Wow, I can't believe it's been more than a month since I was last on here! Time flies so fast this time of year, and I don't intentionally lose touch but I just don't open the computer as often during the summer.
I have plenty of blog inspiration at the moment, but the biggest has come from a recent sermon at church. Our pastor started a series on current cultural issues, and the first one to tackle was the issue of manhood and womanhood, especially in their daily roles in life, work and the church.
I thought it was a wonderful sermon, but the pastor said he knew he was going to upset people and get flack for sharing what the Bible said about a man's place as leader and a woman's place as support. I completely agreed with what he said, and my sister-in-law, who was visiting with her family, came up to me afterward asking if I thought people actually had an issue with what the pastor talked about.
"I would hope in the Christian community there wouldn't be any issues, but I really don't know how people will react," I said.
So I asked the pastor what he had heard about the first in a two-part series on biblical manhood and womanhood, and he said many people were genuinely upset.
The Bible clearly states over and over again that men are to be the leaders. Men are supposed to take care of their families; they are supposed to work; they are supposed to be the spiritual leaders of their homes and of the church. Eve was created as a helper, a support, a companion for Adam, and the role of woman has not wavered since then. Women are to take care of their husbands and children, to support the mission of the family and the church.
I don't really understand what there is to argue about in that, theologically speaking. Culturally speaking, women are definitely on the rise. Women are leading companies, are running for governmental office and are "wearing the pants" in marriages and family relationships. Men have stopped standing up for themselves and have so worried about upsetting their wives that they just get run over.
It says in Genesis that after the fall women would yearn for their husbands, and that meant their husbands' positions. It means that sin made women want to be in charge, and sin is so obvious in so many relationships. Women are supposed to be the helper, but they are not, when it comes down to it, in charge.
That sounds horrible. But really, it is a joy to not have the responsibility of the final decision. A man is responsible for his entire family and their decisions. If his wife or children mess up, ultimately it is on him. That is what would really stink, so I'm glad I'm a woman. I want my man to lead me and set an example and be the one to rely on. I don't want that job.
A friend mentioned that one thing she didn't like in the sermon was that our pastor said women, seen in the example of Eve, are more easily tempted and that's one reason that they are not supposed to be in charge. That sounds harsh, but I have to say, I also agree with that. It's one reason that I don't think we should have a woman president --- hormones.
When it is a certain time of the month, or pretty much all the time once Aunt Flow stops showing up, women have crazy hormonal reactions. Even when it's not the once-a-month hormones, women are just more emotional in general. It causes us to react to situations quickly and with heart, but those initial reactions are often not rational. When I react off-the-cuff, I often look back and realize I should have taken more time to rationally think something through. In general, men look at things with a more rational eye. So yes, I do think that women's emotional and hormonal reactions get them into trouble, and we are more inclined to fall into sin in that way. I can't argue with that.
I'm super curious to see what the second in this series includes. How many more women will be upset when the truth is preached? Yet again, we need to listen and think, not just react on how our emotions are hurt when hearing that we might not be as important as we think we are.