“Proud” To Be “Intimidating”?

This headline from Christianity Today’s puff-podcast promoting its editor’s new book speaks volumes about what is now celebrated among evangelicals:

Katelyn Beaty: Despite the Cost, I’m Proud to Be an ‘Intimidating’ Woman.
I hope the church can be proud of me, too.

Compare this with the Apostle Peter’s words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

…let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. (1Peter 3:4)

 

Christian sister, which words are you “proud” to have define you?

Intimidating?
OR
Gentle, quiet, and precious?

 

Advertisements

The PCA Is Elderly

The Pew Research Center has released an analysis showing that the conservative Reformed denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has some of the most elderly adherents. This may come as a shock to members of other Reformed denominations who are often pressured to imitate the PCA, with its reputation for being younger, hipper, and more evangelistic. Apparently, this is more marketing than reality, with denominations as diverse as the Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics having much younger adherents. Presbyterians were once known for orderly churches, firm doctrine and worship, large families, and an emphasis on catechizing covenant children.  Now conservative Presbyterians are best known for large parachurch organizations (Ligonier), big conferences (The Gospel Coalition), innovative leaders (Keller), and a plethora of competing seminaries.

This year’s PCA General Assembly (the highest court of the church) appeared oblivious to this growing crisis, rather doubling down on the same concerns that dominate the aging and dying mainline churches: embracing faddish worship styles, fixating on race relations, and expanding the roles of women in ministry.

One might suggest forming a study committee to encourage obedience to the first commandment God gave us, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it.”

image

The SCOTUS War on Women

From “Today’s Betrayal of Women by the Female Bloc on SCOTUS” posted June 27, 2016 by Gerard M. Nadal:

Since the passage of the law, half of Texas’ 41 abortion clinics closed, unable to meet the demands of maintaining a safe facility including having physicians with admitting privileges at local hospitals.

“Undue Burden” is the catch-phrase of the day.

If permitted to stand, the fear was that the law would force the closure of ten more clinics, leaving an area of Texas the size of California without abortion services. Allow that to sink in for a moment.

If abortion clinics in Texas were required to have physicians competent enough to have admitting privileges, and run surgical clinics held to the same standards as all other ambulatory surgical centers, a land mass the size of California would have no abortion providers. If that doesn’t define “back-alley,” then what does?

Today, all three women on the court said, in effect, that the back alley is better than nothing at all.

Today, all three women on the court passed the opportunity to fight for the vision of “reproductive freedom” espoused in 1973.

Today, all three women on the court demonstrated that the lust for killing babies outweighs the safety of the women driven to such acts of desperation.

Today, not one of the three women on the court said that we can do better, that women deserve better.

It was another blow against women today, an act of betrayal by the women on the highest court in the land, who more than anyone else ought to be using their perch to demand real justice, real care, and authentic dignity for women.

As chemical abortions take deeper root, and as hospitals increasingly absorb the lucrative business from the closing of local clinics, the issue of the Texas law will shrink in importance; but the abandonment of women by all three women on the highest court in the land will live and grow in infamy. It will be seen by future generations for what it truly is.

The real War on Women

Read the whole story here: https://gerardnadal.com/2016/06/27/todays-betrayal-of-women-by-the-female-block-on-scotus/

“The Necessity of Imperfect Community” by Angelina Stanford

The Enlightenment has us all obsessed with creating the perfect environment for us to achieve our potential. But maybe our obsession is making it harder for us.

And all too often we want a community that places no demands on us. And we often want the same thing in a church community too. We want love and acceptance but we don’t want the hard stuff that comes with that.

And there is a certain artificiality in modern ‘community’ too. We call our clubs of like-minded people our community, but I’ve been thinking lately that there has to be a sense in which we don’t choose the community. Like our families, which is the first community that disappoints us. And because we don’t choose it, we can’t be consumers about it. Always shopping for the community with the right fit–the perfect one.

Read the rest here:

“The Necessity of Imperfect Community” by Angelina Stanford
https://goo.gl/RT6329

CBMW: Against Military Draft of Females

081314-national-us-military-soldiers-army-woman-women-3
Women in the Military Image From: BET “Black Women in the Military”

Here are some of his arguments against drafting females into military service:

The most important of these is the reality that Scripture unfolds and even celebrates the unique differences between men and women (Genesis 2; 1 Peter 3:1-7). On the basis of this biblical foundation, it seems appropriate to add a few thoughts about yesterday’s proposal.:

1) The idea of women being conscripted to serve in our armed forces in a time of national emergency is a travesty.

2) Christians should make it known that they will not allow their daughters to sign up for the draft.

3) Legislators, with these same Christian convictions, should move to strike down this policy.

4) Christian women, who have conscience religious grounds against taking up arms in the armed forces, should seek religious exemptions.

5) This is a political move by Marine Commandant General Neller to oppose the Obama administration’s feminist policies.

6) Christians, again, have an opportunity to present the beauty of the Christian worldview.

“My Brush With Feminism” by Rebeka Merkle

This is a great post from September at the Femina blog. Here’s a snippet to whet your appetite:

I have, now and again, had occasion to pop off on the subject of feminists who can’t decide if they’re trying to channel a swaggering machismo persona – or delicate, hyperventilating, victimhood. And the thing is, the whole situation is funny. It really is. One minute these ladies are rough, tough, and hard to bluff . . . and the next minute they’re pasting trigger alerts on all the sharp corners of everyone’s lives like those dreadfully inelegant foam protectors for the edges of coffee tables. You’ve seen those moments of high heels gone wrong in which the poor girl staggers violently in every possible direction before actually falling down? That’s what the evangelical feminists remind me of. There’s no clear trajectory. One minute they’re galloping nor’-nor’-east, and then suddenly they’re staggering to the sou’-sou’-west. On the one hand, they want to be hard edged modern women, all pant suits and nun chucks, but then again, what they really want to be is tender and empathetic, cherishing and tenderly petting the hurt feelings of everyone everywhere.

Like I said, I find that whole thing funny. But actually, in a surprise move, I wanted to actually take a moment to explain in what way I totally sympathize with them. I don’t agree with the nonsensical road they’ve taken, mind you, but I can at least understand how they came to be in this ridiculous place.

Men. Men who are chumps. Let us be frank – that’s the real problem here. If we want to dig in and get down to first causes, this is where the problem lies. There are lots of chumpish men of course, and each is chumpish in his own way . . . but there’s one particular breed I wanted to look at for a minute.

The thing that makes the evangelical feminists (which is a bit of an oxymoron really) as mad as fire is that Great Nemesis of the Western World – Patriarchy, and anything that reminds them of patriarchy, or alliterates with patriarchy. (Like “Paul” for instance.) So let’s take a moment to peer into the bushes that the feminists are setting up a squawk about. What men do we find in that camp? Well, if we let the feminists define the boundaries of who is in “That Camp” then we find a whole smorgasbord of men because it turns out that feminists aren’t terribly good at defining their terms. We find little tin-pot dictators who advocate for old school patriarchy and who rule their sparsely populated and badly educated red-neck demesne with a rod of iron. But we also find timid little would-be-hipster-city-dwellers who are trying to hide behind the label “Complementarian” and hoping that will fool the feminists and make them go away.

Interspersed in there we find a whole number of strong, faithful, masculine men who assume a godly authority in the home . . . but, and let’s be real here, we also find plenty of men who are chumps. By the grace of God, I have lived my entire life surrounded by the first kind . . . but I have actually been around the block a time or two, and I’ve seen plenty of the second kind as well. And it’s those men – the chumpish ones – who provide much of the ammo which the feminists are flinging at the faithful men. So I would like to humbly offer the suggestion to the menfolk – if you don’t like the feminists, then for heaven’s sakes stop making their point for them!

I’ve had men (in the name of headship and submission) tell me I ought not to be educated.

I’ve had men (in the name of headship and submission) tell me I ought not be wearing anything but dresses.

I’ve had men (in the name of headship and submission) tell me I ought not to disagree with them . . . because I was a female and they were male.

I’ve had men (in the name of headship and submission) tell me that any woman who disagrees with a man doesn’t have a gentle and quiet spirit.

I’ve had men (in the name of headship and submission) tell me that women don’t need an education, because they only need to know how to have babies and cook.

And I’ll be straight-up honest with you. I didn’t handle those men in a very saintly way. I called them names and made rude remarks. I danced around in a tight little circle and lit my hair on fire. And without fail, after about ten minutes of conversation with these pills I was ready to wear nothing but pants for the rest of my life, go to law school, run for president, and become a rugby player.

Read the rest of the story (it’s great!) here: My Brush With Feminism

“The Fallout of Failed Marriages” by John MacArthur

gty-teaching-highlightAll around us we see both the roots and fruits of an ungodly approach to gender and sexuality. The answer for Christians is to return to God’s design for human life, described clearly in His Word. The same God who teaches us how to think and live is the God who designed us and the rest of creation–following the Creator’s design then is both our duty (since He has commanded it) and our delight (since He has made us for it).

Here is an excerpt from an excellent series from John MacArthur we will be highlighting on the Lydia Center blog:

The point of God’s design, after all, is not that we have impressive families or easy lives. The point is that every aspect of life in the family lines up under submission to His ultimate and final authority. The end result of all this is that God is glorified and the gospel adorned—nothing short of that fulfills His design.

Here’s how John MacArthur makes that very point in The Fulfilled Family:

Besides, apart from a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, we have no motivation for righteousness, no constraint from evil, and no real ability to obey from the heart what God commands for our families. That, then, is the essential foundation: Christ must be first in our hearts and in our families.

The full article here: The Fallout of Failed Marriages

BS149