In the introduction to his book “The Rantings of a Single Male. Losing Patience with Feminism, Political Correctness, and Basically Everything" Thomas Ellis begins by discussing his motivations for writing the book. Ellis states, "As men we must make a serious effort to educate ourselves about the ideas feminist literature is cultivating in the minds of women…. We must also expel the residue of feminist misinformation from our own systems." (Ellis, 2005, p. 1)
I agree with Mr. Ellis that many people, both men and women, appear unaware of the effect that feminism has had on society. For myself, I believe I have been vaguely aware that the notion of “equality" between men and women was a fallacy. This was true in part because I have eyes in my head and could easily see that there are differences between men and women. Also as a Christian I believe the Bible is clear on the fact that men and women are different and are meant to occupy different roles in life. But even though I had essentially rejected many of the tenets of feminism there were (and perhaps still are) subtle attitudes of feminism that I have held. I think there are many women, who do not call themselves feminists, but still maintains some subtle attitudes of feminism. So it is for both myself and hopefully other women who read this that I want to explore these issues. I don't consider this to be a “men's problem" because I believe as a member of the body of Christ that it is important that we be open to the issues that affect each other and society in general.
Thomas Ellis says that he doubts that many women would be willing to listen and consider his point of view. “I also doubt whether women are willing to consider change even if it's laid out in terms of why and how, and even if they decide to try. They enthusiastically avoid responsibility for their actions with trendy denial therapies and philosophies. The only things women are willing to change are their hair, their clothes, and their breast size. And a lot of times not even their hair." (Ellis, p.3) Perhaps he is right. To be honest, I should say that since I began looking into this matter, more often than not, I have been disappointed by the reactions of other women. I will say though, that I find it very difficult to believe that there are not other women who want to understand this and be open to change.
Ellis concludes the introduction with the following thought: "I should not have to compromise my rights as a man to make anyone feel equal. I can make compromises, but not on things like maintaining my own identity, being able to express my own ideas without female approval, or refusing to tell rhetorical lies to maintain a relationship. After many years of being unable to conform to the female vision of man as docile servants, I just want to be myself and speak my mind.” Let's see what he has to say.
Rant A: The Learning of Ignorance
There are essentially two main ideas that Ellis puts forth in this rant that I would like to address.
Ellis begins this rant by talking about his first experiences with recognizing that girls were different from boys in a physical sense. He refers to a little girl he was friends with stating, “We had a play room together, where I had a pretend job building bridges and rail roads. Susie had a pretend house set up and she was my pretend girlfriend who would pull down her pants for me whenever I wanted. At age 6, we already knew what we were supposed to do, so why do adults step in and mess everything up.”(p.5) Ellis voices a belief typical in the secular world stating, "All I know is that anyone who tries to suppress their nature runs into some serious inner conflicts." (p.6) he goes on to talk about the innocence that young girls of his acquaintance had regarding exposing themselves to him or other boys before they “had the concept of guilt drilled into them." He blames this on religious training and Queen Victoria. I'm not sure why he blames Queen Victoria since the concept of modesty was around long before the Victorian era, but nonetheless he does.
Mr. Ellis is an agnostic so I don't expect that he would have positive views of any religion, and he doesn't let me down. He rejects the Biblical model of sexual morality by stating that “They (women) seem to embrace their own sexual suppression. Just like they were taught, they grew up to regard sex as deviant and abnormal unless within the confines of commitment." As a nonbeliever I'm not surprised that Mr. Ellis holds this view, in fact, I'm sure it is the common view of most people who don't follow a Biblical model of sexuality (and maybe even some who do). The purpose of this discussion is not to prove the rightness of Biblical teachings on sexuality but I am curious about this thought regarding women who believe in these standards. I don’t regard premarital sex as deviant or abnormal, I just believe it is against the commands of God. While I am not concerned about an unbelieving man’s opinions about Biblical sexuality a variation of Ellis’ views appear to be held by some believing men as well. I have the impression (and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that single believing men are sometimes concerned that their future wife will not desire sex (or will not desire sex as often or in the same ways as they do) because they think that she thinks male sexuality is deviant because she has been taught this in church or through some other means of religious training. What are single Christian women to do about this?
I recently read an essay over at Scripturally Single where the author states "Where were the Christian women with Debbie Maken's level of desire when I was in my twenties? I suppose that today's Christian woman is more in touch with her sexuality than women of the past, and yet I wonder if Mrs. Maken is an exception to the rule just the same.” I imagine that the author is not alone in his wondering. Certainly it is healthy to discuss such things when considering marriage with a specific individual, however, my question would be: Before the point that marriage is being seriously discussed how would you know what the level of an unmarried woman’s sexual desire is if she is being obedient to God? Can you tell by looking at her? Or, is she expected to go about announcing “Hello single Christian dudes, I just wanted to let you know that even though I am committed to waiting for marriage before having sex, I have a lot of sexual desires…yes, indeed….just in case you were wondering” ?
On a side note, after finishing reading the book “The Rantings of a Single Male. Losing Patience with Feminism, Political Correctness, and Basically Everything" I felt the need to read a more Christian perspective on sexuality. The essay I refer to in the previous paragraph from Scripturally Single fit the bill well. While I may disagree with or wonder at some of the thoughts that the author expresses (such as "Sex is never safe, even when sanctioned by the church.") it remains for the most part a positive and Biblically-based discussion of abstinence. Thanks Anakin, I needed that.
The second idea that Ellis discusses in this rant that I want to address is the idea that women don't like men. He states, "They want our attention and they want our money, but actually liking us is not something women deem necessary" (p.9) And, "If you want a girlfriend, you'd better show her minimal respect….Girls yearn for that challenge. They want to show they can tame even the most dominant, uncontrollable male and put him back beneath her where he belongs. Confuse him. Make the bastard grovel and show some respect. Sweet. But now he's useless and pathetic. Dump him." (p.8)
I know that women like this do exist, even in the church, because I have a brother and other male friends who have described similar experiences to me, and I have witnessed them myself on occasion. But, is this really the way most women are? This is so outside of my experience and some of my female friends’ experiences that it caused me to think about why that may be. My guess is that women who are not conventionally attractive and not often pursued by men are less likely to behave like this. Is my hypothesis correct?
I have heard Christian women complain that many Christian men are too "passive" on one hand and then on the other hand's complain when the man is more assertive that he is controlling. This is a symptom, I suppose, of the feminine culture within the church which can discount masculine qualities all the while actually being in great need of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
The anger that shoots through is valid, though I believe their message gets lost because of it. Also, when men generalize women (in the same way they do not want to be generalized), they loose the audience they are seeking. This is unfortunate because women need to hear this stuff. I am thankful you read the book and are reviewing it and that I didn't have to sift my way through it.
I agree that feminism is a huge issue that needs to be addressed.
btw - I find the perception of sex in marriage interesting ;). I believe that statistics would alleviete their fears if I remember all that I've heard correctly. Also, though sex drive is affected by seasons in life, most married women I know (in healthy marriages) have very happy and satisfied husbands ;).
Hi Ame,
Communication difficulties between men and women? Who'd have thunk it! :)
I agree, there are definately issues on both sides of this discussion. For me, in order to put myself in a place that I can hear what some of these guys are saying I have decided to not quibble about what they are "doing wrong" as much as I can. That is not to say that I won't question reasoning, but just that I want to avoid an "oh yeah, well you do it too!" sort of exchange because I don't think that advances the discussion. After all, I can't do anything about what other people think or do. But I can be open to where I am wrong and do something about that.
I'm not sure how pervasive that perception about sex after marriage is...I just know that I have heard it and read it on multiple occaisons.
:)
I actually meant that first paragraph as a compliment to you more than an indictment on them. You are able to look past all the "stuff" and see what they are saying, and I greatly commend you for that ability. Men need advocates from among themselves and from women who are able to take the truth and relay it effectively to those who need to hear it, and I believe you are able to do that.
I don't want that to come across as demeaning in any way. Sometimes I am so passionate and emotional about an issue that I render myself ineffective when trying to reach those who need to hear the truth, and that truth is effectively passed on by another who is not so emotionally involved.
Some of what I've read written by men is so crass that I need to put aside what their words make me feel in order to hear their message. What I appreciate about you and how you are studying all of this, is that you are able to put aside what is irrelevant in order to extract what is not only relevant but also extremely important and necessary.
That takes great maturity, intelligence, objectivity, patience, and time.
Thank you.
I have commented on my 'blog that one can often hear admontions to men about "accountability" etc., but you will never hear an admonition to married women to attend to the physical needs of their husband.
To walk in complete celibacy -- complete celibacy -- requires, dare I use a pagan term, a kind of zen like disattachment from one's self. Which is a very different ball of wax, btw, than pretending that you don't have a physiological urge. When that is let down, then the dance won't work unless there are two partners.
Anyway, why the disparity there? Have you ever heard in a church or bible study a scriptural admonition to married women to look after their husband's needs? I mean, as a kind of moral issue, almost; given that the scripture teaches this? I dare say you have heard more about how husbands are supposed to be more Christ like or something and then all will be well.
To help you have a "grid" to sort of see this through male eyes, consider: Could you have a "relationship" with someone with whom you did not speak? No. Physical intimacy is within the "range" of the communion, or communication, between these two who are "one flesh" -- see my "erotic poetry."
I am not saying sex on demand is the Christian husband's right. But scripturally, neither is it acceptable to defraud -- a legal term -- the other. That other kind of communication -- the shared life business, etc. may affect the emotional component of the physical intimacy, true; and of course. But it works the other way aroud, too.
SCM - actually, I have been taught that the wife should always welcome her husband in their marriage bed ... to the point that I have been taught if she ever says no for any reason, she is responsible for any unfaithfulness on his part (which I strongly disagree with).
I strongly believe that wives should be willingly available to their husbands in such a way, within the personality of that marriage, that he is never left longing.
(by *personality* I mean schedules, ages of children in the home, morning person/night person ... all of which can and need to be worked around graciously by both husband and wife.)
Given that, I know wives who use sex against their husbands, wives who determine when and how often, etc, and I have confronted them and strongly admonished them.
I also have friends who are available to their husbands, and it is very obvious that their husbands are very content.
I believe it is wrong for a wife to withhold sex from her husband without a serious reason ... such as she's on her period or she's sick with something that's contageous or debilitating (like a serious migraine where having sex will make her throw up). If she's got a regular headache, she can take some motrin.
I also believe a wife should do the small things her husband likes, within reason ... what she wears in his presence, music, etc, which would be very personal to him.
I do not believe that a wife can always naturally desire her husband ... and I don't mean because she's desir
ing another man ... I mean because she simply has days where her mind is caught up in life. BUT, I do believe that, if she so chooses, she can live in a place of prayer that God would enable her to be and become the wife her husband needs and desires, that God would come inside her and give her desire for her husband when she is unable, that her husband would always find his needs and desires satisfied in her.
I think when you get into sex, there are many complex issues ... but I believe that wives absolutely need to meet and satisfy their husbands in such a way that their husband knows he will always be satisfied in her and he is not left wondering if he's gonna have to go to sleep another night without her touch.
Your thoughts are elevated and correct. But ... was it from the pulpit, or from a book or small group that you heard of these things?
gotta run ... but short answer is some of all of the above.
mostly, though, my personal relationship with Jesus, my personal study of His Word, and listening to and reading everything I could to discover truth, sifting through it, and developing what I believe.
also, heavily weighted is my personal experience in my marriage (which is probably not what you would think unless you are very informed about sex addicts in marriage) ... and my personal observations of my friends and their marriages.
my thoughts may be elevated, but I back them up and stand by them and absolutely believe them.
I want to address something else ... I do not believe the Bible is conditional ... "if my husband ... then I as his wife will ..." You simply won't find that in the Bible.
To the same degree men need respect and availability, women need love. A wise husband will discover that little things he does will make a wife as I've described absolutely crazy for him in ways that will, as one wife said, "make him cry Uncle!"
However, in the spirit in which Learner has created her space, I absolutely agree that many wives just don't get it ... be that a lack of education or pride in not wanting to admit they don't get it or an indication of immaturity in their relationship with Jesus Christ.
I believe that a couple needs to go into marriage accepting that they do not and will not know everything they need to know when it comes to sex with their particular spouse ... they need to be open to learning through healthy means - physicians, books, counseling - and they need to accept "help" and "direction" from their spouse with grace and not take it personally. Working together to develop a great sex life within marriage takes, well, work. It's not natural to know everything about another person, including all of who they are or will be in the marriage bed.
If both go into marriage with a healthy attitude and willingness to work at it and to work together, with a willingness to use healthy, biblical, resources when necessary, sex within marriage can and will be great and powerful.
Hi Ame,
I like your new lillypad picture :)
Thank you for the compliment though I am not sure I deserve it.
Some of what I've read written by men is so crass that I need to put aside what their words make me feel in order to hear their message
I am right there with you on this Ame...it is hard to not let hurt feelings cause you to stop being open to what someone is trying to say.
Hi SCM,
Have you ever heard in a church or bible study a scriptural admonition to married women to look after their husband's needs?
Yes, I have in both a sermon and Bible study. The sermon was about the 1 Cor 7:1-7 passage. The Bible study was Beth Moore study (I can't recall which one though it was either one about the patriarchs, the fruit of the spirit or freedon in Christ). She talked about how sex between a husband and wife was a vital form of communication between them and a primary way that men experience emotional intimacy. I've also read this concept in books as well. I probably have heard more sermons and teaching from groups such as Focus on the Family on how men should be more sensitive to their wives though.
I have also been in small groups with Christian wives who say that they don't regularly have sex with their husbands. I have heard more sympathy than condemnation in response to that from the other married women in the small group. As an unmarried woman I figure I don't have much to say to them on the subject.
To change the subject a bit, I might point you to Stasi Eldridge's comments in "Captivating", which is a kind of a continuation of the "Wild at Heart" series, but for women.
She speaks a bit to the question of non-sexual physical intimacy between unmarrieds (i.e. say, boyfriend and girlfriend) and sort of dances around the question of what sorts of "cuddling" and so forth ought to be considered not as dangerous temptations but rather as true expressions of the maculine and femine. (I realize I am grossly exaggering and oversimplying in order to simplfy the idea).
This has occupied my thoughts in my personal life as of late. The focus in the evangelical world is not "be Godly and comfortable in your masculinity (or femininity)" but rather "Don't you dare do anything that might look like you like each other". Hence you have men who have the idea that is wrong to be attracted to a woman, or to like women (since this is something akin to "lust") or at least is not talked about. Thus you have men who have been conditioned to be unhappy their normal instincts. Liking women, and how they look, and how the are, and their cat-like strangeness, is not the same as "lusting with the eyes" or any such thing.
I am glad for Ame's account of having heard the ideas she describes in the settings she has described, this is good.
SCM,
I bought a copy of Captivating when it first came out but I ended up sending it to a friend who was on the mission field in South America instead thinking I would just buy another copy to read. But, I've never ended up doing that. I'll have to put it on my list.
Interesting thoughts...I think it is a shame that both genders have gotten hang ups about each other from wrong teachings in the church.
SCM - thank you for the compliment.
I went to a retreat for women with Stasi Eldredge the fall before Captivating came out. They told us the book would be about what we had learned there, so I have never purchased the book given the pages and pages of notes I took ;). That retreat was extremely powerful.
I think that it is sad to discount our natural attractiveness to each other. There is something that just clicks between a man and a woman that is fun and innocent and playful. (Hummm ... I wonder what part of God He was thinking about when He created that into us? ;)
I've given a lot of thought to affection in a dating relationship. I watched a friend years ago after her divorce begin to date. First we heard, "He just gave me a kiss good night," then "He gave me a long kiss good night," and it continued till they were having sex. Then she slept with any man she went out with.
Since then, and my subsequent divorce, I've spent a good deal of time thinking about that. I admit, it is an area I would be weak in, and I need to "draw the line" in a very safe place. Where that is, I'm still not sure yet. There is the unrealistic line ... and then there's the realistic line.
I thought the unrealistic line was realistic ... till I became attracted to a man, and though we've ended up remaining friends, I had to rethink that line.
I like what they said at Boundless once about holding hands ... that holding hands says to a woman you are committed to her ... and a man needs to make sure he has made a committment to a woman before he holds her hand. What kind of committment? I don't know. But I agree that, for me, holding hands is something very intimate.
I'm still not sure where I am with all of this. I guess I'm wimping out a little because I've not dated again yet, and I've not been in that situation. I can see being with a man I'm not attracted to and there being no need for a line. But if I'm with a man I'm attracted to, I really think that I, personally, need that line.
But to say that, because I'm a godly woman, that I cannot be affectionaly attracted to a man in such a way that he turns me inside out and renders me unable to speak, is unrealistic. It's not the attraction that is wrong ... or even the thoughts of being attracted to another ... it's where you carry those thoughts that can become wrong.
I'm so transparent now at this place in my life, that I think if I were attracted to a man it would be very difficult to hide it ... especially if we had mutual attraction and had spent time together. AND, I do not see anything wrong with that.
Does that address what you spoke of? Or did I dance around what you were trying to emphasize.
Learner - btw - those reatreats are FUN!!! perhaps we can consider trying to get into the same one next year ... i have a friend who is willing to watch my girls for me if i ever want a weekend off. the money would be the only potential stumbling block. anyway, just an impulsive thought.
I am so in need of a break .. About S. Eldridge, i was trying to say that she broached an important question well; not put her down for dancing around an issue.
From the male side of the question: the kind of emotional feedback one gets from, say, walking in arm in arm with someone is not something that even translates into terms like "committment" (it's more like "she is the one who has my attention here). Yet, for a woman, cues like this may have committment-like qualities; thus there is a moral dimension that cannot be ignored.
But people are different, as are cultures, and context always determines meaning. This sounds suspiciously like "situational ethics" -- and in fact it is. The plain fact about human interactions is that this is so, and posturing about "situational ethics" -- something I saw a lot of growing up in fundamenalist flavored Charismatic churches-- is pointless as well as pragmatically useless. A paraquayan Catholic female friend who kisses me on the corner of my mouth is saying something else to me when she does it than what she would be saying if she were to kiss me on the mouth; Argentinian friends of either gender who failed to kiss me on the cheek would also be saying something.
So .. I don't mind culture wide understandings, even in that culture we broadly call "evangelical" -- but we ought not to be so quick to be looking for sin, I suppose.
My son, also a single man who has the whole singleness thing to deal with, has a bit of a "tighter" undertanding about where boundaries should be, but we essentially take the positon of primarily looking for the watching your relationship with God and your own heart, and secondarily making sure you aren't saying something to her that you don't want to say. That second part is a bit of a mystery to men, so do feel free to jump in. What does that mean to you? Hand holding? Walking arm in arm? etc.
Ame, I did read your comment, but my question charged ahead unbidden, so do expand, please: Why is holding hands a "committment"?
SCM - ("I am so in need of a break" ... telling you what you already know ... you can take a break or wait till your body forces you to take a break. The latter is not fun, as I am now experiencing ;(
I took what you said about SE in context, but thank you for clarifying.
About holding hands ... why does that signal a committment? I'm not sure I know why ... I just know it does. If a man put his arm around me, that would also signal a committment to me. It's like a public statement that, "He REALLY likes me; I am his; hands off to anyone else." Also, the way he physically draws me closer to him, in my mind, says he is also emotionally closer to me.
I will say that when I was 16, that committment was different than it is now. Then it was, "he is my boyfriend." Though, I was not ever a date-around kinda girl, so when I held a boy's hand back then, (and it wasn't often) it was still significant to me.
Now the committment, to me, would state that this relationship is serious and he is seriously considering a permanent relationship with me. Whether that's fair or not would be determined, I am guessing (correct me if I'm wrong), if I did not let him know ahead of time what that meant to me ... and I just assumed the committment.
My male-friend, whom I have mentioned, is one I have shared this with. He would sometimes say, "But we haven't even held hands yet!" in a joking, fun kinda way. To me it was his way of saying, "I'm not going there with you right now, but I like where we are."
I am guessing, but I don't know for sure, that different women would be different about this.
Purity is extremely important to me ... for a lot of reasons. My standards are very high ... perhaps higher than other women in my place in life. I expect high standards for my daughters, and I have the opportunity to model a pure and healthy dating relationship in front of them at ages where what they see will poignantly affect their lives. I take that extremely seriously.
I also see my purity as a gift, not only to my husband, but also to myself. My first husband is the only man I've ever had sex with, but he was very agressive before we were married. I hated living with that knowing I was "better than that." It carried with it, for me, a sense of guilt. Having a pure dating relationship will give me freedom in my marriage from any kind of guilt ... knowing I kept my standards high for myself. Freedom is priceless.
Does this help? Or does it raise more questions? ;)
"Also, the way he physically draws me closer to him, in my mind, says he is also emotionally closer to me."
I've been thinking about this comment I made. I have not really put words to these feelings and beliefs ... thank you for challenging me to do so ... so I was a little surprised at myself over this comment.
Emotional intimacy, in marriage, is so critical for a wife when moving into physical intimacy. Perhaps, the two, are synonymous for us as women. Before marriage (assuming sex is only for marriage), physical intimacy states emotional intimacy; in our feminine minds, holding hands, arms wrapped around each other, kissing (non-cultural ;), make the statement that there is emotional intimacy. After marriage, emotional intimacy creates physical intimacy.
***
re cultural kissing ... my ex grew up in Argentina ... his parents career missionaries there. He came back to the states for a year in middle school, and when introduced to a girl, he impulsively kissed her cheek ... and she slapped him! He learned ... that's not norm in the US. I went to Argentina with him in 87, after we'd been married. It was sooo hot, and they don't bathe often, and I was "on-stage" as the missionary's new DIL ... so they all wanted to come up to me and kiss me ... and I had to kiss them ... and they smelled and were greasy ... but I did it ;). I drew the line at Matte, though!
I have friends from other countries who kiss when we greet ... I like that ... it's a deep form of affection and acceptance.
It raises more questions, because in a way it dodges them - though I'm not saying you are doing this purposefully. "Purity" is mentioned .. but maybe there is an a priori assumption being made here that the hand holding has something to do with purity, or a lack of it.
Your point about whether a committment is implied is well taken (and how it would be "impure" to casually have "committments" like this) but in the context of the larger discussion about what evangelical culture "should" be (or if such a thing can be had) it does not offer much in the way of guideance (not that I'm really looking for it, anyway, but I'm always open to learning things).
First time around single I met a sister who had issues even with hugging any man, since she wasn't sure it was "in the Lord" or not. On the other hand there are believing women who dance apilado style tango as an artistic expression, who don't see any problem with this because the grid that they see dance through does not imply anything like an emotional contract. (I am not saying that movements of the body in dance are inherently without a moral dimension, quite the contrary). I have a few female friends, both secular and in the great family, with whom I may casually walk arm in arm a few moments after a chat or praying, and because we know what the arm in arm business is about (I am connected to you at the moment) there is no confusion thereabouts; it is an appropriate expression of ..solidarity, or encouragement, or hang-in-there acceptance, or something.
My son is comfortable taking the arm of lady while on a date qua date, as I have recently done, as an expression of something like "hands off" -- but not "hands off, because she's mine" but rather "hands off, because she is under my protection ". I mention "my son" because his take on the whole physical contact thing is of a more strict posture than mine. Yet I acknowledge that the gesture acted in my case as a kind of compass needle, rather than just a reflection of the neighborhood we were passing through.
All I am trying to point to here: "Purity" is great, but it is a different thing than the question of "how do boys and girls interact and express legitimate feelings towards each other" -- because they are separate questions, and if they are con-fused, or "with-fused" -- "commingled" -- the result may be confusion. And surely we create confusion when we act as if all contact is morally suspicous. Everything does have a moral dimension, but not everything is suspicious -- and I have personally heard pastors of very large churches speak as if taking the lady's arm, or other gestures, is a morally heinous thing.
Stasi Eldridge has also written of a time when her husband was away, and in the context of a prayer meeting at her local fellowship, a man prayed over her while she was struggling with depression. The incident struck her as worth writing about because the nature of the way he prayed over her helped her to her place of deliverance; that fact that it was a man praying aggressively over her made a differerence. (I don't know, and don't want to go there, about prayers of men vs. women) .. but that local body had a bit of solidarity added to it, and there was an umistakable emotional component to this. The road this goes down is labeled something like "friendships among people whom God has had His way with can be different and richer than friendships among people whom He has not had his way with". And since "feelings" are at the root of this discussion about things like holding hands, walking arm in arm, etc. I bring it up.
Hummm ... maybe I'm getting what you're trying to say a little bit.
Perhaps, the less mature a believer, the more they need guidelines. I don't need to tell my ten year old not to pick up a sharp knife by the blade, but I never kept knives of any kind anywhere near reach of little ones.
Mature men, like yourself and your son, would need a lot less direction, if any at all, than weaker, immature men.
For me, personally, I take all that stuff they say in religious circles and sift it through my God and my intelligence, given to me by God, and come to personal conclusions. Context certainly must be considered. If I were out with a man and needed to be "covered" in a protective way, I would hope he would do so. I personally do not have a problem with a simple hug from a man.
I know there are those in the church who make severe judgement calls. I just brush them off rather than confront them ... well, usually ;). When it all boils down, I am living my life before my God and answering to Him. Bringing in the church or another to argue my point with God is, well, pointless, because I am held accountable for my actions directly to God.
Should there be some guidelines? Certainly. But to declare yourself "god" and to set guidelines are two totally separate things.
"The road this goes down is labeled something like "friendships among people whom God has had His way with can be different and richer than friendships among people whom He has not had his way with". Yes. I understand. I also see a need to keep things like this very open ... I've seen committed Christian couples split over stuff like this when one wife gets too close to the other husband.
However, I understand their "group" is unique and different. I'm not sure if it's something I would be comfortable with, but that's a personal thing.
I do believe there is something powerful about a man's prayers over a woman ... only because I've experienced it. I cannot explain it, but I know it to be true. There have been times I wished the elders of my church would lay their hands on me and pray over me ... and my girls. There's something very powerful there. Again, I cannot explain it. Prayer is one of my spiritual gifts, and it's amazing how God uses it. But there is something different when a godly man prays over a woman. Again, I cannot explain it, but I know it to be true. (Though, I will say, for many women who think they don't need men, this is controversial. But, a lot of what I believe tends to be controversial, so, as I tell my girls, "add it to the list." ;)
I think people's comfort with physical expressions of affection is dependent on culture as well as how their family interacts. I grew up in a physically affectionate family where my uncles and male cousins on my fathers side hug and kiss me on the lips in greeting [crazy Italians! :)] So, I am a physically affectionate person (though I don't kiss male friends on the lips).
Regarding holding hands and putting your arm around someone or a man offering his arm...I don't know if holding hands indicates a commitment or not but I do know that if a man holds my hand that indicates something more intimate than an arm around my shoulders or him offering me his arm. Afterall, male friends and co-workers will put their arm around me in a friendly way or offer me their arm walking down a crowded street or across an icy parking lot but they do not hold my hand.
Ame- I love a good retreat! :)
Thanks for writing this.
Thanks for reading it Daria :)
Post a Comment