monstrous regiment of women
I’ll bet you didn’t know this, prairie blog readers whoever you are. According to this film clip that appeared on Vision Forum's blog page on September 23rd, (caution: rated M for misogyny*) the greatest threats to Christian men are as follows:
Hillary Clinton
Abortion
The View
Oprah
Equal pay for women
Universal suffrage**
Jessica Lunch
Joyce Meyers
To name just a few.
These are supposed to make grown men quake in their boots, run for cover, and generally respond as though Godzilla and Mothra were about to wage the war of wars in the church parking lot. Of course, this is difficult for me to relate to since my husband is a real man and cowers from little, though he doesn’t much like spiders.
He also likes it that I have the right to vote. And that I went to college. And that I don’t have to wear white dresses or shy away from expressing an opinion to be truly feminine.
But that is for another blog post.
There is more information about this film and the two fellows who made it on their website. They happen to be the same Gunn brothers who took first place in the political film category in the annual independent Christian film festival in San Antonio last year which is run by Doug Phillips. No surprise. After viewing the films from last year's festival, it appears that most of them were written, directed, and produced to pander to Doug's view of Christianity. Our culture is in desperate need of a Savior, not a neolegalist. Too bad a film that portrayed life outside his bubble would never make a first cut.
To their credit, the Gunns did a good job of revealing the radical homosexual agenda in San Francisco in last year’s offering. But how much better would it be if they had addressed the roles of women in such as way that reflected Christians, both men and women, as winsome ambassadors for Christ, struggling sinners who seek to use their gifts to their fullest for His glory in all spheres of life? Those who trust the Bible should know it has real answers for our culture’s real problems and should know better than to toss out roadblocks in someone’s path to make it more difficult to see this truth.
My impression of this video clip is that the only ones who will appreciate the movie will be those who cower at more than women and their roles within the church and the world. Real men want real women, not icons of a pre-Civil War south but women who will engage their culture in all spheres of life, living purposely in the 21st century and raising children who will do likewise.
This movie should be rated M for misguided and moronic.
*Misogyny is defined here
**Universal sufferage is defined by Wikopedia here. Very interesting.
posted by prairie girl @ 10:29 PM
42 comments
42 Comments:
This movie should be rated M for misguided and moronic.
totally.
1CO 14:33 As in all the congregations of the saints,
1CO 14:34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
1CO 14:35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
1CO 14:36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?
1CO 14:37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.
1CO 14:38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.
and
1TI 2:9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
1TI 2:10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
1TI 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
1TI 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
1TI 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
1TI 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
1TI 2:15 But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
you know, anon, your exegesis really stinks. I too can pull a bunch of verses out of my butt to justify a bunch of crap that is injustifiable. like slavery. Just to point one out, 1 Co is a QUOTE, the LAW never EVER states that. and for pete's sake, finish the passage.
I hate patriarchy and everything you and trying to make a point here for. God created men AND WOMEN in His image. He is NOT a man, he is NOT male, he is genderless and beyond our comprehension. God is not a mysogonist like you evidently are. you can't even contexualize things. and I really hate what people like you to do women in the church and in greater society. God DOES NOT prefer men.
Anonymous,
If you have something to say, you should be big enough to put your name next to it. And in case you haven't noticed, a blog is speaking "in the churches."
anonymous is probably one of the texan misogynists.
gotta love people who throw scripture around with zero respect for it.
Candice--
Your language gives you away from the get-go.
All I did was give you two passages from God's Word on His restrictions of His women. If you don't belong to Christ, then ignore them.
Your beef is with God. I'm just the messenger.
Nothing was taken out of context. You just don't have the honesty to admit what is there. Paul's restrictions upon women are grounded in Creation and the Fall. That never changes and can never change.
If you don't want all of God's Word then just renounce It. Feminism and Christianity don't mix...except in your imagination.
Greenemama--
Actually, it you who has no regard for God's Word. I presented you with 2 full texts requiring the silence and submission of women in Christ's church, and yet all you can do is cast aspersions.
Typical of women who want their own way, irrespective of what the Word teaches. You have confused a NARAL meeting with the church of Jesus Christ.
Wow. This is a real women's club here!
Irritable group, too. How many of you are divorced?
Kristen, what do you mean a blog is "speaking in the churches." If that is true, then you are sinning.
Paul says in 1 Cor 14 that whoever does not recognize his command of silence for women in the assembly is not recognzied by apostolic authority.
And if you are not recognized by apostolicl authority, you are not recognized by God.
Prairie wrote:
>Real men want real women
How are you such an authority on real men? If you had married one, you would be in submission.
It's little wonder that you and your husband have a hard time finding a church. If you don't believe in submission to your husband, how could you ever be in subjection to Christ? And if you don't like the idea of being in subjection to Christ, then how could you ever find a place in His church?
A nice big congregation is perfect for you. There is no accountability. You show up and then go home. No one will require anyting of you.
But Christ is watching. He knows that you don't want Him to reign over you.
Real women? I don't think you have a clue.
Anonymous,
I had a toddler in my lap so my saracasm was muted. Sorry. What I meant was, in no way can what Karen says on her blog constitute "speaking in the churches." I don't know what apostolic authority means in the twenty-first century, but those who are in authority over me (my husand and elders) don't have any problem with women blogging, even regarding theological issues. Those who don't even have the dignity and honesty to attach a name to their comments certainly don't have any claim to any authority over me.
Peace of Christ to you.
Kristen--
To withhold a name has nothing to do with honesty or dishonesty. Nor do I claim (certainly I do not desire) any authority of you. Good grief. This is why God forbids women to be elders in His church. You do not think very clearly.
Second, I don't have a problem with women blogging either. They should be very careful on theological issues, however. It is not your place to teach men. I've already cited the Scriptural texts on that.
Possibly, you don't care what Scripture states anyway. I don't know.
None of the women who have responded to me have done so with a feminine spirit. All of you have the spirit of the American woman, which is foul, repulsive and contrary to nature. It is absolutely contrary to Christ's will for you as women.
So, whatever your husband and church allow, you are ultimately and finally accountable to precious Jesus, Lord of all.
Anon,
What gives you the right to make all these blanket statements about these women, these snide remarks that jump to conclusions? I do hope that you are not an elder, man or not, because you have demonstrated far less logic than any of these women. I won't even talk about your lack of a gracious and gentle spirit. Do you remember why people asked how anything good could come out of Nazareth? It was because they were amazed at the gracious spirit that Jesus showed. I believe the Greek word used was "charis", which actually means "one who bestows delight".
Why would you assume that I am not in a good church? God has graciously led my husband to lead our family to an awesome church, a church with real men as elders who don't feel the need to "lord it over" those under their care. Both of us have had it with those who think salvation comes through the church. Hello. There was this thing called the Reformation. We are a priesthood of believers and need no man to bring us to God, save for the new Adam, the Lord Jesus. It is the same abusive attitude displayed by you that we seen in so many today and have rejected altogether.
Why would you assume any of us are
divorced? I know that three of us are not, I do not know about the other one. But even if we were, how would you know whether we were innocent parties or not? Or do you just assume that men are never the ones who are responsible for the breakdown of the home?
Why would you think that we are pro-abortion? Is your slice of reality so small that you don't know that there are God-fearing, children-loving, pro-life women who don't hold to your absurd views of women? To accuse us of otherwise is outrageous!
Are you an American or a foreigner who has been graciously welcomed to my country? Your attitude about American women is beyond belief.
You asked me about my experience with real men. I have been married to one for nearly 31 glorious years and have raised 5 real men for sons, men who are (and will be when they are old enough to marry) servant-leaders in their homes, men who aren't so full of themselves and their authoritarism that they need to smack women down every chance they get, men who learned their gentle leadership from their father and by Christ's example.
Whatever your brand of feminity is, mister, I don't want any. I will remember to pray for your wife, if you have one. She needs it.
Anon,
i would suggest that you check out my response to R. S. Sproul Jr. when he said that women aren't to teach men.
http://fromtheprairie.blogspot.com/2005/04/blogging-women-and-rc-jr.html
Prairie--
Why would I care about your response to RC Sproul?
I've read the Scripture; you know, the inspired Word of God.
1TI 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
1TI 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
1TI 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
1TI 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Attack your friends for there lack of grace. Or don't you have the honesty to do that?
Well, Anon, since I have supper to fix and a household to run (seriously) it was easier for me to suggest that you read that response where I ask all the same questions of Dr. Sproul that I would like to ask you. I read the same Bible and yet do not see the same interpretation that you do, hence my questions to Dr. Sproul.
So, perhaps, if you would be so kind, could you look at my article and then respond or would it be better for me to cut and paste here?
As far as the lack of graciousness of the part of my friends, to whom do you refer? One of the responders here is my daughter. I havd never met the others. American woman that I am, I will not hesitate to call a spade a spade.
I would wink here but wouldn't want to give you the wrong idea.
Anon,
<<1TI 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.>>
A gentle and quiet spirit is pleasing to the Lord. But we are also to submit to one another. No gender qualification there. Also, all women are not to submit to all men; I assume you know that.
<<1TI 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.>>
Again, I agree that women are not to place themselves in authority over men. Now, where do you believe women ought to be silent? Everywhere?
<<1TI 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.>>
We know this is true! I belive in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
<<1TI 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.>>
Actually didn't they both sin?
Anon,
Just curious. Do you also defend the idea not everyone ought to vote? Could you explain your position?
Listen. I've discussed 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 over and over and over with professing Christian women. You just don't want God to reign over you. There is no escaping the meaning of 1 Tim 2. No escape, no matter your carping. The silence of women in the assembly is grounded in Creation and the Fall. Deal with it. If you belong to Christ, then submit to His Word. If you don't, then on your way with the rest of American women.
Women have largely destroyed authentic Christianity in America, and the weak men who have yielded to their independent spirit. You are just another in a long line of Feminists who dip themselves in Christianity. God sees through it though.
All the sophistry in the world will not change the meaning of 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14. By the standard of God's Word you are a rebellious woman, even if you are a homemaker.
Your spirit is the spirit of the worldly woman.
This is not about authoritarianism at all. That's a red-herring, a deceptive ploy. This is simply about obedience to the Divine revelation of Scripture. You will not accept what Scripture plainly says on this matter, so you've got 1000 questions for the text which it supposedly does not answer. I've seen it over and over and over again.
Your friends seek to avoid the plain meaning by calling me names and casting aspersions. You'll apparently dodge the meaning in a more sophisticated and academic way. But it's all the same. You just don't want God's Word to rule you. So those who point you to the plain truth become "authoritarian." :-)
Good grief.
If you had an honest heart, you would see what 1 Tim 2 plainly reveals. But not everybody who has eyes can see.
Prairie:
>But we are also to submit to one >another. No gender qualification >there.
Ha! No gender qualification???????
Eyes which refuse to see!!!!!!!!!
Jesus said there would be people like you. No gender qualification???? Good grief.
1CO 11:9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
The passage in Ephesians picks up a new topic. Don't even bother with that argument.
I have no problem with women voting.
But I do have a problem with women lying and being dishonest. You are being dishonest about what is written in 1 Tim 2.
You are desperately trying to avoid the plain meaning of that text!!!
Anon,
So, let me see if I understand this correctly....
If I agree with your interpretation of Scripture, then I can be a Christian but if I do not, then I am an unbeliever? Is this what you are saying?
"You are just another in a long line of Feminists who dip themselves in Christianity. God sees through it though.. "
That is pretty heavy stuff, Anon.
I thought the standards of measure for a Christian was believing on the crucified Christ.
No gender qualification????????
1TI 2:8 I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.
1TI 2:9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
1TI 2:10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
1TI 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
1TI 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
1TI 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
1TI 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
1TI 2:15 But women will be saved*through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Gender qualification is present all the way through!!!!!!!!!!!
You have deceived yourself. You have bought the lie. Seeing, you do not see. Hearing, you do hear.
You do not want God to reign over you. You prefer your independence, thank you very much. Oh, you like the passages which prop up your lifestyle, but when the Word of God crosses your will, it is the Word of God that must be changed, so that your will can be done.
>Actually didn't they both sin?
Yes, they did.
But the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul says that as a consequence of the woman's sin all women are prohibitted from teaching men and having authority over them in the church; in fact, they must be silent in the church because of Eve's transgression.
1TI 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
1TI 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
1TI 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
That's what it plainly says. If you were honest, you would simply admit it. Reject the Word of God if you must, but not employ deceit in a futile attempt to alter Its meaning.
Anon,
I did not say that there is NO gender qualification. I simply said that the verse "submit to one another" says what it says. Do you believe that there are every times that a man should sumbit to a woman? If not, then what does that verse mean?
I am still waiting for you to tell me if I have to believe in your personal interpretation of these verses to be saved.
"Oh, you like the passages which prop up your lifestyle, but when the Word of God crosses your will, it is the Word of God that must be changed, so that your will can be done."
Actually, I would prefer to have my feet propt up. To what lifestyle are you referring? Are you saying that my lifestyle is outside of God's will? What do you know of my lifestyle to make such a statement? Do I know you?
"1TI 2:15 But women will be saved*through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
Are you saying that any act of mine will save me? What of a women who is unable to bear children? Does she have any hope for salvation?
>I thought the standards of measure >for a Christian was believing on the >crucified Christ.
Even the demons believe, prairie girl.
JAS 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.
MT 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
You are just avoiding the meat of the text, like every other rebellious woman.
You are an American woman.
Take it as an insult, even if you like the idea.
prairie:
I simply said that the verse "submit to one another" says what it says.
Where is that? Do you even know? And what is the context? It is not talking about relationships between men and women. Go look it up.
Scripture NEVER calls men to submit to women. Such a notion is as perverse as homosexuality!
sweet candice wrote:
>you know, anon, your exegesis really stinks.
hahahahhahahahaha
All I did was quote the Scripture!
hahahahahahhahaha
No exegesis. Just Scripture.
hahahahahahhahaha
Women. You'd be wonderful if you'd just stay in your place....
pg:
I did not say that there is NO gender qualification. I simply said that the verse "submit to one another" says what it says. Do you believe that there are every times that a man should sumbit to a woman? If not, then what does that verse mean?
I don't know why I even bother, cause you really don't want the truth. But I'll help you anyway.
EPH 5:19 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord,
EPH 5:20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
EPH 5:21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Now Paul changes his subject from general directives to the brotherhood to the specific matter of marriage.
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
How do we know that?
Because Paul was not an idiot.
He would not say to a married couple. Submit to one another. And then in the next sentence change it to Wives submit to your husbands.
Scripture nowhere teaches men to submit to women. In fact, whenever you find women in leadership over men in the Bible it is regarded as a curse, a Divine judgment.
Who fouled things up most in the response to Katrina? A woman. Governor Blanco. She would not cooperate with the President and she got into a power struggle (typical for women) with that inept Mayor Nagin. Woman were made and designed to help men, particularly as wives.
Women were not created to go spouting off their opinions on everything, like you enjoy doing, pg. It is unnatural. It is contrary to Christ. You would do better to tend to your family. If you must write, write about your family and leave it at that.
You are a product of your culture and your culture is ungodly. You watch TV and go to movies and listen to pop music, no doubt, and thus you become a foul specimen of womanhood, a woman who professes Christianity but has the spirit of a worldly woman. Talk less. Write less. Give out your opinions much less. Let men see your subjection and quietness of spirit, and the Lord will be with you.
I just pop in to different blogs for a single day. So I'll make my departure from here now.
Christ is not only Savior; He is King. He requires a certain disposition and spirit from you. I've tried to point you to Scripture where the proper spirit and disposition for woman is clearly and definitively spelled out. God will hold you to account.
Maybe down the road you will thank me.
1CO 11:8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
1CO 11:9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Always remember that. It is God's Word not mine.
Your friend.
Farewell.
anonymous,
you said at one point that this looks like a real woman's club here...
Well, I'm 100% male and while I may not agree with every single comment here, I MOST CERTAINLY am NOT in agreement with you. You are of the devil and may God have mercy on you. Why don't you go spew your filth and poison and hatred of women somewhere where it might be appreciated.
Your comments are stupid and moronic. I haven't seen such little respect for scripture since that last debate I had with an Armenian (I won... but that doesn't really matter because you will never change someone's mind).
O, and why should a woman be careful to avoid theological issues on a blog? I missed the scripture on that one.
You also said,
"None of the women who have responded to me have done so with a feminine spirit. All of you have the spirit of the American woman, which is foul, repulsive and contrary to nature. It is absolutely contrary to Christ's will for you as women."
How so???!!!??? These women are not to submit to you they are to submit to their husband or father (or if neither are available whoever God has placed in authority over them). So they don't have to respond to your moron comments in any manner that you may wish.
O, and I am a REAL man, and I want a real woman... not some pushover like you are describing. I want my wife to THINK with the brain God gave her. And if she wants to post this stuff on a blog, then by all means.
I think you could use a lesson in chivalry.
Watchful said,
"O, and I am a REAL man, and I want a real woman... not some pushover like you are describing. I want my wife to THINK with the brain God gave her. And if she wants to post this stuff on a blog, then by all means."
And I think you got just the wife that fits that order!!!
"I think you could use a lesson in chivalry."
That is exactly what my husband said when he heard this guy's comments. What ever happened to women and children first?
Unbelievable, Karen. I miss coming to your blog for a couple days and I miss a war.
"Anonymous" reminds me of a poster on the AOL boards years ago whose screen name was "Lambsfury". "Anonymous" sounds just like him, except that Lambsfury was into ALL CAPS.
What surprised me was "Anonymous" didn't use KJV. People like him are usually KJV-only.
I have never seen someone handle the word of God with such a lack of grace. But what takes the cake is the choice to use the name "Anonymous". What a coward. And his attitude was incredibly condescending.
Since "Rev. Earnest Angry" only showed up for a day (my goodness what a sad life... apparently he believes he's "called" to show up at one blog per day and unleash his prophetic bravado and move on) I missed the opportunity to offer my big question.
So, just in case he comes back....
I Cor 11:4 says that if a woman prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, she brings disgrace to her head. The topic of the chapter is order in the Corinthian church.
But note... the woman prays or prophesies!
She speaks!
IN CHURCH!
How would "Anonymous" twist his grid to make that one work with I Cor 14:35-36? He can't have it both ways. I'd like to see his "hopscotch" to rectify both passages.
Then, again, maybe not. It might not be pretty.
One more point, I wonder about people who get so violently angry over certain issues. It's as if the anger turns to hate and then logic seems to seep out of their brains. To bring the governor of Louisiana and Katrina into this discussion was unbelievably wierd.
It's almost like what Obi-wan Kenobi said in the Star Wars movies, "Don't give in to hate. Hate leads to the dark side of the force." It makes me wonder if there's an overzealousness with issues that leads some Christians into some kind of "dark side" of theology where they start to miss the point and can't see the forest for the trees.
Interesting that "anonymous" cowers behind his nom de keyboard while asserting that the husbands of the women who disagree with him are not "real men".
David,
I was wondering about that same passage as well.
I hope you did notice that my Rosie the Riveter in my next blog entry shows Rosie with a headcovering!
:)
Tulipgirl,
I think that was called a drive-by shooting off at the mouth.
Lawman3842,
Nice to see you here. And, of course, as one of the real men to whom I referred, I would have expected your good comments.
I loved the "nom de keyboard" by the way! Does that make me the "mom de keyboard?"
John,
Welcome to my blog!
I would be interested in reading anything that Doug Phillips has had to say about "neolegalists." I guess is all depends on how one defines legalism and then neolegalism. Of course, if you mean neolegalism to only mean the discussions surrounding the Auburn Avenue Controversy, of course Phillips, who does not believe in the baptism of infants, would not be one.
However, I am using this term in the broader sense. Wikopedia defines legalism in this way: "Legalism, in Christian theology, is a pejorative term referring to an improper fixation on law or codes of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of pride and the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God."
I would use the term "neolegalism", then, to describe those people who, in their zeal for personal holiness within our post-modern world, superimpose their own application of Biblical principles on others, equating adherence to their own personal standards with another person's spirituality. In Phillip's case, it seems that he would like to take women back to the era of the pre-Civil War south and anything outside of that paradigm is doing great harm to our nation.
As far as the Monstrous women concept,my heart grieves for the women who are struggling to be genuine, Godly women within their homes and churches who do not fit in with Doug's "vision"... people who are already carrying burdens (widowhood, the consequences of past poor choices, single moms who were abandoned, or even women in Godly homes who, for whatever reason, actually need their income, not for frivolity but for necessity. I also am insulted for friends I have who, finding themselves in another season of life, have chosen to work outside the home, with the complete blessing of their husbands, and are considered "monstrous women." And then there is the topic of women and college. Sigh. You can read at
www.gotmeacollegegiirl.blogspot.com for more on that topic.
This is the "neolegalism" to which I refer.
Yesterday our pastor was preaching from Acts 17 and talked about the principles surrounding evangelism. He pointed out that Paul was addressing all sorts of different people....the Stoics, the Epicureans, the religious leaders in the synagogues, and even the plain, ordinary people in the street. He found a point of commonality when he preached. Our culture is full of people who desperately need the Gospel messages of forgiveness of sin and life in the resurrected Christ. They could never begin to understand these neolegalistic, hyperpatriarchial, and nonbiblical views of women. Why add more "boulders to their shoulders" at it were?
Finally, I think the reason I cannot relate to much of this is that my desire is to be relevant within my own time, in my own culture, as Francis Schaeffer would call it, developing a Christian worldview that is true to the Word of God rather than true to someone else's checklist. I do not wish to be a part of any subculture. I don't see where Christ has called anyone to do that.
I hope that clarifies.
Hello to your wife and little ones and many blessings to you.
I think the neolegalism of which I speak has struck again...sorry you couldn't leave a post on my blog, in good conscience without fear of retribution, friend.
I hope you did notice that my Rosie the Riveter in my next blog entry shows Rosie with a headcovering!
Too funny! I love it!
I also am amused by your term "drive-by shoot off of the mouth".
I think that if you can't say something to someone's face, then you shouldn't say it on the internet. I think the Lord is rather grieved by that kind of behavior.
The sad thing is that the internet allows people to post comments with all the "warmth" and anonymity of a Russian officer in an ICBM silo in outer Siberia.
The host of this blog said:
My impression of this video clip is that the only ones who will appreciate the movie will be those who cower at more than women and their roles within the church and the world. Real men want real women, not icons of a pre-Civil War south but women who will engage their culture in all spheres of life, living purposely in the 21st century and raising children who will do likewise.
This movie should be rated M for misguided and moronic.
I am sorry that you think my true testimony, as the others on the movie are misguided and moronic. They are the truth. I make no excuse for the awful things I have done, including murdering my baby so I can be a 21st Century gal. I am also sorry that your opinion of us is that we live in some civil war era...please give me the credit as a women to know who I am. I am a 21st century women..I went to medical school, quit to come home and serve my husband and children. Why invest my time and energy to a boss and his future when I can invest my time and energy into my investment...my family...why is that so offensive. Why do we "homemakers' get stereotyped to be weak, mindless creatures that do nothing but cook and clean...I am politically active, my family is always taking in children that people don't want and men and women who need help. I have a Ebay business, am a professional bookkeeper, a Master Herbalist and Family Nutritionist...do I fit the bill of 21st Century women yet. I do this as a "homemaker" I don't need college to be specialized in one skill, I am specialized in many skills. The ideology of feminism destroyed my life...it caused me to murder my child, forsake my other children for a 'career' and abandon my true love, my husband for another man (my boss). I have no problem with women working..I have a problem with Christian women forsaking their most blessed God given role for such a lesser vocation. As for the 'raising ofchildren who will do likewise', I homeschool all my children, giving them the finest private education they could have. My teenage boys have graduated at 15 from highschool and are in college. They will protest a daytime curfew they are trying to pass tomorrow, they have over 100 community service hours under their belt and my 16 year old is an apprentice at a Engineering Firm (his first job).
Do they qualify as 21st century kids. You see, mankind has not changed since the Garden of Eden, he is the same rebellious creature that he has always been. I don't care if its th 12th century or 21st man does not change, nor does the word of God and its application to man's life. I hope I did not sound harsh nor unloving. I merely want to express that the women on this film are very accomplished, honest, eduated women, engaging society...the best of 21st century women that I have seen.
Dana,
I am Karen, the owner of this blog and am so glad that you are willing to discuss this movie with me.
Could you privately e-mail me because I sincerely have lots of questions and would love it if you would be willing to talk with me.
My current e-mail is shesthatmom@gmail.com.
Dana, I can't tell you how much I admire your willingness to talk with me. I am probably very much like you, a homeschooling mom who has given her entire life to her family. I have no arguement with your choices...they are my own choices, too. I also will tell you that I have yet to see the entire movie but will be watching it next weekend when my friend comes to visit and brings it along with her. She and I both don't quite understand why the graphic abortion scene is included in the film alongside women's suffrage and women working outside the home. The Bible clearly condemns abortion but you cannot make a truly Biblical case against some of the other things that are also taught on the film as unbiblical.
Are you willing to have this dialog with me via e-mail? I would really appreciate it. I don't know how to e-mail you.
Post a Comment
<< Home