Recently, the CBMW blog hosted an article by Randy Stinson entitled “The Feminization of the American Male From Top to Toe.” In this article, Stinson criticizes Tony Glenville’s recent book, 2006 Top to Toe: A Comprehensive Guide to the Grooming of the Modern Male, with these words: “I was reminded once again how determined our culture is to make men more like women.” Stinson ends his article with these thoughts:
“Men reading Glenville's book will only be encouraged in their sinful tendency to look out for themselves. If men are focused on such trivial things as dry skin and pampering themselves with long baths, it will be all the more difficult to expect them to lead, provide, and protect. There may be a day when Lowe's and Home Depot have entire aisles dedicated to moisturizers and skin creams for that weathered carpenter. There may be rows of scented bubble bath for that overworked mason. But if the church continues to follow the culture, we will have plenty of 'Top to Toe' men, able to shop with the best of them at Bath and Body Works, but unwilling and unable to fulfill the Gospel demands that require toughness, self sacrifice, and self-neglect. We do not need prettier boys. We do not need softer men. What we need is a church culture that will call boys and men to lives of self sacrifice as exampled by the picture of Christ in Ephesians 5 who loved the church and gave himself for her to his own neglect and sacrifice. What we need are pastors who will boldly preach about and press for an ethos in their churches that expects this type of behavior from their men. What we need is a church culture that will require boys and men to do hard things, to cultivate toughness, resilience, and courage, top to toe” (Retrieved on 7/30/08 from http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/The-Feminization-of-the-American-Male-From-Top-to-Toe).
What distresses me the most about what Stinson writes is his strong inference that if one is focused on moisturizers, skin creams, and bubble bath, then one is feminine. In other words, one is a woman. The inference is that women can be (and are) focused on their outward appearance while men should be focused on self-sacrifice, self-neglect, and fulfilling the Gospel. That women are to do the “easy things” while men are to do the “hard things.” That women are to shrink with fear while men are to face life courageously.
I’m not sure that this underlying message is what Stinson intended to communicate, but it is inherent in what he wrote. What makes me sad is that his message of self-denial is one that is needed by the entire Christian Church (not just the men) and that both men and women are called by Christ to deny themselves, take up their crosses, and courageously follow our Commander-in-Chief, the Lord Jesus Himself. How much better might his message be if he were more focused on the spiritual aspects of being a Christian and less on whether or not men’s behavior might somehow give them girlish cooties.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
In a recent blog, Mike Seaver (a complementarian pastor) posits ten questions for egalitarians (for a complete reading of this blog, please reference http://rolecalling.blogspot.com/2008/07/semi-pragmatic-less-theological-open.html). Although I responded to the ten questions, for me the questions themselves (the construct) was more revealing and more thought-provoking than their individual contents. In other words, the worldview from which the questions arose brought a question to my mind that---at least to me---seems to be more piercing that the content of each question.
In the questions, Pastor Seaver seems to be approaching life from the viewpoint of being male. In other words, for him the beginning of all things is his maleness. Another blog from the CBMW website offered this comment: "If you meet Christ, you will meet the greatest of all men" (retrieved from http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Biblical-Manhood-and-the-Role-of-Mentoring on 7/25/08). Laid side by side (Pastor Seavers' blog and this comment by Dr. Peter Schemm, Jr.), I suddenly realized that the worldview of egals and comps might be completely different and that this difference in worldviews might be part of why we are so far apart doctrinally.
Take Dr. Schemm's statement: "If you meet Christ, you will meet the greatest of all men." How do you define the last word, "men"? I would define it as "human being." But for Dr. Schemm (and I believe for Pastor Seaver), the definition would be "male." I thought that this difference might reveal something very important. So I went to talk to my husband (who is obviously male) and asked him, "Do you see yourself as a Christian first or as a man first? In other words, which is more foundationally "you," being a man or being a Christian?"
And I think that becomes the issue. You see, I don't see myself first as a woman and then as a Christian. Rather, I see myself as a Christian who happens to be a woman, the woman part being much more incidental and unimportant. I see the woman part as being more of my fleshly nature which needs to pass away and my Christian part as being that which needs to become more Christ-like everyday. However, I think that comps see themselves as foundationally gendered; that their gender is something which is so inherently them that they must reclaim it; that when they are saved to a new life, they are saved as a male-Christian or a female-Christian and not simply as a Christian. And so, Jesus coming as a male becomes very important.
I thought about that. To be honest, it doesn't matter to me that Jesus came as a male. He could have come as a female and I wouldn't have reacted any differently to Him. There is a sense of genderlessness (for me) in God, God Who embodies all of both genders and who created both genders in His image. And so, when I read Dr. Schemm's statement---"If you meet Christ, you will meet the greatest of all men"---I read "If you meet Christ, you will meet the greatest of all people." Jesus is my role model. I am charged, as a believer, to imitate Him in every way. If, as a role model, He is decidedly male, then, as a believer, I am called to "imitate" maleness. Or I am left without a role model to imitate.
I choose to imitate Him!
In the questions, Pastor Seaver seems to be approaching life from the viewpoint of being male. In other words, for him the beginning of all things is his maleness. Another blog from the CBMW website offered this comment: "If you meet Christ, you will meet the greatest of all men" (retrieved from http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Biblical-Manhood-and-the-Role-of-Mentoring on 7/25/08). Laid side by side (Pastor Seavers' blog and this comment by Dr. Peter Schemm, Jr.), I suddenly realized that the worldview of egals and comps might be completely different and that this difference in worldviews might be part of why we are so far apart doctrinally.
Take Dr. Schemm's statement: "If you meet Christ, you will meet the greatest of all men." How do you define the last word, "men"? I would define it as "human being." But for Dr. Schemm (and I believe for Pastor Seaver), the definition would be "male." I thought that this difference might reveal something very important. So I went to talk to my husband (who is obviously male) and asked him, "Do you see yourself as a Christian first or as a man first? In other words, which is more foundationally "you," being a man or being a Christian?"
And I think that becomes the issue. You see, I don't see myself first as a woman and then as a Christian. Rather, I see myself as a Christian who happens to be a woman, the woman part being much more incidental and unimportant. I see the woman part as being more of my fleshly nature which needs to pass away and my Christian part as being that which needs to become more Christ-like everyday. However, I think that comps see themselves as foundationally gendered; that their gender is something which is so inherently them that they must reclaim it; that when they are saved to a new life, they are saved as a male-Christian or a female-Christian and not simply as a Christian. And so, Jesus coming as a male becomes very important.
I thought about that. To be honest, it doesn't matter to me that Jesus came as a male. He could have come as a female and I wouldn't have reacted any differently to Him. There is a sense of genderlessness (for me) in God, God Who embodies all of both genders and who created both genders in His image. And so, when I read Dr. Schemm's statement---"If you meet Christ, you will meet the greatest of all men"---I read "If you meet Christ, you will meet the greatest of all people." Jesus is my role model. I am charged, as a believer, to imitate Him in every way. If, as a role model, He is decidedly male, then, as a believer, I am called to "imitate" maleness. Or I am left without a role model to imitate.
I choose to imitate Him!
Friday, July 4, 2008
I first sung The Messiah when I was a teen. Since then, I’ve sung, directed, and studied this glorious music more than a dozen times. Of all the music written by a person, some of this is the most wonderful.
Last night I stumbled across a Christian radio station and heard the familiar sounds of the organ introduction to the “Hallelujah Chorus.” I love that song! I was excited to hear it again . . . until I heard the voices. It took me a few moments to realize because the melodies were the same. You see, the “Hallelujah Chorus” is actually a four-part counterpoint, four ranges of voices singing similar phrases, but at different times. They all begin together and then the sopranos head off with a glorious phrase while the tenors, altos, and basses join in at different times and at different pitches.
Only the sopranos . . . and the altos . . . were missing. It was an arrangement for an all male chorus.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I like all-men singing groups: quartets, choruses and the like. But there was something tremendously missing in the singing of the “Hallelujah Chorus” without the women’s voices. The glorious soaring into the rafters, the gentle middle voices. It wasn’t the same to have men sing the parts (in their own range, of course). There was a tremendous dramatic and melodic element missing, even though the notes sung were the same.
It made me think about the current trend to silence women in the Church. Just as the women’s voices were “silenced” in the singing of this version of the “Hallelujah Chorus,” women’s voices (participation and leadership) are being silenced in many areas of Church life today. One almost gets the impression that women really aren’t welcomed at all except at ornamental wallflowers (and the doers of the less than glamourous church tasks).
It’s the “Hallelujah Chorus” with only male voices. I wonder if those churches realize what they’re missing?
Last night I stumbled across a Christian radio station and heard the familiar sounds of the organ introduction to the “Hallelujah Chorus.” I love that song! I was excited to hear it again . . . until I heard the voices. It took me a few moments to realize because the melodies were the same. You see, the “Hallelujah Chorus” is actually a four-part counterpoint, four ranges of voices singing similar phrases, but at different times. They all begin together and then the sopranos head off with a glorious phrase while the tenors, altos, and basses join in at different times and at different pitches.
Only the sopranos . . . and the altos . . . were missing. It was an arrangement for an all male chorus.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I like all-men singing groups: quartets, choruses and the like. But there was something tremendously missing in the singing of the “Hallelujah Chorus” without the women’s voices. The glorious soaring into the rafters, the gentle middle voices. It wasn’t the same to have men sing the parts (in their own range, of course). There was a tremendous dramatic and melodic element missing, even though the notes sung were the same.
It made me think about the current trend to silence women in the Church. Just as the women’s voices were “silenced” in the singing of this version of the “Hallelujah Chorus,” women’s voices (participation and leadership) are being silenced in many areas of Church life today. One almost gets the impression that women really aren’t welcomed at all except at ornamental wallflowers (and the doers of the less than glamourous church tasks).
It’s the “Hallelujah Chorus” with only male voices. I wonder if those churches realize what they’re missing?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The price of our sin
1 Peter 1:13-16, 22-23
“Therefore prepare your minds for action; discipline yourselves; set all your hope on the grace that Jesus Christ will bring you when he is revealed. Like obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance. Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; for it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.’ . . . Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love one another deeply from the heart. You have been born anew, not of perishable but of imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God.” NRSV
Yesterday, California began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. It’s a distressing event to most Christians but, I think, distressing to me (and to some others) for different reasons than are being touted.
As horrible as the sin of homosexuality is, I don’t think that issuing gay marriage licenses will bring down American morals any more than they already are. And, in fact, I’m tempted to lay the blame for this corporate and social sin at the feet of the Church, rather than at the feet of those who promote it. Why? Because they (the unsaved judges who are permitting this) are simply acting according to their natures. Romans tells us that, while we are unbelievers, we are slaves to our sinful natures. We have no choices.
We, the Church, are however another story. We are called to holy lifestyles. Peter tells us clearly:
• discipline yourselves
• do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance
• you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth
I watched a YouTube video yesterday. It was made by a young man who claimed to be a gay Christian. This young man says (in the beginning of his video): “Everyone says that I need to be myself.” This idea of personal honesty—acting on one’s impulses, desires, and lusts—is not the gospel of the Bible. And yet, we hear from many people that God simply wants us to “be ourselves.” God never said that.
Satan did.
God always calls us to a higher calling, to be more than we can be simply within ourselves. He calls us to be reborn, rebirthed, remade through the power of the Holy Spirit and in the image of His Holy Son, our Savior.
There is, by the gay community and by many Christians, a huge emphasis on the “love of God.” This love is described as unconditional, but the definition of this love is very different from the love described in the Bible. The love of God in the Bible wants to change us so that we can be reconciled with God. We are, when living in sin, at odds with Him. His love is there for us, but there is no relationship without the shalom (peace) of God.
When Jesus demonstrated His ultimate love for us, He didn’t say, “I understand your sin and I accept it. It’s part of who you are.” Rather He said, “I am willing to pay the price for your sin, but you must accept that payment and reject your sin.”
Father God loves those who have chosen to embrace the homosexual lifestyle, but as with all sinners, He doesn’t love their sin nor does He live with them in peace. He is at war with those who would choose rebellion, to go against His holy laws and His holy ways. The emphasis that many well-meaning churches have on focusing upon having a personal relationship with God fails to acknowledge that we can only have that relationship on His terms; not on ours. It isn’t the idea of getting God to accept us as we are; He won’t. It’s the idea of getting us to acknowledge that we are sinners, in need of a Savior, and greatly in need of forgiveness.
In our effort to attract the world, we have so watered down the power of the gospel that God’s love has been reduced to tolerance and acceptance and our idea of “holy living” has been changed to being honest with ourselves. None of this can we lay at the feet of anyone except ourselves as Christians. We so wanted a “church experience” that was enjoyable, fun, and happy, we have lost the sense of Who our God is and who we are supposed to be as His followers, as His holy people.
We can’t blame homosexuals for wanting what we flaunt. To be honest, we should be looking at the beam in our own eyes (e.g. the divorce rate within the church that is higher than in the world) and calling ourselves to repentance. God promised to heal our land (2 Chronicles 7:14), but the first step is for the Church to deal with its own sin.
“Therefore prepare your minds for action; discipline yourselves; set all your hope on the grace that Jesus Christ will bring you when he is revealed. Like obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance. Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; for it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.’ . . . Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love one another deeply from the heart. You have been born anew, not of perishable but of imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God.” NRSV
Yesterday, California began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. It’s a distressing event to most Christians but, I think, distressing to me (and to some others) for different reasons than are being touted.
As horrible as the sin of homosexuality is, I don’t think that issuing gay marriage licenses will bring down American morals any more than they already are. And, in fact, I’m tempted to lay the blame for this corporate and social sin at the feet of the Church, rather than at the feet of those who promote it. Why? Because they (the unsaved judges who are permitting this) are simply acting according to their natures. Romans tells us that, while we are unbelievers, we are slaves to our sinful natures. We have no choices.
We, the Church, are however another story. We are called to holy lifestyles. Peter tells us clearly:
• discipline yourselves
• do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance
• you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth
I watched a YouTube video yesterday. It was made by a young man who claimed to be a gay Christian. This young man says (in the beginning of his video): “Everyone says that I need to be myself.” This idea of personal honesty—acting on one’s impulses, desires, and lusts—is not the gospel of the Bible. And yet, we hear from many people that God simply wants us to “be ourselves.” God never said that.
Satan did.
God always calls us to a higher calling, to be more than we can be simply within ourselves. He calls us to be reborn, rebirthed, remade through the power of the Holy Spirit and in the image of His Holy Son, our Savior.
There is, by the gay community and by many Christians, a huge emphasis on the “love of God.” This love is described as unconditional, but the definition of this love is very different from the love described in the Bible. The love of God in the Bible wants to change us so that we can be reconciled with God. We are, when living in sin, at odds with Him. His love is there for us, but there is no relationship without the shalom (peace) of God.
When Jesus demonstrated His ultimate love for us, He didn’t say, “I understand your sin and I accept it. It’s part of who you are.” Rather He said, “I am willing to pay the price for your sin, but you must accept that payment and reject your sin.”
Father God loves those who have chosen to embrace the homosexual lifestyle, but as with all sinners, He doesn’t love their sin nor does He live with them in peace. He is at war with those who would choose rebellion, to go against His holy laws and His holy ways. The emphasis that many well-meaning churches have on focusing upon having a personal relationship with God fails to acknowledge that we can only have that relationship on His terms; not on ours. It isn’t the idea of getting God to accept us as we are; He won’t. It’s the idea of getting us to acknowledge that we are sinners, in need of a Savior, and greatly in need of forgiveness.
In our effort to attract the world, we have so watered down the power of the gospel that God’s love has been reduced to tolerance and acceptance and our idea of “holy living” has been changed to being honest with ourselves. None of this can we lay at the feet of anyone except ourselves as Christians. We so wanted a “church experience” that was enjoyable, fun, and happy, we have lost the sense of Who our God is and who we are supposed to be as His followers, as His holy people.
We can’t blame homosexuals for wanting what we flaunt. To be honest, we should be looking at the beam in our own eyes (e.g. the divorce rate within the church that is higher than in the world) and calling ourselves to repentance. God promised to heal our land (2 Chronicles 7:14), but the first step is for the Church to deal with its own sin.
© 2008 Robin L. O’Hare. All Rights Reserved. International copyright reserved. This study may be copied for nonprofit and/or church purposes only without permission when copied in its entirety (including this notice).
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Idolatry of Patriarchy
I don’t think there are very many Christian women in America whose lives haven’t been touched by the idea that women are subservient to men or that wives are submission to their husbands. In one way or another, whether by choice or by culture, most Christian women here acknowledge that there is a substantial percentage of Christians who believe that women hold a role very different from men, whether as a wife to her husband, or as a woman serving in the church.
Lately, however, another side—much more personal—to this discussion, at least for me. And that is the idea that my husband is my “head” or “covering.”
A number of years ago, I took on a legal responsibility for a beloved family member. On the good side, I saw it as a solemn trust. On the bad side, I was very proud that I was chosen over others for this responsibility. (And boy, does God see when we do something out of pride!). Anyway, long story short, over the course of time, I got involved with an attorney who took a disliking of me. Actually, it’s more like nuclear hatred. And it’s been downhill since then.
I hate fights! I want people to like me, to approve of me, to compliment me. (Yes, I know, all things tied into pride.) Needless to say, this entire mess has kept me up more nights than necessary and consumed my thoughts and emotions more than anything should.
What a lesson I’m learning. But back to patriarchy.
In the middle of all this, I realized that I was wishing my husband could just stand up in court and tell the judge that he (my husband) didn’t want me involved in all this . . . and that would be that. In other words, I was wishing that my husband could solve my problems, protect me, shield me.
Instead of God.
I discovered that I was looking to my husband as my source, my protector, my rescuer. (Now, I’m sure there are patriarchists who are reading this and asking, “Well, what’s so wrong with that?”) What I also discovered is that I was ignoring God in all this process. I wasn’t looking to HIM as my source. I wasn’t looking to HIM as my protector. I wasn’t looking to HIM to rescue me. I put my husband in the place of God.
The Bible calls that idolatry, short and simple. No way around it.
Now, I know there are great things about a traditional family model. I’m all for parents homeschooling, spending much more time with their children, for being deliberate in their child rearing. I homeschooled my children and totally support that movement. I having nothing against women being homemakers (and wish that, financially, we could afford for me to stay home). But what I do see in the patriarchal movement is a very strong, often unspoken tendency to create an environment where women end up looking to their husbands rather than God.
When the children of Israel left Exodus, they went to Aaron and said: “Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us” (Exodus 32:1 NRSV). It’s very easy for us, as human beings, to look to a creation (rather than the Creator) to get us out of a jam. How convenient it can be for us women to look to our husbands to solve the hurts of life rather than to trust God in the darkness for what He wants to do. Our husbands will often protect us out of their own pride. God, on the other hand, often leads us through the suffering and trials of the darkness so that we can be changed into the likeness of His Son. One way is easy; the other is hard.
I wonder if the patriarchists ever considered the fact that theirs might end up being the easier way?
I don’t think there are very many Christian women in America whose lives haven’t been touched by the idea that women are subservient to men or that wives are submission to their husbands. In one way or another, whether by choice or by culture, most Christian women here acknowledge that there is a substantial percentage of Christians who believe that women hold a role very different from men, whether as a wife to her husband, or as a woman serving in the church.
Lately, however, another side—much more personal—to this discussion, at least for me. And that is the idea that my husband is my “head” or “covering.”
A number of years ago, I took on a legal responsibility for a beloved family member. On the good side, I saw it as a solemn trust. On the bad side, I was very proud that I was chosen over others for this responsibility. (And boy, does God see when we do something out of pride!). Anyway, long story short, over the course of time, I got involved with an attorney who took a disliking of me. Actually, it’s more like nuclear hatred. And it’s been downhill since then.
I hate fights! I want people to like me, to approve of me, to compliment me. (Yes, I know, all things tied into pride.) Needless to say, this entire mess has kept me up more nights than necessary and consumed my thoughts and emotions more than anything should.
What a lesson I’m learning. But back to patriarchy.
In the middle of all this, I realized that I was wishing my husband could just stand up in court and tell the judge that he (my husband) didn’t want me involved in all this . . . and that would be that. In other words, I was wishing that my husband could solve my problems, protect me, shield me.
Instead of God.
I discovered that I was looking to my husband as my source, my protector, my rescuer. (Now, I’m sure there are patriarchists who are reading this and asking, “Well, what’s so wrong with that?”) What I also discovered is that I was ignoring God in all this process. I wasn’t looking to HIM as my source. I wasn’t looking to HIM as my protector. I wasn’t looking to HIM to rescue me. I put my husband in the place of God.
The Bible calls that idolatry, short and simple. No way around it.
Now, I know there are great things about a traditional family model. I’m all for parents homeschooling, spending much more time with their children, for being deliberate in their child rearing. I homeschooled my children and totally support that movement. I having nothing against women being homemakers (and wish that, financially, we could afford for me to stay home). But what I do see in the patriarchal movement is a very strong, often unspoken tendency to create an environment where women end up looking to their husbands rather than God.
When the children of Israel left Exodus, they went to Aaron and said: “Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us” (Exodus 32:1 NRSV). It’s very easy for us, as human beings, to look to a creation (rather than the Creator) to get us out of a jam. How convenient it can be for us women to look to our husbands to solve the hurts of life rather than to trust God in the darkness for what He wants to do. Our husbands will often protect us out of their own pride. God, on the other hand, often leads us through the suffering and trials of the darkness so that we can be changed into the likeness of His Son. One way is easy; the other is hard.
I wonder if the patriarchists ever considered the fact that theirs might end up being the easier way?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Lusts of the flesh
Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness. Romans 6:12-13 NRSV
My husband and I were having a discussion this morning at breakfast. I asked him two questions (because, not being a guy, I really don't know how things work for them).
(1) Can a man control his lusts when he sees a sexy woman?
(2) Once a man is aroused, can he control himself?
I mean, it seems to me that there's a lot of discussion about how women should dress modestly so as not to tempt men, but not a lot of discussion about how men need to have self-control. Now, I do agree that it's important as believers we not do things that would lead others into sin. But I believe certain passages of scripture as taken way out of context. One such passage is:
"But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols? So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed. But when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ." (1 Corinthians 8:9-12 NRSV)
Notice that, in this passage, Paul is talking about believers who are weaker. If this passage is used to say that women can lead men into temptation, then the conclusion must be that men are weaker in the faith than women. And that's just preposterous.
So, back to the two questions I asked my husband. His answer, of course, to both was "no." Of course men can control their emotions and responses, even when looking at a sexy woman. And, of course, men can control their actions, if they become sexually aroused.
So, am I advocating that Christian women don't pay attention to how they dress? Of course not. But I am saying that Christian men need to stop blaming women for their own lack of self-control.
My husband and I were having a discussion this morning at breakfast. I asked him two questions (because, not being a guy, I really don't know how things work for them).
(1) Can a man control his lusts when he sees a sexy woman?
(2) Once a man is aroused, can he control himself?
I mean, it seems to me that there's a lot of discussion about how women should dress modestly so as not to tempt men, but not a lot of discussion about how men need to have self-control. Now, I do agree that it's important as believers we not do things that would lead others into sin. But I believe certain passages of scripture as taken way out of context. One such passage is:
"But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols? So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed. But when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ." (1 Corinthians 8:9-12 NRSV)
Notice that, in this passage, Paul is talking about believers who are weaker. If this passage is used to say that women can lead men into temptation, then the conclusion must be that men are weaker in the faith than women. And that's just preposterous.
So, back to the two questions I asked my husband. His answer, of course, to both was "no." Of course men can control their emotions and responses, even when looking at a sexy woman. And, of course, men can control their actions, if they become sexually aroused.
So, am I advocating that Christian women don't pay attention to how they dress? Of course not. But I am saying that Christian men need to stop blaming women for their own lack of self-control.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Pastor, Elder . . . Head of the Church?
"Pastor" This word appears only once in the New Testament and yet it is the basis for many of the complementarian views on women pastoring. For example, from the CARM website: "Being a pastor or an elder is to be in the place of authority." Why is this a problem? Because there is an assumption in this sentence. There is an assumption that a pastor is a place (or position) of authority. But in the one verse where this word appears, there is no assumption of authority. Interestingly enough, in the description which includes "pastor," the purpose of the pastor is to equip others for the work of ministry:
"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-13). Additionally, there isn't one office, pastor, but rather a group of offices, a group of people.
The assumption that a pastor is to head up, have authority over a local church is simply non-existent in scripture.
"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-13). Additionally, there isn't one office, pastor, but rather a group of offices, a group of people.
The assumption that a pastor is to head up, have authority over a local church is simply non-existent in scripture.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
"His Name Is Wonderful"
I bet many of you have sung that beautiful song:
"His name is wonderful. His name is wonderful.
His name is wonderful, Jesus my Lord."
My wonderful adopted aunt, Audrey Mieir, wrote this beautiful hymn, a Christian song translated in many languages and sung by many different Christians.
Theirs was an egalitarian marriage. Married to Charles Mieir, one of two ordained brothers, Audrey was also an ordained Foursquare minister. And never did two people love each other more nor minister to each other (and others) more than these two gentle, unassuming people.
No one can tell me that she wasn't called of God nor disobedient to His Word.
"His name is wonderful. His name is wonderful.
His name is wonderful, Jesus my Lord."
My wonderful adopted aunt, Audrey Mieir, wrote this beautiful hymn, a Christian song translated in many languages and sung by many different Christians.
Theirs was an egalitarian marriage. Married to Charles Mieir, one of two ordained brothers, Audrey was also an ordained Foursquare minister. And never did two people love each other more nor minister to each other (and others) more than these two gentle, unassuming people.
No one can tell me that she wasn't called of God nor disobedient to His Word.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
