Tag Archives: gender

• 1 Comment

•

It's going to get interesting.  It is my opinion that we will see gay activists targeting Christian businesses with lawsuits in order to change the face of American Christianity.  It is also my opinion that they will mostly succeed - except for that "remnant".

~~~~~~~~~~

New Mexico
...a New Mexico court decides against a Christian photographer who opted not to photograph a lesbian wedding.

After Huguenin told them she only photographed traditional marriages, the couple filed a complaint for discrimination against their sexual orientation.

The case was taken before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which heard the case in January.

This will end up affecting many Christian small business owners that rub shoulders with the marriage "industry".  Flowers, photographers, seamstresses, caterers, cake bakers.

Gay activists are not above deliberately targeting Christians in order to sue and set precedents in the court system.

In another story, "Legally Speaking: Through a Lens, Darkly" the point is made that there are civil rights at stake:  the rights of the photographer.

~~~~~~~~~~

California

...A lesbian couple sues a fertility clinic

This is disputed by Kenneth Pedroza, the attorney for the two doctors. He said they clearly informed Benítez that their religious beliefs applied to unmarried women and treated her no differently than any other single woman seeking treatment at the clinic.

"Freedom of religion absolutely protects all of their conduct in this case," he said. "There are two areas in medical care where freedom of religion is invoked most clearly: in the creation of life and the termination of life." And just as patients have rights, he said, so too do doctors.

Jennifer C. Pizer, a lawyer with the gay rights group Lambda Legal who is representing Benítez, said that while the law protects doctors who refuse certain treatments on religious grounds, it does not allow them to do so on a discriminatory or selective basis. In other words, when doctors refuse a treatment, their refusal must apply to all patients -- not to a group, such as unmarried women or lesbians.

~~~~~~~~~~

San Diego

Employees who refuse to perform gay wedding ceremonies at the San Diego County Clerk's Office are facing reassignment. At least 14 employees who raised religious objections to performing same-sex weddings have been told they cannot pick and choose between marriage applicants. California began gay marriages this week. Clerk Greg Smith had told workers earlier that those who object on religious grounds wouldn't have to perform the ceremonies, but 14 employees balked and that was more than his office could accommodate.

~~~~~~~~~~

Maggie Gallagher asks:

But hey, if the word "marriage" can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like "monogamy" or "fidelity"?

She notes in her article:

For example, redefining "infidelity." Back in the '90s, when Andrew Sullivan first suggested gay couples had a thing or two to teach opposite-sex couples about our rigid insistence on sexual fidelity, public reaction was so negative that he recanted (and to this day he gets mad if you even mention he said it!).

But from the new-won confidence of his legally recognized gay marriage in Massachusetts, Eric Erbelding is quite comfortable explaining to The New York Times: "Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical." Eric says most married gay couples he knows are "for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way."

For the most part ... except for the casual three-way?

"faithful" does NOT mean the same thing to gay people as it does to heterosexuals.

What about the next step: "Could churches in time risk their tax-exempt status by refusing to marry gays?"

Here's what the gay newspaper of record thinks: "That remains to be seen and will likely result in a steady stream of court battles."

~~~~~~~~~~

Gay trumps Christian.And we will see more.

•

Organizations of the week (a list of sites)

~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Robert Morey - Truth About Black Liberal Theology

All racist theologies have the same basic core ideas and methodology. Thus it does not really matter if we are talking about the KKK, the Nation of Islam or Black liberal theology, their focus is always on skin and not sin; race and not grace; gossip and not gospel. Racism is always focused on the outward instead of the inward because it cannot deal with the root problem of sin. Hatred and violence feed on bitterness and racist rage. Class envy does not help anyone in this life or in the next. Blaming others for one’s own sin and guilt will not solve the problem. We must take responsibility for what we do in life instead of blaming “the man” for our failures and woe. This is why we need to break the shackle of black liberal theology which enslave the black man and keeps him poor and angry. May God use this study to liberate black men and women from the lie of Black Liberal Theology.

~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

The Jolly Blogger - The Gospel in Ephesians 2

I found this helpful and expansive in thinking about the gospel.  Sin is defined more broadly than mere action - it is our nature.  The work of Christ pays not only the penalty but crushes the power of sin, thus it has day to day relevance to Christian practice.  And the benefits of the gospel are so much more than just forgiveness of sin or eternal life.

~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

Front Page Mag - The Truth About Oil

A recent survey on the environment found that seventy percent of people worldwide think that the planet is running out oil. Only less than one quarter believe that there is enough of it to keep it as a primary source of energy. Petro pessimism runs especially high in the United States where a full two thirds think that the point of depletion is within sight.

For every opinion and study, there is an equal and opposite opinion and study (at least sometimes it seems so)

~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

Timmy Brister links to "Blue Collar Theology" TBI TULIP Seminar

Unfortunately, the majority of what lay people in churches hear these days regarding Calvinism is by those who are vehemently against it, and rarely if ever are the truths accurately and fairly presented.  As a result, those who disagree with the doctrines of grace are not so much disagreeing with the truths so much as they are disagreeing with the caricatures wherein they have been so poorly packaged.  If you want to know what Calvinists believe, listen and read from the Calvinists, such as this seminar by John Piper.  You still might not agree, but at least you will know that your disagreements are with the facts and not with a false representation of them.  For those of you who do believe in the doctrines of grace, you will find this seminar incredibly enriching and encouraging as scores of Scriptures are unfolded for you.  Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike should appreciate the balanced, humble, and accurate approach Piper takes on TULIP.

~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

The Reformed Mafia on Paedobaptism

By the power vested in me as a founding Don of the Reformed Mafia, I hereby dub R.C. Sproul Jr. an honorary member of the Reformed Mafia for the duration of this post. With that, I want to share an article Sproul Jr. has written. It was sent out via email from the Highlands Study Center last month. I hope it is edifying as well as thought provoking. [Edit: the article was written in response to a question from which the title cof the piece also comes.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Daughter Fails math test...Dad goes to jail...

A northern Kentucky man is in jail today – serving a 180-day sentence – because his 18-year-old daughter failed a math test and didn't get her General Equivalency Diploma, or GED, as a previous court order required.

HT: My Domestic Church

~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

• 35 Comments

•

A wife is compared to the bride of Christ - the church. A wife is instructed in Ephesians 5 to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. In that same parallel, the husband is to model the love for his wife after the love that Christ has for His bride, the church. We have a wonderful privilege and responsibility to reflect that to the world.

Our Christian marriages should point people straight to Christ! If people don't look at our marriages and see them reflect Christ and the church, we are failing.

If the world looks at our marriages and sees anything less than a sacrificial love, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees a husband putting himself before the needs of his wife, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees the wife with anything less than the willing and loving submission that the church has for Christ, we are failing.

And...we are failing.

That is why the gender debate matters. The statistics say that Christian marriages are as likely to fail as secular marriages (I have my doubts about the questions asked and think that more should have been asked that would "unskew" the numbers)...but the numbers are not good.

Why is the divorce rate so high? Just like in Jesus' time...hardness of hearts. On the part of both parties.

If the love/submission is modeled on Christ and the church...if the love is modeled after Christ and the submission is modeled after the church - it is the model of Scripture. Each puts the other first, in a way that reflects Christ and the church.

We are the shadow; the mirror. How do we reflect Christ to the world?

• 5 Comments

•

From Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia at Theology for the Masses (writing of 1 Timothy 2:12):

Interestingly enough, the history of translations of this passage is that the dominant translation of this word before WWII had to do with the violent treatment of men in the congregation – ‘usurping authority’ in the KJV is among the least obvious of these and even it has remnants of the idea.

The notion that "authority" was not seen in the the passage until WWII is wrong - especially reading the study notes and commentaries.

There weren't all that many translations:

...continue reading →

• 29 Comments

•

No...that's not my question, but rather the question on ""Parchment and Pen."

"Why is it okay to think that men know so much, have so much insight, are so sensitive to all the nuances of a particular Bible passage that they can teach women in a way that women are able to learn and understand week after week but the insights and sensitivities of women are so inferior that men could/should never learn from them? Or how is this not what is being said?"

Since this is not what is being taught by most complementarians, it might be useful to note that complementarians are not monolithic (just as egalitarians are not).

It might also be useful to note that most complementarians do not teach that women are not insightful, that women are not sensitive to Scripture or that women are inferior.
Most complementarians do not teach that "men could/should never learn from them?"

From "The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:"

"Listen to how John Piper and Wayne Grudem summarized this answer to this question. "When Paul says in I Timothy 2:12, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent,' we do not understand him to mean an absolute prohibition of all teaching by women. Paul instructs the older women to teach what is good, then they can train the younger women. And he commends the teaching that Eunice and Lois gave to her son and grandson. Proverbs praises the ideal wife because she speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction on her tongue. Paul endorses women prophesying in a church and says that men learn by such prophesying. And that members should teach and admonish one another with all wisdom as you sing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. And then, of course, there is Priscilla at Aquilla's side correcting Apollos. It is arbitrary to think that Paul has in mind every form of teaching in I Timothy 2:12. Teaching and learning are in such broad terms that it is impossible that women not teach men and men not learn from women in some sense. There is a way that nature teaches and a fig tree teaches and suffering teaches and human behavior teaches. If Paul did not have every conceivable form of teaching and learning in mind, what did he mean? Along with the fact that the setting here is the church assembled for prayer and teaching, the best clue is by coupling teaching with having authority over men. We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching in leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders. Therefore, we think it is God's will that only men bear the responsibility for that office."

Also from CBMW:

Also, I see no need to go be­yond Scripture, which does not prohibit (permits but does not mandate) prayer or testimony by a woman in the con­gregation nor forbid her interaction on biblical truths in a private conversation with a man (as Pricilla and Aquila with Apollos in Acts 18:26).

From another article by Wayne Grudem on CBMW:

Now regarding the question of women in the church, what actions should we put on this scale? On the left side of the scale we can put verses such as 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul prohibits a woman from teaching or having authority over men. Since I think it is very evident from the context that Paul is talking about the assembled congregation in this passage (see 1 Tim. 2:8-10; 3:15), and he is giving principles that apply to the entire congregation (see 1 Tim. 3:1-16), I think that the left end of the scale prohibits women from teaching or having governing authority over the whole congregation.

What shall we put on the right end of the scale? Here we would put verses such as Acts 18:26, where, in a less formal setting apart from an assembled congregation, we find that Priscilla and Aquila were talking to Apollos, and "they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately." This situation is similar to a small group Bible study in which both men and women are participating and in that way "teaching" one another. Another verse that we can put on the right end of the scale is Titus 2:4 which tells the older women to "train the younger women to love their husbands and children..."

We see from these writings that an across the board prohibition of women teaching men is not what is being taught. Rather it is the teaching that complementarians believe that Paul is teaching that women should not teach the congregation at large, or have authority in that context.

• 10 Comments

•

I'm still reading in Genesis 1 and 2.

I read that man was created first - there is an order that humans were created in.  Whether that means anything may be debatable.

I read that it was to the man that God gave the directions to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (in the more detailed account in Genesis 2) - before the woman was even created.  Scripture does not record that the woman was present to receive the instruction.

I read that Eve was not present when Adam had the responsibility of naming the animals...she had not been created yet.

I read that when God declared, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.", it was before the fall.

I read that when the serpent approached Eve, it was a very familiar approach..."Did God REALLY say...?"

(Around here we call them "serpent questions":  "Does the Bible REALLY say...?"  or..."Does it REALLY mean THAT?!?!"  or..."Does that REALLY apply to us today?"  Serpent questions.)

I read that after the fall, it was Adam that God questioned.

The all-knowing and all-seeing Creator of the universe would have known exactly what had happened...yet he went to Adam first.

In Ephesians 5, when Paul writes the segment of instructions to husbands and wives, (wives submit, husbands love) and refers to what God declared BEFORE the fall: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
I believe that the inclusion of the one-flesh declaration from BEFORE THE FALL into the "wives submit - husbands love" instruction, God was instructing His bride in the redemptive love of the bridegroom for the wife who lovingly and willingly submits to Him.

I believe that before the fall, Adam was created first, Adam received the instruction not to eat of the tree, Eve was created as a suitable helper (complementary even).  I believe that the order in which things happened was recorded that way for a reason - the husband leads, the wife helps.

I believe that part of the curse was that no longer would a wife tend to lovingly and willingly submit to the leadership of her husband.  Evil had crept in.

I believe that after the fall the temptation would be for a husband to deal harshly with his wife, denying her the love that she desires.  Evil had crept in.
I believe that Christ offers us the opportunity:  to reflect Christ and the church.

"The mystery is profound..."

I believe that in Christ, husbands have the privilege and responsibility of loving as Christ loves the church.

I believe that in Christ, wives have the privilege and responsibility of submitting as the church submits to Christ.

I believe that the wife has been the "helper" since the creation account.  That has not changed.  Woman is still the "suitable helper".  Complementary.  Half of the one-flesh.

I believe that the whole of Scripture leads to a reading of the husband as leader.  That has not changed.

From before the fall, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

From the writing of Paul's instruction to wives and husbands, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Wives submit, husbands love.

• 11 Comments

•

"Organization" of the week: Making Great Waves for Kids.

GRAND RAPIDS -- Less than two months before the start of the swimming season, organizers say they need private donations to ensure six outdoor pools stay open for a full eight-week run.

But a businessman who has helped make sure Grand Rapids kids can enjoy a summer splash says it's time for the city to step up.

So far, the Making Great Waves for Kids campaign has raised almost $167,000 toward its goal of $300,000. That's probably enough to open the pools but not enough to make sure they all stay open through August, organizers said.

Click on the first link for contact numbers for more information on how to donate money to keep the pools open, or gently used swim suits.
~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

"Narrowing the Risk of Mate Selection" - a short review at "Voice of Vision"

A seasoned marriage counselor has observed how couples wound one another in their marriage. He gave the following:

What Wounds A Woman

  • An awareness that she is not first in her husband’s life
  • Her husband’s failure to recognize her attempts to please him
  • Unfavorable comparison to other women
  • Her husband’s lack of spiritual leadership
  • Rejection of her opinion as important
  • Inconsistency in the discipline of the children
  • Attempts to correct her in public

What Wounds A Man

  • Resistance to his will
  • Lack of confidence in his opinion or decisions
  • Resentments for past failures
  • Failure to build loyalty in the children
  • Lack of a grateful spirit
  • Inconsistency in the discipline of the children
  • Criticism in public

OF COURSE these are not all-encompassing. OF COURSE there are more things that wound a person. OF COURSE there are exceptions to every "rule".

•

In the creation account in Genesis 2, the animals were formed out of the ground. As was Adam.
Adam (as the animals were) was created out of the dust of the earth that God had created out of nothing...and Eve was created out of Adam. Eve is the only creature that was created in this way.
Elsewhere in Scripture we are told "he [man] is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man." Yes, this is not a creation account, but Scripture does give us the sense of men and women being differently.

Men and women were certainly created differently, they were given different jobs and they were told different things after the fall.

When husbands and wives are given explicit instruction as husbands and wives (beyond the general instruction that we are all given), in many passages, husbands and wives are told different things, they are given different direction.

Scripture treats men and women differently.

Why? I believe that Scripture is trustworthy and tells us what God wants us to know. God wants us to know that He created men and women differently, He treats them differently and He gives them different instruction in Scripture.

In Genesis 2 we are given another creation account; a more detailed story of the creation of man and woman.

v. 15...man was put into the garden with a job to do - to work it and keep it.

v. 16 and 17, man was given the instruction to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

v. 18. God proclaims that it is not good for man to be alone and further proclaimed that He would make a helper suitable for him.
v. 19 and 20, God showed man every animal and man named them...but there was no counterpart for Adam.

v. 21. It is only AFTER Adam was created and AFTER man was given responsibility for the garden and AFTER Adam was told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and AFTER he had named all of the animals...

AFTER all of that, THEN God put Adam into a sleep and formed his wife from his rib.

and

v. 24 God tells us, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN. In the jobs they are given, in the roles that they play, in the responsibilities that they have and even in the way and time they were created.

God sees us differently and I rejoice in the difference.

In the New Testament (Eph 5), we are given a parallel. After the general instructions to all members of the church, Scripture goes on with further instructions to husbands and wives.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as 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. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

We are given, as men and women; as husbands and wives, the wonderful responsibility and privilege of reflecting to the world the relationship of Christ and the church. The beautiful and willing submission of the bride to her bridegroom. The caretaking love of the bridegroom for his beloved.

and God again tells us, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

This is not language that sets men and women up against each other, it does not tell us of a selfishness that demands its own rights. It is a beautiful reflection of sacrifice and submission, love and love, leaving and cleaving. One flesh.

Complementary. Not sameness, but differentness that fits together with created perfection.

• 33 Comments

•

And a plea for logical thinking.

The bottom line (one) is:  Is Scripture sufficient?

The bottom line (two) is:  Is Scripture trustworthy?

The text for our Palm Sunday was one that I had not heard preached on Palm Sunday - Acts 14.

(3)So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles. When an attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to mistreat them and to stone them, they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding country, and there they continued to preach the gospel.

(...)

(19)But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city, and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe. When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

When the truth is preached, people respond. Paul consistently preached the truth, regardless of the consequences.
Here is Acts 16:

(19)But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers. And when they had brought them to the magistrates, they said, "These men are Jews, and they are disturbing our city. They advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice." The crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates tore the garments off them and gave orders to beat them with rods. And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, ordering the jailer to keep them safely. Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.

Paul was a man who preached the truth. Every chance he got, he preached the truth. He was beaten, imprisoned, threatened with death, beaten more, imprisoned more, threatened more.

And still he preached the truth.

He knew that he was going to be martyred

2 Tim. 4:6For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Peter watched James be martyred by Herod.

Acts 12:1 About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword, and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also.

and Peter watched. Peter was also threatened and imprisoned.

So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church. Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison.

We read of Paul being beaten, imprisoned, beaten more, threatened with death.

We read of Peter being imprisoned after watching James be martyred.

And yet they continued to preach the gospel...even under the threat of death...and the eventually DID die for the gospel; one was beheaded, the other crucified.

And yet...these are the same men who wrote PRIVATE letters to congregations and wrote

(1 Peter 3) Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands (...) Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

and

(Col. 3:18) Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.

These are men who suffered and died to preach the truth of the gospel. And yet, in private letters to congregations, we see not one specific instruction to (specifically) husbands to (specifically) submit to (specifically) their wives...because they were concerned about what the authorities would say?

It would seem that men who were willing to die for the truth would be willing to write to congregations in private letters what they were really wanted to teach.

We have the same man who wrote that we ought to obey God rather than man...pandered to the culture and neglected to write that (in the face of impending martyrdom for the truth) (specifically) husbands should (specifically) submit to (specifically) their wives...because they were concerned about the authorities.

These are questions that egalitarians don't appear to like...at least I've asked it a number of times and I don't recall seeing it addressed when I've asked it.

1) Why would the same Pater who said, "We must obey God rather than men!" have obeyed the culture of those same men when teaching the truth of God concerning the submission of husbands to wives?

2) Why would the same Paul who was beaten, imprisoned, and martyred for preaching truth of God in the face of governmental persecution - why would this Paul have neglected a teaching about relationships between husbands and wives out of concern for what the governmental authorities might think?
3) If we believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and are "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work"...why did "inspired" Scripture leave out this teaching (unless it isn't really a teaching)?

4) If Paul wrote what God breathed out, why was GOD pandering to the culture?

5) Paul preached Christ crucified (the equivalent of us teaching to follow a common criminal executed by hanging) - why would he have been concerned about what culture thought...when preaching such an UNcultural truth?
NOTE ON COMMENTS: stick to the specific questions or comments will be closed.

Back to the bottom lines:

(one) Is Scripture sufficient?  Or does it leave us on a "trajectory"?

(two) Is Scripture trustworthy?  Or does it leave out specific instructions in order to pander to culture?

• 26 Comments

•

I linked to the list of abuse patterns - the question arose whether or not the simple (and perhaps solitary) act of preventing one who you are in a relationship with from doing something that they want qualifies as "abuse".

I say "no." I believe that you must look at the motive behind that prevention. If someone prevents you (generic you) from doing something that you want to do for reasons such as the good of a group, or for your own good, I don't think that you can rightly call that abuse.

If you (generic you) are routinely kept from doing something that you want to do for the sake of control, then I think you need to exercise great caution in that relationship.

We should (I believe) recognize that some people really thrive on structure and when they have certain restrictions, kept from doing something that they want to do, have a feeling of safety within that close structure. That's not what I write about today and falls under the "if it works for you, go for it" category.

If a man follows you around when you're out with your sister, insists on driving you to work (or school) and goes through your purse to find your cell phone in order to find out who you've been talking to...that's controlling.

If, on the other hand, a man prevents you from eating chocolate peanut butter cheesecake at Cheesecake Factory (my absolute favorite) or butter-garlic mashed potatoes at Rock Bottom (they are SO yummy!) - you would have fallen for that temptation had you not had the accountability...and he knows that peanut butter is the fastest route to an asthma attack and potatoes make your knees hurt...that is not abuse.

Last semester I was sitting next to a young women in the computer lab.  She was talking to me while we were waiting for "stuff" to come up. She was talking about her current boyfriend that she's thinking about breaking up with. I recognized some from that list and (since we were sitting at computers) I brought up that website and showed her the "controlling" list.

"That is SO him!" We talked about patterns of abuse, patterns of control and what the signals might be that should send up red flags. Ultimately, she needs to make that choice, but what we need to do is to make sure the information is easily available so that every woman knows what it is that she is looking for.

The best way to prevent domestic abuse it to avoid being in a relationship with a person who will abuse you.

That was an easy statement. Implementing that could be one of the hardest things to figure out how to do.

Teaching girls young how to spot abusers before they have a serious relationship is one way.

***We teach about birth control in high school, we teach about HIV, drinking, drug use and smoking, diet and exercise. Why can we not teach young women how to identify young men who show those signs exercising the level of control that sends up red flags?

Teaching young men how to relate to young women in a healthy way is another.

***NLP teaches me that there are two angles to reaching a goal - a negative and a positive:

  1. Having a goal ahead of you that you want to reach for
  2. Having a bad thing behind you that you want to get away from

We can have the goal of "don't be an abuser" or we can have the goal of "be a Godly husband".

"Don't be an abuser" comes with a list of "don'ts"

  • don't hit your wife or girlfriend
  • don't be controlling
  • don't follow her around
  • don't be angry
  • don't be selfish

"Be a Godly husband" comes with a list of "dos"

  • do love your wife as Christ loves the church
  • do be ready to give up your very life for her
  • do be selfless
  • do be humble
  • do be kind, gentle, faithful, honest
  • do have Christ as your example of a husband
  • do be a servant-leader

There are three ways to come at teaching young men:

-We can give them a "negative goal", which does nothing to encourage positive behavior

- we can give them a "positive goal", which offers no solutions when abuse does occur

- we can blend the two.  People sin.  Abuse is sin.  As much as we attempt to teach that it is wrong, it will happen.  We need to teach young men that abuse is sin.  We need to make it clear that if they are abusers, the church will discipline the abuser and the law will be involved.

We need to make it clear to young women that Godly leadership is NOT sin, that there are very high goals set for men in leadership positions (and that includes husbands) and that it is sinful for that leadership to be perverted into abuse.  We need to communicate very clearly that it is a good and right thing to confront sin and to get the church leadership (and law if needed) involved.