Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Studies Blog

Segregating by age or status.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this post

I read a comment on a post at InternetMonk, and was immediately struck by the need to say a public thank you.

First, the comment, by Aliasmoi:

A single - never married - woman is a pariah in a traditional church. After I crossed my 30th birthday people started thinking (and sometimes saying) there must be something wrong with me that I haven’t caught a husband yet. They started praying out loud - in church - for me to get a husband. But, I couldn’t get within ten feet of a man without the whole church having to stop and take notice of the fact. I really started to feel like I would have been less of an object of curiosity/pity/outright derision if I had been married and gotten divorced.

I want to thank the people of my home church for making me feel necessary. Normal. OK. Valuable. Treasured. For wanting me with them and enjoying things with them. Not making me feel like an outsider or extra or some kind of burden to have bear with. Letting me pal around and talk and laugh with the ladies and be involved in the group discussions and hang out with the couples and talk with everyone of all ages...I just never felt unwelcome or outside. I want to thank them, essentially, for not segregating the church based on age or status. For not shuffling me off to the side because of my status.

When we were in the process of getting a new pastor recently, we had the opportunity, after a meal following service, to speak up about the possibility of a person who had been in church for many years being our pastor. Many things were said, most moving and good. I spoke up and tried to say, without crying (I did not succeed), a kind of thank you for the extreme friendship -- beyond that, even -- and how it made me feel valuable. How I wanted to stay at this church even when I didn't "feel" like it or when it didn't meet my "needs" simply because of the relationship of the people and what they were to me as the body of Christ.

Truly, they are Christ with skin on. For me.

I think, in a post where I touched on the idea of age segregation, the greatest sadness that settles in when I see it happening is that we are shortchanging everyone involved for the sake of convenience and logistics. It seems to benefit us, but in reality, hurts and robs us all. I can't imagine being stripped of all the interaction I've grown to expect with different people of different ages and status.

Frankly, age segregation is not Biblical. It is not OK to be pulling out kids and youth and separating everyone out by age or status. It is not OK to train them to think that they must be only with their own kind and should not be expected to be with the older Christians in church. Barnabas mentored Paul. Paul mentored Timothy. The older women are told to mentor the young. Why cheat each other out of Job 12:12? No, some barely matured youth minister aping the culture up front doesn't always qualify as that mentor; he is likely in need of his own mentor, too. There is also a need for everyone to experience the joy (and difficulty) of being such a mentor.

It is easier, I will admit, to be with people in your own situation and generation. You speak the same language, have similar angst, and understand your particular culture. I treasure my friends of that sameness because we can connect over the similarities. But at the same time, I have so come to value the advice and support and companionship of older women, married women, widowed women, single women -- my mother -- and have grown to love the chance to be that for the younger women coming up.

Because my home church is so small, we often find ourselves with one Sunday school class in the basement. It may consist of the older generation, some Boomers, me (the token Gen X'er), and some teens (Gen Y'ers). There are married and single and divorced people there. The discussion is rich and brings both the wisdom of age and the freshness of new eyes.

What a pity when we pull that apart by something age-based. There is no separate-but-equal in the body of Christ.

Labels: christianity, relationships, women, youth

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Who's doing the dishes?

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this post

I personally prefer to see the dishes done by me.

I'm very particular.

I wish to wield power, as a woman, over the level of cleanliness seen in a dish. This is my power play.

I'm only half kidding.

They. Must. Squeak.

I would let Monk do them, but that's it.

Why all this talk? This post.

It's interesting, but, given the circumstances in my life, I can't relate.

Labels: christianity, links, relationships, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Bitter and whining.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 8 comments link this post

Of all the things I thought, when I wrote a wordy, meandering post about a recent experience where I found myself walking out of a church service, I did not think I would find myself -- me personally -- the topic of debate on various blogs.

As often happens, the particular issue at hand that I was trying to make (regardless of whether or not I handled the topic and words well) was somewhat obfuscated in questions as to whether I was:

The frustration here is not just that such conversation does nothing to address the issue at hand, but that it can only devolve into forcing people -- me -- to respond defensively and outside of the realm intended.

In the past, when I've pointed out in many futile discussions on other Christian websites, that I do take issue with the knee-jerk reaction of men throwing emotional thermometers into conversations involving women, I have been told I am:

playing the woman card
bitter
looking for validation
a bunch of other crap

So, I quit wasting my time on such sites, and stopped my activities there. What, I wondered, was the point of even entering into any discussion where I knew that, if I wasn't some kind of emotion-less, logical Vulcan, I would sooner or later have someone throw out questions on my emotions, stability, and other personal aspects of my life? What is the point of writing a long essay with varied points when, in the end, you just end up with lazy cut-and-paste fiskers?

I do not believe I am bitter -- disappointed in the church at times, maybe, but not bitter. If I were bitter, I wouldn't really care so much about finding a church home, nor would I waste the time trying to ferret out what I see are the causes behind a growing problem. I would use my bitterness as an excuse to shun the church and leave it for good. That is not what I am doing.

Nor do I think that anyone who would reads this entire web site on a regular basis would think I fall into the rut of seeing time as having passed me by. On the contrary; I believe I've made good use of the time in my life so far and have no plan on slumping back in my chair and crying into my hanky at "what should have been."

Yet here I am, defending personal nonsense from random (and, may I point out, male, strangers) when the real issue has nothing to do with me as a person. Am I bitter? Am I an emotional wreck? Did I make claims of Christian perfection and my cracks have surreptitiously been revealed? Am I secretly weeping for having been left in the wilderness of time to forage for myself? Am I looking for validation? Am I a harpie? Am I am I am I?

What does it matter to the discussion at hand? How would you, a stranger, possibly know? And, since you can't possibly know, shouldn't that mean you ought to leave that alone and focus on discussing the actual issue, instead of the writer, instead?

Do you know why God uses the imperfect -- the stutter, the meek, the lying, the deceitful, the imperfect, the adulterer, the murderer, the "bitter" woman, the jars of clay -- to do His work? Do you know why?

Generally we would probably agree that it gives Him the glory, so that the world will know it was done through His power and not that of the obviously insufficiently skilled or non-gifted person He used. In our weakness, He is made strong. I would agree to that.

However, consider that it also functions very well for weeding purposes.

Why might God use a messenger with personal flaws? With or without emotion hanging out all over? With alleged bitterness or disappointment edging all the words? With hurts, past and present, not at all hidden in the writing?

So the self-assured idiots out there who can't see the forest for the trees can focus on the imperfections of the messenger and totally miss the message and go home and pat themselves on the back for their astute judgment on a complete stranger and remain safely ignorant and without a hope of grasping something bigger outside of their own understanding and not realize what a complete moron they are.

Yes.

Labels: blogging, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Fire insurance.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 3 comments link this post

::Written as promised per a recent chat discussion. It references posts and other statements I've made on this web site in the past few years. I am not providing the links to these posts, however. That's just the kind of blogger I am.::

Why I'm going to burn
A poem written for those keeping score*
by Julie R. Neidlinger

I Submit that I
frequently Skirt the issue
but that's the only submitting
I'll do.
As you define it.

There is a difference
between Hymn and Her
but mainly, they are both
human.
And necessary.

* All made null and void by the cross of Jesus Christ, in no way having to do with mere hell-avoidance.

Labels: christianity, poetry, religion, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

As we are led, we follow.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 0 comments link this post

::You could think of this as part two of this earlier post.::

Sometimes I find myself in heated discussions with fellow Christians about women and submission to men. I know I often come off as belligerent and unwilling to submit, but that has never -- never! -- been my intention. I will follow a good leader willingly. A good leader does not demand to be followed at threat of shame, damnation, or exclusion. A good leader is such that there is no need to ask for followers; people want to follow a good leader.

Christ is our example of a leader, and our following him is the example of a follower submitting to the leader. We follow as well as we are led, and a man arguing a woman into the ground, demanding that she submit, is not the example Christ provided for leadership. It is no small wonder, with our human definitions of what a leader is, that people rebel against authority. Our human version of authority is severely tainted by sin. Our version of leadership is full of pride and love of power and envy and control.

Leading by forced submission, out of love for control, or out of a need to remain at a higher level creates rebellion, anger, dissatisfaction and hatred in those forced to follow.

Leadership has nothing to do with control of the follower, but instead, is a form of severe love for the follower. The love of the follower by the leader makes the follower want to follow, makes the follower want to be loyal.

Did you catch that? Makes someone want. It's the idea of total free will and totally predestined that I talked briefly about here.

Most people will follow a good leader. And most women will follow a husband if he leads like Christ, for there is no need to worry about degradation, subservience, or any kind of abuse. Christ's example of leadership was as a servant, and full of severe love.

Christ leads. We follow. It trickles down into all areas of life, if we could only adhere even just a little bit to his perfect example.

Labels: christianity, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Are Women Human?

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 11 comments link this post

I got an email telling me about a post over at the Pyromaniacs blog. I've rather stopped reading that blog because, as the name suggests, it tends to be a big, inflammatory explosion before fading to smoke. However, Team Pyro had posted something Dorothy L. Sayers had written, and I rather like Sayers.

Her mysteries, for one, are top-notch. I also appreciate the fact that she was no weak-minded, weak-spirited woman, and even though she couldn't be part of the Inklings because she was a woman (despite her friendship with Lewis), I don't think anyone could say she was any less gifted or intelligent than those men.

So, after reading all of the Pyro post, I decided to add a little comment about one of my favorite Sayers books:

Sayers' essay/book Are Women Human is a very good read.

I would encourage you to read it, particularly if you think they are not human.

I don't hold my breath on Team Pyro excerpting any of that particular brand of Sayers. They are, quite likely, Calvinist Complementarian to the core. Women have their place, you know.

Why would I think such a thing? Because part of that fan club also includes people like this, who leave comments on posts like this:

Bob, when a chuch decides that it will allow a woman pastor or a transgender pastor then that chruch loses the right ot call itself Christian. They stand directly opposed to godliness and the teaching of the gospel. It has become a synagogue of Satan. Your choice is clear. If the elders won't repent then fInd a real Christian church.

Titus 2:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

Posted by: Chad V. on Thursday, November 15, 2007

To which I say:

Oh, it looks like both "sides" are pretty adept at wielding cookie cutters...

"...when a chuch decides that it will allow a woman pastor or a transgender pastor then that chruch loses the right ot call itself Christian. They stand directly opposed to godliness and the teaching of the gospel. It has become a synagogue of Satan."

Women pastors equated with transgender pastors.

Sigh.

Pyromaniacs have an interesting post on Dorothy L. Sayers today. I left a comment regarding one of her books on women.

Perhaps you should read the book.

I doubt it will happen.

Incidentally, for those of you wondering, women are, indeed, human. Women are not subservient or somehow on a sub-level than good men-folk like Chad, who, like all complementarians, will likely swear up and down that they don't think women are less human but always propose as much in hidden language when making sure women are not allowed in the Christian Boys Club.

A woman's Christianity and validity as a child of God (and as a human being) isn't related to her "job" or "duty" in Christ's kingdom, nor on definitions based on what we are, or are not, "allowed" to do.

Chad later responds:

Julie, Women are stricly forbidden from the pastorate. Transgender is just a P/C way of labeling sexual perversion. To allow either one to be a pastor is to deny the plain teaching of scripture. Scripture is so clear on these two issues that for a church to deny them is to deny the bible. It's open defiance of the command of Christ. They forefit the right to call them selves Christians anymore.

1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

I didn't equate women pastors and transgender pastors. It's not a sin to be a woman but it is a sin to be a woman pastor. It is also sin to be transgender. Men and women are both created in the image of God but they are different. They have different God defined roles. Women are forbidden from the pastorate.

Posted by: Chad V. on Friday, November 16, 2007

To which I replied:

Chad,

Obviously, I'm aware of those verses. I am also aware of people who do not interpret them the same as you, and yet are not part of the Synagogue of Satan.

"Scripture is so clear on these two issues that for a church to deny them is to deny the bible. It's open defiance of the command of Christ. They forefit the right to call them selves Christians anymore."

That's a very, very, very bold statement, Chad. What specific command of Jesus Christ purports what you are saying here?

What is the Gospel? Does it include Chad's broad brush stroke? The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as far as I am aware, does not have any teaching that would agree with what Chad has said is equal to ungodliness and satanic (women as pastors). Some have interpreted Paul's further teachings as such, but Chad has put those words in as a lump sum "Gospel" when they are not.

The same holds true for men, who are also human. Usually.

Men love quoting the teachings of Paul. Women love quoting the teachings of Jesus. Think about why this is, and how Jesus treated women.

UPDATE: I wrote on this topic further, at CRN.info.

UPDATE 2: Here's a link to the A/G position on women in ministry.

UPDATE 3: The original "Old Truth" post has changed in that it appears that the comments have been removed. Or something -- something seems amiss. So, don't go there expecting to see any of this anymore. I did, however, save a fairly late version of the post in case you want to argue that I made it all up. I am more than happy to share it with you if you so demand.

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

Note on links to the Old Truth blog: The owner of the Old Truth blog has seen fit to play a few re-direct games with links coming from domains and blogs he does not like. Lone Prairie fits this category. In order to access those web pages, you can follow the directions given here, or simply right click those links, copy the URL, and past in a new browser window. What's even worse is the stupid gimmick when an Old Truth link is clicked through from CRN.info: it takes you to this dumb page on the site, supposedly for "humor day", though I don't get the humor. It's an annoying and childish thing that has little place in serious internet discussion or netiquette, particularly among Christians, but there's little that can be done.

Labels: christianity, guest blogging, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Dips and cracks.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 0 comments link this post

It's the first time I've ever talked about underwear on a blog, I think.

It'll be the last time I'll mention the unmentionables here.

Pretty sure.

Labels: culture, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Women, elders, rebuking, and the internet.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 5 comments link this post

I can't think of what else blogs and forums are but public places of conversation. So, when I read instructions for women, on religious-themed blogs and forums, to be quiet or go get their husband to speak for them since the Bible forbids this that and the other thing in dealing with men, I obviously get irate.

You don't come to a public forum with male and female writers and commenters and expect to have half of them not say anything.

Male and female commenters say things that are out of line and wrong, but the strange thing that happens sometimes is that the female commenters are undercut as I described above, while the male commenters are directly confronted and admonished. If I said something wrong, I want to be treated directly, and not shuffled in some manner based on my sex.

Here's a blog post where, in the comments section, you can see this happening again. My first comment on this thread angle was in response to a female commenter indicating that she thought a male commenter was a hypocrite. The male commenter responded that she had disobeyed the Word because she publicly rebuked an ordained elder, and then suggested at the end that she go get her husband.

Regarding the rebuking of elders in public by women or non-male elders… is this blog a church? Is it my church? Are you my elder?

To be blunt, that's just a fancy way of shutting women up when you don't want to deal with them. Don't get me started again on this.

That's the same kind of cop-out Ken uses when he shrugs off any negative comments by saying he is called of God and we aren't and therefore we need to be quiet and let the called speak. I would say that if you don't want to be rebuked by women, you should:

a) Not take part in a discussion on a public blog.
b) Not take part in a discussion on a public blog where women comment.
c) Not take part in a discussion on a public blog where women comment who are known to have a couple of IQ points to rub together.

Really, all this call to "go get your husband" is out of line here, Rick. This isn't a church. I don't have a husband. I think it's a weak cop-out and it gets annoying to see half of the general population use God (I should say, Paul) as a reason to get the other half to shut their yap.

I don't think anyone should be calling anyone else a hypocrite. I do get tired of all the name-calling.

My comment was responded to fairly evenly but I felt that, again, there was confusion on the difference between a blog and a church and the responsibility (or even the expected latitude) on has to assume when carrying on discussion in public places with both sexes.

I responded again (quotes of the male commenter in gray):

You again misrepresent my position.

"Again." OK... so I've apparently got a jones for misrepresentation.

Please do not misrepresent my position. I have no problem with being confronted and debated on Biblical issues by anyone.

OK. But then...

I believe an elder should not be PUBLICLY REBUKED by a woman or even any believer. An issue that is so serious it necessitates a rebuke to an elder must be brought first privately to the elder body, and if substantiated he should be rebuke publicly by the ELDER BODY.

What is the difference between rebuke and confrontational debate, then? Who decides when they've been rebuked or just had toes stepped on?

I agree that there's way to much "you're a hypocrite!" "no, you are!" "no, you are!" going on, and it's one thing to say to anyone, man or woman, to not do that. But to tell the woman to go get her husband...

What is the message there?

You are a respecter of persons and have disobeyed the Word by openly rebuking me an ordaine elder. Next time bring your hsuband, until then just laugh at what is OBVIOUSLY meant as humor to those without an axe to grind.

I don't have an axe to grind with you. However, I saw no obvious humor. I only saw a pattern of telling women commenters to go get their husbands, as you did to Ginger in this post. Why do you do that to the women commenters on this blog?

Yes, you are ordained. Yes, you are older. Yes, you are a Christian brother. You deserve respect for all of these reasons and more. But again, this is a blog and not a church. Rebuke/debate -- whatever you call it -- happens here. Men and women are here. It is simply not feasible to tell women to go get their husbands when they say something to you that if a male commenter had said to you, you would directly address.

I'm not even arguing the place of women in church. I don't have the desire or stamina or thick skin to go through that again. I should think, after reading the "women" category on my main blog, that you'd get an idea.

I am talking, instead, of women in the public sphere of religious discussion having rules and constrictions thrown at them as if a blog was a church of some sort. The same blog even had a post on this, in which there is obvious discord for men thinking that a woman with a mere blog runs the risk, depending upon her topics of discussion, of damning herself in some way because they keep confusing a blog with a church.

My suggestion to males with certain religious feelings regarding women and when they can and can't speak or what they can and can't say is to, without any malice, suggest they avoid places of discussion on the internet.

Labels: discussion, religion, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Of pots, kettles, men and women.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this post

The age old question of the place for women in the church and ministry has been mildly approached over at CRN.info.

I quickly stated my "no-bonnet" paradigm.

This is a topic of great interest to me, having read a lot of writers (both men and women) with widely differing opinions. I may come back to this post and write more as time allows, but for now, I'll leave you the link: Pot Calling the Kettle Black.

Labels: bible, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Segregating by age or status.

Who's doing the dishes?

Bitter and whining.

Fire insurance.

As we are led, we follow.

Are Women Human?

Dips and cracks.

Women, elders, rebuking, and the internet.

Of pots, kettles, men and women.

LONE PRAIRIE STUDIES LINKS

Get Lone Prairie Studies on your cell phone!

SUBSCRIPTIONS

PREVIOUS POSTS

ARCHIVES

ABOUT THIS BLOG

TIP JAR

TODAY'S HEADLINES

TOPICS