Molly has had her baby and will be skipping a week or two!

Chapters 13 and 14 are about the duty of a wife to "reverence" her husband.  This is based on Ephesians 5:33 " Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband".   Now as this book is about how we as women should act or react, she does not deal with the first part of the verse.

Mrs Pearl writes on page 137, "Reverence is not just how you act; it is how you feel and how you respond with words and with your body language." 

On Molly's blog we were discussing the difference between giving one's husband facts he may not know, or reminding him of something, in a deferential (or "reverential") way, as opposed to acting like he just doesn't have a clue.  Sometimes it seems like there is a fine line.  Molly hits it on the head and reiterates what Debi Pearl is trying to communicate here when she says if it is in this spirit :"I'd better help you since YOU obviously don't know what you're doing," then that is not what we're after.  Another commenter on that post, and an IRL friend of mine also were helpful to me by giving phrases that they have used or could imagine using sometime.  (I have a "phrase bank" in my head - I keep useful phrases there to help me know what to say, or to tweak as needed for various circumstances.)   

I have been so discouraged sometimes when watching women who do the opposite of reverence their husbands.  Telling jokes at the husband's expense (although sometimes that might be permissible - if very carefully done and with hubby's permission), especially if at all off-color or casting doubts on his intelligence or abilities, telling the husband publically he is talking too much, disagreeing in a negative, "I know better" way with him etc etc.   And I realize I am guilty of some of those listed or of others not listed.  I hope I am getting better as I have walked through the years of my marriage, and especially lately as I have been reading this book.   I think I have excused a few things or not counted them as important, and have started to see things from dh's perspective a little more, maybe.  I've been more aware about my need to change things.

This awareness struggles with the knowledge that sometimes I AM right, and dh is wrong, but the issue is my attitude and my respect, not whether dh is doing  or being or thinking whatever is really right.
Mrs Pearl spells out her definition of reverence on page 141  "The very heart of reverence is extreme appreciation and profound thankfulness that this man, just as he is, has chosen to love me, just as I am."

So in the last few years I have either avoided some situations or had a great deal of difficulty when up in places like mills or touristy places in Oxford.

Sal

Chapter 11 focusses on the differences between men and women, and why women are easily deceived.
I Timothy 2:13-14 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."   

Debi Pearl writes:  Satan knew that the man could not be deceived, but the woman could.  So, when she drew near to the tree, he convinced her that life would be better if she sought the higher state of being, "like the gods" - gaining spiritual insight into the nature of good and evil.  Eve was deceived in three ways:

1. She followed her flesh in desiring the tree for its food properties.
2. She succumbed to its beauty, desiring it for its pleasant appearance.  She did not follow logic; she followed her "sensibilities."
3. She wanted "deeper" spiritual insights than those provided by God.

The source of Eve's failure was her unwillingness to believe God and her husband.
p 107

I think the #3 reason certainly shows itself a lot in modern Christianity.  Not content with our role as women, or with God's word itself, many women seek all sorts of information and experiences that ultimately cause trouble. 

Mrs Pearl spends a lot of time contrasting the natures of men and women in this chapter.  I think she's mostly right, and although she talks a lot about the physical aspects of men and their desire to conquer things she includes inventions and science which are not burly muscle subject but which still demonstrate a type of conquering.  I know there are women in science - good ones too - but it is still a field dominated by men.

Later in the chapter she contrast Jezebel and her type to various examples of Godly women.  You can read about the Jezebel spirit at No Greater Joy.


Chapter 12
In this chapter Mrs Pearl concentrates on two simple ideas:
1.  God made men to rule.
2.  God made women to not rule.

There are plenty of Bible verses in this chapter.  I am not going to spend much time writing about this chapter but I do want to comment on a couple of verses and what Mrs Pearl says about them.

I Timothy 2:12 - But I suffer not [do not allow] a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, [that includes your pastor] but to be in silence.   (parenthetical statements and emphasis Debi Pearl's)

I Corinthians 14:34  "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience; as also saith the law."  Mrs Pearl points out that Paul is not responding merely to then-current Greek culture but is saying that this rule for women has been around for a long time.  

Mrs Pearl, through discussing a letter she had received in which the writer defended women preaching (because they could be used by God, and be good preachers), points out that it is exactly because women can be very good speakers and teachers that this command was given by God.   She points out that the issue is not one of qualification but of authorization.   

 That is such an important point and is so overlooked.  After all, if women were consistently miserable at preaching and leading, they wouldn't be tempted to do it so much.  I wonder if one of the reasons men are to be the speakers and leaders is because so many don't feel they have good verbal skills (for preaching) or leadership skills - and if women wouldn't jump in all the time, men could have a greater opportunity to develop those skills or let God  supernaturally gift them either permanently or for a certain circumstance.  But they won't ask God for help (and therefore won't receive it) if they are not in a position where they need to ask.  If women are always stepping in to fill the gaps (and we can be so quick to do so) many men who otherwise would become (perhaps slowly!) aware that they need to do something, simply sit back and become lethargic. 

Mrs Pearl discusses the cases of Deborah and Priscilla in this chapter.  I especially liked the "Time to Consider" section for this chapter (this part is at the end of every chapter).  There were several very practical things to do which will have spiritual repurcussions.





.

I'm thinking about elders, but also about teachers. 

James 3:1

1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

That one was from the NASB.

I'm going to be a bit vague here because I don't want to sound accusatory toward anyone.  We see clearly in I Timothy the requirements for an elder.   I wonder what ages the children mentioned in verse 4 are meant to be?  I see using a Bible help (Crosswalk.com, which provides Strongs numbers and definition) that the word is teknon.  It's the same word, I see, in Titus where Paul gives other instruction as to what sort of man should be an elder.  Titus 1:5-10  but I'll only copy out verse 6, which has the word teknon for children in it:

v6  namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.

It looks like from verse 10 that the part about rebellion refers to the man, not the children so we must not build too much on that.

But, we are at least talking about children who believe - who are of an age when they can believe so it is reasonable to assume that they are not real young.  I don't know enough to know if young men who were of bar mitzvah age were then no longer considered children. 

Am I assuming too much to think that teenagers would be included in the I Timothy and Titus passages?  Or are we limited to children of ages say, 3 - 13 only?  These are the ones who are to be in the prospective elder's control?  Do older children count or not?

I am wondering about all this when I think about some well-known teachers in the evangelical arena.

What kinds of requirements should they have to meet?  They are not necessarily functioning as elders in a local church and I have to say even the plain requirements for elders are not always adhered to in local churches, but do we have any requirements for the travelling teachers who suggest to us the best way to raise our children?  Or teachers of any part of our Christian life?



I attended a meeting on Monday night that was OK as far as it went.  But I just feel that we should be getting that kind of (very basic, to be honest) information from the pulpit as well as from the older members of our churches (Titus 2), and indeed we should be receiving even more specific and hopeful information than just love and show acceptance to your teens and just hang on because it will inevitably be a rough time. 

I know there will be hormonal moments and that the teen years are simply a continuation of the training we started with our children many years ago, so I don't expect perfection.  But I have from my own life, my husband's life. the testimony of many of my peers, and of some of the children of the older Christians that I know,the knowledge that teens do not always go off the rails.  When I see large families being raised and notice the teens are pleasant, decent, people growing in their faith in Christ - not without faults, and not without some difficult times, but definitely without the heartache so many parents face - and then turning into decent adult Christians and citizens of their communities I take notice.  And when one child out of 6 or 7 goes "wrong", it doesn't discourage me as much as when one child out of a family of two children is a tearaway.  So what are these families doing right?

I'm a little disheartened when evangelicals are still -for over 20 years now - are being told - that there just isn't much one can do, and when a whole audience - who I know are not necessarily all Christians (and therefore I admit won't have or even know of God's standards) , are told that they have done the best they could do, so shouldn't  feel that their unruly,difficult youths are their fault. 

Have we all really done the best we could?  I know that I have certainly failed - and this in the context of very actively trying to live according to God's instructions in every aspect of my life as each area is revealed to me in Scripture (it's a journey!).  So those parents who chose material goods over raising their children themselves and stuck their children in daycare (NB I am not including here those parents who truly had to do so, just to make sure there was a roof over their heads and simple food on the table.), and before and after school care and let their older children roam in malls or city centers,  basically being raised by the TV, computer and peers (of course not approved by the parents, if the parents even met them), these parents have no reason to regret anything?   Is there no room for improvement for any of us?

I repeat that the suggestions were good as far as they went.  Love your children.  Show your acceptance of them (different than love according to the speaker).  Have fun and laugh with them.  A few good more nitty-gritty suggestions like keeping the computer in a high-traffic or visible area, not separate internet access computers in children's rooms.  But I am saddened when these blanket, fairly basic things are all some Christian parents encounter by way of teaching.  And no hope is given for expecting happy, pleasant, Christian teenagers at all.  (if you get one then you were just lucky to get a compliant child is the feeling)
I agree with Mary Pride here (back to her again!) - if I remember correctly - that the best way to catch fish is to go to the person with fish on his line - not to the one who has fancy gizmos and great theories.   With many other homeschoolers, and even many parents who don't homeschool but believe they have the responsibility and power to affect their children for good, I agree that one of the best ways to learn about Godly child raising - including teens - is to look at those families who have grown children who exemplify what you want to see in your own children.  That and the Bible.  Sounds simple enough.   And I see the results - not 100% perfect, but still very good - in those who dare try.


Please leave a comment!  I'd like to hear from you!

One thing that spoke quite strongly to me was the thought that the children would cope with the moderate level of ungodliness that one family was experiencing via the TV, but that they would not cope well with an unstable marriage.  Mrs Pearl points out again that Adam did not need a conscience when God made a helper for him - he already had one. 

I like this paragraph:

"I am not suggesting that you should have lower standards.  In fact, your husband obviously should have higher standards, but your nagging and criticism have the opposite effect of producing righteousness.  Ideally, if you could hold your standards, hold your tongue, and hold your man, in time you might be able to put forth an appeal to him that does not offend."  p67

I find for myself I need to be careful of the Christian material I read or listen to.  There are a lot of good teachers out there, and good materials, but I find that some of them, or at least reading or listening too much to them, can cause me to become discontent with how things are in our family. I have realized - although I do not perfectly live it out - that allowing God to work in David and our family, and allowing David to be the head, means that I need to not be so influenced by what other men say a family should be (although nothing is wrong with high standards and learning how others do things) and should learn to be content, and be a happy wife and mother in the circumstances I find myself.  I'm not trying to say anything critical of my own husband here.  But many of you will recognize how we women can get caught up by the messages of "visionaries" (more to come on that) and fail to appreciate the good things we do have while we focus on all the seeming "lacks" in our family life.



Chapter 8

You can read all or most (I haven't compared) of chapter 8 here.

Mrs Pearl and her daughter worked on this chapter together.  They feel that there are 3 main types of men.  Here commenceth all the "I don't believe in labelling people" etc etc.  Well, I agree it's not good to put people in boxes and keep them there, but if descriptions of types of people are helpful in living our lives, then we can use them.  What we should not do it use them to hurt others or to indicate that they automatically have bad habits or attributes or that they cannot change.    I find it handy to have church names - even denominational ones - when I am thinking of visiting a church.  I know that certain denominations do not reflect what I believe to be the truth, so I avoid them.  I realize that not every Baptist is going to be a sweet, on-fire-for-the-Lord Christian, but I know that the general beliefs of typical Baptist churches (if holding to the statements of the denominations) are mostly compatible with our beliefs so I won't be too worried about bringing my children along when we visit one.   So labels although not 100% accurate are helpful to some degree.  (My rant about churches which refuse to label themselves will be reserved for another day.)

Uh... back to the subject at hand.  If you can read this blog then there is no real reason except for time to not read the original chapter, so please do so if you have time.

Briefly, Mrs Pearl and Mrs Anast divide men up into three categories - Mr Command, Mr Visionary, and Mr Steady.   They say that the perfect man would be a perfect balance of all these types, and that each type expresses one of the three sides of God's nature.  I'm not sure how theologically sound that is - I'm not saying it's not, but I'm not saying it is either.  It's not too far off, and I do understand how each of these types would express one aspect of God, but I don't know that God only has three sides to His nature.  I think of the Trinity as being more than a "side" of God and can't really picture these types of men as being reflections of each of the members of the Trinity. 

However, as descriptions of men, they are fairly useful and I think it is possible to slot different men that I know, into one of the categories.  Brother X is a Mr Visionary, Y's husband is definitely a Mr Command Man, that brother over there seems to be a Mr Steady.  And my own husband is... maybe I'll reveal that later. 

The authors say that most men are combinations of the three types but usuallly are stronger in one.  That is probably true for most men. 

I asked David to read this chapter, to get his opinion of it.   Briefly, his view is that like all other categorizations, it is useful as far as it goes.  It can be helpful to understand the tendencies and mindsets of different types of people.  He felt it might have been more helpful if each section had been divided into the "good" points and the "bad" points of each character.   I agree with this. 

Some who have had strong negative reactions to this book, or at least this chapter (and I feel many take issue with the whole book after only reading this one chapter, perhaps also already having a negative opinion of the Pearls), seem to focus comments on the negative aspects of Mr Command Man, stating that the authors are saying these are some of God's attributes too.  I feel that if the characteristics of each type could have been put into sections, saying, here are the positives, or how a godly man puts his attributes into action, and over here are the negatives, or how the attributes can be used in a fleshly manner, it may have been a bit clearer to people that the authors are not saying that these negative things are not aspects of God's nature.

Now, to leave the issues of style and go on to how this chapter affects people, I'm finding that many women - especially those married to "Mr Steadys" - are finding this chapter very helpful in increasing their understanding and appreciation of their husbands.  I look at the types of men, and think of men I know who exemplify them, and at the wives who have adjusted well to them, and can see the wisdom of much of what this chapter teaches.  It's definitely worth some thoughtful reading and reflection.

I'll jump back to my own husband.  We feel he is a Mr Steady - with a little Mr Visionary (the science part).  You can see how someone who is a typical geeky scientist type (said in all affection)  could be that way.  Where the types fall down here is that my dh does not enjoy small talk at all, nor is he a "people person" (like a Mr Steady supposedly does and is) although he does not dislike people.  With the right sort of person he enjoys conversation.  Many scientists would be the same so I wonder if there is a large subset of the Steady/Visionary mix.    However we do know some scientists who are more of the "Mr Command Man" type, again with the Visionary mixed in.  Funnily, although they are not "supposed" to like casual chat, they do!

So, like all generalizations, they are useful for a broad-brush picture, and helpful in understanding a little more people not like oneself.   DH and I also think that the "four temperaments" categorizations are helpful to a degree - if you are familiar with those you might have fun trying to compare them to the 3 types of men presented in this chapter.  Perhaps there are other ways to look at people.  

I found the chapter interesting, and fairly helpful and that it promoted more appreciation for my spouse.  Like with all teaching, I tend to eat the sweet bits, and spit out the seeds  -because any fruit made by humans is probably going to have some!!

PS - I wrote this off and on throughout the day - I don't want anyone thinking I was glued to the computer the whole time!!!