Fruits of the Spirit and Dormancy

I've been mulling over the "fruits of the spirit" lately, and recently had my whole study turned on its ear by a close friend who has studied literal fruit-growing in an orchard. I've been thinking about when you feel distant from God and not really "connected" and how that fits in with it, and my friend's information really helped me a lot.

Real fruit-bearing trees will have some years when they produce a lot of fruit... but during those years, they don't do any growing. Or not very much, anyway.

During the years that they do a lot of growing, they don't produce much fruit.

Not only that, but they need the winters, the dark, cold times when they're not producing OR growing much... in order to start growing again in the spring. If they don't have that dark, cold, dormant time, they won't be fruitful later on. There is no fruit tree in the world that produces fruit and grows all year round. God just didn't make them that way.

Fruit-growing comes in seasons of dormancy, fruit, and growth. Jesus lived in an agrarian society, and it is very likely the people he was preaching to, knew this. We have moved away from that sort of society for the most part now, and lost touch with what fruit-growing is really all about... and when our spiritual walk is compared to fruit-growing, we can sometimes feel very disheartened because we're not perfectly-producing Christians all year round. We do get times of discouragement, depression... and dormancy. But the thing to remember is that, in order to continue growing and bearing fruit, we NEED those periods of dormancy.

I know from experience, and from my husband's example, that a long period of feeling spiritually discouraged and disconnected frequently results in a whole lot of growth in a short span of time, once that period is over.

I found this thought very encouraging, and hoped some of my readers might like it as well.

The Old "Help-Meet" Rubbish

This entry is a combination book review and Bible study.

I recently had the misfortune to read Debi Pearl's book Created to be His Help Meet. I had read bits of it before, excerpts, and also skimmed the whole thing; but recently I had the opportunity to read the entire book in-depth.

What a waste of four hours of my life. Honestly, I'll never get those four hours back, which would have been more successfully utilized in clipping my budgies' wings, or perhaps watching paint dry.

Extreme, I know... but so was this book. The general gist of it was that God created women to be a lowly servant to the man, and that we women can only find our true fulfillment in Christ by relinquish our own desires, skills, gifts, etc. and just living for our husbands. The author puts blame the woman for most of the problems in a marriage, and even goes so far as to say things like, "Have you done this? Well, shame on you!"

As if most women need even MORE things to feel shame over!

Most of all, her advice to women in abusive relationships is at best questionable, and at worst downright dangerous. Let me say it right here, plainly so that no one misses it:

If a woman is abused by her husband, it is always, always, ALWAYS, HIS fault and not hers.

There is NOTHING she can do that would "make" him abuse her.

If a husband abuses his wife, it is ALWAYS his conscious choice to... and it has NOTHING to do with whether or not she is "submissive" enough!

If you are in this situation, please get help and get out!

There, now that I've got that out of the way, I wanted to address the mis-translation that this whole book is based on. It is taken from the King James Version of the Bible, which I understand the Pearls use exclusively. The trouble with the good ol' KJV is that King James was Anglican, and he wanted to make SURE that this new translation of the Bible would make his subjects into good, obedient little Anglicans. So he made sure they put a distinctly Anglican spin onto it, including using cultural understandings of certain things, rather than going by what the scripture truly says.

The word that so many versions translate as "Help meet," "help mate," "helper," etc. is the Hebrew word "ezer." As it turns out, far from meaning "lowly helper" with a connotation of "servant," ezer has two root words which mean, respectively, "to rescue" and "to be strong."

So when God created Eve for Adam, he wasn't actually creating a servant. He was creating a "strong rescuer."

Not only that, but the other word that is part of that phrase -- the "mate" part of "help mate" is the Hebrew word "kenegdo" which is a word used only once in the Bible. Its meaning? Corresponding to, or opposite of. Used in other ancient Hebrew texts, it simply means "equal."

So we can learn from this that God created woman to be a strong rescuer of the man, and to be his opposite and complete equal. To correspond to him, to be parallel to him, and to complete him.

This was God's original purpose and intent for women. This was the way he created humans, for the male and female together to reflect His image... and then he said it was "very good." NLT even translates it as "excellent in every way."

And then they both had to sin and mess it all up -- and as part of their punishment (or possibly just a prediction; it is unclear in scripture), God tells the woman that her husband will dominate her.

Interesting, isn't it? that male supremacy entered the world when sin did!

Patriarchy was never God's original plan -- it's all the idea of sinful men who want to control and dominate. And sinful women, who want to be controlled and dominated, because they think this will please their husbands. Neither is scriptural, and neither is the way God intended a husband-wife partnership to be.

No matter what Debi Pearl says, her whole book is based upon a faulty interpretation of its most basic premise. With that in mind, I found very little in the rest of the book that was correct or useful either.


(The information about the Hebrew translations was taken from this article, and from the Net Bible. Check 'em out for yourself!)

Christian Apology

Deconstructed Christian has tagged me for the Christian Apology (no, not apologia) that's been making the rounds. Here are the rules:

INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Apologize for three things that Christians have often got wrong. Your apologies should be directed towards those who don't view themselves as part of the Christian community. Alternatively, apologize for things you personally have done wrong towards those outside of the church.
2. Post a comment at the originating post so others can keep track of the apologies.
3. Tag five people to participate in the meme.
4. If desired, send an email with the link to your blog post at the Christians Confess site, giving permission for your apologies to be added to the website.

MY APOLOGIES:

1. I am sorry that I've always been so worried about money that I haven't been generous with you. I've been so concerned with my self and my family, and whether we'd have enough for US, that I haven't been hospitable to you and your friends. I claim a faith that is marked by giving generously... and I've hardly given at all.

2. I'm sorry that I viewed "loving others" more along the lines of "being a good example to you on how to live," with its requisite self-righteousness of course, instead of actually showing you genuine love and caring. I've been so concerned with doing everything "right" that I've gotten most of it totally wrong.

3. I'm sorry I have judged you by standards that you don't hold for yourself, and have found you wanting and condemned you. I'm sorry that I have not accepted you the way you are, met you at your own level, and really been your friend.


Now for the people I want to tag? Hmmm... let's see...
I'd love to see what
Sensuous Wife,
Sascha,
Robin,
Faintnot,
and Eleutheros (if he ever decides to blog)
have to say about it.

Don't Complain, Unless You Can Offer Something Better

I have been complaining quite a bit lately about churches in general and my church in specific. I've been talking about how little actual give-and-take there is, how much division -- not only doctrinally, but between age-groups -- how much sexism, and how little genuineness there is. Or even how boring it is to always follow the same formula, and how hard it is to actually "get something" from the sermon every week -- while at the same time being prevented from ministering the way we feel called to do.

Well, as my grandmother once said, "Don't complain, unless you can offer something better." While I don't totally agree with her -- sometimes complaints are the only things that lead to making things better -- I have thought and prayed about it for a long time and have finally come up with something better.

Here it is:

When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all: Sing a hymn, teach a lesson, tell a story, lead a prayer, provide an insight. If prayers are offered in tongues, two or three's the limit, and then only if someone is present who can interpret what you're saying. Otherwise, keep it between God and yourself. And no more than two or three speakers at a meeting, with the rest of you listening and taking it to heart. Take your turn, no one person taking over. Then each speaker gets a chance to say something special from God, and you all learn from each other. If you choose to speak, you're also responsible for how and when you speak. When we worship the right way, God doesn't stir us up into confusion; he brings us into harmony. This goes for all the churches—no exceptions.

If this sounds familiar to anyone, that's because it's not really my idea. God had it first. This is The Message's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14: 26-33.

I read this to Grey tonight, asking him to keep in mind our usual church-going rituals. I asked him, "When is the last time we gathered together with everyone having the opportunity to share a song, prayer, or teaching as he or she was led? And with no one taking over? He pointed out that our church, the "worship team" sings... and we listen to them and sing (always following their lead of course). Then someone else gets up and prays... and we listen to him and agree. Then someone might give a testimony... and we listen and applaud. Then the pastor gets up and preaches... and we listen. That's an awful lot of listening, my friends.

So when did being the Body of Christ become a spectator sport? All the references in the New Testament that I've ever found talk about how inclusive and involved the early believers were with one another, and how very much into giving, sharing, and mutuality they were. So why do we go to church and sit there like bumps on logs (or saints on pews) just to listen?

I've been studying 1 Corinthians for a while now, trying to learn about Body life. Here's another little gem that I've gleaned from it, also from The Message (1 Cor 12: 14-20):

A body isn't just a single part blown up into something huge. It's all the different-but-similar parts arranged and functioning together. If Foot said, "I'm not elegant like Hand, embellished with rings; I guess I don't belong to this body," would that make it so? If Ear said, "I'm not beautiful like Eye, limpid and expressive; I don't deserve a place on the head," would you want to remove it from the body? If the body was all eye, how could it hear? If all ear, how could it smell? As it is, we see that God has carefully placed each part of the body right where he wanted it. 19-24But I also want you to think about how this keeps your significance from getting blown up into self-importance. For no matter how significant you are, it is only because of what you are a part of. An enormous eye or a gigantic hand wouldn't be a body, but a monster. What we have is one body with many parts, each its proper size and in its proper place. No part is important on its own.

So now that we've established that the order of service pretty much disempowers all the congregants to being a bunch of little ears, just sitting there and taking it all in -- what about the pastor? If we're the ears, he's the mouth. Is he the mouth of God? Hmmm. Now, there's a question, isn't it?

This morning my son and I actually went to church, to the same one we've been attending for three years. Our pastor got up and gave a little talk and as usual, he went off on a rabbit trail. He said, "There, that's a sermonette." Then he laughed and went on, "You know what you get when you have sermonettes, don't you? You get 'Christianettes.'"

Oh, I can't even begin to count the number of things wrong with that little joke of his. I'll try, though, because it bothered me too much to just let it rest.

1) Sermons make Christians.
2)Sermon-listening turns Christians from miniature ones to being full-size.
3) It puts the entire responsibility for spiritual growth onto the shoulders of the pastor.
4) It completely discounts the ability of the Holy Spirit to help Christians mature.
5) It diminishes all other aspects of Body life, making sermon-listening the only thing that helps Christians mature.

That's enough for now... and ordinarily I would just laugh it off as a joke of his... except this wasn't the first time I've heard it.

But while we're on the subject, let's talk about the pastor. Specifically, let's talk about the idea of a group of believers hiring someone to come and teach them week after week. Where is this idea found in scripture? Scripture shows us lots of examples of early believers sharing responsibilities equally -- each one according to his gifts, yes, but there is not supposed to be any external judging of gifting. No one person was supposed to be in charge of how things were run -- they were to depend solely upon the Holy spirit's leading to keep order... and the thing is, Paul tells us that if they do, then order is kept. No one else is supposed to be telling others to teach, or sing, or whatever; they're supposed to depend on the Holy Spirit's leading to prepare something for themselves, to share with each other.

There's that "each other" phrase again, implying mutuality, turnabout, and deferring to one another. Grey and I were wondering today just how that would look, in our church. The pastor is very much in charge. He shares the responsibilities with three elders (two now, since one moved away), but with this church so heavily into the unscriptural "Covering" doctrine, everything has to pass by him and receive his OK before it becomes part of the "order of service." So really, he's doing the Holy Spirit's job. And he's also doing the congregants' job, whose responsibility it is to bring the teaching. And with him putting his head together with the worship team, they're doing the congregants' jobs as well, who are supposed to be the ones preparing and bringing hymns and songs for the corporate worship.

No wonder the poor man's burned out. Not only is he doing the job of 50 people, but he's doing God's job too!

And yet, if I were to tell him this, it would be considered borderline heretical.