“All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God might be competent, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Jordan and Cheryl have been working tirelessly all day in their garden. It is only the seventeenth day of the second month of the year, but they know that a good harvest demands hard work on the front end of growing season. Jordan and Cheryl very much love each other. They met because their families lived in the same area and occasionally the whole of each family would visit the other. This was because Cheryl’s father raised sheep and Jordan’s father grew vegetables and fruit. Both families had an agreement to trade meat for vegetables and fruit. The families started meeting when both Jordan and Cheryl were very young. Jordan, a year older than Cheryl, always enjoyed playing with her during these gatherings. As they grew into young adults they realized that their fondness of one another was so great that they could not think of marrying anyone else. Their courtship was happily supported by the patriarchs of both families with the understanding that their economic agreement would only be strengthened by the flesh bond of their children. Jordan and Cheryl understood this too, but their feelings towards one another superseded the value of trade. They simply loved one another. After their marriage they were blessed with a son and a daughter. They named their son Jack after Jordan’s father and their daughter Jill after respected family member on Cheryl’s side. After the nuptials Cheryl moved onto the land belonging to Jordan’s family. Here they were given a plot to call their own. Jack is now four years old and Jill is just short of three. As their parents have been toiling in the garden Jack and Jill have been playing in the neighboring field belonging to Jordan’s brother.
As the sun begins to settle below the earth Jordan calls it quits for the day and joins his children to play as Cheryl heads into the house to prepare dinner. It starts to rain and Jordan thinks that he is indeed a very blessed man.
As they sit to a good meal the rain outside intensifies. The pour is greater than anything Jordan or Cheryl have ever experienced and they take their children to the window to watch in amazement. Jordan fears for his garden, his livelihood, and is frustrated that the rain is starting to flood his hard work. Still he understands that this is the way things are. Rain happens. Knowing these things are out of his control he decides to enjoy the great spectacle with his children.
Jack and Jill are getting tired and Cheryl prods them from the storm to their beds. She kisses them goodnight and tells them that they are beautiful children of God.
Exhausted from a long days work Jordan and Cheryl follow their children to bed knowing that they have much work to do in the morning due to the storm still falling outside.
As they sleep peacefully it rains violently.
Jordan and Cheryl are awoken by the sound of the door bursting open and almost before Jordan can leap from his rest water cascades over his feet. The torrential rain that solaced them to sleep still pounds the roof and he knows he must try to block the impeding rush of water before his house is completely flooded. Jack and Jill are both crying in the background, frightened by the sounds of chaos, and Jordan pleas with Cheryl to grab the children while he looks out the broken doorframe to assess the downfall that shows no sign of slowing.
As the water rises to his shins, Jordan realizes that he has a decision to make. He can stay and attempt to protect his house and his plot or he can seek higher ground with his beloved family in order to protect their lives. Jordan is a sensible man. There is only one reasonable choice.
With Jack on his back and Jill clung to Cheryl’s neck, man and wife, forsake their home and their land and trudge through the sheet of rain and, at this point, knee high swells.
As they splash onward Jordan thinks of his land. It was good land. It was fertile land. It was also land nestled in the plains of a great valley. The high ground is not only out of sight because of the rain drenching visibility, it is out of range because it is two days journey away.
Jordan hollers at Cheryl to grab anything floating in the water that they might be able to use incase the water rises too deep for them to walk – surely swimming while holding two children would only last so long. The water rises above Jordan’s waist. He is feeling weary.
Cheryl is scared, but doesn’t voice this. She thinks about their home and their lives. She is scared simply because she loved her life so much and the water that slops just below her bust line is threatening the idea that she will once again share a nice meal with her husband and two children. She thinks about death. She believes in God as her parents taught her to and silently, but desperately, pleas with God to spare her family so that they might have one more meal together. Even if only one more, she would be grateful. She would at least have the chance to cherish her children better and to love her husband more passionately. That is all she would want. This is what she prays for. The water rises above her breasts. She moves Jill to sit on her shoulders.
Jordan swings his son up to sit on his shoulders as well and then ties a tree branch he grabbed while Cheryl was deep in intercession around his chest using a leather lace from his clothing. He commands Cheryl to hold onto the branch so that they won’t lose each other in the water. He continues to march forward with the flood breaking at his sternum and at this point he is all but towing his family floating behind him. The rain continues.
An hour passes and Jordan can not tell how much ground they have gained granted there was no ground left measure by. His exhaustion tells him they must have made it farther than they really had. The water has reached his lips and his children and wife are almost entirely submerged, clinging to the branch. Jordan swims more than he walks. The rain continues.
Jordan frantically looks all around him for a place of sanctuary but he can not distinguish anything. He wonders if they are still heading towards the high ground or if they have gone in circles. He wonders if this is how he will die. He has thought about death before. His father would tell him stories of old of valiant men giving their lives on behalf of their family or their land. Jordan does not feel valiant. He only feels rising fear as the water is now above his head. He sinks until his feet hit ground and he leaps up to the surface. He frees himself from the branch that is more harm than help at this point, and continues to sink and leap all the while attempting to keep his son above the surface. He yells for Cheryl to do the same and each of them hold their children as high as they can into the ungodly night sky.
The waters current becomes strong as the wind whips. Jordan looks to his left where his wife and daughter were just minutes ago, but he no longer sees them. He calls for them, but only the sound of pounding rain responds. The water is much too deep at this point for Jordan to simply hold Jack above the surface. Jordan pleads with his son to hold onto his neck as tight as he can and he promises him that it will be okay as they struggle through the unknown searching for Cheryl, Jill, and safety. It continues to rain.
Days pass. Jordan, Cheryl, Jack, and Jill are all dead. Their lifeless bodies have been beaten by floating debris and broken against the rocks of the high ground that they weren’t able to reach in time. It continues to rain.
Some miles away Noah captains an ark that carries his family and seven pairs of every species of animal safely across the waters. God had given Noah the fore warning about the meteorological might that He would exercise. God had told Noah that the earth was so corrupt that He wanted to blot out all life except for Noah his family and a few animals. God said this was because Noah was a righteous man – the only one worth saving. He told Noah to build an ark and gave him instructions on how to do so. As Jordan and his family watched the great storm in amazement out the window of their humble home Noah was escorting giraffes, tigers, snakes, and all other species of animals along with his family onto the only rescue boat in the entire world. It continues to rain and Noah thinks that he is indeed a very blessed man.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
why the protestants have stopped protesting
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes the the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason."
"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."
-Martin Luther
Certainly the father of Protestantism, who was very much concerned about faith, knew full well that reason and faith could not coexist. As I have found this to be true, at least in some cases, I will continue to choose reason over faith.
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason."
"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."
-Martin Luther
Certainly the father of Protestantism, who was very much concerned about faith, knew full well that reason and faith could not coexist. As I have found this to be true, at least in some cases, I will continue to choose reason over faith.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
It's ok, slap your wife.
By Mohammed Jamjoom
CNN
CNN) -- Husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi judge said recently during a seminar on domestic violence, Saudi media reported Sunday.
It is OK to slap Saudi women who spend too much, a judge has told an audience.
Arab News, a Saudi English-language daily newspaper based in Riyadh, reported that Judge Hamad Al-Razine said that "if a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment."
Women in the audience immediately and loudly protested Al-Razine's statement, and were shocked to learn the remarks came from a judge, the newspaper reported.
Arab News reported that Al-Razine made his remark as he was attempting to explain why incidents of domestic violence had increased in Saudi Arabia. He said that women and men shared responsibility, but added that "nobody puts even a fraction of blame" on women, the newspaper said.
Al-Razine "also pointed out that women's indecent behavior and use of offensive words against their husbands were some of the reasons for domestic violence in the country," it added.
Domestic violence, which used to be a taboo subject in the conservative kingdom, has become a hot topic in recent years. Groups like the National Family Safety Program have campaigned to educate the public about the problem and help prevent domestic abuse.
Saudi women's rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider told CNN that Saudi women routinely face such attitudes.
"This is how men in Saudi Arabia see women," she said in a telephone interview from the Saudi city of Dahran. "It's not something they read in a book or learned from a friend. They've been raised to see women this way, that they're less than a person."
Al-Huwaider added that "I'm not surprised to see a judge or a religious man saying that - they've been raised in the same culture - a culture that tells them it's ok to raise your hand to a woman that this works."
Another Saudi judge, in the city of Onaiza, was the source of a separate recent controversy: he twice denied a request from the mother of an 8-year-old girl that the girl be granted a divorce from her 47-year-old husband.
Last month, after human-groups condemned the union, the girl was granted the divorce.
CNN
CNN) -- Husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi judge said recently during a seminar on domestic violence, Saudi media reported Sunday.
It is OK to slap Saudi women who spend too much, a judge has told an audience.
Arab News, a Saudi English-language daily newspaper based in Riyadh, reported that Judge Hamad Al-Razine said that "if a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment."
Women in the audience immediately and loudly protested Al-Razine's statement, and were shocked to learn the remarks came from a judge, the newspaper reported.
Arab News reported that Al-Razine made his remark as he was attempting to explain why incidents of domestic violence had increased in Saudi Arabia. He said that women and men shared responsibility, but added that "nobody puts even a fraction of blame" on women, the newspaper said.
Al-Razine "also pointed out that women's indecent behavior and use of offensive words against their husbands were some of the reasons for domestic violence in the country," it added.
Domestic violence, which used to be a taboo subject in the conservative kingdom, has become a hot topic in recent years. Groups like the National Family Safety Program have campaigned to educate the public about the problem and help prevent domestic abuse.
Saudi women's rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider told CNN that Saudi women routinely face such attitudes.
"This is how men in Saudi Arabia see women," she said in a telephone interview from the Saudi city of Dahran. "It's not something they read in a book or learned from a friend. They've been raised to see women this way, that they're less than a person."
Al-Huwaider added that "I'm not surprised to see a judge or a religious man saying that - they've been raised in the same culture - a culture that tells them it's ok to raise your hand to a woman that this works."
Another Saudi judge, in the city of Onaiza, was the source of a separate recent controversy: he twice denied a request from the mother of an 8-year-old girl that the girl be granted a divorce from her 47-year-old husband.
Last month, after human-groups condemned the union, the girl was granted the divorce.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
I'm not gay, I'm metrosexual. I'm not metrosexual, I am a man.
The term Metrosexual was coined by British journalist Mark Simpson in the early nineties and was reserved to describe single straight men who were concerned with their own appearance and would consequently be highly fashionable and cultured. Today the term has a looser meaning and is applied to straight men who exercise any type of effeminate behavior.
There have been many times in my life when I was mistaken as gay. Out of fear of being perceived as such I would emphasize that I was not gay, but metrosexual. Metrosexuality is that nice little subcategory for us effeminate, heterosexual men to find safety and still cleave to our manhood. It is our way of saying, "Look I am still totally a dude, not a gay fag." The problem is that we are simply trying to imply that we aren't unmanly like homosexual men are perceived to be, and that the world of "manly" men can still let us play in Guyland.
Just recently I was telling a woman co worker how I couldn't wait to go home and take a bubble bath and apply a facial mask. She said, "Isn't that kind of gay? What does your fiance think of that? You are very metrosexual huh?" I simply said, "Yeah, I guess." What I wanted to tell her, however, was that there is nothing unmanly about bubble baths or peel off facial masks that make you feel awesome. But since our social construct defines these things as unmanly I had to resign to my little subcategory: Metrosexuality.
The way that masculinity has been socially constructed requires men to seek utter power, dominance, or control. Because men have never allowed women to fully participate on a level that could threaten their power, dominance, or control it is not women, but other men that they must compete with for hierarchical position. In order to do this men will label other men as womanlike in order to take away manhood and consequently power, dominance, or control. This is exactly what I am doing when I emphasize that I am not gay- I'm just a little metrosexual.
Perhaps If our social structure was egalitarian then I wouldn't be worried about being a little bit "girly". I wouldn't even care if people thought I was gay. In an egalitarian society I could be a man because I AM A MAN and not because I am not "girly". In an egalitarian society there would not be metrosexuals because heterosexual men who enjoy fashion instead of football, wine over PBR, shoegaze rock versus Nickelback would not need to create a subcategory for themselves that says, "Ya but at least I'm not a queen."
There have been many times in my life when I was mistaken as gay. Out of fear of being perceived as such I would emphasize that I was not gay, but metrosexual. Metrosexuality is that nice little subcategory for us effeminate, heterosexual men to find safety and still cleave to our manhood. It is our way of saying, "Look I am still totally a dude, not a gay fag." The problem is that we are simply trying to imply that we aren't unmanly like homosexual men are perceived to be, and that the world of "manly" men can still let us play in Guyland.
Just recently I was telling a woman co worker how I couldn't wait to go home and take a bubble bath and apply a facial mask. She said, "Isn't that kind of gay? What does your fiance think of that? You are very metrosexual huh?" I simply said, "Yeah, I guess." What I wanted to tell her, however, was that there is nothing unmanly about bubble baths or peel off facial masks that make you feel awesome. But since our social construct defines these things as unmanly I had to resign to my little subcategory: Metrosexuality.
The way that masculinity has been socially constructed requires men to seek utter power, dominance, or control. Because men have never allowed women to fully participate on a level that could threaten their power, dominance, or control it is not women, but other men that they must compete with for hierarchical position. In order to do this men will label other men as womanlike in order to take away manhood and consequently power, dominance, or control. This is exactly what I am doing when I emphasize that I am not gay- I'm just a little metrosexual.
Perhaps If our social structure was egalitarian then I wouldn't be worried about being a little bit "girly". I wouldn't even care if people thought I was gay. In an egalitarian society I could be a man because I AM A MAN and not because I am not "girly". In an egalitarian society there would not be metrosexuals because heterosexual men who enjoy fashion instead of football, wine over PBR, shoegaze rock versus Nickelback would not need to create a subcategory for themselves that says, "Ya but at least I'm not a queen."
Feminism will make it possible, for the first time, for men to be free.
Michael Kimmel is a pioneering Sociologist exploring the gender of men and the history of masculinity. I highly recommend watching this lecture, especially if you are a man.
Monday, April 6, 2009
militant complimentarianism and sociology
From Mark Driscoll's blog on his Facebook profile.
March 29, 2009
"One of the tasks of New Calvinists is to winsomely, correctly, passionately, and effectively discover fresh ways to say old truths. Another task of New Calvinists is to follow in the example of faithful Bible preachers and teachers who have preceded us by handling the big issues of our day as they did in theirs.
This leads us to complementarianism. In our age of great gender confusion—from feminism to chauvinism—and homosexuality, the issue of God-designed, complementary gender roles is incredibly timely and vital for the well-being of God’s people.
Three Views on Gender Roles
There are three basic views prevailing today in the home and church:
* Egalitarian (Feministic): There is no innate distinction between the roles of men and women in the home or church. Women can be pastors and men can be stay-at-home dads so that their wives can pursue their careers.
* Complementarian (Moderate): Men and women are partners in every area of life and ministry together. Though equal, men and women have complementary and distinct gender roles so that men are to lovingly lead and head their homes like Jesus, and only men can be pastors in the church.
* Hierarchical (Chauvinistic): Women are not only commanded to follow male leadership, but are not given a voice with male leaders, as women are often chauvinistically kept under thumb as the polar opposite of egalitarian feminism.
An Undergirding Truth
The New Calvinists are committed to complementarianism in the home and church. In some ways, this is a very important undergirding fact that binds us together. Over a meal in Vancouver, B.C., some years ago, a friend and wonderful brother, Bruce Ware, who has worked tirelessly on this issue, commented that he believed that someone’s view of gender roles in fact reveals much of their theology, including their view of God, the Bible as God’s Word, and how the Bible is to be interpreted. His words were both insightful and helpful."
I belong to a church that is affiliated with Mars Hill in Seattle - a mega church founded by Mark Driscoll. I love the people I go to church with and consider them like family. They love me and allow me to be my little cynical self trusting I am pursuing Truth with the same fervor as them. Please note that my critique of Mark's view on gender roles has no bearing on anyone other than Mark.
That said, I first find it interesting how quickly he aligns his viewpoint of gender with that of God's - calling his so called complimentarian theology "God Designed". Easy for him to say because he is a man.
On his definition of Egalitarianism:
Mark jumps to point out the disregard for innate gender roles as though he means to say that gender roles are completely innate. Besides some biological differences the majority of scholars would disagree with comprehensive apriori gender roles. Social Science provides extensive research claiming that gender is a socially constructed thing. I am a man. I have a penis and testicles. But the way that I understand how to be a man in something that I have learned - it has been part of my socialization. Next Mark says that this wrong theology of men and women(Egalitarianism)means that if I felt led to stay home with the kids and my wife felt led to work I would not be a man nor a theologically correct Christian. It was similar theology that was once the leader in opposition to womens' rights stating that women could not vote nor seek education because their God ordained role was to be home while the man ran the show. We have, thankfully, repented of such idiocy, but not without resettling on new ways to keep women (even if they are better suited) from intruding on our homosocial man world. Also he aligns this view with feminism - the movement that fought for women to be able to vote and seek education among many other things. This comparison is a cheap way of using the term feminism. Not the first time Mark has used a term loosely and offensively.
Complimentarianism:
Not bad. Feels nice. He says men and women are equal. But no wait, then he says they actually aren't. Men get to do some jobs and women get to do other jobs. Those jobs compliment each other. But why can't a woman participate in what has been the exclusive world of men (business, politics, religion) while their husbands also work or take care of the house. What happens when man and wife have no children and both work AND the woman has a more prestigious job (socially speaking) than the man? Are they in sin, Mark?
Hierarchicalism:
Mark calls this chauvinistic. Mark needs a mirror.
Lastly...
"someone’s view of gender roles in fact reveals much of their theology, including their view of God, the Bible as God’s Word, and how the Bible is to be interpreted."
March 29, 2009
"One of the tasks of New Calvinists is to winsomely, correctly, passionately, and effectively discover fresh ways to say old truths. Another task of New Calvinists is to follow in the example of faithful Bible preachers and teachers who have preceded us by handling the big issues of our day as they did in theirs.
This leads us to complementarianism. In our age of great gender confusion—from feminism to chauvinism—and homosexuality, the issue of God-designed, complementary gender roles is incredibly timely and vital for the well-being of God’s people.
Three Views on Gender Roles
There are three basic views prevailing today in the home and church:
* Egalitarian (Feministic): There is no innate distinction between the roles of men and women in the home or church. Women can be pastors and men can be stay-at-home dads so that their wives can pursue their careers.
* Complementarian (Moderate): Men and women are partners in every area of life and ministry together. Though equal, men and women have complementary and distinct gender roles so that men are to lovingly lead and head their homes like Jesus, and only men can be pastors in the church.
* Hierarchical (Chauvinistic): Women are not only commanded to follow male leadership, but are not given a voice with male leaders, as women are often chauvinistically kept under thumb as the polar opposite of egalitarian feminism.
An Undergirding Truth
The New Calvinists are committed to complementarianism in the home and church. In some ways, this is a very important undergirding fact that binds us together. Over a meal in Vancouver, B.C., some years ago, a friend and wonderful brother, Bruce Ware, who has worked tirelessly on this issue, commented that he believed that someone’s view of gender roles in fact reveals much of their theology, including their view of God, the Bible as God’s Word, and how the Bible is to be interpreted. His words were both insightful and helpful."
I belong to a church that is affiliated with Mars Hill in Seattle - a mega church founded by Mark Driscoll. I love the people I go to church with and consider them like family. They love me and allow me to be my little cynical self trusting I am pursuing Truth with the same fervor as them. Please note that my critique of Mark's view on gender roles has no bearing on anyone other than Mark.
That said, I first find it interesting how quickly he aligns his viewpoint of gender with that of God's - calling his so called complimentarian theology "God Designed". Easy for him to say because he is a man.
On his definition of Egalitarianism:
Mark jumps to point out the disregard for innate gender roles as though he means to say that gender roles are completely innate. Besides some biological differences the majority of scholars would disagree with comprehensive apriori gender roles. Social Science provides extensive research claiming that gender is a socially constructed thing. I am a man. I have a penis and testicles. But the way that I understand how to be a man in something that I have learned - it has been part of my socialization. Next Mark says that this wrong theology of men and women(Egalitarianism)means that if I felt led to stay home with the kids and my wife felt led to work I would not be a man nor a theologically correct Christian. It was similar theology that was once the leader in opposition to womens' rights stating that women could not vote nor seek education because their God ordained role was to be home while the man ran the show. We have, thankfully, repented of such idiocy, but not without resettling on new ways to keep women (even if they are better suited) from intruding on our homosocial man world. Also he aligns this view with feminism - the movement that fought for women to be able to vote and seek education among many other things. This comparison is a cheap way of using the term feminism. Not the first time Mark has used a term loosely and offensively.
Complimentarianism:
Not bad. Feels nice. He says men and women are equal. But no wait, then he says they actually aren't. Men get to do some jobs and women get to do other jobs. Those jobs compliment each other. But why can't a woman participate in what has been the exclusive world of men (business, politics, religion) while their husbands also work or take care of the house. What happens when man and wife have no children and both work AND the woman has a more prestigious job (socially speaking) than the man? Are they in sin, Mark?
Hierarchicalism:
Mark calls this chauvinistic. Mark needs a mirror.
Lastly...
"someone’s view of gender roles in fact reveals much of their theology, including their view of God, the Bible as God’s Word, and how the Bible is to be interpreted."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
