quietpraiyze
In The Secret Place
I had a wonderful pedicure today. It was so relaxing. Now my feet feel pretty and I can wear my summer sandals...YAY!
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Whats on your mind...?!
- Thread starter Eagle Of Oz
- Start date
quietpraiyze
In The Secret Place
Oh pedicures are wonderful! They massage not only your feet but your calves as well. It's just great. If you've never had a pedicure, I think you should. I think you would enjoy it...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Travelers.Soul
Traveler; Dreamer; Warrior; Coffee lover
- Aug 15, 2010
- 6,510
- 8,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
Some things I don't understand...
1. Unibrows
2. People who preach/teach prosperity gospel.
3. Getting flagged for "random" checks every time I go through an airport.
4. People who can't laugh at themselves.
1. Unibrows
2. People who preach/teach prosperity gospel.
3. Getting flagged for "random" checks every time I go through an airport.
4. People who can't laugh at themselves.
Upvote
0
quietpraiyze
In The Secret Place
Sometimes I wonder if some people are inebriated when they post here. I just don't know smh....
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Gen X
Active Member
What's on my mind???????????
Well, getting no responses here from the 'admin' about closing this account....I figure I would make the parting shot here because after this post I will be 'banned' and if I am not; somehow I will somehow still be blamed for all the "saintly, Godly, single women" in the church today...........Let me put out all the criticisms of me upfront so you lukewarm-ladies and white-knight-lukewarm-christian-men don't have to say it. Yeah, all of them are 100% WRONG btw:
*you must have unresolved issues with your mother
*see, this is why you are single, us ladies want positive, 'confident' men
*wow, calling yourself a Christian, yet you are judging people
*he who finds a wife, finds favor..so no wife, no favor!
*you must be closeted gay
Feel free to add as you see fit. All you will say about me, or try 'shame' me into will be rebuked fully!
What is 'manhood' in the church-christian-culture today?????????????????????????
Today we are told that masculinity is in trouble. We are led to believe that men are adrift without a strong sense of who they are. Our society has come up with several paradigms of manhood, some as a remedy to the supposed identity crises men are facing. What follows is a review of six prominent paradigms. The paradigms listed probably do not exhaust the notions people have about manhood, but understanding them is essential to discerning the difference between those expectations of men that are biblical and those that are worldly.
Playboy Paradigm
Under this paradigm, a man's raison d'etre is to accumulate a large amount of toys and sleep with as many beautiful women as possible. The problem is that a man begins to see his worth in terms of the fun he is able to have and his failure in terms of what he think he is "missing out" on. Sooner or later, we are left with miserable human beings enslaved to an endless quest for the ever elusive thrill to trump all other thrills. We also see people eager to live in a protracted youth free from responsibility and accountability (for instance, anxious Baby-Boomer men who don't have the grace to accept their old age and mortality). In the end, it's all sinful and it betrays men.
Feminist Paradigm
The Feminist Paradigm promises men freedom from restrictive sex roles and expectations, but in reality, it delivers one of the most restrictive and demeaning roles of all to men--the whipping boy. We are supposed to believe that no matter what happens, women always have it worse, that women are basically innocent, and that men are guilty. We are supposed to believe that feminism merely wants equality for both sexes.
The problem is that feminism wants equality for the sexes the way communism wanted equality for workers. In fact, feminism, as we have experienced it for a generation and a half here in the West, has historical connections with communism. Feminism takes the concept of class struggle and merely substitutes the concept of struggle between the genders. Individual initiative, personal accountability, merit and all other virtues of a just and free society fall by the wayside as government enforces an equality of outcomes. Identity politics reigns supreme and a totalitarian state simply replaces one class of ruling elites with another. Women of today become the new apparatchiks.
Religious feminism is not much better. All it can offer is a tortured exegesis of certain uncomfortable passages (1 Tim. 2:11-15; 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Cor. 11:3) in an attempt to explain away what God has clearly ordained for women. No man who respects God's Word can take feminism seriously other than as a threat to his welfare.
Nice Guy Paradigm
This is the mindset of the man who plays by the rules of the suburbs where matriarchs reign. He has accepted the trek of college, work, marriage, children, work, and retirement as the measure of his worth. He really believes if he works hard enough he will get the pay raise and win the heart of the girl next door. Popular culture, parents, the community, etc. tell him he must jump through certain hoops if he wants to be "successful" or "loved". He dutifully complies. He doesn't think too much about the forces unleashed in society that add to the probability of his failure and humiliation. He is all too trusting and doesn't engage in enough healthy skepticism of the status quo. A good number of men start here before they learn the hard way.
Family-First Paradigm
"Family" is the buzzword of many social reactionaries. We hear of "family" values, foundations and institutions focused on the "family", "family" bookstores, churches that "understand the importance of families", the need for government (with all its interventions and encroachments) to protect "the family" etc. The Family-First Paradigm has many forms. In a milder forms, it is the prevailing spirit of suburban churches where bible studies go hand-in-hand with double lattes, SUVs, white picket fences, L.L. Bean and Pottery Barn Catalogs, voting Republican, etc. In it more extreme forms, it manifests itself in the Marriage Mandate Movement or the Full Quiver Movement. In short, one might say that Gen. 1:28 is the John 3:16 of the family-firsters.
In accordance with the Family-First Paradigm, Christian Men are called to take the Nice Guy Paradigm, pump it up with steroids, and canonize it as a theology. The expectation seems to be that a man must work hard in a dehumanizing office environment, be the primary breadwinner in the household, have at least two children (but preferably three or more), buy lots of consumer goods, and not question his religious leaders and the corporatist welfare/warfare state for which they might be shilling.
Family-firsterism also seems to have the following notions about gender roles: If any thing goes wrong in a man's relationship with women, it is his fault. He is a depraved human being who receives sanctification through the sacrament of marriage (a mystical union with a precious, fragile, female human being for whose choices he must take complete responsibility). His sex drive as a man is the ultimate symbol of his depravity. All real women of God, of course, do not want sex as much as he does and he must always adjust to that (not the other way around).
A particular subset of the Family-First Paradigm merits attention--the Neo-Traditionalists. They exclaim that women have a right to be successful and stand toe-to-toe with men in traditional spheres of male influence (political, economic, and cultural). Yet, when it comes to shouldering the burdens of responsibility men have traditionally borne, neo-traditionalists are all too willing to fall back on earlier sex roles. The result is that women have choices but men only responsibilities. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the insistence by some highly-paid professional women that their husbands make the bigger paycheck. Debbie Maken is a good example of a neo-traditionalist. Her book "Getting Serious about Getting Married" is a convenient patchwork of egalitarian and traditionalist understandings of sex roles. Men are essentially blamed in her book when women end up single due to their own poor choices and unrealistic expectations.
Yet in another sense, the Family-First Paradigm is all neo-traditionalist. Many reactionaries seem to latch on to the norms and customs of bygone generations (invoking the terms "biblical" and "Christian" to give authority to what they believe), while at the same time embracing many aspects of modernity that make the adoption of bygone norms and customs problematic. As a case in point, are we really supposed to believe that traditional divisions of labor between men and women in the 1950s are one and the same as what we find in the nomadic societies of Abraham's day? I get the impression that many family-firsters would answer in the affirmative (at least in those areas that they find convenient to talk about). In the final analysis, one could say that the family-firsters want to read romance novels about the Amish, but not live like them.
Masculine Christianity Paradigm
Some have called men to renounce a "feminized," "nice guy" approach to Christianity and instead embrace the supposedly "manly" aspects of biblical manhood (a "new masculinity movement" if you will). It's a call for men to be Bible-believin' bad boys--Christian tough guys who take charge. In fact, one might say this philosophy is the Mythopoetic Men's Movement (a la Iron John) baptized into Evangelicalism.
While one might sympathize with the concerns some have with the way masculinity is marginalized in many churches, one still has to ask just what vision of masculinity should men embrace? One writer made an apt observation about the so-called "new masculinity movement": Imposing qualities we consider masculine on an image of Jesus we consider feminine does not solve the problem. It only gives us a new problem--another culturally shaped Jesus, only masculine this time ...
In the end, the Biblical image of Jesus presents a far more radical role model than Jesus the dude. Jesus was gritty, honest, and fearless. Yet his strength was not displayed in his willingness to punch evildoers in the mouth, but in his suffering at the hands of the wicked for their good. Where such strength is found--whether in a man or a woman, a latte-sipping sissy or a muscled mason--there is godly strength. (Brandon O' Brien, A Jesus for Real Men, Christianity Today, April 2008). In essence, men don't need other men or women for that matter imposing yet another set of arbitrary codes of masculinity. Berating Christian men as "sissies" is arrogant and sinful. Men who want to fight the feminization of the church can do better than engage in the cowardly act of shooting the wounded.
Misogynist Paradigm
In response to the mistreatment men have experienced, some men have become so embittered that they have assumed a hostile stance towards women. A word of caution is appropriate here in broaching the subject of "misogyny", however. Feminists and other gynocentrists have misused the word as a smear attack against anyone that questions their philosophies. That said, there are truly men who have a dehumanizing attitude towards the opposite sex. It is a danger that any man angered by anti-male sexism needs to avoid.
Some men say women are "only good for one thing." Others say women all share the same amoral nature. Still others claim that women need to be demoted to second-class citizens or be coerced into submission. Finally, there are those who express elation at the suffering of women. No Christian man who takes the teachings of Christ seriously can embrace these kind of attitudes.
Please note, however, that this is not a call for men to be passive about the misandry they experience or to be overly optimistic about receiving any support from women or society. I acknowledge with great sadness that a great many women and a quite a few of our society's institutions have become the enemies of men. We cannot ignore the evils they are perpetuating; we most vigorously oppose them and shine the harsh light of truth on their deceptions and arrogance. However, religious men need to heed the admonishment of the Apostle Paul to "be angry and yet do not sin" (Eph. 4:26, NASB).........
Physical Strength/Athleticism
Some may think that physical strength is a mark of manhood. There is no scripture in the Bible that supports this assertion. On the contrary, the Apostle Paul himself placed a greater weight on spiritual exercise than bodily exercise (1 Tim. 4:8). While it is true that men are generally stronger than women, this is not always the case. I find it strange that a society, which has no problem with athletic women and the WNBA, cannot turn around and bring itself to celebrate the manhood of men who are not athletically inclined. Why are women allowed flexibility in this manner but not men? As it is, in claiming that physical strength or athleticism is the essence of manhood, we are our declaring our hostility towards elderly men and disabled men. If not, why not? Such notions of manhood clearly feed in our society's worldly obsession with youth, physicality, etc.
Let me say this: High-school football stars are usually not the ones who come up with a cure for debilitating diseases. The physically-awkward, uncoordinated kid who gets picked last for whatever team in phys-ed class back in middle school may very well be the one who designs a better car for you tomorrow. It's time we celebrate the achievements of men who, though they do not grace the covers of ESPN, make important contributions to our society. It's time that we jettison the stupid notion that every man has to aspire to throw a football like Eli Manning.
Charisma/Popularity
Many are attracted to the man who carries himself well in the public. Such a man can speak and easily relate to others, and his presence commands the attention of the people around him. Is it any wonder, then, when so many churches require their preachers to be excellent communicators and have impeccable interpersonal skills?
The Bible has a different understanding of charisma. Of Jesus, the Scriptures say, "He has no form or comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him ..." (Isaiah 53:2). Paul declared to the Corinthians that his message was not with "wise and persuasive words" lest their faith "rest on men's wisdom" and not on "God's power" (1 Cor. 2:1-5). Contrast this to the way false teachers are presented in the Bible (Rom. 16:8; 2 Peter 2:18). Ronald Reagan and Barak Obama may be hailed as "great communicators." John Piper or Joel Osteen may be everybody's favorite preacher. All the same, God "does not see as man sees" and there is "no partiality with him." (1 Sam. 16:7; Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 6:19). It's time our modern pulpits in our stately sanctuaries show a little more appreciation for this truth.
Stoicism
We are told that men are not as emotional as women are. We are led to believe that a man showing his emotions is a pathetic thing. The Bible, however, does not care one whit about the macho sensibilities of our Western culture. Rather, it presents us with a picture of a sorrowful Savior who openly wept on one occasion and elsewhere expressed a tender desire to redeem the Jews (John 11:35; Matt. 23:37). We also have the poignant lament of David over the death of a good friend (2 Sam. 1:26), a narrative that some unfortunately read through the lens of homoeroticism. This perverse misunderstanding of David's character is the logical end of a modern-day, macho ethic where the range of emotions men are allowed to express is restricted. We can do better than this.
Education/Intelligence
Our world places a premium on education and intelligence. But God has a different mind about this matter. The Bible says, "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise." Jesus rejoiced that spiritual truths were hidden from the wise men of his time, but revealed to "babes" (Luke 10:21). This is not an affirmation of anti-intellectualism. It is a realization that all men, regardless of their mental capacities must equally abase themselves before the Cross.
Financial Status
Jesus declared that "a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions" (Luke 12:15) and yet we still hear preachers declare that a man is called to be "the provider." There is, nevertheless, really only one true Provider and what we receive from him cannot be with pride, but with thanksgiving (Luke 12:13-34; 1 Tim. 4:4). Despite what some popular religious pundits might insist, there is no requirement in the Bible that a man bring home a larger paycheck than his wife. Some may refer to Genesis 3:17-19 and 1 Timothy 5:8, but these passages are not just addressed to men but to everyone, and any discourse on gender roles must take this fact into consideration.
Marital Status
American evangelicals have a reached point in their embrace of marriage and family that some of them have slid into theological error. I refer, in particular, to the Marriage Mandate Movement, a school of thought that presupposes that marriage is required by God for men. The Bible, on the other hand, clearly teaches that while marriage is blessing in principle (Gen. 1:27-28; Prov. 18:22), it is not always expedient (1 Cor. 7:28). Marriage is optional for a believer--it is neither required nor forbidden (1 Cor. 7:36-38). Concomitant with this observation is the truth that men are not required to be fathers. Like marriage, children are a blessing in principle (Gen. 1:28; Psalm 127:3), but they are not always expedient (Luke 21:23). Their presence in a life of a man is neither required nor forbidden (Isa. 56:3-5).
Ambition
We are told that men must have a "godly ambition." What does that mean? The Bible says, "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit" (Phil. 2:3) and that we should make our "ambition" to "lead a quiet life," to "mind our own business," and to work (1 Thess. 4:11). Moreover, how do we reliably measure "godly ambition" in a man when the Lord instructs us to not do our good works "to be seen of men" (Matt. 6:1)?
We live in strange times. The religious landscape is filled with those who seem to have a marquee mentality. Many spread their names far and wide with their "ministries," books, glitzy websites, podcasts, radio shows, TV interviews, workshops, seminars, lectureships, conferences, etc. On top of that, they often ask money for what they are doing. If a man says something in public, but doesn't feel the need to throw out his name every chance he gets, he may be viewed with suspicion. People may think he has something to hide when he keeps a low-profile or stays anonymous. Meanwhile, self-promoters seem to go uncriticized.
When it comes to ambition, I also have to wonder what religious and Christian women mean when they say they want an "ambitious" husband. Do they want a man ambitious enough to secure worldly riches for them, or do they want a man ambitious enough to grow more conformed to the image of God's Son? Perhaps men of faith should be a bit more discerning about their religious sisters demands in this area. As it is, the Christian man who truly has a godly ambition may not be appreciated for it after all.
Vocation/Position/Skills
Do you think your vocation and/or your skills are a indicator of your manhood? If modern churches have done a half-hearted job in fighting materialism, they have done even a worse job in countering the idolatry of careerism. What makes you think you are any more entitled to a satisfying job that engages the full extent of your talents than you are to a beautiful body or wealth? What if it pleases the Lord to put you in a low-paying, boring job beneath your level of expertise? What if you have no choice to but perform some task others consider to be unimportant? Sometimes what God asks us to do is not the most exciting thing on earth. As it written, "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much" (Luke 16:10). Let us focus on giving glory to the Lord, and not on uncertain promises of self-actualization in this world.
Assertiveness
When we think of an assertive man, we think of one who is willing to take risks, who initiates, who boldly makes his thoughts and desires known to others, and who takes command of a situation. Is this kind of assertiveness the epitome of biblical manhood? If so, then what do we do with a scripture that calls for a risk-averse stance (Proverbs 14:16)? What do we do with passages that call for restraint of the tongue and for us to be "peacable and gentle" (Prov. 21:23; James 3:17). These are not qualities God expects from women alone; these are qualities he expects from everyone.
We've also been told that "real men initiate," especially in areas such as dating and courtship. Those who foster this view are often fond of comparing the relationship between man and woman to the relationship between Christ and the church. Let these pundits consider their own logic:
If Christ is the head of man, does that mean that men should just sit back and wait on the Lord to do everything? Do not the Scriptures admonish us to show a little initiative by stepping out on faith and seeking the Lord (Heb. 11:16; James 4:8)?
If the initiative man must take in seeking the Lord does not violate the headship of the Lord, then why are we to believe that any initiative a woman shows in a relationship with man violates his headship? Certainly the initiative Ruth showed towards Boaz was not such a violation (Ruth 3:1-11). It is all too easy for women to sit back and expect men to do everything. A lazy entitlement mentality like this can be passed off as being "submissive to male leadership" and being "ladylike," but it is neither of these things and it needs to be exposed for what it is.
Assertiveness is not inherently wrong and may be required in some cases (see Jude 3 for example). However, as we have seen, it is not always appropriate, nor is it restricted to men. Therefore, the insistence that assertiveness be a metric of manhood is at best problematic.
Self-Confidence
We are told that Christian men need to be "self-confident." In actuality, Christian men need to confident in the Lord (Phil 4:13). God has no use for men who think they succeed through their own abilities. Why? Because a man who has self-confidence before the throne of God is declaring his independence from the One who nourishes and sustains him (Deut. 8:1-18). As it is, there is no "self-confidence" to be had because rather than being confident in the "self" we are instructed to deny "self" (Mark 8:34).
In contrast to our culture's idolatry of the "can-do" attitude, we need to consider what attitude God expects of men. Christ commanded his disciples to humble themselves "like little children" (Matt. 18:1-6). Do we know what that means? David, a great warrior, surely did (Psalm 131). Men need to realize that as human beings their frames are as dust. Human beings are helpless and vulnerable as the day they were born (Job 1:21). Affirming this is not the same as timidity or passivity, but it is a sober realization of how our emotional, mental, and physical abilities all depend on the Lord. All glory is for Him. When men understand and appreciate these truths, they will pause and hesitate before speaking about "self-confidence."
Chivalry
Many conservatives, who claim to be the opponents of feminism, are not particularly concerned about how they can be just demeaning as feminists in their treatment of men. One egregious example of this is their insistence on some modern code of "chivalry" where women all the choices and men only the responsibilities. Men are told that they are called to be "protectors" and a "covering" for women. But in what way are men supposed to protect women?
Should we protect women from the consequences of being an adult? Should we protect them from needed criticism? Should we protect from having their ego bruised? Women have advanced and pushed into areas of society traditionally reserved for men. Women are much less vulnerable than they used to be. They have accepted positions of influence and leadership and now can wield power over men. How can we say these women are "weak" and "need protection"?
It's time women learn that with privilege comes responsibility. If they are in positions of influence, then they need to look to the concerns of the weak and vulnerable ofboth sexes, and stop focusing so much on themselves. When Jesus spoke of the needy as being the "least of these" his "brethren" (Matt. 25:31-46), he surely was not referring to women and children only. Therefore, that idea that men are required to shower preferential treatment on a woman, not on the basis of a legitimate need or a woman's demonstrated submission, but merely on the basis of her sex is showing partiality and is therefore sinful (James 2:9). Men are not lesser human beings than women that they should play the part of doormats. Women "can't have it both ways" in demanding power and protection at the same time, and no one should dare to expect a man to oblige himself to such an ungodly double-standard. Also, in the feudal "code" of Chivarly, the dealing of women is one sentence in a several paragrahed document.
Bible Knowledge
The religious landscape is littered with experts who flaunt their church credentials. They have advanced degrees from seminaries, implying they have an in-depth knowledge of God's word that the typical individual does not have. Even if this were true, what of it? Satan is the chief Bible expert among his legion of false teachers and nominal Christians. I am not so impressed with a man who can quote scriptures, exegete passages, etc. as I am with a man who not only knows the truths of God's word, but obeys it (James 1:23-25).
Church/Civic Participation
One may think the a man's involvement in church or civic activies is a sign of his spiritual maturity. It may only be a sign of his busyness and nothing more (1 Cor. 13:3). One's manhood is not proven by the number of good works in which he participates. Why? Because his efforts are the efforts of an unworthy servant who has only done his duty (Luke 17:7-10). The elderly shut-in who can do very little and yet loves God is more honorable than the man who does his deeds to be seen of men (Matt. 6:1). A man should serve out of a deep knowledge and respect for God's love for him (1 John 4:11), because God did not ordain a man to use service as a means for self-promotion (including one proving how much of a "Christian man" he is).
Church Leadership
Are you someone important in your faith community? You do well. Even the Pharisees held a place of importance. Jesus said they sat in the seat of Moses (Matt. 23:1-3) and yet we know what he thought of them. You may stand before a pulpit and declare some truth (if that), but you no have reason to boast. Consider the attitude the Apostle Paul had toward his ministry (1 Cor. 15:9-10) and ask if your "ministry" earns you brownie points before the Almighty in a biblical manhood beauty pageant.
Stereotypically Masculine Pursuits
What do real men do? Do they play contact sports? Are they good at math? Do they major in the hard sciences? Do they hate Mozart and love to shoot guns? Do they leave Jane Austen to the chicks? Does the Bible say anything about this? No? Then stop fobbing off these matters as "biblical manhood" lest the Word of God rebuke you and prove you to be a liar (Prov. 30:5-6).
Conclusion
I know what I have written may provoke strong disagreement on the part of many. Nonetheless, men of faith have a choice to make.
Well, getting no responses here from the 'admin' about closing this account....I figure I would make the parting shot here because after this post I will be 'banned' and if I am not; somehow I will somehow still be blamed for all the "saintly, Godly, single women" in the church today...........Let me put out all the criticisms of me upfront so you lukewarm-ladies and white-knight-lukewarm-christian-men don't have to say it. Yeah, all of them are 100% WRONG btw:
*you must have unresolved issues with your mother
*see, this is why you are single, us ladies want positive, 'confident' men
*wow, calling yourself a Christian, yet you are judging people
*he who finds a wife, finds favor..so no wife, no favor!
*you must be closeted gay
Feel free to add as you see fit. All you will say about me, or try 'shame' me into will be rebuked fully!
What is 'manhood' in the church-christian-culture today?????????????????????????
Today we are told that masculinity is in trouble. We are led to believe that men are adrift without a strong sense of who they are. Our society has come up with several paradigms of manhood, some as a remedy to the supposed identity crises men are facing. What follows is a review of six prominent paradigms. The paradigms listed probably do not exhaust the notions people have about manhood, but understanding them is essential to discerning the difference between those expectations of men that are biblical and those that are worldly.
Playboy Paradigm
Under this paradigm, a man's raison d'etre is to accumulate a large amount of toys and sleep with as many beautiful women as possible. The problem is that a man begins to see his worth in terms of the fun he is able to have and his failure in terms of what he think he is "missing out" on. Sooner or later, we are left with miserable human beings enslaved to an endless quest for the ever elusive thrill to trump all other thrills. We also see people eager to live in a protracted youth free from responsibility and accountability (for instance, anxious Baby-Boomer men who don't have the grace to accept their old age and mortality). In the end, it's all sinful and it betrays men.
Feminist Paradigm
The Feminist Paradigm promises men freedom from restrictive sex roles and expectations, but in reality, it delivers one of the most restrictive and demeaning roles of all to men--the whipping boy. We are supposed to believe that no matter what happens, women always have it worse, that women are basically innocent, and that men are guilty. We are supposed to believe that feminism merely wants equality for both sexes.
The problem is that feminism wants equality for the sexes the way communism wanted equality for workers. In fact, feminism, as we have experienced it for a generation and a half here in the West, has historical connections with communism. Feminism takes the concept of class struggle and merely substitutes the concept of struggle between the genders. Individual initiative, personal accountability, merit and all other virtues of a just and free society fall by the wayside as government enforces an equality of outcomes. Identity politics reigns supreme and a totalitarian state simply replaces one class of ruling elites with another. Women of today become the new apparatchiks.
Religious feminism is not much better. All it can offer is a tortured exegesis of certain uncomfortable passages (1 Tim. 2:11-15; 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Cor. 11:3) in an attempt to explain away what God has clearly ordained for women. No man who respects God's Word can take feminism seriously other than as a threat to his welfare.
Nice Guy Paradigm
This is the mindset of the man who plays by the rules of the suburbs where matriarchs reign. He has accepted the trek of college, work, marriage, children, work, and retirement as the measure of his worth. He really believes if he works hard enough he will get the pay raise and win the heart of the girl next door. Popular culture, parents, the community, etc. tell him he must jump through certain hoops if he wants to be "successful" or "loved". He dutifully complies. He doesn't think too much about the forces unleashed in society that add to the probability of his failure and humiliation. He is all too trusting and doesn't engage in enough healthy skepticism of the status quo. A good number of men start here before they learn the hard way.
Family-First Paradigm
"Family" is the buzzword of many social reactionaries. We hear of "family" values, foundations and institutions focused on the "family", "family" bookstores, churches that "understand the importance of families", the need for government (with all its interventions and encroachments) to protect "the family" etc. The Family-First Paradigm has many forms. In a milder forms, it is the prevailing spirit of suburban churches where bible studies go hand-in-hand with double lattes, SUVs, white picket fences, L.L. Bean and Pottery Barn Catalogs, voting Republican, etc. In it more extreme forms, it manifests itself in the Marriage Mandate Movement or the Full Quiver Movement. In short, one might say that Gen. 1:28 is the John 3:16 of the family-firsters.
In accordance with the Family-First Paradigm, Christian Men are called to take the Nice Guy Paradigm, pump it up with steroids, and canonize it as a theology. The expectation seems to be that a man must work hard in a dehumanizing office environment, be the primary breadwinner in the household, have at least two children (but preferably three or more), buy lots of consumer goods, and not question his religious leaders and the corporatist welfare/warfare state for which they might be shilling.
Family-firsterism also seems to have the following notions about gender roles: If any thing goes wrong in a man's relationship with women, it is his fault. He is a depraved human being who receives sanctification through the sacrament of marriage (a mystical union with a precious, fragile, female human being for whose choices he must take complete responsibility). His sex drive as a man is the ultimate symbol of his depravity. All real women of God, of course, do not want sex as much as he does and he must always adjust to that (not the other way around).
A particular subset of the Family-First Paradigm merits attention--the Neo-Traditionalists. They exclaim that women have a right to be successful and stand toe-to-toe with men in traditional spheres of male influence (political, economic, and cultural). Yet, when it comes to shouldering the burdens of responsibility men have traditionally borne, neo-traditionalists are all too willing to fall back on earlier sex roles. The result is that women have choices but men only responsibilities. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the insistence by some highly-paid professional women that their husbands make the bigger paycheck. Debbie Maken is a good example of a neo-traditionalist. Her book "Getting Serious about Getting Married" is a convenient patchwork of egalitarian and traditionalist understandings of sex roles. Men are essentially blamed in her book when women end up single due to their own poor choices and unrealistic expectations.
Yet in another sense, the Family-First Paradigm is all neo-traditionalist. Many reactionaries seem to latch on to the norms and customs of bygone generations (invoking the terms "biblical" and "Christian" to give authority to what they believe), while at the same time embracing many aspects of modernity that make the adoption of bygone norms and customs problematic. As a case in point, are we really supposed to believe that traditional divisions of labor between men and women in the 1950s are one and the same as what we find in the nomadic societies of Abraham's day? I get the impression that many family-firsters would answer in the affirmative (at least in those areas that they find convenient to talk about). In the final analysis, one could say that the family-firsters want to read romance novels about the Amish, but not live like them.
Masculine Christianity Paradigm
Some have called men to renounce a "feminized," "nice guy" approach to Christianity and instead embrace the supposedly "manly" aspects of biblical manhood (a "new masculinity movement" if you will). It's a call for men to be Bible-believin' bad boys--Christian tough guys who take charge. In fact, one might say this philosophy is the Mythopoetic Men's Movement (a la Iron John) baptized into Evangelicalism.
While one might sympathize with the concerns some have with the way masculinity is marginalized in many churches, one still has to ask just what vision of masculinity should men embrace? One writer made an apt observation about the so-called "new masculinity movement": Imposing qualities we consider masculine on an image of Jesus we consider feminine does not solve the problem. It only gives us a new problem--another culturally shaped Jesus, only masculine this time ...
In the end, the Biblical image of Jesus presents a far more radical role model than Jesus the dude. Jesus was gritty, honest, and fearless. Yet his strength was not displayed in his willingness to punch evildoers in the mouth, but in his suffering at the hands of the wicked for their good. Where such strength is found--whether in a man or a woman, a latte-sipping sissy or a muscled mason--there is godly strength. (Brandon O' Brien, A Jesus for Real Men, Christianity Today, April 2008). In essence, men don't need other men or women for that matter imposing yet another set of arbitrary codes of masculinity. Berating Christian men as "sissies" is arrogant and sinful. Men who want to fight the feminization of the church can do better than engage in the cowardly act of shooting the wounded.
Misogynist Paradigm
In response to the mistreatment men have experienced, some men have become so embittered that they have assumed a hostile stance towards women. A word of caution is appropriate here in broaching the subject of "misogyny", however. Feminists and other gynocentrists have misused the word as a smear attack against anyone that questions their philosophies. That said, there are truly men who have a dehumanizing attitude towards the opposite sex. It is a danger that any man angered by anti-male sexism needs to avoid.
Some men say women are "only good for one thing." Others say women all share the same amoral nature. Still others claim that women need to be demoted to second-class citizens or be coerced into submission. Finally, there are those who express elation at the suffering of women. No Christian man who takes the teachings of Christ seriously can embrace these kind of attitudes.
Please note, however, that this is not a call for men to be passive about the misandry they experience or to be overly optimistic about receiving any support from women or society. I acknowledge with great sadness that a great many women and a quite a few of our society's institutions have become the enemies of men. We cannot ignore the evils they are perpetuating; we most vigorously oppose them and shine the harsh light of truth on their deceptions and arrogance. However, religious men need to heed the admonishment of the Apostle Paul to "be angry and yet do not sin" (Eph. 4:26, NASB).........
Physical Strength/Athleticism
Some may think that physical strength is a mark of manhood. There is no scripture in the Bible that supports this assertion. On the contrary, the Apostle Paul himself placed a greater weight on spiritual exercise than bodily exercise (1 Tim. 4:8). While it is true that men are generally stronger than women, this is not always the case. I find it strange that a society, which has no problem with athletic women and the WNBA, cannot turn around and bring itself to celebrate the manhood of men who are not athletically inclined. Why are women allowed flexibility in this manner but not men? As it is, in claiming that physical strength or athleticism is the essence of manhood, we are our declaring our hostility towards elderly men and disabled men. If not, why not? Such notions of manhood clearly feed in our society's worldly obsession with youth, physicality, etc.
Let me say this: High-school football stars are usually not the ones who come up with a cure for debilitating diseases. The physically-awkward, uncoordinated kid who gets picked last for whatever team in phys-ed class back in middle school may very well be the one who designs a better car for you tomorrow. It's time we celebrate the achievements of men who, though they do not grace the covers of ESPN, make important contributions to our society. It's time that we jettison the stupid notion that every man has to aspire to throw a football like Eli Manning.
Charisma/Popularity
Many are attracted to the man who carries himself well in the public. Such a man can speak and easily relate to others, and his presence commands the attention of the people around him. Is it any wonder, then, when so many churches require their preachers to be excellent communicators and have impeccable interpersonal skills?
The Bible has a different understanding of charisma. Of Jesus, the Scriptures say, "He has no form or comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him ..." (Isaiah 53:2). Paul declared to the Corinthians that his message was not with "wise and persuasive words" lest their faith "rest on men's wisdom" and not on "God's power" (1 Cor. 2:1-5). Contrast this to the way false teachers are presented in the Bible (Rom. 16:8; 2 Peter 2:18). Ronald Reagan and Barak Obama may be hailed as "great communicators." John Piper or Joel Osteen may be everybody's favorite preacher. All the same, God "does not see as man sees" and there is "no partiality with him." (1 Sam. 16:7; Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 6:19). It's time our modern pulpits in our stately sanctuaries show a little more appreciation for this truth.
Stoicism
We are told that men are not as emotional as women are. We are led to believe that a man showing his emotions is a pathetic thing. The Bible, however, does not care one whit about the macho sensibilities of our Western culture. Rather, it presents us with a picture of a sorrowful Savior who openly wept on one occasion and elsewhere expressed a tender desire to redeem the Jews (John 11:35; Matt. 23:37). We also have the poignant lament of David over the death of a good friend (2 Sam. 1:26), a narrative that some unfortunately read through the lens of homoeroticism. This perverse misunderstanding of David's character is the logical end of a modern-day, macho ethic where the range of emotions men are allowed to express is restricted. We can do better than this.
Education/Intelligence
Our world places a premium on education and intelligence. But God has a different mind about this matter. The Bible says, "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise." Jesus rejoiced that spiritual truths were hidden from the wise men of his time, but revealed to "babes" (Luke 10:21). This is not an affirmation of anti-intellectualism. It is a realization that all men, regardless of their mental capacities must equally abase themselves before the Cross.
Financial Status
Jesus declared that "a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions" (Luke 12:15) and yet we still hear preachers declare that a man is called to be "the provider." There is, nevertheless, really only one true Provider and what we receive from him cannot be with pride, but with thanksgiving (Luke 12:13-34; 1 Tim. 4:4). Despite what some popular religious pundits might insist, there is no requirement in the Bible that a man bring home a larger paycheck than his wife. Some may refer to Genesis 3:17-19 and 1 Timothy 5:8, but these passages are not just addressed to men but to everyone, and any discourse on gender roles must take this fact into consideration.
Marital Status
American evangelicals have a reached point in their embrace of marriage and family that some of them have slid into theological error. I refer, in particular, to the Marriage Mandate Movement, a school of thought that presupposes that marriage is required by God for men. The Bible, on the other hand, clearly teaches that while marriage is blessing in principle (Gen. 1:27-28; Prov. 18:22), it is not always expedient (1 Cor. 7:28). Marriage is optional for a believer--it is neither required nor forbidden (1 Cor. 7:36-38). Concomitant with this observation is the truth that men are not required to be fathers. Like marriage, children are a blessing in principle (Gen. 1:28; Psalm 127:3), but they are not always expedient (Luke 21:23). Their presence in a life of a man is neither required nor forbidden (Isa. 56:3-5).
Ambition
We are told that men must have a "godly ambition." What does that mean? The Bible says, "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit" (Phil. 2:3) and that we should make our "ambition" to "lead a quiet life," to "mind our own business," and to work (1 Thess. 4:11). Moreover, how do we reliably measure "godly ambition" in a man when the Lord instructs us to not do our good works "to be seen of men" (Matt. 6:1)?
We live in strange times. The religious landscape is filled with those who seem to have a marquee mentality. Many spread their names far and wide with their "ministries," books, glitzy websites, podcasts, radio shows, TV interviews, workshops, seminars, lectureships, conferences, etc. On top of that, they often ask money for what they are doing. If a man says something in public, but doesn't feel the need to throw out his name every chance he gets, he may be viewed with suspicion. People may think he has something to hide when he keeps a low-profile or stays anonymous. Meanwhile, self-promoters seem to go uncriticized.
When it comes to ambition, I also have to wonder what religious and Christian women mean when they say they want an "ambitious" husband. Do they want a man ambitious enough to secure worldly riches for them, or do they want a man ambitious enough to grow more conformed to the image of God's Son? Perhaps men of faith should be a bit more discerning about their religious sisters demands in this area. As it is, the Christian man who truly has a godly ambition may not be appreciated for it after all.
Vocation/Position/Skills
Do you think your vocation and/or your skills are a indicator of your manhood? If modern churches have done a half-hearted job in fighting materialism, they have done even a worse job in countering the idolatry of careerism. What makes you think you are any more entitled to a satisfying job that engages the full extent of your talents than you are to a beautiful body or wealth? What if it pleases the Lord to put you in a low-paying, boring job beneath your level of expertise? What if you have no choice to but perform some task others consider to be unimportant? Sometimes what God asks us to do is not the most exciting thing on earth. As it written, "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much" (Luke 16:10). Let us focus on giving glory to the Lord, and not on uncertain promises of self-actualization in this world.
Assertiveness
When we think of an assertive man, we think of one who is willing to take risks, who initiates, who boldly makes his thoughts and desires known to others, and who takes command of a situation. Is this kind of assertiveness the epitome of biblical manhood? If so, then what do we do with a scripture that calls for a risk-averse stance (Proverbs 14:16)? What do we do with passages that call for restraint of the tongue and for us to be "peacable and gentle" (Prov. 21:23; James 3:17). These are not qualities God expects from women alone; these are qualities he expects from everyone.
We've also been told that "real men initiate," especially in areas such as dating and courtship. Those who foster this view are often fond of comparing the relationship between man and woman to the relationship between Christ and the church. Let these pundits consider their own logic:
If Christ is the head of man, does that mean that men should just sit back and wait on the Lord to do everything? Do not the Scriptures admonish us to show a little initiative by stepping out on faith and seeking the Lord (Heb. 11:16; James 4:8)?
If the initiative man must take in seeking the Lord does not violate the headship of the Lord, then why are we to believe that any initiative a woman shows in a relationship with man violates his headship? Certainly the initiative Ruth showed towards Boaz was not such a violation (Ruth 3:1-11). It is all too easy for women to sit back and expect men to do everything. A lazy entitlement mentality like this can be passed off as being "submissive to male leadership" and being "ladylike," but it is neither of these things and it needs to be exposed for what it is.
Assertiveness is not inherently wrong and may be required in some cases (see Jude 3 for example). However, as we have seen, it is not always appropriate, nor is it restricted to men. Therefore, the insistence that assertiveness be a metric of manhood is at best problematic.
Self-Confidence
We are told that Christian men need to be "self-confident." In actuality, Christian men need to confident in the Lord (Phil 4:13). God has no use for men who think they succeed through their own abilities. Why? Because a man who has self-confidence before the throne of God is declaring his independence from the One who nourishes and sustains him (Deut. 8:1-18). As it is, there is no "self-confidence" to be had because rather than being confident in the "self" we are instructed to deny "self" (Mark 8:34).
In contrast to our culture's idolatry of the "can-do" attitude, we need to consider what attitude God expects of men. Christ commanded his disciples to humble themselves "like little children" (Matt. 18:1-6). Do we know what that means? David, a great warrior, surely did (Psalm 131). Men need to realize that as human beings their frames are as dust. Human beings are helpless and vulnerable as the day they were born (Job 1:21). Affirming this is not the same as timidity or passivity, but it is a sober realization of how our emotional, mental, and physical abilities all depend on the Lord. All glory is for Him. When men understand and appreciate these truths, they will pause and hesitate before speaking about "self-confidence."
Chivalry
Many conservatives, who claim to be the opponents of feminism, are not particularly concerned about how they can be just demeaning as feminists in their treatment of men. One egregious example of this is their insistence on some modern code of "chivalry" where women all the choices and men only the responsibilities. Men are told that they are called to be "protectors" and a "covering" for women. But in what way are men supposed to protect women?
Should we protect women from the consequences of being an adult? Should we protect them from needed criticism? Should we protect from having their ego bruised? Women have advanced and pushed into areas of society traditionally reserved for men. Women are much less vulnerable than they used to be. They have accepted positions of influence and leadership and now can wield power over men. How can we say these women are "weak" and "need protection"?
It's time women learn that with privilege comes responsibility. If they are in positions of influence, then they need to look to the concerns of the weak and vulnerable ofboth sexes, and stop focusing so much on themselves. When Jesus spoke of the needy as being the "least of these" his "brethren" (Matt. 25:31-46), he surely was not referring to women and children only. Therefore, that idea that men are required to shower preferential treatment on a woman, not on the basis of a legitimate need or a woman's demonstrated submission, but merely on the basis of her sex is showing partiality and is therefore sinful (James 2:9). Men are not lesser human beings than women that they should play the part of doormats. Women "can't have it both ways" in demanding power and protection at the same time, and no one should dare to expect a man to oblige himself to such an ungodly double-standard. Also, in the feudal "code" of Chivarly, the dealing of women is one sentence in a several paragrahed document.
Bible Knowledge
The religious landscape is littered with experts who flaunt their church credentials. They have advanced degrees from seminaries, implying they have an in-depth knowledge of God's word that the typical individual does not have. Even if this were true, what of it? Satan is the chief Bible expert among his legion of false teachers and nominal Christians. I am not so impressed with a man who can quote scriptures, exegete passages, etc. as I am with a man who not only knows the truths of God's word, but obeys it (James 1:23-25).
Church/Civic Participation
One may think the a man's involvement in church or civic activies is a sign of his spiritual maturity. It may only be a sign of his busyness and nothing more (1 Cor. 13:3). One's manhood is not proven by the number of good works in which he participates. Why? Because his efforts are the efforts of an unworthy servant who has only done his duty (Luke 17:7-10). The elderly shut-in who can do very little and yet loves God is more honorable than the man who does his deeds to be seen of men (Matt. 6:1). A man should serve out of a deep knowledge and respect for God's love for him (1 John 4:11), because God did not ordain a man to use service as a means for self-promotion (including one proving how much of a "Christian man" he is).
Church Leadership
Are you someone important in your faith community? You do well. Even the Pharisees held a place of importance. Jesus said they sat in the seat of Moses (Matt. 23:1-3) and yet we know what he thought of them. You may stand before a pulpit and declare some truth (if that), but you no have reason to boast. Consider the attitude the Apostle Paul had toward his ministry (1 Cor. 15:9-10) and ask if your "ministry" earns you brownie points before the Almighty in a biblical manhood beauty pageant.
Stereotypically Masculine Pursuits
What do real men do? Do they play contact sports? Are they good at math? Do they major in the hard sciences? Do they hate Mozart and love to shoot guns? Do they leave Jane Austen to the chicks? Does the Bible say anything about this? No? Then stop fobbing off these matters as "biblical manhood" lest the Word of God rebuke you and prove you to be a liar (Prov. 30:5-6).
Conclusion
I know what I have written may provoke strong disagreement on the part of many. Nonetheless, men of faith have a choice to make.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
quietpraiyze
In The Secret Place
Upvote
0
Travelers.Soul
Traveler; Dreamer; Warrior; Coffee lover
- Aug 15, 2010
- 6,510
- 8,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Servant68
Sleepless 300 miles from Seattle
- Jun 30, 2015
- 1,470
- 1,510
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
My son is driving over from Seattle, then spending 2 days with him and my folks on their little yacht on Couer D' Alene Lake.
My mind is full of making sure I'm bringing everything I need to be "at sea" for 2 days. Lots of sun screen, lots of beer, camera, swim trunks, etc, etc...
My mind is full of making sure I'm bringing everything I need to be "at sea" for 2 days. Lots of sun screen, lots of beer, camera, swim trunks, etc, etc...
Upvote
0
quietpraiyze
In The Secret Place
I knew when I started to share more of myself here on CF regarding entertainment (music, movies, TV, etc) that there would be people who judged me but I posted anyways because I'm not living some double life. I'm no longer bound by fear and legalism worried about what other Christians think about me. I remember those days of speaking christianese and plastering on the Christian veneer. What a sad existence that was for me. Never feeling safe enough to just be human and have my own likes and dislikes but that's not my life anymore – thank God!
I wish sometimes as Christians we could come together and talk about entertainment without being attacked and/or condemned. But unfortunately there are still some Christians who like to reduce other Christian's Salvation and morality down to whether or not we watch a certain movie or TV show. I wonder do they think quoting Scriptures voids their nastiness, condemnation, and self righteousness?
It made me think how sometimes it's not so much that people are for some things as much as they are against others. I really believe some things are an indictment against nasty Christians. So I'll continue sharing and I'm sure others will keep doing whatever it is they do be it attacking, condemning, etc. but they won't stop me because I'm free and I'm going to stay that way.
Whew that felt good to say!
I wish sometimes as Christians we could come together and talk about entertainment without being attacked and/or condemned. But unfortunately there are still some Christians who like to reduce other Christian's Salvation and morality down to whether or not we watch a certain movie or TV show. I wonder do they think quoting Scriptures voids their nastiness, condemnation, and self righteousness?
It made me think how sometimes it's not so much that people are for some things as much as they are against others. I really believe some things are an indictment against nasty Christians. So I'll continue sharing and I'm sure others will keep doing whatever it is they do be it attacking, condemning, etc. but they won't stop me because I'm free and I'm going to stay that way.
Whew that felt good to say!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Servant68
Sleepless 300 miles from Seattle
- Jun 30, 2015
- 1,470
- 1,510
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
I knew when I started to share more of myself here on CF regarding entertainment (music, movies, TV, etc) that there would be people who judged me but I posted anyways because I'm not living some double life. I'm no longer bound by fear and legalism worried about what other Christians think about me. I remember those days of speaking christianese and plastering on the Christian veneer. What a sad existence that was for me. Never feeling safe enough to just be human and have my own likes and dislikes but that's not my life anymore – thank God!
I wish sometimes as Christians we could come together and talk about entertainment without being attacked and/or condemned. But unfortunately there are still some Christians who like to reduce other Christian's Salvation and morality down to whether or not we watch a certain movie or TV show. I wonder do they think quoting Scriptures voids their nastiness, condemnation, and self righteousness?
It made me think how sometimes it's not so much that people are for some things as much as they are against others. I really believe some things are an indictment against nasty Christians. So I'll continue sharing and I'm sure others will keep doing whatever it is they do be it attacking, condemning, etc. but they won't stop me because I'm free and I'm going to stay that way.
Whew that felt good to say!
I once showed up to my ex father-in-law's Labor Day group camp extravaganza with a 6-pack of craft beer. You'd of thought I walked into the camp with a stack of Playboys...
He practically fell out of his chair getting up to usher me out of sight so he could lecture me for half an hour on the evils of drinking and how I had embarrassed him and his family in front of their church friends.
I have little patience for fake people who pretend to be holier than thou while hiding some pretty horrific behavior.
My brother is a Detective and told me about this local guy who he arrested for abusing his wife and kids. He is a genuine psychopath who puts on a front of being a perfect Christian gentleman. He is good-looking, smooth, outgoing, and loves to make new friends by finding another church that hasn't heard of him. Meanwhile, his ex-wife and kids live in constant fear of him retaliating against them for turning him in.
Anyway, when I pull into the church parking lot and I have the stereo in my pickup cranked up to Van Halen or Bon Jovi, I have caught myself turning it down so others can't hear that I'm listening to "devil music". Then I realized that I didn't want to go to a church where others were so judgmental...
Upvote
0
dayhiker
Mature veteran
- Sep 13, 2006
- 15,561
- 5,305
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Praise God that we have matured enough in Jesus so other's judgements don't mess with us any more.
I must confess it took me longer to learn this lesson than most other lessons in me life. Now I really know who to love people
and enjoy the freedom salvation brings.
I must confess it took me longer to learn this lesson than most other lessons in me life. Now I really know who to love people
and enjoy the freedom salvation brings.
Upvote
0
quietpraiyze
In The Secret Place
Thank you for sharing that. I really appreciate it. It's really comforting to know that we're not at the mercy of those kind of people. I do agree with you when people do this behavior there is usually “something” going on with them. We know it's not about God or others because their response is "off". They pride themselves on being more of a Christian than you but I've usually found the hypocrisy glaring.
Another reason I can't stand this kind of behavior is because it makes some Christians (I believe many) afraid to share with other Christians. So they hide and when they do talk they say all the proper things. It's like a dysfunctional parallel universe where honesty and transparency is wrong. It would be nice to see Christians share openly and honestly with one another without fear of reprisal from other Christians.
When I stand back and look at it, it's so easy to see the enemy at work. Is it any wonder that Jesus prayed that we would be one as He and the Father are one? He could only pray it but we have to choose it. Sometimes you don't know in that choice if it's friend or foe. Is it a fellow Christian or is it “Jason” from Friday 13th wearing a Christian mask instead of the hockey one? I would like to not have to find out through a butcher knife...
Upvote
0
quietpraiyze
In The Secret Place
It has taken me most of my Saved life and I think I'm still learning but God is doing something concrete for me when it comes to dealing with a certain type of Christian. I'm okay with that. It's both different and refreshing. What I do know for sure is that I'm going to stay free in Christ. So it's all good.
Upvote
0
quietpraiyze
In The Secret Place
No problem there are a lot of Christians who don't watch R rated movies. Instead some watch violent sports and/or listen to shock jocks all day long. You know they've gotta stay pure...
Upvote
0
dayhiker
Mature veteran
- Sep 13, 2006
- 15,561
- 5,305
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Quiet, I've thought often about being alive now thru many American wars and the church hasn't opposed one of them.
How is that following Jesus' example of loving our enemies?!
Ya, I hear you. Have wondered about that myself.
How is that following Jesus' example of loving our enemies?!
Ya, I hear you. Have wondered about that myself.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
