Holy spirit kicks man’s leg under the table

The female and male views of God differ. That’s OK so long as it fits the idea that we are made in his image and then from there seeks to understand how we are different and how those differences are good….but can work insidiously against us. Some of those differences are at the root of why churchianity even exists, and even why it is adrift versus where it once was, creeping by increment closer to the female end of the spectrum. This creep is a result of the female distorted view of God that is part of the female nature, and the male willingness to compromise much in order to please women, which is in our nature. We have a distorted view on what loving our wives means, so we allow God to be distorted.

This was all plain last evening at the small group we attend (I attended solo this week).

We were studying through Galatians and were closing that book out with Chapter 6. There are some teachings about how to rebuke folks and warnings about sanctimony, ego, conceit, etc., as most know. There is a basic yin and yang situation between helping a sinner get back on track, rebuking because the spirit leads you, and being wary of falling into the sin yourself. (I guess that’s three things so yin, yang, and yong) You can imagine how this is picked apart by men and women and which gender wants to stay on what side of the issue.

The woman I have written about before, who disrespects her husband so much, was absolutely animated by the idea that she can rebuke sinners……IF she feels called to do so. To my great pleasure, an ally manifested in another man there who adroitly unpacked the whole context and got the focus back on restoration, grace, and taking care about sanctimony. This is a predictable dialog in churchian groups. Women feel they ARE called to rebuke men, men know that, so, a brave man will diplomatically try and reign the concepts in, closer to truth. He did so.

Later, near the very end, that other guy was making a comment and used the word “relationship”, then corrected himself muttering he dislikes the term, and said “reliance” instead. When that sub-topic had run its course I asked him to please explain his dislike of “relationship” because I was in agreement and was curious about his motive. He said exactly what I would have said. He said it cheapens God, it lowers or even eliminates a sense of accountability, and what comes to mind with that word is someone who is “reasonable”, who we can bring around to our point of view, someone who will take our feelings into consideration and even change their mind once they get where we are coming from. Someone who-understands-and-empathizes.

Suddenly another man, typically quiet, jumped in with his agreement. It was as if he’d never had the chance to speak into this in this way. Some talking-at-once started, and laughter erupted as the new participant’s wife was seen kicking his leg.

The disrespectful woman started. “Well he is Abba father, that is a relationship”, “Jesus calls us friend, that is a relationship”. We tried to explain that, yes, it is, but the imagery evoked by the word does great disservice. Here is the thing, she and every women hearing this KNOWS it does a disservice, but they like the way the word feels, and they want to make a cover story for it so they needn’t let go, needn’t drop it from their Christianese vocabulary.

I said, “The hypotenuse has a relationship to the right angle, and that relationship is fixed, it is spatial, and though the two rely on each other for the relationship to exist, the relationship is ultimately not dynamic in any measurable sense”. We have relationship in that sense to many things. But we cannot say to someone, “today maybe you need to start a personal relationship with Jesus” and have that not seem like, “let’s get you guys together and see what you have in common’. I cannot help but look a little bit intense when I get into this. Not angry, but sort of all joking aside. So, I tried to lighten it up saying i was taking this position because my wife was not there to kick me.

She patted my knee and furrowed her brow saying in an almost pitiful way, “Yea, it’s a peeve of yours, I understand”, thus discrediting the entire conversation, passive aggressively, and causing the hosts wife to signal the evening was over.

My desire is to quit.


11 thoughts on “Holy spirit kicks man’s leg under the table

  1. Do it; you don’t have to be there, unless you want to.

    We will never get anywhere unless we speak truth to power through actions, witness truth by doing, or not, as the case may be, causing others to wonder why, thus giving an opening to discussion.

    Better yet, see if you can find a church without churchian tendencies, as much as possible.

  2. Will

    I have a church without churchian tendencies. Its the best I have ever found and Ive sought that for over 10 years. This stuff is not coming from our pulpit, not at all. I know it when it does, in its most subtle forms I know it, and its not there.

    You cannot avoid having people who still have to relinquish the churchian tendencies. There is one young couple in the group, about to have their first baby, they are impressionable. Its why I speak up.

  3. “and laughter erupted as the new participant’s wife was seen kicking his leg.”

    Speaking of rebuking sin.
    I don’t know how nuclear you feel like going with this horrible wife, but that would have been a perfect time to stop the Bible study dead and force her to publicly apologize for physically disrespecting her husband. She gets away with it because no one calls her on it.
    I can’t say I would have done it if it was out of the blue, but given this woman’s past tendency to show hostile disrespect towards her husband, I would have been looking for any chance possible to nail this woman to the wall.
    But that’s just me.

  4. @ empathy: Ah. Well, that’s good.

    I’m with ar10308; that kind of behaviour is uncalled for, and unacceptable, and ought to be challenged.

  5. Female and male views? Many people’s views differ on “God”, regardless of gender. For instance, you seem to think God was intelligent enough to send some guy (Jesus) to help us all out, whereas I think “God” is just a dumb force of nature and Jesus was just one of the many results of the evolution of human philosophy.

    I agree that we can’t have a relationship with God, because God is too dumb and too sloppy and too unable to comprehend human complexity to deserve a relationship. If I do something good, God doesn’t care. If I “pray” for good things to happen, God doesn’t care. Bad things might still happen to me, so I’ve got to be the one paying attention. I and you, we are the soul of the world, the imperfect soul of “God”.

  6. Matthew, I won’t take your bait. I would if i thought I could help, but I think that opportunity may be a few years off.

    Good gravy you remind me of me

  7. I think it’s kind of cool the way your boldness and honesty is rubbing off on the other men in the group.

    I’m sure your patience is more than tested occasionally, but you’re doing a good thing.

  8. By the way, it takes a real sexist person to make statements like “Women think x.” Statements like that offend me as a human being.

  9. Empath & Matthew:
    That God created two separate and distinct genders with certain and distinct traits was a metaphysical necessity. Explaining this why this is so would go way over Churchian heads, though. When Jesus manifested as the Divine Archetype, he could only manifest in one gender, although he could relate perfectly to the needs and concerns of the other.

    Matthew’s actually fairly close by describing a relationship as ‘a force’ but not ‘a dumb force of nature’; but a living and directed force moving through it. The relationship is reciprocal; with those seeking/having a relationship with God moving through the same venue.

  10. Too bad Matthew, you are getting too fancy and clever by half. The meaning of the phrase “women think x” is “most women think X” If you are going to head down the path of rejecting statistically valid generalities because all are like snowflakes, I personally will lose some of the respect I was giving you based on some of what you write.
    That position….we are all different….that Matthew is the pedestrian position. Ours is the cutting edge one.

    generalities work, if they didnt we would have no medicine, social sciences, most of what you believe would have never been conjured up, we MUST find commonality at SOME level, or discourse is pointless.

    You need to reconsider. And I dont give a rasts ass if you are offended. Id like you to participate, but saying you are offended is useless, its the kind of thi ng id thing you wouldnt like at your place either, hence, no comment policy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s