Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Unordered thoughts on women's ministry.
I picked up the following book from our church library a couple of months ago- Women in the Church’s Ministry: A test-case for biblical hermeneutics by R.T. France. Never heard of France but apparently he is Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.
The book combines a series of lectures given by France that are primarily concerned with the debate amongst Evangelicals on the ordination of women and provides an exegesis and hermeneutic of 1 Corinthians 14:34-15 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15 that is in favour of female authority, particularly preaching, in the church.
The first reading slightly swayed me, but the second time round just confused me. I’m not convinced that women should be allowed to preach just yet, but I am convinced that hermeneutics certainly is a human and inexact science.
Why is it that, in 1 Timothy for example, we will hold so firmly to the command that women shall not teach, yet the other instructions i.e. men lifting hands up in prayer and women refraining from braiding their hair or wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes, do not seem so relevant to us? Also, how does this command square with 1 Corinthians 11:5 – And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head- it is just as though her head were shaved. Two things here:
1) Why isn’t the command to worship with our heads covered enforced?
2) This passage refers to women prophesying and does not condemn it. Is prophesying not a public act, exercised over a mixed congregation? Does it not involve teaching?
The exegesis of 1 Timothy further stresses the importance of recognising the situation of the church in Ephesus at the time of writing and that it was a unique one. Perhaps the command not to teach applies only to them. Here’s a quote from Gordon Fee: “It is hard to deny that this text prohibits women teaching men in the Ephesian church; but it is the unique text in the New Testament, and as we have seen, its reason for being is not to correct the rest of the New Testament, but to correct a very ad hoc problem in Ephesus.” Interesting.
France makes another interesting argument: Evangelicals have been consistently changing their minds and re-evaluating their biblical principles. Examples cited include the abolition of the slave trade (never condemned in the Bible yet an 18th century Christian might have been able to argue that the emancipation of slaves was a product of the secular liberal agenda which it was the duty of all faithful Christians to resist in the name of the biblical worldview), to the acceptance by the Jewish church that Gentiles have indeed been offered the gift of salvation, which at the time would have seemed an extremely liberal conclusion to arrive at and which might have been seen to fly in the face of Scripture. The point of this illustration: "...in the ongoing work of God it is sometimes permissible, indeed necessary, for his people to change their minds. What this example illustrates is also that when such a change of mind takes place, it is not necessarily a matter of abandoning the authoritative teaching of the bible in favour of a secular agenda, but more likely a matter of discovering that there is more in the Bible than we had realised, that those strands of biblical teaching and practice on which we have been accustomed to rely in relation to a given issue may not be the only aspects of biblical revelation which are relevant to it. We may be faced, as the Jerusalem Christians were faced, with the uncomfortable task of deciding which of apparently competing streams of biblical thought should take precedence in the new situation in which we find ourselves."
And here my conservatism shines. Seriously? If we took that approach, where would we draw the line? Anything could become permissible by that reasoning. I said the argument was interesting, not that it was good.
I do have one more thought, an example that relates to me. Our minister does not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over men in our church. But I think I may be able to come up with one example: my role as a member of our Parish Council. The Parish Council is an authoritative body, it makes executive decisions concerning all members of the Parish. Do I not, therefore, exercise authority over the men of our congregation? I really don’t see how you could explain away that one, Pete. Yes, I am a member of this council under your authority but if we follow the ‘plain meaning’ of 1 Timothy, my role contravenes your biblical position. Yet if you allow that to stand, how then can you disallow a woman to preach under your authority? What is the difference?
Looking forward to discussing this :p
The book combines a series of lectures given by France that are primarily concerned with the debate amongst Evangelicals on the ordination of women and provides an exegesis and hermeneutic of 1 Corinthians 14:34-15 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15 that is in favour of female authority, particularly preaching, in the church.
The first reading slightly swayed me, but the second time round just confused me. I’m not convinced that women should be allowed to preach just yet, but I am convinced that hermeneutics certainly is a human and inexact science.
Why is it that, in 1 Timothy for example, we will hold so firmly to the command that women shall not teach, yet the other instructions i.e. men lifting hands up in prayer and women refraining from braiding their hair or wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes, do not seem so relevant to us? Also, how does this command square with 1 Corinthians 11:5 – And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head- it is just as though her head were shaved. Two things here:
1) Why isn’t the command to worship with our heads covered enforced?
2) This passage refers to women prophesying and does not condemn it. Is prophesying not a public act, exercised over a mixed congregation? Does it not involve teaching?
The exegesis of 1 Timothy further stresses the importance of recognising the situation of the church in Ephesus at the time of writing and that it was a unique one. Perhaps the command not to teach applies only to them. Here’s a quote from Gordon Fee: “It is hard to deny that this text prohibits women teaching men in the Ephesian church; but it is the unique text in the New Testament, and as we have seen, its reason for being is not to correct the rest of the New Testament, but to correct a very ad hoc problem in Ephesus.” Interesting.
France makes another interesting argument: Evangelicals have been consistently changing their minds and re-evaluating their biblical principles. Examples cited include the abolition of the slave trade (never condemned in the Bible yet an 18th century Christian might have been able to argue that the emancipation of slaves was a product of the secular liberal agenda which it was the duty of all faithful Christians to resist in the name of the biblical worldview), to the acceptance by the Jewish church that Gentiles have indeed been offered the gift of salvation, which at the time would have seemed an extremely liberal conclusion to arrive at and which might have been seen to fly in the face of Scripture. The point of this illustration: "...in the ongoing work of God it is sometimes permissible, indeed necessary, for his people to change their minds. What this example illustrates is also that when such a change of mind takes place, it is not necessarily a matter of abandoning the authoritative teaching of the bible in favour of a secular agenda, but more likely a matter of discovering that there is more in the Bible than we had realised, that those strands of biblical teaching and practice on which we have been accustomed to rely in relation to a given issue may not be the only aspects of biblical revelation which are relevant to it. We may be faced, as the Jerusalem Christians were faced, with the uncomfortable task of deciding which of apparently competing streams of biblical thought should take precedence in the new situation in which we find ourselves."
And here my conservatism shines. Seriously? If we took that approach, where would we draw the line? Anything could become permissible by that reasoning. I said the argument was interesting, not that it was good.
I do have one more thought, an example that relates to me. Our minister does not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over men in our church. But I think I may be able to come up with one example: my role as a member of our Parish Council. The Parish Council is an authoritative body, it makes executive decisions concerning all members of the Parish. Do I not, therefore, exercise authority over the men of our congregation? I really don’t see how you could explain away that one, Pete. Yes, I am a member of this council under your authority but if we follow the ‘plain meaning’ of 1 Timothy, my role contravenes your biblical position. Yet if you allow that to stand, how then can you disallow a woman to preach under your authority? What is the difference?
Looking forward to discussing this :p
Monday, June 29, 2009
I'm going to blog a lot this week.
I seem to have a complex about being comfortable.
If life is easy, something is wrong. If I don't feel like I'm making a sacrifice, if I don't feel isolated from the world somehow, if the thought of poverty doesn't make me feel a strong sense of injustice then I've got to be missing the point. Nobody likes being thought of as different or just plain weird but everytime I feel misunderstood or persecuted (using the term very loosely), it seems that I'm on the right track.
Jesus said that if anyone should come after me, he must deny himself and take his cross up daily and follow me (Luke 9:23). I don't want to create a living hell for myself but if I ever find myself simply blending into the world... I shudder to think what I might have let go of in the process.
This life wasn't meant to be easy. But it's not meant to last either. Bring it on.
If life is easy, something is wrong. If I don't feel like I'm making a sacrifice, if I don't feel isolated from the world somehow, if the thought of poverty doesn't make me feel a strong sense of injustice then I've got to be missing the point. Nobody likes being thought of as different or just plain weird but everytime I feel misunderstood or persecuted (using the term very loosely), it seems that I'm on the right track.
Jesus said that if anyone should come after me, he must deny himself and take his cross up daily and follow me (Luke 9:23). I don't want to create a living hell for myself but if I ever find myself simply blending into the world... I shudder to think what I might have let go of in the process.
This life wasn't meant to be easy. But it's not meant to last either. Bring it on.
Don't accept the unacceptable.
I've just read an article in the Sunday Telegraph about young Indian children who are forced into devastating manual labour in remote limestone quarries. At these quarries, children as young as 6 are mining the 'trendy' Kota limestone which has been used to pave the entire King St Wharf entertainment precinct in Sydney.
The work is backbreaking, the heat is scorching and the payment is 50 Indian rupees per day, or $1.20AUD for an eleven hour day. Despite the fact that the caste system is officially outlawed in India, all of those who work in the mines are still observed as 'untouchables', or Dalits, which literally means crushed or broken to pieces. The children who work at these mines do not have a choice because they are supporting their families and helping to pay off debts incurred by their parents.
It's very hard work - sometimes I hurt my fingers with the tools. I wish I went to a school, but instead I am here.
We travelled from across India for this work. To you this might seem cruel. But when there is no work you will see the worst forms of cruelty.
I have never heard of Australia. When they pavers leave here, I don't know where they go.
It's hard, painful work. I'll go back to school later. But for now, I help my family by working here. I don't like it, but there is no choice.
I'm about to say something that may be controversial and harsh but honestly, when have I ever cared?
Suppose that photographs of young Indian, African and Asian children were different. Imagine that typical (how it pains me that I can even refer to poverty as 'typical') landscape of poverty - we've seen it so many times. Dirty. Dusty. Dilapidated. Skeletal. Imagine those children, the ones whose eyes silently cry out to us, pleading for help, for the recognition that their lives are worth something. Then imagine this: that the children you are seeing have porcelain skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Might society then see them as people? Might we then be moved to act? How does that image make you feel? Does it suddenly make a difference?
I'm trying to unclench my fists. Oh Lord, let me be a voice for those who have none.
The work is backbreaking, the heat is scorching and the payment is 50 Indian rupees per day, or $1.20AUD for an eleven hour day. Despite the fact that the caste system is officially outlawed in India, all of those who work in the mines are still observed as 'untouchables', or Dalits, which literally means crushed or broken to pieces. The children who work at these mines do not have a choice because they are supporting their families and helping to pay off debts incurred by their parents.
It's very hard work - sometimes I hurt my fingers with the tools. I wish I went to a school, but instead I am here.
We travelled from across India for this work. To you this might seem cruel. But when there is no work you will see the worst forms of cruelty.
I have never heard of Australia. When they pavers leave here, I don't know where they go.
It's hard, painful work. I'll go back to school later. But for now, I help my family by working here. I don't like it, but there is no choice.
I'm about to say something that may be controversial and harsh but honestly, when have I ever cared?
Suppose that photographs of young Indian, African and Asian children were different. Imagine that typical (how it pains me that I can even refer to poverty as 'typical') landscape of poverty - we've seen it so many times. Dirty. Dusty. Dilapidated. Skeletal. Imagine those children, the ones whose eyes silently cry out to us, pleading for help, for the recognition that their lives are worth something. Then imagine this: that the children you are seeing have porcelain skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Might society then see them as people? Might we then be moved to act? How does that image make you feel? Does it suddenly make a difference?
I'm trying to unclench my fists. Oh Lord, let me be a voice for those who have none.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
For Sue.
This isn't very well thought out but I had a conversation tonight that included the topic of Fairtrade and I feel like sharing.
Basically, here are two reasons to support Fairtrade from Sian, our night church minister's wife:
1. Eating lots and lots of cheap chocolate is bad for you.
2. Stewardship! I really like this. Sian says that we are a society that just consumes and consumes and we rarely, if ever, consider where our products come from or the circumstances in which they were made. Supporting Fairtrade encourages us to think deeper about where our products come from and the effect that the production process has on the environment. It may only be a small step, but it's a start.
Also, there are some Fairtrade companies that really are passionate about giving farmers/producers a fair price such as Tribes and Nations, headed up by the Murrays, or the lovely South African lady at the Open Hand cafe in India who stocks naught but Fairtrade goods. I would rather buy products from them any day.
And also, the trickle down effect is rubbish. I remember vaguely case studies from Development Studies that examined the idea that all levels of society would benefit if the economy was given over to an entirely free market. Doesn't work. Economics takes no notice of people but simply operates on the principle of supply/demand. If you're poor, you're screwed and even more so in a free market because there are absolutely no guarantees that you will get a thing. So regulation might upset the market and throw things off balance, as you were explaining Sue, but I believe it's necessary. Because unfortunately, greedy and sinful human beings screwed up first and there needs to be intervention to provide for those who haven't a hope of providing for themselves.
So yeah, there's my rant based on minimal reading and discussion. Still supporting Fairtrade, but welcome to opposing views, as always.
Basically, here are two reasons to support Fairtrade from Sian, our night church minister's wife:
1. Eating lots and lots of cheap chocolate is bad for you.
2. Stewardship! I really like this. Sian says that we are a society that just consumes and consumes and we rarely, if ever, consider where our products come from or the circumstances in which they were made. Supporting Fairtrade encourages us to think deeper about where our products come from and the effect that the production process has on the environment. It may only be a small step, but it's a start.
Also, there are some Fairtrade companies that really are passionate about giving farmers/producers a fair price such as Tribes and Nations, headed up by the Murrays, or the lovely South African lady at the Open Hand cafe in India who stocks naught but Fairtrade goods. I would rather buy products from them any day.
And also, the trickle down effect is rubbish. I remember vaguely case studies from Development Studies that examined the idea that all levels of society would benefit if the economy was given over to an entirely free market. Doesn't work. Economics takes no notice of people but simply operates on the principle of supply/demand. If you're poor, you're screwed and even more so in a free market because there are absolutely no guarantees that you will get a thing. So regulation might upset the market and throw things off balance, as you were explaining Sue, but I believe it's necessary. Because unfortunately, greedy and sinful human beings screwed up first and there needs to be intervention to provide for those who haven't a hope of providing for themselves.
So yeah, there's my rant based on minimal reading and discussion. Still supporting Fairtrade, but welcome to opposing views, as always.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Stating the obvious.
It's really cold.
I'm wondering if, closer to MYC, I should:
a) Take longer, hotter showers because I will be so deprived of them
or
b) Take shorter, progressively cooler showers in order to prepare myself
And another thing, I'm going to do my best not to have the typical name/faculty/year conversation with every person I meet.
I figure if I ask something interesting like:
a) If you had a time machine and could go anywhere, where would you go?
or
b) What colour is your toothbrush?
I'll have a much better chance of remembering people. Well I'm sure they'll remember me, at the very least.
Oh and FYI, I actually do intend to still inquire after a name.
MYC is somewhat less exciting when you approach it in the knowledge that you won't be back for the following semester. Only slightly less! I still heart MYC very much. But, well, come on. I won't exactly be in line for a hoodie. Unless mission is extended to whatever random company I end up working for...
*tear*
(As in crying, not ripping. Felt I needed to clarify)
I'm wondering if, closer to MYC, I should:
a) Take longer, hotter showers because I will be so deprived of them
or
b) Take shorter, progressively cooler showers in order to prepare myself
And another thing, I'm going to do my best not to have the typical name/faculty/year conversation with every person I meet.
I figure if I ask something interesting like:
a) If you had a time machine and could go anywhere, where would you go?
or
b) What colour is your toothbrush?
I'll have a much better chance of remembering people. Well I'm sure they'll remember me, at the very least.
Oh and FYI, I actually do intend to still inquire after a name.
MYC is somewhat less exciting when you approach it in the knowledge that you won't be back for the following semester. Only slightly less! I still heart MYC very much. But, well, come on. I won't exactly be in line for a hoodie. Unless mission is extended to whatever random company I end up working for...
*tear*
(As in crying, not ripping. Felt I needed to clarify)
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
I sound like Obama with all this talk of change.
Thank goodness we are on a break because I'm struggling to put any effort into anything that isn't ministry.
On Monday night over 50 people gathered at our little church in Bossley Park and every single person was a young ministry leader from the South-West of Sydney. I still can't quite believe it happened. Only God could have pulled us all together and he certainly pulled me through it because I was having kittens over every little detail. For years I have heard from Peter Lin that something needs to change in the South-West, that we need to start smashing the idea that ministry cannot survive here, that we are not strategic enough. Not to mention the fact that nobody wants to live here if they can help it, Christians included.
WELL SCREW THAT.
Hello? God is sovereign. He is in control. He is watching over His people. So why shy away from an area, as though it could be impossible for God to use you and see His saving work done? How could those before me have had so little faith? Enough. God is moving, wherever you are in Sydney, but I'm going to say that the most exciting place to be in right now is the South-West.
Finally people are starting to share this vision and I thank God for Pete. He convicted every person in the room, made the needs of the South-West more real than ever before and we're getting a response. I am full of anticipation but am laying it all at His feet. If God chooses to use this movement, He will. If this is not the means then something else will reveal itself.
No matter what, I am desperate to see God glorified here, to make the most of the opportunities he has placed before us and they are boundless. If this one generation stuck it out so much could happen, so much could change.
Who are you calling unstrategic?
On Monday night over 50 people gathered at our little church in Bossley Park and every single person was a young ministry leader from the South-West of Sydney. I still can't quite believe it happened. Only God could have pulled us all together and he certainly pulled me through it because I was having kittens over every little detail. For years I have heard from Peter Lin that something needs to change in the South-West, that we need to start smashing the idea that ministry cannot survive here, that we are not strategic enough. Not to mention the fact that nobody wants to live here if they can help it, Christians included.
WELL SCREW THAT.
Hello? God is sovereign. He is in control. He is watching over His people. So why shy away from an area, as though it could be impossible for God to use you and see His saving work done? How could those before me have had so little faith? Enough. God is moving, wherever you are in Sydney, but I'm going to say that the most exciting place to be in right now is the South-West.
Finally people are starting to share this vision and I thank God for Pete. He convicted every person in the room, made the needs of the South-West more real than ever before and we're getting a response. I am full of anticipation but am laying it all at His feet. If God chooses to use this movement, He will. If this is not the means then something else will reveal itself.
No matter what, I am desperate to see God glorified here, to make the most of the opportunities he has placed before us and they are boundless. If this one generation stuck it out so much could happen, so much could change.
Who are you calling unstrategic?
Friday, June 19, 2009
It was easier to recall in a poem.
I can’t remember.
Not as well as I’d like to.
How to hold on to those moments?
The ones that left me determined to change
but are fading.
So easily.
He followed me
for the longest time.
“Henna, henna. Will you buy?”
He wasn’t the first.
I made the mistake
of acknowledging his presence.
He guided us
I questioned him.
School. Family. Struggle.
100 rupees –
A mere band-aid.
I could turn my back
on a beggar.
It became necessary.
But he haunts me
How could I have denied Him?
He barely spoke. Hand outstretched.
My memory tells me
I looked right past.
I looked again
He was appealing to his own.
Immediate regret, hesitation.
Decision reversed.
I looked again
He was gone.
14 days
She was a permanent fixture.
Her home
outside our home.
Everything she had
in a little silver bowl.
Winter had claimed Varanasi
The comfort of a blanket
seemed best.
But –
The night took it.
Here I am:
Comfortable.
Not as well as I’d like to.
How to hold on to those moments?
The ones that left me determined to change
but are fading.
So easily.
He followed me
for the longest time.
“Henna, henna. Will you buy?”
He wasn’t the first.
I made the mistake
of acknowledging his presence.
He guided us
I questioned him.
School. Family. Struggle.
100 rupees –
A mere band-aid.
I could turn my back
on a beggar.
It became necessary.
But he haunts me
How could I have denied Him?
He barely spoke. Hand outstretched.
My memory tells me
I looked right past.
I looked again
He was appealing to his own.
Immediate regret, hesitation.
Decision reversed.
I looked again
He was gone.
14 days
She was a permanent fixture.
Her home
outside our home.
Everything she had
in a little silver bowl.
Winter had claimed Varanasi
The comfort of a blanket
seemed best.
But –
The night took it.
Here I am:
Comfortable.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Encouraged to discouraged in about 60 seconds.
The sign was on the money but the pamphlets being handed out warned against a recent piece of technology called the VeriChip which could possibly be the "mark of the Beast" and insinuated that Obama may turn out to be the Antichrist: "He will be made known when he makes a seven year peace agreement with Israel and establishes peace", among other things. It started out comparable to Two Ways to Live but just went downhill with the literal explanation of Revelation.
The man who handed me the pamphlet looked so determined. I could see that he knew how important the saving message of Jesus was, indeed he'd been standing on a footpath in Paddington all day trying to reach people with it. Mum and I told him we were already Christians and he was genuinely pleased to hear it. But did he really believe all of what this pamphlet was telling him? So much of God's Word was tainted, close to the truth yet so far from it.
Close to the truth isn't good enough. If I learnt anything from Phillip Jensen's talks on Spiritual Warfare last Monday, it's that the best lies are those that sound most like the truth. My heart just breaks for that man. If he truly trusts in Jesus then I suppose it's no big deal if he boycotts VeriChip, but he has such poor teaching! Argh! Lies!
Prophecy in the news, people!
Sorry for the excessive exclamations.
Oh and if you wanted anymore proof that you need to take anything Joyce Myer says with about a ton of salt, her website features on the back of this pamphlet in conjunction with Benny Hinn's. I hear her name around sometimes, even amongst good Sydney Anglicans, but I haven't openly slammed her to anyone (who isn't in my bible study). I haven't read any of her books or heard any of her talks but I'm thinking this confirms her as dodgy in my books.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Reality check.
Firstly, cheers for smashing me over my last post.
Secondly, every Christian female (although indeed probably the general female population at large), should read this article. It is by Beth Spraul from Capitol Hill Baptist Church and is titled You've Got Lies: Chick Flicks and the World's Approach to Men and Marriage. It addresses the seemingly innocent but actually quite damaging influence that chick-flicks and chick-lit have over women's expectations of love. That is, they're ridiculously unrealistic.
I’d like to suggest that culture attacks women similarly — it is just a bit more subtle. The lies told to women are introduced at the level of women’s emotions (less harmful, right?), in how they dream about men, and in what they long for relationally. Like pornography, chick-flicks take a good gift from God (romance, relational intimacy) that women are created to desire, and distort it by presenting as “normal” an unbiblical and unrealistic picture of men, love and marriage. And just like men who buy into the lies of pornography, women who believe that their husbands and marriages should always be like what they see on the screen will be sinfully dissatisfied with God’s good gift to them of a “normal” husband and marriage.
Obviously, the analogy is not perfect. Unlike pornography, it is possible to engage in watching "chick flicks" and have it be a sin-free activity. With pornography, the very act of viewing it is always harmful and always a sin. However, before you assume you are able to watch chick-flicks and read romance novels without harmful effects to your expectations for men and marriage, consider the following lies often propogated by these movies, and think about them in comparison to what Scripture teaches.
You mean men don't think of romance and intimacy the way we do? Marrying the right guy won't see me live happily ever after? Chemistry isn't that important and my intuition isn't always right? Far out man this was a good read but it certainly wasn't any fun.
Poor men. Between Mr. Darcy and Edward Cullen, the real guy has got no hope. I will do my best to bring my own lofty expectations back down to earth and in line with Scripture...
Secondly, every Christian female (although indeed probably the general female population at large), should read this article. It is by Beth Spraul from Capitol Hill Baptist Church and is titled You've Got Lies: Chick Flicks and the World's Approach to Men and Marriage. It addresses the seemingly innocent but actually quite damaging influence that chick-flicks and chick-lit have over women's expectations of love. That is, they're ridiculously unrealistic.
I’d like to suggest that culture attacks women similarly — it is just a bit more subtle. The lies told to women are introduced at the level of women’s emotions (less harmful, right?), in how they dream about men, and in what they long for relationally. Like pornography, chick-flicks take a good gift from God (romance, relational intimacy) that women are created to desire, and distort it by presenting as “normal” an unbiblical and unrealistic picture of men, love and marriage. And just like men who buy into the lies of pornography, women who believe that their husbands and marriages should always be like what they see on the screen will be sinfully dissatisfied with God’s good gift to them of a “normal” husband and marriage.
Obviously, the analogy is not perfect. Unlike pornography, it is possible to engage in watching "chick flicks" and have it be a sin-free activity. With pornography, the very act of viewing it is always harmful and always a sin. However, before you assume you are able to watch chick-flicks and read romance novels without harmful effects to your expectations for men and marriage, consider the following lies often propogated by these movies, and think about them in comparison to what Scripture teaches.
You mean men don't think of romance and intimacy the way we do? Marrying the right guy won't see me live happily ever after? Chemistry isn't that important and my intuition isn't always right? Far out man this was a good read but it certainly wasn't any fun.
Poor men. Between Mr. Darcy and Edward Cullen, the real guy has got no hope. I will do my best to bring my own lofty expectations back down to earth and in line with Scripture...
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
A quiet and gentle spirit.
What does this look like? How do I pursue it? It seems I'm not the only one who is experiencing difficulty in trying to figure out how to be assertive on the one hand, yet submissive and gentle on the other.
Sometimes I think that I need to just sit in a corner and shut up. That I should silently concentrate on hiding the Word in my heart, looking up only to smile sweetly from time to time. Ok meditating on God's Word is a constant, but anybody who truly knows me would never describe me as quiet and I'm not sure whether gentle is the first thing that would pop into their head either. I'm too driven, too quick to assume leadership, too ready to offer an opinion.
Perhaps this will help. John Piper's talk on the Ultimate Meaning of Womanhood warns us not to settle for wimpy theology leading to wimpy women.
It is not wimpy to say that God created the universe and governs all things to magnify his own grace in the death of his Son for the salvation of his bride... The ultimate meaning of true womanhood is this: It is a distinctive calling of God to display the glory of his Son in ways that would not be displayed if there were no womanhood.
Therefore, sitting quietly in a corner sounds like a terrible waste. Piper gives examples of assertive women and makes clear that the opposite of wimpy is not a brash, pushy, loud, controlling, sassy, uppity, arrogant Amazon. Oh-kay.
But still nothing of what gentleness looks like practically. Do you know what I think of when I think of gentleness? I think of Snow White singing to little birds perched on her finger and of Kleenex tissues. Women today are not keen on gentleness. It's all about empowerment, independence, flaunting sexuality. Gentleness seems on a par with weakness.
It's not as though gentleness and assertiveness are mutually exclusive. Just because a woman is confident in the promises of God and passionate about them, does not make her loud and pushy. It follows that a woman who is trusting in God and living by his Word, will fully understand her role as a woman and exercise it willingly. That's reassuring.
But why is the idea of gentleness so lost on me?
Sometimes I think that I need to just sit in a corner and shut up. That I should silently concentrate on hiding the Word in my heart, looking up only to smile sweetly from time to time. Ok meditating on God's Word is a constant, but anybody who truly knows me would never describe me as quiet and I'm not sure whether gentle is the first thing that would pop into their head either. I'm too driven, too quick to assume leadership, too ready to offer an opinion.
Perhaps this will help. John Piper's talk on the Ultimate Meaning of Womanhood warns us not to settle for wimpy theology leading to wimpy women.
It is not wimpy to say that God created the universe and governs all things to magnify his own grace in the death of his Son for the salvation of his bride... The ultimate meaning of true womanhood is this: It is a distinctive calling of God to display the glory of his Son in ways that would not be displayed if there were no womanhood.
Therefore, sitting quietly in a corner sounds like a terrible waste. Piper gives examples of assertive women and makes clear that the opposite of wimpy is not a brash, pushy, loud, controlling, sassy, uppity, arrogant Amazon. Oh-kay.
But still nothing of what gentleness looks like practically. Do you know what I think of when I think of gentleness? I think of Snow White singing to little birds perched on her finger and of Kleenex tissues. Women today are not keen on gentleness. It's all about empowerment, independence, flaunting sexuality. Gentleness seems on a par with weakness.
It's not as though gentleness and assertiveness are mutually exclusive. Just because a woman is confident in the promises of God and passionate about them, does not make her loud and pushy. It follows that a woman who is trusting in God and living by his Word, will fully understand her role as a woman and exercise it willingly. That's reassuring.
But why is the idea of gentleness so lost on me?
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
I am.
Slightly overwhelmed. This is not exactly what I was planning. Far too many people. But there's no room for doubt. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.
Adamant. Ministry is my boyfriend. He is quite the jealous type. Singleness is a flipping gift. Use it. Yes, I just said that.
Liberated. Have you ever really thought about the power of decision making? Make a decision. Stick to it. Simple as that.
Full of hot air. But hoping that I will end up writing that Tharunka article in the next month. Inspiration will come.
Imagining. What will heaven be like? When I am surrounded by God's people and my heart is full of love and thankfulness fit to burst - when I am most happy, most aware, most joyful - I think I may have some insight into what I might be in for. Yet the happiness I experience here is only a shadow. It cools. It fades. What will it be like, standing in the presence of God, to have that void filled wholly, finally, forever? I can only imagine.
Uncertain. The next 6 months are looming. They will not be easy but they will be for His glory.
Trusting. Like never before.
Adamant. Ministry is my boyfriend. He is quite the jealous type. Singleness is a flipping gift. Use it. Yes, I just said that.
Liberated. Have you ever really thought about the power of decision making? Make a decision. Stick to it. Simple as that.
Full of hot air. But hoping that I will end up writing that Tharunka article in the next month. Inspiration will come.
Imagining. What will heaven be like? When I am surrounded by God's people and my heart is full of love and thankfulness fit to burst - when I am most happy, most aware, most joyful - I think I may have some insight into what I might be in for. Yet the happiness I experience here is only a shadow. It cools. It fades. What will it be like, standing in the presence of God, to have that void filled wholly, finally, forever? I can only imagine.
Uncertain. The next 6 months are looming. They will not be easy but they will be for His glory.
Trusting. Like never before.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Painful truth.
“I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”
- Tony Campolo
- Tony Campolo
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Purposeful existence.
Can the atheist claim to live out a purposeful existence? Is it possible to deny God, concede that the sum total of life is 'triviality for a moment and then nothing' (Bertrand Russell) and then attempt to find meaning? It seems like a hopeless contradiction that leads one right back to God. But...
Who am I to say that the atheist cannot find meaning in the life they live right now? They can laugh and love and appreciate beauty. It's all there before them and if they believe life is fleeting and this is all there is then, hell, better make the most of it. Just because the universe will cool and die eventually does not mean that this moment cannot be lived for all it's worth. What can I say in response?
Thankyou, William Lane Craig, for explaining to me the difference between a subjective and objective purpose for existence. It's an answer I've been after for a little while now.
Oh, Christopher Hitchens...
Who am I to say that the atheist cannot find meaning in the life they live right now? They can laugh and love and appreciate beauty. It's all there before them and if they believe life is fleeting and this is all there is then, hell, better make the most of it. Just because the universe will cool and die eventually does not mean that this moment cannot be lived for all it's worth. What can I say in response?
Thankyou, William Lane Craig, for explaining to me the difference between a subjective and objective purpose for existence. It's an answer I've been after for a little while now.
Oh, Christopher Hitchens...
Friday, June 5, 2009
Love as it really is.
I'm preparing to do a lesson on love for my year 6/7/8 group otherwise known as SUP (six up) and I think it's going to rock their world, just quietly. Well I'm going to have fun turning their preconceived ideas on love completely upside down. I'm pretty sure that as soon as I mention the word love, the boys are going to squirm in their seats and just generally be sillier than usual. The reason? Love is for girls! It's mushy. Love? Ew!
Once again, the world has completely screwed up one of God's gifts and managed to make love selfish. I say this because it is not common for someone to love their enemy, or for it to even enter their head that they should. Love is reserved for someone who has earned it, only those you care about, as one of my girls at our lunchtime group said today. If love was dependent on how deserving the subject was... Actually I'm struggling to finish that sentence because there'd be no hope for any of us if that was the case. God loves us just because. Yet that love is so deep that he gave up his only son.
This is really blowing my mind. To love, really love, takes enormous strength. The world seems to associate love with weakness and vulnerability. To some extent that may be true, but real love simply means putting others before yourself. It requires no particular 'fuzzy' feeling, you might not even like it. But if we only loved those who loved us, how could the Christian be distinct? About a million bible verses are hitting me right now but I'm just trying to explain it all in my own words. Jesus hung on a cross, totally humiliated and hated. But he let it happen. He willingly layed down his life for his sheep and in all his amazing glory, took it back up again. His death was the ultimate example of love, love as it really is, the model that we should be following and striving for. Not the cop-out presented in chick flicks. Perhaps this is overkill but I do think that the Hollywood perception of love is quite damaging. Not only are the expectations completely unrealistic, but if all you're striving for is looks, wealth and charm you will not end up happy. It's such a pale imitation of what the heart really longs for. Because of course what the heart is really longing for is reconciliation with God. So then, why sell yourself short?
Once again, the world has completely screwed up one of God's gifts and managed to make love selfish. I say this because it is not common for someone to love their enemy, or for it to even enter their head that they should. Love is reserved for someone who has earned it, only those you care about, as one of my girls at our lunchtime group said today. If love was dependent on how deserving the subject was... Actually I'm struggling to finish that sentence because there'd be no hope for any of us if that was the case. God loves us just because. Yet that love is so deep that he gave up his only son.
This is really blowing my mind. To love, really love, takes enormous strength. The world seems to associate love with weakness and vulnerability. To some extent that may be true, but real love simply means putting others before yourself. It requires no particular 'fuzzy' feeling, you might not even like it. But if we only loved those who loved us, how could the Christian be distinct? About a million bible verses are hitting me right now but I'm just trying to explain it all in my own words. Jesus hung on a cross, totally humiliated and hated. But he let it happen. He willingly layed down his life for his sheep and in all his amazing glory, took it back up again. His death was the ultimate example of love, love as it really is, the model that we should be following and striving for. Not the cop-out presented in chick flicks. Perhaps this is overkill but I do think that the Hollywood perception of love is quite damaging. Not only are the expectations completely unrealistic, but if all you're striving for is looks, wealth and charm you will not end up happy. It's such a pale imitation of what the heart really longs for. Because of course what the heart is really longing for is reconciliation with God. So then, why sell yourself short?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Gosh I ramble.
Found this old blog... I like it because I remember how strongly I felt. I really struggle to stick to one topic, though. I don't really know how I went from the first paragraph to the next, it doesn't seem like they're connected in anyway, but whatever.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A little part of me dies everytime I hear this song by the Pussycat Dolls called "When I Grow Up". I cannot even begin to express how much it disappoints and angers me. It's not just a song, it seems to embody, utterly and totally, everything that the masses of society want to achieve. What particularly worries me is that this song is almost directed at youth. I work at a bowling alley that regularly hosts kids parties and we happily take song requests. Well, at least superficially I graciously accept their requests but my heart sinks when 7 year old girls want to sing about kissing other girls and growing up to be narcissistic exhibitionists. This topic is nothing new, quite frequently there are newspaper articles and stories addressing the sexualisation of youth, but I can't help but add my two cents. Surely there has to be more to life than this? If you find that you need a certain pair of shoes or the right name on your handbag to feel validated then I can say, without being nasty or condescending, that I feel sorry for you.
My faith has matured incredibly over the past few months and I'm learning to let go of the vanities and aspirations that do me no favours. Just recently I read the biography of Gladys Aylward, a female missionary who left for China in the 1930s with less than $10 in her pocket but with complete trust in God. Her life was quite difficult at first; she didn't know the language or the culture but God sent amazing people her way and she soon became one of the most influential and respected women in her region. She cared for up to 100 children at a time, visited and converted even the most hardened of criminals within harsh prisons and even had the honour of speaking with monks in a Chinese lamasery. I have read a few biographies over the past few months about missionaries but Gladys' story challenged me most of all. It humbled me to the point of shame - what the hell am I worrying about material things for when the fact that I even so much as live in this country means that I am privy to luxury. It made me realise just how selfish this society is and how easy it is to be corrupted by it. Despite the dangers that Gladys faced, I envy her because she was able to trust God with absolutely everything. Amidst all this materialism and ambition its easy to make excuses and trust only within yourself. I felt I would have packed up and left for India the next day if I could have, spending the rest of my life doing nothing but telling other people about how my relationship with God fulfils me unlike anything else. Then I had to stop and think about it. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed like India was perhaps an easy way out. An escape. Certainly I'd do my best to spread the message but truly, I think the need for missionaries is greater in the developed world. Nobody here wants to be told that they're a sinner, that they should submit to someone greater than them and that actually, they're not in control. India embraces all things spiritual so even if I spoke to someone who had different beliefs at least they're open to the idea of finding God. But here... I'm forever worried about the reactions of my friends to my faith and the extent of its influence over my life. The fact that it is my life. But that's another worry I'm learning to overcome. I know the majority of the world will think I'm crazy but I know what I believe in, I know the unique truth of it and I'm going to spend the rest of my life sharing it with anyone who will listen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A little part of me dies everytime I hear this song by the Pussycat Dolls called "When I Grow Up". I cannot even begin to express how much it disappoints and angers me. It's not just a song, it seems to embody, utterly and totally, everything that the masses of society want to achieve. What particularly worries me is that this song is almost directed at youth. I work at a bowling alley that regularly hosts kids parties and we happily take song requests. Well, at least superficially I graciously accept their requests but my heart sinks when 7 year old girls want to sing about kissing other girls and growing up to be narcissistic exhibitionists. This topic is nothing new, quite frequently there are newspaper articles and stories addressing the sexualisation of youth, but I can't help but add my two cents. Surely there has to be more to life than this? If you find that you need a certain pair of shoes or the right name on your handbag to feel validated then I can say, without being nasty or condescending, that I feel sorry for you.
My faith has matured incredibly over the past few months and I'm learning to let go of the vanities and aspirations that do me no favours. Just recently I read the biography of Gladys Aylward, a female missionary who left for China in the 1930s with less than $10 in her pocket but with complete trust in God. Her life was quite difficult at first; she didn't know the language or the culture but God sent amazing people her way and she soon became one of the most influential and respected women in her region. She cared for up to 100 children at a time, visited and converted even the most hardened of criminals within harsh prisons and even had the honour of speaking with monks in a Chinese lamasery. I have read a few biographies over the past few months about missionaries but Gladys' story challenged me most of all. It humbled me to the point of shame - what the hell am I worrying about material things for when the fact that I even so much as live in this country means that I am privy to luxury. It made me realise just how selfish this society is and how easy it is to be corrupted by it. Despite the dangers that Gladys faced, I envy her because she was able to trust God with absolutely everything. Amidst all this materialism and ambition its easy to make excuses and trust only within yourself. I felt I would have packed up and left for India the next day if I could have, spending the rest of my life doing nothing but telling other people about how my relationship with God fulfils me unlike anything else. Then I had to stop and think about it. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed like India was perhaps an easy way out. An escape. Certainly I'd do my best to spread the message but truly, I think the need for missionaries is greater in the developed world. Nobody here wants to be told that they're a sinner, that they should submit to someone greater than them and that actually, they're not in control. India embraces all things spiritual so even if I spoke to someone who had different beliefs at least they're open to the idea of finding God. But here... I'm forever worried about the reactions of my friends to my faith and the extent of its influence over my life. The fact that it is my life. But that's another worry I'm learning to overcome. I know the majority of the world will think I'm crazy but I know what I believe in, I know the unique truth of it and I'm going to spend the rest of my life sharing it with anyone who will listen.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Well then.
Just handed in my application for program leave.
Currently job searching.
Not really sure how I feel about it.
Currently job searching.
Not really sure how I feel about it.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The fourth love.
C.S Lewis
The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell...
We shall draw nearer to God, not by trying to avoid the sufferings inherent in all loves, but by accepting them and offering them to Him; throwing away all defensive armour. If our hearts need to be broken, and if He chooses this as the way in which they should break, so be it.
It's just easier said than done, is all.
The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell...
We shall draw nearer to God, not by trying to avoid the sufferings inherent in all loves, but by accepting them and offering them to Him; throwing away all defensive armour. If our hearts need to be broken, and if He chooses this as the way in which they should break, so be it.
It's just easier said than done, is all.
Want to learn some Hindi?
These are some bhajans (worship songs) we sang in Varanasi on Christmas day. I've been singing them this morning but it's not quite the same. I wish I'd been able to record Leaf's voice...
Bhaj Pawanatam
Bhaja pa-wana-tama Yeshu naam
Worship the most holy name of Jesus
Yeshu naam jaya Yeshu naam
Jesus' name, victory to Jesus' name
Yeshu naam mangala naam
Jesus' name, auspicious name
Yeshu naam pa-wana naam
Jesus name, holy name
Yeshu naam meeta naam
Jesus' name, sweet name
Yeshu naam pyaara naam
Jesus' name, beloved/precious name
----------------------------------------
Sachidananda Eh Namo Namah
Sachidananda Eh Namo Namah
Being, Intelligence, Bliss, I bow to you
He Guru Yeshu namo namah
O teacher Jesus, I bow to you
He Prabhu Yeshu namo namah
O Lord Jesus, I bow to you
He Jeewan Jyoti namo namah
O Life Light, I bow to you
He Jeewan Roti namo namah
O Life Bread, I bow to you
He Yeshu Deva namo namah
O Jesus God, I bow to you
He Muktidata namo namah
O Salvation Giver, I bow to you
He Premidata namo namah
O Loving Giver, I bow to you
Bhaj Pawanatam
Bhaja pa-wana-tama Yeshu naam
Worship the most holy name of Jesus
Yeshu naam jaya Yeshu naam
Jesus' name, victory to Jesus' name
Yeshu naam mangala naam
Jesus' name, auspicious name
Yeshu naam pa-wana naam
Jesus name, holy name
Yeshu naam meeta naam
Jesus' name, sweet name
Yeshu naam pyaara naam
Jesus' name, beloved/precious name
----------------------------------------
Sachidananda Eh Namo Namah
Sachidananda Eh Namo Namah
Being, Intelligence, Bliss, I bow to you
He Guru Yeshu namo namah
O teacher Jesus, I bow to you
He Prabhu Yeshu namo namah
O Lord Jesus, I bow to you
He Jeewan Jyoti namo namah
O Life Light, I bow to you
He Jeewan Roti namo namah
O Life Bread, I bow to you
He Yeshu Deva namo namah
O Jesus God, I bow to you
He Muktidata namo namah
O Salvation Giver, I bow to you
He Premidata namo namah
O Loving Giver, I bow to you
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)