, as I'm an incredibly passionate anti-abortionist...but I will not villainize those women simply because they felt they had no other choice.

Is there anything I can do?

A polite question... especially when asked while cleaning the bathroom.

"SURE! Grab that toilet brush and go at it at that brown stain on the bottom of the toilet bowl!"

Yummm...

Well, what would you think if your making your secret recipe of that absolutely DIVINE cheese cake? "Eh...they just want the credit for my delicious food..."

I was reading a review of Albert Mohler's Bible Q & A over at this blog. He discusses Semi-Pelagianism and why it would be so attractive to human nature. The thought that began echoing in my cerebral chamber had something to do with how well it echoed Genesis 3:16,

Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

Here's how he defined Semi-Pelagianism:

• Rather than being morally evil at birth, humans are morally neutral


• We need some help to make ourselves holy, but holiness is attainable

Compare that last one to some of the passages in Romans. Its kind of an elusive heresy, but it is subtly there.

Here's what Mohler had to say about why people would accept this view, undermining the Biblical portrayal of Grace. (Quoted from Dr. Ransom's blog)

“Why do people not see the doctrines of Grace?” The answer is that “we would like to have a part in this thing —” that is, being redeemed by Christ. This is similar to the scribes and Pharisees in the New Testament, he said, who just continually miss the point. “We can see ourselves among the scribes and Pharisees too, because — we would like to have a hand in this! This is just us — and we all know we need Grace, but what most of us want, or think we want, is enough Grace to get by. And thus, a semi-Pelagian system makes perfect sense.”

It was interesting, because this is kind of the reason why wives so adamently want to share in their husbands authority. They want to have an equal say in this, because they want some credit if all goes well, too! And if its an utter failure, "Well God shoulda made it easier..."

Because husbands are humans too, this leads into a lot more problems between wives that want to have an authoritarian position and their husbands...namely, this: Husbands ain't perfect. And they will mess up. Which makes justification for women helping out SO much easier. "Well, you were involved in the decision making process too, so it isn't all my fault!"

I think this is where Mohler's Headship theology finds its definition and meets its doom (short-lived, I know). IF the woman actually DOES submit, and leave all the decision making to the husband, giving him FULL authority in the household, than yep - its the man's fault when things go wrong. BUT (BUT BUT BUT!!! <- don't miss all those BUTS!!!) We don't live in a perfect world. And no man is going to make perfect decisions and no woman is going to live in perfect submission...there will be tension as sinful natures struggle for dominance; as Eve deals with her curse, and Adam gets fed up with dealing with Eve. Unlike the Christ-church relationship, both of our members are not perfect.

I just found it an interesting parallel between semi-pelagianism in the church and the desire to usurp authority in the woman.

So, some advice for the women - submit. We don't know why God tells us to do so (certainly we're not inferior to men?!?!), but he DOES. And that is key, here. He DOES tell us to submit. So do it.

However, I would also encourage women, when seeking a husband, to find one such man that you CAN submit to. One who you can trust to make sound decisions for your family, one you trust to respect your dignity and your own gifts, one who is strong enough to deal with rebellion when it creeps into your daily life (because it WILL). Those things are a thousand times more important than good looks and money.

Circles

Man: "I won't protect a woman unless I can trust her to submit"

Woman: "I won't submit to a man unless I can trust him to protect me"

And round and round we go.

WEEEE!

Dream Man Revised

Every girl has their ideal man. He's the one that floats in their minds when they have no other man to dream about. Famous male literary figures take on that shape as your reading...with the minor changes that the author deems important for us to take note of.

The ideal?

- Tall
- Dark
- Handsome
- 5 o'clock shadow

Lol. Cliche, ain't it?

Well, today I'm modifying it. Five o'clock shadows are NOT ideal. Let it be clean shaven or full beard, cuz 5 o'clock shadows are PAINFUL...so says my very raw chin and nose.

Silver Anniversary

Today is a very special day. Today is one of those rare occassions that you don't come across so much these days.

Today is my parents' 25th Wedding Anniversary.

My cubemate thought it funny that I'd want to buy something for my parents on THEIR anniversary. He was under the impression that it was something they did for themselves.

Well, that's the difference between dating and marriage...the difference between cohabitation and actually making binding vows between yourselves and God before your family, friends, church, neighbors, and community.

You see, their marriage isn't just for their benefit. I have been blessed by my parents being committed to themselves for 25 years. I have grown to cherish the institution of marriage, recognize its worth among myself and my siblings, and am eternally grateful that even when they didn't feel like it, they stuck together.

They have been examples of what it means to exhibit self control, self sacrifice, unconditional love, communication, compromise, and simply what it means to be in a relationship with people.

And here they are celebrating their 25th :)

Its amazing!

To Submit an Intelligent Mind

My boyfriend and I had a very interesting discussion tonight...

Apparently we have vastly different views of submission and authority. I'm more traditional, and he's more egalitarian - figure that one out.

Oh, he's not emasculated...oh that's DEFINITLY not him. In fact, he is a rather good leader and has no problem taking a role of authority.

No, he happens to like an intelligent woman...and to him, the role of submission is a complete waste of her intelligence.

Me, I didn't think submission came at the cost of my intelligence. But he seemed to think so and he was against it. So, is it possible for an intelligent woman to benefit a marriage with her intelligence if she is truly being submissive? Or is it up to the husband (and a demonstration of his true leadership) to take into account his wife's intelligence when making a decision that affects them both?

Undeserved Mercy

I'm listening to the Adventures in Odyssey episode from Saturday. These two episodes have been my absolute favorites since I first heard them OH so long ago.

There's a line in there that completely starts the roller coaster of emotions that Digger Digwillow goes through and what I went through when I first heard it.

On the night of Jesus' crucifixion, a notorious murderer was released at the request of the people. It was tradition for the governor to release one prisoner at the passover feast, and at his wife's request, Pilot offered a choice to the people on that passover night. "Who should I release - Barrabas or Jesus?"

"BARRABAS! RELEASE BARRABAS"

In the AIO episode, the roman gaurd is releasing Barrabas, and as he lets him go, Barrabas is flabbergasted. "Where am I to go?"

The Roman Centurion answered, "You are free to go; Jesus has taken your place."

Barrabas, no matter how good we are, is ALL of us. And Jesus took our place. When we were fully deserving of our punishment, Jesus took our place.

I think that seeing myself as Barrabas makes the sacrifice that Jesus made mean SO much more. No, I've never murdered anyone, but I've surely done my own fair share of dispicable things. The state of my soul was no better off than Barrabas'...and yet, Jesus died for me...and took my place.

For me.

Nurture Protection

I was reading Heather Koerner's piece on Nurturing Protection over at Boundless.org today, and she quotes John Piper as saying this (emphasis mine):

"Nurture" means that a mature woman senses a responsibility not merely to receive, but to nurture and strengthen the resources of masculinity. She is to be his partner and assistant. She joins in the act of strength and shares in the process of leadership. She is, as Genesis 2:18 says, "a helper suitable for him."

That line, "Shares in the process of leadership", is getting a lot of scorn from a bunch of men on another blog. They seem to think that this line says that the woman shares in leadership. Or they actually do take issue with the sharing in the process. If its the former, they're right to have some issue with it - a woman's role is to submit to her husband's leadership. Not share in his leadership. Although, it could be argued that she shares in his leadership every time she acts in his authority when he is absent (i.e. making financial decisions, caring for the children when he is not available). It is not good for a husband to nullify his wife and revoke her of ANY authority whatsoever in his household - but neither is it wise to give her as much authority as he is supposed to have.

However, if they take issue with the latter, than I believe they are missing something in scripture. Woman was created to complete man - not be his doormat. She was created to be his companion, not his subject. She was created to be his "life giver", as I've already written about. "The process of leadership" is the growth of leadership, the developing of leadership, and the display of leadership. She SHARES in that process, as she steps down and lets him lead, as she encourages him in his strength. She is a PART of that. With marriage, they are ONE. So yes, she DOES share in it. She is a part of him.

There is a very important role for each gender. It is important that women relinquish whatever claim they think they have to authority and leadership, so that men can LEAD. But at the same time, its very important that men affirm the importance of women in their God-given role, whatever that may be.

Are we indeed unnecessary and only good for bearing kids? Or are we actually important in "completeing" a man, being his companion, and sharing in something that sincerely affirms and affects our husbands? Are we just as disposable as many women have claimed men to be? Or do we sincerely NEED eachother. Like really really need eachother.

The Woman in Ministry

This is by far the best way I have ever seen this presented. Jen at Boundless had this to say:

Concerning all the comments on women as pastors, I thought it might be helpful to go through a few passages on the subject, as it is a vital one but one that is often misunderstood. I hope and pray these will be of some help to anyone who may be confused or need reassuring. I will start by going through 2 key passages in the New Testament that pertain to the order of leadership in the local church. Then we’ll go through the examples of Deborah and Priscilla, which are brought up frequently, and Galatians 3:28 which is often taken out of context, and finally pastors and elders and spiritual gifts, which can help put these teachings into perspective. Note, this is only a brief overview as I don’t have time to go over everything. If you’re looking for an excellent resource that covers the topic in more detail, I’d recommend “Men and Women Equal Yet Different: A Brief Study of the Biblical Passages on Gender” by Alexander Strauch.

Headship in the local church
For whatever reason – and we don’t need to understand the reason why – God has ordained that men be the leaders in the local church. This does not mean that women are never leaders. They may lead women’s ministries, etc; this will be discussed further in another section.

The bible is absolutely clear about this and to dispute this matter is to not only to make a mockery of God’s Word, but to disobey Him. Scripture speaks for itself:

1 Corinthians 14:34-38 “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in the church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

The last verse says it all: If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. How can one argue with that? The only way to argue with it is to deny Scripture. Or will we also deny 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”?

1 Timothy 2:11-14 “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

For all those who want to say that Paul was writing this in a particular period of history when women would shout out in the middle of the service or whatever, there is no way that this passage can be dismissed on cultural grounds. In 1 Corinthians Paul says clearly “the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” Here, Paul appeals to Creation. He is not giving cultural reasons. Unless we want to deny that the Scriptures are the infallible Word of God, there is no way we can deny that it is not God’s will that women remain silent in the church, that they do not have authority over a man – ie, they are not to be in leadership over, or to be teaching a man, in the local church.



Deborah
One OT illustration that is often used to suggest that women should have positions of leadership in the church is that of Deborah in Judges 4. However, if you read the story carefully, the exact opposite point is clear: God has ordained that men should be leaders.
1. The Israelites were not exactly following the Lord during this period (4:1-2 “When Ehud was dead, the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord. So the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor.”) So to begin with, Deborah was judging Israel at a point when they were not following the Lord. She is not commended for this; it is stated as fact, and to take an example for women leadership from a period when God’s people were not following Him is probably not a good principle.
2. Deborah herself rebukes Barak for not taking more of a leadership position in leading the Israelites into battle against their oppressors (4:6-7).
3. Barak doesn’t want to be a leader. In the case where the man called to take leadership refused to take it, God in His mercy used a woman. In verse 8 Barak says to Deborah, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go!” Deborah responds, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Here, Deborah is again acknowledging the Barak should be the leader, but that the Lord will use her because he refuses to take on the responsibility. As a result, he will not receive any glory. Deborah is to be admired as a woman who followed the Lord when no man would, and for that she is a great example. But she is not an example of the norm, and that is clear.
4. To an extent, this is not even a relevant example for the discussion of whether or not women should be in leadership in the local church. Although male leadership is the norm throughout Scriptures, and is commanded in the New Testament for the local church, it is not wise to take examples from the Jews of the Old Testament and apply them to the way the local church operates. We have been given ample instruction in the New Testament dictating how the Lord would have the church operate. (Note, many people are confused about the Jews and the church – they are not one and the same. I don’t have the time to go into detail here).

Aquila and Priscilla
As previously mentioned, Aquila and Priscilla work as a team to correct a young man who is zealous for the Lord. Notice, Priscilla is not working alone but with her husband. Also, this is not within the context of the gathering of the local church. See….

Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”) To use this verse to say that women can have roles of leadership over men in the church, is to a) take the verse out of context, and b) to make the Scriptures contradict what is clearly taught in other passages. Taken in context, this verse is talking about the availability of salvation to all believers. Galatians 3:26 says, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” In the Old Testament, the Jews were God’s chosen people. Jesus was prophesied to the Jews as their Redeemer. What was not universally understood at the time was that Christ also came for the Gentiles. Here in Galatians, Paul is reassuring the Gentiles in Galatia that salvation is for all men, not just the Jews. The phrase, “for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” further proves the point. This is not a verse suggesting that there is no order in the church, that there is no structure, that there is no distinction between the roles of men and the roles of women in the local church.

Pastors and Elders
There is much confusion in the local church today about pastors and elders. Nowhere in Scripture is there a pattern for modern-day pastors. Nowhere does it suggest that there should be one or two men solely responsible for all the teaching in the church and for all the caring of the spiritual needs of the church. In the local churches in the New Testament, the spiritual leaders were elders. 1 Timothy 3 outlines the qualifications for elders (those responsible for the spiritual care of the local church) and deacons (those responsible for maintenance of the local church – this might include being responsible for the church budget or for coordinating ministries under the elders, etc).

Today, churches hire a “pastor,” who is primarily responsible for the spiritual care of the local church. The term is somewhat unfortunate, as a pastor could technically be someone who has the gift of pasturing – caring for and being spiritual leaders, in any capacity. So technically, a woman can be a pastor.

I bring this up because I notice at times in this debate that some people, saying that women can be pastors, simply mean that women can be the leader in a ministry involving the spiritual well-being of women and children, which is absolutely correct. However, it doesn’t mean that a woman can be in leadership in any capacity over men.

Spiritual Gifts
One of the women people bring forth in the debate over whether or not women can be in leadership positions in the local church is that of spiritual gifts. Nowhere does Scripture say that any spiritual gifts are only for men, or only for women, so if a woman has the gift of teaching or pasturing, why would God have a structure in place that doesn’t allow them to teach or pastor?

This stems from a misunderstanding of spiritual gifts. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul says, “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant.” He goes on to say, “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all.” He goes on to list some spiritual gifts.

Notice: there are different gifts, different ministries, and different activities. So perhaps a man has a gift of teaching. This does not necessarily mean that he is gifted to preach from the pulpit in the local church. Perhaps he is gifted in teaching one-on-one. Perhaps he is gifted in teaching and evangelizing, to clearly explain to the gospel to non-believers. As such, he may be involved in a ministry of teaching outside of the local church, in street ministry or something. Or perhaps another man is good at teaching through writing, and is involved in writing books or articles to teach others. This is just discussing one gift – teaching – but there different ministries and different activities that it can be used in.

As such, a woman may have the gift of teaching. The Lord, in His wisdom, has ordained clearly that women should be silent in the church, that she should not be teaching and leading and having authority over the men in the local church. But perhaps she can use her gift in Sunday School, or at a girls camp, or as a speaker at a women’s conference.

Perhaps a woman has the gift of pasturing. She may have a ministry of overseeing a ladies’ bible study, or of meeting with women in the local church to pray with them and encourage them in times of need. She doesn’t need to be standing at the front of the church to be used mightily by God.

I think she articulated it very well and I'm grateful to her for spending the time writing that! I once wrote the following and it can be found here:

When claiming that God created you in some way, always remember that you are a fallen creature. You are not without sin. Your natural desires, talents, and skills must be harnessed to God's will, not allowed to reign freely. Yes, he gave you skills, talents, and desires that he wants you to use and have fulfilled. But he wants you to submit those to his will and keep them under his hand.

It has always bothered me that women who are gifted in teaching and "pasturing" as Jen put it would rather go against scripture and lead an entire congregation than go with scripture and teach women about what it means to be a woman of God. I've long contested that if those women had embraced women's ministries, then the women's ministries wouldn't be in such shambles right now.

And finally, an awesome quote from Jen that she ended her post with:

What is more important, our society’s view of what is just? Our society’s view of what men and women should or shouldn’t do? Our own sense of what is fair and right? Or what God has plainly instructed?

Until death do us part...But lets plan for earlier.

I was asking for advice on house buying. Not because I'm ready to buy a house (mentally I am, situationally, I'm not), but because I want to know if I'm doing the right things to prepare for buying a house wisely.

I have an interesting little plan going on (that will have to be approved by Future Husband, currently Anonymous though there is a candidate). I'm currently paying off all my credit cards (2 more payments to go! WOOHOO!!!).

Well, my dear boss (who I have written about before due to his frustrating view of marriage) told me that if I plan on buying a house with someone else, to make sure I split everything, record who paid for what, etc...

I stopped him mid-sentence and told him I plan on being married to the person...He didn't miss a beat. "Do it anyway. You never know what will happen."

This brought the following question to mind. Yeah, it might happen. But I'm promising to love this person til death do us part...and he the same with me. So, in spite of making that promise, I should be planning for a divorce? How many people approach marriage like that? And expect their marriage to work when they begin their marriage with this kind of trust? Don't sound like it makes for a very good start.

Lol...I feel a need to make some clarifications here.

I am not the kinda girl who plans on marrying a sugar daddy and bolting. In fact, all my financial plans involve my income being the primary nest egg that we build our initial life together...using strictly my own income to build up the savings account, pay off cumulative debt, and use as a downpayment in buying a house. That's a lot of risk to pour into a marriage.

Here's the thing, though. Marriage is two becoming one. Why would you marry someone you don't trust? And why would you treat someone you trust with distrust? It doesn't seem like the appropriate attitude to approach marriage with.

I'll stick with Will Smith's view of marriage...Divorce is NOT an option...EVER. Oh wait...that was God's view, wasn't it...

Huh.

A Voice to be Heard

I would like to write.

I would like to write about what Biblical Womanhood is. I would like to write about their role as Eder Knegdo.

However, I am lacking in sympathy for a certain unsympathetic group of men and fail to be able to write in a gracious manner.

I should stop reading their blogs. Although they increase my urgency to write towards women about things women should be hearing, their incredible pessimism and outlashing makes me want to stay silent.

Here's the deal. Titus 2:3-5 says this:

Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

I have a strong desire to be involved in women's ministries. My inability to connect with the leadership or mentors within a church has (hopefully temporarily) confined me to the blog. So, for now, this is where I'll be.

I'm not perfect. I'm still young. But very few women have stepped up to teach me how to be a loving wife and mother except my own mother. So, as I learn, I will teach. As I teach, I will learn.

And hopefully, I can make a difference in the lives of those who read. But most of all, I hope that the words I speak are words from God. To bring glory to him is the chief aim.

So...I will write when I recover the compassion that has been lost while reading uncompassionate blogs.

National Baked Bean Month

Yes...

You read that right. July is National Baked Bean Month.

And in the spirit of Global Warming, I'd like to tell you how the world would be a better place without Baked Beans.

Every day, the average person passes 1 - 3 pints of gas a day. Yummm...

Baked Beans happen to be very good producers of intestinal gas :)

And apparently gasses are responsible for the breaking down of the O-Zone Layer.

So, this July, I propose we get rid of Baked Beans. And while we're at it, all milk products, cauliflower, broccoli, wheat, barley, and all other foods that cause bacteria produced intestinal gas.

(Actually, did you know that not everyone produces Methane, which is the gas that is primarily associated with the breaking down of the O-zone layer?)

Balance

I find that word to be overused when it comes to discussing Men and Women's issues/rights.

I'm tired of women who have nothing good to say about men who refuse to trust them and rely on them. I'm sick and tired of the attitude that women need to be able to provide for themselves because men can't be trusted. I'm tired of hearing how women can do it all and that we have every right in the workplace as the men...and that we can run the business, country, world better than the men have.

I'm tired of men who have nothing good to say about women who refuse to trust them. I'm sick and tired of the attitude that there is not one good woman who can have good intentions and still make mistakes - horrible mistakes - that go against her character. I'm tired of hearing how women are the cause of all that is wrong in today's society and that feminism has ruined the home, the church, America, and the world.

I wish they'd all just get a grip and start looking at what THEY are doing wrong. Both of them.

Unproductive

I find myself in a bit of a quandary...

I got a new PC today at work and they forgot to install the most critical piece of software for my everyday work life.

Imagine this:

A Software Engineer with no compiler.

So alas, I may end up blogging today :)

Sub-Intelligence

Someone on Boundless made a comment about how there's this theory that the population is getting less intelligent because the more intelligent women are having less children.

Hmmmm...

I'm not the most intelligent woman in the world, but with straight A's in Math and Computer Science, as well as being well read in classical literature, a background in latin, philosophy, and history, I'd say I can compete for intelligence...

So if I want 5-10 kids, where does that place me in the theory mentioned above?

Its interesting, but in all reality, who are the ones educating most children? The most intelligent mothers are self-educating their families, and for the most part that's a minority. It would seem that the more intelligent women that are working and having less children have kids being raised in the public school system...

Which, apparently, can't teach math...

Initialize This

I'm starting to wonder if "initiating" is taking a leading role or not.

Far be it from me to want to lead a relationship, but sometimes it seems that being the initiator isn't usurping the man's leadership role or stepping out of place as the submitter.

I don't know. In a way, I probably initiated the relationship with my current boyfriend by inviting him over for pie at 9:00 at night after he got back into town after a long week of travel...

HE kissed ME first, and he pursued me for several months...was I responding or initiating?

And even if I did maintain my role as responder, are there examples of a woman initiating without usurping or manipulating? Instead, a respectful surrender and trusting vulnerability when she lets him know how she feels...

Pure Frustration

Anyone who knows me knows I have an odd fascination with history that doesn't typically jive with my college majors or my chosen profession. So, if I delve into history to better understand the trends of human nature and gain more insight into where we are today, forgive me when you find it annoying.

I'm sincerely of the opinion we can learn from the study of history in ways that will help the future.

So...where am I going with this?

History of man...and woman.

There was once a time when men held all the power. Women were held in high esteem, however. Germanic tribes raised their women up as priestesses (never the HIGH priest), revering them as having a special connection with the spiritual world and more in tune with mother nature - primarily because of their ability to reproduce. Women were cared for because from them came the future - in the form of mewling babies that grew into strong and strapping men to carry on the way of life.

Somewhere along the way, though, misogynistic attitudes started permeating the male populace. Either that, or they were always there and with better communication came better awareness. Women were beaten, raped, emotionally abused...and had no way of combatting it.

Then rose a generation of women who said "NO!" this can not be how women are treated! So they fought, and they fought hard, for the right to protect themselves and their children from such abuse.

And then they took it a step too far. From the annals of Euripedes arises a generation of Medeas, who believe that men have gone too long in their power and that their abuses deserve such severe punishment as having their children murdered. God forgive them, at least they were merciful and did it PRIOR to birth.

Among other atrocities, the new movement of feminists has taught young women that they don't need men, that they are better off without them, recounting thousands of reasons of why women are better than men - from being faster in maturing all the way to who has the more beautiful body...and everything in between. We were taught to be educated (because you can't trust a man to always be there to provide for you). We were taught to forego children (because its a parasite feeding off you for 9 months of your life with no gaurantee that the father will protect and provide, leaving you to care for it til its 18th birthday). We were taught to establish a career first, putting boss before husband (at least the boss PAYS for services rendered).

But WAIT! This tale isn't over yet...far from over...

Men began buying into these lies, as well...foresaking marriage and giving into the results of the sexual revolution! After all, feminism introduced a revolutionary concept - sex without marriage OR the fear of babies!

Now, a generation of young women are growing up to discover that all they have been taught was...*gasp*...a LIE! Maybe not completely...there's still some nuggets of truth in that mess that we can take out, polish, and hold close. However, desires for companionship and children are far outweighing the pre-cautions and warnings that flash DANGER DANGER DANGER: MAN CAN NOT BE TRUSTED.

And with these new women come the matriarchs that gainsay the belief that marriage is unnecessary. Nay, they DEMAND that marriage is necessary for ALL. Unless your old and a man, and then your singleness is all your fault and you don't deserve the pleasure of young, supple, fertile flesh.

You, especially those that share the opinions expounded here, may think this story is now told and over.

But alas, you have introduced a whole new animal. From one pendulum swing to the next, history has let gravity take its toll, forcing it from one side to the next...perhaps getting closer and closer to an equilibrium that will only be experienced when my Savior comes back and rescues us from this torturous monster of time.

Swing...now, men believe that there is very little hope in finding a godly woman. Maybe not that harsh, but that they are far too hard to find...and that the risks in finding them are so great that its hardly worth it. After all, even in the church, the women you find are only there for social discourse and all are probably looking for a relationship with a godly man. Definitly not only there to worship and learn about the God they serve.

Now, all women are so tainted by the education of feminism or mandators of marriage, that there's likely not one good pick among them.

Never mind that the girl sitting across the room has a genuine heart for God, loves to pour out her love for others (that is a reflection of God's love for her) in social and nurturing ways, desires to be a wife that Proverbs would extol and illustrates the type of submission that Paul hinted at in Ephesians. Never mind that she is single, longs for marriage, and is amidst men that desire the same. And yet her heart is never discovered. She is overlooked. Perhaps you can tell me why?

It seems that men have indeed shirked their duties as leaders, no longer providing protection to the women who are willing to submit to such leadership.

It seems to me that women who want to force men into those responsibilites are not helping by failing to teach women how to be submissive, loving (not bitter), and caring (not manipulative) wives ala Titus 2:3-5.

It seems to me that genuine and innocent hearts (both male AND female) are getting the short end of the stick, here.

A Covering

One of my favorite illustrations in the Bible is the covering of the woman's head. Its an example of how God provides a covering for sin.

There's a verse that says that the husband is a covering for his wife.

I wonder what this means...

More to come a little later :) Now, back to work :)

Basic Essentials

What are the basic essentials of faith?

I know that the following are definitly essential:

1. All are sinners. Romans 3:23


2. God loves us and gave His Only Son to die for us so that if we believe in him, we may have eternal life. John 3:16

But could the following two be considered essentials of faith?

• Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul


• Love your neighbor as yourself

Matthew 22:36-40

If so, than wouldn't it be essential to be obedient to scripture? Not essential for Salvation, but essential for Faith? James 2:14

Economic Decline...

Does it parallel the rise of dual-income families? The decline in family structure (more singles, less marriage...)? Does the disintegration of traditional family on all fronts parallel the economic decline?

I'm not an economist, so I have no jurisdiction here. But, if you have an opinion, I'd love to hear it :)

Some articles to peruse on the subject (I will be adding to it as time permits):
Increased Financial Risk in Family Development

Rescue Me - Lesson Number 1

I was traipsing around the world of blogs the other day, trying to find out what Google would throw at me if I typed in "female submission". That was interesting...I came accross some very...curious...readings. I discovered that the world has done a fine job polarizing the topic of feminine submission. However, this particular blog is neither here nor there, so on to the subject at hand.

While perusing the stuff, I came across a blog by one of my readers :) She had some sermon notes posted that included some stuff that is common coming from the Elderidges. Pretty much, that women like to be rescued and men like to rescue. Some of the people who posted comments claimed that few of the women in scripture (if any) needed rescuing. I thought about it...I thought about it some more...

So my first subject is Rahab.

Her story can be found in Joshua. In a nutshell, she was a prostitute who lived in a home on the wall of Jericho. Joshua sent spies to scout out the area, and she hid them on her roof. She was a remarkable woman. When the spies left, she asked if she could go with them. They promised that if she left a red cord tied outside her window, they would rescue her when they destroyed Jericho.

And...guess what? They did =p And she married (there's some reason to think she married one of the spies) and is one of 5 women listed in the geneaology of Christ :)

Example #1 that strong, remarkable women can be rescued =) And a biblical example, none-the-less :)

Living Single and Double Income Households

I have to start with this - I'm so stressed out right now, that I'm not certain how coherent this post will be, but I've been thinking about it for the last 2 weeks and today, I had to ask myself WHY is marriage happening so much later and WHY do couples insist on both working?

When I was in college, every vacation I would work 45-50 hours at a movie theatre. I worked there for 3 years, and my boss used to call me a workaholic. If you asked my boss now, he'd say I'm lazy and have a lot of potential that I don't use - simply because I refuse to work more than 40 hours a week.

This phenomenon in differences between my work ethic has recently begun to get to me...what has changed that I am no longer willing to work that many hours? My boss even yells at my young team (all of us under 30), claiming we should all be able to work more hours because we're so young. And then it dawned on me. In college, I had a mother who went shopping, cooked me dinner, cleaned the bathroom, did the dishes, vaccuumed the house...I had little brothers that helped take out the garbage, feed the dogs and cats, and help with other chores. Of course I had time to work 50 hours at work.

Now, I'm responsible for the shopping, the cooking, the cleaning, the garbage removal, paying the bills, and balancing the check book. PLUS working 40+ hours a week. But not only that, when you are trying to live a healthy life style, you have an additional hour a day to devote to that. Its like...where does the time go? I'm so stressed out that I'm ready to ram my head through a wall.

So...what could make this life a bit less stressful? I could definitly handle having my mom move in...but I think my dad would miss her only a little bit. It makes sense that having someone in my home devoted to managing the household while there's someone there taking care of providing the money to manage the household would actually work. And yet my generation is getting married later and later... Aren't they as stressed out as me? Or is it just me?

And then...double income homes...there has to be even more stress there...I mean, 2 people's messes and 2 people to do them...still the same amount of time taking care of bills, chores, and other responsibilites. PLUS working their own hours AND trying to make time to build a healthy relationship.

It just naturally makes sense that one of those 2 would make it their full time responsibility to care for the household and provide a relaxing and stress free environment for the both of them to spend time bonding and relaxing at the end of the day.

And I have a much better understanding of the following verse because of all of this:
"Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land."
~Proverbs 31:23

When her husband is able to take the time that would've been spent doing his doing his laundry, cleaning his home, feeding himself, he can now spend that time gaining respect and being more lucrative at work without sacrificing the time spent with his own family.

I know it sounds so sexist, but the tradtional roles make so much sense =p

Go ye therefore...

And make disciples of the world.

So says Jesus at the end of Matthew 28, before he ascended into heaven to be seated at the right hand of God.

But what does that mean?

Does that have caveats to it? Does it mean leave your country and make disciples of the world? Does it mean go into your backyard and make disciples of the world? Does it mean neighborhoods, schools, cities?

Does it mean all of those?

Is teaching bible stories to 5 year olds in Grace Church Ocala FL's nursery just as viable as building an orphanage in Honduras?

Is teaching your 16 year old son in your living room the difference between God and Allah just as viable as teaching a 16 year old Arab in the Middle East the difference between God and Allah?

Is raising your daughter to be a compassionate witness of Christ's love just as viable as teaching an Indian temple prostitute about Christ's love?

I just listened to the Boundless Show's 17th Episode, and Rosenberg's attitude towards home missions is kind of appalling for someone who has always felt called to home missions.

What do you think?

Life is Good

So. Who really believes that?

I found myself bopping my head to Stellar Kart's "Life is Good" song.

The chorus comes on:

Life is good
Eternal life is better

That in combination with my Uncle's Easter sermon:
We are living the resurrected life NOW.

And I realized that I've been complaining about how much life sucks. A lot. As my uncle would put it, I've been living a "Good Friday life". Christ died for me and calls me to die to myself with him. However, Christ resurrected and I am resurrected in him. So why am I living like this?

Its true. Life is good. Eternal life is better.

 

Natural Beauty

Blue Beauty

Goodbye Sun

I am not skilled to understand

This is normally the kind of post for my other blog, but I figured I'd share...

I downloaded this song a while ago, but I just synced my ipod to get it just yesterday morning...the day I started my Job study. The song?

My Savior, My God
I am not skilled to understand
What God has willed, what God has planned
I only know that at his right hand
Stands one who is my Savior

I take him at his word and live
Christ died for me, this I read
And in my heart, I find the need
Of him to be my Savior

That he would leave his place on high
And come for sinful man to die
You count it strange, so once did I
Before I knew my Savior

Needless to say, I love that song...and its so true...I'm NOT skilled to understand just how incredibly marvelous and big and powerful he is. I have no knowledge of his plans, no idea what he has in store, and absolutely no fathomable idea of how much he truly loves me.

There is no amount of reason or logic to argue my way into his thinking.

There is only one way to go...and that is this:

Trust that he is just and loving and good and perfect.

As long as things are in his hands, nothing can go wrong, right? Even though it feels like everything crumbles around us every day, we can rest assured that he is in control and he has a plan.

Job

I'm currently doing a study on Job right now and am writing my daily chapter studies up on my other blog.

When I am complete, I will condense it, take the major points, and perhaps write about it here. The other blog is a bit more personal and not as critically minded as this one, so travel there at your own risk.

Awe and Wonder

Have you ever sung those songs that talk about how great and awesome it is that we can see Jesus face to face? Or how about when you praise him whether good things are happening or not? And what about the ones where we lay all our burdens at his feet?

I love those songs. I really do. Its built up a relationship with God that seems healthy. I rely on him for everything, I get to see Jesus face to face someday, he gives me stuff, and relieves my suffering...So much me me me. I thought these songs were good...but I think that to much of a good thing leads to a bad thing...even in praise and worship.

I've found that the words in most of our worship either brings God down to our level or puts us on the same level as him. Yes, I praise you in the storm...see? I'm praising you right now while my world is crashing down on me. That makes me worthy of being with you, right? Ummm...no. And maybe its just me that this music has led me to this point...but I don't think so. I've heard the argument before from people wanting to stick with just hymns and the "good 'ol stuff", so there may be something to this. There's nothing wrong with this music, but there needs to be a balance.

What seems to be missing is a sense of awe and a feeling of "little-ness" in our worship music. As I heard someone argue once, what about what God has done for us? Yeah, all that music has references to it, but it mostly revolves around that's why we praise him. I want to be reminded on occassion that I'm really not that important. If I don't praise God, then the rocks on the ground will. Yes, my praise blesses his heart if it comes from my heart, but he is God and he can find satisfaction in anything else. He doesn't pursue me because he needs me - simply because he wants me. I want to be reminded of that. I want to sing about that. I want to sing about how big and awesome and fearful he can be. I don't want to sing about how my praise is the greatest gift to God. Yeah, its the greatest gift I can give, but its not that big a deal in light of what he's done for me.

I've been cultivating a casual friendship with God, which has its place. But I've sacrificed the awe and respect that God deserves as GOD in trade for a relationship where I feel on equal footing with him.

What I'm Entitled To

I've been spending the last couple of months in a quagmire of spiritual depression. It's been difficult and hard to handle - I find myself wrestling with God more often than not. Why? Well, its quite simple, really. I'm 24 years old, have a strong desire to be married and raising a family (God-given, I thought), and I'm still single, working in a job that requires me to make it my life.

Something that has been increasingly pressed on me in the last several weeks, though, has been my pride. I didn't think it was pride, at first, but rather a lack of appropriate thankfulness for the things I have been given. I think that stemmed out of a lack of respect and awe for who God REALLY is. So I started trying to thank him for all the things he's given me. That's not always easy to do when your stuck on something you want but it hasn't been given to you yet. It wasn't working - there was something else hidden deeper that was preventing the proper feeling of gratefulness and the good that my God has already done for me...

Last night, I stumbled on it...rather by accident. My pride has led me to a point where I feel that I am ENTITLED to certain things. Where I think I deserve to be given this or that. Well, guess what...I don't. None of us do. We're all the lowest of scum and the only reason we are given any blessings of any sort is because God loves us -

See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
~ Matthew 6:28-34

Now, I am convinced that someday I will be married - simply because I don't think God is so cruel to give a desire this strong and not do something with it. Either he'll temper it and replace it with something else, or he'll provide for it. But in no way should I feel entitled to it or deserving of it. It is a gift - that he will give in his time. I need patience. Patience and trust, that he will fufill the desire according to his plan. Trust that his plans are "to give [me] a future and a hope"...and not plans for disaster.

And an appropriate attitude of thankfulness that God would choose to love such a wretch as me.

The Carnal Woman

When arguing and fighting about whether women should be submissive to their husbands or not, many women appeal to the fact that God gifted them with many natural leadership abilities.

He also gifted some people with strong sexual drives, as well.

So, in conclusion:

You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let''s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Do it again now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel

Seriously, God DID give us natural gifts and talents. That's obvious. Its all over scripture. Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 13 - 14, Romans 12...I'm certain there are more.

Every single one of those passages, however, requires us to use our gifts within the boundaries of the Holy Spirit. What does that mean? It means, use your holy gifts within the context of scripture.

God gave some of us very strong sexual desires. And he created sex to be a good thing. However, he put boundaries on us that were for our own good AND the well-being of others. "Thou Shalt Not commit adultery." He had good reason for it. Some of us know what those good reasons are because we've indulged in it and have experienced first hand what those consequences are. Some indulge in it and have yet to experience any bad effects. That doesn't make it right, does it?

God gave many women the natural ability to lead. But he placed boundaries on that leadership within the Bible. Exercising those skills with in the context of scripture blesses God, others, and yourself. Exercising them outside of scripture hurts more people than you might know, even if it doesn't hurt yourself.

When claiming that God created you in some way, always remember that you are a fallen creature. You are not without sin. Your natural desires, talents, and skills must be harnessed to God's will, not allowed to reign freely. Yes, he gave you skills, talents, and desires that he wants you to use and have fulfilled. But he wants you to submit those to his will and keep them under his hand.

All this born out of my devotion this morning. I read the New Living Translation Bible and I'm in Genesis 3. It translates Eve's curse as "Your desire will be to control your husband, but he will rule over you."

St. Valentine's Day

Normally, the closer it gets to February, the more pronounced my singleness gets. Luckily, as a single woman who hasn't quite learned to take care of herself properly, I don't frequent shopping stores often enough to catch the Valentine's Day vibe.

However, I have this odd, intense little feeling that it is getting closer. And for once, rather than hate the most detested holiday of the year, I find myself hopeful. Why on earth would I greet such a holiday with Hope when the entire holiday is about Erotic Love? Easy...that's not what its about at all...

I can't find any REAL research on this, so all this is according to Church Lore. Someday I may actually attempt to verify it :)

Around 496 AD, Emperor Claudius was complaining about how his soldiers needed a specific amount of time off to spend with their families. To get rid of that need, he instituted a ban on marriage for all soldiers. A priest in Rome refused to stop marrying and performed wedding ceremonies in secret. This priest was Valentine. He was caught and executed for it.

In a day and age where marriage is treated so flippantly among Christians and non-Christians alike, and articles such as this one are not so uncommon, I think that for once, celebrating St. Valentine's Day will be a good thing.

All Those Roads

**This may prove to be a very blasphemous post, it may cause you to think differently, or to think deeper into it. Either way, if you start reading it, I strongly encourage you to finish reading.**

All roads lead to heaven

This is a popular quote used primarily to justify one's own beliefs in the face of a God who says there is only one way to him. Jesus states quite clearly, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." (John 14:6)

But what if all those roads really do eventually lead to God? But each person is stuck somewhere on that path trying to get there. They think they've reached the end, but really they've only found a mirage - an illusion of home. What if all those roads - all those other religions - point directly towards Jesus Christ? And then, through him, you find your way to heaven.

Let me explain. First, some scripture.

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
~Romans 1:18-20

By this, we know that God has revealed himself to all people. From our knowledge of scripture, we know that satan is the master deceiver and distorts all truth to lead people astray. I would argue that every world religion has a basic truth found in it, but is heavily distorted and prevents the believer from moving forward. They think they have found the answer and remain in that one place believing it is the end.

Judaism has often been considered a hub of many different religions. Kind of like America, it is very multi-cultural, "borrowing" heavily from world religions that it has come into contact with. From this, Christianity was birthed. It has largely remained consistent since its birth, but the fact is, its roots are in Judaism. Studying world religions will simply verify this fact (it really can not be denied).

There are people who use this fact as a means to prove Christianity as wrong. But what if it simply verifies it? What if all those religions had found a certain truth and their contact with the hebrews was meant as a way for God to reveal something new about him to them? I know this sounds really mystic, but bear with me.

The Egyptians are the first culture that historians have really discovered that believed strongly in life after death. The Hebrews spent several hundred years with these people and still maintained their own monotheistic religion. However, historians think that this is where the concept of life after death originally came from.

Zoroastrianism could possibly become one of my new favorite religions to study because it introduced a concept that no religion had yet come up with. They believed that there would be a world savior. They also believed heavily in an apocalyptic event that would end the world. Zoroastrianism was very popular in the Babylonian and Persian empires. The first apocalyptic writings in the Bible were from Daniel - who was a captive in the Babylonian empire.

These are the two religions that I know of that greatly influenced Judaic thought, but now I want to look at other ancient religious beliefs from cultures no where near the Hebrews. A lot of these coincide with eachother, but I want to focus on the central themes of them.

North American Indians
Truth: Believed strongly in intelligent creation.
Distortion: Creation is too big for one god to do it all, so there must be one main spirit and many demi spirits, each responsible for a different aspect of creation.

South American Natives
Truth: Believed strongly that God required sacrifice to be appeased.
Distortion: The sacrifice could be any human's blood.

Indian Dharmic Religions
Truth: Perfection is necessary to be with God/at peace.
Distortion: Humans can reach perfection. If not in one life, then they are granted multiple lives to continue working towards that perfection.

So, in conclusion, each road contains a truth that points to one supreme God and his son Jesus Christ who was big enough to create the entire universe and loved us enough to give his son as a perfect sacrifice so that none other was required. Through him, all our sins are forgiven and we are covered by his perfect blood so that we may be at peace with God for eternity.

**Note**
I think it is very important to note that this is not a concession that all people go to heaven no matter what they believe. It is saying that each faith or religion does actually have something right...just not completely right. Stopping there and buying into the distortions doesn't give you a spot in heaven just cuz you got it partially right. THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN IS THROUGH JESUS CHRIST and that is a truth that I am not trying to debunk. I believe it 100%. I just don't think everyone else is 100% wrong or that Christianity hasn't discovered some truth from them.

What the Church can learn from Video Games

...specifically World of Warcraft.

I started playing WoW a couple years ago when I started dating my last boyfriend. I enjoyed it. I was in a long distance relationship, and we used it as a means to interact with eachother. It was more than chatting on AIM or sending "love" letters back and forth through e-mail; it was a way that the two of us could actually play side by side. If he wasn't playing, then rarely was I. My draw to it was my relationship with the person on the other side...

About a year ago I started attending a new church. It was great - at first. I was getting what I needed. I was attending a Bible Study that encouraged us to be reading our bibles every day and to bring questions and/or insights to the bible studies and we would discuss them as a group. It was amazing. Praise and Worship was awesome, the studies were interactive, people were getting to know eachother. And then...it stopped. The pastor leading the study started doing all the talking - still encouraging us to read our bibles every day, but we no longer had the interaction element. As I continued to grow and learn, I recognized a desire to get involved in the ministry of the church, and I told the pastor so. I was approached by the music leader (who happened to like my voice) and asked if I would be interested. I said "YES!!!" It was never followed up on. Six months later, and I'm still there, still a passive member of the church, waiting for these men to follow up on my desire to do more than just listen to them talk. I would show up to places that there was a need, and wait on the sidelines for someone to explain what my role was and what was needed of me, and nothing happened. And lately, my devotion to my bible study has decreased (though I'm working on this ardently), my motivation to attend church has dropped. And where did I go?

World of Warcraft. It was just a little bit at first. Then people in my guild started whispering me that they had missed me in the last couple months. Asked where I had been, and how I was doing. Then the guild in general was demonstrating a need for more raiders. And I wanted to raid with them...so I worked hard to be able to. And then there was a need for Protection Warriors (the characters that take all the damage so no one else does) - I was one. They taught me the fights, they helped me get the gear I needed. Then a bunch of other people wanted to raid too...and now I'm leading a group of them into fights, getting them equipment, and teaching them how to be better players so we waste as little time as possible. I'm tired of it. But I keep going back...why? Here's why:

I am a needed component of a group of people. I am vital to the success of their mission - without me, it can't happen. My company is desired among those my age, as we interact, join new chat channels, and make plans to visit each other (one girl is coming to visit me in January). I am being mentored by the older people in our guild, being taught how to play my part better by some, taught how to better execute the missions by others, and even taught how to be a better leader by even more. AND they are giving me the oppurtunity to lead. Why are they doing this? Why are they investing so much of THEIR time in me? Easy - they saw my desire to interact by my showing up consistently; they saw my desire to be more involved by my being an active learner and participant in discussions; they saw my desire to build relationships by my attempts (though often weak) to socialize.

What did THEY do that my church didn't? Why am I suddenly more dedicated to them than I am to my church? And why can't I find a church that has these skills at building community? A church with these skills of DISCIPLESHIP.

Bold Submission

The story of Ruth in the Bible was always a curious story. I wasn't certain what lessons could be learned there. One of the commenters on my Life Giver post mentioned that she finds it difficult to be noticed now that she's toned down her boldness - attempting to be less intimidating.

Is that the right answer? I don't know. But I think, finally, Ruth may have something to say.

Ruth was a woman from a different country going with her mother-in-law to a new land. The book portrays her as a quiet woman, she never seems to have a whole lot to say. She is no Rebekah or Abigail. She lacks the defiance of Michal and Tamar. She almost comes off as...dare I say it? A wallflower. Nothing is said of her beauty (that I know of) and she is described as a widow. Which she is. She doesn't sound like your typical heroine.

She notices a man who is kind to her. I wonder if Boaz took much note of her other than her being Naomi's shadow. She tells Naomi about him and Naomi claims he would be the best husband for Ruth! He is a kinsman and possibly the closest living relative to Naomi's sons. But first, Boaz must NOTICE Ruth.

Quiet, submissive Ruth. She fades into the backdrop of grain fields and sunny afternoons, lost in the hubbub of a threshing floor. No one seems to notice that she shouldn't be there...yet there she is. And lays at Boaz's feet. Such a bold move. And yet in a completely submissive way. What man wouldn't notice a woman boldly offering herself to him? Not boldly claiming him for herself, but boldly offering herself.

At the completely opposite end of the spectrum is Abigail. She is no wallflower. She is described as beautiful, daring. She is highly respected by the household servants, where her husband is not. She isn't described as disrespectful, but she does come off as very bold. When her husband insults David and he raises his army to come against Nabal, Abigail goes out to protect her household. And the first thing she does when she finds herself faced against David's wrath was to fall on her face in the dirt and cry out "My Lord!"

Abigail was not ashamed of her boldness. She never tempered it in any fashion, and yet she submitted her boldness to her King - never sacrificing it.

And what kind of men did these women end up with? Ruth ended up with a gentle, loving husband. Abigail gained the love and respect of the greatest King of Israel.

I think that if we as women make ourselves less than what we are, we will end up with men that don't have the capacity to let us be more than what we are. Be bold. Be brave. Be intelligent. But be willing to submit that boldness, bravery, and intelligence to a man who is capable of handling it.

I will not weep

I weep.
Alone and cold, I fear.
A walk alone, a long dark shadow
And suddenly life's unclear.
Curled up in my distress,
Held tight by darkened irons,
I feel a stirring.
Oh God, why me?

I weep.
Pain and beauty, tightly woven.
Created with infinite care, placed with you, my love
And now he is undone.
A hope I placed in your heart
Left unheard, you failed to see
you felt a stirring
Oh child, because I love you.

I weep.
Lost and confused, I fear.
A love so hot, hands I trusted
And now I have nowhere to go.
Hidden from my world,
Masked by self-woven veils
I feel a stirring.
Oh God, why me?

I weep.
Death and life, closely knit.
You fell to lustful lies, I blessed with ultimate grace.
And now she feels no more.
A life to give you life.
Misunderstood, you rejected.
You felt a stirring
Oh child, because I forgave you.

I will not weep.
Created in love with tender mercy,
Destroyed in fear and confusion.
Ripped from your warmth, my life sustaining,
You chose to die and watch me die.
I will not stir.
Oh mother, why me?

Chaos Theory

Path of Light

Life Giver

The book of Genesis opens up with the story of creation. There are two accounts, one is more straightforward than the other, though I would argue that they do not contradict eachother.

In Genesis 2, when woman is created, she is referred to as a helper, help meet, or something along those lines. Not very complimentary sounding. Some of you might already know, but the hebrew phrase used was Eder Kenegdo. It is only used several other times in the entire Bible, all referring to God. And a more accurate translation (claim the ones who helped translate the word into help meet) is "Life Giver".

The obvious meaning of this is that woman have babies - they give life. But what if there's a more subtle, not so obvious one? One that to understand, you must be willing to accept and understand some truths about the male mind. I have been very blessed lately to have a man willing to discuss these things with me and he's provided some interesting points. I am not going to say they are generic and apply to all men, but throughout history, mankind has done some things and written some things that have been very consistent through out.

So, I'm going to start with looking at guys. I want to start with the King who started the Trojan War. Helen of Troy was considered the "face that launched a thousand ships" (so says Christopher Marlowe). I know there's much debate about whether Helen was really the cause for the war, but I don't care. Its a generally held theory. But could it be that men find life in Rescuing?

The next one, courtesy of my guy friend, was that boys will always act differently when girls are around. Mostly, trying to impress them. He mentioned that a math teacher who understands this will call up a girl to the board first to do a math problem - and hopefully the girl will do the problem right. After that, every boy the teacher calls to the board will do their best to outdo the girl. Not because they think they are supposed to be smarter than the girl, but simply because they want to impress the girl. Could it be that men find life in being Respected and impressing?

Now what about this one - what if men have an incredibly difficult time with rejection? Failure? Not being respected and failing to rescue? What if those fears prevent a man from taking a leading role in...anything? But for a man to truly find life, he must conquer that fear and lead? My father says it. My guy friend says it. My pastor says it. These men want to be leaders, but are afraid of doing so. And fear inhibits true life. So, could it be that women are supposed to be submissive in leadership roles so as to give the man the oppurtunity to do so? And when the man does, wouldn't she have fulfilled one of her purposes in life?

Could it be that being a Life Giver is more than just creating and bearing children? Could it be that being a Life Giver requires being the support rather than the leader? Isn't it possible for a woman to find fulfillment in supporting a strong man? And knowing that he is strong because she gave him the chance to be strong?

Face Value

Over the last couple of years, I've become incredibly passionate about spending time with real, solid, physical people.

Living in a new town with only a couple friends has made my time with those friends very valuable - I enjoy seeing their faces and hearing their voices. Being able to reach out for a hug or touch my cold finger tips to the back of their necks. Laugh at their milk mustaches or the mustard they dropped on their clean, white t-shirts.

I like online community, too. It is a world where how you look doesn't matter - just your personality. People get to know you without the initial reaction to physical appearance. And because people are more cautious online, they tend to reach out in friendship first more often then an immediate dating relationship.

The problem, though, is that online community seems to be dominating the world. I don't want a virtual relationship with my best friend - I want to talk and laugh with him or her and go see a movie. Drive the town looking for a good hangout. Tavel the world and find new things to enjoy.

I remember reading about community socials in local communities - oppurtunities for the people in the area to meet and get to know eachother. Play games and ice breakers. Anything to get to know the people around you.

However, real life has this tendency to put value on physical appearance more than what really matters. I think I would like to value what both have to offer.

The Value of Virginity

I was reading a blog post on Boundless.org and a couple of the commentors were saying how they are growing discouraged about finding a man who is a virgin and that they desire to marry a virgin. Another commentor pointed out that the men are also feeling discouraged in this. In response to them, I mentioned that their focus shouldn't be so much on whether the other person is a virgin, but whether they are. I was responded to by a young woman telling me that God (through the Bible, I suppose) values virginity and as Christians, we should value it as well - and desire it in our spouses.

This got me to thinking - what IS, exactly, the value of virginity as purported in the Bible? What does scripture lead us to believe about the value of virginity? Has our society raised up virginity to more than it should be, to the point of requiring it in our future spouses? Is this biblical?

I did a look-see and determined that the only place where "marrying virgins" is specifically required is in the Old Testament when commanding the Priests on who they can marry.

The rest of the Bible's expounding on anything related to the subject is on Adultery and is specifically directed towards the reader. Not the reader's spouse or the reader's children.

I think that it is very important to remember that scripture doesn't place the value on Virginity but on the Heart ( Protect the heart above all things, for it is the wellspring of life. ). To put value on virginity is glorifying a physical attribute that will be gone upon your marriage to someone and will be irretrievable (assuming you wait til marriage, as you should). If it were so valuable, it wouldn't last for such a small amount of time. The value, instead, should be what God values the most. It is obvious that God desires our hearts above anything else - not our virginity, not our blood, not our breath, our hair, our money. He wants our hearts - love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul. The beauty and the issue of sex is that it binds two people into one - it is as much an emotional act as it is a physical one. Pre-marital sex is warned against so vehemently (and more than any other commandment) because it connects your heart to someone else's who isn't committed to you. We aren't warned against adultery because you should save your virginity for your husband - you are warned against adultery because you should save your heart, not only for your husband, but ultimately for God. Virginity is a SYMBOL of this and nothing more or less. Yes, it is important, but not out of this context.

I wonder if we have over-glorified virginity to the point of expecting it in others. I wonder if this is a wrong attitude. The person who you are going to marry is already aware of what the Bible says on adultery, and if he is not a virgin and is honest with you about it, Virginity should not be a pre-requisite to marriage.

The Bible warns against it for our own safety, good, and to preserve the relationship we have with the Father. Through our purity (not only in sex, but in other things as well), we are to glorify God. To lose sight of this goal in our own lives means to miss something very important in life. We should not be aiming to expect everyone out there to be perfect, but instead lovingly encourage them to pursue God with all their heart, mind, and soul - and sexual purity should be a by-product of that and nothing more.

Woman, Be Silent

Women should learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. But women will be saved through childbearing assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.
- 1 Timothy 2:11-15

I think that this has got to be one of the most difficult passages in the Bible for any woman to digest. I finally have some insight on it, though! Before I go on, yes the author of the "insight" is a man. But I'd like to quote something he said before I begin.

This passage is not about male or female superiority. Any honest male knows thatthe grading curve was always messed up by the girls in his class. What man has not been out-thought, out-talked, and out-done by his female counterparts? Your experiences need be no larger than your family to know women who are superior to their fathers, brothers, and husbands.
-R. Kent Hughes

So, to begin, I know many people who like to say that Paul is just flat out wrong here. There is no way that Paul is preaching the word of God right here, no way that what he is saying is not oppressive of women, no way he is not being sexist. And we know God can't possibly be sexist, so Paul is in human error in this passage.

As Mr. Hughes pointed out in the article I read, Paul doesn't claim this on his authority. He uses the authority of God's creation to back up his argument. God created Adam first, then Eve. Adam is the head, not Eve. Then, the touchiest subject of all, it was woman who was deceived and then in turn deceived man.

Ok, so what am I getting at here? Paul thinks we should stay quiet because we are responsible for original sin? No. Paul doesn't want us to teach men or to have authority over them because it is not in the natural order that God revealed through creation. The sin of Adam and Eve was the original debunking of the natural order and the result was death. So, it would seem to me that Paul wants us to avoid death by observing the proper order of creation.

I got started on all this because this morning in my Bible study I came across a woman named Phoebe who was a deacon in a church (Romans 15 or 16, vs 1-2). I was confused, because Paul spoke very highly of her and told the church to help her in her duties. And yet, Paul is the one who said this as well. Why is he being contradictory? After further study, I discovered (largely in part due to Mr. Hughes, though other research played a role) that the "to teach men" was the same word usually used for disciples and meant preaching. Paul did not want women to be in a position where they could create doctrine or enforce doctrine. That role, as I'm sure many would agree, is one of incredible authority and leadership. Those roles are assigned, as Paul points out, in creation.

Now this whole theory on the original sin being the first debunking of the natural order of creation. God created Adam. God created Eve from Adam. God gave Adam and Eve authority over all the creatures. So, the order is God, Man, Woman, Creature. Sin entered the world like this: Creature teaches Woman that she can be like God if she eats the fruit. Woman listens to Creature, eats the fruit, and then instructs Man to eat. Man obeys Woman. Order introduced in original sin - Creature, Woman, Man...where's God?

So, Paul goes on to say, women can be saved through childbearing. Wait...what? I have to have a baby to have eternal life? Some interpret that to mean that they will be saved through the birth of Christ. Mr. Hughes points out that this is a little too abstract for Paul, and mentions that childbearing is the one indisputable thing that distinguishes women from men. Hughes claims that this verse says that women will be saved by recognizing their place in the order of creation. And he's right. Our place in creation is under God and under the authority of the Son of Man. It is only in recognizing that that we can be saved. Its kind of like honoring your father and mother. If you can't honor and respect the physical authority placed above you, how are you going to honor and respect an invisible God? If women can't submit and listen quietly to the doctrine and theology set before them, what makes us think they can submit and listen quietly to God's authority?

To conclude this controversial blog, I'd like to say that women are not without authority in the church. They are simply without authority in doctrine and theology. They are allowed to teach, but must submit to the heads of the church for doctrine. And the heads of the church must submit to the authority of God's Word for their doctrine.

I still don't think women should be preaching.

(The article is here: Living Out God's Order)