Household Codes Podcast

 I haven't listened to it yet so I can't vouch for it at this time. But I am putting it here so I can find it again when I have more time

This Is a Great Mystery

Edited to add this as well. I may need this later.

Deeper Conversations on Purity

****

Aristotle and Ephesians

 Wanting to be able to find this quickly for a deeper reading so am linking it here.

How Reading Aristotle Frees Us from John Piper and Albert Mohler's Complementarianism

Hope others find it and learn something from it.

Edited to add this link for good measure. It is where I found the previous link

Complementarianism and Abuse

Ship Wreck Really Loves Voddie

Two months ago, a comment was left on the 2012 post, Voddie Baucham Is Sexist, by Ship Wreck. Ship Wreck sounds like a little Reformer who is fit to be tied. This Reformer is angry with me concerning my assessment of Voddie. I find the comment hilarious. Ship Wreck makes the most outlandish assumptions possible.

Ship Wreck assumes that I "as a female" am single with no intention of getting married or having kids.
That's funny. Because I've been married for over 30 years and have had four children, all grown now.

Ship Wreck assumes that I have had at least one abortion and have slept with at least ten men.
Wow, Ship Wreck. Way off. I've only ever slept with one man. Didn't sleep with him until after we were married. And I've had zero abortions.

Ship Wreck assumes that I am on birth control, like that is evil or something.
Sorry, Ship Wreck. Don't need birth control. Ever heard of menopause?

Ship Wreck assumes that my parents are divorced and I was never disciplined.
Well, Shippy. I gotta tell ya. I lost my father two years ago. If he were still alive, he and my mother would be celebrating their 60 year anniversary in August. Also, my dad was one of those fathers that told me that spanking me was going to hurt him more than me. I fully believed him because I was very much a daddy's girl. I miss him a great deal. There is nothing you can say that will diminish him in my eyes or in the eyes of God whom he served. The board of directors for the home for pregnant girls seeking to avoid abortions (that he once served on) would agree.

Ship Wreck assumes that I'm addicted to something. If coffee counts, then Shippy is correct on at least this one.

Ship Wreck assumes that I suffer from anxiety, depression, or ADD.
Well, as far as I know, I don't. But in my job, I do work with young people suffering these things. I work closely with them to help them overcome so they can grow up to live fulfilling lives. I prefer to work with people to help them overcome such obstacles. Shippy wants to accuse people of having these maladies and uses such accusation as bludgeoning weapons against people that disagree with Voddie. Nice, Shippy. Perhaps now you might understand why I have no respect for your comment and little respect for you. However, I'm not going to lower myself to your way-less-than-Christlike level because Jesus does love you no matter how misguided you are in trying to serve Him.

Then Ship Wreck instructs me to read the book of Ephesians in one sitting, which I have done before. I probably will again, sometime. But it isn't coming up right away in my scheduled Bible reading time. Right now I am in John, Romans, Psalms, and Isaiah. There is a lot of Bible to read and a lot of context to get. Context is key.

Speaking of Ephesians, I have, on more that one occasion, instructed women to read this book. But I have told them to go ahead and skip the part where Paul addresses the Aristotle Household Code. Not because that part is wrong. It is right as rain. Paul does an amazing job turning that old code on it's head using the grace and love of God. But Paul's response to Aristotle's Household Code has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and used as a bludgeoning tool against women by abusive husbands and pastors for hundreds of years causing bitterness and severe PTSD.

As mentioned in the previous post, I am heart-sick over all the bitterness caused by the errant teachings of men like Voddie. I've said it before. I will say it again. Voddie is sexist and interprets the Bible in a way that raises men and fathers up as idols and oppresses women and mothers down to doormats making both ineffective and unable to produce spiritual fruit.

Ship Wreck is in agreement with Voddie. Ship Wreck is wrong on all assumptions concerning me (except about coffee). Ship Wreck and Voddie have a broken and bitter understanding of scripture that leads to shipwrecked faith. May God lead them out of the darkness that has defiled and devastated countless lives.

Dissecting "Love and Respect"

Here is the beginning of a thorough review of the book "Love and Respect".

This review is needed to stand against the off-balanced teaching of the book. It is something I have neither the time nor the patience to do so I'm glad there is someone out there who does.

Love, Respect, and Proof-Texts by Nate Sparks

Thanks, Nate, for taking on this beast.

Divine Right of Kings in English Translations.

And I'm not just talking about the Kings of old. I'm also talking about the destructive force trying to make men into the prophets, priests, and kings of their homes over their lowly subjected wives.

Here is an excellent comment from Arce at TWW concerning study of the Greek NT and comparing it to the English translations that we have today. He claims that a "great deal of what we have in the English NT that is the result of the terrible patriarchy and divine right influences on the KJV translators that carries over into almost all English translations today."

Here is a link to his comment:
Arce speaks on English translations

And here is his comment in full that I don't want people to miss. It is in response to someone who is just sure the Bible give him the divine right to be the boss over his subjected wife.

And again: The English translation of the Ephesians passages has added words not there in the Greek, selectively. In particular, the word translated “submit” (not exactly the best translation of the Greek word, as it means something different in our culture) and the word “love” both get inserted in places where they do not appear in the Greek, selectively. Both words should appear in application to the husband or wife if we are inserting, b/c of parallelism. OR neither word should appear.

The verse that precedes about all submitting to all is the key. And then the submission of a wife is qualified — to her own husband, not to all the other men in the church.

And Gene, I have a Ph.D., a J.D., and a 800 plus volume of theological books, with multiple commentaries of each of the NT books and most of the OT books, in my home. I have been an evangelical Christian for more than 55 years, and a Baptist for most of those. As a teenager, I attended the adult bible studies my church held on week nights at least two months a year. I have taught adult classes in church, have served on the diaconate in several churches, and as chairman of major committees such as personnel and finance.

In addition, I chaired an extensive study of ALL of the verses that anyone raised as potentially relevant to the role of women in the church, including all of those verses that relate to the marital relathionship. We explored all of the verses in Hebrew or Greek as appropriate, in context, and reviewed the work of various Hebrew and Greek scholars.

And I can tell you that, there is a great deal of what we have in the English NT that is the result of the terrible patriarchy and divine right influences on the KJV translators that carries over into almost all English translations today. It relates to all of the issues around the words “head”, “submit”, etc. And you can choose to disagree with me if you wish. But the teaching of comp and the teaching of patriarchy in the church is not supported by the Greek NT, and it is contributing to the shrinking of the church as women, who have kept the faith alive in many places, are leaving the organized church that teaches what becomes the excuse for abuse and denying the equality of all before God.

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.

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.

Exposing the Masculinist Cult Overtaking Christianity

Or better put, revealing the error that has propagated this horrible masculinist cult that has been taking the Kindgom of Heaven by force.

Wade does a good job of this on his blog in this post:

Artemis and the End of Us: Evangelical Errors Regarding Women

Thanks, Wade. I need to get your blog on my role/roll.

Driscoll Is Getting Desperate, part 2

He's bribing people with IPAD MINIs.

He's so deperate to get good reviews to overshadow the bad review that I linked a few posts ago that he's bribing people. For some reason that limbo chant is going through my brain. "How low can you go? How low can you go?"

WTH Discusses Driscoll Bribe

(for my first post on Driscoll being desperate back in November, check out this link)

Review on Driscoll's Book

The review is interesting.
And so are the comments:

Mark Driscoll is to biblical wisdom as Richard Simmons is to cage fighting

Put Away Childish Things

I Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; When I became a man, I did away with childish things.

The Toddler Property Rights that I posted on Monday display a childish, even infantile, mentality. Toddlers are going through the 'adolescence' between infancy and childhood. They are old enough to express their demanding, self-centered infantile mind but not quite mature enough to learn basic things like "sharing" and "empathy" and respecting another's "boundaries". It is a stage that children go through that is natural and expected.

But an adult behaving according to the Toddler Property Rights is not natural or expected. It is unacceptable and shows the adult to be childish and in no condition to have authority or responsibility.

The opposite of the Toddler Property Rights is found a few verses above I Corinthians 13:11.

Verses 4-7 goes like this: Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek it's own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

You just can't get more opposite of the Toddler Property Rights. Anyone wanting to obey the law of love and yet hold onto the toddler property rights mentality are sorry out of luck because "it does not seek it's own" pretty much does away with any idea that person has a right to take something away from another person.

Looking at it another way, thieves live by Toddler Property Rights law #3: "If I can take it away from you, it's mine." But God's law, even in the Old Testament states: "Thou shalt not steal." So what is a thief to do if he wants to grow up and stop being a toddler? He must put away childish things.

Ephesians 4:28 He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need.

In other words, rather than taking, consuming, and hurting others with his childish self in mind, a thief needs to learn to be a producer, giver, blesser. And in this way, the thief changes his way and no longer imitates the devil who comes to steal, kill, and destroy, but begins to imitate God who is a Producer, Giver, and Blesser.

So, in essence, putting away childish things is rejecting selfish, hurtful, worldly, and satanic reasoning and taking on, or accepting giving, creating, blessing, and godly reasoning.

Simple to explain. Much harder to bring into practice. At least that's what I observe because I see a lot of Christians, including those in leadership, who still embrace the Toddler Property Rights mentality.

Infecting Ephesians 5

Women in Ministry is in my blog roll. It has been for a long time. Cheryl, the blog owner, has been busy a lot, so her blog rests dormant for periods of time. But she still posts from time to time. Whatever Cheryl writes is good. But I particularly like today's blog post, "Ephesians Five Infected with the Mindset of the World."

So, if it has been a while since you've been to Cheryl's blog, or if you have never been over there, today is a good day to go see what she has to offer.

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2012/01/08/eph-5-infected/

(I have CBMW and Driscoll in my tags because Cheryl touches on them.)

Edited to add another blog post from Wade Burleson. He's not in my blog roll yet, but he should be: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/01/new-testament-equality-leads-to-healthy.html)

Traumatized By Ephesians Five?

For my readers still suffering from PTSD from having Ephesians five shoved down their throats, let me tell you the reading assignment I'd give you if you asked me for one.

I'd say, read Ephesians chapters 1-4, skip 5, and if you are okay with chapter 6, read it. If chapter 6 also causes a degree of PTSD then skip 6 as well.

Now some would scream that I'm not respecting the family or the Bible or whatever by giving such advice. All I'll respond with is this. If I read all of Ephesians minus chapter 5 half a dozen times, it still wouldn't make up for the hundreds of times I've hear messages from chapter 5 while the teacher ignored the rest of the book. So in suggesting such a reading assignment, I'm not negating any part of the Bible. I'm simply bringing balance to an area so far out of balance in so many circle it is sick.

I knew a woman so traumatized by the word "submit" that if she saw it in completely innocent places like, "please submit paperwork to..." she'd have a panic attack. This is how bad it has gotten. And I'd really like people who have been traumatized to gain some benefit from the incredible book of Ephesians.

However, if just the word "Ephesians" traumatizes you, then you are better off reading Galatians, over and over, until God reveals to you the liberty that Paul is trying to get across.

One other little note on Ephesians 5 & 6:
As I've noted, neo-patriarchy and CBMW are hard at work creating an image and 'single story' of womanhood that strips women of being Deborahs (leaders), Huldahs (prophets/preacher/teachers), or Junias (apostle/elder). Their version of womanhood makes women small, weak, and helpless. This is wrong and not in keeping with how Christ handles his bride. First He gives his Bride all authority (check out Retha's link below). And according to Ephesians 6, he arms her to the teeth. This is a far cry from what Patriarchs and CBMWers do. They are too busy disarming and discouraging their women to see what they should be doing, what Christ does, arming and empowering.

http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/authority-is-for-sharing/

Houses of Healing

There is a scene from Lord of the Rings that didn't appear in the theatrical version. I've shared it elsewhere. But because it seems to go with this series on strong men and men who have the heart of true brothers towards women, I've decided to link it here for those of my friends who haven't seen it yet.

Jesus taught us to treat one another as brothers and sisters. And this view is so lost when you start dividing things up into boxes and roles and giving one gender the lesser role. When in fact we are all called (male and female) to be warriors and brothers of light. The chapter that immediately follows Ephesians 5 is Ephesians 6 which tells us, regardless of gender, to take up the full armor of God. Yet the role pushers want to make only men warriors and relegate women to helpless damsels in distress, or victims. And such a set up sets women up for failure. Then when failure comes, the woman is relegated to the level of strange women and her humanity, brother/sisterhood is lost and she becomes even lesser still and a thing to be mocked, warned against, and even further used.

More about that later.

This scene opens up with a heart wrenching cry from a warrior brother who has discovered his sister's body on the battle field and shows his anguish over her. Then it quickly moves to the following scene in the houses of healing and what follows there.

The reason I like this scene is because it shows a couple things. One, the love of a brother for his sister (who refused the box of her culture and went into battle thus fulfilling an ancient prophecy and gaining a huge victory). And, two, the healing of this sister by another man who is not her biological brother, but is most definitely her brother in arms and in heart.

There is a third man shown who becomes a love interest later, but in this scene it shows his attraction and admiration for her heroic actions on the battlefield.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6UhO9K7F3I

True brothers want to make the church into a house of healing for all, including women, no matter where the women come from or how they are wounded. True brothers believe that the name of God, "The Lord our Healer" still applies today and is more important than their own 'advancement' and authority in the Kingdom of God.
False brothers are only concerned with their own authority, controlling women and making extra rules for them that men don't have to obey, and extra sins that men can't be guilty of.

Strong Men, P.C.

Here is another fellow that I'm unsure what his name is. But he has a video on youtube where he is talking about men using the Bible to hurt women. The video is listed under Prophecy Channel, Hence, for this post, the man speaking is dubbed P.C.

Where as I.C. demonstrated his view through anger, you can hear the catch in P.C. voice as he goes through Ephesians 5 and talks about how it has been abused to hurt women. He's imploring men, and a certain man in particular, to not look upon headship the way the present world looks upon headship, but rather look at it from a Roman culture stand point.

P.C. also carries the heart of Jesus for his sisters, being brought to tears over the abuses that his sisters have faced in the name of God. He wants to bring comfort to hurt women and correction to men who don't know how to be brothers and uplift women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVloUiTwdO8&feature=player_embedded

Made of the Same Stuff

The Greeks were one of the most misogynic cultures known back in the day. The philosophers taught that men and women were not even made from the same substance.

The Jewish culture knew better because they had the creation story. But the Greeks? They had Pandora and taught that men were made of higher material and women were made of lower substance.

This is one reason Paul's letter to the Ephesians is so important yet it's significance is so lost on us. While modern day teachers try to force hierarchy on Ephesians 5, the concept of men and women being made of the same stuff and are even from the same body is completely overlooked.

The Head and the Body are part of the same thing. They aren't made of different things nor were they made in different places, like Eldredge says. The head wasn't made outside the garden while the body was made inside.

So Ephesians 5 is more evidence of the closeness and connectedness of the male and female in God's creation. And it is the New Testament foundation that defies John Eldredge's claim that men and women are polar opposites and originated in different places. They aren't. They are different expressions of the same creation.

Now, hopefully, in a future post, I'll be able to deconstruct Wild at Heart's claim verses cultural conditioning. And I don't mean male/female conditioning. I mean wild/tame conditioning.

These conditionings are forces to be reckoned with, but they absolutely, positivily are NOT biblical foundations.

Sweet water made bitter

A very beautiful piece of scripture with wonderful symbolism has passed through the hands of too many people and made bitter.

Ephesians 5:21-33 talks about the wonderful and rich relationship that can exist between husbands and wives and compares it to the relationship between Christ and the church.

One woman I know says that when she meditates on these passages and thinks of Jesus and Him nurturing and cherishing her, she is swept off her feet in worship. But when she meditates on these scriptures and thinks of her domineering and verbally abusive husband everything inside her tenses up and she's better off not thinking of them, otherwise she becomes resentful.

This woman has had the experience of having sweet waters made bitter by the traditions of men and the abuses of her husband. What Paul wrote in Ephesians was meant to bless men and women, but unfortunately it has been used against women, sending them back home to submit to a tyrant, all in the name of obedience to God.

The church has commanded abused women to drink bitter waters and then judged these women when they have gagged on these waters and spit them back out.

The worst part of all this is that there are so many more passages of scripture offering so much comfort and peace for these women who have suffered oppression in their marriage. But all some churches offer is the bitter waters of return and submit to the oppression.

Hopefully in the next few weeks we can explore together the sweet and living waters that Jesus Christ offers to all who are afflicted and see just how much He loves and cares for, nourishes and cherishes those the church so lightly esteems.