Hope you have a wonderful 4th of July!
Remember to thank God for living in a free country! I don't think many of us realize how amazing that privilege really is! Please pray for those who don't get to celebrate and live in freedom. Jesus, please strengthen persecuted believers and those living in spiritual and/or physical bondage. Show them your Love!
Monday, July 4, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
So Much More Chapter 10-Fathers, Daughters and Highest Education
Pg. 129 The wrong education can pollute her mind, corrupt her heart, and make her useless as a tool for God's glory.I would say, in many ways I agree with wrong education polluting one's mind. Growing up I was not firmly grounded in Christ. I didn't have a solid relationship with Him. It was more about standards than Christ. If I had gone to a public school or college I know I would have wandered in my faith. However, I am not saying that all institutions are sinful to go to. (nor am I implying that the authors are saying that) I know kids who have gone to public school and college and came out fine. In fact it amazes me and I have more respect for them. Its not hard to stay pure when you aren't tempted everyday. Its not hard to be "different" when you aren't pressured to conform.
That being said, personally I don't see the huge benefit of going off to college. It is extremely expensive and not the most efficient. (in my opinion) Whoever came up with the idea of distance college learning was a genius. I never understood the whole degree thing. I have seen people with a degree who hardly knew anything. They were just going for the diploma and not the knowledge. I have seen others who didn't have a degree and who really should have been teaching at a college since they knew so much! Yet they wouldn't get hired simply because they didn't have a piece of paper?!?! Really?!?! It drove me crazy!
I think that's one of the reasons why I jumped onto the So Much More bandwagon. I felt like it gave me "permission" to do things unconventionally. It sounded so good to say to people "No, I'm not going to college. I think God wants me to train to be a keeper-at-home" Who could argue with God? At least if people didn't agree or thought I was crazy they respected the fact that I was trying to please God. In reality, I was just afraid to say, "No I'm not going to college. I'd prefer to learn in a way I think best" Gasp! Have my own opinions and be willing to stand up for them?!?!?
I think this post ended up being my own thoughts of why I didn't do college and the reason I should have had instead of a book review. Oh well. It's my blog. :-)
Sunday, June 26, 2011
I apologize
I apologize for the complete lack of posts. Its not that I don't have things to write. I do. I guess I've been to busy living life to write it down. I will attempt to have a new post in this next upcoming week.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
So Much More Chapter 9: Career
Some of my thoughts:
Pages 105-107 talk about women being provided for. I think this is a good admonition. Often times women are left high and dry to support themselves and raise their children alone when husbands just walk away. This is not the way it should be. Women should not be abandoned.
Page 108 talks about women called to be keepers at home. They quote Titus 2:4-5. I have a problem with this. So often this passage is applied to unmarried women as their calling in life. I'm not sure that was what was meant. Notice the passage says these young women should love their husbands (doesn't sound like they are talking to single girls!), love their children (again married women, siblings are NOT to become sisters responsibility), subject to their husbands (again not talking to single girls) So often single girls put themselves under this passage as a rule to live by when it doesn't even seem to be talking to them!
They then go on to talk about the Proverbs 31 women. My own personal note, I find Prov. 31:16 interesting. With her own earnings she buys a field. This women was earning money. She didn't go to her husband for everything she needed. So often people are trying to create rules to live by: A women shouldn't work outside the home. Why do we need to create rules if Scripture didn't? Maybe when God gives a women a love for her husband and children she will be able to see how to earn some money in a balanced way without harming her husband or children and without needing to be bound by rules that aren't even in Scripture anyway!
Pg. 115, 116 I appreciated the admonition here that women who are childless or whose children are grown and gone don't have to go to work but instead can be ministering to the body of believers. So often women are made to feel worthless or lazy if they don't go and get a job when their children are grown. Personally I think money isn't the most important thing. If women want to help other believers instead of getting a job I think they should be free to do so without being looked down upon.
Pages 105-107 talk about women being provided for. I think this is a good admonition. Often times women are left high and dry to support themselves and raise their children alone when husbands just walk away. This is not the way it should be. Women should not be abandoned.
Page 108 talks about women called to be keepers at home. They quote Titus 2:4-5. I have a problem with this. So often this passage is applied to unmarried women as their calling in life. I'm not sure that was what was meant. Notice the passage says these young women should love their husbands (doesn't sound like they are talking to single girls!), love their children (again married women, siblings are NOT to become sisters responsibility), subject to their husbands (again not talking to single girls) So often single girls put themselves under this passage as a rule to live by when it doesn't even seem to be talking to them!
Pg. 113 According to Scripture is chasing a career outside the home a sin? Because only God can dictate what sin is, and because sin is a very serious thing, we must be very cautious about what we label as sin. Careerism may not technically be a sin in theological terms, but doing one's best to get out from under God's order for families and society may be a sinful action done with sinful motives. It may not be "want of conformity to the law of God, but it does appear to be want of conformity to His design for civil society.They may claim that they can't say that it is a sin but I know in those circles that girls who don't conform to these standards are not accepted, gossiped about, and looked down on for not being "enlightened" as to what God wants for every single girl. It seems a lot of girls who hold to these standards have an outward form of righteousness but ignore the matters of the heart (loving others, not gossiping, etc)
They then go on to talk about the Proverbs 31 women. My own personal note, I find Prov. 31:16 interesting. With her own earnings she buys a field. This women was earning money. She didn't go to her husband for everything she needed. So often people are trying to create rules to live by: A women shouldn't work outside the home. Why do we need to create rules if Scripture didn't? Maybe when God gives a women a love for her husband and children she will be able to see how to earn some money in a balanced way without harming her husband or children and without needing to be bound by rules that aren't even in Scripture anyway!
Pg. 115, 116 I appreciated the admonition here that women who are childless or whose children are grown and gone don't have to go to work but instead can be ministering to the body of believers. So often women are made to feel worthless or lazy if they don't go and get a job when their children are grown. Personally I think money isn't the most important thing. If women want to help other believers instead of getting a job I think they should be free to do so without being looked down upon.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
So Much More Chapter 8
pg. 93 The word "femininity" is also fraught with derogatory misinterpretations. It is a common misconception that femininity is all about being fluffy, pink, prissy, flirtatious, bimbo-like or trivial. These are descriptions that the world brings to mind when the word "feminine" pops up, but nowhere in Scripture are such things mentioned as being signs of godly womanhood.I appreciated the above statement because so often I was told that to truly embrace godly womanhood I had to basically look like I came from the Victorian era. Not everyone likes lace, ruffles, or the color pink. Just because one dresses with less frills doesn't mean they are trying to rebel against femininity. Maybe they are just being practical. Imagine having to wash yards and yards of material for just one dress! I think I'll pass....
Saturday, March 26, 2011
So Much More Chapter 7: Modesty
On page 86 they quote the passage "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Deut. 22:5)
This Scripture passage got me thinking about a speaker I heard many years ago (not the Botkin family or Vision Forum) His basic premise was that since pants used to be solely men's clothing it was wrong for women to wear them today. He used an example of the signs on the bathrooms in stores. (The one with pictures only and not words) He said women don't look at the sign and go "Hmmmmm I can be like the picture of the women in a skirt or the picture of someone in pants. Which bathroom do I go in?" So he said obviously women's clothing is skirts/dresses and men's clothing is pants. According to the Deut. passage a women should never wear pants otherwise you are an abomination to God.
This held me in bondage many years until I pondered why the passage didn't say what was specifically considered men's clothing and what was women's. Why? Could it be that the standard can change? For example, go to Scotland or the Middle East and the men are basically wearing skirts/dresses. Definitely not something we would see normally here in the US. I would find it a little disturbing if a guy in my church started wearing skirts. Here in America it just isn't done. The standard is different. For girls no one thinks twice (unless you are in the conservative movement) about a girl wearing pants. Pants aren't seen as solely men's clothing anymore.
So did the standard change? Can the standard change? I would say yes. It would be impossible to go back through the ages and make sure the clothing you wear was never worn for the opposite gender. Not only that, but start trying to double check other countries and you will run into contradictions all over the place.
If God had specific clothing items that would for all times be for one gender He would have said so.
Honestly our outward actions will reflect our inward heart. If we accept and love what gender God created us to be why do we need to create rules about it? We will naturally do the right thing as we seek God and embrace His design. Many girls are very feminine in pants. They look adorable. The bulk of guys I know don't think a girl is wearing pants because she is disregarding her femininity. They just see it as something practical. Who would go rock climbing in a skirt?
This Scripture passage got me thinking about a speaker I heard many years ago (not the Botkin family or Vision Forum) His basic premise was that since pants used to be solely men's clothing it was wrong for women to wear them today. He used an example of the signs on the bathrooms in stores. (The one with pictures only and not words) He said women don't look at the sign and go "Hmmmmm I can be like the picture of the women in a skirt or the picture of someone in pants. Which bathroom do I go in?" So he said obviously women's clothing is skirts/dresses and men's clothing is pants. According to the Deut. passage a women should never wear pants otherwise you are an abomination to God.
This held me in bondage many years until I pondered why the passage didn't say what was specifically considered men's clothing and what was women's. Why? Could it be that the standard can change? For example, go to Scotland or the Middle East and the men are basically wearing skirts/dresses. Definitely not something we would see normally here in the US. I would find it a little disturbing if a guy in my church started wearing skirts. Here in America it just isn't done. The standard is different. For girls no one thinks twice (unless you are in the conservative movement) about a girl wearing pants. Pants aren't seen as solely men's clothing anymore.
So did the standard change? Can the standard change? I would say yes. It would be impossible to go back through the ages and make sure the clothing you wear was never worn for the opposite gender. Not only that, but start trying to double check other countries and you will run into contradictions all over the place.
If God had specific clothing items that would for all times be for one gender He would have said so.
Honestly our outward actions will reflect our inward heart. If we accept and love what gender God created us to be why do we need to create rules about it? We will naturally do the right thing as we seek God and embrace His design. Many girls are very feminine in pants. They look adorable. The bulk of guys I know don't think a girl is wearing pants because she is disregarding her femininity. They just see it as something practical. Who would go rock climbing in a skirt?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)