Sorry, really I've not been hiding underneath a rock... :) I've been thinking and reading and running around.
To me, voting is one of the things that I've been given in this time/place. It's something like the parable of the talents - I should use, to the best of my ability, all of what I'm given in this time and place for Truth and Good, as defined by God. My vote is one of the things I'm given, so I use it. Whether or not it takes is up to God, not to me. John Piper wrote an interesting article about that... realising that our citizenship is not here, and we shouldn't get worked up about the results of political races.
As for abortion and doing things to prevent that... yes, of course. That's a great example of how the body of Christ should be out there as a whole body. One part of the body working to prevent abortions from being needful (in fact my church supports an agency that helps unwed moms through keeping their children or adopting them out) and another part of the body sitting in front of abortion centers nursing their babies and/or praying peacefully. We are supposed to do BOTH things, not pick one or the other. What can we do that is good and lawful and shows our love?
In an ideal Church (spoken of as the Church as every believer, not Mennonites or Baptists or...) we would be out there living the life of faith *and* evangelizing. Putting our hands out to the folks around us in a helpful manner *and* standing up for what our Lord tells us is good and right. Some of us are good at one, some at another.
I didn't know that Mennonites did fireman sorts of work - to me that is wrapped up in police work.
I believe that police work is just part of living in this fallen world, and is part of the authority that God has given to kings and governments generally, to protect the people under their rule. So, performing those duties is just being part of that temporal "body" of the government. Would it be best if that wasn't needful? Yes. But do I want to live without my police? No. Should I shun work that is needful? I don't think that's right, really I don't. If it needs doing, we should do it, "as unto the Lord".
Does it matter if we "win" this election, or any of the things that are on the ballot that are near and dear to my heart? No, it doesn't. Not eternally. I know God has it under control. But it matters how I vote, what *I* do. Because what I do is not to this temporal world, it's to God. He put me here... I shall do my best to make this world a place where God is given the glory.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Just adding this
because somehow I missed this: "They don't do evangelism, they don't vote, they don't become firemen/policemen/soldiers, etc. Yes? "
Well, sure they become firemen and sure they do vote. The voting is relatively recent as democracies weren't around during the Reformation.
Traditionally, Mennonites did not vote. They did not become soldiers or policemen in the sense of carrying weapons because they would not kill anyone they considered their brother or sister. They were as okay with being firemen as they were with being doctors or nurses, because that saved lives, it didn't take life, life being one of those things in God's domain, not Caesar's.
There have always been Mennonites who evangelized on some level. They just weren't pushy about it, to the point of focusing so totally on the spirit that the body became neglected. The idea was that if the starving person is filled with food, and a roof is put over his house at some point that person, once his belly is filled, will ask, "Who are you and why are you helping me?"
At which point it would be appropriate to bring up Jesus, having already had your deeds bear witness that your words weren't empty.
Not saying that that's the way it is now. There are certainly pushy, annoying, evangelizing Mennonites whose deeds don't precede or follow their words. It's not about deeds saving you, but they point to your character. Jesus made mention of his deeds, not his words, when the disciples of John the Baptist came to him and said John had asked them to ask him whether he was the one, or whether they ought to wait for another messiah.
Jesus said, "Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. "
People believed Jesus was the Messiah not because he said he was, but because of what he did. That is the point of the traditional thinking of Mennonites, with the emphasis on deeds first, not that deeds save but that they are an outward manifestation of an inward belief. "By their works ye shall know them."
Layla
Well, sure they become firemen and sure they do vote. The voting is relatively recent as democracies weren't around during the Reformation.
Traditionally, Mennonites did not vote. They did not become soldiers or policemen in the sense of carrying weapons because they would not kill anyone they considered their brother or sister. They were as okay with being firemen as they were with being doctors or nurses, because that saved lives, it didn't take life, life being one of those things in God's domain, not Caesar's.
There have always been Mennonites who evangelized on some level. They just weren't pushy about it, to the point of focusing so totally on the spirit that the body became neglected. The idea was that if the starving person is filled with food, and a roof is put over his house at some point that person, once his belly is filled, will ask, "Who are you and why are you helping me?"
At which point it would be appropriate to bring up Jesus, having already had your deeds bear witness that your words weren't empty.
Not saying that that's the way it is now. There are certainly pushy, annoying, evangelizing Mennonites whose deeds don't precede or follow their words. It's not about deeds saving you, but they point to your character. Jesus made mention of his deeds, not his words, when the disciples of John the Baptist came to him and said John had asked them to ask him whether he was the one, or whether they ought to wait for another messiah.
Jesus said, "Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. "
People believed Jesus was the Messiah not because he said he was, but because of what he did. That is the point of the traditional thinking of Mennonites, with the emphasis on deeds first, not that deeds save but that they are an outward manifestation of an inward belief. "By their works ye shall know them."
Layla
Monday, October 20, 2008
To your first question, as to whether God is always in charge, yes, I do believe that.
To your next question, there isn't an answer, not because I am opposed to people doing the will of God, but rather that people who believe they are doing the will of God are no less sincere for all that it might be the wrong thing, and not necessarily the actual will of God.
Most people today, who have direct conversations with God on the level of Abraham's face-to-face encounter with the Almighty on Mount Sinai are in mental institutions, so the sense of being certain that one is doing the will of God in the world isn't enough of a standard of behaviour.
The closest thing we have to a guide to Christian behaviour in the world is in the Bible, both in the actions of Jesus and what he said. Politics was alive and well in the world in Jesus' time. The religious leaders of Jesus' time tried to trick Jesus into making political statements, into turning away from his basic message about God and Jesus responded with the familar "Render unto Caesar" phrase, which it seems to me, most people have misunderstood to mean that there is a way to serve both God and Caesar, and have intermingled the two.
There were slaves in Jesus' time too, as there were gays, the death penalty, and all the usual political hot buttons. Yet Jesus addressed none of that. When it came to the religious aspect of the death penalty, he addressed only the issue at the heart of it: "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone."
He did not say that they were not to stone the woman according to religious law. He basically called their attention to the problem at the heart of all judgment - the problem of who is sinless enough to sit in judgment of those who are sinners. And what is justice, if someone who is an equal sinner executes such judgment on another sinner? Is that justice when the executioner is as guilty as the prisoner?
If Christians participate in anti-abortion work, or anti-slavery work, it is the way and the mindset from which they approach those things that makes the difference. Not so long ago it was very shameful for an unmarried woman to give birth to a child out of wedlock and who were those people who made it so shameful that women would subject themselves to attempts to rid themselves of the fetus even when there was a risk to their own life?
That's the real question. The real question isn't about abortion, but about what it is that, Christians have done or are doing to make it unnecessary.
Christians are to be salt and light. James says, "do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?"
There are two kingdoms - the Kingdom of Heaven and the kingdoms of the earth, which Satan offered Jesus - worldly power over heavenly power. Christians today chose too often worldly power and want to impose Christianity and Christian ideals of right and wrong on everyone else. Jesus never did that.
He spoke to believers about what they ought to do in their own lives as believers, not about what they should be telling unbelievers to do. And their actions are the witness that has served to bring about modern notions of democracy, down to the idea that since in Christ we are not strangers but brothers, no Christian person can hold another person as his slave. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, in Christ Jesus.
So it isn't so much a straight answer. The Bible isn't a handbook in the sense that we can look up every situation or moral delimma and find a quick and clearly right solution. More often that not the answer is something along the lines of "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and having to decide whether you yourself are without sin enough to cast the first stone.
And yes, Mennonites do lots of missionary stuff, particularly the Mennonite Brethern which are evangelical. Traditionally Mennonites have believed that the Word was best spread by your actions to others which is how the Mennonite Central Commitee came to be. It does relief work all over the world.
I agree that we are God's hands on earth and that we are made to do things for him. But God's hands on earth have no national identity, no skin color or vote. God does not love the Iraqis less than you or me. So my position is that I help, without thought to where my country stands or doesn't stand politically because I do not identify with it in that way. If my country is at war with another country, my country's enemy soldier is not my enemy and I would not deny him a cup of water.
However, that is not to say that my country does not benefit if I serve at a soup kitchen, give a beggar a dollar, a moment to a child or visit someone in prison, or, like Jesus did, pay my taxes. I pray for my country. I pray for its leaders.
These things do not have the possibility of being contrary to anything God wants. This is the "treasure in Heaven" we are to store, the things that moths and time don't corrupt.
When Daniel and the other captives in Babylon were offered wine but requested water, they did not insist that everyone in Babylon ought to drink water. They obeyed God rather than man, even though they had no way of knowing whether that would mean their immediate execution as enemy captives. Why are so many Christians nowadays not content with drinking their metaphorical water but want to insist that the proper Christian thing to do is to vote in candidates who think that drinking only water should be the law of the land?
Not very free, if you ask me. Neither from the POV of democracy nor from the idea that Christ freely calls men to come to Him.
This article on an anabaptist site is really what answers your questions about me for me, better than I can do. It is the traditional Mennonite position vis a vis Christians and the nation but it is also my personal position.
We just had an election. I did not vote. The country in which I hold citizenship is not here.
Layla
To your next question, there isn't an answer, not because I am opposed to people doing the will of God, but rather that people who believe they are doing the will of God are no less sincere for all that it might be the wrong thing, and not necessarily the actual will of God.
Most people today, who have direct conversations with God on the level of Abraham's face-to-face encounter with the Almighty on Mount Sinai are in mental institutions, so the sense of being certain that one is doing the will of God in the world isn't enough of a standard of behaviour.
The closest thing we have to a guide to Christian behaviour in the world is in the Bible, both in the actions of Jesus and what he said. Politics was alive and well in the world in Jesus' time. The religious leaders of Jesus' time tried to trick Jesus into making political statements, into turning away from his basic message about God and Jesus responded with the familar "Render unto Caesar" phrase, which it seems to me, most people have misunderstood to mean that there is a way to serve both God and Caesar, and have intermingled the two.
There were slaves in Jesus' time too, as there were gays, the death penalty, and all the usual political hot buttons. Yet Jesus addressed none of that. When it came to the religious aspect of the death penalty, he addressed only the issue at the heart of it: "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone."
He did not say that they were not to stone the woman according to religious law. He basically called their attention to the problem at the heart of all judgment - the problem of who is sinless enough to sit in judgment of those who are sinners. And what is justice, if someone who is an equal sinner executes such judgment on another sinner? Is that justice when the executioner is as guilty as the prisoner?
If Christians participate in anti-abortion work, or anti-slavery work, it is the way and the mindset from which they approach those things that makes the difference. Not so long ago it was very shameful for an unmarried woman to give birth to a child out of wedlock and who were those people who made it so shameful that women would subject themselves to attempts to rid themselves of the fetus even when there was a risk to their own life?
That's the real question. The real question isn't about abortion, but about what it is that, Christians have done or are doing to make it unnecessary.
Christians are to be salt and light. James says, "do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?"
There are two kingdoms - the Kingdom of Heaven and the kingdoms of the earth, which Satan offered Jesus - worldly power over heavenly power. Christians today chose too often worldly power and want to impose Christianity and Christian ideals of right and wrong on everyone else. Jesus never did that.
He spoke to believers about what they ought to do in their own lives as believers, not about what they should be telling unbelievers to do. And their actions are the witness that has served to bring about modern notions of democracy, down to the idea that since in Christ we are not strangers but brothers, no Christian person can hold another person as his slave. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, in Christ Jesus.
So it isn't so much a straight answer. The Bible isn't a handbook in the sense that we can look up every situation or moral delimma and find a quick and clearly right solution. More often that not the answer is something along the lines of "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and having to decide whether you yourself are without sin enough to cast the first stone.
And yes, Mennonites do lots of missionary stuff, particularly the Mennonite Brethern which are evangelical. Traditionally Mennonites have believed that the Word was best spread by your actions to others which is how the Mennonite Central Commitee came to be. It does relief work all over the world.
I agree that we are God's hands on earth and that we are made to do things for him. But God's hands on earth have no national identity, no skin color or vote. God does not love the Iraqis less than you or me. So my position is that I help, without thought to where my country stands or doesn't stand politically because I do not identify with it in that way. If my country is at war with another country, my country's enemy soldier is not my enemy and I would not deny him a cup of water.
However, that is not to say that my country does not benefit if I serve at a soup kitchen, give a beggar a dollar, a moment to a child or visit someone in prison, or, like Jesus did, pay my taxes. I pray for my country. I pray for its leaders.
These things do not have the possibility of being contrary to anything God wants. This is the "treasure in Heaven" we are to store, the things that moths and time don't corrupt.
When Daniel and the other captives in Babylon were offered wine but requested water, they did not insist that everyone in Babylon ought to drink water. They obeyed God rather than man, even though they had no way of knowing whether that would mean their immediate execution as enemy captives. Why are so many Christians nowadays not content with drinking their metaphorical water but want to insist that the proper Christian thing to do is to vote in candidates who think that drinking only water should be the law of the land?
Not very free, if you ask me. Neither from the POV of democracy nor from the idea that Christ freely calls men to come to Him.
This article on an anabaptist site is really what answers your questions about me for me, better than I can do. It is the traditional Mennonite position vis a vis Christians and the nation but it is also my personal position.
We just had an election. I did not vote. The country in which I hold citizenship is not here.
Layla
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Should Christians take action?
I think we are in agreement that God's will is always done, and that He is in control of all circumstance, great or small. Yes?
Should, then, a Christian take action to pursue what they perceive as God's will in their lives, or in the community at large?
Should a Christian actively participate in anti-abortion work, anti-slavery work, anti-poverty work? Should a Christian become a missionary? A policeman, fireman, soldier?
As I understand it, Mennonites don't do missionary stuff (although actually there are Mennonite communities down here that do - I think?). They don't do evangelism, they don't vote, they don't become firemen/policemen/soldiers, etc. Yes? (I know that you don't hold all the Mennonite beliefs at this point - I am interested in yours more than theirs).
As far as I'm concerned, I pray hard that God's will be done. I pray hard that He show me what it is that He wants me to do. And then I go DO it. God's people are His body on this earth, His hands, His feet, His mouth. Made of clay we are.... and like clay we crumble and stumble and don't do a great job. But we are still made to do things.
And so, I vote. I sign petitions. I evangelize, in my own small way. I've fed the poor, visited those in prison... you get the picture. I don't do that to ensure my salvation, I do that to honor the One who saved me.
Will His will be done, no matter what? YES. But I want to be a part of the doing. I ache to be His servant, active in His business.
Let's dig into this, as it seems to be the core of much of our contention over the course of this discussion. :)
Should, then, a Christian take action to pursue what they perceive as God's will in their lives, or in the community at large?
Should a Christian actively participate in anti-abortion work, anti-slavery work, anti-poverty work? Should a Christian become a missionary? A policeman, fireman, soldier?
As I understand it, Mennonites don't do missionary stuff (although actually there are Mennonite communities down here that do - I think?). They don't do evangelism, they don't vote, they don't become firemen/policemen/soldiers, etc. Yes? (I know that you don't hold all the Mennonite beliefs at this point - I am interested in yours more than theirs).
As far as I'm concerned, I pray hard that God's will be done. I pray hard that He show me what it is that He wants me to do. And then I go DO it. God's people are His body on this earth, His hands, His feet, His mouth. Made of clay we are.... and like clay we crumble and stumble and don't do a great job. But we are still made to do things.
And so, I vote. I sign petitions. I evangelize, in my own small way. I've fed the poor, visited those in prison... you get the picture. I don't do that to ensure my salvation, I do that to honor the One who saved me.
Will His will be done, no matter what? YES. But I want to be a part of the doing. I ache to be His servant, active in His business.
Let's dig into this, as it seems to be the core of much of our contention over the course of this discussion. :)
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Got it
Yes, it is illuminating. Thank you. But I don't think he sees me as his sister in Christ. I think he thinks I am an unbeliever.
And your other point is well taken, that some Christians are trying to choose between two evils. Of course, that is why I stopped voting about three elections ago. I don't think it is good enough for a Christian to choose between the lesser of two evils, but that we serve Christ and him alone.
Interestingly, on - I believe 60 Minutes, a week or two ago - they interviewed the commander of the US forces in Iraq and asked him whom he was voting for. He said when he'd gotten to a certain level (I am not sure which level that was), he'd stopped voting altogether, as his job was not to take sides but to support whatever government was in power.
Pretty much my rational for why Christians ought not to vote. That Christian loyalty to the Supreme Commander ought to take precedence over earthly rulers, and I can't think of a single earthly ruler who is "worthy", if you want to call it that, of a Christian's vote. Much like the Roman soldier who told Jesus he believed he could heal at a distance just by his say-so, I thought this commander "got" it, even if he wasn't thinking in Christian terms but rather those of his duty to his earthly masters.
Layla
And your other point is well taken, that some Christians are trying to choose between two evils. Of course, that is why I stopped voting about three elections ago. I don't think it is good enough for a Christian to choose between the lesser of two evils, but that we serve Christ and him alone.
Interestingly, on - I believe 60 Minutes, a week or two ago - they interviewed the commander of the US forces in Iraq and asked him whom he was voting for. He said when he'd gotten to a certain level (I am not sure which level that was), he'd stopped voting altogether, as his job was not to take sides but to support whatever government was in power.
Pretty much my rational for why Christians ought not to vote. That Christian loyalty to the Supreme Commander ought to take precedence over earthly rulers, and I can't think of a single earthly ruler who is "worthy", if you want to call it that, of a Christian's vote. Much like the Roman soldier who told Jesus he believed he could heal at a distance just by his say-so, I thought this commander "got" it, even if he wasn't thinking in Christian terms but rather those of his duty to his earthly masters.
Layla
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Illumination
I think I can offer light to both of your posts... 1) I know where the "You're not letting people be blessed by helping you" thing came from, it's from a very popular Christian book out called "90 minutes in Heaven". Don't take offense. I've seen his flavor of person many a time, what he's trying to do is just inappropriate familiarity. He figures since he's your brother in Christ, he's qualified to support you and give you counsel, etc. Which is true, to a point... there is a reason we are called to fellowship. BUT I agree, he's over the line. Again, appropriate behavior in a friend or someone who was in your small fellowship group, or even in your church if you had a small enough church. It's not just among Christians that people try inappropriate familiarity to make friends or show that they are friendly people. (Culturally this would be I guess Texan or Southern? It's not really Californian, but I can see as a Canadian/Mennonite that it would freak you out totally).
As for the conservative Christians and Palin, they fall into two camps. One is the camp that is just so happy to see someone living SOME of the morals they say that they live by (and abortion is a huge huge deal here) that they'll ignore the whole "woman in power" thing, if in fact they have it on the radar at all. Mostly I think they don't have it on radar. (On radar-in their awareness field).
The other camp can be found in plentitude here: http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/
They give much the same arguments that you do.
I don't think it's as much logic as trying to sell yourself the lesser of two evils, for those who are Christians in politics. And of course we can't be so anti-PC as to say that women can't be in charge... nope. ;)
Insofar as I'm concerned, a woman is free to exercise temporal power over men, but not over her husband. I'm not about to obey some random man just because he's MALE. No thanks. My spiritual concerns with Palin would be more the ethical questions and uses of power that seem to be cropping up. (So she's good on abortion, but what about everything else?). And if she DID end up as President, what about her hubby? (I would be much happier if she was 20 years older, widowed, and didn't have the ethical questions - I think I'd be quite enthusiastic about her in that case).
It doesn't matter who I vote for for President, the electoral college system ensures that all the votes in Cali will be going to Obama anyway. (sigh)
Helpful?
As for the conservative Christians and Palin, they fall into two camps. One is the camp that is just so happy to see someone living SOME of the morals they say that they live by (and abortion is a huge huge deal here) that they'll ignore the whole "woman in power" thing, if in fact they have it on the radar at all. Mostly I think they don't have it on radar. (On radar-in their awareness field).
The other camp can be found in plentitude here: http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/
They give much the same arguments that you do.
I don't think it's as much logic as trying to sell yourself the lesser of two evils, for those who are Christians in politics. And of course we can't be so anti-PC as to say that women can't be in charge... nope. ;)
Insofar as I'm concerned, a woman is free to exercise temporal power over men, but not over her husband. I'm not about to obey some random man just because he's MALE. No thanks. My spiritual concerns with Palin would be more the ethical questions and uses of power that seem to be cropping up. (So she's good on abortion, but what about everything else?). And if she DID end up as President, what about her hubby? (I would be much happier if she was 20 years older, widowed, and didn't have the ethical questions - I think I'd be quite enthusiastic about her in that case).
It doesn't matter who I vote for for President, the electoral college system ensures that all the votes in Cali will be going to Obama anyway. (sigh)
Helpful?
Women in power
From previous conversations, not necessarily on this blog, I know that you believe that a wife ought to be submissive to her husband in accordance with the apostle Paul's words in Ephesians 5: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Or as in 1 Timothy 2: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression
I am not sure what exactly this submitting to the man means to you, but Mennonites also traditionally have believed in the submission of the female to the male. This mean that while, if the men were farmers or something like that, the woman certainly partook and helped wherever she could outside, but that her primary purpose was to raise the children, teach them about God, take care of the garden, and do all the canning and such necessary to survival.
So women worked, but stay-at-home moms' work is often not considered to be "real" work and in my opinion, usually wasn't considered "real" work by their Mennonite husbands. The men did the "real" work.
Growing up in the seventies, I recall listening to many discussions about women in the work force - meaning women working not on the family farm, but in an actual work place. It was heavily frowned upon from several perspectives. One being that the man was seen as not being a good provider for his family, that his wife "had" to work - laziness being almost a capital offence among Mennonites, and then the other being the verses I already referenced - that those women who had a career of sorts were placing themselves in a situation where they were equal to men.
I know this isn't only a Mennonite perspective, but that was the perspective of most Christian denominations at that time.
Which brings me to the current election in the US. Sarah Palin. Apparently admired by many right-wing Christian women, who seem to see no contradiction between in her conservative Christian views, and being a working woman in a position of authority over men.
The women who support her tend to like her because she is against abortion in any circumstances, even rape or incest, and seem to believe that she holds their conservative, small "c" Christian beliefs. And I would assume that one of the fundamental traditional small "c" conservative Christian beliefs would include the belief that the man is the head of the household.
So what's up with that? I don't get it. It's not okay for a woman to have the final say in a marriage but it is okay for a woman to potentially have the final say when it comes to governing a country?
What's the rational here?
I actually heard a Baptist pastor interviewed on CNN some time ago who seemed sincere, not out for the limelight, did not affiliate himself with either candidate and confuse God and Caesar who, in spite of opposing arguments by Christian women on the same show, stuck to the point, which is basically the point I made already. He believes it is clearly written in the Bible that a woman ought not to be in position of authority over a man. He did not mock Sarah Palin. He did not endorse Obama. He made it clear that his duty as a pastor was to remind people what the Bible said, no matter how politically incorrect it might be. And he clearly was of the opinion that in running as VP, or even as Governor, she was not behaving in accordance with traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible.
I was a little relieved that someone made that point since I don't understand how the right wing Christian element, can support her nomination by their own standards, given my understanding of traditional values.
To me it seems clear that either conservative Christians who believe in a wife submitting to her husband, and that the man is above the woman, because he was created first, are playing fast and loose with their own ideas of what constitutes Biblical literalism. In which case it hardly comes as a surprise that conservative Christians lose respect since they don't actually follow any thought through to it's conclusion and then stick by it, come what may.
*I* have no problem with women in politics. But I don't believe that the way in which submission has been interpreted by conservative Christians is correct either. So I'm not contradicting my own views, which they are.
The other point this Baptist pastor made was that while many fundamentalist Christians (this was at the beginning when McCain announced her as his nominee) were ecstatic over her nomination, that actually, Biblically, a woman in power is used as an example of God's disapproval of a nation, not his approval.
Isaiah 3:11: As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
How is this not an example of conservative Christians picking and choosing just how they will interpret the Bible?
If you are interested in a link to the transcript, I could try and look it up on CNN. They have transcripts of a lot of interviews.
So, if you can explain this to me.....
Layla
Or as in 1 Timothy 2: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression
I am not sure what exactly this submitting to the man means to you, but Mennonites also traditionally have believed in the submission of the female to the male. This mean that while, if the men were farmers or something like that, the woman certainly partook and helped wherever she could outside, but that her primary purpose was to raise the children, teach them about God, take care of the garden, and do all the canning and such necessary to survival.
So women worked, but stay-at-home moms' work is often not considered to be "real" work and in my opinion, usually wasn't considered "real" work by their Mennonite husbands. The men did the "real" work.
Growing up in the seventies, I recall listening to many discussions about women in the work force - meaning women working not on the family farm, but in an actual work place. It was heavily frowned upon from several perspectives. One being that the man was seen as not being a good provider for his family, that his wife "had" to work - laziness being almost a capital offence among Mennonites, and then the other being the verses I already referenced - that those women who had a career of sorts were placing themselves in a situation where they were equal to men.
I know this isn't only a Mennonite perspective, but that was the perspective of most Christian denominations at that time.
Which brings me to the current election in the US. Sarah Palin. Apparently admired by many right-wing Christian women, who seem to see no contradiction between in her conservative Christian views, and being a working woman in a position of authority over men.
The women who support her tend to like her because she is against abortion in any circumstances, even rape or incest, and seem to believe that she holds their conservative, small "c" Christian beliefs. And I would assume that one of the fundamental traditional small "c" conservative Christian beliefs would include the belief that the man is the head of the household.
So what's up with that? I don't get it. It's not okay for a woman to have the final say in a marriage but it is okay for a woman to potentially have the final say when it comes to governing a country?
What's the rational here?
I actually heard a Baptist pastor interviewed on CNN some time ago who seemed sincere, not out for the limelight, did not affiliate himself with either candidate and confuse God and Caesar who, in spite of opposing arguments by Christian women on the same show, stuck to the point, which is basically the point I made already. He believes it is clearly written in the Bible that a woman ought not to be in position of authority over a man. He did not mock Sarah Palin. He did not endorse Obama. He made it clear that his duty as a pastor was to remind people what the Bible said, no matter how politically incorrect it might be. And he clearly was of the opinion that in running as VP, or even as Governor, she was not behaving in accordance with traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible.
I was a little relieved that someone made that point since I don't understand how the right wing Christian element, can support her nomination by their own standards, given my understanding of traditional values.
To me it seems clear that either conservative Christians who believe in a wife submitting to her husband, and that the man is above the woman, because he was created first, are playing fast and loose with their own ideas of what constitutes Biblical literalism. In which case it hardly comes as a surprise that conservative Christians lose respect since they don't actually follow any thought through to it's conclusion and then stick by it, come what may.
*I* have no problem with women in politics. But I don't believe that the way in which submission has been interpreted by conservative Christians is correct either. So I'm not contradicting my own views, which they are.
The other point this Baptist pastor made was that while many fundamentalist Christians (this was at the beginning when McCain announced her as his nominee) were ecstatic over her nomination, that actually, Biblically, a woman in power is used as an example of God's disapproval of a nation, not his approval.
Isaiah 3:11: As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
How is this not an example of conservative Christians picking and choosing just how they will interpret the Bible?
If you are interested in a link to the transcript, I could try and look it up on CNN. They have transcripts of a lot of interviews.
So, if you can explain this to me.....
Layla
Monday, October 13, 2008
Well, I'm relieved that you find this odd too. I don't know if he is only targeting me or if he does this to everyone. I just can't see how he could stay in business long if he does it to everyone. So I think that part of how he is thinking, or was thinking originally, was that because I am of Mennonite background, that it would be acceptable. I just can't see that he would do this, in this way, straight off the bat, to someone who isn't identified with a religious ethnic group.
Again, I certainly don't find prayer offensive but like you said, it's usually your friends, people you actually know, who would tell you they are praying for you. I don't object to him praying. But I feel like I'm being pushed into a corner which makes me all the less inclined to say anything at all about my beliefs. I am pretty sure that nothing short of a grand Pentecostal display of emotion, complete with "Praise Jesuses" would satisfy him, that my soul is in the hands of the Lord.
I am not a hugger so I am certainly not someone who is ever going to do some sort of big emotional outburst in the presence of someone I don't know.
It would be easy enough to tell him to stop but the thing is, turning the tables, however gently, and giving him a Bible verse such as Matthew 6:6 in return, would still seem like I was somehow being snotty about it to a man who I think is basically well-meaning. If it came from a place of malice, I could say it. It's just not so easy when a person is basically decent and means well.
I've seen him 6 times, each time he has prayed for my back. I decided to let that go since there was nothing offensive or even overly pushy in his actual out loud prayers. But inwardly I figured that if he starts praying out loud that I will see the light, based on the assumption that I haven't, well, that is more than I think I can be quiet about. But I don't want to be rude either. I don't want to hurt his feelings.
Although his wife is of Mennonite ethnic background, apparently the family attends a Pentecostal type church, so I think that maybe his behaviour is considered more normal in that setting.
He also suggested to me the first time I saw him that my back trouble and the fact that there are a lot of things that I unfortunately depend on family members to do for me, that I "should" think about the fact that in wanting or trying to do everything on my own and not asking for help, that I am depriving family and friends of the blessings of the Lord, as in the whole "it is better to give than receive" thing.
I didn't say one word but what I thought was he's being a little unreasonable, since I *am* paying him and if he followed the thought through to its logical conclusion, he ought to be treating me for free, on the same grounds of it being better to give than receive. And it kind of hurt me, for him, that he didn't seem to realize what he was saying, if you know what I mean. Someone he is trying to "reach" who doesn't believe in God, would pick up on that right away and his witness would do more harm than good.
He is only a one minute drive from my house so I really don't want to change. It's far more convenient than having to, with my back, drive an hour to get the same treatment elsewhere where a practitioner might be a little more professional.
So anyway, I've been busy with getting ready for winter. Everything is moving in slow motion due to my back and there's so much to do here before winter which could hit any day. It's not unknown for us to have snow for Halloween.
Layla
Again, I certainly don't find prayer offensive but like you said, it's usually your friends, people you actually know, who would tell you they are praying for you. I don't object to him praying. But I feel like I'm being pushed into a corner which makes me all the less inclined to say anything at all about my beliefs. I am pretty sure that nothing short of a grand Pentecostal display of emotion, complete with "Praise Jesuses" would satisfy him, that my soul is in the hands of the Lord.
I am not a hugger so I am certainly not someone who is ever going to do some sort of big emotional outburst in the presence of someone I don't know.
It would be easy enough to tell him to stop but the thing is, turning the tables, however gently, and giving him a Bible verse such as Matthew 6:6 in return, would still seem like I was somehow being snotty about it to a man who I think is basically well-meaning. If it came from a place of malice, I could say it. It's just not so easy when a person is basically decent and means well.
I've seen him 6 times, each time he has prayed for my back. I decided to let that go since there was nothing offensive or even overly pushy in his actual out loud prayers. But inwardly I figured that if he starts praying out loud that I will see the light, based on the assumption that I haven't, well, that is more than I think I can be quiet about. But I don't want to be rude either. I don't want to hurt his feelings.
Although his wife is of Mennonite ethnic background, apparently the family attends a Pentecostal type church, so I think that maybe his behaviour is considered more normal in that setting.
He also suggested to me the first time I saw him that my back trouble and the fact that there are a lot of things that I unfortunately depend on family members to do for me, that I "should" think about the fact that in wanting or trying to do everything on my own and not asking for help, that I am depriving family and friends of the blessings of the Lord, as in the whole "it is better to give than receive" thing.
I didn't say one word but what I thought was he's being a little unreasonable, since I *am* paying him and if he followed the thought through to its logical conclusion, he ought to be treating me for free, on the same grounds of it being better to give than receive. And it kind of hurt me, for him, that he didn't seem to realize what he was saying, if you know what I mean. Someone he is trying to "reach" who doesn't believe in God, would pick up on that right away and his witness would do more harm than good.
He is only a one minute drive from my house so I really don't want to change. It's far more convenient than having to, with my back, drive an hour to get the same treatment elsewhere where a practitioner might be a little more professional.
So anyway, I've been busy with getting ready for winter. Everything is moving in slow motion due to my back and there's so much to do here before winter which could hit any day. It's not unknown for us to have snow for Halloween.
Layla
Sunday, October 12, 2008
I was wondering what happened to you!
Ettiquette varies I think, but he was over the line.
Then again, my back guy always wanted to think positive thoughts with his forehead pressed to a hand pressed to my forehead when he was finishing up. (I'm pretty sure he was wiccan or new-age, based on the red-string wrapped herb bundles in the corner). It might be a health-practioner thing to urge religion on you.
I would not find his behavior disturbing in someone who went to church with you - I have friends who like to do the praying on the phone thing. But they're my FRIENDS.
If he did that here he'd be out of business in less than a month.
What would I do in a situation like that? Probably tell him where I went to church and discuss it. He probably WAS trying to evangelize you, so if you're saved, he's going to knock it off. (Hopefully).
But you don't go to church. So he'd probably find that out and urge you to go to church at his church and bury you in fellowship verses.
I'd change practioners if possible (and if it's helping). No reason to be made uncomfortable. My wiccan rolfer didn't make me uncomfortable, I just ignored his mind meld business (at the time, now I'd ask him not to do it). If it's not possible to change practioners, I'd say, "I am saved, but my relationship with the Lord is an intensely private thing, and I would prefer not to discuss it during our sessions. Thank you."
So. Yep. He was a crazy one. You get 'em. They're just like big silly dogs, trying too hard. Try to take them with a grain of salt and recognize that God takes all kinds in His family. :)
Then again, my back guy always wanted to think positive thoughts with his forehead pressed to a hand pressed to my forehead when he was finishing up. (I'm pretty sure he was wiccan or new-age, based on the red-string wrapped herb bundles in the corner). It might be a health-practioner thing to urge religion on you.
I would not find his behavior disturbing in someone who went to church with you - I have friends who like to do the praying on the phone thing. But they're my FRIENDS.
If he did that here he'd be out of business in less than a month.
What would I do in a situation like that? Probably tell him where I went to church and discuss it. He probably WAS trying to evangelize you, so if you're saved, he's going to knock it off. (Hopefully).
But you don't go to church. So he'd probably find that out and urge you to go to church at his church and bury you in fellowship verses.
I'd change practioners if possible (and if it's helping). No reason to be made uncomfortable. My wiccan rolfer didn't make me uncomfortable, I just ignored his mind meld business (at the time, now I'd ask him not to do it). If it's not possible to change practioners, I'd say, "I am saved, but my relationship with the Lord is an intensely private thing, and I would prefer not to discuss it during our sessions. Thank you."
So. Yep. He was a crazy one. You get 'em. They're just like big silly dogs, trying too hard. Try to take them with a grain of salt and recognize that God takes all kinds in His family. :)
Christian witnessing etiquette
Okay, so I have a situation/question about evangelical-style talking about God to strangers in non-religious settings.
I don't want to go into exact details to avoid identifying the guilty, but as you know I have back problems. Recently I started a holistic type of treatment that I'd heard had some positive results for some people. After researching it on the Internet, it seemed like there might be something to it, and I looked for a business near me that might do this sort of stuff.
Lo and behold, there's a guy who does it very near me. I had never heard of him at all. So I called the number, left a message on the answering service and later that day, the guy called me back. I explained what my medical problems were exactly and he gave me an appointment.
Then he asks out of the blue if he can pray for me. Now this is not usual or normal, at least not here, not when you don't know someone at all, and not when you're not calling a pastor. This holistic stuff has nothing to do with any religion.
However, unfortunately, sometimes when people say "I'll pray for you" it has no more meaning than "How are you?" So, I decided, given the largely Mennonite area, that maybe he thought that it (he is not a Mennonite) was good for business to say things like "Can I pray for you." That attitude is certainly not an uncommon one among certain Mennonites. And since he knew my name, he knew I was ethnically Mennonite.
So I was taken aback, and thinking this is weird, but I say "sure" because really, he's put me in an awkward position with that question. What if I was an atheist? Even an atheist might say "yes" out of politeness, rather than feel themselves wrangled into a religious discussion.
I was thinking when he asked me if he could pray for me, that if he in fact prayed for me at all, that he would do it quietly, on his own time. Instead he started praying out loud right on the phone.
So my next thought, although there was nothing wrong with his prayer, it's just that this is so totally odd, is that he's a weirdo, maybe a serial killer. It's just so not normal to do that here. I have serious second thoughts about going to this appointment since it is odd also that I've never heard of him. I call around and find no one who has heard of him.
About 30 minutes before my appointment, I actually do find someone who does have an idea of who he is and he is married into a local family. So I keep the appointment, but I'm a bit nervous. I just do not, absolutely, one hundred percent not, discuss with complete strangers my religious beliefs.
It's a little like if you were to take your car into a garage to have work done, and the mechanic asks if he can pray for you. It's not expected. It's not a specifically religious situation and I do not know this guy from Adam.
Well, during the appointment, he again prays for my back out loud. It's not that I don't appreciate prayer but if he really wanted to pray for me, and be a witness or whatever you call it in church, why not pray quietly to yourself for me until you get to know me better?
I'm all tensed up because I have no idea where this prayer thing is going to lead - if he's going to start asking me if I'm born-again or what. This feels pushy and presumptuous.
On my third appointment, he asks if he can "give me" a Bible verse. I don't even know what that means to "give" me a Bible verse but I do get that he obviously has decided that I am not a Christian and he wants to evangelize me. With a frozen, constipated polite smile on my face, I say, "Of course not."
He then says, "Do you have a Bible?"
So you see where this is going. When I reply in the affirmative, I get a look that says he thinks I'm lying.
I do not like to feel pushed into disclosing personal beliefs before I am ready to do so. Anyway, "giving" me a Bible verse turns out to mean writing a Psalm verse down on my appointment card for me to look up in my non-existent Bible.
Now if I was the heathen he thinks I am apparently, then the Psalm itself would have no meaning. And if I am not the heathen or as Biblically illiterate as he thinks I am, then he's just insulted me. Because I do not get this "giving" of a Bible verse. I understand the theory behind it, in that some Christians think they are offering comfort, but again, I have a Bible. Several. I read it regularly. I know what comforts me and what doesn't. I don't need anyone to give me a Bible verse.
I resisted the temptation to tell him that he could give me a Bible verse if I could give him one.
What is the proper, Christian, not wanting to insult him etiquette, to gently tell him (I have come to believe he is sincere and well-meaning) to back off a little or to even express my belief that even if he sees his entire life as an opportunity to witness, going about it the way he's going about it with a lot of assumptions, is not really likely to gain him any converts.
I could for instance, shoot him with a Matthew 6:6 in exchange for his Psalm 89. But it all seems so childish.
Layla
I don't want to go into exact details to avoid identifying the guilty, but as you know I have back problems. Recently I started a holistic type of treatment that I'd heard had some positive results for some people. After researching it on the Internet, it seemed like there might be something to it, and I looked for a business near me that might do this sort of stuff.
Lo and behold, there's a guy who does it very near me. I had never heard of him at all. So I called the number, left a message on the answering service and later that day, the guy called me back. I explained what my medical problems were exactly and he gave me an appointment.
Then he asks out of the blue if he can pray for me. Now this is not usual or normal, at least not here, not when you don't know someone at all, and not when you're not calling a pastor. This holistic stuff has nothing to do with any religion.
However, unfortunately, sometimes when people say "I'll pray for you" it has no more meaning than "How are you?" So, I decided, given the largely Mennonite area, that maybe he thought that it (he is not a Mennonite) was good for business to say things like "Can I pray for you." That attitude is certainly not an uncommon one among certain Mennonites. And since he knew my name, he knew I was ethnically Mennonite.
So I was taken aback, and thinking this is weird, but I say "sure" because really, he's put me in an awkward position with that question. What if I was an atheist? Even an atheist might say "yes" out of politeness, rather than feel themselves wrangled into a religious discussion.
I was thinking when he asked me if he could pray for me, that if he in fact prayed for me at all, that he would do it quietly, on his own time. Instead he started praying out loud right on the phone.
So my next thought, although there was nothing wrong with his prayer, it's just that this is so totally odd, is that he's a weirdo, maybe a serial killer. It's just so not normal to do that here. I have serious second thoughts about going to this appointment since it is odd also that I've never heard of him. I call around and find no one who has heard of him.
About 30 minutes before my appointment, I actually do find someone who does have an idea of who he is and he is married into a local family. So I keep the appointment, but I'm a bit nervous. I just do not, absolutely, one hundred percent not, discuss with complete strangers my religious beliefs.
It's a little like if you were to take your car into a garage to have work done, and the mechanic asks if he can pray for you. It's not expected. It's not a specifically religious situation and I do not know this guy from Adam.
Well, during the appointment, he again prays for my back out loud. It's not that I don't appreciate prayer but if he really wanted to pray for me, and be a witness or whatever you call it in church, why not pray quietly to yourself for me until you get to know me better?
I'm all tensed up because I have no idea where this prayer thing is going to lead - if he's going to start asking me if I'm born-again or what. This feels pushy and presumptuous.
On my third appointment, he asks if he can "give me" a Bible verse. I don't even know what that means to "give" me a Bible verse but I do get that he obviously has decided that I am not a Christian and he wants to evangelize me. With a frozen, constipated polite smile on my face, I say, "Of course not."
He then says, "Do you have a Bible?"
So you see where this is going. When I reply in the affirmative, I get a look that says he thinks I'm lying.
I do not like to feel pushed into disclosing personal beliefs before I am ready to do so. Anyway, "giving" me a Bible verse turns out to mean writing a Psalm verse down on my appointment card for me to look up in my non-existent Bible.
Now if I was the heathen he thinks I am apparently, then the Psalm itself would have no meaning. And if I am not the heathen or as Biblically illiterate as he thinks I am, then he's just insulted me. Because I do not get this "giving" of a Bible verse. I understand the theory behind it, in that some Christians think they are offering comfort, but again, I have a Bible. Several. I read it regularly. I know what comforts me and what doesn't. I don't need anyone to give me a Bible verse.
I resisted the temptation to tell him that he could give me a Bible verse if I could give him one.
What is the proper, Christian, not wanting to insult him etiquette, to gently tell him (I have come to believe he is sincere and well-meaning) to back off a little or to even express my belief that even if he sees his entire life as an opportunity to witness, going about it the way he's going about it with a lot of assumptions, is not really likely to gain him any converts.
I could for instance, shoot him with a Matthew 6:6 in exchange for his Psalm 89. But it all seems so childish.
Layla
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)