IF the goal is to have a single site where two sides of any particular issue can be discussed and IF the goal is to allow both sides to explore and present their side and IF the goal is to maintain any type of impartiality and IF the goal is to have the site be a “safe” place (“safe” is in quotes because one person’s safety is another person’s boredom and one person’s “unsafety” is another person’s challenge)…well…it’s going to get tricky.

Some (hopefully) doable things.

• have a relatively even number of contributors on each side
• have a loose structure that allows for each contributor to post, but making sure that neither side has an overwhelming (lopsided) number of posts
• have a set of rules that is acceptable for each side
• have at least a couple of people who are responsible for holding each side accountable to those rules
• if it is possible, have people from each side participate not only as contributors but also as moderators
• let the moderators do their job; and don’t let the contributors and commentors do the moderator’s job.
• go out of the way to make sure that everybody knows that both sides are accountable to the rules
• make sure that the authority structure of the site is well known – who is moderator and who is contributor?  How do people contact moderators?

1) Have a relatively even number of contributors for each side:

If it is clear even from looking at the list in the sidebar that the site is lopsided, it may become difficult to see how a site can remain even-handed.  If there are a number of contributors who only post on a very irregular basis and the posts themselves remain (relatively) even, it becomes easier…which leads to

2) have a loose structure that allows for each contributor to post, but making sure that neither side has an overwhelming (lopsided) number of posts

If the site is set to show 10 posts on the front page, there should be about an even number of posts from each side (6 to 4 perhaps).  If the goal is to keep one side from being drowned out by sheer numbers, the way to do that is to keep one side from being drowned out.

3) have a set of rules that is acceptable for each side

I use the “Harris Twins’ Commenting Guidelines”

4) have at least a couple of people who are responsible for holding each side accountable to those rules

Even people who are experienced sometimes follow illogical paths or become so passionate or frustrated that the “rules” get left in the dust.  Having more than one person who stand together for the sake of “gentleness and respect” – and who communicate with each other when things go south – helps keep things better under control – especially when it is well known that they DO keep the contributors and commentors  under a watchful eye.

5) if it is possible, have people from each side participate not only as contributors but also as moderators

There will be resentment one side feels as if they are the only ones held accountable.  If you have an “A” moderator and a “B” moderator and the “A” moderator contacts the “A” folks and the “B” moderator contacts the “B” folks, it becomes more difficult for an “A” to cry that the “B” moderator has it in for him or her.

It is easier (welcome to human nature) to take a word of warning from somebody who agrees with you.

6) let the moderators do their job; and don’t let the contributors and commentors do the moderator’s job.

If the moderators and contributors are not clearly defined to the public (listed separately), and if there is a contributor who is scolding, lecturing and generally acting like a moderator, it will be easier to assume that person has the authority to scold, lecture and generally act like a moderator.

7) go out of the way to make sure that everybody knows that both sides are accountable to the rules

If the posts are lopsided in numbers, the contributors are lopsided in numbers and the commentors are lopsided in numbers, if there is even a perception of one side being held accountable and others not being held accountable, you will lose respect, readers, commentors and credibility.
make sure that the authority structure of the site is well known – who is moderator and who is contributor?  How do people contact moderators?

This has been covered but it bears repeating.

It’s not that hard to list the owner, the moderators and the contributors in separate lists.  It is frustrating to receive a public reprimand from a person on the only list in the sidebar and to accept that person as one having authority…and not know who is in control and who is taking on control.

~~~~~

A two-sided list may be possible and it may not be.

If it is possible, it is because both sides have a stake in supervising, moderating,  contributing, and both sides want both sides to feel safe and respected.

thanks for your words about Simey…we do miss having her around.

I do want to ask you for advice.  What is a nice (although very inexpensive), very small, very portable, very “feminine) looking humidor?  (I’d also like one that works well).

(one of my vices)

thanks!

I have a lot of respect for ministries or companies that put their materials out at no charge.

My first experience with this was the Atkins Diet. Yes, they sell books.  Yes, they sell product.

But if you want to know the information about the diet, it’s all there on their website.  They have an extensive research section, a section of links to research, a wonderful recipe section.

And then there’s South Beach (For only $20 a month, you can have full access to their site – and you still have to buy the book to get the full scoop)

And the Sonoma Diet (also $20 a month)

Yesterday, the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood offered a list of books that you can download for free.

I’ve also heard:  If you want to get the full look at it, buy by DVD.  If you want the whole story, buy the book.

You can look at it a couple of different ways.

You can make a condescending statement like: it’s worth what you pay for it (perhaps we should start charging admission to church services?)

Or you can start with an assumption that this is a group of people who believes in what they are teaching to the extent that they are willing to put their material out for public use.

Especially for those who disagree with them.

I refuse to buy material from CBE International.  I don’t want to fund their ideal.

I can offer a list of books to those who disagree with CBMW – they don’t have to worry about funding a ministry they don’t agree with; the material comes to them at no charge.

Question:  Do you want your ministry known for offering information – full books – free for the download?

Or would you rather have the funding?

I’m taking a look at leadership styles and how they relate to different aspects of life where leadership is needed.

Basically, I’m looking at (here I’ll use the terms that are used for parenting styles) neglective, permissive, authoritative and authoritarian.  I’ll also be looking at “Servant Leadership”, which is vital, but not included in this list.

How do these styles relate to each other, can we look at one relationship (business, for instance) and apply some of the concepts to another (classroom, for example)

It’ll take me a few days, there is a lot of information I’m looking at.

I did the cooking, we all helped with clean up.  Tom took care of the turkey carcass and he’s using the leftovers to make soup in the crock pot.

He’s taking the apple pie to a friend’s house (if it’s in the house, I’ll help eat it) and Manda will finish off the pumpkin pie.

Henry at the heart, liver, icky stuff.  He’s putting on weight and walking better; I think that part of it is because he’s eating almost no dry food and is on a low-carb diet.  Still getting insulin twice a day but we may be able to keep him at a minimal dose if the low-carb diet helps.

Green bean casserole rocks.

In no discernible order:

• for Godly leaders in my life
• for God’s hand on the leaders of the world, godly and ungodly
• for my family; whether they be by blood, by marriage, by Christ or by love
• for my home, cozy and warm
• for the smell of the turkey (those who are familiar with anosmia know the significance of my ability to detect a faint whiff of turkey)
• for the continued relative health of my parents
• for the work God continues to do in my life
• for the family Christmas, coming up just next week, with my parents here!
• for life, liberty and freedom
• for the work of Christ on the cross, the sovereignty of God, for salvation for those who believe
• for my children; those living and those waiting for me
• for my job and my ability to help
• for my health
• for my love

From Only Sometimes Clever…like her, I didn’t get tagged, but it looks like fun so….

Here’s the deal: type the answer to each question into a Google image search, and you pick an image from the first page of results.  (I clicked on my favorite, then copied the image location – they’re small, but you can click to get the original image.)

1.  Age at next birthday:

2.  A place you’d like to travel:

3.  Your favorite place:

4. Your favorite objects:

5. Your favorite food:

6.  Your favorite animals:

7. Your favorite color:

8.  Town where you were born:

9.  Town where you live:

10. Name of a past pet

11.  First name of a part love (I’m not sure what that means, so I’m just putting the first name of my true love):

12.  Best friend’s nickname:

13.  Your screen/nickname

14.  Your first name:

15. Your middle name:

16.  Your last name:

(I’m opting out of this one because if you put 2 and 2 together and google my first and last name you get a bit of personal information that I’ve never put out there)

17. Bad habit of yours:

18.  First job:

19: Grandmother’s name:

20.  College major:

And…that was work but fun!  If anybody wants to play, feel free…just link back here so we can join the fun!

Saturday, she was fine. Chased a moth even.

Sunday she sat on the stairs, hunched over and cried when I touched her.

This morning she was laying on her side in her bed over the heating register, crying when I pet her.

This afternoon she went to sleep.

Simone was about 16 years old and the most affectionate and cuddly cats I’ve owned. She was known (even among people who don’t like cats) as “Sweet Simey”. She consented to be worn as a hat by my son and stuffed into the front of his t-shirt. She slept with my daughter and Amanda doesn’t remember life without her. Simey even liked little kids.

The trip to the vet was hard, but not as hard as seeing her hurt.

God created man in His image, we are the ones with souls. It is our job to take care of the earth and those that belong on this earth with us.
Animals don’t fear death, they fear pain and Sweet Simey didn’t deserve pain.

(The photo is from a time when she was fat, healthy, happy and very relaxed…)

I’m reading a book by Thom Hartmann (it’s a book I’ve had for years but don’t remember the title and it’s sitting in my desk at work). It questions ADD/ADHD (Attention Deficit Disorder – with or without Hyperactivity) as a disability and looks at it through the screen of a personality type, or skills set.

I have an “official” diagnosis of ADD (inattentive); it gets me ritalin if I want it during exam weeks, although I have not used prescription meds in years. I do self-medicate with caffeine.

The prescriptions that work for those with this diagnosis? psycho-stimulants.

But wait…why would a stimulant work to slow down a person?

Here is the theory: There are a certain number of people who have a function in their body that releases less of a chemical than the body of the person living next door to them. (Do I remember the name? no, but the book is at work.) This chemical stimulates the nervous system.

So (the theory goes) I have less of this chemical running around in my body, so I feel less “stimulated”. How would this affect the way I run my life?

How would a child sitting in a class for hours give him(or her)self stimulation. Impulsively jumping out of the seat? Pulling the hair of the nearest child? Bouncing legs, doodling, watching the birds fly by the window?

How would this play out in an adult life? Waiting until the last minute to write a paper, somehow liking the stress of the impending deadline? Careening down a hill on a piece of wood called a “snowboard”? Strapping a big piece of fabric to one’s back and jumping out of an airplane?

“Normals” look at this behavior and say, “That person has a death wish.” They are wrong.

We have a life wish. If you ask somebody at the bottom (or top) of a cliff after a rappel or climb, they will tell you that they feel alive.

Alive!

It is the desire for the feeling of “aliveness” that brings with it the urge for “high risk” behaviors, whether sports, exploration or sexual acts.

I have a “life wish” – I want to do new things. I want to experience the wind in my face, snow in my eyes, water in my ears. I want to feel the sun on my back as I climb, the cool of water in my face as I dive.
I want to experience danger, excitement, even fear. I want to feel the flash in my limbs as adrenalin shoots down to my fingertips and toes. These are the feelings that life is made of and I want to experience life.

In an effort to be circumspect and “proper”, I’ll just say that I’m having a big glass of wine, 6 motrin, and I’m going to bed.  The physical condition that is bringing about my surgery next month is causing me discomfort, inconvenience and pain.  If you are a “male-type-person”, you may not want to look any further.

there are more views under the fold.
Read more »

My father-in-law was a hero.  A true hero.

He was a war hero.

I have hanging on my wall a shadowbox with his army induction photo, his bronze star, his purple heart, his D-day medal from the country of France and a medal signifying his belonging to the “big red one”.  I have the flag that draped his coffin.
I’ve read the story about why he was awarded the bronze star and purple heart.  He was a tank commander during WWII.  I don’t know why the guy was out of his tank, but one of Dad’s men was injured and trapped between the tank/line and a German machine gun nest.

Dad rushed the nest, rescued his man and carried him back to the tank and to safety; he was injured in the process.

But he was a TRUE hero.

I never saw the photo, I didn’t even know about the bronze star.  I knew about the purple heart because his injury disabled him later in life.  I knew about the medal from France because there was a controversy.  I knew about the Big Red One because he had dinner with the remainder of his unit at least once a year.  I never knew about the letter until his death.

He wanted it that way because he knew what was important.

He came home from the war, went to work for “Continental Can Company” and worked his way through Moody Bible Institute.  He married my mother-in-law and became a “home missionary”, going to schools, going to the poor, going to the “back country” in Tennessee, preaching the Gospel.

That was what was important to him.  All three of his children were born in the mission field of Tennessee.

In the process, he preached on the radio, he ministered in small churches, he worked at a summer camp for poor kids.

After that, he moved to Brookfield, IL, where he pastored the church where most of his family and in-laws belonged.  From there, he moved to Greenville, MI and after that he pastored the church that I grew up in, where I met his son, my husband.

Did things go wrong in his family?  Yes, but his children made their own choices as adults that I’m not sure he had any part in.  I do believe that he did the best he could with what he was given, in the era that he lived in.

Why did he not talk about his war days?

Because he didn’t want to take away anything from preaching the Gospel.  His war history was less important to him than his vocation of preaching.

I believe he was a hero of the best kind.

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Cor 3:17  ESV)

In providence, the sermon I heard yesterday was on Spiritual leadership, taking from Acts 6.

The problem was an administrative problem but it was a problem.  When widows were being fed, one demographic was fed, while another was not…how to solve it.

Which is more important?

spiritual LEADERSHIP…..or…..SPIRITUAL leadership?

We can tend to see our spirituality as one aspect of our person, along with psychological, emotional, physical, mental, sexual, social, etc.

OR

We can see our spirituality as encompassing all that we do.  Anything that we do that is of the Spirit IS spiritual.

The apostles understood their job to be one of discernment and proclamation of the Gospel message.  Also understanding that in their apostolic leadership role, they could not do everything; things (such as the group of widows) were slipping through the cracks.

Rather than wait on tables, the apostles decided to choose a group of men to do take care of the administrative and day-to-day details.

But wait! Wait on tables?  Couldn’t they have hired that done?

No….no.  The men who were chosen were not any men, even the men chosen for this task were “of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.”

It is a false dichotomy to set up

• the spiritual
• against the physical.

and

• the leadership
• against the servant

In reality, it is

• the spiritual act of leadership in discerning and proclaiming the Word and
• the spiritual act of leadership in administration and serving

Everything can be spiritual.

• The Apostles were doing a spiritual job
• the Seven were doing a spiritual job.

Were all of these men equal in salvation? Yes.

Were all of these men equal in personhood?  Yes.

Were all of these men doing vital jobs?  Yes.

Were the Seven under the authority of the Apostles?  Yes.

Were they doing the same job?  No.

Were they supposed to be doing the same job?  No.

Were they all working in the Spirit?  Yes.

Does this make the seven “less” than the apostles?  Less equal?  In importance?  No…feeding the poor and caring for those less fortunate is a command.  In salvation?  No, there is no Scriptural evidence that the Apostles were more “saved” than the Seven.  In personhood?  No, they were all human.  In authority?  Yes.  The Apostles were given authority over the church, while the Seven were given authority over administration under the Apostles.

So, rather than seeing a group of leaders (spiritual) and a group of servants (physical) what we have are two groups of men, both doing spiritual jobs, both serving God in vital ways, both equal in personhood and salvation, but not equal in authority.

The pastor compared the Apostles and the Seven to the church today:

He likened the Apostles to the elders and pastors.  They are the ones who are responsible for discerning the will of God for the congregation.  They are the ones responsible for church discipline.  Even within that group, there is leadership structure.  The elders are responsible for the discerning of the long-term and overall direction, while the pastors are the ones who are more responsible for leading day-to-day activities.

He compared the Seven to the board of deacons, the ministry facilitation and operations staff.  They are the ones who carry out the direction of the elders, under the leadership of pastors.

Are any of the jobs less “spiritual”?  No.  Are the elders and pastors more important than the deacons and staff?  No, they all fill vital shoes.

Is the child with Down Syndrome who passed out bulletins any less spiritual than the pastor?  I think the pastor would say no?  Is the child less valuable, less equal in the eyes of God?  I think the pastor would say no.

Is the spiritual act of servant-hood less equal than the spiritual act of  pastoring?

7:45 – 7:45 for parent-teacher conferences. Three conferences are IEP’s. One is a 3-year review. We do have a potluck.

I’m missing class (but that’s ok, the professor missed the week of his conferences.

Dark Roasted Blend – “Glamorous Insects”

~~~~~~~~~~

“Ten Useful Secrets the Major Airlines Don’t Want You to Know”

(HT: Subversive Influence)

~~~~~~~~~~

I find that (for me) if I try to use a combox for longer comments, I get off track, distracted and I miss things. For me, it is easier to just make a new post.

So, these questions are from a comment in a previous post, “Mutual Submission”

1. I am assuming then that you are getting the idea of the husband being the “rightful authority” from Ephesians 5 and 1 Cor. via the word, “head?”

Not necessarily. The vast majority of times that “head” / kephale is used in the New Testament it means literal head. The rest of the times we have to, we must look to context.

Matthew 21:42 uses kephale:

“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?

Is a cornerstone a symbol of unity, or foundation or leadership? Or all three?

Since this verse is referencing Psalms 118: 22,23, what is the word used for cornerstone and how is that word used in other places? It is used for source of a river, a literal head of a body and to indicate a ruler/chief.

Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.(ex 18:25)

I’m only looking for a indications of how a word was used; In English a single word can have different meanings, so it is with this kephale.

1 Cor. 11 and Eph. 5 both use head to reference the husband as head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. Is this a metaphor for unity or for leadership (or both)?

Kephale is used twice in Ephesians prior to chapter 5.

(Eph 1: 21-23 …far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Is this a metaphor for unity or leadership?

Colossians 2:9,10 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

Is kephale in this passage a metaphor for unity or leadership?

In context, the Eph 5 passage reads:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

It starts out, wives, submit to your husbands.  Why?  Because he is your head.

How should they submit?  As the church submits to Christ.

• wives submit to your husband
• because
• the husband is the head of the wife
• as Christ is the head of the church
• now (so)
• as the church submits to Christ
• so wives submit should submit to their husbands.

Is this a metaphor for unity, for leadership or both?

(NOTE:  I believe that wives should not follow their husbands into sin or stand by them and allow them to sin.   We belong to a perfect God who would not expect us to follow Him into sin)

~~~~~~~~~~

2. You mentioned structure vs a sinner w/in the structure. Do you think the head/body analogy was given to emphasize rightful *structure*, to show us who is the leader in the relationship?

When you look at the bullet points above we see the what (submit) the because (the husband is the head) the therefore (as the church submits to Christ) then what (wives should submit to their husbands.

• What is structure?  husbands are the head of their wives as Christ is the head of the church.
• what happens as a result of the structure>  wives submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.

~~~~~~~~~~
3. Do the other (2) examples of Head/Body in Ephesians support this view of the analogy?

Head as leader?  The one is chapter one does.

(Eph 1: 21-23 …far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

The chapter four use is a metaphor for unity in the body, but not a metaphor for marriage.

Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, ^{when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.}

This does also not rule out the metaphor being about leadership AND unity (given the metaphor of “head” in chapter 1)

~~~~~~~~~~
4. Do the other (2) examples given in 1 Corinthians 11 support this view, too?

Since that chapter is about the differences in how men and women should pray and prophesy in worship, it’s hard not to read in gender roles and differences.

~~~~~~~~~~

5. Did the people in the Jewish and Roman/Greek culture think of a human’s head as the part of the person that was the authority?

If in both the Old and New Testaments have examples where the same word is used for the literal head and leadership, it would be reasonable to read the possibility that those cultures at least accepted the metaphor.

~~~~~~~~~~

6. Was Paul supporting the *authority structure* of slavery when he gave instructions to masters and slaves in Ephesians and Colossians?

The difference is that Christ and the church were never used as a parallel for masters and slaves.  Slavery is not a “mystery”, marriage is.
~~~~~~~~~~

7. If not, why didn’t Paul just flat out give orders to abolish the structure of slavery? Wasn’t he catering to culture by not just saying outright that it was a less-than-best system?

Daniel B. Wallace writes:

One of the implications of this has to do with the NT authors’ strategy on slavery: Should Paul tell the slaves to rebel? Could he write an emancipation proclamation? When we think through this issue, it is plain that the NT writers simply could not outright condemn slavery (the disastrous results of Spartacus’ rebellion [in spite of the Hollywood portrayal] would have been etched in their minds). Further, to whom would such a directive be pointed? To the pagan masters? They do not place themselves under God’s law and are not a part of his kingdom program. Paul’s exhortations to them would be meaningless. To the slaves? They are powerless to bring about their own freedom apart from overt actions (e.g., rebellion, running away). Further, such actions hardly comported with the gospel: change is to take place from the inside out, not from imposition on social structures. (The one exception to this had to do with ultimate allegiance and worship: civil disobedience was always encouraged when it came to having to choose between Christ and Caesar.)

Paul’s letters are written to Christians, not unbelievers – he addresses Christians in marriages, Christians in slavery, Christians as master – and gives instructions to all of them.

The quote: from Husbands Who Love Like Christ and the Wives Who Submit to Them:

Therefore, headship is not a right to command and control. It’s a responsibility to love like Christ: to lay down your life for your wife in servant leadership. And submission is not slavish or coerced or cowering. That’s not the way Christ wants the church to respond to his leadership: he wants it to be free and willing and glad and refining and strengthening.

In other words what this passage of Scripture does is two things: it guards against the abuses of headship by telling husbands to love like Jesus; and it guards against the debasing of submission by telling wives to respond the way the church does to Christ.

(…)

There is no contradiction between mutual submission and a relationship of leadership and response. Mutual submission doesn’t mean that both partners must submit in exactly the same ways. Christ submitted himself to the church in one way, by a kind of servant-leadership that cost him his life. And the church submits herself to Christ in another way by honoring his leadership and following him in on the Calvary road.

So it is not true that mutual submission rules out the family pattern of Christ-like leadership and church-like submission. Mutual submission doesn’t obliterate those roles, it transforms them.

What this means to me:

If we see headship and leadership within the framework of responsibility, not right, it becomes a loving response to a loving God. Godly submission of a godly wife becomes a loving response to a loving husband.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from “Do you believe in ‘mutual submission’ the way Paul teaches in Ephesians 5:21, ‘Submit to one another’?”

Are Christ and the church mutually submitted? They aren’t if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church. But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead. So mutual submission does not mean submitting to each other in the same ways. Therefore, mutual submission does not compromise Christ’s headship over the church and it should not compromise the headship of a godly husband.

What this means to me:

The key is love. The key is different. There is no conflict between love / leadership / submission. As sinful mankind, we can inject a conflict where one does not belong, but a man or a woman sinning in an authority structure does not make the structure wrong, it makes the sin wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from “Building a Christ Centered Marriage: How Husbands and Wives Can Complement One Another in Marriage”

The traditional camp, on the other hand, advocates equality before God, but is committed to complementarianism, rather than egalitarianism. This is the belief that, while men and women are equal before God, they serve him in complementary roles which are not always identical and in some cases ought not to be. These complementarians recognize that there is “neither male nor female” in terms of our relationship to God (Gal. 3:28). But they also recognize the other biblical texts which counsel that men and women possess distinct abilities and callings (such as 1 Pet. 3:1-7; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:9-3:7). In the home there ought to be male headship (though not domination) and womanly submission (though not fearful servility). Complementarians insist that to be truly evangelical we must confess that there is no contradiction over this matter in Scripture, and to be truly biblical we must affirm both the spiritual equality of men and women and also the distinctions and differences in roles that are taught in the Bible.

What this means to me: Men and women should fit together like a jigsaw puzzle – heart to heart, mind to mind, soul to soul. Not like identical and interchangeable gear cogs.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from Armorbearer:

i agree, women are not afforded the courtesy of dignity in many cases, but the problem is not patriarchy. the problem is men acting like buffoons. the remedy then is not feminism and matriarchy or swapping one bully for another, the remedy is mutual submission. rightful authority.

What this means to me: Some parents abuse their children; that does not mean we should remove parental authority. Some pastors are abusive; that does not mean that we should abolish pastoral authority. There are some bad bosses; that does not mean that the position of “boss” is bad. A president may lie under oath, or knowingly accept bad intelligence; that doesn’t mean that the office of presidency is evil.
Abuse is sin, it does not follow that the structure is sinful, but the person within that structure.

of the book sort…

I’ve never read the Chronicles of Narnia, so I bought that.

Books for my research paper:

“Change your Mind and Keep the Change”

“ADHD – A Complete and Authoritative Guide”

New music…I bought 4 CD’s of classical orchestral music at my school’s “garage sale” for $1 each. 

Once in a while I’m invited to participate in on-line consumer surveys and today I watched a few commercials.  One of them was a Subway commercial that featured a husband and wife, along with their son.  Passing the Subway store, the dad asks mom if he can get a sandwich.  She (Mommy) tells him that they don’t have time, they have to get to practice.  Dad promptly throws a typical little kid tantrum, complete with body language, flailing arms, slumped shoulders.  “Come on…pleeeeaaassseeee…?

No, mom say, grow up.  And the child faces down his father, shakes his finger at him and declares, “Yeah Dad…GROW UP!”

Can you imagine the uproar at an advertisement that portrayed a woman acting like a child, with her own child telling her to “Grow up?”  Yikes…and yet men are a politically correct target.

Is this an aberration?  Are men often betrayed as being immature, stupid or incompetent  with family matters?

• Home Improvement
• Every Loves Raymond (I watched these shows once in a while and found them anti-men as grown ups each time)

What about advertising?

~~~~~~~~~~

2004, In that (Verizon) ad a bumbling father tries to help his little daughter with her homework and is treated with contempt by both the girl and her mother, who orders the father to “leave her alone” and “go wash the dog.” Our campaign made 300 newspapers, and the Verizon ad stopped running a few weeks later.

See the ad here (on the right).

~~~~~~~~~~

Here is an ad of an idiot male parking

~~~~~~~~~~

A Fidelity ad featuring a young girl with an “I can’t believe my father is this stupid” look and a male gloating over winning a ping-pong game.

~~~~~~~~~~

And of course…