Attend any True Woman '10 Conference to hear more from Mary Kassian!My husband drove to his hometown to watch the Super Bowl with his dad. He left me at home on the couch nursing a cold. Although I had little interest in the game—and couldn't have even told you which teams were playing, I flicked on the game to watch the commercials and halftime show.
Why? Because the commercials often provide fascinating cultural insight into current trends and thought. Advertisers spend millions and millions of dollars to produce and air them. To ensure they appeal to their target audience, they do extensive market research beforehand to determine what the target group is thinking and feeling. The Super Bowl, being a quintessential male event, featured several interesting commercials that provided insightful commentary on the thoughts on the mind of the modern-day male.
Besides the expected beer commercials (getting the girl), and annoying chicken commercials (getting the food), and voice-over babies trading stocks (getting the money), there were a few commercials that illustrated that men were also getting frustrated.
Dove soap aired a Superbowl "MAN-them" to launch their line of male skin-care products. It featured a jingle listing the ways that one particular man had complied with what others had told him he ought to be and do as a man (particularly his wife).
"You've reached the place where you feel at ease—you've come this far, it wasn't a breeze. You can take on anything, of course you can—because you're a man!"
The commercial features a compliant man and ends by implying that since men have accepted and are now comfortable with the new definition of manhood, they also ought to get comfortable in their own skin—and start using Dove skin-care products.
In "Man's Last Stand," an ad for the Dodge Charger, several robotic, compliant, dazed-looking males listed off all the ways they had acquiesced to the demands of the women in their lives. In a defeated tone, they itemized all their obedient behavior. Their "last stand" of manhood was maintaining the right to choose their own car:
- I will get up and walk the dog at 6.30 a.m.
- I will shave.
- I will clean the sink after I shave.
- I will put the toilet seat down.
- I will put my underwear in the basket.
- I will say "yes" when you want me to say "yes."
- I will be quiet when you don't want me to say "no."
- And because I do this ... I will drive the car I want to drive!!
Okay. So we've got a "man-them" praising men for complying with women's desires for them and encouraging them to start using skin cream; a "Man's Last Stand" in which men bravely hold on to their right to choose their car—the only matter in which they don't need to obey women; and a "MAN-ifesto" encouraging men parading around pantless to "wear the pants."
The common theme, and the probable finding of market research, is that men are keenly feeling the effects of the feminist movement. They are painfully aware that they've been bossed around by women and told what they should be and do. Women have defined manhood.
The first commercial encourages men to accept this fact and continue to be feminized. The second encourages them to hold on to the very few areas in which they are still allowed to make decisions. And the third encourages them to stop being proud of their de-masculinization and again start to wear the pants.
I thought the conundrum of male identity was summarized pretty well at the halftime show, when the band of old, tired-looking rocker-types croaked out the question: "Who are you?"
The message I took away from the Super Bowl commercials is that guys are tired of being told who they are. They don't know who they are, but they're starting to realize that the feminized, emo, metro-male, skinny vanilla latte image doesn't fit. What is manhood really all about? It's a Super Question ... one that the Super Bowl asked, but apart from Christ will be left unanswered.
Comments
*The following comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Revive Our Hearts. We reserve the right to remove comments which might be unhelpful, unsuitable, or inappropriate.
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 7:23 am
I find it so sad that a man has to be bossed about by a woman but I certainly agree that , as far as I can see, men still want to make their own decisions. (Even if they do say the opposite!!! That's baloney and if you do it too long, guess what? They find someone else).
It took me years to understand this, but yep, men develop their self-confidence and authority when they are allowed to make their decisions.
Interesting comment from my fiancé? He was married to a woman who "usurped my authority" (quote from my fiancé) and "decided for me". They are now divorced.
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 7:27 am
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 7:31 am
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 7:37 am
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 8:05 am
Our men deserve our support and respect and our encouragement to be the leaders (and men after God's Own heart) God created them to be.
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 8:30 am
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 9:05 am
I don't understand how that takes away from the role that God has placed men in. My husband takes better care of his skin than I do, but he is still a very manly man.
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 9:36 am
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 11:03 am
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 12:39 pm
-FringeGirl
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 1:05 pm
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 2:15 pm
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 3:12 pm
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 7:21 pm
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I greatly appreciate this insight! I have noticed that the new trend "metrosexual" is on the rise. Sad to say, our society, not only in America, but in other parts of the world, are slowly embracing this new definition of manhood.
By God's grace, I am so thankful that I'm married to a 100% man - genuine in every sense of the word!
God bless you and your ministry.
on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Many years ago I stopped watching sit coms because the men were being portrayed to be weak, stupid, uneffective... It took awhile for me to see this trend but am glad I did. Unfortunately I don't think my children have understood what is being portrayed. It is just humor right?
I have started to ask them how things are sold on a commercials and hopefully with your insights I can ask deeper question. Thanks for the information.
on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 9:33 am
The awaking has already begun....
on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Peace, love and blessings all.
on Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 9:09 am
Sincerely sorry.
Peace, love n' blessings all.
on Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 9:26 am
A little perspective: I'm a freelance writer, churchgoer and work in our church library (I've also been a Sunday School teacher, among other church posts). I have a graduate degree in business from a top business school and have spent my career in the media world (large and small advertising agencies, interactive shops and a handful of the world's most prominent publications --the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Vogue, Forbes, USA Weekend, The New Yorker, InStyle...). As an insider, I can tell you that categorically, those SuperBowl commercials were not made by a bunch of feminists and gay men (one of your posters mentioned that). They are made by 20-30 somethings, both male and female, for whom the feminist label has become irrelevant.
Advertising agencies these days, both on the account and creative side are staffed by this age demographic because they are cheaper talent and have lots of energy and their finger is on the pulse of social media. This makes them more valuable to advertisers, all of whom are dying to tap Facebook, Twitter, BLogs, YouTube, etc., to build their brands since traditional media (TV, print) is no longer influential among younger consumers.
So when you blame feminists for the anti-male content, you are not just behind the curve, but have missed it by a country mile. For one thing, young women don't consider themselves feminists any more. They don't use the word at all. The consider their values uniquely their own, cobbled together from their friends and the ever widening array of social media sites and tools. The woman who considers herself a feminist tends to be older (45-plus). Women in this age demographic, I assure you, aren't your beef, at least in the advertising world because they have either left it voluntarily or they have been edged out in the recession due to being experienced workers and therefore, expensive. (THis is also true of men in media. The more experienced, the more likely they lost their jobs in the economic meltdown. That's why, incidentally, more men have lost more jobs than women in the downturn. It's not feminism. It's simply economics. Cheaper replaces more costly).
Lambasting feminism makes it easy to for conservatives (and men in general) to identify a common "enemy", but it's a paper tiger. THe people who make those ridiculous commercials that demean men (and women), are the young adult children of your friends and neighbors. Most have no idea who GLoria Steinem or Betty Friedan or Naomi Wolf are. They get their ideas from their friends, their information from wikipedia and their political an personal ideology from Reality TV and YouTUbe. Most do not read the news and they do not watch it on TV. They make their own and post it on blogs. That's what the social media revolution is all about.
If you are concerned about how men are portrayed in these SuperBowl commercials and elsewhere, I suggest you stop decrying the 45-year olds who grew up fighting for women's rights and concentrate on reforming your friends' kids. Try calling them a bunch of feminists and gays and see where it gets you. Most likely, you'll get a blank stare. Then, they will ignore you for not knowing what's going on in their world. They most certainly will not "friend" you on Facebook. Translation: you will end up talking endlessly among yourselves. If that's what you want, fine. But a pastor's wife and church women everywhere have tremendous power to reform what needs reforming. They will not do that, however, by failing to understand who their "opponent" is.
What I am suggesting in this post is that we in a post-feminist era and have been for more than 15 years. Fingerpointing may continue to give you a rallying point, but to people in media, it just makes you look ridiculously square, and in media, square = irrelevant. If you don't care about being irrelevant in the media world, fine. You can continue to write these blogs about how wrong everyone else is and never make a connection to the world outside your own.
That hipster pastor of the Mars Hill church knows this, and that's why he's so popular. I'd be much more worried about him, by the way, if I were you. I think the guy is an opportunist and a false prophet, but that's one person's opinion.
Anyway, hope you don't mind my stepping in and thank you for listening.
on Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 9:19 am
(this is going to be a long one so I hope you have a moment)
I'm sure you have a point. However, just because the points here may be dated, that does not necessitate an invalidity. I agree they might need the update. BUT one could go from the angle that they simply may have 'left out' the fact that 'feminism' today is no longer called that openly (except among maybe, university students and ladies above 35).
It has become a ghost that looms, as it's what's left over but STILL extremely prevalent, though (perhaps) no longer an organized movement. It's got it's own horrid momentum now and because it's 'ghostly' it's not as OBVIOUS, which I think is more deadly in it's effectiveness. Perhaps like that thar' Mars Hill fellow (whom I have no clue about) whom everyone is happy to follow but he's got his own sneaky heresies creeping around like ghosts lurking behind his showy wonder (I'm not supporting what you said but just saying IF it is so, which I'd have no clue, THAN it is a lurking thing unbeknownst to these followers).
Just because today's kids MAY not know where it came from doesn't mean it isn't hitting them. And just because 'Christians' see things through our own filter (trying very hard, to let that only be: His) doesn't mean we are blindly unaware of, say: The seething underworld of the internet SELF OBSESSION, where everyone is their own, one man, self indulgent show. Where, 'uniqueness' has bloomed (If you call self obsessed, showy/clever, self indulgence, uniqueness), the kind of uniqueness that's the SAME everywhere, which in itself is sad.
A long long while ago, I thought I was unique (something I clung to) WHEN I was 'unique' like others in my peer group i.e.) Following bands like; 'The Cure, The Smiths, 10,000 maniacs, Depeche Mode, and folksy types who's names allude me now, I followed also a 'look', 'style' and even some of the actions of my peer group which had the appearance of the new (then... yet re-new-ed) 1990's hippy/punk-ish culture. Acting and appearing 'differently'... just like the rest of them! Which is something plenty, if not all, teens go through before they mature.
Today of course, I realize that the only thing unique about me is that God chose to allow me to have my own legacy and body and that it's unique because of Him (he chose it to be), and wasn't made so to conform to the world but to CHOOSE Christ myself and NOT be a robot, which even if we tried to, none of us are.
I'm painfully aware my logic and even my point has holes, but all logic does, except for Gods own and only True logic.
I am here, I am unique but only in the way that God made me so. And I for one, UNDERSTAND more than I ought to (and more than I'm comfortable with), how this world goes and what's new and going on. God has just blessed me to avoid it (for the most part), like the plague it is. Lot's of folks would like to say 'THESE WOMEN DON'T LIVE IN THE 'REAL' WORLD' (the kind like those here at ROH/TW and in Church gatherings all around the world), I'd just like to ask something to try and clear the air; Did we leave the planet? Some might mockingly say our views make us seem like Martians but I'd like to say, the real world is where we're ALL stuck for now, BUT: Where a Christian should strive to keep their focus along with their hearts is on the heavenlies!! The unseen. As eternity is a whole lot longer and He is a whole lot more IMPORTANT, than us here, in the now. That is what our God has called us to do.
"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." 2 Cornithians 4:18
We do not need to become drenched in it, to relate or to make a point. We are (most of us anyhow) intelligent enough not to call these kids 'feminists' or 'gay' BUT we also know the roots of these evils (and believe it or not, probably all of us are willing to admit that the feminist movement did have some lovely benefits... the parts of it that support a Christian view point).
I hope I didn't sound like I wasn't not glad you came by, but in fact, I am mightily glad, you have an interesting way of expressing yourself. I will pray you come around often, and soak up the bible more. As you seem to already have the fondness there, when one notes that you showed concern about heretics. I think that's beautiful in you. I also think it's beautiful that you think tried to 'update' the ladies here on today's goings on, in that, how you expressed it, shows you care and want to HELP your fellow sister. I hope I'm not the only one to encourage you to listen often and read often here, these ladies have more to offer than any woman can expect, because they are unique within their own group! As they, out and out; ADORE OUR KING! And will not quake at what the world throws at them because (I assume this, because how they act/write points to it) they READ THEIR BIBLES ASKING THE HOLY GHOST to be their guides and not their worldly/fleshly knowledge. They 'lean not on their own understandings' but heavily in the word.
As a side note: If this post doesn't express clearly my love of my sisters and my concern and love for those unsaved, I hope sincerely, it will be deleted.
May you be blessed as you seek Christ and seek to encourage your sisters.
Peace, love and blessings all.
on Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Can you say something about that? Christ, after all, did not go around blaming women. His standing up to the men who wanted to stone the adulteress was a rebuke to the dominant thought that men didn't have to be as pure in heart as their wives and daughters.
Best to you.
By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by expressing your love for those unsaved. I wasn't sure if you were including me in there. If so, I'll take the love part, but not the "unsaved" part. If I've got that part wrong, please forgive me. It's hard to know what people mean sometimes, especially in this online world where you can't see someone face to face. Anyway, I will be reading more.
on Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Before you go ahead and read this, please take it with a grain of salt as I am not always clear how to express what I believe God has said to be True, and therefore am not always speaking Truths but speaking only the truth as I understand it thus far. If someone from the staff at R.O.H would care to intercede where I fail, I do want to be corrected, biblically (my poor grammar is something you can take up with my weak brain *chuckles*). I am fairly clear, but 'young' in the truth, as I have surely not studied my bible as faithfully as many on the staff here.
I wasn't referring to you when I'd said that 'unsaved' bit. Though I can't be sure of anyone's salvation but my own. I take a lady at face value, and rejoice in any person calling themselves as such. Unless she illustrates the opposite and then I pray for the words and the courage to give to her, that will assure her of her Salvation or have her justly concerned as to whether she'd got it clear. So that she could get that straightened away, quick-like if she so chose. As I am happily, though I admit timidly, responsible to my Lord, to do as much. :c)
I'm not sure why you might be baffled at the pre-occupation with what is the opposite of righteous behavior. As Christ has called us to repent of such, he died for us and in thankfulness and understanding of his purity we, needs be, sickened by the thought of harming him in any rite, and sin harmed/harms Him (that is a discussion in itself). Our thoughtless sin AND our thought-out sin. Any and everything in us that is not righteous, that is; of self, IS sin. Until we gain a revulsion for sin, we may over look it in: feminism, in books, media, friendships etc. Every and anywhere it may lurk. And we can not gain this revulsion without an adoration for Christ and His word. The more you read and meditate on that word, asking in sincerity, prayerfully, for God like wisdom and a God like repulsion for sin. May I suggest you watch the dvd and read the book for the 'Downpour' series by James MacDonald? That will illustrate clearly the point I'm trying to so feebly.
Not book smarts; I 'know' the bible wisdom, but heart filled: 'Charity': 'Love of God's Standard', wisdom. One might think that is a distinction without a difference but I truly beg to differ.
The more you see that Christ would have us with our minds and lives completely trained on him and in the only true cause, to bring others to Salvation, through prayer, conversation, missionary work, sharing the salvation story door to door or with youths or instilling a love of it in your children so that they are unashamed of sharing it openly etc etc.
The more you come to the understanding of why there even is, a need for a movement such as this, it is a hope of revival for the woman that will, God willing, leak into the lives of our children and our neighbors and perhaps lead to the most enormous revival of the Christian faith ever, that's the hope I believe that is in this 'project'. As we women, provide the love centers of our homes and neighborhoods (emotional warmth is our forte, we've a reputation for that :c) ).
I have to ask: The men in what movement? The men that work at ROH manage the whole thing and advise (as far as my understanding goes and I really have no clear understanding, as I'm not on staff, I'm just a happy onlooker), the women speak the message to women because women relate well to women (and it's not biblical for us to teach men...I think you probably understand this part of it), just as men relate well to men. This movement has the men as guests but it's mainly a women/women thing. Except in the areas where a man would be more suited for a particular area of Gods message or just more qualified by their God given talents/interests in an area.
Which men are blaming? I'm not sure whom you mean when you say this. Those men or women blaming the movement from 'decades ago' as I said are not blind to it's roots nor the fact that it isn't prevalent (blatant and obvious like it was in the 60's/70's) because it's RAMPANT. Can't see the forest for the trees, kind of thing. It's not a side issue (as it used to be and therefore more glaring in it's obviousness), it's the fabric of the culture and therefore the fabric has a BLIGHT. The men who note it are merely noting a blight, that anyone man or woman who has an understanding of what sin looks like would be very wary of and want to be rid of. When it promotes a self serving nature, it promotes the idea that self is what is important that self is what 'deserves' and what is to be respected this leaves far in it's dust the VALUE of God and Christ as the one in control as the one Who's Truly important, and as the only one who 'deserves' anything.
Sure perhaps women adapted this from men who were in their 'rightful' place (note the small 'r') but these men are those who perverted (and continue to pervert) their place over us as women. That made the women who were 'victim's' of overbearing men rebel, but they rebelled past the point of caring what our Father called them to do (look into 2 Peter 1, and then 1 Corinthians 13, and then Proverbs 31 to illustrate what we as Christians are called to, and then to what we as women are called to, and also to what God calls men to: i.e.)
"Give not thy strength unto women." Proverbs 31:3.
You can look into the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the bible (or some other reliable Christian source which is really a case of discernment but we'll not go into that) to seek what the word 'Strength' implies in the bible, to give yourself a clearer picture of what God is saying therein.
The men who crossed lines and forgot that they were to be Christ-like in their LOVE, and just took a joy ride with their place as leaders of the home, forgetting that Christ was their leader and their wives, sisters, mothers, rightful leader did so (and continue to do so) out of a sinful, self serving side. There is nothing biblical about bullying and controlling, in men NOR women the control is rightfully Gods. We are not God, men nor women. It is ungodly talk to take up either side when it's talk of 'control'. Men are to guide, lead their homes giving the control to God and his word on each matter, taking none up for himself but seeking Christ and God's final word in everything he does. A massive responsibility of which I am happy to hand over to my husband, for the most part. Whether he's a willing party or no. And no, ladies, I am not saying this started with man, as we are pretty clear on whom this 'started' with (not to name drop but; can any one say 'Eve'?).
I agree that Christ cleared things up with that stone thing, that yes, as I just stated above, men are just as sinful as we are. Just do not forget, that it is biblical that the men are the ones that women submit to AS FIRSTLY men are in submission to God, a God who clearly speaks to them of their responsibility: To 'love us as Christ Loved the Church.' A tall order and therefore a fair deal, in my humble eyes.
Okay, way more than enough said. Someone rescue me from myself here???
Peace, love and blessings all.
on Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 2:14 am
I guess my main quandry with this reading is the preoccupation with sin and assigning blame. I go back to the Bible here. In John, 3, when asked whose sin rendered a man blind, Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. And then he healed the man's blindness.
What would have happened if instead, Jesus was drawn into the discussion as to who sinned, and gently laid his finger on who/what/when created the blindness. There would have been a long discussion with plenty of people coming forward to articulate the sins of the blind man and his parents. It would have been a lively, possibly contentious and maybe even condemning discussion. Or maybe it would have been a really compassionate one. Either way, the discussion would have gone on a long time. And that man would not have been healed.
But Jesus refuses to get into this. Jesus addresses sin very simply to establish in his thought and actions that nothing can stand between him and God or anyone and God. He doesn't treat it as a real thing. He establishes clearly that it is not a power. When he is in the wilderness, what does Satan try and do? It doesn't attempt to push him. It doesn't have that power. It can only suggest he jump.
When he restores the ear of the soldier whose ear Peter cuts off, he doesn't get into a "who's right and who's wrong." He has a moment of doubt on the cross, but he doesn't engage in blame. Had he done so, he would never have healed the soldier's ear. He would not have risen.
To treat sin as a real condition of man and a cause of family woes is to say either that there is something God created that is not good, or to make him powerless against it. How are you upholding the First Commandment, there, then by focusing so much on any type of evil, and the particular brand you label as feminism, as being a power worthy of your time and concern?
You can have all the conversations about the breakdown in the family you want, you can tie it to a movement of 35 years ago, you can become scholars in how feminism is the root of all evil, but all you will end up with is the satisfaction of having one side of a well crafted mortal argument. You will not have changed a thing. YOu will not have healthier families. You will be back with Jesus and the blindman, arguing over blame instead of glorfying God in the healing of blindness.
I don't say this to be provocative. I say it because I am looking everywhere in Christian blogland to engage in discussion with Christians who follow Christ in healing every condition known to man. If you can point me to areas of your belief that bear on this, I welcome it. But I am primarily interested in your approach to healing.
Thank you for your willingness to discuss. Now I must zip up my snowboots and get to church.
Blessings to you all.
on Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 10:22 am
I had to go into prayer, look to scriptures and go to a few brothers and sisters when in discussion about the blind man but here is my lengthy but love filled reply. I do hope you take the time to read all of it and go to the scriptural references:
I just wondered if you were asking something. Let me know if this is the case/cause? You wish to 'engage' in discussion because you want to break down what an evangelist believes so that he'll 'join' hands with you in Christian 'Science' or do you wish to engage to, open your own heart to the possibility that Christ has something for you, yourself to learn that you, yourself may have overlooked, perchance?
My heart is open to Christ's precepts through the entirety of the gospel and the holy book he so kindly allowed my sinful eyes to look upon that I may BECOME, Christ like. I am not already. I am however redeemed. And continue on repentant, not of my own doing but of the work of the Holy Spirit in me.
When some 'thing' is made in the IMAGE of something else it is by definition REMOVED from the thing itself. Just look at any photograph or any sculpture of Michelangelo's. Let me apply that to our God, the triune and Holy One. If we are made in Gods IMAGE (as in Genesis it states clearly that, we are as such) than we are BY DEFINITION: removed (in this rite), from our God himself, and not in fact PERFECT, nor IDENTICAL. If it was (if we were) it would BE the thing itself (and we most definitely are not).
Christ's redemption was and is necessary and if we deny that there is a REMOVAL (SIN) inherent, and whilst we live, (before we are wholly consecrated by physical death and then enter the holy of holies if we are repentant believers in Christs gift of Salvation) then we deny the beginnings and it's simplicity. I have to pause here and say, if it was not this simple, there is NO WAY that I could understand nor express it. As I do not profess to be of any worldly intelligence... average at best, I'd say.
The Holy Ghost instills a guide within us, and the FRUIT that is openly clear (to anyone who witnesses the CHANGE born in us after Salvation) is the MIRACLE of divinity, seen through bodily vessels, though cracked we may be, until the blessed day of completeness. He is timeless, we, while here, are locked in time and hampered by sin.
Which also brings to my mind this scripture:
" Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:" Philippians 1:6
What kind of 'work' is being discussed there in that scripture? The 'work' Christ does in us while we remain here in this sin filled world? I would have to say my answer here would be a resounding: YES. If the world was perfect and sin was 'nothing' than why would Christ have made the SACRIFICE in the first place? The sin is here because of 'the fall' first (Eve then Adam, and then the rest of mankind from that time, onward) we were not made to be robots, but to have a choice between the good or the evil (sin), to deny that there is a NEED for salvation is to deny the Cross.
I pray you will see love in my words, as I would have it, as would my Saviour, that none would deny the beauty and the whole picture of Christ's sacrifice.
I'll address the mention of the blind man, Christ and onlookers, which is in John 9: He was not blind because of the sin of his self or parents, Christ mentioned this fact so that those present in that time could understand that this man was not under any curse from God. Aside from the ever present bondage of sin placed on the earth from Eve and Adam's time where all disease and hardship comes from, it is a fallen world, Christ did not deny this in what he'd said or, I wholeheartedly believe he would have made exact point crystal clear. Which Christ didn't need to mention the fall, as all there were Jews and more than aware of it. Christ himself would not have needed to the cross if sin were nothing. I understand that Christ said these words so that those present would understand that this man and his family were not any curse from God, like that of those who were left to the desert for 40 years.
This particular man had this particular disease because GOD saw fit to illustrate a MIRACLE for all to witness.
He didn't commit a particular sin to get the disease, that was what was being said. One must read the bible in it's entirety, believing rightfully, that it is ALL inspired by God written and protected by the movement of the Holy Ghost. Any prophesy of the scriptures was not written in old times by the will of man but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (you can find this in context in 2 Peter 1). This message is perfectly clear. As for the ear thing, if a fellow is bleeding, a fast action is necessary. Unless Christ saw fit in His perfection to raise a man from the dead, and obviously Christ felt this wasn't warranted at this moment. The sin was not the issue at hand in that moment. But the grace that was about to take place was imminent and there was no time, nor need of time to be taken up with the sin of man in this moment. Which I believe illustrates just how prevalent and rampant sin is and how powerful Christ is to shove it aside as such. Just as Christ said to Satan 'Get thee behind me', our Saviour is not to be tampered with the bounds of time, caught up with the sin all around, not at all, he had a purpose and it was time for that bloody ear and that cursed Satan to step aside. Of course Christ could do this, but are you telling me that you could just do, as much? That you are EXACTLY as Christ and would just brush off sin so quickly as though it were nothing to you? If so, what do you feel you need Christ's Salvation for?
I pray the warmth of Love of Christ, in your life, as in all, including my own, it is the warmth we have here in this cold world of sin. May we be constantly be reminded of the need for Salvation from the sin of this world. Look again to 2 Peter 1. And now also:
"For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." 1 Peter 2:25
What are we astray from? Where are we returning from? How is repentance needed/warranted? What do we repent of?
In closing I'd ask that you go to www.biblegateway.com and type in the word "repent" and just see how many times we are called to do so in the new and old testaments. Even try using the differing translations of the bible, like the New International Version or King James, or New King James or English Standard Version etc.
May God bless all richly that open their hearts to the Love of Christ and his pure and holy sacrifice for us here, we deserved hell, yet God loved us so much, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever will believe on him, shall be saved. Look to John 3, the whole book.
Peace, love and blessings all.
on Monday, March 1, 2010 at 8:51 am
on Monday, March 1, 2010 at 9:00 am
Yes, to your question about healing. I've had many throughout my life. Just looking for other blogs and individuals with an interest in the same. My search for this led me to a number of Christian blogs this past weekend, but so far, not much activity on the healing front. I instead seem to keep stumbling across blogs that focus on sinful behavior and putting down women/feminism. I find that curious, upsetting, actually, but am not up for arguing it further. It seems to be widely accepted, which I find most surprising, but certainly no more so to me than my claim about healing probably is to you.
All the best and thank you for your long answers. I know my questions and tone weren't easy.
on Monday, March 1, 2010 at 11:47 pm
I went back and reread what you wrote and hope some of the following will answer the questions you put to me--at least the first one.
Question: Do you wish to 'engage' in discussion because you want to break down what an evangelist believes so that he'll 'join' hands with you in Christian 'Science' or do you wish to engage to, open your own heart to the possibility that Christ has something for you, yourself to learn that you, yourself may have overlooked, perchance?
Answer: No and yes.
I came upon your site as the result of doing a google search into Christian blogs this past Friday. I have a relatively new one (which I see you visited), though it is not your typical Christian blog in that it is a story rather than a forum for discussion of Christian issues. As you note, I am obviously not an evangelical, though I have met many and am always interested to engage in a discussion of our common calling, which is expressing and following Christ more fully.
My blog is actually a serialized memoir about what I learned by being a lifelong member of a church that even most Christians tend to try and poke holes in. It is simply the story of someone growing up and falling in and out of church and finally, coming back and giving up worldly pleasures in order to teach Sunday School without being a hypocrite. I made many sacrifices. I'll just leave it at that. It is about being true to my beliefs despite criticism, pressure and tempation. It is about being a non-drinker when everyone around me drinks, about navigating the world of men and relationships, trying to adhere to what I grew up believing and not always succeeding. It is primarily, though, about trying to understand what "God is Love" means. Those words hang at the front of every Christian Science church and is fundamental to our understanding of God and our oneness with him and serving our neighbors. It is about trying to figure out all the types of Love and how they apply: forgiveness of others, forgiving our own debts, not being afraid, standing up for what is right, helping others, loving our neighbors as ourselves, loving our enemy, redemption, eternal life. Every day I look at "God is Love" at the front of the church, it is a signal to think about love and Love in new ways. If you read my ABOUT page, you will see that.
Now my story has achieved some interest from various publishers and media people, though it is only halfway finished and of course, you don't sell half-finished stories. BEcause I am primarily a story teller, I decided to introduce the early chapters of the "book" as a way to share it with friends and others. I am in the initial stages of blogging, though I have had my own website for years where all my professional writing resides (www.WordSandbox.com)
So googling "Christian Blogs" was my first step in understanding the larger community into which my blog might most logically fit. Because I spend so much of my professional time writing for clients, I had not gone out and read other writers blogs. I did not set out to find Evangelical blogs, in other words. Its what came up as I ventured into the new community in which my blog has gained a small but growing audience.
Naturally, as someone who comes from the "God is Love and man is his reflection," I was somewhat startled to find that many Christians aren't really preoccupied with what God is Love means in the sense that I understand it. I ended up on your blog's "Superbowl" page because I was browsing around, getting a sense of things and, being someone who generally finds Superbowl ads to be offensive largely to women, thought your thread sounded like an interesting read. Being in advertising, Web development and marketing for so many years, I have always felt that "world" to be saturated with overly sexualized imagery. As a woman, it always bothered me—including those in which men are objectified. However, I have long observed that the industry both on the agency and client side use the male view as default position, unless of course, you're talking about products/services/content that is targed exclusively to women. So when I read the comment about the Superbowl ads created by "feminists and gays" and saw this seemed to be held in some kind of agreement by the other posters, I was impelled to write and tell you that your take on who is creating the advertising was incorrect. I said it perhaps with a little too much "I'm right and you're wrong," but I also felt that whoever said it did so ignorantly and I think that it's dangerous to let things like that go unaddressed.
The male vs. female bias in many areas of marketing is easy to understand. In test marketing, men will not respond to anything that is even slightly female, while women can respond to images that are both male and female. This has been driven home over and over. If you are selling a book on business, put men on the cover, more than women, or men will not come near it. It's an odd conundrum: women buy many business titles; they are overtaking men as small business owners, but you can't depict women on the cover of a book unless there is at least two or more men or you will lose what shrinking male audience you have.
In my work in web developoment, this was driven home again and again. The clients were women, the consumers were women, but even the young men creating the web sites tended to avoid female imagery—and these were men with working mothers, sisters, girlfriends, in the heart of NYC's silicon alley.
I asked them once: why aren't you putting any images of women on the homepage, and they said: well the men can represent the women. And I said, "don't you think the women want to represent themselves?"
Anyway, I'm getting off track. My point is, I am sensitive to the ways that women AND men are portrayed in the media, I think it reflects at times a totally false picture of all of us as being depraved and only motivated by sex, but in disagreement with you, it is my experience that this has always been so because of the predominance of men in creative and managerial positions in the media, not women. I'm not going to argue that point. Sure, women are much more prevalent in it these days, but they are much more centered in print media than in broadcast and digital. Check out online agencies, both large shops and small creating all the hypersexualized imagery. You'll see what I mean. Many men; few women.
So, to recap: I wrote a blog, I decided to do some "research," I also knew that to build an audience, you have to join the blogging community, respond to other people's blogs and in kind, they respond to yours. That was the motivation: an early foray into seeing how an audience is built. The goal: conversation.
I did not set out to see what Evangelicals believe. I did not set out to find any particular denomination of Christianity. I just ended up on evangelical sites. I jumped around from one to the other. Again, I wasn't saying to myself, "what the heck do these folks believe." I was actually looking for threads on the topics of healing, Love (the First John variety) etc. But I kept coming upon threads and discussions that surprised me. The first unpleasant discovery for me was how many young Christian men write disrespectfully about women as a kind of default. The words used to describe women were frankly so startling, and all of them making reference to "feminism" in a purely negative, put-down fashion.
I'm not going to debate feminism with anyone. I will, however, argue, that had they shown some depth of knowledge about it other than a catchall phrase for trashtalking, I might not have said anything. But this wasn't just a matter of trash talking, but of calling women hookers and whores in the most general but hostile terms. These weren't threads about actual prostitution. This was simply the language that young men on many Christian blogs use to express how they see women and try and understand women (my analysis: they read a lot of stuff in the media and think it's how women are rather than realizing that the extreme, overly sexualized images are ones that advertisers use to sell. But it's an image; it's not the truth). Many railed against feminism (you notice a peeve of mine). Many of them talked about saving themselves for marriage in the same paragraphs of speaking of women in these horrible, hateful terms. Mind you, I am not an innocent. I've worked in media. I am aware of what is out there.
But men talking about being chaste and then going on about women—women are terrible. Women are weak. Women have caused the breakdown in the family. Women are unintellident, superficial, greedy. Women have no morals--I'm wondering how it's possible that chaste men can know such women? I mean, if you're chaste, at best you'd know really nice girls from church. In other words, the kinds of women these men blog about are the women they know, and if what they know is hookers and sleazebags, than they are lying about being "chaste." They are being utterly false and misrepresenting who they are. I had young men talking about these things and then, privately, one who has a major Christian blog e-mailed me on the side, swore me to confidentiality, and then confessed to being smitten with a woman who'd had an abortion. I had been online not a day when this happened. It was surreal.
For me, being innocent is turning away from images that defile. The only way that can hurt me is if I let it sit in the forefront of my thought, occupying me when I should be contemplating more Christlike things. We will have to agree to disagree here, but when Christ said that it's what comes out of a man's mouth that defiles him, I was thinking that this was a perfect example. I wondered how many of them are going to church on Sunday and then going home and playing Grand Theft auto and listening to Eminem and watching Jersey Shore and wondering if this is coloring their judgement, just as it colors the judgement of non-Christian teens. So many of them conclude this is reality. They don't know better, but they'd never admit it.
I can accept a good, well reasoned argument. Sure, a lot of women are very screwed up. From my writing class, I know women who have worked as dominatrixes, prostitutes, drug addicted school teachers (I was writing about Sunday School, so you can imagine it was an interesting class). YOu might ask, did I take a class to meet these people? No. I signed up for a writing class and that's who was in it. Very similar to going online to find a community and finding your site.
Regarding the type of discussion I kept coming upon in Christian blogs, you would never find this kind of a discussion a Christian Science site, say, www.spirituality.com. You will find articles by men and women. You will find articles on marriage, relationships, family. Very few on sex. None on abortion. None on feminism, but plenty on spiritual identity. You will find articles on healings like the ones you asked me about.
Again, I don't say this to be provocative. But how do you explain young men of 22 or 23 on evangelical Christian blogs engaging in lengthy conversation during the workday about how women are such depraved creatures if they did not take that message in? You may call it curiosity, you may call it a saturated culture, but you could also consider that men who are overly concerned with how depraved women are engaging in a rather unholy form of self-stimulation masquerading as righteousness. Further, I would venture to say that I have looked around the Bible and nowhere do I see Christ engaging in this type of argument. As I mentioned before, he healed the adulterous woman as surely as he healed the blind man. He did not sit around with his followers, talking about female depravity or the blind man's sin. Surely, Jesus did what he wanted. He did what he felt called to do. He did not engage, in other words, in condemning and judging others.
Perhaps you now have a sense how a new blogger interested in Love and healing as Christ practiced it ended up engaged in the present conversation. Perhaps you may be interested to float around to the various blogs and see what I am referring to. If a complete stranger innocently follows threads trying to get to know the larger Christian community and keeps coming across women depicted so badly by men, then what can you conclude? My conclusion would be to not ever go to any more Christian blogs. Or to realize that this is a manifestation of the times. Or to speak out in protest. I will say as a last word that I spent time on some of these blogs to see what kind of blow back the trashtalkers got from other Christian men, and was heartened to see that some men (older and married) gently chided the younger views on their harsh views of women. But none of them flat out told them that name calling and condemning was unChristly. A few women spoke up. But as we know, young men look to other men to guide them. So if they older men don't let them know that calling women such scathing terms isn't appropriate, than who will?
You don't need to answer that. But it may explain what my motivation has been in some of these posts and also my tone. I don't like to be adversarial. I think there is much that joins different Christian faiths, but unfortunately, the areas of disagreement so often prevent more elevated conversations from happening.
Well I have answered but the first of your questions. If I have time later today, I will address the others. Thank you, again, for listening.
on Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 11:10 am
I've been distracted as of late with an inward spiritual battle. It has taken up a lot of my prayer and writing time. I do hope to soon write back to you.
May all be led by Christ alone and to Christ alone.
Peace, love and blessings all.
on Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 3:11 pm
on Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 5:54 pm
I have to clear something up (just in case it wasn't clear), this website isn't mine at all. I do participate but people much more scholarly than I (and MUCH more organized), run the show...well God runs all. You get what I mean though, surely. :c)
Again, before you start reading this, I ask, that you do read the whole thing, as it might sound off to you, on a sour note (I hope not too sour though). But brace yourself, I've never posted anything so lengthily.
I have to be honest, originally to me it seemed like you came to pluck off the flock (so to speak) with this talk of 'sin is nothing', as though you were trying to convince. And with all your postings of 'Christian Science' stuff it still seems to lean in that direction, however unintentional it might be. I have to say, I was not a little disappointed when it seemed you would in no rite consider what I believe to be God's truth. Just as surely, you must heave a sigh when you hope someone might tag along on the ol' 'Christian Science' way (though again, I understand, that isn't your intended point). Christians are passionate about Christ by nature, the fact that all 'said to be' Christians don't gather in fellowship gets distressing at times. I have to clear up something, by church, I in no way mean a physical building, I mean only the individual believers, 'belief systems' (which yes; they get together in buildings accordingly) which is sad, in and of itself, but I won't go there. The 'divisions' in Christ's church, by definition, are there because they do not agree on some or many points. All that being said, I concur with you on the 'God is Love'. Since the very first time I read that verse, it held so much weight, I ALWAYS go back to it. Those words are uniquely comforting indeed. How can three words hold so much power? Those three words have carried me through many a storm. I love now to look at them in light of 1 Corinthians 13. I also believe that it is: Essential to being a Christian that you repent, from sin. That with out fruit, there is well, no salvation (it's an outward sign of an inward passion), I am not saying that it TAKES work to be saved but that to not repent is to deny Christ. If reading the bible in whole makes this opinion form slightly different, I embrace only that.
I hope you don't feel as though what I said was a 'kick in the pants', I'm not trying to kick your pants *chuckles*, I have to guard myself against the temptation(s) of 'following' others. As it is Christ alone I desire, and will beg God to do this guarding for me. In the past, I was a HUGE follower of those who seemed to have an impressive knowledge base of the Holy Bible. I understand now, Christ is the one to follow, only God is the true leader and his word is spoken directly through the Holy Bible (and that book is the first and last and only, authority on what to believe). So that is my starting and finishing point now. I use God, Christ, Holy Ghost interchangeably because I believe in the Triune being, 3 yet one.
I agree also with what you said about Christian men. However, I will not slag them for their ignorance. I too have felt a burden of disgust for these types of behaviors: though it's the sin and NOT the sinner (as with all sin male or female) which disgusts me. I will say this though: You are correct they DESPERATELY need grown men to LEAD them away from these mad conclusions and delusions (a point for prayer? yes). I will say again though, we ALL are chalk full of sin, mans forte being, at times, completely different to what may lure a woman to sin. There is a difference but no distinction: sin is sin, is sin, is sin.
Christ never got 'caught up in it' because he was PURE, because he is, was and always will be: God. We ARE NOT. He had the temptations but he was, is and always will be: PURE, PERFECT, GLORIOUS AND TRUE. We are not. So anything that troubles me in this world is pretty obvious in that: Sin distracts, like a pack of wolves, it has plans (Satan was strategic, remember how he plotted/desired to try and overtake God and then God threw him down to earth?):
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." Isaiah 14:12-15 (KJV)
You see how he plotted in his heart? He still plots to this day. So call sin what you want, a whisper, a demon, the flesh or Satan or even, it is what it is and it is there, the bible clearly describes the things we are to repent from. The day will come when Satan and his minions will be tossed in the lake of fire for all eternity, but until then, he lurks, him and his gang of demons and this is what trips, all in the flesh up. As a Christian you have the safeguard of the Holy Ghost to protect you, our Father will not let you drown in your own sin. If you choose to follow flesh/sin instead of Christ, do not think for one moment God will be mocked, saved or not:
"7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."
Galatians 6:7-10
This passage was spoken to BELIEVERS. If you're sewing in the flesh, and ignoring the Spirit or choosing your own way and not consulting the Word.... He will not be mocked. Verse 9 states 'let us not be weary' which implies that it is possible for a born again Christian to be weary and weak, and have need of repenting of such. As Christians it's a given that that includes men and women. Why this site hones in on the women is because it's for that point. It is trying to give a women back the scriptural picture of womanhood, to direct her path, off that one warn and beaten by the world, away from the points of feminism that ARE NOT biblical. It's a Christian site, created to help Christian woman stay the path that God laid out for her, in his word. Though this 'type' of Christian may have many books to guide a believer through the bible by various authors, we do not hold one opinion of man up, EVER, we do not have any other COMPLETELY TRUE book as our guide but His. The one he left for us through his ordained prophets.
As for healing, there is mention of gifts in the scriptures, it states that not every one has every gift. That God selects a gift for each follower. And the showier ones are not the only. Nor does everyone have them.
Look to: 1 Corinthians 12:4, 7-11
So, yes, I believe there is healing given, though I've not witnessed it. I personally do not have the scriptural knowledge to refute or agree that it happens in our time. I have not yet read the bible in it's entirety (I am not proud of that fact and am currently working to reverse it). So, I will let God answer that question for me whenever He see's fit. I'm no longer willing to be wowed/blinded by others, seeming knowledge, of the scripture as they can easily impress me (well in past at least) and take something out of context. That type of blind following has put massive stumbling blocks in my Christian walk in the past and I am no longer a zombie follower, however I do listen and respect others that have gone ahead of me, so to speak, the final word for me is in the one book itself, The Holy Bible.
I worried a lot over this coming off as pushy. My hearts hope is that it was not and that it only points to my desire to see things as clearly as allowable through God's eyes.
"For now, we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face, now I know in part, but then shall I know even also as I am known"
1 Corinthians 13:12
I wondered why you didn't just go to the 'Christian Science' web sites to 'get the word out'. But since you say that you simply started at the point where you did, from a whim, it makes sense to me. I still hope you'll come around and read and listen to the broadcast, the ladies here call everyone into scripture, how could that ever be a mistake? After all, it is the True, sounding board for all in the Christian faith.
Sorry for the wait. I wasn't sure how long I might be but for now all is light again. I have to keep the gear on! :c) Ephesians 6
I won't 'argue' any biblical point with anybody, as the bible is clear that this is not for me or any follower to do, it speaks clearly for itself. It becomes moot on/to deaf ears. It was not my intent to argue in this note, just to clear off what my heart belief and desire is. As you did. May all walk and be led by, and with; Christ, the Redeemer, the Beloved the Almightily, Glorious, Pure, Saviour. May we need Him and yield to His will always.
Peace, love no' blessings all. May Christ lead.
on Saturday, March 6, 2010 at 11:11 am
So I am sticking around, listening to some of the conversations, and soaking up a little learning. I'm also working to try and not get so easily offended by things I hear. Turning the other cheek isn't always my strong suit, and it is something I am looking to improve. Without it, blogland can be a very unforgiving place, humanly speaking.
Thanks again.
on Tuesday, March 9, 2010 at 11:20 pm
I'm glad that they are showing signs of recognition of the need for meekness (hopefully with thought and words). It's a Christ like quality we all need. I find it difficult to turn the other cheek as well so I believe I understand what you mean. It is nice to look at a challenge and embrace what scripture tells us to do about it. Though not often easy.
I wouldn't know about a 'regular' blog land. I find in here it is an exceptionally (unprecedented for internet communications as far as my teensy scope has witnessed) gentle. It's, near to, complete lack of harshness is utterly refreshing. Just one of the bigger appeals of reading and commenting on this site.
Always welcome.
Peace, love n' blessings all.
PS I was so relieved that you seemed relaxed and not offended at what I wrote. As I sincerely hoped (and prayed) while I wrote, that you would see the gentleness and earnestness which was intended throughout.
on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 2:40 am
I would like to reply to this though I know that I am late and no one may even read it. (I just found this blog today)
As to women causing the breakdown in the family, I have to agree. It seems to me that the breakdown of the family can be traced back to the time when women decided that the high and holy calling that God gives to us as wives and mothers was not enough. They sought to fulfill themselves and give themselves an identity with a career outside the home. It is my opinion that this fulfillment has come at the expense of their husbands and children. And it is my belief that our identity comes from who we are as God's creation, not what we do. I just wish that more women felt that way. I see the results of this "fulfillment" in our society's children today. No longer are children respectful of their elders, authority, or property. They are vulgar, violent, and seem to be running wild with no sense of responsibility. I believe that this is a direct result of not having a mom at home with them for teaching and guidance. They have been raised by daycare and television/video games. And, in my opinion, they have paid a high price.
I believe that men, also, have paid a high price for the fulfillment of women with a career outside the home. Men are no longer in leadership roles in the home. They seem to not want to take responsibility for their home and family. I believe that this stems from us, as women, usurping the authority of men. I have seen way to many families in my opinion where the women rule the roost.
And as to the men on Christian blogs saying that women are uneducated, superficial and greedy, I would like to respond to that as well. I do not agree that women are uneducated. On the contrary, I believe that women today are highly educated. But I can't say that I disagree with women being superficial and greedy. I have a very difficult time relating to most women because I just can't get myself to share the ame interst they do. I don't want to go on shopping sprees with them looking for the newest Coach bag or the latest Gucci fashion (or whatever is "cool" today). And, from my own experience, it seems to me that women are far too consumed with outward appearance, social status, and financial status than they are with what is in the heart.
And as for these men talking about women as whores, etc., I cannot comment on that other than to say that it is inappropriate for anyone, especially Christian men, to speak that way. But when it is said that these men, if they are truly chaste, would not know women like that, I disagree. The author of the post stated that truly chaste men would know "nice girls from church." IL agree that that is how it should be, but the sad truth is (at least in my experience with churches in my area) is that the women that I have described above are all too often found in our churches. And it is my opinion that they are not the minority either.
Now, I realize that the church is made up of people and according to Romans, all have sinned. But as far as I am concerned women would be better served to remember the words of Titus 2 that women should be sensible and kind, workers at home....loving their husbands and children and being subject to their own husbands. And we should also remember the words of Proverbs 31 so that "the heart of her husband will safely trust in her......and she will do him good and not evil all the days of her life."
on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 4:05 pm
on Friday, April 23, 2010 at 9:42 am