Go, Jenny Sanford

Gov. Sanford’s Wife Breaks Tradition, Not Standing By Her Man.

From the article at FoxNews:

Unlike other political wives, “she is laying down conditions at the outset and being very specific and emphatic that he’s got to toe the line…The other wives sort of stood there like submissive somehow. She didn’t take that approach. She said, `I love him. I want him back. But it depends on him.’ She’s holding the cards.”

— Donald Aiesi, political scientist at Furman University in Greenville, SC, the governor’s alma mater.

What do you think? Is Mrs. Sanford doing the right thing?

The Feminized Male

In an excerpt from her book, Reading Your Male: An Invitation to Understand and Influence Your Man’s Sexuality, Mary Farrar explains who the feminized male is and how he got this way. In my opinion, her analysis is a perfect example of what happens when one starts from a pre-determined, arbitrary, vastly limited view and then tries to understand and explain the evidence in light of it: most of the real reasons are completely missed. Though there is recognition that something is amiss, the real problem is misunderstood and misdiagnosed. History, as well as life phenomena, are drastically and egregiously oversimplified.

Even the title of her book, “Reading Your Male,” suggests that our husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, bosses, coaches, co-workers, etc. are little more than male members of the human species. Yes of course they’re male, but they’re so much more than that.

There is so much misdiagnosis and inconsistency in the excerpt that I hardly know where to begin. So I won’t try…I’ll leave it to you, the reader. But before I do, I can’t resist drawing attention to Farrar’s comment on Jonathan, son of Saul: Jonathan was “every bit the man his father was not.” But…how did he become this way if his father was feminized, as she claims? Who/what was his template? And this: “What is a woman to do when a man has feminized tendencies?…there is one thing she must never do, and that is to accuse him of being feminized. If it were possible, I would underscore and put this in red.” But…what has she done but accuse men of being feminized?

Instances of Authority in the New Testament – a review of Dr. Liefield’s chapter

An excerpt from Kruse Kronicles reviewing the book “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy”.

Chapter 15 – The Nature of Authority in the New Testament. Walter L. Liefield.

The authority of Jesus – Jesus said that “’all authority in heaven and on earth, had been given to him.” At issue for us is what dimension of his unique authority, if any, was passed on to his followers.” (257)

The authority of the Twelve – The only mention of exousia (authority) with relation to the disciples refers to authority over demons. Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom and an implied authority to “bind” and “loose” is given, but in neither mention of this story is it linked to teaching or preaching. There is a wide variety of interpretations as to what the keys mean. Bottom line, Liefield concludes authority over the evil powers was the only authority given to the twelve.

Paul’s Apostolic Authority – “First, he exercised authority over his coworkers … and churches he himself founded. Second, he primarily uses exousia (“authority”) language in a struggle with the Corinthians over “rights” (1 Cor 8:9; 9:1-18). Third, with the exception of urgent and emotional cases, he was usually gentle in his authority, “urging” rather than commanding Timothy and Titus … and not issuing a “command” to the Corinthians (2 cor 8:8).” (258)

The Question of Authority and “Church Government” – Liefield writes, “While there is clear evidence for the fact of early church governance, there is no express teaching on the subject in the New Testament.” (258) From here Liefield moves into an examination of verses like Hebrews 13:17, “Obey your leaders and submit to them.” The key word is peitho “obey” and Liefield suggest it is quite fluid in meaning. The TNIV reads “Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority.” This verse challenges the idea that there was no authority but the wording is “…clearly temperate in comparison to stronger terms in the same semantic domain. (259)

A second word he examines is proistemi which he says can mean “‘to show concern/ care for / devote oneself to’ and ‘to be at the head of’ (thus to exercise leadership.)” (259-260) It appears eight times in Paul’s writings and in four cases it tends to convey the idea of leader giving devoted care. Four other cases are found in the Pastoral epistles.

read the rest of the post here.

It is my estimation that one cannot divorce submission from leadership and authority. To do so encourages a lack of care for those one leads. I think Liefield demonstrates this well in his chapter in the book.

Complegalitarian Comments 101: Guideline Three

3. Avoid sarcasm.

Wiki says,

Sarcasm is the use of sharp, cutting remarks or language intended to mock, wound, or subject to contempt or ridicule.

Some call it being snotty, nasty, or a real jerk.   Whatever you call it, the general idea is, don’t.  

1 Peter 3

Now in actuality the theme of 1 Peter 3 starts before chapter 3. Where do you think it starts?

Where do all the “likewises” fit in?

And what do you think the theme is?

”TNIV
1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.”

Titus 2

“Titus 2 Darby translation

1But do *thou* speak the things that become sound teaching;
2that the elder men be sober, grave, discreet, sound in faith, in love, in patience;
3that the elder women in like manner be in deportment as becoming those who have to say to sacred things, not slanderers, not enslaved to much wine, teachers of what is right;
4that they may admonish the young women to be attached to [their] husbands, to be attached to [their] children,
5discreet, chaste, diligent in home work, good, subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be evil spoken of.
6The younger men in like manner exhort to be discreet:…

Note first that there is a theme which runs through these admonishments to elder men, elder women, younger men and slaves. You will see the theme more clearly when you read the entire chapter. What do you think the theme is and how does that affect your reading of the above segments?

Complegalitarian Comments 101: Guideline Number Two

*Don’t forget about the Comment Contest (here, scroll to bottom)! 

_______________________________________________

2. Support your claims with evidence

 Say I am just really concerned about egals and odor, something I believe is important to address and discuss.  What this guideline means to me is that I need to think twice before stating, “All egals smell funny.” 

What would be better is something like,

“I’ve wondered if there is a correlation between egalitarians and bad odor, because I think it is a real problem, one I’ve run into a lot.  So when I ran across this study [link], my concerns were validated.  This study seems to say that many egals do smell bad, especially compared to comps.  I find this concerning.” 

Or perhaps I could also say,

“I’ve wondered about egals and odor for a long time.  I now believe that egals do smell funny.  This book ____, by popular egal author ___, says that egals like to smell funny.  Here is the quote.  “blah blah blah blah blah,” from page 34 of the book.   I find this concerning.” 

I could also support my claim this way:

“I’m concerned about a correlation this study ____ makes between egals and body odor.  The main reason I am concerned is because the book of James says ____, and so does Malachi in chapter____.  Later, when John writes about body odor in Revelation ___, he says the same thing.  Yet egal author ___ says ________ on page four of his book _____, which seems to me to deny what the Bible says in those three places.” 

These are some examples of how I can support a claim with evidence.   Note that I don’t have to back up an opinion with evidence. 

If I say, “I personally think that egals often tend to smell funny,” that is not a claim but an opinion.  I don’t have to back it up with evidence, though I may want to watch how I share that opinion, if it’s going to cause offense, and I also may want to be prepared to explain why I have that opinion—especially when twelve nice-smelling egals married to twelve foul smelling comps read it and then ask me to please clarify.  Whoops. 

Opinions are okay—we all have them—but there are a few opinions, especially the kind that are highly offensive or extremely unsupported, are probably best shared elsewhere.  

Saying authoritatively, “Egals smell funny and that’s just the truth,” is making a claim, and a claim really needs to be backed up with some sort of evidence, preferably including a link or a reference of some sort.    

Speaking of referring to evidences, I’ve been taken to task once in the past for using a study as evidence which, as it turned out, later studies had proven false.  Oops.  I didn’t know that.  I didn’t realize the study I’d quoted from was later discredited and I was glad others did and corrected it.  In fact, I would have never known that the study was misleading if others hadn’t shared. 

So it’s good to work as a team in the matter of evidence finding, because here is one thing comps and egals can agree on: we want the truth and we do not want to make claims that are based on false evidences.   This is a way of saying that we’re in a learning growing process here, and all “evidences” may not be as valid as we think they are, or may need to be balanced with other evidences that appear to point to a different conclusion…and that is okay!  We do the best we can. 

Thankfully, we’re all on the same team and between all of us, we can help cull evidences that have been later proved incorrect and balance evidences that need balanced.  No one study proves anything, just as no one quote proves anything, but together, we can be careful not to make claims unless we can back them up with something solid—or close to solid, as it were–and have some good discussion as we do so.

So now that I’ve shared some things that Number Two means to me, it’s your turn.  What do you understand Number Two to mean?

Egalitarians Smell Funny and Complementarians Look Dumb: “Complegalitarian Comments 101″ Number One

Boot camp is on!  Gimme twenty, soldier! 

Just kidding.  I’m also kidding about the title of this post.  The dumb/smelly part, not the Comments 101 part.  Speaking of comments, if you have a moment, please review the comment policy on the sidebar.   This policy exists in order to facilitate the goals of this blog, which is to foster an environment where complementarians and egalitarians can talk about gender issues, find ways to build bridges with each other even in the midst of continuing disagreement, and more. 

This cannot be done if any/either side is regularly lobbing bombs at each other.  But many times, we don’t mean to lob bombs.  We just aren’t well versed in conversing with those who are “on the other side.” 

Intentions might be great, but, let’s face it.  We could use some practice!  For the next few weeks, let’s talk about our comment policy guidelines, one by one, fleshing out what they might and might not look like in real life.  Today, we will take a closer look at the first guideline.    

1. Focus on issues, not personalities.

Example A.

Gretta McGlockenstien is an egalitarian and she’s also a militant bisexual who says every woman should have at least five abortions!!!   This PROVES that egalitarians are all militant bisexuals who love abortion!!!!! 

No.

 Gretta is Gretta.  People are complex.  This comment proves nothing about ALL egalitarians.  Gretta’s egalitarianism may or may not have anything to do with her other beliefs.  If the commenter can link to a few studies that prove 99.99% of egalitarians are all abortion-loving bisexuals, then he/she is welcome to make his/her point.  There may be a correlation there, obviously.  Otherwise, this comment is completely out of bounds. 

A better way to comment about Gretta might be,

“Gretta McGlockenstein really concerns me.  She loudly preaches her version of egalitarianism but is also a vocal promoter of sexual immorality and radical abortion beliefs.  Some of my comp friends think she is a typical egalitarian.  Egals here, would you care to comment about her and share what you agree and disagree with regarding her teachings?  Do you think she is a spokesperson for most egals or not?  Thanks.”

Example B

George Blezzer, a popular complementarian teacher, said that women were worth less to God than men are.   Since he said that, it proves that ALL complementarians believe that about women.  This is exactly why I hate complementarians so much!  They never even bother to look at their Bibles!   

No.

If George Blezzer said that, it’s okay to point it out (and link to it to provide proof).  But don’t assert that because Blezzer said it, it is what all complementarians believe.  That isn’t true at all.  One speaker for a group does NOT represent all members of that group.  And throwing in the slam, based on your opinion of Blezzer’s teaching, that all complementarians don’t study their Bibles is taking a bad comment and making it worse.  We want to be assuming positive intent about each other unless we have proof otherwise.    

A more appropriate comment might be,

George Blezzer, a popular complementarian teacher, said that women were worth less to God than men are.   This really concerns me, because it goes against what I see Scripture saying here___ and here___ and also here___.  I also feel personally hurt by his words.  Comps, how do you feel about Blezzer’s teachings?  Is he representative of the majority of comps?  If you agree with him, would you mind sharing the Scriptural basis you have found for doing so? 

…

The first “version” of these fictional comments are purposely over the top, and the characters are intentionally made up.  The comments box below is open for your own imaginary examples of 1.) how to break the first comment guideline and then 2.) how to follow it (and read on below for a bonus). 

The comments box is also, as always, open for any thoughts, questions, complaints or other hypothetical* examples regarding the first rule in our comment policy.  

*Please refrain from using a real comment as an example of what not to do.  Our intent here is not to single anyone out, but rather to learn how to communicate better.     Thanks so much.

FREE Comp/Egal BOOK GIVEAWAY CONTEST:

Whoever comes up with the FUNNIEST hypothetical example to share of an inappropriate comment and then a corrected version (that adheres to all 8 of the comment guidelines)  will win a FREE (gently used) BOOK from Complegalitarian.  

Hint: the judge of the contest says that poking fun at your OWN side is highly recommended. 

This competition will run for the entire week or two of the blog series, and you may place your entries under any of the posts in this series (starting now with this one).  You may enter as many times as you like.  Have fun! 

Comps, this is your chance to get a free copy of Carolyn McCulley’s, “Radical Womanhood– Feminine Faith in a Feminist World.”  Egals, this is your chance to get a free copy of “Women in the Church–A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry,” by Stanley J. Grenz.  

And if you win the contest but don’t want either book, you can always choose the Mystery Prize, which is guaranteed to be one of the most, er, original gifts you’ve ever recieved.  Muhahahaha…

IN RECOGNITION OF WOMEN

IN RECOGNITION OF WOMEN…. More than ever before I am running into women who are questioning and even resenting the idea that women cannot lead, teach, preach, shepherd, or do anything that puts them in the forefront of men in the church. And even more interesting but not at all surprising is that these questions are arising NOT out of pride but of deep wounds in their inner person. It used to be that these women needed to “suck it up”, be quiet and be ill by themselves as they tried to fill the popular Christian idea that women should be primarily wives and mothers first and foremost in their lives in order to be fulfilled and be orderly.  And if they were efficient they wouldn’t have time for much of anything else.

Many women after doing their best to do this find themselves unfulfilled and emotionally sick in their inner person. Even good counselors don’t heal the wounds to their person and self valuation.

I am both thankful and quite surprised that so many women have been speaking up in my women’s group and that we have been able to release them toward the Lord, where they are finding a new freedom in Christ. One woman came to the group studies with great anger toward God. Now she is a devoted sister. She had been a Christian on and off for many years, but never could deal with what she saw as being a second class citizen with God. Now that she sees that those were man’s ideas and not God’s, she is free to love God as never before. And all of that has nothing to do with her wanting to have a ministry as she is a committed wife and mother, quite in love with her husband who is a great guy and loves being a housewife.

But what about those women who ARE called to minister in the body of Christ and have been turned away, ridiculed, and told to be quiet and be good wives and mothers instead. Isn’t the body of Christ losing valuable ministry that would bring balance to the whole body of Christ?

Barna’s description of Casual and Captivated Christians

“Barna: The lives of Captive Christians are defined by their faith; their worldview is built around their core spiritual beliefs and resultant values. Casual Christians are defined by the desire to please God, family, and other people while extracting as much enjoyment and comfort from the world as possible. The big difference between these two tribes is how they define a successful life. For Captives, success is obedience to God, as demonstrated by consistently serving Christ and carrying out His commands and principles. For Casuals, success is balancing everything just right so that they are able to maximize their opportunities and joys in life without undermining their perceived relationship with God and others. Stated differently, Casuals are about moderation in all things while Captives are about extreme devotion to their God regardless of the worldly consequences.”

” Barna’s studies indicate that Casual Christians represent 66% of the adult population of the U.S. (The percentage of the adult population represented by the other half-dozen tribes included 16% who are Captive Christians, 2% Jews, 2% Mormons, 2% Pantheists, one-half of 1% Muslims, and 11% Skeptics.)”

Most of my Christian life I’ve fellowshiped and worked in SBC’s.  Interestingly,  easily the SBC is composed of 66% Casual Christians and 16% Captive Christians by his definitions.  I wonder if that is an average description of all churches.  Considering that the 66% will control the direction of the denomination as a whole it is no wonder that the SBC has always been on the ‘wrong side’ of many controversial issues. It appears that their value system is being controlled by comfort rather than a drive for the deeper truths of God.

Controversial issues are where people will get hurt such as the gender debate, the activities of the HS, leadership and family issues. (this doesn’t mean that every controversy with the biggest resistance must be right ).  Thus, Christians who are captivated with seeking God’s heart on deeper issues should know and accept that we will be in an ongoing fight with those who live their Christian life in a way that does not upset the majority of Christians.  We will upset people.  And considering what Barna has said, perhaps upsetting casual Christians is good for them.

There are always, and will always be people who view life from a social standpoint, whether in general or as Christians.  Those who seek God on a deeper level are the minority.  It has always been this way because of the sin nature. Those who strive to enter into a deeper relationship with God (including seeking answers to doctrinal issues such as the gender debates), are not satisfied with a social Christianity devoid of internal challenges.  

What do you think?  :)

 

Link to full article:    http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/268-casual-christians-and-the-future-of-america