|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 5, 2009 16:51:23 GMT -5
And The princess bride does seem like an odd one to me as far as it being okay with families like this. The sound of music though I can totally see. I managed to catch in on tv a while ago and I finally figured out why they were singing the Maria song during the wedding scene. Cause her getting married was the thing that finally managed to tie her down... or at least that's what was implied. Ick. I love The Princess Bride. It's my all-time favorite movie. But Buttercup irritates me in it-- the way she spends most of her time waiting to be rescued. I can see why fundies would like that part of it, anyway. But the wedding scene in Sound of Music? I never thought that was why they sang that song at all! I thought the point was that the nuns tried to make Maria fit into their mold, and she didn't because she just wasn't meant to be a nun. Their singing "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?" wasn't about the nuns being glad the trouble-making girl was finally getting tied down-- it was about them "solving the problem" by letting her go free, to be who she was meant to be-- but still accepting her as herself even if she would never be a nun. In other words, you don't "solve" the problem of people who don't fit into your rules and lifestyle, by forcing them into it. You "solve" it by letting them go. I thought it was a sweet and affirming message.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 5, 2009 15:07:02 GMT -5
I'm with Blair. I remember when I was in Maranatha Campus Ministries, how Rushdoony was held up as this amazing theologian. Nothing-- NOTHING! was said about his racism or any of the other things that KM has exposed here. I remember even back then, thinking that using Genesis 1:26 (about humans being in charge of the plants and animals) as justification for Christians taking over human governments, just didn't make sense. They couldn't stop me thinking for myself! But I didn't dare say anything. You didn't challenge what you were taught, for fear of excommunication. Brrr. I must believe that some of the rank-and-file lay-leaders simply didn't know. But there seems no excuse for the upper leadership.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 5, 2009 0:11:03 GMT -5
Welll. . .
Jesus did say his yoke was easy and his burden was light. It was the Pharisees who tied up heavy burdens and put them on people's backs-- and Jesus didn't approve of that one bit.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 4, 2009 23:43:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 4, 2009 20:29:29 GMT -5
Angel, that has to be one of the saddest-- and most infuriating-- things I have ever read in my life. How could that man have treated a child like that?
May you continue to heal as you realize more and more that you don't have to be perfect or perform to some impossible standard. When you do the dishes, you do them your way-- and don't let anyone tell you it's the wrong way!
Argh. I wish I could be there with 5-year-old you, and make your step-father wash all those knives he knocked on the floor, while you went to your room to play.
*hugs from an indignant mom*
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 3, 2009 23:41:33 GMT -5
Christian conferences. Heh. We were cordially required to attend-- and to this day I can't bring myself to go to any conference of any kind. Not even a comic book convention, lol.
Not that I remember being allowed much scope for ideas at Maranatha World Leadership Conferences. It was mostly just imbibing what we were told to believe. . .
So many limits, such a cookie-cutter mentality-- it doesn't make sense, does it? Why should only one creative outlet be allowed? Why should it only be ok for a woman to express intellectual ideas at a Christian conference? Blech.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 3, 2009 23:28:22 GMT -5
Thanks so much, everyone, for the lovely comments. Redheadedskeptic, my heart goes out to you-- that's such a lot of losses, it must be very hard. I personally didn't find it intellectually or emotionally necessary to leave Christianity-- my mother raised me with a simple, gentle faith that I returned to with a sigh of relief after leaving Maranatha Campus Ministries. (I remember when I was four or five years old, listening to my mother sing "Away in a Manger" with such pure love in her voice, and such sincerity in her eyes. It seems to me now that the essence of that song is all I've ever really needed.) I am amazed, looking back now, at how hard and complicated I made such a lovely thing-- and how much help I had to do it!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 3, 2009 23:18:16 GMT -5
Your story continues to be so very interesting, Tapati. "Sex life" rather than "sex," huh? Seems like it's a way of distinguishing a way of life where you have sex from a way of life where you don't-- which makes it be about much more than just the sex (or lack thereof). . .
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 3, 2009 23:15:05 GMT -5
It's really sad that when someone says leaving an expression of Christianity makes them feel free, the question is always what's wrong with the person leaving, rather than an examination of what kind of Christianity it is that burdens people so.
Jesus said his yoke was easy and his burden was light. Seems to me that if it's heavy and hard, it's someone else who is putting that yoke on you. . .
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 3, 2009 23:09:04 GMT -5
You write amazingly well, Angel. That was heart-wrenching.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 3, 2009 23:08:12 GMT -5
What great satire! I would have been laughing if I hadn't been gritting my teeth so hard. . .
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 3, 2009 23:07:09 GMT -5
Arietty, so sad that you were so oppressed, you couldn't even choose what shoes to wear. And that your husband would be gone so long and you didn't mind because it was so much worse when he was home. I'm glad you escaped all that.
Hugs from me, too!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 31, 2009 22:29:45 GMT -5
I don't have a lot to say that hasn't already been said, but I share the sense of flabbergasted-ness at the idea that you were supposed to "cling to," instead of resenting, the ones who had taken away from you everything that you enjoyed, as well as your budding self-identity in being able to dress in ways that expressed yourself, choose your own friends and activities, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 24, 2009 0:45:31 GMT -5
"Personal liberty and freedom reign supreme." Hah. That just made me livid.
Personal liberty and freedom only for heterosexual Christian males. The whole article made me want to barf.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 24, 2009 0:37:16 GMT -5
Please don't be angry or upset. Positions like your are why I don't believe in handing out blanket condemnations- if there's a place that an individual feels they can effect a positive change, that's a personal decision. I was responding to km - she mentioned people who think they're "leaving the unhealthy at the door" - this indicates to me that they believe that they can ignore or avoid injustices as long as they don't feel that these injustices are personally affecting their marriage or family. It's been my experience that there are many more people who say "Isn't the music great- let's just all be Christians together without letting these little quibbles separate us" than those who say "I recognize that there are traces of patriarchy in the church/denomination and am actively working to eliminate it". I'm unequivocal in my belief that the first group of people semi-unknowningly help to legitimize patriarchy. It's not my place to judge the second type of person. I don't think there is any reason to judge the second type of person, or the first type of person, for that matter. There is a reason to want to judge the effectiveness of a course of action, though, both in absolute terms - is the action getting you closer to your stated goals - and in relative terms - would a different course of action get you to your stated goals faster? Thank you, Atheist in the BB and Coleslaw. I would say, in answer to the question about the course of action, that yes-- the action (staying in a church where they are listening to my ideas and even being swayed by them) is getting us all, as a church, closer to where I believe we're supposed to be: a place of true equality. And a different course of action-- say, actively condemning them for the patriarchal practices I still see in evidence and separating myself from them-- would in this situation definitely work against that goal.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 23, 2009 23:03:47 GMT -5
I think you're being very black-and-white (and condemning) about something that just isn't that simple. But since I'm angry now, I'll sign off until I cool down.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 23, 2009 21:56:58 GMT -5
But what if a particular chuch is not "producing patriarchs," but is filled with people (and leadership) who are moving gradually out of the patriarchal traditions of their particular denomination? If a word I can speak in the right place, at the right time, is helping with that change, I'm not going to abandon these kind, loving, sincere people, who are as much help to me in other areas as I am trying to be to them in this one. They're people, not nameless representatives of a particular ideology. On another note-- as far as religion being an "opiate," consider this post on religious addition from a Christian website on spiritual abuse: www.spiritualabuse.com/?page_id=46I think it's a valid point to make that just because some religious behaviors are destructive, this does not necessarily support the conclusion that all religion is. If that were the case, it would also be logical to say that because some people have food addictions that are damaging to them, food itself is to be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 23, 2009 15:37:11 GMT -5
... but their participation in a church that endorses "male headship" (anti-gay, anti-choice, etc.) is helping to keep patriarchy alive, IMO. Unless, of course, we are working carefully but tenaciously to change it from within. ;D
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 18, 2009 21:51:47 GMT -5
Tapati, I like the way you're telling this story, showing the humanity of everyone involved-- with great sensitivity and compassion you are refraining from one-sided views of even those who hurt you most. Mentioning Mike's "wisdom" with regards to your love for your mom, for instance. I know he was an abuser, but you also show him as a person. Your mom, too.
I had hyperemesis, too, so I can really relate; I know I was scared that the baby wasn't going to develop properly since I couldn't give her adequate nutrition. Fortunately the doctors stepped in at about the 10th week and put me on a special nausea-prevention diet which turned things around for me. How long did your hyperemesis last?
So sad about Mike's mom dying so young like that. You went through so much.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 11, 2009 16:53:11 GMT -5
Vyckie -- of course, part of the point that I make is that QF'ers, like all other Christians, already do consider certain parts of the Bible cultural, and don't follow them literally-- like the "holy kiss" Paul says to greet one another with. If they think they never "dismiss" the literal application of a text on cultural grounds, they are mistaken. The key is that they need to recognize why and when they do it, the criteria that they use-- and then to start applying the criteria consistently, rather than piecemeal or according to long-standing church traditions (the result of which is usually that any passage that references women is read in the most restrictive way possible, while other passages-- the ones that affect men-- are read with more latitude).
I think QFers, who (I would imagine) are part of the Protestant branches that reject many traditional teachings of the Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians, etc-- would be shocked if they really opened their eyes to how much they let long-standing tradition dictate the way they read the passages on women.
But I do think, based on Charis' points, that I need to rewrite it slightly to emphasize that none of the Bible's teachings are actually being dismissed in this way of reading it-- it's simply the cultural assumptions that are being accounted for as assumptions (like the employer in the parable, who assumed his employees were using horses), so that the Bible writer's intended principle can be identified and followed.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 11, 2009 1:02:56 GMT -5
Charis, I am not advocating intellectual elitism. But to look again at the passage you quoted from 2 Peter, with a slightly different emphasis than the one you gave it:
as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
Peter is clearly saying that part of the problem with the "twisting" of Paul's writings is that "untaught" people are misreading them. Surely, then, one of the solutions Peter is implying is that people should be taught, given information which will help them understand? Since the Bible itself makes it clear that its messages were originally intended for certain people, at certain times and places in history, how can it be anything but useful if we try to understand those people, places and times in history for which the messages were originally intended?
That said, I do hear what you're saying about the Bible being for everyone, not just those who have the education to try to address the "hard to understand" passages. Not all of the Bible is hard to understand-- not at all. And it's main message (contained in what I refer to in my essay as "the great Story," as both Gordon Fee's book and Scot McKnight's books that I mention there do) is timeless and simple.
The very most important thing is that we remember the simplicity of this: “He has told you what is good, and what does the Lord require of you? Just to do justice, and love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” And also “whatever you want others to do for you, so do for them, for this is the law and the prophets.” And “God desires mercy, and not sacrifice.”
This is the heart of the faith– and you don’t have to study Greek or Hebrew or biblical history to get there. In fact, I heartily agree that sometimes that may get in the way.
Jesus said to have eternal life we must remember the simplicity of a child. The only commandment is love. And I would say it’s the same for the Christian Scriptures that I read that a Jewish rabbi said about the Jewish ones: “All the rest is commentary.”
But the fact is that there are parts of the Bible that are indeed hard to understand, as Peter said about some of Paul's writings. And I agree that if some of the meanings were obscure even to Peter, who lived at the time and place where the message was first given, then it can be the height of arrogance for us to claim we have or can reach the definitive interpretation of some of these passages. But surely one of the worst things we can do with those hard-to-understand passages is claim that they aren't hard to understand at all-- to insist that the "plain meaning" as it reads to us 2000 years or more later and half the globe away, is the definitive interpretation. And this, I think, is what the Q/F position often does.
The point of my FAQ essay was not to raise every possible scenario and answer every possible objection. These FAQ essays need to be as short as possible while still adequately addressing the question raised, so that readers don't get overwhelmed and decide not to finish.
I am thinking, based on your points, that it might be a very good idea to add a few sentences clarifying that the point of the cultural argument is not to render the passages invalid or say they don't apply to us today-- it's to show that there is a principle we should be looking for, and that it is the principles, not the cultural assumptions, that apply to us today. But I'm not sure how much more needs to be added about the simplicity of the message conveyed through the great Story.
Do you think that is unclear? Does anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 9, 2009 12:52:24 GMT -5
Charis, I thought my essay makes it clear that I think those passages do speak for today. It's just that we need to look for the principles being taught. The principles being taught to the 1st-century church at Ephesus still apply today-- it's just the cultural specifics that do not.
The trick is to learn to recognize the difference. Viewing the Bible as one great Story, and seeing everything in it as fitting into that somewhere, is part of what helps us discern. For instance, Christ came to set us free from yokes of bondage, not to impose new ones-- so that can't be what Paul's words to husbands and wives are about.
See what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 8, 2009 15:07:21 GMT -5
Charis, you know me. You know I'm the same KR Wordgazer who posts on Equality Central. I agree with what you have said-- that FAQ is by no means the last word I intend to write on the subject. That FAQ was written specifically to QuiverFull women, who (Vyckie tells me) are usually KJV-only believers. I don't use the KJV myself; it is far from the most accurate translation, and it uses archaic words that are easy to misunderstand. But-- baby steps, right? I'm not going to start out by telling Q/F women who might be reading that FAQ (it's also going to be published in written form for distribution), that the first thing they've got to do is throw out their King James Bible-- because, let's face it, the matter is peripheral. The point of that FAQ post is to try to get QF women to think differently about the way they read the Bible. What translation they are using-- that can come later. You will notice that I do mention, in the essay, the importance of learning what the Bible words mean in their original languages. Believe me, I have every intention, in another FAQ, of talking about what that word translated "obedience"in the KJV, means in the Koine Greek-- and a whole bunch of other words, too! You're pointing in the same direction I'm already headed, my friend. We'll get there. For everyone else who sent kind words-- thanks so much.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 6, 2009 17:55:13 GMT -5
With regards to the vocabulary of the KJV, I see no reason to doubt this website: labs.timesonline.co.uk/bookscraper/publications/compare?a=38&b=142which says that its vocabulary is over 12,000 words. The 800-word thing sounds like one of those urban myths that can get passed around, even by well-meaning educational institutions. I thought Ship of Fools makes an interesting point, and the point of view of their website was interesting-- very, very British! ;D I agree with Kisekeliea about having a more nuanced view of the Bible that, rather than just saying "certain parts of the Bible are unacceptable," says, "certain parts of the Bible are unacceptable today, but should be understood within their own cultural constructs." It is almost certain that some things we ourselves believe quite acceptable today, will one day be looked at with shock and horror by later generations-- and yet we consider our own attitudes enlightened compared to those of earlier ages. The Bible, I believe, if it is viewed as inspired (which I do) should be looked at as reflecting God's interaction with people as God found them, not as we think God ought to have made them, right then and there, in order to be acceptable to us.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 5, 2009 17:40:13 GMT -5
Wow, thanks everybody (blushes) As you may have noticed, the FAQ is written with an audience in mind of Q/F women, using the King James Bible for quotes, and focusing on the Bible as authority for its own exegesis. For another audience, I might have spoken in terms of scholarly methods or something, but I took Vyckie's advice that such things might be suspect, even for a woman beginning to ask questions or thinking about leaving the Q/F lifestyle. Lectio-- you may have noticed that I borrowed liberally from this FAQ in some of the comments I posted on your blog over the last few days. Grandmalou-- sure, you can call me Kristen.
|
|