Life gets busy and it gets hard to blog at times.
But even so, sometimes little things just strike me funny about the topics we cover and I just have to share.
You remember that song, "Put Another Log on the Fire" by Tompall Glaser?
If not I'll link if for you at the bottom of this post.
One of the classic lines from his song reminds me of John Piper and the "Keep Sweet" conspiracy that is infiltrating portions of the church.
The line goes like this:
"So sit here at my feet cause I like you when you're sweet. And you know it ain't feminine to fight."
An honorable mention also found in this song makes me think of Mark Driscoll and his comment about pastor's wives letting themselves go:
"Don't I warn you when you're getting fat."
And of course the last line is:
"Come and tell me why you're leaving me."
Which is exactly what women need to do with ministries like Piper's, Driscoll's, and every form and expression of patriarchy and CBMW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wO_6wMRS7A
Showing posts with label Keep Sweet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Keep Sweet. Show all posts
Friday, July 8, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Creating False Structures
We have talked about Job here before.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2009/01/word-or-two-from-job-on-bitterness.html
But I want to point out something else we can learn from his story.
Not only did he give full vent to his bitterness, the Bible said that he did not sin with his mouth, which Steve Scott points out so well in his post here:
http://fromthepew.blogspot.com/2011/02/job-did-not-sin.html
But even though Job gave full vent to his bitterness he didn't sin with his mouth. And his comforters did sin with their mouths to such an extent that at the end of the story, Job had to offer up sacrifices for his friends.
Please note that Job's friends were very well meaning and sat with him in silence for seven days and seven nights before they opened their mouths. They really wanted to get to the bottom of this mystery. They wanted to find a reason for the horrible things that Job went through. And they decided that since God was just, no matter what, that the fault must be with Job.
At least Job's wife knew that Job was not at fault. She lived with him and saw his righteousness. She never blamed him. She told him to curse God and die. And in this, she probably did sin with her mouth. But strangely, when all is said and done, God never told Job to offer sacrifices for her sins.
So why offer sacrifices for the sins of Job's comforters? What did they do? All they were trying to do was make sense out of a situation that made absolutely no sense to any human being. Yet, in all their explaining of the way things work, or how they thought things worked, and how they thought it could be solved, they sinned with their mouths.
They created a false structure, a false reason, a false cause-and-effect situation that had nothing to do with what was really going on. And then they came up with solutions or formulas that they were sure would work if only Job would follow their advice.
In their minds, surely Job had sinned. He must have sinned. And then, to add insult to injury, they told him he was proud for not admitting his sin. Their simple solution was that if he would just repent, the evil that plagued his house and his body would end. And they kept after it and after it and after it scolding Job for justifying himself rather than ever taking into account that perhaps Job actually did not sin and bring this upon himself.
I see this creating of false structures and cause-and-effect situations going on in the church today. Marriages are failing in the church at the same rate as they are in the world. And well meaning men, comforters are calling on Christians to follow their formulas and programs and solutions in order to save the marriages. They claim that it is feminism that is destroying all marriages, including Christian ones.
What they refuse to face is that their formulas have been around for a long time, back in the seventies and perhaps even before then. And these formulas have morphed into terrible monsters in the form of Vision Forum and the Quiverfull movement. They have instructed women to submit and keep sweet and have been false comforter of these women telling them that if they would just repent from their self-will and obstinate behavior, their marriages would be saved. And they have formed rigid molds for the daughters to follow that destroys their souls and creates learned helplessness.
Their formulas have failed and have become worse destroyers of Christian marriages than the third wave feminist could have ever dreamed of. The third wave feminist can sit back and watch and laugh as Christians destroy their own marriages with false structures and formulas.
When will people wise up and see the formulas for what they are, false comforters and false solutions to misunderstood problems? Going back to the fifties, to Little House on the Prairie, to the Golden Age of the South, to the Victorian Age will not solve today's problems. Trying to do so only creates new problems. We cannot go back. We must go forward and face today's problems with a fresh vision, a fresh understanding from God of what is really wrong and how it can really be solved.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2009/01/word-or-two-from-job-on-bitterness.html
But I want to point out something else we can learn from his story.
Not only did he give full vent to his bitterness, the Bible said that he did not sin with his mouth, which Steve Scott points out so well in his post here:
http://fromthepew.blogspot.com/2011/02/job-did-not-sin.html
But even though Job gave full vent to his bitterness he didn't sin with his mouth. And his comforters did sin with their mouths to such an extent that at the end of the story, Job had to offer up sacrifices for his friends.
Please note that Job's friends were very well meaning and sat with him in silence for seven days and seven nights before they opened their mouths. They really wanted to get to the bottom of this mystery. They wanted to find a reason for the horrible things that Job went through. And they decided that since God was just, no matter what, that the fault must be with Job.
At least Job's wife knew that Job was not at fault. She lived with him and saw his righteousness. She never blamed him. She told him to curse God and die. And in this, she probably did sin with her mouth. But strangely, when all is said and done, God never told Job to offer sacrifices for her sins.
So why offer sacrifices for the sins of Job's comforters? What did they do? All they were trying to do was make sense out of a situation that made absolutely no sense to any human being. Yet, in all their explaining of the way things work, or how they thought things worked, and how they thought it could be solved, they sinned with their mouths.
They created a false structure, a false reason, a false cause-and-effect situation that had nothing to do with what was really going on. And then they came up with solutions or formulas that they were sure would work if only Job would follow their advice.
In their minds, surely Job had sinned. He must have sinned. And then, to add insult to injury, they told him he was proud for not admitting his sin. Their simple solution was that if he would just repent, the evil that plagued his house and his body would end. And they kept after it and after it and after it scolding Job for justifying himself rather than ever taking into account that perhaps Job actually did not sin and bring this upon himself.
I see this creating of false structures and cause-and-effect situations going on in the church today. Marriages are failing in the church at the same rate as they are in the world. And well meaning men, comforters are calling on Christians to follow their formulas and programs and solutions in order to save the marriages. They claim that it is feminism that is destroying all marriages, including Christian ones.
What they refuse to face is that their formulas have been around for a long time, back in the seventies and perhaps even before then. And these formulas have morphed into terrible monsters in the form of Vision Forum and the Quiverfull movement. They have instructed women to submit and keep sweet and have been false comforter of these women telling them that if they would just repent from their self-will and obstinate behavior, their marriages would be saved. And they have formed rigid molds for the daughters to follow that destroys their souls and creates learned helplessness.
Their formulas have failed and have become worse destroyers of Christian marriages than the third wave feminist could have ever dreamed of. The third wave feminist can sit back and watch and laugh as Christians destroy their own marriages with false structures and formulas.
When will people wise up and see the formulas for what they are, false comforters and false solutions to misunderstood problems? Going back to the fifties, to Little House on the Prairie, to the Golden Age of the South, to the Victorian Age will not solve today's problems. Trying to do so only creates new problems. We cannot go back. We must go forward and face today's problems with a fresh vision, a fresh understanding from God of what is really wrong and how it can really be solved.
Monday, February 28, 2011
The "Keep Sweet" Conspiracy
Before I get into this fully, I want to assure you all that I know there are many good men who do not fall into this conspiracy. There are several who comment at Suzanne's Bookshelf, the Equality Central Forum, and The Commandments of Men that refuse to tell women what they are supposed to feel and how they are supposed to react in the face of sin, abuse, and danger. These men allow women to be human and to be who God created them to be and refuse to pressure women into a "Keep Sweet" mold.
"Keep Sweet" was a favorite saying of Rulon Jeffs, former prophet of the FLDS sect. Rulon's son, Warren, in now in prison for various crimes, is the present prophet of the FLDS.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-king/keeping-sweet-in-san-ange_b_102774.html
Well, cults do what cults do. And it's not that I'm unconcerned for them, I am. But I'm also deeply concerned with the "keep sweet" doctrine entering into mainstream Christianity. I'm concerned with men, like Piper, who seem completely unaware of how their teachings are lining up more with the FLDS and other patriarchal groups than with Christianity. I'm concerned with them teaching a doctrine that brings bondage and plastic molding to women. I am concerned with the fact that these men are being deceived and believe they bring freedom. They don't. They are blind guides leading the blind.
My friend Waneta has come and left a comment under my last post and she said something I wish these men would realize. She said:
"their insistence that women be sweet, ends up making them despise women for their weakness. So no matter what they do, women do it wrong. If they are sweet, they are despised for weakness and taken advantage of. If they stand up for themselves, they are labeled with various 'sin' descriptions."
These men, quite frankly, created a no win situation for women. And then they call this lose/lose situation, the 'good news'.
It is not good news. It is not the gospel. It is bad news. And it would behoove them to quit embracing their sacred cows.
But they refuse to re-examine their positions because they are quite convinced they are right. They are self-righteous rather where they should be humble and teachable. But then, their doctrine teaches them that they are not to be taught by women, so they cannot hear the cries of the wounded abused. All they can offer is what Rulon and Warren Jeffs offered. A "keep sweet" conspiracy.
"Keep Sweet" was a favorite saying of Rulon Jeffs, former prophet of the FLDS sect. Rulon's son, Warren, in now in prison for various crimes, is the present prophet of the FLDS.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-king/keeping-sweet-in-san-ange_b_102774.html
Well, cults do what cults do. And it's not that I'm unconcerned for them, I am. But I'm also deeply concerned with the "keep sweet" doctrine entering into mainstream Christianity. I'm concerned with men, like Piper, who seem completely unaware of how their teachings are lining up more with the FLDS and other patriarchal groups than with Christianity. I'm concerned with them teaching a doctrine that brings bondage and plastic molding to women. I am concerned with the fact that these men are being deceived and believe they bring freedom. They don't. They are blind guides leading the blind.
My friend Waneta has come and left a comment under my last post and she said something I wish these men would realize. She said:
"their insistence that women be sweet, ends up making them despise women for their weakness. So no matter what they do, women do it wrong. If they are sweet, they are despised for weakness and taken advantage of. If they stand up for themselves, they are labeled with various 'sin' descriptions."
These men, quite frankly, created a no win situation for women. And then they call this lose/lose situation, the 'good news'.
It is not good news. It is not the gospel. It is bad news. And it would behoove them to quit embracing their sacred cows.
But they refuse to re-examine their positions because they are quite convinced they are right. They are self-righteous rather where they should be humble and teachable. But then, their doctrine teaches them that they are not to be taught by women, so they cannot hear the cries of the wounded abused. All they can offer is what Rulon and Warren Jeffs offered. A "keep sweet" conspiracy.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Men Defining Sweet for Women
This blog is called from Bitter Waters to Sweet because one of its purposes is to deal with the bitter issues facing women and how they can move from a place of bitterness to a place of sweetness in the Lord.
There are many obstacles in the way, but I want to focus on one in particular.
One of the major obstacles is when women let certain men define what sweetness is for women.
We touched on it in the past in my dealing with the Song of Solomon and one man's determination to make a verse from a woman's point of view all about something that many men like, in particular what he thought would be sweet for a woman to do for him. Since it is pretty much R rated, we won't cover it again.
But now I've found another place where a man has decided to define 'sweet' for women. I mentioned this man in the previous post. His name is John Piper and there is a link to a video of him talking about what a woman's submission to an abusive man would look like.
Around the two minute mark of this video he begins to model a very sweet speech that he expects a woman to follow if her husband is pressuring her into gross sin. It goes like this.
Honey, I want so much to follow you as my leader. God calls me to do that and I would love to do that. It would be sweet to me if I could enjoy your leadership. But if you ask me to do this, require this of me, then I can't. I can't go there.
Rather than allowing a woman a natural, angry response to a man pushing her into gross sin, she has to detour and talk about wanting him as her leader, enjoying his leadership and even saying that it would be sweet for her to enjoy his leadership.
John Piper does not allow women to be human and react against men who are hurting them. They can't be honest and say, "You are hurting me. You are sinning against me and God. You are hurting yourself. You are being selfish and self-centered. Stop it! Stop it now! Get out of my house and out of my face until you repent from your wicked ways..." or any other of a number of normal, healthy, angry, human responses to blatant wickedness.
No, he doesn't allow a woman to do that. If she does that, she is going against God's plan of joyful submission. Instead, she is to tell him how sweet it would be if she could enjoy his leadership.
Is it sweet for women to enjoy the leadership of men?
Piper doesn't know. He's never lived it. He can't attest to it.
All he knows is how sweet it is for men to have submissive little wives who are trained on how NOT to be honest and open about their own pain and how NOT to confront blatant sin in a man who is abusing them.
I'm sure this is a very sweet deal for men.
But they should not make the mistake thinking that if something is sweet for them, this automatically makes it sweet for women. It doesn't work that way. No matter how much Piper wants it to work that way, it simply doesn't.
Let me tell you one thing that, as a woman, I have found to be sweet. It is sweet for women to have the freedom to be human and have healthy human responses to gross sin and abuse. What is sweet to women is having the freedom to be honest about their pain and how bitter things really are. Then once a woman has the chance to deal with her bitterness and with what is causing the bitterness rather than have to lie about it, bury it, and worst of all, call it sweet, she can sweep away male definitions of sweetness and male expectations and turn to God Who offers true sweetness.
Sorry Piper. You have no authority to define sweet for me or any other woman.
But my God is intimately acquainted with me. And as Jesus, He has experienced the oppression of men and has even died at their hands. He has known my bitterness and more. And He knows what true sweetness is and how to make my bitter waters sweet.
He has the authority in this, Piper. Not you.
There are many obstacles in the way, but I want to focus on one in particular.
One of the major obstacles is when women let certain men define what sweetness is for women.
We touched on it in the past in my dealing with the Song of Solomon and one man's determination to make a verse from a woman's point of view all about something that many men like, in particular what he thought would be sweet for a woman to do for him. Since it is pretty much R rated, we won't cover it again.
But now I've found another place where a man has decided to define 'sweet' for women. I mentioned this man in the previous post. His name is John Piper and there is a link to a video of him talking about what a woman's submission to an abusive man would look like.
Around the two minute mark of this video he begins to model a very sweet speech that he expects a woman to follow if her husband is pressuring her into gross sin. It goes like this.
Honey, I want so much to follow you as my leader. God calls me to do that and I would love to do that. It would be sweet to me if I could enjoy your leadership. But if you ask me to do this, require this of me, then I can't. I can't go there.
Rather than allowing a woman a natural, angry response to a man pushing her into gross sin, she has to detour and talk about wanting him as her leader, enjoying his leadership and even saying that it would be sweet for her to enjoy his leadership.
John Piper does not allow women to be human and react against men who are hurting them. They can't be honest and say, "You are hurting me. You are sinning against me and God. You are hurting yourself. You are being selfish and self-centered. Stop it! Stop it now! Get out of my house and out of my face until you repent from your wicked ways..." or any other of a number of normal, healthy, angry, human responses to blatant wickedness.
No, he doesn't allow a woman to do that. If she does that, she is going against God's plan of joyful submission. Instead, she is to tell him how sweet it would be if she could enjoy his leadership.
Is it sweet for women to enjoy the leadership of men?
Piper doesn't know. He's never lived it. He can't attest to it.
All he knows is how sweet it is for men to have submissive little wives who are trained on how NOT to be honest and open about their own pain and how NOT to confront blatant sin in a man who is abusing them.
I'm sure this is a very sweet deal for men.
But they should not make the mistake thinking that if something is sweet for them, this automatically makes it sweet for women. It doesn't work that way. No matter how much Piper wants it to work that way, it simply doesn't.
Let me tell you one thing that, as a woman, I have found to be sweet. It is sweet for women to have the freedom to be human and have healthy human responses to gross sin and abuse. What is sweet to women is having the freedom to be honest about their pain and how bitter things really are. Then once a woman has the chance to deal with her bitterness and with what is causing the bitterness rather than have to lie about it, bury it, and worst of all, call it sweet, she can sweep away male definitions of sweetness and male expectations and turn to God Who offers true sweetness.
Sorry Piper. You have no authority to define sweet for me or any other woman.
But my God is intimately acquainted with me. And as Jesus, He has experienced the oppression of men and has even died at their hands. He has known my bitterness and more. And He knows what true sweetness is and how to make my bitter waters sweet.
He has the authority in this, Piper. Not you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)