Archive for the 'Women' Category
OK, so for the past couple of weeks, the outrage from the “pro-choice” left increased in decibels and shrillness in anticipation of a 30-second commercial to air in the Superbowl from Heisman Trophy-winner Tim Tebow and his mother, in support of life (when she was pregnant with Tim, as a missionary overseas, she was afflicted with a condition where the medical advice was to have an abortion – instead, she carried him to term). For example, Joy Behar on The View derided Pam Tebow’s decision, as Tim could just as easily turned out to be a “racist pedophile”.
And that was one of the nicer comments.
I have been critical of Focus on the Family in the past, and hearing that they were buying a Superbowl Spot made me cringe a little bit on the inside, just because of the ham-handed way they’ve handled political issues in the US in the past. In this case, though, I have to tip my hat to them. In the words of the Washington Post’s pro-choice sports columnist Sally Jenkins, to write last week:
Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion.
Indeed. FotF’s strategy of not releasing the video in advance now appears somewhat brilliant in its ripping the veneer off of much of the pro-abortion left, as their rage built with CBS over its’ willingness to air the ad. [Which is rather revealing that a group called the National Organization for Women went nuclear over CBS airing the Tebow ad, but had no similar outrage over the aired GoDaddy commercials, which - I would think - were far more offensive to women (and men).]
So, the game is over now [I really didn't want to see either team lose, though I was hoping for overtime instead of interception to end it], and the ad has aired. So, what was all the fuss over? Here you go…
Be prepared to be offended:
Really offensive, right? Brilliantly played, Focus. Brilliantly played, I say.
In watching this whole thing played out, it reminded me of how many times we (myself included) deride things, sight-unseen, simply because of the source or the anticipated message, only to be left with egg on our faces (and lots of “splainin’ to do” afterwards”.
I saw this post linked to by someone recently, and the guy who wrote it says that Christian men are big sissies. According to Mr. Daubenmire, we need man up and be more like Braveheart, John Wayne, and Clinton Eastwood. He puts it this way:
Needless to say, I am swimming upstream on this one. All day long they are taught in school to “act like Christians.” That is the problem, I tell them. Stop ACTING like a Christian and start BEING one.
But we don’t even know what that means. WWJL…What Was Jesus Like? I promise you this. He was all MAN. He confronted evil, challenged the status quo, upset some apple-carts, and spoke what was on His mind. He was the original “Braveheart.”
Come on now. Look around at the Christian role models our young men have to look up to. Most don’t even look like men. What is the word that pop culture has given us…metrosexuals…? Modern Christian men are the ultimate metrosexuals.
So, what say you? Are Christian men too metro? Too sensitive? Big weenies? More importantly, what does it actually mean to be a Christian man? How important is our masculinity as it relates to our identity in Christ? Of course, I have my opinion, but I’d be interested in hearing what others have to say (which probably makes me a sissy for asking, of course… )
Just a quick update to let you know that apparently Pastor/Teacher/Theologian Silva is not without a sense of humor. He posted this at SOL: Martin Luther Says No…To Women Pastors. (You can do your own work tracing it back to Apprising ?.)
I’m glad Pastor/Teacher/Theologian/Father/Rev/Prophet is not without a sense of irony. I wonder how he will explain to his board of directors his affiliation with a certain blogger who is anything but in compliance with Martin Luther after making that post.
[Before we go any further, the title of this article is a direct quote from Ingrid Schlueter here. Our aim is not to make light of this horrible crime committed against women, but rather to use a specific quote in context with its originator.]
“The online gang rape needs to stop.”
These words were written a little less than a month ago by Ms. Ingrid Schlueter of Slice of Laodicea (SoL – an acronym unfortunate, yet accurate for those under its malevolent eye), in response to an article written on another blog by a commenter (not a writer) on this site. The primary response to this was that it was rather over-the-top and hyperbolic, as the article she was complaining about was not offensive (and had somewhat of a mea culpa included in it), but the thread she interrupted with her outburst was critiquing a Christian blog which insinuated that the electrocution death of an Emerging Church pastor was an act of God in response to poor theology. Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels!
“The online gang rape needs to stop.”
Far more so today than that day, though, these words are rather accurate, though they are best, and most appropriately, aimed at their originator
Two Fourteen Wrongs Do Not Make a Right
In the past week and a half, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, has taken a good number of hits from the secular press for her answer to a question at the Miss USA pageant in which she defended the Christian stance, that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman. (As an interesting side-note, I saw about 5 minutes of this show – Ms. Prejean’s answer – while flipping through channels that evening. My instant, and accurate, thought was “well, she just lost the crown for an honest answer”.)
Later, it was also revealed that when she was a teenager, she posed for lingerie modeling shots while topless (from the back). So, it was also predictable that sins of the past cannot be forgiven in some corners of the church, and even if forgiven will never be forgotten, and will dog us to our dying days. Not because the world remembers them. No – because some in the church will never allow us to forget them. Just ask Amy Grant.
What was not so predictable was that Christians (albeit a few nasty, yet vocal, ones) would would choose to pile on top of Ms. California and – instead of praising her for sticking to her guns on a biblical answer – vilify her for even being a participant on the stage where she gave her answer. In fact, like a shrieking harpy dining on the misery of others, Ms. Schlueter has swooped in with no fewer than fourteen articles on the subject of Ms. Prejean and her immoral participation in this ‘carnival of flesh’.
“The online gang rape needs to stop.”
How true, how true. But when vultures are in search of meat (noting that it was also Ms. Schlueter who cackled last fall that Ted Haggard was a “gift that keeps on giving”) and receive back pats from the main stream media, you can be sure that their cadaverous mouths will keep spilling their putrescent schadenfruede across the ‘net. It seems that when women and/or sexuality are the topic at hand, the only difference between SoL and the National Enquirer is that the Enquirer has ethics it must adhere to – and if you are of the fairer sex and in the sights of SoL, you really are SOL.
Schlueter’s unhealthy obsession with Christians and sexuality is so well documented by her own poison pen, that one need look no further the SoL. Whether it’s Ted Haggard’s scandal, or Mark Driscoll daring to preach from the Song of Solomon (which IS one of the books of the Bible, last time I checked), or churches teaching about sex, or “painted girls of sodom” following in the footsteps of Miley Cyrus, or a beauty queen attacked by the world for her Christianity, you can expect that Ingrid will be there, licking her chops, waiting for an opportunity to pile on, even if she has to quietly retract statements later. But when is enough enough?
“The online gang rape needs to stop.”
Christians Fighting in the Press
If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?
Now, the literalist will tell us that this is only applicable to lawsuits between Christian brothers. However, Paul continues:
But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
The principle Paul is dealing with here is that Christians should not be using the systems of this world to duke it out in front of the world. In today’s society, where confidentiality laws, legal obscurity and closed courtrooms are actually more private than 2000 years ago, the press has come to the forefront as the public venue for duking it out. And so it is that Ingrid, swelling with pride from the mainstream notoriety she’s received for being a Christian willing to eat her own kind, seems oblivious to the mockery she has made of Christ and the sport she has provided in this modern coliseum.
Carrie Prejean’s teenage error, and her participation in a beauty contest are mere trifles in comparison to the trainwreck Ingrid has provided for the world (which desires to crush Prejean for standing up against the homosexual marriage juggernaut) to see and by which to be entertained.
This is exactly what the Apostle Paul was condemning the Corinthians for – and if we at CRN.Info were ever contacted by the MSM, I would hope we’d have the guts to consider the greater agenda of the world before we consented to being quoted. I will be quite happy if we never appear, or are quoted by, a secular publication.
But for Ingrid, the gravy train is coming home, and there are corpses to feed on.
Like a stopped watch that is correct only twice a day, Ingrid has given us a quote that is fully applicable and appropriate to this situation. If only she will listen to her own advice:
“The online gang rape needs to stop.”
NOTE: The following item recently passed my desk. I’d decided to pass on it, but I think it’s much more appropriate now:
Is there any appreciable difference between these two quotes?
quote 1 : I refuse to answer emails from those complaining that this material [that I put in my post] isn’t suitable for Christians.
quote 2 : If someone thinks [what I wrote] is an example of what I have decried, that person hasn’t understood what I am saying at all.
Don’t they both say, “if you think I’m wrong, that’s your problem”?
And if so, does that mean that John MacArthur is pregnant, too?
Well, that should be enough fire up this thread. Look, I think the problem is that Mark Driscoll’s church is called Mars Hill. That’s probably it. GBA. (Sex.)
Because Driscoll is causing harm, I and Cathy Mickels and Deborah Dombrowski and any other women who would like to join us, are speaking out. I am demanding a response from men like Dr. Erwin Lutzer who has refused to come out against this and who will be speaking with Driscoll at an upcoming conference. You can reach Dr. Lutzer through his assistant named Lori at Moody Church. The number is [removed] or [removed]. Here is a list of speakers who will be further legitimizing instead of rebuking Mr. Driscoll. [My edits & emphasis]
Ladies, ladies, ladies. You ‘demand‘ a response? Seriously. On what grounds? (Hint, you don’t have to go to the ‘conference’.) At what point has Dr Erwin Lutzer suggested that he is accountable to you? Demand?
I’m sorry, I’m choking on the word ‘demand.’ My goodness these ADM’s like to demand. Here’s a demand of my own: I demand that Ken Silva post his picture online for everyone to see and unless he does I will continue to believe he is a fictional character. Demand! Bwwaaahhahahahaha! Demand. (Sex!)
I’m also amused by this quote:
Mark Driscoll should be shunned by decent people everywhere. There are Mormons and certainly Muslims who have more of a sense of decency and propriety in sexual matters than he does. There is a filthiness about this man that evokes a strong desire for a disinfecting bath after watching him. This is not the spirit of Christ. It is the spirit of the age.
So now, as it was pointed out by someone wiser than I: “Anyone else find it hilarious that she looks to Mormons and Muslims to show us the proper way to go, and then says that its the “spirit of the age”.” (Sex) “Shunned”? What are we now, pilgrims? Are we living in Jamestown? Demand! I demand you ladies out there start wearing really long and thick dresses again; and stay quiet at church. (Sex.)
Yes, I do. Demand? (Sex)
**ALERT** With all due respect to the sexually uninformed: If you don’t like Mark Driscoll, and you don’t like the words he uses, here is a very simple exercise for you: Turn it off. Don’t click the link. Close your ears. Turn the channel. I mean, it’s not that difficult. Seriously. It is not that difficult. No one is forcing you to pay attention to Mark Driscoll. (Sex) **END ALERT**
And, concerning the last link, the letter from ‘Derek’, I have a question: Derek, if you think Driscoll is embarrassing the name of Christ because he talks about sex, do you think the author of SOL is doing any better for the name of Christ by continually tearing apart pastors over whom she has absolutely no authority whatsoever? Seriously, ‘Derek’, from the ‘Braidwood Bible Chapel’, can you show me where in the Bible it says that the author of Slice has a right to say what she is saying about pastors whose churches she does not belong to? Can you show me where she has a theological or moral obligation to make demands of anyone?? Did you read the rest of Ephesians 4-5 where it says we are to be kind to one another and forgiving, and compassionate? And what about that crazy part where it says we are to ‘get rid of all bitterness, rage, and anger, and brawling, and slander, and every form of malice.’ Do the Bibles at Braidwood Bible Chapel have those verses too? (Sex.)
Oooh, oooh, ‘Derek’, don’t forget that one that says this: “…walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant sacrifice to God.” Yes, brother ‘Derek’, those verses are in there too. Do you think that the author of Slice needs another letter from you today? (Sex.)
Time to grow up kids.
PS, I happen also to think that Driscoll’s sex sermons are pathetic and embarrassing. But I do the manly thing: I don’t listen to them.
Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. (Just want to make sure we get picked up by a whole mess of porn sites.)
Here’s a link to a series of 5 sermons hosted by Driscoll at Mars Hill featuring Dr DA Carson. I wonder if perhaps the author of Slice should demand Dr Carson no longer speak at Mars Hill in Seattle? Maybe we should start suspecting Dr Carson too…
***Just having a little fun.****
(sort of: see: He said: Love One Another)
cf., Luke 23:22-24
Over at Slice, Ingrid Schlueter opines about a pastor:
After looking at an increasingly androgynous Rob Bell in this video, I’d say Bell doesn’t seem limited to a gender either.
Now, I’m curious. Is that personal attack? Does that statement reflect the God that Mrs. Schlueter follows? Does statement reflect the God of the Bible? If this isn’t a personal attack, what is it? What’s the point of it?
In another recent thread we were asked for the proof that ADM’s attack? Well, how about these apples?
NEED SOME URGENT HELP FROM YOU PASTORS ABOUT GIRL AND PANTS
I have a problem that you can help me with. All I ask is that you write and let me know what you would say to the following situation. It might even sound humorous to you, but I can assure you that it is a serious matter.
There is a teenage girl in a church. The church teaches that pants are not the most appropriate and modest attire for women. The girl is from a very poor family (six people living in one room), but she was the first member of her family to come to Christ about three years ago.
She has been growing in the Lord and is faithful to church and prayer meetings. Recently she got a scholarship to a school that requires the female students to wear lose pants. Though someone from the church approached the school leaders and asked them to make an exception for her, they refused. Since the girl has decided to attend the school anyway, the church won’t allow her to teach Sunday School anymore because she will no longer meet the standards for workers.
But there is a prominent person in the church who is not content with this. He thinks she should be disciplined after the fashion of 1 Corinthians 5 and she should not be allowed to take the Lord’s Supper.
What do you think?
The more pastors I can hear from on this, the better.
This situation literally made me sick to my stomach and boiling angry. I commend Ingrid for her thoughts on this post. I find it so ironic that contemporary/post-modern churches are criticized for being focused on external and futile elements in church (lighting, projection systems, coffee bars, etc.). However, in my experience, it is the traditional churches that are obsessed with the externals in the congregation. I dare someone in a traditional church to take away the choir ropes — heck, change the choir robe colors — and see what happens. Have the pastor dress in his everyday clothes and see how many people leave. Change the color of the carpet and watch the people scatter like ants.
Last week Erwin MaManus was doing talk on diligence, and I knew that one of my non-believing neighbors would really connect with the subject. I went down and invited him to come, and he immediately said “I can’t afford it right now.” Puzzled at his response, I told him that it was free and that I didn’t want him to even think about giving money in the offering that day. He began to tell me how he had walked to a church when he was 16 the Sunday after his parents got a divorce. He was disparate for answers during that time. After a great service, he was walking out when the pastor stopped him at the door to greet him. The pastor said “We are so glad to have you as a guest, son.” He chuckled and then said, “How bout you dress up a bit next time for our Lord.” He came from a very poor family and all he had was jeans and t-shirts. He has been afraid to step into church since.
Now, everyone might not have that dramatic of an experience, but there is a disgusting religious spirit that is focused on the externals in many “traditional” churches.
P.S. I had a prayer session this morning, and the LORD convicted me about putting titles on my posts. I repent of my untitled ways and return to the straight and narrow.
With our children (2 boys and 2 girls), we’ve set up a few rules when it comes to fighting, which have worked pretty well (apart from siblings, but that’s another story for another day).
For the Boys
All you have to do is ask my boys “What is Rule #1 and Rule #2?”, and you will hear the following (which I don’t know who to credit , since it was ten-plus years ago when the rules were put in place):
Rule #1: Never, ever hit a girl.
Rule #2: If you ever think you really, really need to hit a girl, refer to Rule #1
(NOTE: To avoid incriminating anyone by name, I will just say that the rules came into being after a particularly embarrassing incident, at a Kindergarten/First Grade bus stop.)
Every girl they have dated has gotten to hear these two rules, usually in casual, light conversation, just so that they know what we expect of the boys, as well. While this is not the sum total of what we’ve taught them about respect for the opposite sex, because of the ever-increasing mixing of gender roles, we wanted this to be rather firmly established.
One of my sons, ever the looker-for-loopholes, asked “what if she’s hitting/kicking/scratching me?”
My response: If you deserve it, you’d best just take it. If you don’t, then I suspect you can run faster than she can. If she can run faster than you, then you probably shouldn’t have ticked her off in the first place…
Additionally, we’ve let the boys’ girlfriends know that our girls also have a rule (albeit a different one):
Rule for Girls
My girls also have a rule (which also has a similar #2, though for simplicity we pretty much treat it as a single rule):
Rule #1: One and done. (i.e. If a boy hits you, he’s done with you. Forever.)
Rule #2: Even if he’s sorry, refer to rule #1.
In this case, we’ve made it clear “You do have to forgive him, but that doesn’t eliminate the consequences of him never having the privilege of being in your inner-circle of friends again.” One of the nice things is that this has set up good conversation on the difference between forgiveness and earthly consequences.
While I have no illusions of perfection as a parent, I can say that this has been one of those bits of parental folklore that has been successful in the Lyons household. I can also say that bringing these up on a regular basis (particularly when they’re dating someone new or if we see a man striking a woman in a movie or on TV) has led to some very insightful and helpful family conversations.
This should not imply that my girls are allowed to indiscriminately use violence against folks. Rather, they have the same expectation (”you don’t use physical violence, except in self-defense”), but I don’t hold them to a higher standard of chivalry.
First, let me be open and honest with everyone. More recently, I have not read the ODM sites all that much. I really have decided that their constant negativity was just not worth worrying about. This afternoon, though, I decided to look at CRN, and, really I am just about flabbergasted. This has to be a new low.
It is one thing to attack pastors or authors. It is quite another to attack a pastor’s wife. Especially over some quite innocuous remarks she made at gathering where she was launching her book talking about the perils and pitfalls of serving in the church. Jane Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s wife, said the following about serving in the church in this article:
“The Church can be a thankless employer, with poor boundaries between private and public space, vague practices about holidays and days off, laughable job descriptions and few opportunities to congratulate oneself on a job well done and completed.”
Now anyone who has served in just about any capacity in a church of any size would immediately realize the veracity of this statement. Growing up in a pastor’s family, I would say Mrs. Williams is even being too polite. But this is what the “Editor” over at CRN has to say:
Well, we’re guessing Jesus might ask her, “Where are the nail prints in your hands?”
OK, let me be honest again here. I’m not a violent person, but if someone was this jerky when talking about my mother or wife, I would be seriously tempted to punch that person in the nose if I were in the same room as him. This is just uncalled for. It is pure, unadulterated self-righteousness.
The thing that makes the “Editor’s” self-righteousness so over the top is generally mild nature of Mrs. Williams’ statement, which can hardly be classified as whining. If anything, her statement is an effort on her part to get those considering becoming ministers to count the cost - something Jesus Himself admonished us to do. The fact that she is speaking to a gathering of Anglican leaders is also lost on the “editor”. This is the very thing that is needed in the Church – an open and honest discussion about life in the Church. What we don’t need is more people hiding behind self-righteous masks. It is sad that there are those who think the correct response to honesty is ridicule.