Thoughts from Byrd Concerning Listening

 Was lurking over at The Wartburg Watch and found a tweet leading to Aimee Byrd's December 4th post on Why Complementarians Can't Listen.

It's a good read. It makes reference to the grain of wheat that has to die and be buried in order to produce fruit and that Complementarianism won't allow that because Men are the boss and don't have to die to their arrogance and sense of superiority. So this makes listening to their subordinate women unnecessary or impossible.

The Bible is full of such parables and references pointing out that hierarchy between believers is not to be part of the Kingdom of God.

One of my favorite ones is concerning the rich being like camel going through the eye of a needle. This is, of course, in reference to a gate in the city wall called the needle. A man could walk through it, from what I'm told. But a camel would have to have all it's packs taken off its back and have to crawl on it's knees to get through.

Most understand this as a rich man can't take his riches in to heaven, which is true. But I wonder how many understand that this also includes entitled men who think they should be the boss of others. You can't take your entitlement and desire to be the boss into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sure, men have made many religious structures where they get to be the boss of others and stamp "God approves of this message/dynamic" on it and call it gospel. But they really aren't representing the Kingdom of God. Nor are they truly being leaders in God's Kingdom. They are just playing at the game of "who gets to be the boss of whom" and thinking they are doing church right, when it is so wrong. Jesus said that it was not to be like this among His followers. He said that this is what the gentiles seek after.

So, I agree with Aimee. Complementarians can't listen to women. Because their very structure props up false hierarchies and gives entitled men free reign to abuse and lord over God's sheep.

The Trouble with "Respect"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unconditional Respect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOWEVER.

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

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

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

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

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

IN ADDITION (another However)

Unconditional respect should not be reserved for husbands.

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

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

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

IN ADDITION (a third However)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution Writing. Persuasive but Wrong, II

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

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

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

First off...

Marriage is (or should be) a long trip.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Single Story and Structure

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

Resolution Writing. Persuasive but Wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote Concerning Ancient Hebrew Culture

Someone on one of the forums I frequent brought this quote to our attention.
I wanted to share it here:

All modern day translations of the Bible are written from a very westernized perspective and have erased the original Hebraic, Eastern, perspective of the original words in the text. Once the Hebraicness of the text is restored, a common theme can be found throughout the Bible rising to the surface - our nomadic migration through the wilderness of life. 

The quote can be found in this article:

Introduction to Ancient Hebrew culture

A lot of what I see that is wrong with teachings from Driscoll and Piper and a miriade of other teachers is how narrow minded and small thinking they are. The arrogance of the Western mind that thinks all others think the way it does is overwhelming and frustrating.

True thinkers who can think beyond the tiny worlds they live in are more likely to think bigger and touch more of Who our Eternal God is.

Mars, Venus, and Uranus

I'm not even going to tell you how I got onto this train of thought. The story is too long and complicated and drags in some places.

I am going to give a disclaimer:
I have never read "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus" nor "Women May Be from Venus, But Men Are Really from Uranus." So I can't comment on whether either book is worth anything.

I'm also going to state something else. In the past I never really thought about the name of Mars Hill being anything but taken from the Bible concerning Paul arguing for the faith on Mars Hill as mentioned in the Book of Acts. But part of me is really beginning to think that the name "Mars Hill" might be far more loaded in the minds and hearts of the men who came up with the name. Part of me is starting to believe that Mark Driscoll might have read John Gray's "Men are from Mars..." and might have taken it to heart so that it has became part of the psyche that is Mars Hill. Perhaps it is more Mars/Men/Mark Hill that what I originally thought.

This, I cannot really say. But part of me really wonders if they named it Mars Hill because they really are concerned about raising the Masculine over the Feminine, making Mars Hill a great place for men (the right kind of men, Mars type men, Mark type men). They have made it a great place for Mars Men at the hurt and expense of the women. I already know that Mars Hill is a place that hurts and puts down women in order to raise up and (fake) heal the souls of men. But I've never considered the name to be a part of the abuse and oppression of women. Now I'm wondering.

And the thing that got me wondering about it again this morning is reading a blog post by the women who wrote "Women May Be from Venus, But Men Are Really from Uranus." In this post Katherine Black lays out the top ten defenses of John Gray that she receives. I post them only because they sound strangely close to the defenses the are given against feminism, egalitarianism, and arguments against male privilege in the church.

Again, I can neither endorse nor defend anything concern the books by John Gray and Katherine Black. But I can appreciate this post on men defending the words and writings of another men by attacking a woman.

John Gray Is Soundly Defended

New Calvinism Akin to Christian Vulcanism?

Part 5 of New Calvinism for Dummies made me ask this of Paul Dohse. His answer was, yes. The New Calvinist works very hard to remove himself from,... uhm, himself, especially his emotional self, to make himself an objective observer of his life so he can deal with his issues.

He is more like a scientist observing himself with removed objectiveness than a human being dealing with this life. I guess this is why New Calvinist like Driscoll have such a hard time with poetry which deals with the subjective heart and emotions, up close and personal.

New Calvinism for Dummies, part 5

Love Without Restraint

By now the massive audio library of sermons at Mars Hill church demonstrates that Driscoll has absolutely not problem at all invoking the biblical metaphor of husband and wife when it deals with the ancient near-Eastern AUTHORITY STRUCTURE within marriage. He can accept the part where the Groom dies for the Bride. He can accept the part, certainly, where the Bride must submit to the Groom, not least in his various teachings of male headship and the authority of church leaders. He's got problems if that conjugal metaphor ever breaks the bonds of propriety, service, and obligation to take on an element of ecstatic, self-forgetting admiration for the other. Driscoll may think he's secured himself from imagining a Jesus who wants to sexually penetrate him, but he may have done so at the expense of allowing the canonical compreshensivesness of the conjugal metaphor to have it's spirit-inspired way. Christ choosing to die for the Bride on the Cross expresses a love that has no sense of discretion or restraint. The love of Christ for the Church was so strong He embraced the Cross, scorning its shame, and He conquered death by death because of His love for us.

In Song of Songs we are told that love is as strong as death. We know what love that is most obviously and immediately talking about, even if we subscribe to an allegorical second meaning. We can see cases where an old spouse dies and the widow or widower dies within a year of the death. We all get that love is as strong as death in that way! But Christ's love is stronger than death.

By rejecting a typological approach as even possible in Song of Songs what we may be seeing is that Driscoll has granted the high flown poetic hyperbole as being legitimate for erotica love but shudders as the thought that a comparably powerful, or even more powerful love animated Christ to go to the Cross for us.
WTH first three paragraphs from WTH on Driscoll's part 4b
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/10/wth-on-driscolls-sos-part-4b.html

The problem with much teaching on marriage and gender is the hyper-focus on structure and roles. All problems can be solved by men and women playing their parts perfectly, Men leading as they are supposed to (even though the Bible never instructs them to do so) and Women submitting as defined by the teachers who over-focus on such structure.

As a pastor's wife counseling married couples, I kept running into, "Well if she would just submit to me likes she's supposed to then everything would be fine," and less often "Well, if he would just love me like he's supposed to all would be well" (and her definition of love rarely reflected what the Bible said.)

With all the obsession with what the other was doing and supposed to be doing and the obsession I saw among teachers to teach the roles according to Paul, I saw that the most important element was being left out. The bedrock of the Words of Jesus Christ.

I began to wonder if we needed to focus on what Jesus said about authority and love rather than what Paul said. And I began to wonder if we were over emphasising Paul's words in Ephesians 5 at the expense of Paul's definition of love in I Corinthians 13 and at the expense of pretty much everything John said in his epistles.

The structure of the relationships, the roles, the positions have taken up more importance than what Jesus came to do. And the power of the Love of Jesus has been lost in a limited and deeply impared understanding of the function of that Love.

Driscoll is all about authority and submission in marriage and in our relationship with Jesus. He's also all about wild-and-crazy, inhibitions-thrown-off sex in the bedroom. But he cannot grasp the even more powerful, limitless love of Jesus. A love more powerful than death and that is even able to conquer death. It's not about structure, authority, or roles. It is about Jesus throwing off all restraint, stepping down from His position (or role, if you will) to give all. On the Cross Jesus demonstrates for us this love without restraint, that love that is more powerful than death. It is a love that is not structured or limited to a role. It is infinitely beyond that. It is hard to grasp. And it will never be understood when the starting and ending points are shoved down into a box, the man-made structures, imposed upon it by Driscoll and others like him.

Song of Solomon, when seen as a type of the love of God for us, opens limits and displays infinity to the finite in ways that flawed and limiting human structures cannot touch.

On Coming Posts

I started this blog sometime ago and named it, "From Bitter Waters to Sweet" for a reason. Okay, the initial reason was because it was an assignment for a class. But as I tried to come up with a topic or theme, I kept coming up dry so I had to think, "What really lights my fire?"

Well, one of the things that lights it is the combination of my love for God and the Scriptures and my repulsion, disgust, and sometimes shock at how people mess with God's word to make it into something else. How they form the scripture after their own hearts rather than allowing the scripture to get a hold of their hearts and change them.


This blog also has become a way for me to express my journey from bitter waters to sweet. I write in hopes to continue the journey and to share with others some of the things that I have learned along the way.

This journey has taken me to some very unexpected places in the Bible. One of those places is the book, "The Song of Solomon" affectionately referred to as SOS.

Those of my readers who have been with me a long time have seen my angry and very sharp reaction to some faulty teachings on SOS. I actually had a pretty violent reaction that I leave up for the sake of posterity. My anger had been softened over time even though the teachings still disgust me. The reason they disgust me is because they steal away the healing properties of SOS for the wounded and bitter soul and turn SOS into the Christian husband's manual for turning his Christian wife into his own private porn star so he doesn't have to deal with his porn issues and poor attitude towards sex and twisted view of what women are for.


Okay, I admit it. I still have some serious attitude. But I'm happy to say that I've come in contact with someone who is able to cut through the garbage of the pornification of SOS to the root of the problem. He deals with the issue deeply and thoroughly and in a manner that kicks the legs out from under this popular teaching that is perverting the hearts of many people.


Next post, I'll introduce you to my new friend and tell you a little bit about him and how and why he qualifies to take on this serious topic far better than me.

Lies (some) Men Believe About Women

As I gear up for my trip out west, I have little time to put my thoughts down on this blog.
But I still get on line from time to time and come across some really good stuff.
A lot of what is going on in my blog roll is good, although I have one sad note.
My friend Charis, who comments as Gem here, is closing down her blog, "A Wife's Submission". Her thoughts on these things will be sorely missed. But as happens from time to time, we have to move on. And that is what she's has to do.

Also, I often visit Sierra's blog via Lewis's blog roll. She comes at dealing with fundamentalism from a different angle. Her post today touches on things I believe deal with what we talk about here. One of those things is the structures set up by men concerning women that have little to do with what women really think or the real reasons women do things. I could go on and explain, but Sierra at "The Unspoken Words" does a much better job. So if you have time, hop over and give her blog a view.

http://nonprophetmessage.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/hatred-and-modesty/

I Heard It Said Once

I met a fellow on line on an egalitarian board who was there to set all those wayward egals straight concerning what the Bible truly said.

He tried to be patient. He also had a heart for the abused, both male and female. And because of that sincere heart, I really couldn't completely dismiss him.

However, his solution for what ailed the world and Christian marriages was following the 'biblical' example of Patriarchy.

He was so sold on the idea that patriarchy was the biblical solution, the divine healing structure that he couldn't see that it was patriarchy that was causing so much of the trouble to begin with.He said something that I found to be absolutely stunning. It was something that he believed from the bottom of his heart.

He told me, "If you reject Patriarchy, you reject your heavenly Father."

Has anyone else ever heard this one? Does this man's claim hold up when compared to the words of Jesus?

Let's take a look.
Matthew 23:8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

I don't know about you folks. But it seems pretty clear from the above passage that Jesus was not concerned about maintaining Patriarchy or any hierarchy structure for that matter. So it appears that Jesus Himself is rejecting Patriarchy. And if Jesus rejects Patriarchy, then I believe it is safe to say that rejecting Patriarchy is not equivalent to rejecting our Heavenly Father.

Orientation

Last week I went with my daughter to her college registration and orientation. While sitting there listening to presentation after presentation, a thought came to me.

You know how it is when a child has to make the transition from grade school to middle school or junior high to high school or from high school to college? It's a whole new world. Sometimes it's a whole new set of rules and definitely a whole new schedule.

It's a good thing these institutions have orientations to help the new student to get acclimated to all the changes and all the requirements.

While sitting there at my daughter's orientation, I realized that much of our walk with the Lord is us learning how to oriented ourselves to His way of thinking and doing things. We have to learn how to see things as He sees them. And the way He sees and thinks things is so much higher than the way we see and think about things.

You remember that before the Apostle Paul became an apostle he was the Pharisee Saul who persecuted the church. With all sorts of Zeal he thought he was doing God's will by trying to stamp out this new religion that he believed was a heresy.

Well, in Acts chapter nine, Saul had his road to Damascus experience. He was thrown from his horse by God. When he asked, "Who are you Lord?" God said, "I am Jesus who you are persecuting." (Acts 9:1-5)

I love Saul's question. He asked God who He was. And Jesus gave him the short answer that day. But Paul spent the rest of his life learning the long answer of just exactly who Jesus was. Paul didn't start our preaching and writing epistles after his road to Damascus experience. He went to the desert for 14 years or more to orient himself to who Jesus was. (Galatians 1:11-2:2)

My son and I have been watching the television series "The Universe" on Netflix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Universe_(TV_series)
We are in season two.

Did you know that Scientists did not know that there was anything beyond the Milky Way galaxy until the 1920s?

The deeper they are able to look into space, the universe, the more they realize how infinite it really is and how much more there is to know about even things nearby.

So, here's my question.
When God said "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, And my thoughts than your thoughts," did He mean, as high as the clouds or blueness of the daytime sky, or was He referring to something well beyond the outer stars of the Milky Way Galaxy?

The problem with boxes is not only that we try to put each other in them, we also try to get God to fit into a box that is shaped and limited by our own finite thinking.

Of course He doesn't fit into our little boxes which is a problem. But an even bigger problem is that we try to orient ourselves to this little box that we have made for God. Once we do this, we think that the way we think lines up with the way God thinks when really it only lines up with our terribly flawed and insufficient understanding of the Infinite.

Human Structures in Review

We have spent three months on human structures.
In March we looked at Job, false structures and started talking about order vs chaos or Apollonian vs Dionysian and even touched on yin/yang.
In April we looked at the Wild at Heart phenomenon and how it has affected the church and perpetuated a not always female friendly male vs female structure. We also looked at the tiny boxes or structures that small-minded men build for women using religion to beat them into down into those boxes.
In May, we looked at big-hearted men and contrasted the loving freedom they offer to women with the limiting, restrictive structures that small mind men uphold for their sisters. We also did a rather long series on Chimananda Adichie's "Single Story" and how this applied to human structure.

Perhaps I've spend an inordinate amount of time on human structures. If so, it is only because I want people to start discerning the existence of these human structures and begin to hold them up to the light of scripture in order to debunk the false structures.

But this month, the lovely month of June, we will turn our attention on some of the ways that God structures things and how they differ from human structures.

And here I will leave you a verse.

Isaiah 55:8 For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways," declares the Lord.
Vs 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, SO are My ways higher than your ways, And my thoughts than your thoughts.

The Single Story and Structure

One of the reasons that I spent so much time on the Single Story is because it was a new way of looking at what we have been discussing here.

Whether fiction or non-fiction, a story is a structure. It has a beginning, a middle, and an ending. And stories have always been one of the ways we have used to make sense in a world that often doesn't make sense. Stories help us to find or create order out of our chaos.

As mentioned before, structures, including stories, are not bad in and of themselves. We human beings crave structure for the sake of security. But structures, even decent structures, can be used or recreated into something limiting and abusive.

The forcing of religious, gender and family structures within Christianity has crossed the line and become abusive. They have been constructed by those who cling to the past and fear the future. They have been constructed by those who worship structure and find their safety in enforcing structures rather than in seeking and following God, the Chief Architect and Builder. [Hebrews 11:10 New American Standard]

My desire is to seek God and to find Him and to learn what is important to Him and to follow the structures He lays out.

One of the best places in the Bible to learn about the structures and order that are truly important to God is in the words of Jesus in red. And a good place to start for the weary is in Matthew chapter eleven.

28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

The structures of men are exhausting.
The structures of God bring rest to our souls.

The Single Story and 'Biblical' Womanhood

You knew this was coming.

Much has been said about Biblical Womanhood and much teaching has been handed down by those in power concerning their Single Story of Womanhood.

Much also has been said concerning the short list of scriptures telling the same version of the Single Story. Many have pointed out how the pushers of Biblical Womanhood ignore or explain away scriptures that add more stories to what Biblical Womanhood actually is.

Those who focus on the Single Story of Biblical Womanhood ignore or explain away or redefine the stories of Deborah, Miriam, Huldah, Priscilla, the Proverbs Woman, II John's Elect Lady, Mary and Martha, just to mention a few.

The definers and story tellers of "Biblical Womanhood" have told one story. They have have shown Biblical Womanhood to be one thing and only one thing, over and over until that is what it has become to the neglect of so many other stories concerning women in the Bible.

They have also taken books of the Bible that might mention women in particular or have instructions for women or marriage and have so over focused on those few verses that they have neglected dozens of other verses within that book that tell other stories that include women.

We are not obligated to live within the restrictive structure of CBMW/Biblical Womanhood's Single Story. Doing so only brings deep sorrow and denies how big God really is.

The Single Story and Christian Marriage

Years ago I heard a lady speak of a time when she and her husband were going through marriage problems. When she went for counseling, the pastoral staff told her that she needed to go back and submit and that would somehow solve the problem.

So she did. But things didn't get better.

Then she prayed, which she should have done in the first place. When she prayed, she felt an impression concerning the problem which she had not thought of which led to a different solution. When she applied the solution, it worked.

The lady telling the story had no issue with submission, she didn't even have an attitude toward the pastoral staff and their single Story Solution. She was simply expressing the importance of going to God rather than men when looking for help because men can't see the whole story but God can.

Just the other day I was on a blog talking about something anonymously, mentioning difficulty in an area of my marriage. Some guy who knew that I leaned egal felt the need to tell me the reason for our issues. He suggest that the reason there was difficulty in my marriage was because I had 'wrestled' my husband's rightful position of 'authority' away from him in the family order which set all thing askew and topsy turvy. He recommended that I needed to set aside my egal views and submit as the Bible prescribed so that all things would re-align and come into a proper and divine order.

Her again is the Single Story cropping up where it doesn't belong.

Marriage is complicated and has many stories. Yet some people reduce it down to hierarchy, order, and a certain structure and make it all about who is the boss. They miss the fact that perhaps the advice they give may be wrong because it has nothing to do with the original problem. And they cannot even fathom that the advice they give may actually make a bad situation worse. The reason they cannot see it is because they cannot see pass the Single Story they have written or have been taught that marriage is.

And herein lies the danger of the Single Story. People and relationships cannot be reduced down to roles and rules, yet this is what is done in many Christian circles.

They reduce marriage and all the problems in marriage to different versions of the Single Story. And since it is the men who traditionally have been in power over scripture, translation, and dividing the Word, these men have written a certain story that that best suits them. If something is wrong in a marriage it must somehow be the woman's fault. Once she has tried everything to be perfect to the satisfaction of the men in power, then perhaps they might consider that submission isn't the solution.

And this is why women need to wise up and go directly to the Source concerning their story. God is the Author and Finisher of our faith, not men. Men don't see the many stories involved. They focus in on the one they like or is most important to them. Their view is finite. God's is infinite and He sees the end from the beginning and all the stories involved in the person of you.

Jock Strap Religion

The problem with jock strap religion is not just the fact that it protects small and insecure men by reducing and hurting women, though that's a big enough reason to reject it, in itself. Jock strap religion avoids the real issues in men. It protects and justifies the insecure and threatened places within men rather than encouraging them to find out why they feel insecure and threatened. It also causes them to blame their problems on women by determining that it is the feminization of church and society that is doing all the damage to men.

Understand something. I totally get that there are bitter women in this world who need to open up their hearts and let God in to do surgery. And I would encourage any woman who feels bitter or angry or depressed or whatever, to turn to God again and again until God performs the needed work in her heart and to trust Him until the work is completed.

The problem is that jock strap religion continues to hurt women and distracts both men and women from the real issues so that whatever good God is able to perform in a woman's heart, a woman can't ever get to it because she's too busy contorting herself into a smaller shape so as not to ruffle the wounded male egos around her.

AND jock strap religion continues to protect men from dealing with the bitterness and insecurity within their own hearts.

Instead of men asking themselves, "Why do I feel threatened by women?" "Why does a woman who is able to teach with authority scare me?" "Why do I feel the need to reduce her down in size?" "Why do I twist scripture in order to make God submit rather than accept the strength of the helper God gave me?" "Why do I want them to speak in a tiny, little, mouse voice?" "Why do I feel compelled to warn people against the dangers of a strong woman?"...

Instead of men asking themselves honest questions, they strengthen the power of protection over their private hurts and claim that if a woman is abused, it's because she didn't submit. If a woman teaches men, she's defying God's creation order (something God never says). If she gives directions she must do so in a manner that makes sure that the Manhood of the man is never, ever compromise (as if she ever really had that power.)

Jock strap religion is a false gospel that elevates the structures of men over and above the liberating love of Jesus who was never threatened by a woman.

The solution to uneasy Manhood is not to reduce Womanhood down to a more manageable size. The solution is for the men to remove their spiritual jock strap and let God heal the broken places in a man's heart.

There is no shame in having broken places. We all have them. We live in a broken world. The shame is in hiding the broken places, in covering them up and blaming someone else for your insecurities and twisting scripture to support your sinful postition. The shame is holding someone else responsible for your insecurities and telling them that God agrees with you. This is the sin of using the Lord's name in vain.

Men need to get healed and stop forcing women into boxes that make men feel less threaten. My goodness. If a women can scare you so bad, what the heck would you do if you had to face a real enemy?

A Little, Big Man?

Or is that, "A big, little man?" I don't know. I googled Mark Driscoll concerning his height and the only thing I came across was 5'10". So I'm not sure how tall he is. But I know he's little inside. Do you know how I know? Here is what he says about women according to my friend who has researched him, Freedom4Captives, in her own words:

From his statements in his Spiritual Warfare Series, part 2, he seems to demand quiet submission from women, and he appears to demean women who have opinions and speak about what they want, such as, “I want to be married to a pastor.” Mark says to single men, “Run. She’s satanic. She wants to be in the middle of things and have power and be a drama queen.” Well who says? How do you know her heart, Mark? That may or may not be true. But see, she is a strong woman who knows what she wants which, according to former members, is a big “no, no” at MHC. Mark goes on to say that the woman who really wants to be a leader of women’s ministries is the one to avoid for the same reasons. Then his voice becomes soft and gentle as he says that the woman who is quiet and non-assertive, who wouldn’t even ask for that position, she is the one that would be best in that position. Well, that kind of temperament certainly wouldn’t cause Mark many problems and would be more easily controlled.

Mark makes terribly small boxes for women to fit into, while making a huge box for himself. He fears strong women so bad that he builds microscopic structures for them so that his manhood won't be threatened by them. I'm not sure how tall Mark is, but it doesn't seem to matter if he's tall because he still suffers from nervous, little man syndrome.

Here's the link to Freedom's blog for where you can read other things about how Mark overcompensates for his feelings of insecurity, if you care to read it.

http://freedom4captives.wordpress.com/discoveries/

As a bonus feature, here's a link to another blog post that explores Mark Driscoll's very serious issues with women.

http://lklouise.com/392/driscoll-misogyny-masculinity/

Another Nervous Little Man

I guarantee that Wayne Grudem is shorter than I am.
No man over 5'10" would work so hard to make God a submitting helper in order to enforce the idea that a helper always submits because the woman in Genesis is referred to as a helper. Since women are made as full time helpers and submitters, Grudem would rather make God a submitter to whom He's helping than back one inch off the little "Womanhood" structure he is determined to build for us gals. Read it if you can. Once you get past the puking sensation in the back of your throat, his faulty logic loop de loops are quite entertaining.
http://books.google.com/books?id=NHPxcYNV0BwC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Wayne+Grudem+God+submits+to+us+when+he+helps+us&source=bl&ots=ysQ-qlbAA9&sig=Ztbjkom1VNczhT_xib7hir9P0Ak&hl=en&ei=URCiTeHpFNCgtweuxNGMAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false