Saturday, December 10, 2011

Do Right BJU! The Principals of Protest!

2 comments Posted by Hannah at 12:13 PM

yep yep yepI’m sure some of you remember the backlash of the Tina Anderson story.  The Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches all felt they were being branded for actions taken by the few.  Yes, you tend to hear these type of responses anytime something ugly like this happens. Unfortunately, the victims tend to be lost in most of it.


Sadly, Bob Jones University is showing that Chuck Phelp’s response ISN’T all that uncommon.  Sounds like the ‘few’ are the ones that can see the failings in this case.


On a very optimistic note, there have been students from the Bob Jones University that have stepped up to call out issues that arose that made them feel uncomfortable and unsafe.  Chuck Phelps as you may remember feels that he is the true victim in what happened.  He has taken credit for the conviction of Ernie Willis, and yet still feels justified on leaving his website up calling Tina Anderson a liar.  How can you take credit for a conviction of the rapist, and then call the rape victim a liar?  Could be one of the principals that make the students uneasy. 


When the students found that Chuck Phelps was on the board of BJU a protest was started.  They had a petition online for signatures, and started a Facebook page called, ‘Do Right BJU’.  BJU is a very strict school, and the students were instructed to step down (stop creation of page) and remove the Facebook page.  They have not done so at this point, and frankly it would be wise if the university addressed their concerns.  Most knew when the students were asked to stop the chances of expulsion were highly likely.   BJU also issued a statement that has been removed, but people uploaded screenshots online.


Sadly, the university had taken the stand in agreement with Chuck Phelps that he was indeed the victim in the Tina Anderson Case.   They decided to stand behind their man, and if you read the statement itself?  Its drips with manipulation. 

Saturday, December 03, 2011

Do we understand insensitivity?

4 comments Posted by Hannah at 12:17 PM

stop-michael-pearl-to-train-up-a-childDo we understand insensitivity?

The Pearls have been in the news again.  Michael Pearl spoke on a program called Cooper Anderson's Show today.  It was a followed up from a program called UnGodly Discipline on CNN.

I’m NOT going to talk about spanking.  I want to write today about the insensitivity towards tragic life altering events. 

The Pearls have a book called, How to Train Up a Child.  There have been children killed by the parents that claim they follow the Pearls teachings.  When the first child died I think most people were a bit take back by the Pearl’s reaction.  They pretty much blew it off as nonsense.  Now we have other children that died, and I wrote about one named Lydia The Girl The Pearls Laughed At.

We are talking about a death of a child.  The parents are arrested.  We have siblings that are mourning not only at the loss of their parents, but their sister as well.  You have community, friends, neighbors – a whole network of Lydia’s life reeling over what happened.

The parents took teachings on discipline out of book, and took it to a level that killed their child.  No, Debi and Michael Pearl did not kill those children directly.  Their reaction to their deaths though were immoral. 

They speak of the bible, but showed no grace, humility, or compassion towards what happened.  They were to busy getting defensive over their book being brought up as a possible tool that the murderous parents used.
My five grown children are laughing at your foolish, uninformed criticism of God’s method of child training, for their kids—my 17 grandkids—are laughing . . . because that is what they do most of the time.
People all around the world, in places like Russia, China, Germany, New Zealand, Guatemala, Peru, Africa, and fifty other countries are laughing with joy because after applying the Biblical principles found in our books they finally have happy and obedient children.

Even my chickens are laughing . . . well, actually it more like cackling, because they just laid another organic egg for my breakfast and they know that it was that same piece of ¼ inch plastic supply line that trained the dogs not to eat chicken....
You can read the rest of it on Lydia’s page I linked above. 

Does this not come across as insensitive to anyone else out there?

Elizabeth Ester was on the talk show with Mr. Pearl today.  I noticed his demeanor wasn’t the same as the letters he leaves on his website.  He didn’t preach to everyone about how they were foolish, uninformed people that didn’t understand God’s method of child training.  He didn’t laugh at them because they will not have happy and obedient children.

The insensitivity towards the children is what helped the Pearls gain this attention.  I guess they are reaping what they sowed.  People are not going to look at you and your teachings with compassion when you mock, ridicule, and ‘laugh’ at dead children.  Its common sense.

Most people can show some compassion towards a child that was beat to death, and its telling when a Christian Ministry (that is what they call it) can not.

No.  It seems his followers are the ones feeling mocked today.  The Christian Post wrote a story on, “To Spank or Not To Spank”.
But today, the topic of biblical spanking has reached such a peak in debate and conversation that it is time for Christians to make the case as to what biblical training is and is not. Approximately 95 percent of all liberal media outlets, the same media outlets that are driven to squash Christianity and our current conservative value system, is also "spinning" perspectives on physically disciplining and training our children. If we do not let our voices be heard and truth be told, this, along with basic religious freedoms, will be taken away from us as we are seeing at an alarming rate.
As the Rev. Michael Pearl accurately writes on his website No Greater Joy Ministries: “The people who condemn biblical chastisement do not believe the Bible. They judge others by their own experience. The only time they have ‘hit’ their children, or been tempted to, was when they were angry. They assume that when we spank it is with the same hostility they have felt.”
As I mentioned they are so busy being defensive they totally miss the point.  They accused people of ‘spinning’ perspectives, and yet don’t you just love the spin Rev. Michael Pearl used.  He wrongly assumes that those that are upset are the ones that hit when angry.  How they seem to be projecting onto him.

In the article they get close, but were given no cigar as the saying goes:
And again Pearl states, “Opponents of the biblical use of the rod support their position by pointing to its occasional misuse. It is our contention that all authority is misused from time to time, but that misuse does not negate the legitimacy of the office itself, rather of the ones who abuse their sacred authority. When the courts are unjust or dishonest, we do not abolish the office of judge or the administration of law. When a law enforcement agent is corrupted by money or a desire for power, we do not fire all the policemen. When a president of the United States is hedonistic and sells favors, enriching himself through crooked deals, we do not resort to a dictatorship. When state social workers molest children and abuse them, we do not stop all social work.”
There is no doubt that the parents misused their position, and if they read the cases it went further that the ‘biblical rod’.  Those children didn’t laugh like your family and your chickens Rev. Pearl. 

The misuse of the position of authority IS the key here!  Everyone can agree on that!    Sadly, the Pearls and their followers are more upset about their book being discussed by their own reaction.  The fallout is of their own making.

Its not the liberal media, or the secular doctors, studies or courts. Its was your cold hearted response.   There is NO DOUBT the book and the Pearl’s ministry would have come up for discussion because of its controversial nature.    Debi and Michael Pearl’s  response was like gas on a fire – since they love visuals.

It should have been a time to ask others to pray for the family, and then use that moment as a ‘teaching moment’.  It would have been very appropriate to remind parents about misuse of the rod.  The ramblings about the abolishing the office of Judge when you find one bad one?  It’s a silly example, and also a spin. 

Just a side note here, but if you look at the article today?  They quoted a couple from an organization called Christian Discipline.  Ahem!  I don’t think that is the same kind of discipline  that you think it is Mr. PEARL!  They speak about ‘spanking wives’ on that site!  Don’t we even research our sources?

Debi and Michael have horrible responses, and it shows their wisdom is in serious question when it comes to these types of things.  It highly offensive, and you bring on the trouble and heartache by your own words and actions. 

Maybe a hire a professional to deal with responses.    Your spin comes off as insensitive, and your followers coming to your defense?  It makes things worse.  Thankfully, their response towards Hanna was better.  They still had to throw in their digs at the end, but it came across as a bit more compassionate.

Here is a quote from Elizabeth Esther:
Additionally, if the Pearls had shown a little humility, grace and genuine sorrow about these tragedies, then the line of questioning wouldn’t be as tough. But instead, the Pearls have repeatedly–and brashly–defended their views, refused to modify their harsh recommendations all while calling their critics “uninformed” and accusing bloggers like myself of inflammatory rhetoric.

Lastly, here is clip from one of the news programs.  I think they were respectful towards Debi and Michael Pearl.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

To give an account and to intercede for their wives

0 comments Posted by Hannah at 6:28 PM

Shirley Taylor over at Baptist women for equality had an article this morning about Advent. The article title did make me sigh a little bit!


Should women be looking for the Christ child, or a husband?


Towards the end of her article she had mentioned Cindy Kunsman, and educational program that Cindy had presented in 2008.

Cindy Kunsman can tell you that Baptist seminarians believe it. At a conference in 2008 at a Southern Baptist Seminary, Cindy says “Several young men asked how it was that I believed that they would not stand before God…to give an account and to intercede for their wives….These (young men) were Baptist Seminary Students.” ( April 2008).

Cindy’s video is very interesting, and I learned a lot!  She hits on all kinds of areas of beliefs regarding Patriarchy.  When she mentioned some teachings from representatives from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Federal Vision,  and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?  They pretty much threw a hissie fit, and claimed she offered ‘misinformed accusations’.  Did they pony up with the evidence, or actually point out the errors in question?  Nope.  Funny how that happens isn’t it?


This belief about how husbands are accountable for their wives and children's actions before God is crazy talk! We are asked to love and care for another. We aren’t asked to be held responsible to intercede, give an account or be responsible for another in this fashion.


When you face God its between you and him. It won’t matter if you were a popular pastor, head of the seminary, dutiful wife, wonderful mother, etc. He isn’t interested your office or role. Gender doesn’t give you leverage!


When I read things like this I truly feel badly for the men and women that are taught these things. It’s a very heavy burden if it were true for them, and being that humans can be selfish? No humanly incentive for women to do their best. It’s a teaching that states we don’t need Jesus, but a good husband to give account and intercede for us.


No offense, but they need to find another seminary.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Links of Interest

0 comments Posted by Hannah at 2:30 PM

I have some links of interest today!

I maybe MIA (missing in action) for a bit longer.  I was cleaning up, and I was moving things around that I suppose were to heavy for me.  Sigh.  Now I have hurt my back.

Certain kiddos reminded me that I can't do things that I used to do, and maybe I should take it easy.  (giggles) I reminded THEM - I'm NOT that OLD!

Sidenote:  They may have a slight point but still...

I haven't started to use my Dragon Naturally speaking either.  Ahem - so expect the normal typos and grammar mistakes!

Gaslight is a movie from 1944.  Gaslighting is a term that was taken from the movie.

The husband in the movie wanted his wife to think she was insane for his own personal motive.  He would get the gaslights to flicker at certain times, and then refuse to acknowledge they flickered at all.  He would basically tell her  that she was imagining it, and it must be due to stress, etc.   Another example was some jewelry that she had, and he removed it from where she placed it.  Then made her feel terrible because she was so careless due to losing it.

A Message to Women From a Man: You Are Not "Crazy"

This is an article written about gaslighting, and geared towards women.  Honestly?  I do believe anyone that has been experienced gaslighting will be validated by reading it.  It most certainly isn't a 'gender only' concept.

Here is a quote from the article:

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Taylor Swift - Mean

0 comments Posted by Hannah at 2:49 PM

Taylor Swift–Mean Video–

Can’t see Click here


You, with your words like knives and swords and weapons that you use against me
You have knocked me off my feet again got me feeling like I'm nothing
You, with your voice like nails on a chalkboard, calling me out when I'm wounded
You, pickin' on the weaker man

Well, you can take me down with just one single blow
But you don't know what you don't know

Someday I'll be living in a big old city
And all you're ever gonna be is mean
Someday I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

You, with your switching sides and your walk-by lies and your humiliation
You, have pointed out my flaws again as if I don't already see them
I'll walk with my head down trying to block you out 'cause I'll never impress you
I just wanna feel okay again

I'll bet you got pushed around, somebody made you cold
But the cycle ends right now 'cause you can't lead me down that road
And you don't know what you don't know

Someday I'll be living in a big old city
And all you're ever gonna be is mean
Someday I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

And I can see you years from now in a bar, talking over a football game
With that same big loud opinion but nobody's listening
Washed up and ranting about the same old bitter things
Drunk and grumbling on about how I can't sing

But all you are is mean

All you are is mean and a liar and pathetic and alone in life
And mean, and mean, and mean, and mean

But someday I'll be living in a big old city
And all you're ever gonna be is mean, yeah
Someday, I'll be big enough so you can't hit me

And all you're ever gonna be is mean
Why you gotta be so mean?

Someday, I'll be, living in a big old city

(Why you gotta be so mean?)
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

(Why you gotta be so mean?)
Someday, I'll be big enough so you can't hit me

(Why you gotta be so mean?)
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

I know I have been MIA!

1 comments Posted by Hannah at 2:38 PM


Sorry for being missing in action lately. Almost 2 years ago I was in a car accident and hurt my left side. I have gone through the physical therapy, the doctor's visits etc.   All is well now on my left side!

Unfortunately, I have been overcompensating on my right side. I've had a lot of pain and it's very difficult to type.

Recently, I have used some Best Buy Bucks (which is a retail store) to purchase a program called Dragon Naturally Speaking.

I'm slowly learning to use the program. Dragon naturally speaking is a speech recognition software program. It's kind of neat! You speak and it types!

The program slowly learns to recognize your voice. Then you have Hannah slowly learning to use the program!

I'm hoping the combination of the two will have me up and blogging soon.

Meanwhile, I will be posting a new music video I found.

I get the impression that the lyrics are about bullying.  I felt the lyrics applied to so much more.

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Is Bachmann Offering Two For The Price Of One?

0 comments Posted by Hannah at 10:20 AM

I'm sure I was not the only one that watched the Debate in Iowa this week. The blog world and the media are still on fire about a question that was asked to Michelle Bachmann about submission.  I found the clip in question that they keep referring to.

Is she saying we will get two for the price of one if she is elected?

can’t see video – click here
At first when I heard about her comments I was surprised she would say what she did to a general audience.  Then I found out she said them within church walls. 
‘…and from there my husband said, ‘Now you need to go and get a Post Doctorate degree in Tax Law . And I said, ‘‘TAX Law??  I hate TAXES!  Why should I go and do something like that?  But the Lord says, Be Submissive!  Wives you are to be submissive to your husbands! ‘
I realize people felt it was sexist to ask the question they did of Michelle Bachmann about submission due to her comments.    I don’t agree. 

There is plenty of preachers out there that teach an authoritative position in which the husband is the ‘boss’, and you are to respect him in that fashion.  The clip in question does bring her position into question.  Yes, I realize they wouldn’t use the word ‘boss’ but in essence that is what they teach no matter how much spiritual pixie dust they place on it. 

The way she answered the question in this church, and the way she answered the question in the debate were two very different positions.   
“but by faith!  I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband. “
On the complementarian side of things you do have those that stress more of the authority within marriage, and would very much appreciate what she said about being submissive to her husband.  Although we do need to admit the complementarians WILL have issue with her being President due to her gender alone. 

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Afraid of Conflict Resolution

0 comments Posted by Hannah at 11:01 AM

The Light of GodI will admit at times I get apprehensive about being ‘real’ around certain people.  I used to be REALLY bad at that, because I was taught that you should always be the sugar sweet person at all times. 


That means instead of voicing your opinion about why something makes you upset?  You have to stop, think, and possibly go a different route to voice this – or you know not to voice it at all. 


Why?  People tend to point out your attitude as they see it, and wish to deal with that more than the substance of the point or hurt in question.


I’m not going to say that it’s a bad thing to watch your tone and approach.  I will say at times we tend to go a little to far in that realm.  If your approach isn’t ‘just so’ that is what is pointed out and concentrated on more than the true hurt that people need to deal with.


The Wartburg Watch recently had an article called the confessions of a SGM Pastor.  They speak of two awful stories about people within a fellowship that found out their children had been sexually abused by another party within the fellowship.  The principals that church followed were to help bring ‘peace’ among all parties.  The problem is in order to have this ‘peace’ they basically avoided dealing with the circumstances completely.  The families couldn’t speak of the hurt and betrayal they felt over the molestation, because to the church it showed their lack of forgiveness.

These were situations where the family of the victim and the family of the perpetrator were friends. There were pre-existing, close relationships. As they’re trying to sort these things through, when relational conflicts arose between the victim’s family and the perpetrator’s family, we unwisely used a Peacemaker model for conflict resolution. This resulted, put them on an equal plane – get the log out of your eye, get the log out of your eye, go for the speck, go for the speck – this resulted in the victim’s family being corrected when they should have been gently cared for as sufferers.

I read this and I thought of the many stories we have all heard not only that dealt with this issue, but also the theme of the blog – domestic violence in the church.  This is more doctrine that fact.


How often are men, women and children asked to look at their own sin before they speak about verbal abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse?  I think of Tina Anderson , and how she was asked to own 1% of the sin of her being raped.  How many stories have read over at Danni Moss’s Blog, Because It Matters in which she spoke of boy and girls being molested by people in the church, and adults feeling very justified in attacking the children to defend the adult.  How these children were running after the molester to be with them – thus they must have wanted it.    How the adult in the church was a 'Godly’ person, and just made a mistake.


How often do we hear hints of BE more submissive, watch your tone and approach, and make sure you are ‘encouraging’ to the person that is abusing you verbally, emotionally or physically? 


We don’t do well in gently caring for sufferers.  When a spouse or child are being abused we see more often than not how we need to realize a relationship is 50/50 in fault, and we never attempt to deal with the dangerous brokenness of character – or obvious sinfulness of that person.  We are asked to look for the GOOD qualities, and don’t be so nasty that all you see is the BAD ones! 


Yes.  There are always assumptions about your motivation, character, and how you dealt with things so far.

Monday, August 08, 2011

Women in the Church Compared to Homosexuals

1 comments Posted by Hannah at 9:34 PM

patronizingI was over at Shirley Taylor’s blog this morning, and she had written a piece called “They’ve stolen Jesus!”


The quotes she mentioned are patronizing, and shows the low opinion of the ‘other’ gender.  They can claim all they wish about how they LOVE women, but no offense I don’t wish to have their type of love.


If you look past the sugary spiritual pixie dust so many use instead of speaking in plain English?  The patronizing attitude is clear. 


We all know by now I suppose that supporters would RUSH to their defense, and say things like how they are misunderstood, etc.    How scripture is clear in their eyes as far as women in certain positions within the church.  What they don’t do?  Is separate their ‘belief’, and listen very closely to how it is being presented.


All these years of being ‘misunderstood’, and yet you see no true effort to clarify these things. Its tells you something.


We all have our own journeys we must travel in order to be led by the Holy Spirit, and to know in our hearts where God wishes us to go.  At times I will admit I wonder why some paths have to be so painful, and but I also realize God can use those hurtful things to bring us close to him.  He can use our experiences and challenges to help others.


I have people I know that are very uncomfortable with this topic, and don’t mean to offend but believe that women should not be in a place of leadership within the church.   What they never do is patronize others in their belief.  Honestly?  I don’t mind talking about this topic with them, because I know they will not attack – and know I would never attack either.  Strange how some can have a decent conversation without all the ugly stereotypes, and labeling isn’t it?


Those friends realize that you don’t compare women to homosexuality.  These friends would never throw the radical men hating feminist label at others while having a conversation.  They understand human dignity, and view others self worth as God would have them do.  YES we can disagree on many topics, and that doesn’t have to place us in the enemy camp. 


Presentation is Key

When we look at Jesus in the bible, and see his presentation we never see a patronizing attitude.  He will call out the religious leaders at the time, and he will point out how some will not be capable of living the life they say they want.  He never even went NEAR speaking down to people.


There seems to be a new marketing ploy in how to NOT talk about women in ministry.  Today they are compared to homosexuals.  They will speak with their sweet sugary spiritual pixie dust, and their followers just swoon and believe they didn’t mean it in a way that would be offensive. 


If you dare challenge them you must be one that wishes to be in leadership and usurp men, or of course labeled a feminist with all their radical ideas about what that means.  I for one am not interested in leadership.


Did you ever notice the threatening response to those that DO NOT cow town to how they believe?


Lets look at a quote from Shirley’s blog.

I have a PhD in ministry. I studied under Wayne Grudem, and did so well that Wayne Grudem urged me to get a PhD.  I asked him what I could do with a PhD?  He said “Teach children in Sunday school.”  I told him that I don’t need a PhD to teach children.  Finally Wayne Grudem could only come up with this: I could write books under the authority of some man.

If some could place their beliefs to the side about women in leadership, and LOOK at what is being said?  They would need to also replace the name ‘Grudem’ with Jack Flash or something as well!


Most people that are honest with themselves could see the patronising attitude.

patronising - (used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who treat others with condescension

superior - of or characteristic of high rank or importance; "a superior ruler"

Grudem realizes this ‘woman’ had  gift, and encouraged her to go further.  He was then reminded of his ‘group think’ about women when she asked her question, and he stumbled along with the rest of his parroted language.   Could it be the Holy Spirit’s way of knocking at his door?


I mean who in their right mind would recommend someone to and get their PhD to teach Sunday School? He caught himself in a fumble if you will.


Women compared to Homosexuality


I attended John Piper’s church.  I told John Piper of my calling into full time preaching/teaching.  John Piper said, “You are just like the homosexual, right desire, wrong gender.


A church hired a graduate of The Master’s Seminary, founded by John MacArthur.  This seminary will not accept any women in leadership position and the seminary will not allow a woman to take Bible classes. This graduate told a church board: “Listening to a woman preach is like listening to a homosexual.”

woman cryingI have to mention here that I don’t ride the ‘pet sin’ train of homosexuality.  I don’t agree with the demonizing people in this way.    I realize its really popular to do so, and then in the next breath chant the ‘love the sinner – hate the sin’.  I’m not one for parroting the popular lingo, especially when I don’t believe those that state this.  Its pretty plain how they feel by other statements they use, and quite frankly is shameful and hypocritical.   You can’t tell people you offer them grace, and then back stab them. 


I personally don’t understand the desire for the same gender okay? I don’t have to in order to realize their treatment by some Christians is sinful.  I believe most of the popular things that are said along these lines are more fear mongering than anything.  Its amazing to me that some seem to think they will saved when they are graded on a curve due to being straight.


The statements made by the two pastors do not show dignity and worth towards women.  They meant these things as derogatory statements towards both women and homosexuals.  Why?  As we know the word homosexuality is almost used a spiritual swear word in the church.  Its like the mean high school boys that are picking on a smaller boy by calling him ‘fag’ when they know he isn’t.


Women are the threat here!


Cindy Kunsman forwarded me a link this week about a church in the southern states that hired a female pastor.  The local ‘faith’ association quickly disassociated that church from their group. 

Only a week after Pastor Nelson’s first Sunday in the pulpit — on July 10, 2011 — Flat Rock Baptist Church

“received a letter from the association’s membership committee citing “concerned pastors” and asking for a meeting to discuss “possible solutions” to the issue they said threatened the fellowship of the association.”

These “concerned pastors” were so worried about the grave situation of a woman preaching in one of “their” churches that they had to act within a week of the young lady assuming her pastorate.  Don’t want to let her settle in or even meet her before moving to oust the church.  If I had to guess, these pastors would probably not be as gravely concerned about obese pastors preaching in one of their churches, as long as that overweight pastor was a man, but I digress!

I realize its not funny, but I do have giggle at the ‘threatened’ part.  Its quite amazing how much power they give away isn’t it?  They make it sound so ominous.  I guess it is to them, and that is why they react the way they do.  Its hard for me to understand personally.


When you have such a view of women?  Its easy I guess to speak in court like Chuck Phelps in the Tina Anderson Case.


Recently notes from the trial were posted online.  From what I have been told they are awaiting permission to get the actual transcripts.  The notes are from day five of the trial, and with Chuck Phelps speaking:


Phelps: Ernie Willis had more to lose than Tina Anderson. That is why I naturally assumed Tina was lying to me. I did not understand why Tina would go out to eat with Ernie, if he had just raped her. She was being dishonest. When I told her that, Tina turned and looked at me with anything but love on her face. The Bedford Inn is not McDonalds. They both went to the Bedford Inn for Tina’s birthday. Tina was very angry with me. So it was obvious this was consensual.

Wayne: Did your wife, Linda, ask Tina at one point if she “enjoyed it?”

Phelps: That is a lie! (starts crying). That is so outside the character of my loving wife! It was not a discipline service. I wanted to prepare the church for the news, and I knew the media would get ahold of this story, and I wanted to prepare our church family with how to deal with the false media reports. I wanted Trinity Baptist Church to know so they could embrace Tina and Ernie. If I am not a compassionate person, I am not fit for ministry.

I would never have someone involuntarily come before the church. Tina Anderson’s success as a person, her success in life, success as a mother, wife, teacher and citizen of America is all attributed to the loving church family she had here at Trinity Baptist Church. Some people have the inability to make good choices in life. This time of confession might have been interpreted as “painful” by Tina. The news media definitely made her story look painful. I can’t say this any stronger. I never said “forgive and forget.”

Wayne: Did you make Tina go and apologize to her stepfather while he was in jail? Did you make her ask forgiveness for his molesting her?

Phelps: If the social workers are telling Tina to work with her stepfather, and rebuild their relationship, then she should listen to them.

So when a pastor doesn’t agree with your story, and calls you a liar?  If you get upset about that you are then labeled guilty.  Keep in mind also they look to the one they feel has the most to lose, because THEY will be the truthful ones.  It goes against logic doesn’t it?


Stating that he presented to two cases separately – calling them a discipline action – then NOT a discipline action – then stating he had to do this to ‘prepare his church’ for WHAT they could not have known.  Why?  As far as everyone was concerned – they were told they were separate issues.  Notice the flip flops this man makes as well?


On a last note, I wanted to quote something from the blog The Unspoken Words that Mara mentioned this week in her blog.    Its speaks of some of the stereotypes we hear about women, and from the description you often – how women are a threat because they want to take over or something.  You hear stereotypes from dress, makeup, the way you walk, sit, talk and interact.  How you raise your children, treat your spouse, and if you step into the working world or stay at home.


It just resonated with me.


The women’s movement of the 1960s and 70s (and continuing today) fights hard against the idea that women are objects to be looked at. Women wear what they wear because they want to wear it. Maybe they want to look good to themselves. Maybe they want to look put-together for the next job interview. Maybe they want to correct a few perceived flaws like thin eyelashes. Maybe they want to look better in photographs.

But here’s another thought: what if the things women wear aren’t all about how they look?

  • Some women wear bikinis to look attractive. Some wear them because they like the feeling of the sun on their skin and they don’t care if anyone looks at them.
  • Some women wear pants so that they can take longer strides, ride horses or climb walls, not because they want to “usurp male authority.”
  • Some women wear sleeveless dresses because they enjoy the freedom of movement in their arms and find such dresses comfortable in the summer.
  • Some women wear high heels to look attractive, but some women also wear them to appear taller so that people will treat them with more respect.
  • Some women wear nail polish because they enjoy looking down at the different colors and matching them to their outfits, not because men notice them.
  • Some women wear makeup because they like playing with colors on their faces and feeling decked out makes them more confident, not because they want men to perceive them as more sexually desirable.
  • A woman might even want to look attractive to a particular man, but not to all men under all circumstances.

You get the idea. The Message teaches that women are always, always, always constructing their daily lives around the male gaze. Everything they do is to attract men. Women, however, know from experience that it isn’t true. When I wear my swimsuit, it’s about my relationship with the sun, wind and water – it has nothing to do with a creepy lecherous dude who might ogle me as I walk by. (Trust me, they’ll ogle no matter what you wear – I’ve gotten sexually harassed in public more often in sweats and long skirts than I ever have in a swimsuit.) I’ll talk more about the dangers of the belief that women’s clothing has power over men’s behavior when I tackle Branham’s disfigurement of Matthew 5:28.


The way the preachers preach it?  They also objectify women. 


The last part where you mentioned she got ogled more often in her conservative dress?  Women can feel it without words being spoken.  Its strange how men pastor’s seem to think they can tell the world what women’s motivations are.  Somewhere along the line they lost sight of the dignity and worth that God sees in his creation.


Don’t get me wrong – we all know all men aren’t like this.  Yes!  Yes!  I realize ANYTIME you mention these things its like an attack on the entire gender.  Sit and back LOOK who screams the loudest.  They are normally like the ones mentioned here today.  How does the saying go again?


The squeaking wheel gets the grease! 


We are worth far more then those types give us credit for.  I’m thankful for the men that stand up and state this on our behalf.  I pray MORE do so as time goes along.


Women aren’t a threat to the church.  Homosexuality isn’t a threat to the church.  Pastors that preach bigotry?  I think we have something there.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Mini-Me Jesus?

4 comments Posted by Hannah at 5:47 AM


I have never watched the Austin Power’s movies, but I have seen clips here and there.


I was communicating with Cindy Kunsman, and she was speaking about the huge load that men are handed in terms of scripture at times.  The load she spoke about to me was a misinterpretation of scripture – to Cindy as well I will point out.


This is the impression I came away with of certain people’s views on Ephesians 5:


You hear at times about how men will be held in account for the actions/sins of their family/wife.  They take that command from Ephesians 5.    This has always boggled my mind, and I never did figure out how they got there.  For some reason Mini Me from Austin Powers popped into my mind.  He is the little person pictured today.


25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.


This scripture concentrates more on how Christ loved us, and how he gave himself up for us.  He gave himself up for her (the church) to make her holy.  He did this by washing with the water through the word, and then presents her (the church) to himself as the radiant church without stain, wrinkle, or other blemish.  Jesus makes us holy and Blameless (by the forgiveness of sins).


Cindy describes some gentleman’s reactions to her scholarly presentations.  They told her that they will be held responsible for their wife in this way.  To me?  It was as if they were taking on a Mini Me position of Jesus.  They were going to held accountable for their wives, because he was the one to present her without stain, wrinkle, etc.  Ephesians isn’t asking this of the husband.  That’s crazy talk!


Men – no matter what their position – are never held responsible for other human’s sin.  We are all held accountable for our own sin.  This scripture doesn’t say that husbands are the mini me of Jesus.  He isn’t saying you are able to do the things that I (Jesus) do for those that believe in me.  We are saved through Jesus, and to me this scripture is speaking more of a comparison.  LOOK at how I love you, and how I show my love for you.  I ask that you show a comparable love for your wife.


28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.


Husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies (comparing in a way to Jesus love for his body – the church).  We feed and care for our literal body, and it’s the same principal of how Jesus cares of his body (the church).  We care and feed our bodies differently of course, but to me he is more speaking of a principal.   Humans are not able to present anyone – let alone themselves – to Jesus without stain being holy without Jesus.  That would be like stating I can present a person that has been given no food as someone that will not starve.  We can’t do that as humans.


Teaching men are accountable for their wives in this way?  Its like saying I gave no food to my wife, but I am the one that is starving (literally speaking).    Jesus could pull that off, but we as humans aren’t able to no matter what.  Jesus does not ask this of husbands.


31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


Now, if you view the husband as some mini me of Jesus?  I guess that is how they get this ‘head of authority’ thinking.  The one flesh in their eyes at this point is – husband is the head of the body, everyone else is the body.  The head being the mini me of Jesus.  He will be in authority since he is responsible for the family, and the covering of his wife’s sin.    I guess they solved the profound mystery.


Could be how this ‘biblical role’ thinking started.  The only problem with that is men are not the mini me of Jesus.  The passage was speaking of how Jesus loves us – washing, etc.  He was not saying husband you are to be, and do my role like I do.  It seems to me they are taking the comparison the wrong way.   Humans can never be the mini me of Jesus.  Its not possible. 


Doing your biblical roles would be ‘works based’ in order to get salvation.  Women are to treat their husbands as the mini me Jesus.  When you think of yourself as the mini me of Jesus – you would see yourself with power and authority over others.  Then Jesus would be asking wives to respect the mini me – and not the human.  In other words, you need to respect the role – not the person.  Do we do that with Jesus?


If husbands truly had the power of the mini me of Jesus?  All this yacking about how wives treat their husbands either make them wimpy, dominating, or Godly?  It places the woman in position of making the Mini me in the family.


So we are all given unrealistic burdens that Jesus never asked us to take.  Women can’t respect a person enough to make them a mini me Jesus, and the man –being the mini me Jesus can’t be responsible for the other’s person sin. 


I realize they like to use this ‘military’ visual, but heck even solders are held accountable for their actions.  In the past year a soldier is being held for trial due to the fact he got into a fight with fellow military personnel, and then shot them dead.  Do we see the commander and chief being held responsible for the murder or do we see the soldier?


According to what I’m reading with this teaching?  The commander and chief of the family would be held responsible for the murder in the eyes of Jesus.  You see these men that love the position of the Mini Me Jesus, but when it comes to being held responsible for others actions?  They don’t want that role so much anymore.    They resent being told if something bad happens in the family – its all their fault.  Heck, I can’t blame them!


The problem is you can’t expect people to be ‘literal’ in just one direction to suit the mini me Jesus.  If you are the Mini Me Jesus you take the whole burden to make it light. 


Come to me all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.  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.  For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matthew 11:28-30


If you look at that scripture?  We realize there can be no mini me Jesus.  Sadly, there are huge burdens of that role that Jesus did not ask men to take.  They can’t take them, because only Jesus can.


Just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.


This portion of scripture is speaking about Christ.  It isn’t NOT asking men to become the Mini Me Jesus.  Jesus loved the church, and this is how he shows his love.  We say that sin separates us from God.  Jesus takes away the sin.  Mini Me can’t do that.  That is something Jesus does for us out of love.  Why would people feel Jesus is asking the husband to do this for his wife?  Its not possible.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

One year of Silence or Ridicule?

0 comments Posted by Hannah at 2:34 PM

It was year ago that I had written about the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition.

With the ‘political’ atmosphere within the church about gender at this point?  I was expecting pretty much silent from the Top Dogs, but I also realized that would encourage their mouth pieces to speak instead.   Silent on that was also very telling.

To me it is a very sad sign about how ‘leadership’ skills are viewed today.  I assumed they would be blown off as unbelievers, feminists, rebellious – you know the labels.  What happens to people when they get labeled by the an organization – even without knowing what they are about?  They don’t have to acknowledge you.  Nice for them huh?  Still waiting for those leadership skills to to appear though.

They have tendency when something is mentioned in a negative light about their approaches?  It isn’t repented of, but silently disappears. 

For example, it was less than year ago that I found out that a video I had uploaded to youtube with John Piper clearly showing his ignorance towards the abuse issue?  His transcript and video vanished from the website.  It was as if it never happened. 

I believe my video upload is the only thing that remains – besides transcripts.  I have it burnt on a DVD as well just in case, because their site clearly states you are allowed to use their work.  Yep.  Documented that as well.

Another tendency I find is what I call the Southern Belle Approach.  They play ignorant to the issues around them on purpose, and play the ‘I don’t understand’ approach when confronted.  You see a proper Southern Belle if they don’t like something or someone?  They don’t say anything in order to be polite, or just play ignorant.  When placed against the wall?  They whip out the name calling, divert off the subject, and blow people off as ‘so confused’.    In the past it was Yanks, Scoundrel, etc.

Just like the Southern Belle?  We know the group isn’t confused, but it goes against the group think to admit it.  If they or their mouth pieces can throw out enough labels that are packed to ignite?  It helps to shut the discussion  so they don’t have to deal with it at all.   The points, organization, or issues brought up?  They are ignored, and those that brought them to light are encouraged to hush or they are also looked upon as enemies.  Ie: labels they use.

Personally?  I find it very cowardly approach.  Its very secular, worldly, fleshy, and unbiblical – take your pick of additional labels they use regularly.

Recently at the SBC convention Frank Page stated:
It is time to come together, he said. "It is time for Baptists to be known for what we are for and not for what we are against." Unified ministry, he said, is one aspect for which he wants Southern Baptists to be known.”
Nice dream, but you have to do something to make that happen, acknowledge where you lost your way.  There is way to much fear and pride to do that, and those are nice words – but meaningless unless they step up.

Then you have Al Mohler who is either playing the Southern Belle, or has what is called a convenient memory.  The Associated Baptist Press ran a story about Mohler’s embarrassment of youth when it was pointed out that he didn’t believe as those within the leadership of his group did on women in the church.
"With the insouciance of youth and with the stupidity of speaking more quickly than one ought, I gave him my position," Mohler recalled. "He looked at me with a look that surprised me, and he simply said to me, 'One day this will be a matter of great embarrassment to you.'"
Mohler said that for him, the embarrassment was immediate.
"I went to the library. I looked for every book that I could possibly find on the subject," he said. "Frankly, the urgency on me was such that I didn't think I could eat or do anything until I found out why I was going to be so embarrassed. The campus was full of people who appeared to be wonderfully unembarrassed about the whole issue."
Mohler said he didn't find much, but there was a book by Stephen Clark titled Man and Woman in Christ that "led me, thankfully, into some Scripture study."
"I ended up staying up until I could figure this out," he said. "Somewhere between Carl Henry saying what he said to me and the dawn of the next day, my position had completely changed."
Most good teachers if they see that there seems to be a misunderstanding (difference of opinion, doctrine, etc), and the teacher was once in their shoes?  They will acknowledge it, and then show what changed their opinion.  Today things have changed, and you either pretend you didn’t hear it – or as Mohler did on his twitter claim regarding his  ‘old belief’ system others still feel is valid are ‘confused and not quite together'.

It also seems that Al Mohler and the CBMW didn’t read the confusing document, because it didn’t come from an Egalitarian group.  Could be his dementia like memory again. 

A decent person would acknowledge the letter, and it would show leadership skills even if there is a disagreement.  Tweeting instead?  It shows immaturity instead.  Seriously.  Children do that kind of stuff.

Do they train people at seminary on how to divert in order to show followers they are wrong, and make it sound like you aren’t doing something deceptive, deceitful, etc?

What happened to all this ‘trust’ that organizations realize has been broken, but say they want to change that…yet you have leaders that play these games.

I believe this was the only response out of all the organizations that were contacted.  A tweet to ridicule.  Nice.

This response and the attitude is rude and very disrespectful.  It’s a prime example of what people within the church speak about when they feel stone walled or ignored.

It’s the same attitude no matter what the subject is, and honestly doesn’t even have to do with the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition.

  It’s a pattern when they don’t like something.  Strange how a church leader feels its acceptable behavior to openly mock others isn’t it?  As others would say, “Scripture Please!”

Some have learned accepted principals of human dignity, and others still refuse to accept or acknowledge them. They tend to get legalistic, or come up with exceptions to the rule.  If you read a newspaper about a church scandal?  You see the church speak parroted as they were taught.

For years individuals and groups have tried the soft approach – you get more flies with honey than vinegar type of the thing.  Extremism and stereotypes was the response.  Equality has always meant the same thing in history.  It’s a principal most understand. 

Some individuals now show responses that ignore the meaning in the past.  Let’s try to apply the approach to other circumstances in history that asked for a sense of equality!   Lets see if their approach works shall we?  I mean most look at the term ‘equality’, and understand the universal meaning.  Does their approach show this?

  • Did the African Americans get ‘skin confused’ and want sameness?

  • What about the American Indian?  While they were being unfairly persecuted at the beginning of American History their rights were a dirty word.  We realize now the error, and we know why.  I mean were they just looking to usurp the white man?

Doesn’t seem to apply does it?  Why does it make sense towards others?  WELL it doesn’t there either.  They just pretend it does.

Sadly certain groups of people are just trying to confuse its meaning. It has always meant the thing same, and today’s rhetoric that is based in fear doesn’t change the meaning no matter how hard they try to show you differently.

These concepts aren’t as complicated as some may wish you to think.  They are about principals of dignity and respect as a fellow human.  Nothing has changed from that definition, and yet you have groups that write articles, books, seminars, sermons, etc all trying to redefine the concept to create fear.

Sadly, the more they talk the more they sound like this is about competition compared to being ‘complementary’ in nature.  The radicals they speak of from the pulpit aren’t in their churches.   Its strange how they claim they run into them all the time.  The attempt  to talk about issues of dignity shouldn’t be approached as if you are opening Pandora's box.  The statements of how if we accept women in a certain fashion – what’s next homosexuals?  Its degrading and please don’t whine when you are called a bigot.  It is what it is.

I pray that by the time my grandchildren come into this world?  History will play the role it always has when it comes to this kind of thing.  They will look like fools for the attitudes and their propaganda.    Yes, the children will be able to acknowledge the radicals did exist but they were far from the majority within the church.  They will scratch their heads, because who knows what they meant by ‘seeing it all the time’.  They will also see the games they played to make others see things the way they want them to.  That is how propaganda works.  The fact they state they are speaking from Christian point of view?  Where is the truth they will ask!

Will they acknowledge the ridicule they dish out?  I doubt it.  If they do people will ask for more.  It might be sexual abuse, domestic violence, emotional abuse, child abuse, spiritual abuse!  They would have to acknowledge the stone walling and deceit that was present as well.  Their careers maybe in jeopardy, because asking for that much repentance is TOO much to ask.  How dare the helpmeet require so much from them!

The disrespect towards one gender is acceptable, but darn it all don’t you dare emasculate the other!

Join me in breaking the silence, and stopping the lies and spiritual pixie dust!  If they are ignored they would call it what it is.  Disrespect.  Why is it any different for anyone else?

It's First Anniversary of the Freedom For Christian Women's Demand for an Apology from CBMW  Make sure you go and click on the tweet in question on her site!

A Year Ago This Coming Sunday...

Discussion about Apology Demand – Part 1


When biblical means Shut up

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Its not a Communication Problem. Its not an Anger Managment Problem.

2 comments Posted by Hannah at 1:11 PM

Can't see Video?  Click here.

All to often when abuse victims try to describe what is happening in their life they are told they have ‘communication’ problems.

That is one of the biggest misunderstandings it seems to me.  It isn’t a communication problem between the two parties at all.

On occasion my children and I watch Teen Mom.  One of the couples since the show started was Amber and Gary.  Amber in this case is the abusive party.  Gary on the other hand seems to be the enabler, along with the victim.

I don’t think most people blame a couple for trying to stay together, because they have a child.  If you watch Amber she got herself into trouble for physically attacking Gary, and like most abusive people has a really hard time dealing with the consequences.

I wasn’t able to upload these video clips to youtube due to copyright, and you may have to download Adobe Flash in order to view it the video I have supplied.

One thing you notice is that abusive people refuse to handle the ugly sides of things most of the time.  I can empathize being scared because you know the police and child protective services is looking to speak to you.  Anyone in their right mind would be a bit intimidated and scared.  Amber on the other hand handles this in true abuser fashion.

It’s the way they handle anxiety that causes conflict.  Its not a communication problem, and its not an anger problem.  They divert this anxiety to other things, and attempt to start fights.  They next thing you know they are saying things to bait you into saying something they can attack you over.  They are screaming irrational stuff that makes no sense.  You are often left confused, and wondering how the conversation got to the point it did. 

Lets look at the first scene:

not-acting-rationalRight away Gary is trying to approach this ugly circumstance in a smart way.  He wants to speak to Amber about getting lawyer, before they deal with the police or Child Protective Services.  Notice how they can’t even have that conversation!

The police want to talk to Amber, and she doesn’t want to deal with this at all.

“So you do thing it would be smart for me to get a lawyer, or do you think it would be smart for me to go to jail?”

“So, if a lawyer is more than jail should I just go to jail?”

You can tell by Gary’s face he realizes she is attempting to bait him into a fight.  She rambles off two irrational questions right off the bat.

She doesn’t want to deal with this.  She doesn’t want to get a lawyer.  She doesn’t want to talk about this.

Gary at this point is attempting to communicate with a person that is going into her irrational mindset.  When abusers get like this?   There is no talking to them. 

I realize some people would tell you then approach it at a different time.  What they REFUSE to acknowledge is this is HOW abusive people deal with anxiety and fear – and there IS no GOOD time to approach this.

Amber would much rather fight if Gary doesn’t shut up, and make this go away.  Amber would rather blame Gary for this happening to begin with.  We all know that things can’t be approached in that fashion.  The victim is placed between a rock and hard place.  You already know a fight is going to happen, because the irrational nature has already started.

She is combative because she thinks the world should leave her alone, and if it has to happen GARY can pay for it!  Why?  Its his fault this happened, and he needs to pay for the consequences.

“The next time someone calls for me how about your give me the phone” – as if she could handle this circumstance.    As if that has anything to do with the conversation. 

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Respect My Authority!

6 comments Posted by Hannah at 1:14 AM


I had a neighbor years ago that just LOVED to giggle at Cartman from South Park.  I have watched the show a couple of times, and yes it is for mature audiences.   The show lampoons reality for some, and yes it is satire.


Cartman is loud, obnoxious, racist and obese—is often portrayed as an antagonist whose has a anti-Semitic attitude.  He is a child of a single mother, and she oozes the meek and mild attitude of ‘how women are to be’ attitude.  On the other hand, she also represents an extreme model of free love if you catch my drift!  Cartman tends to be in denial about the one side of his mother, and yet loves to control and manipulate the other side.

People tend to giggle at Cartman because he is one to demand you respect his authority, and yet you see the loud, obnoxious and immature boy that doesn’t have much to respect.


I found this description of him: Cartman is frequently portrayed as an antagonist or villain whose actions set in motion the events serving as the main plot of an episode. Other children and classmates are alienated by Cartman's insensitive, sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-sematic, lazy, misogynistic, self-righteous, and wildly insecure behavior, but are occasionally influenced by his obtrusive, manipulative, and propagandist antics.

Okay.  I have to admit there are some in the church to me that represent Cartman to a tea!    Jack Schaap we wrote about within the last couple of months, and YES his attitude is the extreme case of what I’m talking about.  You remember how he started his ‘holy’ tirade?

ABC news called me this week and said "We heard that you believe that men should be in charge of their wives"
I said, "No sir, I didn't say that. I said God said that. He said husbands are the head of the wife."
I said, "You got a problem with what I said when I'm quoting the Bible, then maybe you should take it up with God."
He said, "Do you think that's appropriate?"
I said, "Son, anything God says is appropriate. I think you better get that straight right now."
I never apologize for standing where God stands. I never worry standing where God stands. Somebody says, "You know what they are going to say about you?"
Pffft, who cares?
Stand in line, pick a number, slob!
Get you little squirt gun out and squirt away.
Bigger things to worry about. Heaven, Hell, life, death.

Does anyone doubt that such a man would also love to scream out, “RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!”


David J. Stewart wrote an article that I picked apart many years ago.  He was asked about divorcing an abusive spouse.

Interestingly, and sadly, all we see on the internet and in society today is talk about domestic violence; but NEVER do we hear anything about statistics on wives who refuse to obey their husbands. It is evil. It is just as sinful for a wife to frustrate her husband through insubordination and disobedience as it is for a man to commit domestic violence. I am not lessening the sin of domestic violence, I am emphasizing the sin of wives who rebel against their husbands by not being obedient. I realize this is ancient mentality to feminists today; but it is 100% Biblical doctrine. A wife is expected by God to obey her husband. Feminists are eagerly willing to crucify abusive husbands; BUT they won't even address the issue of wives who disobey, mistreat, and frustrate their husbands. It takes two to tango.

Does anyone doubt that such a man would also love to scream out, “RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!”respect-my-authority


Reb Bradley wrote an article about Emotional Abuse and Marriage.

Let us remember that the apostles who gave us God's commands were themselves the victims of severe emotional and physical abuse. They, like Pastor Richard Wurmbrand, endured torture beyond anything we have ever seen. In his books, Pastor Wurmbrand describes his 14 years in a Romanian prison at the hands of communist torturers. His love and compassion for his torturers testifies of the assurance we have as Christians that we too can selflessly love our wives and husbands.

Certainly if those tortured on a daily basis can see the good that comes from suffering, then we as minimally suffering, soft Americans can handle the opportunities for growth that come our way through the difficulties of marriage. If we are able to cease our "giving to get" mentality and begin simply "giving" we would finally be able enjoy the fulfillment that comes from loving selflessly in the image of Christ.

Mr. Bradley feels that you came into marriage to ‘get’ instead of serve. You must be like Pastor Warmbrand, and have love and compassion for your abuser as you stay and be tortured.  If you can’t your to soft!


Does anyone doubt that such a man would also love to scream out, “RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!”

Monday, July 11, 2011

Why Women Can't..

1 comments Posted by Hannah at 5:00 PM

Patriarchy-bigotry-prejudice-equality“I’m sick of it.  I’m sick of writing about equality for Christian women in our churches and homes,” I emailed a woman equality blogger.
But as long as pastors and bloggers and “Bible scholars” tell the world that women just don’t measure up, I will keep on.
Above is a quote from Shirley Taylor, and she can quoted a pastor’s reasons why women would not be good in certain positions compared to men.

I searched for the article, and I believe I found the one in question.  It was titled, Why women can not be head pastors.  I had to admit I’m getting rather used to silly examples that are said to used to make points that are somehow suppose to make sense to the general public.

To quote one of his comments to his ‘ahem’ points that made me giggle, and also has a sting of truth to it?
“I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony; I don’t know where to begin!”
To me?  That said it all!

I seriously don’t think people that come from this point of view truly realize how completely racist and bigoted they sound.  I really don’t think they stop long enough to hear themselves at times.  Its truly sad!  

I guess it shouldn’t surprise me because the Christian faith has been fighting bigoted overtones for how long?  Almost since it began?

The pastor in question used a common circumstance we have all giggled about in the past.  Wife hears noise in the house.  Wife wakes up husband, and has him go and investigate.
You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.
It also seems to be human nature to pick the biggest and strongest when possibility facing a battle of strength.  If we look at the story of David and Goliath?   It seems to slap the theory the pastor made in the face.  If people didn’t know the story?  WHO would have thought that David would have creamed the bigger, stronger, and more aggressive Goliath?  Can people deny that those at the time felt he would get beaten as well?  I mean seriously, if we didn’t know it came from the bible?  We would SWEAR it was a movie made by Walt Disney!

When humans are faced with dangerous circumstances gender doesn’t always play a role.  The term, ‘momma bear’ for example.  A tough, aggressive, and protective mother. Often going to extreme lengths to protect her children and herself.   We have to admit we have used this term to describe more than the animal.  

Why Women can’t?

God gives everyone the strength needed in combat of different sorts. 

What has that got to do with being pastor?  According to the author the pastor is also better at confronting false teachings.  He feels since men are better at being physically and mentally stronger?  They are in a better position of confronting false doctrine. 

To make matters even MORE confusing?  It was pointed out that Christian faith has been pelleted with false doctrine (again I would say since the beginning), and pastor agreed.  One poster’s ending point was:
I am seeing few men with the characteristics needed for true shepherding. That troubles me.
His response?
I too am troubled by the lack of male leaders. Frankly, think that there are many reasons, but one that is very important, in my opinion, is that men are not taught to be men anymore. They don’t know what it means. They are taught that they don’t have too many essential differences between them and women. They are taught that they don’t have a particular role. They are taught to suppress their masculinity and embrace their “feminine side.” It is confusing. In the end, I think we need more people who are complementarian leading the church and expressing this value with greater confidence and boldness.
Men will still be wimps because we are still sinners. Adam still followed Eve.
I have to wonder if this pastor doesn’t see that he can’t seem to grasp ‘essential differences’!  His examples sure don’t show them.  I mean according to what he says above?  Sinner equals wimps.  Okay then.

Saturday, July 09, 2011

What is Masculine?

0 comments Posted by Hannah at 1:52 PM

masculine–biblical-roles-worldlyI was reading a discussion recently about masculinity.   I guess I shouldn’t have been so surprised as to what some felt the term consisted of. 

As much as the church tries to tell you to stay away from worldly concepts?  It seems the traits of masculinity have indeed been poisoned by culture.

You at times get this impression of the burly man that is career driven to support his family.  He will be a sportsman on the side, and go out of his way to show strength more in the physical manner than anything.  He is the top dog that just oozes manly man, and people just rush to respect and honor.  He will use his inner courage to stand firm against the world, because he is gatekeeper for his family.  The image we get from most sources is not so approachable.

You almost have to stand back, and wonder HOW do you approach such a person?

We concentrate so much on actions or behaviors in the sense of gender, and yet to me its more about character.  The character of the person is more important than some masculine trait that some church leader claims you should have.  Masculine traits are cultural.  One person’s view of masculinity may not be the view of another.

I remember a video of Mark Driscoll taking a questions from his congregation.  One comment was about circumstances of a stay at home father.   He immediately emasculates the man, and then asks his wife to basically back him up.  Which she did by saying she couldn’t respect a man that doesn’t support his family.

Strange how pastors can break that cardinal rule of not doing something to emasculates a man isn’t it?

Income to a family is important don’t get me wrong!  If you have a family in which income is being taken care of by the woman, and its agreed upon?  Who is Driscoll to say it is sin?  I’m sorry but ‘supporting a family’ is so much more than income.  It’s sad that so many people are so closed minded that they can’t see that.  What one family may need may not be what another family may need in the form of support of the family.  Support should be seen by the circumstances.

Proverbs 28:6 Better the poor whose walk is blameless than the rich whose ways are perverse.

This is a character trait, and not something that is based in a cultural role.   It’s a virtue of the person.  Support as the definition seen by the Driscoll’s example maybe hard to accomplish by people that are poor income wise.  The person’s walk is what God looks to.  There are plenty of families that go hungry and are homeless.   Their character and their integrity are not bruised just by this circumstance.  Read Proverbs again!

Saturday, July 02, 2011

The Fear of Homosexuality

3 comments Posted by Hannah at 2:32 PM

Frustration, Homosexuality, Christianitity
I get so frustrated with hate at times.  People won’t call it hate, but to me it is hate just the same.

I’m going to start with a story about a time when I was young teenager.  The names will be changed, but I wanted to use names so people could get a better visual.

I had a boyfriend named Jay, and his best friend Alex dated a friend of mine from school.  We did see each other, and did things together quite a bit.

One day we went over to Alex’s house to play cards I think it was.  We walked downstairs to the basement, where his family had the card table, chairs, etc.  Off to the side there was a bedroom, and in there were pictures of ‘girls’ all over the walls.  I remarked to Alex that I surprised he had all those pictures on his wall when he claimed to ‘love’ my friend.  Everyone except me was giggling at this point, and I knew I was missing something.  They told me that this wasn’t Alex’s room in the basement, but his adult sister’s room.  Yes.  Alex’s sister was a lesbian. 

A few weeks later Alex’s parents allowed he and Jay to hold a small party with a few friends down in the basement.  Jay and I along with other friends were sitting around the pit group talking.  Then I heard someone else come down the stairs, and she announced to her brother ‘I brought a man this time!”  It was Alex’s sister, and she introduced the man to him.

The next thing I knew she walked over to get something, and tripped on something laying on the floor.  She landed right in my lap.  My reaction?  I got her up off me so fast it wasn’t even funny.  I think everyone felt my reaction was one of being startled when she fell on me out of no where.  I knew differently, and after that happened I was so ashamed of myself.  How could I react that way?  I would have never reacted that way to someone that was heterosexual.

I allowed the fear, stereotypes, and culture to have me react in ways I hated.  I was so mad and disappointed in myself.  I was acting homophobic, and was prejudiced against someone I didn’t even know.  

I don’t think I had ever met a lesbian up to that point.  WELL at least not that knew of.   I knew I had to learn to change that reaction, because it wasn’t healthy – and it would be unreasonably hurtful to others.  It was MY issue not theirs.  A far cry from a proper Christian response.

I did grow up and grow out of that type of response.  I have worked and dealt with people that were homosexual since that day, and thankfully I have never had that fearful reaction again.  I can’t say I understand the lifestyle, but learning some grace I don’t have to be uncomfortable or fearful now.  I have met some very nice people, and some NOT so nice.  (giggles) just like any other human interaction! 

I realize what the Christian response is to the issue of homosexuality, but I have to admit that is an area I struggle with.  You won’t see me taking a stand in either direction, because I don’t feel right either way.  I do know I will not hate, nor will I react in ways I did as a teenager.    I will not fear homosexuality, because fear brings out the worse in people.  I treat them as I would anyone else.  I am ashamed of some of the Christian responses, because at times they can very vile.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Prejudice is Ignorance

3 comments Posted by Hannah at 6:58 PM

Push me Pull Me

Marriage can only have one head.
If it has two heads then it becomes a two-headed monster.

I think I must first warn you that I’m on a soap box today.  I first read Mara’s article, Have you heard this one?  I then moved onto Wartburg Watch, and their article Is Racial Solidary really possible in the SBC?

Prejudice Is Ignorance
I guess I first need to explain.  I will be speaking from the eyes of a small child that watched her parents fight in a southern atmosphere during the civil rights, freedom riders, Martin Luther King, Jr. times.  They both grew up in an atmosphere of bigotry, and they were both lead by the Holy Spirit to stand up for what was right and just on this issue.

From what I have gathered they waited until adulthood, and away from the immediate family pressure to do everything they wished to do.  They did small things prior, but went all out once the restrictions of their family life was removed.  

I remember my own grandfather telling me that he sent his good Christian girl off to Baylor thinking it was a good Christian college – and they ‘ruined her’.  Mom told me later she just felt more free to express their beliefs later in life.  They were always there.

During that time if you did such a thing you were the worse of the worse.  You were the white traitors, and dealt with contempt.  

If you watched any of the Freedom Riders program you would understand how truly UNCOMFORTABLE at the very least this stand would place you in if you were in the South.  Which is where we were. 
My brother and I never saw my parents treat people of color any different than anyone else.  They repeated over and over again, ‘Prejudice is ignorance’.  They showed us what that meant, and I’m truly thankful for that.

My children have friends from just about every background imaginable.  I realize they know history, but their freedom of having those friends with no attitude, comments, and sense of bigotry like I saw in childhood?   That is SO big to me!

Prejudice Is Ignorance
This comment can be applied to so much more than my childhood experiences with seeing direct racism.
Prejudice is about power and authority in the eyes of a bigot.  If you attempt to place the bigot on the same plain with the source of their prejudice?  They see it as taking their power and authority away.  Its almost as if the competition is being handed things that was ‘theirs alone’, and they are being forced to share.

In their own pride, selfish nature they lash back.  The sense of superiority that they had been raised with is seen as being unjustly taken away.

The Prejudice is ignorance comment that I learned from childhood applies here.  Sadly, their response is what is dangerous, damaging and downright hurtful.  They seem to think life would be the Dr. Doolittle's push me pull me animal.

I’m going to ‘pull me’ as hard as I can to keep my authority and superiority, and at times I will violently resist the ‘push me’ source of prejudice to view them any different.  

If you read any of the myths of what would happen to society if blacks were given this position?  You can feel what I’m speaking about.  I remember ONE in particular, black men would rape white women.
Their true fear was/is ignorance.  With ignorance came hate, contempt, name calling, labeling, lies, etc.  Yes, Prejudice is ignorance.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Blog Archive



Blog Of The Day Awards Winner

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Privacy Policy

| Emotional Abuse and Your Faith © 2009. All Rights Reserved | Template by My Blogger Tricks .com |