There are both differences and similarities between Apollonian/Dionysian and Yin/Yang. They both deal with opposing forces and are methods of trying to explain how this world works.
But the differences are bigger than the similarities, in my opinion.
First of all, the definition or concept of Apollonian/Dionysian is far more squishy than Yin/Yang. Whereas Apollonian/Dionysian can work in harmony, it often doesn't. Yin/Yang always does.
Second, in Yin/Yang, Yang is seen as active and Yin is seen as passive. But in Apollonian/Dionysian, neither is passive, both are very active forces.
The reason I bring this up is because our culture is influenced by both and they may overlap, but they are not the same. In my opinion, Yin/Yang is the more honest and steady of the two with very specific and stable definitions.
But even so, my main point of going down this road is to point out that these are HUMAN constructs and thought patterns. They are systems created by flawed humans to help them deal with a fallen world. They are not biblical. They are shifting sands offering no solid foothold.
Though we can acknowledge the thought patterns and even appreciate art and music concerning the human condition that use these elements to paint a picture, as Christians, we are not to place our trust in these elements.
We have a solid Rock, Jesus Christ, on which to built our spiritual home. All other ground is sinking sand.
Knowing this and seeing the Apollonian and Dionysian infiltrate church thinking is what has prompted me to bring this to the attention of others which is what I hope to do in the next few weeks.
(Link to Wikipedia for definition of Yin/Yang just FYI)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Order vs Chaos in Pop Culture, part 2
Just a brief note on Apollonian and Dionysus in Pop culture. The opposing forces are often looked upon as left brain vs right brain. The left brainer being logical and good at math. The right brainer is artistic and sensitive. This is a common view of the opposing forces. And trust me, there is a reason I'm pointing all of this out. I am leading up to a point, if you can't guess it. But some of this is stuff people have never thought of before even though it is a strong under currant in our culture. Therefore I think it is worth it to lay the ground work for what is to come.
One band that sang about this back in the 70s was Rush.
Here is a link to a description of their song on Wikipedia.
NOTE: If you hate prog rock or don't give a flip about the 70s, skip this link and read about something more modern below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1_duology
If you think I'm making a big deal about this then let me give you a very stark, very modern example. Natalie Portman was given an Oscar for her portrayal of a ballerina in, wait for it, "The Black Swan". I know of few better examples of our culture's obsession with the dueling forces of Apollonian and Dionysian.
Mary Kassian has written about this on her blog and about how damaging this view of women and female sexuality really is.
http://www.girlsgonewise.com/black-swan-deserves-an-oscar/
One band that sang about this back in the 70s was Rush.
Here is a link to a description of their song on Wikipedia.
NOTE: If you hate prog rock or don't give a flip about the 70s, skip this link and read about something more modern below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1_duology
If you think I'm making a big deal about this then let me give you a very stark, very modern example. Natalie Portman was given an Oscar for her portrayal of a ballerina in, wait for it, "The Black Swan". I know of few better examples of our culture's obsession with the dueling forces of Apollonian and Dionysian.
Mary Kassian has written about this on her blog and about how damaging this view of women and female sexuality really is.
http://www.girlsgonewise.com/black-swan-deserves-an-oscar/
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Order vs Chaos in Pop Culture
The funny thing about order vs chaos and the human condition is how much it pops up in entertainment. The opposing forces of Apollonian and Dionysian fighting for power and/or balance crop up all over the place.
The girls and I were just watching Jurassic park the other night and sure enough, there it was. Though I was somewhat aware of it before, only after thinking about it for this blog did I realize how blatant it really was.
John Hammond, the creator of Jurassic Park, represents the Apollonian side. He's dressed in white and has complete control (or so he thinks) of this amusement park with electric fences and safety precautions.
Dr. Ian Malcolm, a mathematician and dressed in black, is spokes person for the Dionysus side which is actually represented by the Dinosaurs. He is the one who keeps talking about the chaos theory.
In this scenario, the Dionysian is not necessarily bad. It is just nature doing what nature does. And when that nature is as big and unpredictable as dinosaurs, it is the Apollonian that comes off as in the wrong for trying to create and control what cannot be controlled so easily.
Another obvious place that speaks of the struggle between chaos and control is the TV series and movie "Get Smart". The opposing forces actually bear the names. The good guys work for "Control" and the bad guys work for "Kaos". And in this scenario control is obviously good while chaos is obviously bad.
Remember the old Star Trek from the 60s or at least have you seen a few reruns? Did you know that Captain Kirk had Apollonian and Dionysian advisers. Dr. McCoy was Dionysian and ran on emotion and intuition, whereas Mr. Spock was strictly Apollonian in nature always concerned with logic and reason. And Kirk was always trying to find the balance between them. In this case, then, there are no good guys or bad guys, only a striving for balance between the two poles.
Others who were influenced by the concept of Apollonian vs Dionysian include Stephan King, Ayn Rand, Jim Morrison, Iggy Pop, and the band Rush
The point of this post is to make people aware of how our culture is influenced by this thinking and how WE are influenced by this thinking and how we may apply it to our lives whether we are aware of it or not. Again remember Job and how his friends worked so hard to Apollonize or use Apollonianisms to order and explain Job's unexplainable chaos. It is human nature to do this. But we must remember, our nature is flawed and fallen and we are but finite living in a universe much bigger than we are. We must take care and not use Apollonianisms when really we ought to be seeking God.
The girls and I were just watching Jurassic park the other night and sure enough, there it was. Though I was somewhat aware of it before, only after thinking about it for this blog did I realize how blatant it really was.
John Hammond, the creator of Jurassic Park, represents the Apollonian side. He's dressed in white and has complete control (or so he thinks) of this amusement park with electric fences and safety precautions.
Dr. Ian Malcolm, a mathematician and dressed in black, is spokes person for the Dionysus side which is actually represented by the Dinosaurs. He is the one who keeps talking about the chaos theory.
In this scenario, the Dionysian is not necessarily bad. It is just nature doing what nature does. And when that nature is as big and unpredictable as dinosaurs, it is the Apollonian that comes off as in the wrong for trying to create and control what cannot be controlled so easily.
Another obvious place that speaks of the struggle between chaos and control is the TV series and movie "Get Smart". The opposing forces actually bear the names. The good guys work for "Control" and the bad guys work for "Kaos". And in this scenario control is obviously good while chaos is obviously bad.
Remember the old Star Trek from the 60s or at least have you seen a few reruns? Did you know that Captain Kirk had Apollonian and Dionysian advisers. Dr. McCoy was Dionysian and ran on emotion and intuition, whereas Mr. Spock was strictly Apollonian in nature always concerned with logic and reason. And Kirk was always trying to find the balance between them. In this case, then, there are no good guys or bad guys, only a striving for balance between the two poles.
Others who were influenced by the concept of Apollonian vs Dionysian include Stephan King, Ayn Rand, Jim Morrison, Iggy Pop, and the band Rush
The point of this post is to make people aware of how our culture is influenced by this thinking and how WE are influenced by this thinking and how we may apply it to our lives whether we are aware of it or not. Again remember Job and how his friends worked so hard to Apollonize or use Apollonianisms to order and explain Job's unexplainable chaos. It is human nature to do this. But we must remember, our nature is flawed and fallen and we are but finite living in a universe much bigger than we are. We must take care and not use Apollonianisms when really we ought to be seeking God.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Seeking Order in a Chaotic World
I love talking to my friend, Jane. She stimulates my thinking beyond where I would normally go. Under my "Men Defining Sweet for Women" post we had a lively discussion about Greek myths and how we have inherited some of the ways they think and some of their attitudes in Western culture and how some of that thinking has infiltrated the church.
She brought up the Greek god, Dionysus and some of the debasing rituals that women had to go through to become part of this cult and how that relates today to the porn industry and porn entering the church via preachers who preach on sex and pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in the marriage bed. She also brought up the link between porn, debasing women, and the teaching of strict gender roles and hierarchy within marriage and church. You can see her comments and her two links under that February 21 post.
And as I said, her comments and connections starts my brain up and I begin to make connections of my own. Because once a person brings up Dionysus, the Greek god of "wine, music, ecstasy, and intoxication," the first thing that jumps into my head is Dionysus's brother, Apollo, the Greek god of the "sun, dreams, reason, and plastic visual arts."
And the reason I associate these two gods together is because of a college course that I took back in the 80s on Aesthetics that used these two gods as opposing forces in the movements of art and music.
Here is a short Wiki explanation of this philosophy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian
Now, I actually have more to say on the push and pull of these opposing forces and how they relate to art, music, and literature. But before I get into any of that, if I ever get into that, let me point out how much this thinking affects us.
If Dionysus represents chaos and lack of order, then Apollo represents structure and order. And we humans have a tendency to crave order. Chaos and being unsure of things or not understanding things stresses us out. We always have to come up with reasons for things. And I've noted that Art, Science, Religion, and Literature are all means of making sense out of a world that doesn't always makes sense.
Let's look back at Job whom we talked about last Friday, March 4th. Job's friends suffered from an intense desire to make sense out of a situation that made no sense. From their limited understanding of God and our fallen world, they tried to superimpose reason or order on the chaos that Job suffered. But their reason and order were terribly inadequate and faulty. We can learn from their mistake and not jump to conclusions about situations that don't make sense. That is one of the things that prayer is for. It is finite and limited us reaching out to the infinite and unlimited God who knows the end from the beginning.
The infinite God did eventually answer Job. We can learn this from Job's story as well. There is an answer. One that we may not be able to see but that God sees plainly. This is what faith is for. Knowing that there is a God and that there is One who is in control and Who can answer and Who will answer. And it is God who can bring order to our chaos. But we must make sure that we are actually seeking God's answers and not what finite men with a Western Civilization Apollonian drive say that the answers are.
She brought up the Greek god, Dionysus and some of the debasing rituals that women had to go through to become part of this cult and how that relates today to the porn industry and porn entering the church via preachers who preach on sex and pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in the marriage bed. She also brought up the link between porn, debasing women, and the teaching of strict gender roles and hierarchy within marriage and church. You can see her comments and her two links under that February 21 post.
And as I said, her comments and connections starts my brain up and I begin to make connections of my own. Because once a person brings up Dionysus, the Greek god of "wine, music, ecstasy, and intoxication," the first thing that jumps into my head is Dionysus's brother, Apollo, the Greek god of the "sun, dreams, reason, and plastic visual arts."
And the reason I associate these two gods together is because of a college course that I took back in the 80s on Aesthetics that used these two gods as opposing forces in the movements of art and music.
Here is a short Wiki explanation of this philosophy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian
Now, I actually have more to say on the push and pull of these opposing forces and how they relate to art, music, and literature. But before I get into any of that, if I ever get into that, let me point out how much this thinking affects us.
If Dionysus represents chaos and lack of order, then Apollo represents structure and order. And we humans have a tendency to crave order. Chaos and being unsure of things or not understanding things stresses us out. We always have to come up with reasons for things. And I've noted that Art, Science, Religion, and Literature are all means of making sense out of a world that doesn't always makes sense.
Let's look back at Job whom we talked about last Friday, March 4th. Job's friends suffered from an intense desire to make sense out of a situation that made no sense. From their limited understanding of God and our fallen world, they tried to superimpose reason or order on the chaos that Job suffered. But their reason and order were terribly inadequate and faulty. We can learn from their mistake and not jump to conclusions about situations that don't make sense. That is one of the things that prayer is for. It is finite and limited us reaching out to the infinite and unlimited God who knows the end from the beginning.
The infinite God did eventually answer Job. We can learn this from Job's story as well. There is an answer. One that we may not be able to see but that God sees plainly. This is what faith is for. Knowing that there is a God and that there is One who is in control and Who can answer and Who will answer. And it is God who can bring order to our chaos. But we must make sure that we are actually seeking God's answers and not what finite men with a Western Civilization Apollonian drive say that the answers are.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
A Stark Example of Creating False Structures
Here is an example of preachers creating false structures and prescribing false solutions. In this particular case it is a mother/daughter dynamic. And as we often see in these situations, the mom is ill advised, then blamed when the bad advice makes the situations worse.
The preacher, whatever his intentions, is a false comforter, like Job's comforters.
This man, if he is like many other Evangelicals and/or Fundamentalist, blames Feminism. But Feminism plays no part in this. He is the one who is destroying the home.
http://baptisttaliban.blogspot.com/2011/03/demolition-of-home-part-ii.html
The preacher, whatever his intentions, is a false comforter, like Job's comforters.
This man, if he is like many other Evangelicals and/or Fundamentalist, blames Feminism. But Feminism plays no part in this. He is the one who is destroying the home.
http://baptisttaliban.blogspot.com/2011/03/demolition-of-home-part-ii.html
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.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Women as Risk Takers
My friend Suzanne has given a rebuttal to three men, an Englishman, an Australian, and an American who want to push Canadian women down into sweet little boxes after a rich heritage of pioneering for the gospel's sake.
As a daughter of homesteaders in the U.S. with family living in Wyoming, the first state to give women the vote, I enjoy immensely the points she brings to light. Men in churches are all fine and dandy with women being risk takers and pioneers and taking hits for the team in establishing the work. But once it's establish, men want to take the work away from the women and lift themselves up to the seats of honor and prestige.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2011/03/formal-rebuttal-on-women-in-ministry.html
Ladies and gentlemen. Let us not forget the contributions of our men AND women in the past. And let us not let high sounding words rob us of seeing injustice for what it is. Injustice is injustice. Someone being female doesn't give men the right to treat her the way they would never treat a man.
As a daughter of homesteaders in the U.S. with family living in Wyoming, the first state to give women the vote, I enjoy immensely the points she brings to light. Men in churches are all fine and dandy with women being risk takers and pioneers and taking hits for the team in establishing the work. But once it's establish, men want to take the work away from the women and lift themselves up to the seats of honor and prestige.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2011/03/formal-rebuttal-on-women-in-ministry.html
Ladies and gentlemen. Let us not forget the contributions of our men AND women in the past. And let us not let high sounding words rob us of seeing injustice for what it is. Injustice is injustice. Someone being female doesn't give men the right to treat her the way they would never treat a man.
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.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Loving Respect or Kowtowing
My regulars are already aware of the thread over at Suzanne's Bookshelf and have commented on it. That thread has shot up to over a hundred comments.
But those who visit here less frequently, I wanted to make you aware of it.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2011/02/response-to-complementarian.html
I have been aware of Suzanne for several years, even longer than Charis/Gem who is also in my blog roll. She's a studier of Greek and Hebrew and cares about honesty in translations.
Somewhere in the middle of the comments I bring up this clip from Piper who is not Patriarchal or Quiverfull, as far as I can tell. But he still teaches version of wifely submission that many of us find distrubing. Yet even with the video evidence plainly displayed, people who are otherwise reasonable get funny and defensive when really they should just say, "Piper is wrong here."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OkUPc2NLrM&feature=player_embedded
One commentor is convinced that Piper models a good way for a wife to lovingly respect and submit to her husband when her husband pressures her into gross sin. He calls it a confrontation. But in my book it falls terribly short of confrontation.
Edited to add: Thanks to Hannah from over at Emotional Abuse and Your Faith for the link to video of Piper. She's another old friend on my blog roll.
But those who visit here less frequently, I wanted to make you aware of it.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2011/02/response-to-complementarian.html
I have been aware of Suzanne for several years, even longer than Charis/Gem who is also in my blog roll. She's a studier of Greek and Hebrew and cares about honesty in translations.
Somewhere in the middle of the comments I bring up this clip from Piper who is not Patriarchal or Quiverfull, as far as I can tell. But he still teaches version of wifely submission that many of us find distrubing. Yet even with the video evidence plainly displayed, people who are otherwise reasonable get funny and defensive when really they should just say, "Piper is wrong here."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OkUPc2NLrM&feature=player_embedded
One commentor is convinced that Piper models a good way for a wife to lovingly respect and submit to her husband when her husband pressures her into gross sin. He calls it a confrontation. But in my book it falls terribly short of confrontation.
Edited to add: Thanks to Hannah from over at Emotional Abuse and Your Faith for the link to video of Piper. She's another old friend on my blog roll.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Cheese Balls and Stuck Cars
My daughter's car is still stuck in the snow. Even with help from her brother and a guy friend.
My son managed to get his car out, without help.
They used sand under my daughter's tires to try to get some traction.
My son used a frozen lump of sand that my daughter and her friend rejected. He also threw some stale cheese balls left over from Christmas under the wheels. He got his car out.
Now the joke around our house is that cheese balls are good for getting cars unstuck from deep snow.
So around here, cheese balls are the Windex of getting cars out of the snow.
You know, Windex, like in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding".
Well, if you haven't seen that movie, here's the opening scene for your enjoyment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWpc-pidCo&feature=related
(The part about Windex shows up around marker point 4:45)
My son managed to get his car out, without help.
They used sand under my daughter's tires to try to get some traction.
My son used a frozen lump of sand that my daughter and her friend rejected. He also threw some stale cheese balls left over from Christmas under the wheels. He got his car out.
Now the joke around our house is that cheese balls are good for getting cars unstuck from deep snow.
So around here, cheese balls are the Windex of getting cars out of the snow.
You know, Windex, like in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding".
Well, if you haven't seen that movie, here's the opening scene for your enjoyment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWpc-pidCo&feature=related
(The part about Windex shows up around marker point 4:45)
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Getting Snowed In
Anybody else getting snowed in?
Work and school got out early yesterday. No work or school today for me and the kids. I said a little prayer for my husband because he went on into work anyway.
I had mixed emotions about him going.
He was grumpy, so I really didn't want him around. On the other hand, I sure didn't want him to end up in a ditch or worse.
Thus the prayer. But my prayers are far more honest than they used to be.
I used to buy into the, 'never tear your husband down' crap to the point that I couldn't even be honest with God when my husband acted like a jerk.
Now I'm very honest. I told God, after my husband left for work that, yeah he was being a grumpy gus and I didn't want to be snowed in the same house as him. But even so, I don't want anything bad to happen to him. I prayed that angels would guide his pick-up and keep him safe on the road.
Honesty is so much better than walking on eggshells, thinking that if you say anything the least bit negative, then you expose yourself to all sorts of judgement or your 'covering' is hindered/removed or you bring curses on yourself or whatever other 'religious' things men threaten women with in order to protect their fragile egos.
My husband is much better prayed for than he used to be because I can be blunt, straight forward, and painfully honest, if I have to.
Work and school got out early yesterday. No work or school today for me and the kids. I said a little prayer for my husband because he went on into work anyway.
I had mixed emotions about him going.
He was grumpy, so I really didn't want him around. On the other hand, I sure didn't want him to end up in a ditch or worse.
Thus the prayer. But my prayers are far more honest than they used to be.
I used to buy into the, 'never tear your husband down' crap to the point that I couldn't even be honest with God when my husband acted like a jerk.
Now I'm very honest. I told God, after my husband left for work that, yeah he was being a grumpy gus and I didn't want to be snowed in the same house as him. But even so, I don't want anything bad to happen to him. I prayed that angels would guide his pick-up and keep him safe on the road.
Honesty is so much better than walking on eggshells, thinking that if you say anything the least bit negative, then you expose yourself to all sorts of judgement or your 'covering' is hindered/removed or you bring curses on yourself or whatever other 'religious' things men threaten women with in order to protect their fragile egos.
My husband is much better prayed for than he used to be because I can be blunt, straight forward, and painfully honest, if I have to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)