Former Porn Star Speaks Out.

Don't go here if talk of porn offends you.

But do go here if you are under the delusion that porn is glamorous and that the girls in the pictures and videos are actually enjoying what it going on.

The truth about porn with Tamra Toryn.

Piper's Poem Problems

Yes, I read it. No, I couldn't get past the first scene in the video, though I may try again some other time. I was turned off by the fact that Calvinism is for a lot of young white men, a few older white men and then pretty much nobody else, including all women who, though they receive a title and mention of high praise, they really are nothing to the Calvinist but a parable. I'm a person. Not a parable.

That aside, two others have written on this self-absorbed and self-obsessed poem that put a lot more thought into what is really wrong with it than what I could get into. Hey, I'm tired of being marginalized by John Piper and his ilk. Analyzing his dismissive tone towards me and all women is not what I would call a good use of my time. But I don't mind reading other musings on Piper's pathetic pontifications, a poem that is an assault on both poetry and any doctrine not whoring after Calvinism.

Update: The Self-obsessed Calvinist

And

John Piper's WAMM Calvinist (White American Middle-class Male)

Mefferd Silenced by the Mars Hill Machine and Friends

I guess none of my Mefferd links are going to work any more. I think I'll leave them up as testimony to the spiritually bankrupt, ethically challenged Mars Hill Machine Church.

But I have some new links for you all thanks to a heads up from a commenter (Daisy) on TWW.

New Twist in Mark Driscoll Plagiarism Scandel: 'You may not go up against the machine'
On 'Right Wing Watch'

I Told You This Was No Boat Accident
On 'Fighting for the Faith'

Then this one for fun, also on 'Fighting for the Faith'

Mark Driscoll 2014 Plagiarism Calander

I never would have guessed that there actually was an Evangelical Mafia. But apparently there is and it has full authority and they have silenced Mefferd.

May Evangelical Mafia's authority crumble. May their cash flow cease. And may those in charge humble themselves and get (re)acquainted with Jesus Christ whom they claim to serve.

I don't know about anybody else, but I may be boycotting Tyndale indefinitely.

Plagiarism, More from Mefferd

Here is her show from Wednesday, if anyone hasn't heard it yet.

Janet Mefferd on Driscoll's plagiarism.

More Driscoll Plagerism

Mefferd is at it again. She is holding Driscoll's feet to the fire.

Driscoll is guilty of plagiarism. It needs to be fixed.

People are smearing Mefferd for pointing out the problem. The people smearing her are screwed in the head. She's not the problem. She's pointing out the problem. Plagiarism.

Those who can, stand with Mefferd as she stands for what is right.

Here is the link to her show today where she further exposes the ridiculous amount of plagiarism going on in the Mars Hill world.

Mefferd Radio Show 11/26/2013 part 2. Driscoll is guilty.

More on Love and Respect

Thanks to Shadowspring over at Loving, Learning, Liberty for the heads up on this one.

We talked about Love and Respect here before. Sarah over the Moon has a nice analysis of it and the Movie "Fireproof".

Here are her observations:

What "Love and Respect" and "Fireproof" Teach Abusers and their Victims.

We have looked at "Love and Respect" here before under a blog post called: Unconditional Respect?

In fact, I wanted to leave a comment on Sarah's blog about it but disqus and I have never gotten along. But I was going to link Unconditional Respect in a comment there. Oh well. Guess that's not going to happen.

Driscoll in over his head with Mefferd

Yep, He tried to side step, take the moral high ground, attack Mefferd... Whatever he could do to throw her off her confrontation concerning another allegation of Plagiarism. But he found she was way tougher than he bargained for. And she had the moral high ground from the get go. There was no way he could take it from her. So he just hung up before the interview was over. Quite the manly man, that Driscoll (snort).

Mefferd confronts Driscoll's theft of intellectual property and wins debate.

Hannah's Piece on Stumbling Blocks

Give it a looksee. Her perspective on what is going on in the legalistic Christian world vs apparent true faith of another certain church leader is very insightful.

Stumbling Blocks of the Church

Stealthy Attacks on Womanhood

Or perhaps a better way of saying it is... Greeks bearing gifts attacks... or Trojan horse attacks.

Because this is what American Evangelicals subject themselves when they embrace the little-by-little infiltration of groups like Vision Forum and men like Doug Wilson.

When American Evangelicals embrace VF, ATI, or Doug Wilson, they are receiving that which will destroy them and their credibility.

Thanks to A Woman's Freedom in Christ for the heads up on the comment I'm about to link. The comment highlights how overbearingly oppressive and unchristian groups like VF really are. So many are sweeping Doug Phillips indiscretions and resignation under the rug when they should be examining more closely the doctrine of his group that hands out oppression to women and children while setting men up as Lords and Kings in their home. There doctrine allows men to arbitrarily make life miserable or bearable according to their mode, personality, and disposition. And this doctrine forces women and children to stay in situations that are abusive and not fit for animals.

Here is the comment of someone who has studied these groups.

Bee Keeper's Study of Patriarchy

We must stand against both the brazen attacks of Doug Wilson and Tim Challies on womenhood and the sneaky movement coming from those trying to make Vision Forum more mainstream.

Another Attack on Womanhood...

Are you listening Ryan over at Wartburg Watch (see previous post).

This is actually an old one. But I'm bringing it to the forefront and reposting it so that Ryan can see that Womanhood is being attacked by the leaders of the Evangelical movement.

Tim Challies is a respected leader among his subgroup of Evangelicals. And apparently he has seen something that he doesn't like. And in order to fight it, he has polarized it into gender forms, making the masculine good, strong, and right and what he doesn't like as effeminate (weak and accepting of wrong).

His polarizing and defining, making masculine good and feminine evil is another example of the war on womanhood being carried out everyday by those who are defending manhood from perceived attackers.

Still, I don't see a war on Manhood in any of this. But I do see a lot of men claiming that there is a war on it. These men get on the offensive and start attacking whoever they think they should blame, namely the feminine (again, like Adam blaming Eve) when really, it is a manufactured and propaganda propelled war.

Here is the old post reprinted out, complete with links to Challies and places that refute what he's saying. I originally wrote this post back in the days before I understood how to work the blogger linky thingy. Back then I just cut and pasted the links 'as is' into the post.

(Note: I was a bit upset back in the day I wrote this. I'm still not happy with Challies and his conclusions, but I'm not nearly as angry today as I was then. But I'm not ashamed of my back then anger. There is a reason to be angry with this war that men have declared against the feminine. It is wrong.)

*****

Soft Effeminate Christianity. ROTFL!

I read this and all I could do was laugh.

The famous Tim Challies, who has caused a stir in the blog world by declaring that women cannot even read scripture out loud in the public assembly has decided to quote Horatius Bonar. In fact, he entitled and entire post "Soft, Effeminate Christianity" in order to quote Bonar. He says this about Bonar's quote that he reprints.

Tim Challies: "Bonar is warning against a kind of soft and, in his word, effeminate Christianity, that may come about when Christians are too afraid to fight for what is right and to protest against what is wrong."

http://www.challies.com/quotes/soft-effeminate-christianity

Why am I laughing at this?

Because of his hypocrisy and blatant hatred of the feminine. These pushers of gender roles force women down into a soft, submissive, subservient role THEN show hatred for such things in the church.

Well, let me tell you Tim Challies, who wants to turn women into little helpless lambs. Let me tell you this. You and your cohorts' relentless pursuit to dis-empower and bring into bondage, women, half or over half of the body of Christ... This pursuit is blowing up in you face.

More and more women are done with all the rules men keep making up for them.

I'll give you a few examples:

http://www.emergingmummy.com/2011/12/in-which-i-am-done-fighting-for-seat-at.html

http://rachelheldevans.com/daughters-will-prophesy

http://www.elizabethesther.com/2011/12/i-will-prophesy.html

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/11/04/tim-challies-deleting-both-scripture-and-hurting-people-a-request-from-sgm-refuge/

http://bwebaptistwomenforequality.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/industry-standards/

These are mother grizzlies and lionesses who are not afraid to fight for what is right and to protest against what is wrong. And your stance on women reading scripture in the public assembly and your support of C.J Mahaney are both dead wrong. These women are not afraid to declare it. They are very feminine. But they are strong and powerful, able to preach and teach men of their wrong. And yes, they are able to prophesy in the name of Jesus. No amount of Scripture twisting by you and others is able to take away from them the promise of Almighty God.

The real problem in all of this is your refusal to hear about the wrong that you commit against all of your sisters and many of your brothers.

Is 'Manhood' Under Attack?... Really?!

Nothing like beating a dead horse.

Except it's not really dead yet.

The Wartburg Watch had a post back in September entitled "Act Like Men-Are Driscoll/MacDonald Merchandising Manhood?"

That's a long time ago in blog years. So why is a certain fellow named 'Ryan' coming along and commenting on it yesterday,  on November 5th?

Why is he saying, "my sense is that manhood is under attack and virtually neutered from the modern mainline churches. Do you believe this is ok? God honoring?"

So Ryan feels attacked in his manhood, right?
And Ryan wants to know if I feel it's okay and God honoring for the mainline churches to attack his manhood.

Well, here it is. If manhood is truly being attacked, then, no, I don't feel it's okay or God honoring. The problem is, Ryan has offered no proof that this is going on. So I can't make a stand on this issue due to lack of proof.

Now, here is my question to Ryan.

Do you think it is right to, first of all, accuse everything you hate about certain worship services as being "effeminate" and then declaring that all these things are evil, thereby indirectly attacking the feminine and deciding that masculine rules while the feminine drools.

Well, this is what Doug Wilson does in his, "Your Worship Service Might Be Effeminate If..."

This is well responded to by Internet Monk in "Esau Christianity, Doug Wilson Needs a Bible Study." and Board's Head in "Mary vs Effeminacy"

Also, Wilson is quick to blame anyone that he's mad at as serving the b!tch goddess of (fill in the blank as pertaining to whatever he's ranting about). This misogynist behavior is observed by Wenatchee the Hatchet in his "Doug Wilson almost channel's Eric Cartman."

Now, granted, the Wartburg comment thread is talking about Driscoll and MacDonald so one may wonder what the heck Doug Wilson has to do with any of this. Well I'm going to provide a link to a video of John Piper praising Doug Wilson while Chandler and Driscoll fist bump behind him. In the video, John Piper states at the 58 second mark (while Driscoll agrees with laughter and fist bump):

"Doug Wilson is one of the most careful and bright, reform, post millennial, objectivist, theologians around... and he's got people around him that are dumb. (laughter... fist bump... more laughter)"

Link to youtube video John Piper on Doug Wilson

So this is what Piper has to say about Wilson. That Wilson is brilliant and everyone else is dumb. Yet, as WTH points out, Wilson almost channels Eric Cartman (South Park) in his hatred and attack on the feminine.

I have proved that the feminine is being attacked in Evangelical circles.

What does Ryan have to say about that?
Is there anyone attacking 'manhood' in mainline denominations as vicious as Wilson hates and attacks the feminine?
I doubt it.
But I'm willing to see any proof Ryan can provide.

John MacArthur's Unfriendly Fire

Yup, it's a firestorm. Yup, it's getting pretty ugly.

Nope, I don't want to get too involved except to say a thing or two and leave a couple links.

First off, those who have been with me, like, forever, know that back in the day when Driscoll was ranting and raving and raping The Song of Songs mostly unchallenged, I appreciated MacArthur's voice in the wilderness, calling Driscoll on his misused and abuse of Scripture.

I still appreciate what he has done.

But now, John MacArthur is ranting and raving and shooting off his mouth and pen with his book and conference called Strange Fire attacking Charismatics.

And apparently Driscoll crashed MacArthur's party.

My biggest impulse is to back up and let the elephants trample each other while I figure out how to serve God to the best of my ability in my small corner of the world far and away from these mad men. And I think that is just what I'll do.

But first I'll link a few things here of those taking on MacArthur's unchristian, unfriendly fire.

Wenatchee the Hatchet has a lot to say about some of this stuff (this is just a link to his blog, not any one post because he has several today).

Wade Burleson does a wonderful job addressing this in his usual level headed manner.

And Wartburg Watch, as always, will keep us updated.

So, for those of you who care to pursue this, I've linked these to get you started.

Oh that God would deliver us from the curse of celebrity pastors.

(Edited November 22, 2013 to add a link from WTH concerning the Open Letter to Mark Driscoll I mentioned in the comments below.)

Logical Fallacies

When I have time, I debate things with others on the internet.

I've learned a lot on how to do it and how not to do it.
I still have a lot to learn.

But one thing I've found out...

There are a lot of people who don't know how to argue/debate without logical fallacies.

So I've linked a list of them I found on imgur (I go there to laugh at funny cat pictures and videos.).

Your logical fallacy is...

Grudem Recants (almost) Everything He Has Ever Said About Women

Just wanted to pass this along for those who know anything about Wayne Grudem.

Grudem Recants...

Plagiarism or Not... THIS!

Wenatchee the Hatchet left a comment under one of my previous Mars Hill plagiarism posts.

Since it had been a while since I put up those posts, people interested n the topic might miss his comment and I don't want them to.

Wenatchee the Hatchet:
What I find troublesome about Grace Driscoll's appropriation of Dan Allender's terms and concepts is not simply that she never gives him any credit, it's that during 2011 when the Driscoll book was in its run-up for promotional touring Mars Hill Graduate School changed its name to remove "Mars Hill". 2011 was also the same year that cease and desist letter got sent out. It cumulatively raises the question of whether or not Mars Hill leadership isn't a bit more cavalier about the intellectual property of other people than it wishes to be about its own content. I find the Mars Hill double standard about the sadness of others copying Mars Hill material while not acknowledging Grace Driscoll's clearly testified debt to the work of Dan Allender puzzling. All it would have taken was a single footnote or endnote, after all.


There doesn't just seem to be a double standard. There clearly is a double standard. If the Driscoll's want to freely borrow from others, then they shouldn't be so ugly towards others who appear to may have borrowed from them.

Plagerism. Too Strong of a Word?

Apparantly it was in comparing Grace Driscoll's writing to someone else's writing.

My friends over at Equality Central Alliance reeled me in.

Here was our conversation.

Good News/Bad News

Real Plagiarism in "Real Marriage"?

Speaking of "Real Porn" er... I mean "Real Marriage"...

It appears that portions of what Grace wrote were actually from another book that is not given credit.

The portions under question have nothing to do with the porn in other sections but is actual helpful info for the wounded soul. At least they were helpful to Grace.

Because those portions are helpful and because I'm so concerned about the wounded heart, part of me is glad to see evidence of her receiving healing some how from somewhere.

But, as WTH points out, plagiarism it plagiarism and I'm disappointed that the actual helpful parts of this book fall under this category.

Real Marriage Chapter 7, Part 2: Comparing Grace Driscoll's writing to Don Adler's writing from the Wounded Heart

Looks like Don Adler's "Wounded Heart" might be a good read. Like I said, I have a great concern for the inner healing of all the members of the Body of Christ.

What Is Traumatizing a Generation?

I'm sure many of you have seen this around.

I have seen it linked, but it was in places I couldn't link to until now.

So since EE has done the hard work, I'll just link to her post.

Oh, yeah.
What is traumatizing a generation?
Porn, my friend.
As bad as it is in the church with pushers like Mark Driscoll around (co-author of Real Porn  er... I mean Real Marriage), it truly is worse in other places.

Pornography Is Sexually Traumatizing an Entire Generation

Good Post on Jezebel Spirit

Wordgazer's Words has a very good post on the frightening rise of a false teaching concerning Jezebel. The teaching is nothing short of modern day witch hunts minus the literal burning (though the spiritual, emotional, and psychological burning are very much present).

The "Jezebel Spirit" Teaching

Church beware of this slippery slope.

Warrior Women of the Old Testament

I was aware of these women but always lost them in the Old Testament. These are two more besides the Judge Deborah.

So I link a comment here that talks about them and says where they are located in the Bible. It's an old comment thread. This comment was made last June. But I don't want to lose these women again. Their existence really kick the feet out from under so much patriarchy and complementarianism.

Marg's comment about Serah and Sheerah

Edited to add:
Oops, my bad.
It's Dawn's comment TO Marg about these women.
Later in the thread, Marg links a blog post that she wrote about these two plus another noteworthy woman.
Sorry for any confusions.

Vacation

Actually it's a very long road trip to go see my 97 year old grandmother whom I haven't seen in over three years.

So I will be off-line for a week or two.

If you leave a comment on an old post, I will approve it as soon as I can if I can ever get on-line while I'm on the road. If not, It will have to wait until I get back. I don't have a fancy, schmancy android or smart phone or any kind of internet on my bare bones cell phone.

See you all on the other side (of my road trip).

:)

Respect and Abuse

Are you getting tired of this topic yet?

Sorry, I've kind of wanted to address it for some time. It took a trigger to open the flood gates. And that trigger was Wendy's post. Sorry Wendy. It was nothing personal.

I want to address something she said. Don't worry. It's not pick on Wendy day here at ye ol' bitter to sweet. Just in case anyone missed this before. I have great respect for Wendy and her views. She's a gracious blogger who does a great job dealing with difficult issues rather than sidestepping them.

We do disagree on in a few areas. But the disagreement is not huge and if we lived closer and had time, I'd fellowship with her in a heartbeat, picking her brain concerning other topics.

Wendy gave a gracious answer to commentor, David, who misunderstood some of the other comments from concerned women. I'm glad David commented on her blog rather than mine and Wendy handled it well.

But I'd like to explore one thing that she said to him. She said:

"(#1)  I think that abuse and respect are totally different paradigms. (#2) I don't believe that respect as God speaks of it contributes to abuse. (#3) But I do believe abuse happens and wives need to know when enough is enough and they need to remove themselves from a situation. (#4) That's a topic that I've dealt with in other posts."

I've divided it into four sentences and wish do address three of them.

Sentence # 2 first. I absolutely agree with this sentence on both theological and theoretical levels. When God speaks of respect, it transcends all the muck and mire of the human condition and it does not abuse. It liberates and heals.

Sentence # 3 next. I also agree with this theologically and theoretically. God never calls us to submit to abuse, no matter how you look at the Bible, whether your conclusions fall on the Complementarian or Egalitarian side. Wives need to know when enough is enough and to get the heck out of Dodge when things get dicey.

It is really only Sentence #1 that I have a bit of trouble with. Yes, when dealing with perfectly formed people, not tainted by sin, poor cultural expectations, generational things etc, these two things can be separated when the non-tainted person encounters abuse.

I learned the term "Pervasive Depravity" from Wendy who was exploring the Calvinist TULIP doctrine. She and I both have trouble with the term "Total Depravity". All I can think of is serial killers and pedophiles when you bring up Total Depravity. But Pervasive Depravity? I'm on board with that. I don't have trouble seeing how 'The Fall" has tainted every area of our existences. It has touched and harmed everything including and especially our relationships as illustrated in Genesis.

So to me, Respect and Abuse being totally different paradigms is only possible if the position that is to be respected is completely untouched by pervasively depraved human hands. More specifically, as long as we are the ones doing the respecting and not expecting respect (as in leadership or elevated position of authority) then that attitude of respect can be separated out from abuse somehow. But the minute it is the human who is supposed to be respected...  Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. I Corinthian 10:12


I'm not saying that we are not to have leaders or positions of esteem. I'm not even saying that men can't be leaders in their own homes. It's that those in positions of esteem should have the right attitude, not expecting respect beyond human dignity respect. It's more than all right for them to have self-respect and not accept abuse against them as normal. But leaders should take care about how much respect they think they should have. Husbands who believe that they are the head of their household should have this attitude love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her. (Taken from Ephesians 5:25)
He needs the attitude of giving himself up, not the attitude of, "I am the boss of you therefore respect me as such."

What books like "Love and Respect" teach men to do is to expect respect from the little woman, a respect beyond human decency respect and beyond that preferring him over other men respect that comes with marriage. It teaches men to think more highly of themselves than they ought (Romans 12:3). It teaches them to think that they should get better, more important respect than their wives and teaches them that if the little women doesn't give him the respect that is his due (often defined by the depravity of his own mind rather than by anything taught by Jesus or Paul), she is not meeting his need for respect and then judged and condemned for her 'sin'.

Again we all need respect. In marriages, besides basic human dignity respect there is a special respect due to our spouses that prefers our own spouse over all others because we have become one flesh. But leadership respect?

I put forth that for true healthy relationships, even in a Complementarian one, that the husband should not expect extra special respect beyond human dignity and spouse related things. I feel that it is far more healthy for the relationship, overall. The wife is certainly free to give the husband leadership respect if that's how they believe. But he should take care that he doesn't let it go to his head and he uses it wisely. The minute he expects it, feels entitled to it, craves it... abuse is not far behind and in fact perhaps already mixed in. In this case I believe that respect and abuse are not totally different paradigms because of pervasive depravity. It is touched by our fallen selves. You simply cannot separate it out.

I actually have a couple more things to say to back this up but I believe that I'll put them in a separate post since this has gotten long.

Love & Respect: Biblical? Freebie

Found a link.
Actually it was left on Wendy's blog.
But I feel the need to pass it on at no extra cost to you all.

Love & Respect: Biblical?

This is a thorough review.
Click on it when you have time.
If you don't have much time, you could still click on it and just read the comments.

Is Respect a 'Foreign' Concept?

Actually, I would have liked the title of this one to be:

"Is Respect Really a 'Foreign' Concept to Christian Wives? I Think Not."

But that was rather long.

Yeah, I know. It looks like "Pick on David" month over at ye old bitter to sweet blog. I don't mean to pick on him. I'm just kind of incredulous as to some of the things he said over on Wendy's blog the other day.

I actually have sympathy for David. I totally get that his wife was disrespectful from the things he says. I don't like seeing wives being disrespectful to their husbands. I don't like eye rolling and argumentativeness in women and when they engage in it toward their husbands in it makes the wives look bad, if their husbands aren't being unreasonable. If the husbands are being unreasonable, then the wife doesn't look so bad, but I still don't like the way it looks. She could get so much further with him if she used a bit of graciousness.

But some of the things David says makes me realize that he is unaware of what is going on in some/many sectors of Christianity.

Here are some quotes from David over at Wendy's.

In his first comment:
" The negative comments here indicate how foreign that concept is to wives. This is not entirely their fault; the church has dropped the ball on this since forever. Until I heard a Focus on the Family interview with Eggerichs after his book came out, I had never heard any pastor or teacher make that point  "

and

"this post, and Eggerichs' book, are spot-on for the overwhelming majority of husbands." [talking about how many husbands are not getting the respect they deserve in their own homes.]

In a follow up comment:
"My point was that Eggerichs' discussion of unconditional respect for husbands is (generally) a foreign concept to Christian wives (and Christian husbands too), while everyone is quite familiar with the concept of unconditional love for wives, even though they are both taught in the same passage. We can quibble about whether the negative comments here are further proof of that disparity, but it doesn't change my point. Introducing the specter of abuse in response to my comment seems misplaced."

It is only misplaced to David because he is clueless of how abusive things have gotten for some women in their Christian circles and their marriages. I understand that David is hurt and hurting over what his wife has done to him. But to decide, from his personal experience and comparing notes with a few guys who don't feel respected, that respect is a 'foreign' concept to all Christian wives and that "the church has dropped the ball on this since forever" if very short-sighted and, okay, let's just come out and say it... it's prejudiced.

Sorry, David, for being so blunt. But I'm only doing it because I don't like it when abused/disrespected men and abused/unloved wives talk past each other and bicker over minor details rather than seeing the big picture and working out real solutions.

So anyway, I have said all of this to set up a link I'm going to give. There is a book out called "Created to be His Helpmeet" (CTBHHM) written by a certain Debi Pearl that has earned the nick name "Created to be His Doormat" and for good reason. Debi goes into great detail on how a woman is supposed to reverence her husband (not respect, but reverence, she's King James only). I'm not going to link her book. You can find it easily since it is such a big seller among Christian wives in evangelical circles (those gals you accuse viewing the concept of respect as 'foreign'). An huge seller.

No, I'm not going to link Debi's book. But I am going to link a post by a girl raised in a Patriarchal home turned atheist who is critiquing Debi's book. Oh, is it slanderous that I'm linking an atheist? Well, I guess anyone can judge me this way if they want to. But they need to understand that this atheist turned atheist, in part, due to the over-emphasis of respect/reverence/worship of the man, the husband, the father in the patriarchal group she came from.

Still judging her for being atheist and me for linking one on my blog? All I can plead is this:

Luke 16:8 And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.

Libby Anne, the gal I'm linking, can see this abuse for what it is. She lived it. She escaped it. Now she's critiquing it and showing it for what it is, abuse. Wolf attitudes dressed in Sheep's clothing.

 CTBHHM: In Which a Woman Dares to Assert Agency

Some of the angry comments under her post are from others who have seen or experienced this ridiculous over emphasis on respect, er I mean reverence and fear.

The only reason I have linked this is to debunk David's comment concerning respect being a 'foreign' concept among Christian wives. This simply isn't true. There are a lot of people coming out of the patriarchy and heavy complementarian movements. Some are rejecting God and the Bible altogether. Others still want to find answers in God and the Bible. We do those searching for answers a disservice when we give them pat, worn-out, clichéd answers like the book "Love and Respect" and claim that teachings on respect are "foreign".

Love and Respect Talking Past Each Other.

There is a dynamic that I often see at work in conversations like the one that went on over at Wendy's blog.

It goes something like this:

Christian women who have dealt with abusive men try to work out how to make sense of their lives and Scripture during or after a bad marriage. This is made difficult especially since the Bible, in particular Ephesians 5, was often used in the abuse. They still love God and want to hold onto Him. But the bad marriage situation made it difficult and even gave some of these women PTSD at any mention of Ephesians 5 due to it being use as a bludgeoning tool against them.

Then the other side of this is:

Christian men who have been chewed up and spit out by abusive wives--

[Cut and pasted from David's comment over at Wendy's concerning his ex-wife]--(argumentativeness, eye-rolling, contrariness, sexual refusal and oft-expressed contempt, obligated to earn her respect [an impossible task], and she was entitled to express her displeasure any time she disagreed )--

Anyway, men like David are looking for solutions in the Scriptures. They find and latch onto 'respect' as some sort of panacea that would have saved their marriage if the little woman would have just wised up and did what she was supposed to. The problem is that there is usually a whole lot more wrong with the situation than just a lack of respect.  But somewhere along the way, chewed up and spit out men like David are convinced that all women behave like their ex-wives and feel that it is their mission to let those women know that if they'd just do what they are supposed to, what is commanded in scripture, then there would a whole lot less divorcing going on.

Quote from David: "The negative comments here indicate how foreign that concept [of respect] is to wives"

Is it a foreign concept, David, or has it been so over used and abused to the neglect of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and the Second Greatest Commandment, "love you neighbor (including your wife) as yourself"?

It may have been David's experience that his wife was completely disrespect filled. Heck, from the way he describes her, she could have had a brain or personality disorder or was just plain psycho. But this doesn't entitle him to make such sweeping generalizations about all women and determine that it would all be solved if they would just embrace this 'foreign' concept call respect.

Rather than stating that marriages would be saved if women would just 'respect' or men would just 'love', perhaps it would be better to say:

Hey, guess what? There are abusive people out there, both male and female. And guess what else? There are abused spouses out there trying to make sense of their situation and wanting to use the Bible to do so. So let's not make sweeping generalizations and hand out shallow clichés and just expect everything to be hunky dory because life is far more complicated than that reducing everything down to a couple words that you can find in Ephesians 5.

And, in addition. I'd like to make a book recommendation. The book I am going to suggest runs circles around Eggrichs book. It has more depth in one chapter than Eggrich's whole book, DVD set, and every seminar he ever held.

The book is... wait for it...:

Boundaries in Marriage

I recommend it because it doesn't blame men or women. It calls out bad behavior, no matter which gender engages in it and gives spouses practical ways of dealing with that behavior.

The Trouble with "Respect"

I really like that title. It reminds me of two other titles. One title it reminds me of is a cute Hayley Mills movie called The Trouble with Angels. The other one I'm reminded of is a cute Star Trek episode called The Trouble with Tribbles. (how can a Star Trek Episode be cute, you may ask? well is you have ever seen it, you wouldn't ask.)

But as cute and fun as those two shows were, the trouble with 'respect' is neither cute nor fun. It's frustrating.

It's frustrating when men declare that 'women must respect their husbands' is a straight up command from God based on the needs of men to be respected when I know that the Greek word used in Ephesians that is translated 'respect' is the same word we get 'phobia' from.

I could go on but K. Martin put it so well in a comment under yesterday's post. I'm going to cut and paste her comment here so that people won't miss it.

"It can be difficult to understand Ep 5:33 and the "men need respect" issue from a modern and Western perspective. It's helpful to consider the Greek. The word used for respect in Ep 5:33 is phobeó (Strong's 5399). Synonyms listed for the word phobeo are fear, dread, reverence, am afraid, terrified. Wendy mentioned the word "reverence" in her blog post. However, most commentators totally omit the fear and dread part. The English word phobia was derived from the Greek phobeo. Paul was advising wives to have a certain amount of reverence AND fear for their husbands. Why would Paul say such a thing? The context is very important. In a patriarchal society, women (especially young girls) were forced to marry men that their fathers chose. I think we can all imagine the implications of an arranged marriage for a young girl in a patriarchal society. In ancient Rome, wife beating was legal. It was almost impossible for a woman to get a divorce or seek outside refuge because of ill treatment. We know from Ephesians that the idea of a husband loving his wife like Christ loved the church and died for her was a new, radical concept. In this climate, fear might be a wife's best defense under the circumstances causing her to tread lightly around a potentially abusive, unloving husband.

"With that being said, I believe that Ep 5:33 does infer something very telling about the nature of men, and it all points back to Ge 3:16. Wendy has done an excellent job of fleshing out the "your desire will be for your husband" on her blog. However, the "he will rule over you" is another issue commentators like to omit and remain silent about. The Hebrew word for rule is mashal (Strong's 4910). The definition means to have dominion, reign and master. In light of that I believe that men want to be feared (phobeo) because fear makes it a lot easier for them to dominate, master and reign over their wives. Albeit, the Hebrew word rule (mishal) is very different from the servant leadership that Jesus modeled in the NT, but that's another discussion.

"In the animal kingdom, "being feared" helps predators trap prey and achieve dominance and rank. On the flip side, "being afraid" helps prey be alert, flee and hide from potential predators and dangerous situations."

Mara here again. I really like her comment. I John 4:18 says that perfect love casts out fear. This should cause one question whether or not Paul is really saying that all wives for all time should fear their husbands at the same time he's telling husbands to love their wives. Making respect/fear a command for all time rather than a realizing that it is a particular instruction toward the Ephesian patriarchal structure has no merit.

And as K. Martin has said, men who are demanding respect and being told it is their need, one that their wives should fill unconditionally, this plays into and sanctifies their fallen nature to want to lord over their wives. Anything that plays into any human being's fallen nature, male of female... It's not cute. It's ugly as sin.

Unconditional Respect?

I started writing this comment in the Practical Theology for Women thread Love and Respect but Mostly Respect but it got long. So instead, I'm going to post it here. I somewhat disagree with her and the book she's talking about "Love and Respect" by Eggrichs.

I have used unconditional respect in my work with troubled teens. In most situations it really works.

It is different than respect that you give an authority figure. But it is still unconditional.

The teens I have worked with have been terribly disrespected all their lives. They have been abused on so many levels. And they have little respect for anyone including themselves.

But they respond to me giving them basic, human-dignity respect, regardless of their behavior. They then in turn give me respect that they didn't give to the other 'staff' that is disrespectful.

All human beings respond to unconditional respect. But how do you define respect? There are levels. All women can give husbands basic, human-dignity respect. Even bad-behaving, abusive husbands.

HOWEVER.

There is a level of respect, an authority respect that is reserved for those who deserve it, who act like leaders.

In other words, sure, give husbands unconditional respect. Don't belittle, don't name call, don't roll the eyes etc... Even when they engage in behavior that deserves a huge eye roll. A woman can mostly train herself to be respectful even in difficult situations.

But respect beyond common courtesy that is reserved for those in authority, this respect can be lost. I'm not saying that when a man in authority behaves badly on occasion that all that respect should fly out the window. I'm talking about situations where the one in authority consistently engages in behavior that is demeaning, disrespectful, dangerous and/or abusive (physically, emotionally, spiritually), that man is setting himself in position to lose respect. From God, men, and women, including their own wives. And it is the man's fault for losing it not the woman's fault for withholding it.

A biblical example would be the story of Abigail and Nabal found in First Samuel 25. Nabal acted the fool and nearly got his entire household killed. Abigail did not respect him or his authority when she went to David and called her husband a fool. But Abigail is not held up as a bad wife. She is looked upon as wise, saving many lives, and David's integrity. As a result, she married a man who became a king.

So while I agree with, believe in, and have personal experience with the power of unconditional respect, I know there are limits.

IN ADDITION (another However)

Unconditional respect should not be reserved for husbands.

I know of more than one relationship where it is the man who is the disrespectful one. I know husbands who withhold basic human-dignity respect from their wives. It is the husband who name calls, demeans, and does the eye rolling over minor and even imagined infractions.

I understand that Eggrich says that both men and women need both love and respect. But there is a problem with making the lines between 'respect' and 'love' so thick and so gender specific. It gives men who have issues with respecting women a loophole or excuse. It makes disrespecting their wives easier and acceptable all the while they claim to love their wives.

So, yes. I believe in unconditional respect and unconditional love for both sexes. I also believe that over emphasizing the gender differences in needs concerning love and respect can be disastrous for marriages that suffer from disrespectful and abusive husbands. It can direct men away from meeting their wives basic human need for a little respect.

IN ADDITION (a third However)

One should probably define the word 'need' along with 'respect'.

I believe all people need basic, human-dignity respect just as they need love.

But there are men who believe they 'need' a level of respect that not only goes higher than basic, human-dignity respect. It goes beyond leadership  respect and on into worship.

There are men, and I have met them, who believe that they need 'respect' but their definition looks more like 'worship'. They not only behave badly and crave leadership respect, they abuse and demand a sort of 'worship' respect and honor from their 'underlings'. And they know that they are right and everybody who denies them this worship is wrong. And they use books like "Love and Respect" to support their position.

This is why books like "Love and Respect" that harp on "Respect" while poorly defining the limits of respect give me the heebie-jeebies. These books are gasoline to the fires of personality disorders and emotionally unbalanced people.

Basic human-dignity respect should be enough for all humans, even and especially those in leadership in the Body of Christ. Craving more than that is wrong and leads to destruction.

Patriarchy: a false Gospel

Yes, Patriarchy being promoted as "God's Design" or "God's Intention" is a perverted form of the Gospel and far removed from the actual words of Jesus recorded in the books of the Gospels.

I've said this for a long time. I get tired of saying.

But I don't get tired of seeing others say it. So here is a link to TWW's

Patriarchy and Abuse: Twisted Scriptures

Hero Mom

Move over Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Found this link on Thatmom. And I agree with her. This is my kind of mom.

Dorothy Baker, Punches and Runs Over Man Who Threatened Her and Her Kids.

And why do I bring this up?

Because I am soooooooooo tired of the John Pipers and Mark Driscolls and Tim Challieses*** of the world who hold up their ridiculous ideals of womanhood as soft and weak. I get tired of these men who think women can't defend themselves and must always be defended by a man.

Well, what do you do if there is no man to defend you, and in fact, the one man in the whole story is the one threatening you and your children.

I guess you are just supposed to put tilt your head back, put the back of your hand to your forehead and say, "Woe is me. God made me a soft, weak, defenseless female. Therefore I must submit to the all-powerful male in every situation. After all, this is what my clueless, misogynic, neo-Calvinist preacher has taught me. He has declared unto me that this is God's intention, will, role, and purpose for my life. To deviate from it would be to sin against the essence of manhood and womanhood and by so doing, rebel against the Gospel. Did I say, 'Woe is me'?"

(Forgive the snark. Please understand that it is better for me to do this than to cuss clueless preachers out on what is supposed to be a Christian blog. But believe me, they deserve to be cussed out or snarked out when they teach the crap they do and call it the Word of God.)

(Tim Challies is author of the infamous "Soft, Effeminate Christianity" post I wrote against some time back.)

Resolution Writing. Persuasive but Wrong, III

Page 14 of The Resolution for Men has this paragraph.

"If your wife has been calling the shots in the family and has had her hands on the wheel, then very likely it's because you have not. Regardless of what she does, God has intentionally placed you in the driver's seat and wants you to lead. You need her deeply; but leading is your God-ordained responsibility."
(emphasis theirs)

On page 13 it says, "God's Word commands husbands and fathers to lovingly lead their homes."
(emphasis mine)

Really?
God's word commands husbands to lead their wives?

I'm amazed at how much some men assume what God has commanded, what God intended, and what God has ordained with so little biblical support. Anyone who has been around this argument has, I'm sure, heard this challenge. "Please give me chapter and verse where God commands men to lead their wives/families."

No one had been able to produce that verse. They somehow think that the words of Paul to Ephesian wives concerning submission contains that command to men. The problem is, Paul (and God) are not talking to men there. When Paul talks to men, he uses a four letter word that starts with "L". But it's not "lead". It's "love". Yet this is all it takes for them to jump to the conclusion of God's intention, what God has ordained, and what God has commanded. It is quite a leap. It is a leap these men make with great vigor and enthusiasm, as though they speak the very oracles of God.

Also, according to them, men are commanded to lead and therefore women are not to lead. They are not supposed to be calling the shots, ever. And if they are, that's because men are disobeying God's commands. This is crazy when there is plenty of evidence in the Bible of women leading and God blessing them for it. These women leaders are held up as shining examples of biblical womanhood. But groups that support male-only leadership sweep those examples of biblical womanhood under the rug. They either ignore their example or worse, undercut it and call it a curse (even though God never says this.)

You see, someone reading here might think that I'm opposed to men leading. I'm not. I'm opposed to it being an exclusively male 'gifting'. Good leadership is needed, in homes, in churches. The problem is with how you define leadership and with who is allowed to lead.

I could go on about this, and stumble about trying to make my point on what God and the Bible really teach about leadership as opposed to what The Resolution Guys (TRG) claim. But I've been busy lately and am in need of short-cuts. So I'll leave it to Wade Burleson who has done a wonderful, scholarly teaching on what Christian leadership really is. When you have 27 minutes and 45 seconds, give Pastor Wades sermon a view. You won't regret it.

Only Servants and No Masters

(I hope this video goes viral)

Resolution Writing. Persuasive but Wrong, II

Okay, back to what's wrong with pages 11-13 of the book The Resolution for Men.

As mentioned, they start with a fictional story that is supposed to illustrate an eternal truth, the story of a guy falling asleep at the wheel, the chaos it causes, and the inability for his wife to be a true help meet, at least being able to hold it together until he's awake enough to do what (they think) he's supposed to be doing all the time.

I want to look at this short, inadequate story again.

First off...

Marriage is (or should be) a long trip.

I don't know about you all, but my family takes long road trips. And guess what. One person doesn't do all the driving all the time. We all take turns. This allows people to rest up for their next turn at the wheel.

What The Resolution Guys [TRG] seem to be saying is that the only person qualified to drive/lead is the husband/father. That when he gets tired, that's too darn bad. He's just going to have to suck it up, with no help from his helpmeet and stay awake 24/7.

Now, I understand that this is not what TRG are trying to say. But in essence, this is what they ARE saying. They are saying that only men can lead. If a woman interferes, even by default, it not only doesn't help, it has the potential to make things far worse. And (by God's design according to TRG)the woman can never, ever be in the driver's seat, no matter how long the trip will be. And as we had said before, marriage should be a long trip.

TRG are setting up an either/or, "All or Nothing" as the only possibility for marriage. EITHER the husband is in charge OR the wife is in charge (by default of otherwise). They can not be in agreement and take turns driving, sharing the burden and responsibility. Not according to TRG. According to TRG, Almighty God has placed the man in the driver's seat, never to be relieved when he's tired, never, ever learning how to trust the helpmeet God made for him to take the wheel for one leg of the trip so he can get some much needed shut-eye. The husband/father is denied any Sabbath Rest because he's too busy having the dickens scared out of him over whether or not he is properly leading his family or whether they are headed for disaster because he's fallen asleep from shear exhaustion.

I realize TRG don't mean to be saying this. But they are.

They are saying that the only cure for exhausted wives is for them to dump everything onto their husbands so that their husbands can be overburdened and exhausted instead. They can't share the load. The husband can't come in and take on some/half/a lot of the responsibility and authority. He has to come in and TAKE IT ALL. All or nothing. That kind of thinking can kill a person and can kill a marriage.

And yet, this is what TRG claim that God commands men to do. God commands this of all husbands/fathers. There is no meeting half way, no meeting 40/60 even. It's all or nothing because TRG have made in it into that.

And here I go again, over ten paragraphs. So much for keeping things brief. I think I'll stop here and give a little more homework for those who like that sort of thing.

The Single Story and Structure

You Have Heard It Said Today
In which we look at a familiar "All or Nothing" view of marriage that is common today.

Resolution Writing. Persuasive but Wrong

This conversation actually started on Shirley's blog under one of her posts. I said a few things there but want to say more, perhaps more of the same, perhaps from a different approach, I don't know. I just know that reading a few pages from the book The Resolution for Men has ticked me off again.

In reading pages 11-13 from the Resolution for Men which can be viewed using Amazon's "click to look inside" feature, I'm both impressed with how hard the authors worked to be respectful towards women while persuading men and (possible) female readers of their pet doctrine. If you get a chance to read it, do so, so you will understand what I'm talking about.

I'm equally impressed with the massive amount of assuming they make concerning women and God in those few pages.

First, they tell a story about a guy who fell asleep at the wheel and about how his wife is screaming and can't manage to steer the car long enough for him to wake up and fix the problem he created by falling asleep. They have taken one possible scenario, of one woman who can't steer from the passenger seat, who overcompensates for him and causes the car to swerve off the other way. They make this the single story of all women. Not all women are this incompetent, not even most women. Yet this is a persuasion tactic they use to make their "All or Nothing" case for their pet doctrine.

Speaking the of "All or Nothing" case. Let's take a look at "All or Nothing" thinking which causes some men to come up with such faulty conclusions. One form of "All or Nothing" is the fight or flight reactions to conflict. They have recently learned that this is a masculine response where as a feminine response is more along the lines of "Tend and Befriend".

Gosh, darn it. I didn't mean to get into all of this. I really only wanted to deal with those few pages in the Resolution for Men. I give those writers "A"s for persuasive writing, but "F"s for understanding women and what they need, and "F"s for understanding what God's Word teaches and "Commands".

I guess I'll have to make this a two-parter (or three, depending on how it goes.)

Anyway, back to the woman in their fictional story who can't steer and who is representative of all women to the Resolution writers. They believe that women can't steer, or at least they can't do so in a crisis situation from the passenger seat when there is a man around who is supposed to be in charge. I'm sure they didn't mean to be insulting. But they were insulting by boxing all women in the same package and using this false package as persuasion for the doctrine they are pushing, the doctrine that says as long as men are in charge and stay awake and on duty, everything will be fine. As soon as women get involved in any leadership situation, by default or otherwise, it can only end in disaster. This disaster can only be diverted if men wake up and do their job of being the boss.

There, now see, I've done it. I've barely scratched the surface of what is wrong with pages 11-13 of The Resolution for Men and I have over eight paragraphs with four links.

Tell you what.
If you are interested in what I have to say, I'll give you homework that you can read that will bring you up to speed. First, read the four different links I've given, the one to Shirley's blog and pages 11-13 of the Resolution which can be found here. Then listen to and watch The Single Story on youtube. Then read my reflections ONE and TWO  on the Single Story and how the Single Story affects Marriage and Womanhood.

I know this is a lot of homework and I definitely don't require it of anyone. But those who are interested in this, the homework will make more sense of the things I say and plan to say . Some of it will be review for some of my long time readers who chose to look back over some of this stuff. But if you look at it all and get an overview, you can get a better grasp on what is going on here and how wrong those few pages of The Resolution for Men really is. They really have gone to a lot of trouble trying to respectfully convince people of their doctrine. Too bad it is assuming so much that is just plain wrong and not Biblically supported.

Remember the Movie Tootsie?

No?

Am I exposing my age when I confess that I saw it in theaters? (I was still a kid/preteen/teen? My mom took me.)

Oh well, what does it matter? "A Woman's Freedom in Christ" has an interesting clip of Dustin Hoffman talking about it:

Dustin Hoffman on Tootsie and Society's Expectation of Women

Take a peek when you get a chance. He had an epiphany that helped lead to the making of this movie.

WTH Critiques Driscolls' Sex/Marriage Book

Actually, it's not a full critique.

As he mentioned, there have been plenty of overview critiques and much of what was said doesn't need repeating.

However, detail man that WTH is, he has stumbled upon an oversight of sorts that has been missed by some of the overview critiques. It may not seem like much. But in light of what Mars Hill wants to be, what it actually is, and what it has done in order to put forward the façade that it presently has... this sort of thing is good to be aware of for Driscoll watchers and critiquers everywhere.

Real Marriage, Chapter 7-- Grace and Disgrace

Good Catch WTH (that's short for Wenatchee The Hatchet, not WHAT THE H***!?, which is what I usually say when looking at the latest shenanigans from the Driscoll camp.)

As has been said before, The Saga Continues.

Trust Her or Control Her?

Partnership or Possession?

Kristen from Wordgazer's Words has left a comment under my last post that I don't want people to miss. So I'm going to copy and paste it here for you all.

"Good link there, and good points. I have become convinced that possibly the most foundational motive and driving force in male-female relations throughout history has been the desire of the man for certainty that he is the father of the child the woman bears. Since a woman's biology guarantees certainty of what children are hers, and a man has no such certainty, he has two choices-- trust her, or control her. Culturally men have overwhelmingly chosen the latter. The easiest way is to make the woman the property of the man and to enforce the strictest possible regulations to keep her womb exclusive to him. When Jesus came living and acting as if women were people and not property, He upended the whole system. Institutional Christianity has done its best ever since to regain and hold the cultural status quo."

I added the bold type to certain words.

Another phrase from the Bible, "Perfect Love casts out fear".

The love that humans have for one another is flawed and full of fear. Men who cannot trust women will either abandon them or try to control them.

Jesus did neither. He simply loved them.

Viewing Uterus Control through Anthropology

I'll tell you what.

The quote on No Longer Quivering by Vaugh Ohlman has opened a can of worms with me. It is very hard to sit by and watch that much blatant ignorance and misguided self-righteousness on parade go by without pointing out how stupid it is.

Tell you what, Vaugh. You can either be a Christian or a Patriarch on a vendetta to defend your fleshly, cultural privilege. You can't be both. You can't do both. They cannot peacefully coexist.

The only place the New Testament talks about control is in Galatians where it mentions self-control as a fruit of the Spirit. No where in the Gospels or Epistles does it mention that you should have control over another person. And Jesus specifically commands that you not seek to control others in Matthew 23:8-10 and Luke 22:25-27. Look those scriptures up, Vaugh, because you apparently are quite unfamiliar with the words of Jesus, the One you claim to follow and represent as a Christian.

Now on to the Anthropology lesson you so desperately need. (Hope you learned from your history lesson in the last post.)

The Womb of Woman: Gateway of Life, Guardian of Culture
(A lesson in which Vaugh should realize that what he promotes is a worldly view rather than Christian)

Learn you lessons, Vaugh. This way you won't look like such a bitter, vindictive old cuss. And if you are a really good student, you might actually be able to 'do' Christianity the way Jesus taught rather than the way taught by violent men who have forcefully entered and seize the kingdom for themselves. (Matthew 11:12)

History Lesson for Vaugh Ohlman...

... and other over-the-top ignorant men who want to rewrite history to make women look evil, childish, and foolish and make men look as pure as the wind driven snow.

Get a clue, Vaugh, oh bitter man extraordinaire. I understand that you are hurt, angry, and bitter at the actions of a certain female in your life. I understand that you believe that your words are needed to set the world straight and make it a better place for men like yourself, safe from the evils of women you cannot control. The problem is that the world your propose is hell on earth for women. We've been there (a very, very long time), done that (a very, very long time) and we aren't going back.

Here is a pro-life, homeschool mom's history lesson on:

the suffragettes and a woman's right to choose

It was a wonderful read the first time I read it and still stands as a beacon of truth against the darkness of blinded haters and ragers like Vaugh Olhman

(Note: I AM pro-life. I'm also pro mother, pro father, pro woman, pro man, pro child, pro family, and pro Bible. What I am opposed to is oppression, the kind of heavy-handed oppression that Vaugh thinks will save the world and fatherhood as we know it from the extra special evil he believes feminism to be. He believes it to be extra special evil because it takes away a bit of control over another person's life that he falsely believes belongs to him. I could say so much more here but these parentheses are already on maximum overload.)

Men that are ignorant of history

No Longer Quivering quotes a bitter and ignorant man.
No Votes or Anything Else for Women

I wanted to leave a comment and had difficulty. So rather than lose the comment, I thought I'd just cut and paste the comment here:

This man needs a serious history lesson. In the past, it was the MEN who had the choice to end a pregnancy or commit infanticide if the child was unwanted, born female, or otherwise flawed (in their judgement). The woman had no choice at all and was forced to accept the choice of the man which often DID end in abortion or infanticide due to financial reasons.

Even today, many women want to choose to keep their pregnancies. However, family (the mother's parents and/or husband) or boyfriends (baby-daddies) are the ones pressuring the mother to end the pregnancy due again, to financial reasons and not wanting to have to support this new burden. I know this because my parents are on the board of a home for pregnant women who have no resources or support from their families and baby-daddies. I also once heard a drunk father say that he'd drag his daughters by the hair to the abortion clinic if either of them ever turned up pregnant out of wedlock. So the 'women are evil baby killers and men are holy baby defenders' dynamic doesn't hold water.

This man has issues with reality, believing that all men/fathers are good (as he defines them, willing to 'die' rather than allow anyone to kill their child) and women/doctors/nurses are bad (as he defines them, out to murder the father's beloved children thereby taking away the control he believes that all men should have over the lives of their women/children/property). He is out of touch with reality and is an embarrassment to those who would truly like to encourage and support pregnant women who find themselves in crisis.

Men in (actual) Leadership Roles

I get so tired of hearing about how men are to lead and be the boss by men who are clueless about what that means. So, when I hear a man talk about what it actually takes to be a man in leadership, doing leadership right, it is a huge breath of fresh air.

Here is Jackson Katz telling it like it is:

Violence against women-It's a men's issue.

Jock Strap Religion, Part 2

I have a lot to say but not much time to say it.

I love the title of my friend, Hannah's, blog post concerning the SGM debacle and T4G and TGC's response to it. The title is "Together for Mahaney at the Southern Baptist Convention". And she goes into analysis of how these good ol' boys have each other's backs (and privates!).

I've just recently linked to two other blogs that also demonstrate what I call Jock Strap Religion (JSR). The one linked on Friday illustrates how the Pearls hold women responsible for everything, including the sins of men. The other one linked on Tuesday shows how oldest daughters are the ones exposed to abuse and mistreatment in order to protect the abusive system of patriarchy (the ultimate JSR).

Needless to say, seeing all this protection of 'holy' and 'superior' manhood and their sins at the expense of women and children, making women and children vulnerable and the ones taking the blows and bearing the abuse (rather than the men who should bear the consequences of their own sins) has just increased my distaste of man-made JSR. This is the kingdom that Mahaney, T4G, TGC, the Pearls, CBMW, and many others are building. A Jock Strap Kingdom where men, manhood, and manlike sins are protected and covered and where women and children are thrown under the bus to protect this kingdom and the 'privates' of men.

Jesus did the opposite of this. He held men accountable for their own sins and released women from bearing that burden:

Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

He also called all into account for hurting His little, defenseless lambs.

Matthew 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Jesus didn't come to earth to promote a JSR or build a Jock Strap Kingdom. This is the work of men who want to cover their own hinneys and fronties while walking all over the vulnerable. Jesus is the champion of the vulnerable. He does not wink at the sins of men. Just because Jesus walked the earth as a man doesn't mean He 'understands' the sins of men, makes allowances for those sins, and/or looks the other way.

John 8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”]

For those who don't know. The above passage was not about Jesus 'going soft' on sin. It was Jesus confronting the unjust culture that stoned women for adultery while letting the men go free. Cause really, if she was caught in the very act... where was the guy? Oh, that's right, the other men covered and hid that man and his sin from Jesus. They were practicing JSR where they protect men and condemn women. JSR is a Pharisee concoction. It has no part in the Kingdom of God that Jesus was setting up.

This is the reason why I loved the title to Hannah's post. It gets to the heart of the matter. Together for the Gospel and The Gospel Coalition, and whoever else that is coming to Mahaney's defense... They are NOT together for the Gospel. At least NOT the one that Jesus preached. They are together to protect men and their sins. They are together to protect Mahaney, the pastors, and all the pedophiles hiding in SGM. They are together against the women and children who have been trampled on by these men, including Mahaney. They are together for their beloved and worshiped Jock Strap Religion.

In case you missed part 1 of the Jock Strap Religion, unofficial series.

SGM Update

I haven't got time to follow closely.

But I appreciate those who are.

Here is a link to the latest on SGM posted on TWW:

Boz Tchividjian and Janet Mefferd Take on T4G and TGC

And here is some good analysis from Hannah

Together for Mahaney

Women Held Responsible with No Authoriy

My post with links concerning the Oldest Daughter Syndrome made me remember something my father said once. He was a manager in a government agency so he understood managing, running a company, authority, and responsibility.

He said that it was wrong to make a person responsible for something they have no authority over and just as wrong to give someone authority while not holding them responsible for that authority.

This is exactly what Patriarchy does.

It gives the men all the authority while not holding them accountable for any of that authority while making women responsible for everything that goes wrong even while they have no authority in the situation.

I could go into a long explanation. But why, when there is a perfect example of the blatant off-balance authority/responsibly paradigm being ranted about over at Defeating the Dragons.

Cloistered Fruit: (NOT) an Open Letter to the Pearls

I don't link much about the Pearls. They are another couple that have gone too far over the cuckoo's edge for me to take seriously any day of the week.

But I take this rant very seriously because it is right on target.

Sarah Was a Strong Woman

In searching for the 'oldest daughter' link, I ran across this thing that I wrote on Charis's blog.

It's not much, but many people don't realize this. And I believe it just as much today as when I wrote it back in 2009. So for those of you who were not fortunate enough to be involved in Charis's blog back then, I'll leave you this. And I hope you take a look around at some of the things that she wrote. Remember. this is the gal that wrote the "Dear Grace Driscoll" guest post on my blog last year which has had more hits than any other post on my blog.

Sarah was a strong woman and Abraham LIKED that.

Men and Emotions

Okay, here is how it is.

I've seen it before and I will see it again.

Certain men want to accuse women of being emotional and therefore unstable, or flighty or something.

The truth is, men have emotions too. They have emotions that drive them just a bad as women do.

The difference is, many men are less honest about their emotions. They bury their emotions beneath a layer of (what they think is) logic and reason, therefore hiding what they consider to be unstable.

I say all this so that I can link this post by the naked pastor who is one of those guys who has become honest about emotions and how they effect both sexes.

emotionally invested preconceived stereotype of women

Thanks David

And as an extra bonus at no extra cost, here are my friend, Hannahs words on

Erick Erickson Wants to Have It All

Oldest Daughter Syndrome

The Eighth and Final Square had a sad and (to me) an interesting post:

All My Fault, Not Good Enough

I tried to leave a comment with a link. I can't tell if it worked. But I took a long time finding this link from 2009 and don't want to go to the trouble of finding it again so I'm going to link it here so I can find it easily again if I need it and so that others can read the conversation that occurred under it.

Are You a First Born Daughter?

Being an oldest daughter can be very demanding. In an abusive situation, it is impossible.

May the Quicksilver Queen continue on her road to healing. And may people be amazed at her strength and wisdom.

Patriocentric Colors Shining Forth

There is a great big controversy over at Thatmom.

Some holier than thou patriarch had come and tried to put her in her place calling her "some woman" in a derogatory manner.

For some reason my 'thatmom' link isn't working for me so to get the latest scoop head on over to "Spiritual Sounding Board" to read about:

Discernment: You, Some Woman, and Phil Johnson

You can see the comment under thatmom's latest blog post if you can get the link to work for you.

Wordgazer's Words on the SGM Issue

Wordgazer is one of my favorite, most respected bloggers.

I've been aware of Kristen for many years and respected her insight before she started blogging.
Then she started blogging.

SGM and Abuse

(dare i repeat myself. You Go Girl!)

Link to T4G's Cowardly Statement

It needs to be on record and the info must be passed on.

Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, and Al Mohler put this statement up on facebook in support of CJ Mahaney. Then the negative comments came rolling in. First they tried to delete comments. Then when they were overwhelmed with the flood they deleted the statement.

Fortunately a certain Bill Kinnon took a screen shot of it before it disappeared.

So, for those who haven't seen it yet, here is a link to the screen shot.

T4G Statement in defense of Mahaney

Be of good cheer. The outcry against T4G and TGC and their misguided support of CJ Mahaney is getting louder and louder.

(Edited to add that T4G has put their statement up on their own site but have disallowed comments... cowards... They won't be able to hide behind the lies they believe forever. The flood of truth will overtake them eventually.)

ThatMom Question's SGM/TGC Prophet, Priest, King Thing

This must be link Friday.

I should have put them all in one post. But I found them slowly, throughout the day so you are getting it in separate posts.

Thatmom is another Complementarian that is going to be added to my blog list right after I publish this post.
I've been aware of her for a long time. She has stood up against the patriocentric heresy from the early days. In fact, she's the one who coined the term 'patriocentric'.

She has a good one today:

How's That Prophet, Priest, King Thing Working Out for Ya?

You go, girl! Let them have it. They deserve it.