Conference yukon::christian_v7

    A half truth allows us to see the sin in ourselves.
    
    Full truth allows us to see that there is sin in ourselves and that we
    are also created in the image of God and thereby capable of much Good.
    
    Grace is a free gift of God.  It allows us to see the sin and the Good
    in us and to know that in spite of the sin, God loves us and accepts us
    and calls us to actualize the Good.

 What is grace, Patricia?






Jim

    I guess I don't see Grace and Truth at opposite poles.  So I don't
    necessarily see balancing between grace and truth.  It may be how
    grace and truth is defined.  When I think of grace, I think of God's
    grace.  When I think of truth, I think of God's truth.  The opposite of
    truth is deception or falsehood.  What's the opposite of grace?  Maybe
    harshness?  Maybe the opposite of grace is that we get what we deserve 
    based on what we do, not who we are.
    
    I believe they're interwoven together.  Truth, to me, is understanding
    things from God's perspective.  It's understanding that what God's says
    is reality regardless of how I feel or how things look.
    
    Understanding God's grace towards me is understanding the truth about
    who I am in Christ.  Its understanding that I am fully accepted because
    of who I am in Christ and not because of what I do.  I may not FEEL
    accepted or loved, but God has said in His Word that I am.  His grace
    has set me free to fully be a recepticle and vehicle for His life and
    love.  God's in His grace has made me righteous, holy & blameless, etc. 
    He doesn't overlook my sin -- He has already dealt with it.
    
    Truth isn't necessarily harsh.  Its seeing things for the Father's
    perspective.  So when I see someone who doesn't know Christ, I see one
    of God's creation who is of infinite worth - a person who God loved so
    much that He sent His Son to die for Him.  That person is spiritually
    dead, but that person is loved.  
    
    Does this make sense?
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing
    
    
    

>Grace is gentle, Grace is kind.  Grace is tolerant and loving, Grace accepts,
>overlooks, makes allowances.  Grace sees the best behind all that is worst in
>us.  Grace is lovely to be around.  Grace draws us to it by its gentle,
>loving acceptance.

Paul, it really sounds here like you are describing human grace.  The grace
of a gracious or talented person.

Divine grace is something entirely different, and it is too bad that English
uses the same word for both.  Divine grace is _active_, not an attribute but
God working through the Holy Spirit to affect the world.  And God's grace is
inexplicable, unfathomable.  Divine grace is the way God expresses his love
for mankind, through his goodness and mercy towards us.

Divine grace is God's favour which he pours out on those with whom he is well
pleased.  By grace, God elected Israel to be his chosen people to prepare the
world for the birth of Our Saviour.  The prophets, sure of the grace of God,
would not be deterred from conveying his message.

God pours out his grace to those who come to him in faith.

/john

    > Divine grace is God's favour which he pours out on those with whom he
    > is well pleased.
    
    I tend to disagree with this. From my understanding of grace, it is the
    undeserved, unmerited favor of God. I cannot be pleasing to God enough
    to deserve His grace. 
    
    The truth of my pitifully inadequate human condition moves God to
    compassion. He extends His grace towards me, and I grow. For it is by
    grace you are saved, not of works. My works (or righteousness) is as
    filthy rags. Faith in His grace isn't even mine, as it is given to me,
    as a gift. I can take no credit for anything. I can't even take credit
    for recognizing, and acknowledging my deplorable condition. God, by His
    grace, revealed this.
    
    Feeling rather wretched,
    
    Bob 

    John,
    
    What then do we say of Abraham?  Did he come to God in Faith before or
    after God poured out his Grace to him?
    
    
                                                Patricia                                       
    

      I believe that God's grace is extended to all.  He rains on the
      just and the unjust.  A word study on water would be insightful.
      God does all that He can to reveal Himself to everyone.  What we
      become, I believe, is a function of our willingness to receive, not
      His willingness to give.  He GAVE His Son to the world.  That is 
      infinite grace being poured out.
    
      I have found Isaiah 5 to be a very significant text.  It refers to
      God doing all that He can for the vineyard.  It speaks of all that
      God did including using the _choicest_ vine (clearly Christ) vs 2.
      The whole thing God is looking for is good grapes.
    
      Isaiah 5:3
      So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth
      wild grapes.
    
      And look what else God says...
    
      Isaiah 5:4
      What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done
      in it?  Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, did
      it bring forth wild grapes?
    
      So if I see a mighty man of God and a godless man, I do not conclude
      that God poured forth more grace on the mighty man of God.  I
      conclude that He poured out an infinite measure of grace on both
      people and one person was willing to receive more than the other.
    
      In terms of nations, Israel included, I believe the same thing. 
      Israel's success or failure was dependant on its willingness, not
      on God's willingness (Matt. 23:37 "but you were not willing").  
    
      Whether a nation achieves greatness or an individual is saved is 
      dependant on their willingness and not God's.  Many are called, but
      few are chosen.
    
      1 Peter 1:2
      elect according to the foreknowledge of God...
    
      Likewise, since the 2nd coming is related to a time where it is time
      to cast the sickle for harvest is come, it is a time when the good
      grapes (as well as the bad) are fully manifest.  Thus, in conformance
      to Isaiah 5, it is a time which God knows by foreknowledge, but which
      is determined by the church.  "What more could have been done to My
      vineyard..."  The good grapes come when we let them.  God's grace has
      already been supplied and He waits to bestow.  Meanwhile, the full
      maturation of the wild grapes simply awaits the manufacture of the
      good for "light makes manifest."
      
      The maturing of God's people to yield the good grapes will cause the
      stiff response (reprisal) of the godless and the wild grapes will
      be made manifest.
    
                                                      Tony

    
    RE:  .6  Hey Bob,
    
    Are you by chance in Awana or have a kid in it?  The verses you talked
    about are together in the handbook.
    
    Jill

>    > Divine grace is God's favour which he pours out on those with whom he
>    > is well pleased.
>    
>    I tend to disagree with this. From my understanding of grace, it is the
>    undeserved, unmerited favor of God. I cannot be pleasing to God enough
>    to deserve His grace. 

I did not say "on those who have done something to please God".

I said "on those with whom he is well pleased".

I did not say anything about what one does (or if one must do anything)
to merit God's grace.  God chooses on whom to pour out grace.

While God's grace is a free gift poured out upon all those with whom he
is well pleased, there may be means of obtaining _more_ of God's grace.
Remember, no matter what we do to please God, we are still unprofitable
servants; we can always do more to please him more and to obtain more
of his favour.

/john

>    What then do we say of Abraham?  Did he come to God in Faith before or
>    after God poured out his Grace to him?

Can anyone have Faith until Grace has been poured out?

For that matter, can anyone have Life until Grace has been poured out?

/john

me, me, me!  I want to answer this:

>    So John, you are agreeing with the predestination argument?

I agree with it, but not in the absence of the free grace argument.
This is a true paradox.
    
>    We can do nothing to be pleasing to God.
    
We can do nothing that would cause God to be pleased except that which
He chooses to be pleased by our doing.  It's pretty elementary that we 
cannot influence someone else's pleasure.  If we know what another person
like, then (if it is within our power) we can provide that.

The point is that God is god and we are not.  As God, He has everything.
We can't bargain with God, because one needs something to bargain with.
We can't fool God, because He knows our hearts.  We can't lavish God
with gifts with the expectation of reward, because that's not Love's
economy.  Payback from giving love is a byproduct and not a result.

>    God offers Grace to those whom he deems pleasing

God's offers us a relationship with Him.  He knows (predestination) but 
we don't (free will) who will accept and who won't.  He doesn't offer
it only to those who will accept - God is just.  No one will stand before
God with excuse.

>    Those who don't have Faith are those whom God did not pour out Grace.

Grace is a gift that must be received and is never forced on anyone.
Those who reject God (unfaith), reject his grace.

>    Some are Saved/Some are Damned.

Yes.  Period.

Using marriage again as a picture of the God-man relationship, a husband
who forces himself on his can hardly be called a loving husband.  Yet
a husband who is received by his wife unites with her in a holy 
(intimate; set apart) relationship.  Without agreement, the two remain
two and unbonded.  Forcing the issue is NOT love, is it?  When the two 
agree - grace offered, and grace received - union can happen, and the
oneness that occurs transcends the two separate and lonely singles.

Mark

>me, me, me!  I want to answer this:

thanks, mark

    re: .9
    
    Hi Jill,
    
    Where's Awana? What handbook? Please pardon my ignorance. I was born
    with it. 8-)
    
    re: 12
    
    >We can do nothing to be pleasing to God. 
    
    Faith from us, towards God and His mercy, grace & lovingkindness, is
    pleasing to God.
    
    Bob

	Patricia,

	As stated before, it is a *paradox*; a pair of *seemingly*
contradictory statements, both of which are true.  God exists independently
of the time dimension, thus He *knows* the outcome before it happens.  When
God gives us the means to make a decision, He does not decide it *for* us.
We fail to understand this because our perspective is much more limited
than God's.  I hope this helps.

							Bob Sampson

    People everyday from the days of Pilot when judging Jesus ask "and What
    is truth?"
    Scientists today are asking the same question: Truth on the creation of
    the world. Truth on the origination of Man. Truth on the dangers of
    using and further developing the Gene technology. Truth on the
    responsibility to prolong life against a patience will. Truth on
    abortion in special circumstances. Truth on limiting the size of a
    family (Gods family). Truth on how the world will end etc,etc.
    
    Jesus replied to Pilot "I am the truth" He didn't say I am a truth He
    said "I am THE truth" He is therefore the true way to God, peace on
    earth, loving your neighbour. Every thing we do should reflect the way
    Jesus would have done it.
    
    Grace comes from God when we need it it comes in abundance. I like to
    think of it as the breath of God Himself. It enables us to accept our
    burdens and to lead a christian life despite the problems. It enables
    to and enhances the communication between God and man. It gives us the
    power for God to act within us and through us to others.
    
    Truth therefore is The Way, Grace the fuel to get there.
    ......We need lots of Grace
    Praise God 
     
    "I am THE truth"
    

>    Jesus replied to Pilot "I am the truth"

Actually Jesus did not reply to Pilate.  Jesus said "I am the way, and the
truth, and the life" to his disciples while in the Cenacle.

/john

>    I have a real problem with the husband/wife analogy.
    
I thought you might. 

>   A man offers his body to his wife.
 
Yes.  God is the husband and head.  You have a problem with the 
husband being the head.  You either forget that we are all female 
to God, or cannot reconcile that the wife is [supposed to be] 
submissive to the husband because you have no good model for how
this should work.  (IMHO)
   
>    The wife has only the option to accept or not accept.
    
This is true of any offer by anyone.

The converse of offering ourseves to God is the other half of the 
relationship, isn't it?

>    If she is a good faithful wife she accepts.

If she accepts, she does so of her own accord.
    
>    If she is a damned unfaithful wife she rejects.

If she rejects, she does so of her own accord.

>    If she rejects, then does she experience weeping and gnashing of teeth
 
If she rejects, there is no union, no bliss, no relationship.  The human
analogy pales, because it is only a reflection or shadow anyway.  It cannot
compare to the divine in that physical union is temporary and feelting
("as grass" for the best of them! - my wife and I have been married for
nearly 16 years and it has been like thge blink of an eye).

Going back to male and female and the picture of God and man(kind); you
think (I think you think) that this is some patriarchal conspiracy to
subject women (as wives) under husbandly authority.  I contend that you
(and many Christians for that matter) have not understood the marriage
relationship in its proper context, and can therefore not understand
the reference to God as husband in its proper context.  It is a poor
summary, but suffice it to say that God is the archetypical husband
to whom we ALL must be submissive, and as lovers, we are brought into
union (communion) with the Almighty.   
    
Let me find my triangles (more shapes) in regards to marriage and continue
later.

Mark

>    If God knows ahead of time who will accept and who will not accept then
>    there is no such thing as a human decision.  There is no free will.
>
>    Either, humans can decide and God is affected by that decision or
>    humans cannot decide and God again is unaffected by the decision.

In addition to what Bob said (.18, thanks), a relationship requires
(at least) two persons in agreement.  God extends the offer outside of
time (for all people).  We do not exist outside of time - we plod along
minute by minute.  Do we accept the offer?

You see, our part in the "agreement" seals the deal.  Without choice, there
is no love.  Without free will, there can be no agreement because there can
be no corresponding disagreement.  In order for us to love God back of
our own accord, we have to have the capacity to reject God.  Since we do
not know the outcome, we are free moral agents to determine it.  God knowing
what we will choose does not make him responsible for us choosing.

Either side of the paradox taken in isolation of the other negates both.

Mark

>>    Jesus replied to Pilot "I am the truth"
>
>Actually Jesus did not reply to Pilate.  Jesus said "I am the way, and the
>truth, and the life" to his disciples while in the Cenacle.
>
>/john


John 18
 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered,
    Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause
    came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every
    one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went
    out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at
    all.

    >    The implication is Submit, sexually and otherwise, or destroy your
    >    marriage.  That is not how any good marriage I know of is ordered.
    
    Patricia,
    
    I am not a woman (obviously), but I sure didn't get this out of what
    Mark said.  The bible not only addresses woman's role in marriage, but
    it also addresses the man's.  The man is to love his wife as Christ
    loved the church.  How did Christ love the church?  He loved through
    sacrificially giving Himself.  He loved through serving.  He loved by
    giving His very life for the church.
    
    If your experience with men tells you that men are "takers" or
    "domineering" than you've not been exposed to men following the
    biblical role of what a husband should be.
    
    The same passage also refers to men and women submitting to each other. 
    We are to consider each other as more important than ourselves,
    regardless of whether we are male or female.
    
    In regard to your quote from above, I didn't read anywhere that Mark
    was referring to a woman submitting herself sexually.  He talked about
    willfully giving of herself.  That implies to me that would be her
    desire (not submitting out of some obligation).  The bible does talk
    about not witholding ourselves from each other, but that is addressed
    to both the husband and wife.
    
    Love in Christ,
    
    Bing

Sigh.

    I can certainly understand where Patricia is coming from.  It is quite
    true that "man" has distorted the Biblical truths of marriage at one
    time in our history that led to oppression of women.  It created an
    environment where accountability was practically nil for the man who 
    abused his wife.  
    
    However, I agree with Bing, there is nothing in Mark's note that
    indicates this perversion of God's relationship with humankind.  As a
    matter of fact, I know firsthand that this model to which Patricia is
    referring is nothing close to Mark's relationship with his own wife. 
    Having spent several days in Mark's home, I can only comment that their
    family is an example of Christianity.
    
    Having said all of this leads me to these thoughts.
    
    1.  There is NOTHING discriminatory in the Biblical model for a 
        family.
    
    2.  Womankind since the Garden of Eden has been rebellious.
        Childbirth was the result of Eve's rebellion which passed
    	on to all women.
    
    	Today women are rebelling again by aborting their unborn. 
    	The consequences for this is being seen in our society today.
    	When a woman no longers values the life inside, it becomes
    	toxic to the society that allows such behavior.  For when one's
    	value system at this level changes, it changes the value system
    	subtly in every day living, imo, until you see the anarchy 
    	that we are experiencing today.
    
    3.	Struggle for Equality changed to Supremacy Wars
    
    	First, let me state that I believe that rebellion in women to 
    	some degree was needed.  God's model was never for woman to 
    	be subject to man for all forms of abuse and inequalities.
    
    	What once was a rebellion for "equality" has now become a struggle
    	for supremacy.  We have gone from one extreme to the other.  This
    	of course is no different, imo, than the extremes that the majority
    	of males went to in controlling women.
    
    5.  Human Actions Create Spiritual Consequences
    
    	As is evidenced in the Bible, our "choices" are important.
    	We choose to reject or accept Christ as Savior.  This *is* the
    	single most important decision we ever make.
    
    	The second most important choice is how we treat others.  This
    	oftimes impacts the "attitudes" and "behaviors" for those over
    	whom you have influence for the rest of their lives.
    
    	This is why God's GREATEST commandment to His followers is, 
    	To Love God First, and then to Love others as you would like
    	to be loved or as He has loved you. 
    
    	These TWO choices are non-discriminatory.  Each gender, male
    	and female are accountable to God for these choices first 
    	and foremost, according to the Word of God.
    
    	In response to the second-choice, one may ask, "How do I treat
    	Others?"  What is my role as a Christian in living out the
    	second commandment?
    
    	Then the Bible begins to give instruction to Pastors, Deacons, 
    	Husbands, Wives, Children, Workers, Bosses, etc.,
    
    	If we concentrated more on the equality of our spirituality, which
    	if following the "greatest commandment", this struggle for
    	supremacy would cease.  We'd all realize our values and our roles
    	[though they do interchange quite frequently] are God ordained and
    	and true peace and happiness lies solely in obedience.
    
    Nancy
    
    
    
    
    	
    
    
    

>    How about some of the women in here.
    
    See .27 Patricia.
    
    
>    That is if it is no wrong to contradict a Male member of the community.
    
    That is a rather terse statement.  I wonder it's intent?  To provoke or
    to prod?  Perhaps both, but it borderlines being rather insulting.
    
    Nancy

    .31
    
    Did you read .27?

    
    RE: .17
    
    Well I guess that answers my question Bob.
    
    Awana is a club for boys and girls started by the Baptists I believe
    in the late 60s, but not only Baptists churches use it.  The club
    is divided into 3 sections.  We have handbook time which provides the 
    students any opportunity to say their verses from their handbook.  
    They are geared to their age group and clearly present the gospel.  
    We also have game time.  We have four teams and the games are 
    specially designed.  Then we have counsel time where the kids hear 
    a story that has a real life application for them. That's also when 
    they get awards and find out what team won that night.  The kids 
    earn points during game time and handbook time.  They get some snacks, 
    they earn Awana shares for memorization and other things.  Once a 
    month the Awana store is open and they can buy anything for a piece 
    of candy, an eraser, a squirt gun, sunglasses, a glider, a hat, and 
    tons of other stuff.  Some kids spend their shares every month on 
    little things and others save up for big items.  Each share is 
    basically worth about a dime.  There are also service opportunities
    for the kids.  There's the Awana Grand Prix where they kids make their
    own cars and race them.  There are the Olympics where many churches
    compete in games and there is bible quizzing between churches.
    
    I grew up in Awana and it's a great program.  I guess that's why 
    I'm a leader now.  I love the kids and we really build a close bond.
    Awana means Approved workman are not ashamed based on II Tim. 2:15.
    
    Jill

I am sorry that you see my anaology as domineering.  I am also sorry you
see the position of submission as:

>Unquestionable obedience and trust?

(a) I do not ignore Paul's "submit to one another"; do you ignore his
    submission to one another, meaning do you submit to your husband
    (I thinkI read that you'll be getting married; congratulations).

(b) I think you have a problem with the understanding of what it means
    to submit.  There are two kinds of submission: forced and yielded.

    A stronger force can force a person to submit.

    A person can willingly place their trust in another.

(c) I think you have a further problem with how you are looking at the
    analogy.  Perhaps all you have ever had were poor models of marriages
    and in the best of marriages, people are people and have short-comings.
    Therefore, it is difficult for you to imagine a divine husband and
    wife relationship.

    Instead of applying human reference to divine order, seek to understand
    what the divine model is, recognise the lack in the human model by 
    contrast, and endeavor to adjust the human to the divine.

>    That is if it is no wrong to contradict a Male member of the community.

I see this as divisive and pulling men and women apart.  What I have
written seeks to bring them together in unity.  You don't think it is
unity (do you?) because of the "submissive" role of the wife to the
husband.  Yet, you correctly point out that the human model is to have
each in submission to each other.  Mutual submission is not an egalitarian
marriage.  Divine submission is not oppresive, domineering, threatening,
or denegrating.

I think what Nancy said is correct: "Struggle for Equality changed to 
Supremacy Wars".  It doesn't seem to be a matter of correcting wrongs
by making them right, but by getting even... even against those who never
committed a wrong.  But it seems that oppression is seen in every male, 
especially a male who voices his viewpoints.

You think my view of the marriage analogy suits me because I'm male and
it gives me a superior role, keeping women in subjection (different than
submission, by the way).  Perhaps I'm a patriarchal luddite, in your
estimation.  I submit that the filter has served you poorly.

Mark

By the way, Bing (and others), I used the word "union."

While this does not specify the sexual union of husband and wife, 
it does not exclude it from my analogy.  But one will have to 
understand that the union between a one-flesh husband and wife
transcends mere (!) sex; much more than the physical act or proximity.

Reconcilliation and relationship with God happens on an intimate level.
The Bride and Groom enter a wonderful relationship, but anyone whose
marriage has deepened (and not cooled) knows that intimacy increases
with a deeper relationship.  As brides, we do not know our Beloved
as well as we might as our relationship grows.

If we view the husband as Invader, as Dominator, love cannot flow
between the lovers.  It isn't love!  (That point seems to have been 
missed.)

If we view the husband as all-important, we happily give ourselves to Him.

(Gender Balance ahead)

If we view the wife as partner, equal in all things, we have a 50-50 marriage
that demands that he do his part and she'll do her part.  It is a *conditional*
marriage, doomed to failure because we cannot live up to our responsibilities.

If we view the wife as all-important, we happily give ourselves to her.
The marriage is 100-100.  It cannot fail because even when one does not
live up to their responsibilities, the other still loves.  It is an
unconditional marriage.

Mark

    .36
    
    Amen!!  

    .38
    
    There is a BIG difference in your analogy.  Mark said we are all female
    to God.  
    
    This blows your theory of man-strong/woman-weak.  That is not implied
    in the analogy.  If anything the Bible speaks contrary to this way of
    thinking.  Woman is to submit to man because of how God created
    humankind.  The SUBMISSION is distorted.  What is submission?
    What is obedience?  What is a master's responsibility to the slave?
    What is God's responsibility to his Bride?  What is a Husband's
    responsibility to His wife?
    
    If my Husband treated me as God treats His bride, I'd not only submit,
    to my husband, I'd adore him. :-)
    
    

    
    Hmmm...Mark's analogy.  Here's what I read:

    Grace is a gift.  It's not forced on anybody.  If we reject God, we
    reject his grace.

    Marriage is a picture of the God-man relatonship.  And just as God does
    not force himself on us, a husband should not force himself on his
    wife.

    A husband and wife have the choice of union or separateness.  The
    choice can't be forced - that's not love.  Grace is offered, grace is
    received.  A husband offers himself to his wife.  A wife offers herself
    to her husband.  Grace offered.  A husband receives the grace his wife
    gives.  A wife receives the grace her husband gives.  Grace received. 
    Both have a choice of whether or not to offer grace.  When both offer
    it, there is union resulting in joy.  When both or one doesn't  offer
    it, there is separateness resulting in pain.

    --------------------

    Now for some comments on your analysis:

    It's amazing that when it comes to abortion or other issues, you're all 
    for choice.  But give a wife the choice of being one with her 
    husband and she's been given a raw deal and should be in counselling.  
    I'm not sure I fully understand where you're coming from, but I 
    find myself resenting your attitude.
    
    Also, to say that Mark's analogy would give justification to some  
    man to violate a woman in any way is totally irresponsible and 
    irrationale.

    I have no idea where all this (what I see as) bitterness you have is 
    coming from, but I for one wish it would go away.  Far away.  The 
    bitterness that is, not you.

    Jill 
    

>    The demand placed on you as a woman Nancy, is that you submit to your
>    husband regardless of how he treats or treated you.
>    
>    The demand stated in the Bible for your obedience  is not conditional.  

The demand stated in the Bible for husbands to give their lives for their
wives is also unconditional, regardless of how she treats him.  It's even
stronger, we are told to model our love after Christ, who very specifically
died for us while we were yet sinners (against Him.)

If anything, this conscious and deliberate giving up of self is more
difficult than the submission that wives are called do.

I'm not at all passing off the difficulty of EITHER call.  But I find it
noticable that you are all up in arms over women's call for submission, yet
make no mention of men's call to give up themselves.  I'm forced to wonder
what you might say if it were women who were called to give up themselves.

And, by the way, wives are never called to obedience.  Slaves are, and
children are, in the same passages where wives are called to "submit."  The
word used for wives is a greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop
divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader."  In
non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating,
assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden."

Paul

>    I'm discussing what the Bible says.

Patricia, I really can't let that stand as you claim it.

What you may be trying to do is discuss what the Bible says, but that is not
at all what you are in fact doing.  You are discussing what YOU say, you are
discussing your feminist platform, and you keep trying to back it up with
such portions of the Bible as you deem apply.  When someone, anyone, brings
up any other portion of the Bible as counterpoint to discuss what the BIBLE
actually says, you ignore it.  Take .43 as an example.  I pointed out in .42
that *The BIBLE's* call to both MEN and WOMEN, though different, *BOTH*
require a renunciation of self for the other.  In .43, you mention some
agreement, then immediately revert to your feminist platform, focusing in on
women's call to self-renunciation and how that has been abused, while utterly
ignoring the equal call for men to renounce themselves.

The sticking point, all over this file, is that you keep trying to say, as
you just did here, that you are discussing the Bible, when that is not true
at all.  If you could just stick to saying what *YOU* think, and stop trying
to show, by an unbalanced selectiveness, that the Bible supports you, we
could eliminate a lot of wrangling.  Because we will not let stand
unchallenged your claim that the Bible supports your views.

Despite your claims, the Bible does not support universal salvation.
Despite your claims, the Bible does not support abuse of women.
Despite your claims, the Bible does not support God as Goddess/God.

Paul

    	Patricia, I can only think of one word to describe your selective
    	vision of biblical teaching -- sad.  It really makes me sad to
    	see the pain that you experience based on your narrow decisions
    	on what you will accept and not accept from the bible.  It is as
    	if you have chosen specifically that which will cause you the
    	most pain -- and excluded that which tempers or compliments your
    	selections.
    
    	Of course you are talking about Ephesians 5:22.
    
    	Might I suggest that you start you quote nest time with 5:21
    	instead.  You need to understand that Paul is saying that
    	husbands and wives should submit to each other.  He then goes
    	on to give some examples of how to do that.

>   The authenticate sayings of Jesus

I've asked repeatedly why you discount Jesus' clear teaching on judgement.
You have had no response.

If you are still reluctant based on not wanting to question the authority of
the Bible in this conference, could you mail me a response as to what basis
you use to declare this teaching of Jesus to not be authentic?

Paul

    RE: .45
    
    Oh please Patricia, you asked us how the other christian women saw
    Mark's analogy.  So I gave you that.  Then I commented on 2 points 
    YOU brought up; the lack of choice of a wife and that Mark's
    analogy supports violence against women neither of which were
    biblically based.  So please don't tell me that you're sticking to the
    bible and I'm not.  I don't have a problem with biblical submission.  I
    have had problems with the way *a few* men have translated it and I'm
    not exactly shy about stated my views to them.  Lastly, I stated my
    displeasure with what appears to me to be an extremely negative
    attitude toward men.  I do not understand it Patricia and I will not
    let it go unnoticed.  It's unacceptable behavior and I believe you
    should be called on it.  I realize that you probably don't think you
    trash men, but it seems like you do little else.  Just because you
    hold some feminist men in high regard doesn't mean you treat the
    rest of them well.  If you can comment on Mark's position ad nauseam, 
    then why doesn't the same hold true for others commenting on your 
    position.
    
    Jill

	Jill, what do you mean by feminist men? Is it men who understand
varying degrees of what women have gone/go through? 

	I don't think too many people will just throw others into the high
regard catagory, whether they are Christians or not. If someone is put into
that catagory, it is because they have shown that persons many things. It would
be done on an individual basis, and so much more than understanding some of
what women gone/go through will be needed. 

	I think you're way off base here...

Glen

    Jill,
    
    GREAT NOTE! :-)

    
    Hi Glen!  My comment about feminist men was a holdover from a
    discussion ages ago in CP when asked about her resentment towards
    men Patricia responded that she didn't resent all men but that she
    appreciated men who were feminists at heart.  I'm not saying that 
    anyone needs to hold all men in high regard Glen, but certainly
    one should be able to talk about the rest of them with some sense 
    that they have not committed all the wrongs ever committed against 
    women.  And certainly men don't need to be feminist to understand 
    what *some* women have gone through.
    
    Jill

    
    Hi Patricia,
    
    *    A husband and wife have the choice of union or separateness.
    
    I think Mark does say this in many ways, in many notes.
    
    MARK-.21   If she accepts, she does so of her own accord.
    MARK-.21   If she rejects, there is no union, no bliss, no
               relationship.
    MARK-.22   a relationship requires (at least) two persons in agreement
    MARK-.22   Without choice, there is no love.
    MARK-.35   A person can willingly place their trust in another.
    MARK-.35   Mutual submission is not an egalitarian marriage.
    MARK-.35   Divine submission is not oppresive, domineering,
               threatening, or denegrating.
    MARK-.36   But one will have to understand that the union between a
               one-flesh husband and wife transcends mere (!) sex
    MARK-.36   If we view the wife as all-important, we happily give
               ourselves to her.  The marriage is 100-100.
    
    >The analogy...places not accepting sex from one's husband on the same
    >wavelenghth as not accepting Grace from God.
    
    Huh?  I don't get this out of Mark's analogy at all.  I believe this
    analogy was meant way above the level of sex.
    
    >The analogy is really pretty simple.  Filters are very strong.
    
    Patricia I think that you need to use all of Mark's comments.  As you
    said his initial analogy was simple.  He did not include every possible
    point that someone may have a nit with.  He chose to enter a premise
    and go from there.  I think he has given enough info to alleviate your
    anxieties over what you think he said if you'd put aside the conclusion
    you jumped to at the start.
    
    >You don't even know what my views are on abortion.  You are making
    assumptions.
    
    Patricia, I noted with you for 2 years prior to this and despite the
    fact that I still disagree with you and often don't understand you, I
    have a some idea that women having a choice on abortion is something
    you believe in to some degree.  To quote you from CP:
    
    "all powerful human decisions have a whole history behind them and
    ought not be reduced to campaign rhetoric."
    
    This does not sound like a women who doesn't believe in choice,
    although it is not a full indicator of your view.  I often find you
    don't allow people to know your full views so that they are not
    challenged.
    
    >A wife that feels she should stick with here husband regardless >of
    >what he does should be in conselling.
    
    Excuse me Patricia but I don't believe that a wife doing nothing in an
    abusive marriage is biblical.  I believe that a wife can go to other
    christians and have them confront the husband.  I believe that she can
    remove herself and her children from a situation that endangers her
    life. I believe she can wait and pray while godly men correct the
    husband and bring him back into a God-honoring relationship with his
    wife.  I believe God can change the condition of the human heart.  I
    think too often people are not willing to go through all this.  It is
    easier to cut their loses and leave or to not do anything about the
    problem but be gripped by fear and angry at God.  The bible does not
    espouse letting problems go unresolved.  It is biblical to teach,
    rebuke, correct, and train people in righteousness.  A wife can
    unconditionally love her husband and not want or let him keep sinning
    against her and against God.  She owes it to him if she loves him to
    not allow this sin to continue.
    
    >Your interpretation is coming from yourself Jill.  Only you can >make
    >it go away.
    
    That's a cop out!  I'm not the only that has ever brought this up. Own
    your own filters Patricia!  I have no desire to hit next unseen on your
    notes and I hope it doesn't ever come to that.  I think we've had some
    good discussions.  Yes, I do resent some of your attitudes.  So what? 
    You resent some of mine.  I can still value you as a person created and
    loved by God even though I think you are deceived, can't I?
    
    Jill

Jill,

Glen Silva>	I think you're way off base here...

What a great endorsement!

Paul

>    Paul at least acknowledges  that the statement calls for the
>    wife to be unconditional with her husband.  If a wife is unconditional
>    with an abusive husband, it allow a man to violate a woman.  There is
>    nothing irresponsible or irrational about the statement.

Patricia, you've gotten quite upset with me for taking pieces of what you've
said out of context and misrepresenting them.  Please don't do the same to me.

Paul

    John, Mark, Thank you for the correction. It is easy to respond to
    comments with enthusiasm and the love for God without first checking
    with the written word.
    
    Some of the subsequent comments on Full of Grace and Truth seem to be
    lacking Grace and distorting the truth. 
    
    Brothers LOVE YOUR WIVES AND Sisters YOUR HUSBANDS. Sex is not "TAKING" but
    "GIVING". Giving Love and affection to another, becoming one in union
    with another.
    
    When one wants to give but the other is not ready to receive, or join
    in the giving, is it in love to proceed?.
    
    Bring God in your lovemaking, He knows what it's about, He instituted
    it!.
    
    Does man buy a car without asking his wife and children which colour?.
    God is the perfect parent. He doesn't make children without our
    consent. He didn't make Eve without the help of Adam. He doesn't
    correct our sinfull ways or solve world problems without our consent
    and assistance. Our free will is unlimited even if it costs the World.
    Even though it is Gods Wish and within His power to have a perfect
    world He wants us to agree to it and be a part in accomplishing it.
    
    Likewise we should not think of acting in a way contrary to the will of
    our partners or without asking God to join us in our union with them. 
    That's not God like.
    
    The way women are injustly treated in this mans world is a fact of life 
    and has so developed from nature where the male species where created 
    the strongest from the two. Someone had to be!. We cannot change this 
    this injustice overnight for everyone but we can change our hearts and 
    our attitude towards our own partners instantly. Lets try it!
    
    Brother in Christ 
    
    Peter
    

| <<< Note 657.55 by CSC32::KINSELLA "You are a treasure." >>>

| -< How about some balance? >-

	Ya might want to get a scale.... :-)

| My comment about feminist men was a holdover from a discussion ages ago in CP 
| when asked about her resentment towards men Patricia responded that she didn't
| resent all men but that she appreciated men who were feminists at heart.  

	I think I remeber that conversation Jill. It was very interesting. I
also remember her explaining what that meant too. It included a lot of people
Jill. It also carried a varying degree of appreciation as well. Let me ask you
something. Are there different levels of appreciation that YOU have for people?
Like do you find you appreciate Christians more than non-Christians? If so, you
should be able to see where Patricia is coming from.

| I'm not saying that anyone needs to hold all men in high regard Glen, 

	I'm glad you said that Jill, really! :-)

| but certainly one should be able to talk about the rest of them with some 
| sense that they have not committed all the wrongs ever committed against 
| women.  

	I agree completely with you Jill. Sometimes we may tend to put a whole
group of people into a catagory when there would be many individuals that
really do not belong. I think everyone can be guilty of that from time to time.
I know I can be. But when you prod for answers, you will usually see a clearer
definition of the various groups. I guess when I know what kind of men Patricia
is talking about, it's easier for *me* to see that she is very inclusive, and
while the words may not be specific, I understand what she means. And it's all
based on her dealings with men, and the history of what's happened to women.
Frankly, I really like how she has come to the conclusions she has. 

| And certainly men don't need to be feminist to understand what *some* women 
| have gone through.

	Again, I agree with you. You don't need to be Christian to understand
what some Christians have gone through. I don't consider myself a feminist man.
From the things I have seen happen to people period, I am one who wants to see
equality for all. Women, men, people of color, etc. From listening, and that's
the key word, you begin to see where the other person has been. You begin to
see where the mistakes were happening. You can see sometimes, and have to
search other times for solutions. But it's never ending.


Glen

| <<< Note 657.57 by PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for His security-GAIN both" >>>


| Glen Silva>	I think you're way off base here...

| What a great endorsement!


	Why thank you ever so much Paul. It means so much to me that you
appreciate my words. Again, thank you very much!


Glen

	Patricia,

	Why are you focusing only on the MAN side of the equation, and
	what you see as the negative side of that to boot ?

	The relationship of husband to wife places *GREAT* responsibility
	on the man.  He is to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE for his wife, as Christ
	did for the Church.  Do you understand what that is saying ?
	I know that I do not envy my husband that responsibility!!!!

	At the same time, I am called to submit to my husband.  Now, if
	my husband tries to use my role as defined by God against me,
	he is *clearly* in the wrong.  However, I am called to my duty
	regardless of his behavior, and he is called to his duty regardless
	of mine (Praise God, or I'd certainly be alone today - I have much
	improvement to do in that area!)

	You cannot look at the woman's role in marriage without looking
	at the man's.  The way you present it, the man has all the advantage
	and none of the responsibility.  It's hardly that way.

	The fact that men (and others) have distorted the Bible for their
	own gain does not make God's instructions to us invalid.  It makes
	the individual wrong for usurping God's word to support his own
	selfish desires.  If we are to use abuse of God's word to decide
	what part of the Bible stays and what goes, we aren't going to
	have much of a book left.

	Karen

    .62
    
    
    Amen Karen!!! :-) :-)  
    
    

    
    RE: .60
    
    Hi Glen,
    
    Well I'm glad to see we agree on some of that Glen.  I don't think
    we're remembering the same conversation, so I'll let that piece go.
    Glen the comparison you give to my appreciation level of christian
    vs. non-christian is not a good correlation.  While I'd agree the
    majority of my friends are christians, I find myself being friends
    or friendly acquaintances with lots of non-christians.  I don't make
    blanket negative statements about non-christians.  I am not constantly
    villifying them except for those who espouse to my christian beliefs.
    I do not go around with an "us against them" attitude.  I do not aim
    to right all the wrongs ever done to christians by judging those I
    meet now to be guilty of all of wrongs done non-christians against
    christians in the past.  Glen, I don't even want to hold grudges for
    things done directly to me, let alone things done to others throughout
    the centuries.  I don't have the time, energy, or the bitterness to
    do that not that at times I haven't felt that way, but I get over it.
    It's healthier for everyone involved.  In fact, it's biblical.
    
    Jill

| <<< Note 657.64 by CSC32::KINSELLA "You are a treasure." >>>


| Glen the comparison you give to my appreciation level of christian vs. non
| christian is not a good correlation. While I'd agree the majority of my 
| friends are christians, I find myself being friends or friendly acquaintances 
| with lots of non-christians.  

	Jill, are they held on the same appreciation scale? Are you telling me
if you met someone, you would be happy, but would not get any happier if you
found out that person was a Christian? If you can't say this would happen, then
yes, you are correct that it is not a good correlation. But if you think you
would get a little/lot more excited about this person because they ARE a
Christian, then you have shown that your appreciation level does vary.

| I don't make blanket negative statements about non-christians.  

	I'm glad to hear that Jill! But in light to Patricia, neither does she.
In a forum such as this, we all can come across one way. But after Patricia has
explained things, do you still think she gives blanket negative statements
about men? I don't see that. In fact, I see her talk about many groups who get
hurt by many people. 

| I am not constantly villifying them except for those who espouse to my 
| christian beliefs. I do not go around with an "us against them" attitude.  

	Again, I do not see Patricia really doing that. Take me for example. I
agree with things Patricia says, but not everything. And visa versa. We seem to
be able to have good conversations though. We acknowledge each others views,
and we go with it. I know she has opened my eyes to a lot of things that I did
not know, or would even think could have happened. You don't really need to
agree with anyone. You don't need to hold back your own beliefs. But what has
to not happen is trashing another person for their beliefs, when the beliefs in
question have no harm on you. 

| I do not aim to right all the wrongs ever done to christians by judging those 
| I meet now to be guilty of all of wrongs done non-christians against christian
| in the past.  

	Again, I don't see Patricia doing this. (but with men) There is nothing
wrong with bringing up the past. The past allows us to learn for the future.


Glen

    
    
    Forget it Glen.  We read all this differently and I won't continue this 
    banter because I don't think it will achieve anything. Thank you for 
    sharing your views.  
    
    Have a nice day.
    Jill
    

Let me thank those (especially) women who correctly understood my marriage
analogy.  I stand by it and find Patricia's view that it is "evil at
its core" to be surprizingly narrow; but I don't fault her, giving her
the benefit of the doubt that she cannot see, instead of will not see.

I had to skim this note during lunch and most people spoke well of my 
intent and meaning of my words.  As for the Biblical model for marriage, 
I'm clipping a piece from a lesson I did in 1990.  These are the "triangles"
I alluded to some time ago.

  Biblical Roles in Marriage
  Sunday, July 1, 1990

  1  Diagramming the Biblical Marriage

  The lesson book I have diagrams several types of marriage:

  Pass out the diagram sheets to the class

  o  The Traditional Male Dominated Marriage       ^
                                                  /M\
     Male Triangle up over Female Triangle down  -----
                                                  \F/
                                                   V

     For those of you who think you know that this best reflects my mar-
     riage, I would suggest that you do not know Joy and I well enough.
     And if I am not to be easily believed, corner Joy someday and ask
     her.

     The traditional male dominated marriage is often the type of mar-
     riage some interpret the Bible to espouse. However, as we shall soon
     see, the Bible does not put one or the other into superior or in-
     ferior roles. In this model the husband rules the roost and the wife's
     sole duty is to obey.

  o  The Egalitarian Marriage
                                      ^   ^
     Triangles side by side both up  /M\ /F\
                                    ---------
     The abuses of the traditional marriage are rejected by feminism which
     proposes the egalitarian model where each person has equal authority.

     While this sounds good on the outside, what the model really es-
     pouses is that all roles, tasks and functions can be divided equally
     and are considered interchangeable. Differences in male and female
     sexuality are down-played and are seen as incidental expect for the
     obvious biological functions.

     The issue in this marriage is how to maintain individual rights at the
     highest level for both partners. This marriage attempts to cut the
     cake exactly down the middle, and if one perceives the other to get
     a few more crumbs, they cry foul.
                                         -------
  o  The Egalitarian Submissive Marriage \M/ \F/
                                          V   V
     Triangles side by side both down

     Christian feminist (if this is not an oxymoron) propose the same
     type of equality in mutual submission. And while the Bible does call
     for mutual submission, this marriage model ignores the unique qual-
     ities each gender brings to the relationship.

  o  Biblical Model for Marriage                          /\
                                                      \--/--\--/
     Male Triangle up merged with Female Triangle down \/    \/
                                                       /\ MF /\
                                                      /--\--/__\
                                                          \/

     The biblical role for marriage occurs much earlier than what we read
     in Ephesians 5. Marriage is an entity that creates a new being when
     two people become one flesh.

     The sexuality of men and women is different and creates a beauti-
     ful interplay of initiation and response between them. Together,
     these different and complimentary aspects of maleness and female-
     ness are the image of God in human form.

     The hardest part people have with this model of marriage is the au-
     thority of the husband over the wife. Scripture defines the head-
     ship as being leadership grounded in sacrificial love not of dom-
     ination.

     Likewise, people have trouble with the wife submitting herself to
     her husband but this in now way is a position of weakness or in-
     feriority. It is a glad and voluntary submission to the husband's
     initiating love.

     Christ is the perfect example of submissiveness to the initiating
     love of His father and it is Christ that Paul uses as the model that
     Husbands should use in loving their wives.

  The unity between a man and woman celebrates the equality and the unique-
  ness of being a husband or wife: the common humanity and the distinct
  sexuality. There are roles we each share and others which we do not
  because we were created to compliment each other.

More as time permits.

Mark

.67>  Continued

  2  Authority

  People, Americans in particular, have trouble with authority. We have
  not lived under a monarch for over 200 hundred years so we really have
  no point of reference there.

  Since Paul uses Christ as the model for husbandly authority, let's see
  what Jesus had to say about authority. Open your Bibles to Mark 10:35-
  45; focus on verse 42.

  James and John, thinking Jesus to be the head of the organization, ask
  for places near the top. Jesus follows their line of thinking and then
  turns it by saying those places are already filled. The others get wind
  of the request and get indignant (because they didn't think of it first).

  Jesus calls them all together like a father speaking to bickering chil-
  dren.

  He then points out in no uncertain terms that the authority structure
  in the Kingdom of God is ordered differently than the structure of the
  world:

  *  The rulers of the world lord it over their subjects.

  *  The mark of leadership in the Kingdom of God is servanthood.

  *  The Kingdom leader must be willing to be last.

  *  Christ's life is an example for authority in the Kingdom. Jesus gave
     up everything to be servant of all.

  And very often we limit Jesus' sacrifice to his death on the cross.
  But indeed he gave up his glory in heaven to become one of us to save
  us!

  3  The Roles

  Read Ephesians 5:21-33.

  Paul begins this section with mutual submission. The behavior of mu-
  tual submission can be found just a few verses earlier in Ephesians
  4:32.

                                The Wife

  Paul next addresses wives submitting to their husbands. Remember that
  the submission to authority for Christians is voluntary, and based on
  his loving sacrifice on our behalf. Christ's headship is healing, for-
  giving, and life-giving; not dominating.

  So Paul is saying that submission to her husband is not a submission
  to a headship of dominance, nor is the wife's submission unqualified.
  As a loving husband gives himself to his wife, his wife is to be sub-
  ject to her giving husband.

                              The Husband

  Paul says to love your wife as Christ loved the church. We have seen
  how Christ loved the church; note that Jesus gave himself for the sin-
  ful world and did not wait for a purified church. Jesus submitted him-
  self to the Father and was a servant to humanity. So we are to sub-
  mit ourselves to the Father and be servants to our wives. This is the
  authority we should have in our homes.

  The authority and submission of the husband and wife are qualified by
  the demands of loving servanthood that right relationship in Christ
  places upon our marriages.

.68> continued (final part of the lesson)  
Interesting that I wrote this in 1990 and is very applicable today.
---

  4  An Antiquated Ideal?

  Ephesians 5 is in danger of being replaced in the name of cultural ob-
  solescence. Ephesians 5 is not a cultural ideal although some things
  have changed in the Bible due to changing values. Peter changed our
  dietary habits, for one example. Another example lies in the sacri-
  ficial system that was replaced by Christ, once for all. These were
  steps away from the physical expressions into the spiritual expres-
  sions of purity (or holiness) towards God. It is not what goes into
  man that makes him unclean but what comes out of man. Acts of sacri-
  fice did not please God as much as righteousness.

  Ephesians 5 also steps away from the culture (and physical expression)
  of that time. The command to husbands is to love with a love that im-
  itates Christ's love. Wives are to submit as unto the Lord. These are
  not cultural ideals but spiritual ideals. And before you take an edit-
  ing pen to the Bible, consider first what the meaning and reasons are
  behind a passage that doesn't quite fit today's American society.

  o  What does it mean to be submissive *as unto the Lord*?

  o  What are the *implications* and *responsibilities* of being the head
     of the wife?

  o  What does it mean to love *as Christ loved* the Church?

  o  Why don't people seek God's mind on these Scriptures, instead of
     dismissing what doesn't fit into their lifestyle?
-------

Good questions.

Mark