One issue in today’s society is the rampant feminism staring at young women everywhere they go. In godly homes, the girls are raised with the expectation that one day they will become godly wives and mothers; keepers of the home and educators of the children. This mindset comes as direct contradiction to how girls are being raised outside of a godly home. Their training involves choosing a career and obtaining the education necessary to make that career a reality; they are prepared to enter the workforce – a world for men, not women.
Do I believe that women should not be educated? Absolutely not! Women are the ones who will be raising the next generation of humans… it would behoove their progeny to be well-educated.
Am I saying women should never work? Absolutely not! I believe very firmly in industrious women, but I also believe that they should focus on working from the home, in families, or near the home as opposed to being a career woman working away from home with other women’s husbands all day, five days a week.
A frequently raised topic is that of women in authority over men; a situation which occurs often in the workforce. Some contend it is not a biblical way to do things while others argue there is nothing wrong with it. One of the most quoted sections of the Bible in support of woman leadership is that of Deborah… and it is here I have to smile.
In reading the story of Deborah carefully, some interesting things come to light which do not at all argue for the position of women in authority, but work against it. Deborah was a judge, that is true, a position held (as far as we know) by men up to that point. Some like to pull out that Deborah was not only a judge, but led Barak and his army to victory against Sisera. Or did she?
By reading, we discover that Deborah told Barak that he was to go up against Sisera and God would deliver not only Sisera, but his entire army into his hand; Barak’s victory would be complete. Notice there is no mention of her going with him.
I’m not sure what Barak’s issue was, but he said the only way he would go is if Deborah went with him. Why, I’m not sure. Maybe he thought God’s presence would be assured if His judge was with him in battle… don’t know. Deborah agreed to go, but notice what she said to Barak.
The battle against Sisera would still be won, but Barak would now receive none of the glory for this. God would go before him and all the armies would be routed and destroyed, but Barak’s mission would have been for naught as he would get no credit for his military prowess. Not only that, but the life of Sisera would not be taken by him, but by a woman.
The story of Deborah is not one of females taking authority and surging to the forefront of battles and major events. Her story is one of Barak’s shame and to his discredit. Because Barak could not be a man and do what God had told him to do, God sent the consequences of no credit to him and Sisera’s life taken by a woman… not at all a triumph for the feminist camp.
So next time someone pulls out the example of Deborah leading the men, remind them of the full story and how God used some strong women to fill in gaps where men failed to be manly… an act that was considered shameful and lacking in valor.
Something else I noticed from today’s reading has nothing to do with feminism and the Bible, but rather with something Jesus told his disciples as they headed to the Mount of Olives, just hours before he was to be crucified. He asked his disciples to buy swords… and apparently they had at least two in the Garden of Gethsemane.
I have always been puzzled by the fact that Peter “just happened” to have a sword on him, especially since Jesus’ ministry wasn’t directed at taking over things by violence. But here in Luke, I found the answer – Jesus told them to buy swords just before going to Gathsemane… don’t know why, but now I know how Peter got the sword he cut off the High Priest’s servant’s ear. J
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
How much more when the first born turns from the plough to Christ?
One of the passages that has always touched me deeply is that of Luke 9:62 (And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.)
On the surface, as I used to read it, it was always simple enough: Jesus wants servants who are not like Lot's wife, who will be steadfast and follow through. And that interpretation, I believe, is not invalid or void.
But I think there is another, deeper message. And I have heard hints of it throughout the Bible, the suggestion that only an elect few were chosen, and we see evidence of who those chosen are not by followers who will go back and put their hand to the plough. Obvious resolution to this is the fact that many change in worship and service to Jesus, who can and often does change the heart of those His followers, as well as the hearts of others, through the an assumed "yet" before the fit. In application, this would look like " ... having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is YET fit for the kingdom of God". But this, as so many other things, takes prayer to truly apply, for it might be an unintentional altering of God's will, something I would be fain to do.
Something else is that of the nature of the first born.
Who is the first born? Is it only ever the first-born male? What of those families that only bare women?
What of families who have half-adoptions or full adoptions? Clearly the genealogical first-born of note would be the easiest standard election, but what of families who believe they should adopt for their first five years of marriage, and the year following their adoption, they conceive - which is the first born, if both the adopted child, and the child by birth, are male? Or if the position is that only that child BORN into a family can be a first-BORN ... then what of families who take new-born children off young mothers who cannot support a family?
I cannot even begin to suggest I have wisdom enough to interpret this passage. But as a half-adopted child, I have to wonder if I am the first-born, and if the rules of the first-born having spiritual responsibilities and claim to that which is the first-born's right even APPLY to this day and age. Regardless, it IS something to think about - for every promise that God has shared in His word, a great number of them (if not ALL of them) are still true for followers of Christ, and so there is a spiritual resonance to them.
So today's call to action:
Discover what role do you have to play with respect to your family's first born!
If you're the first born
What are your responsibilities and privileges? (aka Have you ever considered what your birth-obligation and birth-rights were?)
Have you ever delved into what God intended as your birthright?
Do you feel that you have any kind of special anointing to be of particular service?
Are you led to lead others in some particular way?
If you're NOT the first born
What are YOUR responsibilities and privileges?
Have you ever delved into what God intended for you?
Do you feel that you are supposed to be particularly supportive of the first born in your family?
Are you led to follow in a way for which you are uniquely designed?
Regardless, I challenge you to discover your particular role in your own birth-family, as well as your spiritual family. Just being aware of your role can often enlighten you as to the what and why of the experiences you have had and are having.
On the surface, as I used to read it, it was always simple enough: Jesus wants servants who are not like Lot's wife, who will be steadfast and follow through. And that interpretation, I believe, is not invalid or void.
But I think there is another, deeper message. And I have heard hints of it throughout the Bible, the suggestion that only an elect few were chosen, and we see evidence of who those chosen are not by followers who will go back and put their hand to the plough. Obvious resolution to this is the fact that many change in worship and service to Jesus, who can and often does change the heart of those His followers, as well as the hearts of others, through the an assumed "yet" before the fit. In application, this would look like " ... having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is YET fit for the kingdom of God". But this, as so many other things, takes prayer to truly apply, for it might be an unintentional altering of God's will, something I would be fain to do.
Something else is that of the nature of the first born.
Who is the first born? Is it only ever the first-born male? What of those families that only bare women?
What of families who have half-adoptions or full adoptions? Clearly the genealogical first-born of note would be the easiest standard election, but what of families who believe they should adopt for their first five years of marriage, and the year following their adoption, they conceive - which is the first born, if both the adopted child, and the child by birth, are male? Or if the position is that only that child BORN into a family can be a first-BORN ... then what of families who take new-born children off young mothers who cannot support a family?
I cannot even begin to suggest I have wisdom enough to interpret this passage. But as a half-adopted child, I have to wonder if I am the first-born, and if the rules of the first-born having spiritual responsibilities and claim to that which is the first-born's right even APPLY to this day and age. Regardless, it IS something to think about - for every promise that God has shared in His word, a great number of them (if not ALL of them) are still true for followers of Christ, and so there is a spiritual resonance to them.
So today's call to action:
Discover what role do you have to play with respect to your family's first born!
If you're the first born
What are your responsibilities and privileges? (aka Have you ever considered what your birth-obligation and birth-rights were?)
Have you ever delved into what God intended as your birthright?
Do you feel that you have any kind of special anointing to be of particular service?
Are you led to lead others in some particular way?
If you're NOT the first born
What are YOUR responsibilities and privileges?
Have you ever delved into what God intended for you?
Do you feel that you are supposed to be particularly supportive of the first born in your family?
Are you led to follow in a way for which you are uniquely designed?
Regardless, I challenge you to discover your particular role in your own birth-family, as well as your spiritual family. Just being aware of your role can often enlighten you as to the what and why of the experiences you have had and are having.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Uniquely Suited to Complement; not Compete
One of the issues I've had to contend with in the Bible is the role of women.
Now, before I am decried as a feminist and alpha female (which I'm not), let me explain where I'm coming from. Throughout the Bible, I have noticed God's penchant to put men in a position of authority and leadership... not the woman. Additionally, there are many verses which apply to firstborns being specially chosen by God, but they tend to be male firstborns... and that's a completely different subject which I may or may not ever get into.
The motif I'm trying to get at here is my initial responses to God's choice of men over women for authority and leadership purposes and the consequent delineation between men and women's roles. To be perfectly clear, I don't believe this elevation of man to his rightful position of authority is unjust or a denigration of women by God; in fact, I believe God has a very high opinion and respect of women throughout the Bible as can be noted from the responsibilities He has placed on the women.
A woman's responsibilities may not seem as important or as demanding or as stressful as a man's responsibilities, but I would argue that the woman often has a harder lot in life then the man if she is to do things according to God's standards.
The argument by women in today's society is that men don't do anything so they must. This has led to a militant force of women sweeping the globe and infiltrating even the most discriminatory fields and areas of life, business, military, etc. Since man is not being a man, woman must fill his place. Women complain about how men lack initiative, drive, focus, responsibility; how they live their lives in complacency, seemingly spineless, lackluster creatures - which drives the woman insane.
Women have a tendency to see something that needs to be done or a problem that needs to be solved and if the man doesn't do it, obviously the woman must. It is here that women make the most terrible mistake of all; the mistake of impatience and usurpation of the man's role in society.
God made men to be leaders and to be the heads of whatever body they are leading. Their rule begins with their family and moves up from there: work groups, companies, governments, states, countries. The man has been uniquely equipped to rule and to be in command. However, their ability to be men seems directly linked to the amount of respect, honor, and deference women show to them.
Men need to be given a chance to be the leaders they were created to be.
And this is where the woman must realize when to step aside. It may take the man longer to realize what the problem is, it may take him longer to take any action. If a woman immediately throws herself into the problem and attempts to solve it herself, she removes the necessity for the man to do anything at all. Because of the intensity that arises from a woman trying to do a man's work, it is often more convenient for the man just to stay out of the way.
Result: a society of women who are frazzled beyond all belief as they try to juggle their responsibilities as mother and homemaker with the man's responsibilities of leadership and provision. On the other side is a society of men whose masculinity has been trampled by a stampede of high heels and a flurry of impatience and disrespect, leading them to a life as a target of disdain and disgust - why bother?
It is my belief that if women would stand down and suppress the frequently overwhelming desire to DO something, men would move forward to fill the gaps. If women would stop despising men and focusing on what they don't do and start showing respect and deference for the laudable things they DO do, men would blossom and begin to reclaim their manhood. If women would expect men to be men and to take charge and not only wait for them to do so, but encourage them as they moved toward that goal, the blood of manhood would once again run through their veins.
I believe women have a much more difficult role in life... we are to be supportive and respectful.
This can be one of the hardest things a woman can ever do; to stand back and wait for the man to fill the gap he was uniquely created to fill. This is not a wimpy role, it does not detract from womanhood to do this. In fact, I believe it will elevate men's opinion of woman and instead of seeing and treating her as a poorly-behaved man, he will begin to see and treat her as a woman - completely different from him, yet uniquely suited to complement, not compete, with him throughout life.
It is time for women to stand down and allow men to stand up... they will if we let them.
Now, before I am decried as a feminist and alpha female (which I'm not), let me explain where I'm coming from. Throughout the Bible, I have noticed God's penchant to put men in a position of authority and leadership... not the woman. Additionally, there are many verses which apply to firstborns being specially chosen by God, but they tend to be male firstborns... and that's a completely different subject which I may or may not ever get into.
The motif I'm trying to get at here is my initial responses to God's choice of men over women for authority and leadership purposes and the consequent delineation between men and women's roles. To be perfectly clear, I don't believe this elevation of man to his rightful position of authority is unjust or a denigration of women by God; in fact, I believe God has a very high opinion and respect of women throughout the Bible as can be noted from the responsibilities He has placed on the women.
A woman's responsibilities may not seem as important or as demanding or as stressful as a man's responsibilities, but I would argue that the woman often has a harder lot in life then the man if she is to do things according to God's standards.
The argument by women in today's society is that men don't do anything so they must. This has led to a militant force of women sweeping the globe and infiltrating even the most discriminatory fields and areas of life, business, military, etc. Since man is not being a man, woman must fill his place. Women complain about how men lack initiative, drive, focus, responsibility; how they live their lives in complacency, seemingly spineless, lackluster creatures - which drives the woman insane.
Women have a tendency to see something that needs to be done or a problem that needs to be solved and if the man doesn't do it, obviously the woman must. It is here that women make the most terrible mistake of all; the mistake of impatience and usurpation of the man's role in society.
God made men to be leaders and to be the heads of whatever body they are leading. Their rule begins with their family and moves up from there: work groups, companies, governments, states, countries. The man has been uniquely equipped to rule and to be in command. However, their ability to be men seems directly linked to the amount of respect, honor, and deference women show to them.
Men need to be given a chance to be the leaders they were created to be.
And this is where the woman must realize when to step aside. It may take the man longer to realize what the problem is, it may take him longer to take any action. If a woman immediately throws herself into the problem and attempts to solve it herself, she removes the necessity for the man to do anything at all. Because of the intensity that arises from a woman trying to do a man's work, it is often more convenient for the man just to stay out of the way.
Result: a society of women who are frazzled beyond all belief as they try to juggle their responsibilities as mother and homemaker with the man's responsibilities of leadership and provision. On the other side is a society of men whose masculinity has been trampled by a stampede of high heels and a flurry of impatience and disrespect, leading them to a life as a target of disdain and disgust - why bother?
It is my belief that if women would stand down and suppress the frequently overwhelming desire to DO something, men would move forward to fill the gaps. If women would stop despising men and focusing on what they don't do and start showing respect and deference for the laudable things they DO do, men would blossom and begin to reclaim their manhood. If women would expect men to be men and to take charge and not only wait for them to do so, but encourage them as they moved toward that goal, the blood of manhood would once again run through their veins.
I believe women have a much more difficult role in life... we are to be supportive and respectful.
This can be one of the hardest things a woman can ever do; to stand back and wait for the man to fill the gap he was uniquely created to fill. This is not a wimpy role, it does not detract from womanhood to do this. In fact, I believe it will elevate men's opinion of woman and instead of seeing and treating her as a poorly-behaved man, he will begin to see and treat her as a woman - completely different from him, yet uniquely suited to complement, not compete, with him throughout life.
It is time for women to stand down and allow men to stand up... they will if we let them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)