For My New Visitors
This message is for the new visitors who have discovered my site because of the little comment I made about my views on voting, which turned into a bigger deal than I intended with what I considered “filler.” Little did I know that my biding-my-time-till-the-thermometer-drops post would heat things up so much.
As my husband frequently reminds me, posting something on your website is like writing it on the wall in a public bathroom: you never know who is reading. I keep that at the back of my mind when I write, and it tempers what I say here—I don’t share my social security number with the general public…you’ll have to get in touch with the Dept. of Homeland Security for all my vital statistics. But I also believe that even though I don’t agree with general women’s suffrage, I still have the right to speak my mind on my own website. Ironically, those who consider themselves promoters of freedom and toleration don’t like for me to express my opinions, and some even make shocking suggestions about what ought to be done to those who hold similar views. It appears that the Proud Pagans and Free-Thinking Feminists can only tolerate those who agree with them.
I’ve actually been amused by the sputterings of those who have discovered the Prairie Muffin Manifesto through links to the previous post. Those who accuse me of limiting women and having a limited intellect display their own intellectual limitations and uniformity of thought with their limited vocabulary and lack of erudition. Gutter vocabularly heard on elementary school playgrounds abounds in the comments I’ve read. Most of the indignant appear to know only a small number of metaphors, mostly involving the words “fundamentalism” and “Taliban.”
This may confuse my new visitors, but many who consider themselves “fundamentalists” would probably not like much of what I say here as I am a reformed Christian who believes in engaging the culture, not retreating from it. And I might point out that the demeaning references to Moslem culture are quite inconsistent with your views that all cultures are created equal and that President Bush is giving the Middle East a raw deal with his imperialistic war in Iraq. By the way, I agree with most of you about the war, but probably not for the same reasons.
Are we dizzy yet? Let me further complicate the discussion. I am very glad that the Senate did not pass the flag protection amendment today. I am glad to live in America, I love my country, but I reject nationalism because my allegiance is to God. I have mixed feelings about the flag and how it should be viewed, and my family does not pledge allegiance to it. My son wrote an excellent essay explaining why amending the Constitution to ban flag desecration is a mistake (a longer essay he wrote about the history of the Flag Protection Act of 1989 was linked at West Point’s website!) For good measure, here’s another essay discussing why American flags don’t belong in the church.
The point of this post is not just to point out that your intolerance is inconsistent and narrowminded, but it is to point out the reasons I write what I write. I know that I sound kooky to you—I often sound kooky to some of the Christians who visit here. But if I say something controversial or “archaic,” it’s not to get attention, and it’s certainly not to please whomever might be reading. The only One I’m required to please is the God Who created me. My husband agrees with that last statement, by the way, despite being such an overweening patriarch.
I will wrap this up with a reminder that not only did God create me, He created you, too, and you are also required to please and obey Him. I know you don’t agree with this, and you don’t like for me to say it, but, as my husband also likes to say, whether or not you believe something is true has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is true. So if you have stayed with me this far, read just a little more, please.
You have been quite insulting to me on your websites, but what I want is not to pick a fight with you—I want to tell you the truth so that you can have the opportunity to be free of the bitterness and anger with which you seem to be filled. I have experienced some major trials in my life, but despite that and my oppression of being saddled with this passel of children and stuck in a rut at home (*big-time sarcasm here, good-natured, of course*), I am full of inexpressible joy and contentment. This contentment is not due to my accomplishments (and yes, I have a few), nor because of my circumstances (though I am blessed in those circumstances), but because I belong to my faithful Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
If you are not content, if you are angry and unhappy, then I encourage you to go to this site and start reading about the rich life you can have when you belong to Jesus Christ. You may find your pre-conceived notions about “fundies” challenged by some of the challenging content on this website, as it has writings from some very erudite Christians, explaining the gospel of Christ, a message which is simple enough for a child to apprehend, yet so profound that the best minds and hearts in the world have only scratched the surface in an attempt to discuss and understand it. It is life-changing and world-changing. I hope it changes your life and your world.
…and Heaven have mercy on us all—Presbyterians and Pagans alike—for we are all dreadfully cracked about the head and desperately in need of mending. ~Moby Dick by Herman Melville
June 28th, 2006 at 3:03 am
Er. To clear something up – you can feel free to think whatever you like and I am free to disagree with you vehemently about the issue of voting and religion. As an agnostic and a liberal, I am confident in saying that we are all free to believe whatever we want…so long as those beliefs to do not infringe on the rights of others.
So while you are free to believe in your god and free to interpret the Bible as you see fit, it’s really quite arrogant of you to presume that your interpretation is one size fits all with regard to voting rights. I’m just glad that the vast majority of Christians in this country, as well as the over 25% of non-Christians in the American population, do not subscribe to your theories.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:53 am
Great response! I’ve always wondered why it is that tolerance only extends to any blasphemous thing a person wants to say but not to those who would point out its blasphemy.
Warmly,
Tonya
June 28th, 2006 at 5:56 am
Does anyone else find it ironic that the dissenting poster quoted Luther?
June 28th, 2006 at 6:33 am
Disagreeing with someone’s opinion(s) is NOT indicative of intolerance or an attempt to limit free speech. No one is telling you that you cannot have your opinion(s); rather, people are disagreeing with you and voicing their own opinions. Nowhere has anyone said that you don’t have the right to express your personal beliefs. Voicing a dissenting opinion is not intolerance.
I’m a liberal, feminist, childfree atheist–I probably couldn’t be more of a polar opposite to you and your readers if I tried. It reasonably follows that I will most likely disagree with almost all of your beliefs and many of your opinions. That is my right as a separate human being. Furthermore, I am free to express this disagreement, which is my right as an American citizen.
Despite this, I would never dream of telling you that you cannot believe something, or that you cannot express that belief. I would hope that you and your readers would extend the same courtesy to those who believe differently from you.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:44 am
Hmm, Nickey…does anyone find it odd that dissenting poster’s comments are DELETED?
And, as an English teacher who teaches Advanced American Literature, I feel qualified to make these few comments:
1) As I often tell my students, you don’t need to use “big” words to prove to me that you have a brain. You just need to be able to use your brain. So, I’m sorry if this comment isn’t polysyllabic enough, but I have an outstanding vocabulary–I just realize that perhaps not everyone who is reading this has the same extensive vocab as I do, and I don’t feel the need to be sending them running for their dictionaries every other word. I happen to be QUITE erudite, thank you very much.
2) The Founding Fathers were deists. I teach Franklin and Jefferson every year, as well as the concept of Rationalism–in relation to the writings of these men, and many other early Americans. There was never any intent for religion to be a part of governing this country. As a matter of fact, you may recall, that is why the Puritans left England–for the freedom to worship as they chose.
3) Not everyone in America is a Christian. As a matter of fact, research indicates that about a quarter of the population is not. Therefore, your Christian-based ideas would be discriminatory and (probably) offensive to 25% of Americans. I think THAT might be part of what the dissenters are trying to get across.
4) And, as a strong, independent woman in my 30’s, I mean this with no disrespect, but, I have to say that your innocuous comment in the previous “controversial” post about repealing women’s suffrage immediately brought to mind Shirley Jackson’s short story, “The Lottery.” And, if you’ve ever read the story, well, you understand the point being made, both by Jackson, and by me. (See, I am well-read, too. And I made a metaphorical reference that doesn’t involve the Taliban. Yay me!)
That’s really all I wanted to comment. Suffice it to say that I shan’t be coming back here again to bother you. I just wanted to offer my perspective on the matter.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:00 am
Dear Pdawg,
My comments are moderated, and I have not deleted any so far, though I will do so if anyone is nasty, whether they agree with me or not. The Dissenter posted the Luther remark on the previous post.
And it was me, not Nickey, who noted the low level of discourse on the angry blogs. Since you presumably come from one of those blogs, I’m sure you have read it for yourself.
Franklin and Jefferson may have been Deists (though both said some very Christian things which do not sound like they come from a Deist perspective), but most of the founding fathers were Christians, who would never conceive that their faith would not affect their governance. And when the Puritans left England they did so to be able to worship the Christian God freely, but they also believed that civil government should not exist apart from God’s law, but they based their society and law upon it. The first governmental document written by them in the New World, the Mayflower Compact, indicates this:
June 28th, 2006 at 7:05 am
But Whittier, calling someone nasty names and making rude suggestions about their personal life indicates intolerance, don’t you think? Just ask anyone who has been accused of a hate crime or lost their job because they expressed an opinion that was not PC.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:26 am
But Whittier, calling someone nasty names and making rude suggestions about their personal life indicates intolerance, don’t you think? Just ask anyone who has been accused of a hate crime or lost their job because they expressed an opinion that was not PC.
First of all, it’s Whitters.
As for your question about whether or not “calling someone nasty names,” etc., is considered intolerance, I would say that it depends on the forum. Certainly calling someone a “nasty name” or “making rude suggestions” is not acceptable in the workplace, as it should be to promote a healthy work environment for what is often a very diverse group of people. People who create an antagonistic work environment should be reprimanded and, if necessary, relieved of their jobs.
However, the Internet (and life in general) is a public forum with no real set rules of decorum in this regard. Here, the subject of name-calling, etc., is less clear. Maybe it indicates deep-seated intolerance; maybe it’s simply a reaction to one particular instance. I would not paint all of this name-calling with the brush of intolerance. After all, you yourself would be considered quite intolerant if that was the case.
Also, I would like to point out that there’s a difference between a hate crime and “calling someone nasty names.” A hate crime is a crime perpetuated against someone based solely on race, religion, sexual orientations, etc. Name-calling is not a crime.**
**Even though there is a difference between racially- or sexually-charge “name calling” based on something over which the person has no control (e.g., using the “N” word for black people, or the “F” word for homosexuals) and name-calling based on a person’s actions.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Dear Whitters (please forgive my previous misspelling…I had only drunk half my morning cup of coffee as I was typing),
So who decides what is acceptable in the workplace and what promotes a healthy work environment? On what basis or standard do you determine what forum is appropriate for using nasty names and making rude suggestions? My point was to point out inconsistencies in the logic of those who insist on Tolerance (and that starts with “T” and that rhymes with “P”…) yet scream about the opinions expressed on a personal website by those who don’t agree with them. I do not claim to be tolerant at all…I am quite the exclusivist and I admit it, starting with the claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven as He Himself said in John 14:6: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by Me.”
For the record, I believe that anyone who commits a crime or violence against another person ought to be properly prosecuted. I do not believe that there ought to be special punishments because of “hateful” motivations. There are actually places now where people are encouraged to report name-calling to local authorities as it may be a precursor to a “hate crime.” It is liberals who promote tolerance who typically encourage this type of reporting, though they accuse Christians of wanting to impose draconian laws and restrictions upon them.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Dear Carmon,
I have been reading your blog for a while now and just thought I would let you know that I enjoy reading what you have to say.
I like the fact that you write about your thoughts and beliefs concerning different issues.
I will keep reading and enjoying (I usually sit reading blogs in the morning while my 2 month old daughter nurses).
June 28th, 2006 at 9:11 am
So who decides what is acceptable in the workplace and what promotes a healthy work environment?
The person/people/conglomerate responsible for the workplace typically decides what is acceptable, as is their right, seeing as how they own/manage/etc. the workplace.
As for what promotes a healthy work environment…really, this isn’t that elusive of a concept. In most workplaces, there will be a diverse group of people–people from different generations, races, genders, sexual orientations, religions, cultures, political views, etc. Therefore, a healthy work environment is one that strives not to alienate or offend a particular generation/race/gender/etc. Racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic language is generally prohibited or heavily discouraged. Political and/or religious discourse is similarly heavily discouraged, as political and religious beliefs are very personal, and it’s difficult for people to discuss them without getting defensive,
On what basis or standard do you determine what forum is appropriate for using nasty names and making rude suggestions?
Well, for one thing, no one came to your website specifically to call you anything nasty; these people were expressing their own views on a forum quite separate from yours. For another, I never said that any forum was “appropriate” for this behavior; that is simply you twisting my words. My exact words on the matter were as follows:
My point was to point out inconsistencies in the logic of those who insist on Tolerance . . . yet scream about the opinions expressed on a personal website by those who don’t agree with them
Again, disagreeing with someone is not intolerance. No one is trying to impose his/her views on you. People are simply disagreeing with you. There is no inconsistency here.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Carmon, this is why I wrote in the last post that I didn’t want to engage “across the gulf” because the arguments end up repeating themselves. Variations of this argument will be see here today, on thousands of blogs across the country every day, and will continue, as they have since our country’s founding, in the body politic for a long time to come. The gulf is so great that we reduce the other side to easily understandable models (Fundamentalist Taliban! Pagan Feminist!), and then tell ourselves the same stories about them over and over. We argue past each other instead of with each other.
Since the discussion has moved to hate crimes (somehow), here’s another specific question. I believe the rationale behind “hate crimes” is not to punish because there were “hateful motivations” (after all, there are hateful or differing motivations in all kinds of crimes), but because crimes motivated by a hatred of certain groups have a particularly negative impact on society that goes beyond the actual incident. The New York State Legislature put it this way:
“Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity.”
In other words, a murder for an individual reason (let’s go Hollywood here … spousal murder to collect insurance) doesn’t have the same effect on a distinct group that another type of murder–say a lynching or a gay bashing incident–will. Why is it wrong to consider the intent (i.e. not just beating an individual, but doing it to “send a message to all the [insert group here]) and the disruption to society in general when applying these laws?
Regards, “the Dissenter” (I love that I got tagged with that …)
June 28th, 2006 at 9:27 am
I knew that post was going to stir things up-I laughed when I saw it!
I agree about the covenental head leading the family in voting, but as long as the feminists are voting, I will too, otherwise my husband only gets a 1/2 vote. But like you said, we always vote the same.
The Flag bill seemed like just a way for the government to look like it was doing something “Pro-America” for it’s conservative base. I don’t see how it would have made any difference because it would be quite easy to alter a flag or make something altered and then claim it was not a true American flag, and the sentiment would have been the same. Hardly something worth amending the Constitution for. And I completely agree about the flags in church!
Just wanted to leave a friendly comment-you’ll be getting enough of the others, I’m sure!
June 28th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Carmon, As always, thank you for standing for Truth. I very much enjoy learning from you as I observe your thoughtful commentary to naysayers.
Another intolerant-when-it-comes-to-Biblical-truths Lover of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ living a rich and blessed and joyful life as a wife and mother, Crystal
June 28th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Dissenter is certainly correct about arguing past each other! Let me make something clear: I am not saying that any “dissenters” don’t have a right to write what they like about me on their blogs, nor does it bother me that they don’t agree with me. Because I noticed quite a lot of links to my tag post, and I read some of the vitriolic remarks, I wanted to address those whom I knew would visit this website, pointing out the disparity between their promotion of Tolerance and their response to those who don’t have the same worldview. I also wanted to point out that my goal is not to promote my personal opinions. Though the idea of tying voting rights to property is an opinion with which I understand friend and foe may take issue, I also believe that a case can be made that the pure democracy which usually results from universal suffrage leads to the unbiblical practice of the state being the de facto owner of all property and universal theft is the result, to the detriment of all.
But that and the discussion of hate crimes are rabbit trails. My main concern is that Christians bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, whether talking about voting practices or women’s roles. We can have discussions on all these things with the goal being to bring glory to God and to live according to His unchanging and merciful standards. Those who base their standards on prevailing public opinion or changing societal practice will find that the freedom they thought they were promoting is a prison of their own making as mob rule always degenerates into a tyranny of selfishness. The French Revolution is a real-life cautionary tale as far as this is concerned.
The only answer is to have an unchanging standard based on immutable truth. The only place you will find that is in the tender mercies of our Creator God. If you are here from a website that has been mocking my remarks, I hope you will look past my stumbling attempts to explain my political views, and instead read the from the last link I gave in this post for words which are much wiser than mine, pointing you to the source of Life and Truth.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
I hope that I have not offended you here on your own weblog, as that was not my intent. I simply wanted to engage in discourse, despite our differences of opinion. No one wants to be misunderstood.
Just as you find “inconsistency in logic” with those of us who have voiced our disagreement with your opinions, I find this statement of yours to be an inconsistency in logic. You state, almost proudly, that you are not tolerant at all, based in no small part on your Christian faith. However, Jesus was one of the most tolerant people who ever lived. If one of the objectives of Christianity is to make oneself as Christlike as humanly possible, then why would you (seemingly) blatantly deny what was perhaps Jesus’ largest lesson?
June 28th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Hi, Whitters…if you read my quote from our Lord in John 14:6, you will see that He made some very exclusive claims. I think that you need to define what you mean by “tolerant,” as we are probably using the terms differently. Jesus did not tolerate sin, He did not tolerate hypocrisy, He did not tolerate universalism, He did not tolerate placing man-made standards and relationships above God’s standards and a relationship with Him.
His largest lesson was that it’s all about Him and not about us…we need a Savior because we are sinful creatures who deserve damnation without His grace.
You are right that no one wants to be misunderstood. I gave up the right to be understood many years ago (though I still have to pry my fingers off that right, occasionally), which is one reason why I am still so happily married after 25 years.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
tou·ché ( P ) Pronunciation Key (t-sh)
interj.
Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
I found your blog because I was looking for a Christian website. After a couple of years of reading blogs, I have found that people can be very, very nasty to each other. Pardon me for saying especially women! My personal standard is if I don’t like it “change the channel” so to speak. Why must we tear each other up for simply expressing our opinions? The only reason that I can think of for an athiest to read a Christian blog is to load themselves with ammunition for the next round of arguements. If we bother you that much “change the channel”. Play nice kids!!!
Debbie
June 28th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
I’m not sure I understand the correlation here. Are you saying that your husband doesn’t understand you?
We probably are using the term “tolerant” in different ways. I see tolerance as it is defined here, including the following:
permissiveness: a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior
willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others
Given that definition, I cannot personally see how one could claim that Jesus was anything but tolerant.
Furthermore, from my own personal definition, I see tolerance as also encompassing the acceptance of diversity, a disinclination towards prejudice, and the allowance of freedom of religion. Again, I don’t see Jesus’ lessons and actions as displaying anything but tolerance.
Of course Jesus had “exclusivity” when it came to religious dogma; after all, that is a large cornerstone of religion, that X should be done, whereas Y should not. I don’t know of any religion that doesn’t exhibit some form of this exclusivity. Believing in this religious dogma is not the same as exhibiting personal tolerance towards others.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Why do you not say the Pledge of Allegiance? I am very curious.We used to atttend a PCA Presbyrerian church that was near 2 Air Force Bases.Since most of the memebers were someway connected to the military a flag was in this church.The pledge was also recited every so often and believe it or not they actually recited a pleadge to the Christian flag during Vacation Bible School.The military was very supported from this church -very different from your beliefs.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Q. How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. That’s not funny
It was a joke, Whitters. As in the Mars-Venus conundrum, whiny females longing to be understood and macho males who don’t understand them. We are all about stereotypes here, right?
You are making a false dichotomy between Jesus’s “religious dogma” and His so-called personal tolerance towards others. He claimed that ALL authority in heaven and on earth had been given Him (not just the “religious” parts). He repeatedly called people to repent, warning that they would be cast into hell if they did not. He was not very tolerant when He threw the money changers out of the temple, when He rebuked the impenitent cities (”It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.” ~Matthew 11:24); when He declared “He who is not with Me is against Me”; when He called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers”; when He admonished His disciples to take up their cross and follow Him because if they tried to gain the world they would lose their soul; when he spoke to the woman at the well and chided her for living in sin. Jesus was very intolerant of sin, but He also showed great compassion for those who would repent of their sin. Without repentance, there is judgment instead. That is true love because it shows the sinner the truth about his sin as well as the way of salvation from it. Toleration of sin is hateful because it gives the sinner no hope. And I’m not joking about that.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Tammy, this article from the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) explains why. Did you read the article by Timothy Terrell?
June 28th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
I am another lurker who comes from a completely different world than the one in which you reside, to put it mildly, but that is why I find this blog so interesting, and have learned a lot over the years reading it. It’s helpful too, in completely unrelated fora where arguments have boiled down to the “left vs. right” stereotypes, to have some knowledge of various other groups and systems, to be able to say “it’s just not that simple…! There are even people over here, and they ask some good questions…!” Being able to immerse myself in so many other views is one of the things I appreciate most about the internet.
My main question is why in the past few days the comments section (any individual post, with comments following) has gotten so wide, in the literal sense? The main page is fine. Is it the form? I didn’t see any absolute large widths in a quick glance. Perhaps it’s my own problem.
Somewhat on topic – I agree the flag amendment was a piece of red meat for a certain segment of voters, and I too am happy to see it not pass. I’ve long wondered, however, when it became standard practice to print flags on everything known to man? I recall people in the “honor the flag” camp a few decades back not approving of the flag being on t-shirts, much less pants or printed on paper that would end up thrown away. I didn’t (and don’t) subscribe to that view myself, but the change is interesting.
Back to reading…
June 28th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Some of this is rather unpleasant to read, but I do enjoy what you say. I thought we were the only
Christians outside of the Anabaptists who objected to pledging our allegiance to a country.
Our allegiance belongs to only One, although for Him, we will try to be lights wherever we are placed.
Jennifer
June 28th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Jennifer, we will have to talk more next time you come for a visit. And folks, the Pepitos are some of those Christians who are putting shoe leather on caring for folks who are suffering, by meeting their physical as well as spiritual needs. Our little church helps support them in this work.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Carmon, you are handling the “tolerance” issue well. Keep it up! And I agree on the voting issue. Can you imagine, that men and women actually survived through life in such *sarcasm* oppressive society back in those days?
I had a nice time visiting with the folks from RHC this evening–SRL sent me over to read your latest post. Sorry I didn’t make up your way.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Wow! You sound like an intensely interesting person. Unique as well…which is sad that thinking people are unique in our society. I’m not sure what this is all about since I just found your blog, but I’m sure I’m going to have an enjoyable time reading the history behind this post. BTW, I’m with you husband and say the same thing…just because you believe something to be true doesn’t make it true.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Carmon,
Isn’t humility one of your core Christian values?
I am a Christian too, so no, this critique isn’t being made because I’m an atheist, pagan, feminist etc.
I have been reading your blog for a while and am actually surprised at the extent to which you’re comfortable with ‘blowing your own horn’.
Many of your entries suggest or imply that you consider yourself and members of your family as being far more well-read, intelligent and penetrating than those poor souls who have collge degrees or have attended other formal institutions of education. You have actually claimed – or at least implied – that the knowledge and and skills that you and your family members possess are superior to Ivy League standards, superior to those of tertiary-level professors. You seem to look down on anyone who wasn’t educated in the same way that you are chosing to educate your children, and to consider yourself as vastly superior to such people.
Sorry to say this, but to me, your attitude reeks of pride. Ever heard of the verse that suggests that another man should praise you (instead of you praising yourself)?
You also seem to be not just harsh in your critiques of those who dsagree with you but have no problem resorting to godly practices such as sarcasm and other belittling tactics. Perhaps you should take your own advice to speak kindly, even to those who disagree with you.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Hi, Irene.
This is a very old post so your comment and mine may just be seen by the two of us. You are right that I value humility, and I admit that I sometimes give in to the tendency to be sarcastic if I am riled about something. I don’t think sarcasm is always wrong, and for certain instances, when there is blatant God-defying activity, it is permissible. In the Bible there are some notable instances where sarcasm was used to mock paganism and hypocrisy (see I Kings 18:27, where Elijah taunts the priest of Baal, some versions rendering his words as suggesting that their non-existent god is sitting on the toilet).
However, my intent is not to taunt, but to teach, not to inspire anger, but to persuade. I’m sure I fail miserably quite often, but I pray that if I speak the truth, God will be able to use me in spite of my weaknesses. I know I’m full of pride and I am often needing to repent of it. To mention my lack of higher education, however, is intended to encourage other homeschooling mothers and daughters that though the world worships knowledge, bricks and mortar institutions are not required for one to have an education and certainly not necessary for obtaining wisdom. I think it’s safe to say that my opinion on this is a minority view and that I am looked down upon by many for my lack of so-called learning. I do confess to being unaware of “blowing” my own horn…perhaps you could let me know if there is some particular instance of this, though discussing books, talking about what I have been up to, and bringing up controversial issues does seem to fall under the rubric of fair blog fodder, and if that is what you mean by your comment, then I’m not sure that particular criticism is warranted. As for thinking I’m superior to those with college degrees, well, I do not think I am superior to anyone, and I am sure there are many degreed people who are much smarter than I, particularly in their fields of learning. There are probably some who would not score as high on an I.Q. test as I would. But in the greater scheme of things that is not the issue. Whether or not one has a degree is not the measure of their value or intellect or usefulness in God’s kingdom, is it? And that is a message I often try to convey, however ineptly.
Thank you for your criticisms.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Hi Carmon,
Thank you for replying to what I wrote. Yes, it is an old post and I wrote to you on the spur of the moment so I only came back to it this afternoon – and was surprised to see that my comment was published(I didn’t think you’d bother with such an old link)!
And thank you for a gracious response. I’d like to reply to everything you wrote but a four-month baby (my first)keeps me VERY busy, so I’m going to reply bit by bit. Hope you’ll continue to read, regardless of whether or not you publish.
I’m also going to use capitals for emphasis: I know this is sometimes regarded as the electronic equivalent of screaming; I am NOT screaming at you – I am merely new to my husband’s laptop and have as yet to figure out how to put things in italics etc.
You wrote:
Whether or not one has a degree is not the measure of their value or intellect or usefulness in God’s kingdom, is it?
No, Carmon, it certainly isn’t and I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED IT IS.
However, in many circles, the ABSENCE of a university qualification is seen as evidence of superior femininity and wholehearted acceptance of God’s standards of Biblical womanhood.
The PRESENCE of university qualifications causes some Christians to suspect that the woman in question is an undercover feminist. University-educated women are suspected of being lukewarm in their commitment to God and as having compromised with regard to the Biblical standards of womanhood. Perhaps I should emphasize that these criticisms are made ONLY on the basis of the pursuit of a higher education, not on the basis of the presence of particular instances of ungodly speech or behaviour.
This kind of criticism has been directed to me on NUMEROUS OCCASSIONS, and I consider it neither fair nor justifiable from a Biblical viewpoint. Nowhere in the Bible are women forbidden to study, even at ‘brick and mortar’ institutes. I think that to make assumptions about a women’s commitment and character based only on her level of education (i.e. to assume that women without university edcation are godlier than those who have, as well as the opposite view)is evidence of unloving behaviour. Love believes the best the best of people, unless faced with undisputable evidence to the contrary.
I understand that we ARE to exercise judgement towards others who claim to be believers, in terms of keeping each other accountable for our behaviour, exhorting each other to do what is right and so on. So, no, I’m not saying that
I have often felt mistreated by other Christians MERELY because they judged me – but because they judged me on the basis of their own rules, and not Scripture.
We all now what the Bible commands us to do, but let us not elevate our OWN ideas as to how best apply these commands to the level of actual Scriptural commands. God’s Word is perfect and complete, let us not be guilty of adding to it in ANY form.