"I've Got Potential"
Captain Sensible writes: This posting was initially motivated by pure self-indulgence, I admit it! I happen to really like the song "Somebody told me" by The Killers, and there are some great lyrics in it. ("Breaking my back just to know your name"! Oh what a different situation the amazing Christian women in the church experience!)
But it was really this line that made a mixture of anger and compassion rise up in me:
"I've got potential/Rushing a-rushing around."
My heart bleeds for all the young men in the world, each of whom has "got potential" and oh, how we need them!
Yet we, as "the church", are not bothering to reach out to them, preferring instead to let the women in the church put on yet another course or prayer ministry for women, and organise after-school and holiday clubs for children.
How is another face painting day going to help anyone come to know the Lord, I wonder?
These children in the world need Christian fathers, not face painting!
All that potential from both married and single men in the world, going to waste!
All those children, given face painting instead of Godly instruction in the home, from their father!
It's a crying shame, isn't it?
Somebody told me by The Killers
(Look out for a very funny little interview clip in the middle of this video from The Brits -- a music award ceremony!)
But it was really this line that made a mixture of anger and compassion rise up in me:
"I've got potential/Rushing a-rushing around."
My heart bleeds for all the young men in the world, each of whom has "got potential" and oh, how we need them!
Yet we, as "the church", are not bothering to reach out to them, preferring instead to let the women in the church put on yet another course or prayer ministry for women, and organise after-school and holiday clubs for children.
How is another face painting day going to help anyone come to know the Lord, I wonder?
These children in the world need Christian fathers, not face painting!
All that potential from both married and single men in the world, going to waste!
All those children, given face painting instead of Godly instruction in the home, from their father!
It's a crying shame, isn't it?
Somebody told me by The Killers
(Look out for a very funny little interview clip in the middle of this video from The Brits -- a music award ceremony!)
posted by Captain Sensible at 4:24 AM
17 Comments:
"Somebody told me" (no, actually, I read it in the paper!) that the lead singer and writer of this song, Brandon Flowers, is a practising Mormon, who speaks openly about his belief in God (although if he is Mormon, I don't think he is a Christian as we would know one?). He got married recently (in his mid-20s) and now is desperate to have a baby, it said.
I think the Mormon church actually encourages its singles to marry and have children! Imagine that!
Because the Mormons actually encourage childbirth, their numbers are actually increasing in greater proportion than evangelical Christians. Imagine what would happen if more ministers spent time encouraging families to bring more babies into this world, by preaching the true meaning of "Be fruitful and multiply." Instead, there is always a hard sell on missions work, as if it were the only means to kingdom expansion.
Captain, I have a thought on the reluctance of ministers to focus on outreach to young men versus pouring everything into children and women's ministries. I think you are right that they are choosing things that are easier to accomplish. But in a sense, is not the Church acting much like the welfare State? Meaning, government increase often comes at the expense of dismantling the responsibilities of men. The government creates abortion on demand, and men are informed that they need not go through with a shot-gun wedding. We tell unwed moms that the welfare state will provide for their illegitimate seed and men don't have to step up to the plate. We pass liberal divorce laws, women and children end up being the fastest growing poverty segment more dependent on the state's resources than the husband/father.
Similarly, is there not a correlation in the intentional/ unintentional focus on women and children in the church? In a way it sells the idea that husbands and fathers are dispensable and that the church should meet your needs. Because after all, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. I have intimated this in my blog many times, but the Church and the State are in a competition to eclipse the family and take on subsectors of life it was never meant to occupy.
If one looks at the widows ministry set up in Acts, it was only for those widows who had done right by their families, and had outlived all their members. The church there was taking painstaking means not to trample upon the sphere of the family to do what it was meant to do. We need to go back to that understanding, instead of a pure mercy driven understanding, which is paving the way for a whole host of other problems to follow.
Debbie Maken
I don't know where to put this response but there is a thread on Boundless right now in which someone is indicating that whoever desires marriage extremely badly is making marriage an idol over God/Christ, and I thought to myself, here we go again.
Not only that, why on earth are Carolyn McCulley's writings even promoted on Boundless? I'm not too enthused about Suzanne Hadley's writings being promoted there either, given that she seems to be a fan of McCulley.
Nothing is really making much sense. All I know is that I really wouldn't care to go to a church that extols this GOS school of thought. And if there is a church that does not, I would be apprehensive of it looking down on singles, in general, even the ones that want to be married and have wanted to be for a long time. How can one like you and me even want to go to a church that is spreading false teachings like this? That's another problem.
"Why on earth are Carolyn McCulley's writings even promoted on Boundless?"
That's a question I have asked many a time and never received a satisfactory answer!
I think one of the things to remember is that a lot of the commentators on Boundless are very young - late teens, early 20s. So they are confident about what they have been told by the likes of McCulley and their church ie. wait, trust, be content, and it will happen in God's perfect timing. In the meantime, enjoy the gift of singleness. And at that age, they can do this without too much problem.
Sadly, if things don't change (although I firmly do believe they will!), those same commentators will be posting in 10 or even 20 years' time, saying that they are still waiting and trusting, although they are now battling depression and are finding the realisation that they may never have children very hard. Singleness is still a "gift", but it is also a form of suffering. That's if they haven't turned away from the church, and even God, by then, which is another very real danger as their pain is being attributed to "God's will" and "His timing", rather than the truth, which is that we are to blame.
Boundless has a responsibility to those young women, but it seems to me that their allegiances are elsewhere -- certain personal friendships (although I maintain that they would be being a better friend if they confronted someone with the truth).
It's all very sad, and that's one of the reasons why I do what I do.
I feel so bad that these young Christian girls are being so misled.
Anyway, I just dashed this off as I have to go out. I might return to this later (or even delete it and rewrite it more thoughtfully!)
This is an excerpt of what someone wrote on Boundless and it hurt me so bad that I couldn't help but post it...of course I will leave it anonymous. But it brings me down because it seems as if some Christians will retort that it is less important for the woman to be alone than the man because God created woman for Adam's aloneness; not God creating Adam for Eve's aloneness, etc.
"...we can't be upset that God isn't giving us marriage. We have to learn to stop having those longings, as God clearly intends for us currently to be single. Its painful to continue to have unmet longings for companionship. The best a single female can do is learn to be independent and not need a man, or at least approximate this as closely as she can. You have to learn to enjoy your independence if God is currently choosing to make you single. You have to make the most of it. Companionship is wonderful. We all long for intimacy. If God keeps saying no to providing these, you have to try to be ok by yourself.
God may have made relationships in response to Adam's loneliness, but if he isn't answering your prayers for a spouse, you have to learn to meet those needs for companionship elsewhere, until God provides. You can't carry on like a person with unmet needs. You have to learn independence. If God is saying no to his cure for loneliness to you, you have to find another way to not be lonely, if you can. Because continuing in loneliness is unpleasantly painful. God says he gives us everything we need. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." If he is not giving us a life companion after years of praying for this, we obviously don't need one for now. And we need to learn to be ok with this.
Also, when I've mentioned in discussions with fellow Christians on the topic of singleness, that God created women in response to Adam's loneliness, I am told that relationships were created to ease Adam's loneliness, not Eve's...
I am just saying that after years of praying and waiting on God, what more can a single women do then realize that God does not want to provide her this kind of companionship, for whatever reason, for the foreseeable future, and she must therefore try to meet her needs as best she can, with friends and family and other kinds of companionship? What choice does she have? Of course, she will continue to pray, but this hasn't resulted in provision in the past, and so she is forced to be independent, due to God's repeated answers of no."
Of course I am aware of the passage in Corinthians that woman was made for the man, but I am wondering if that is enough "ammunition" for the situation I copied/pasted above.
There is so much rubbish on Boundless!
I skipped through some of the comments just now and it's utterly shameful that the Watters are just letting this wrong teaching be repeatedly reinforced. It's just not good enough for Candice Watters to write a good post, and then sit back while the comments section undermines everything that was originally said.
It's like a Pastor giving a talk in church, then throwing it open to "comments" from the congregation while he goes and gets his lunch!
How helpful is that?
The congregation would probably end up even more confused than when they came in!
They really need to decide what they believe to be right teaching, and what they believe to be wrong teaching, and then stick to it. The two opposing views on singleness cannot both be right, so they need to take a stand.
Enough of allowing God to be blamed for the problem of protracted singleness!
It's like telling young Christians that ignorance is a "gift" and then attributing chronic unemployment amongst Christians on "God's perfect timing" for a job!
When you look at it like that, it's virtually blasphemous!
And all for the sake of...what?
Yes, I was wondering if you were able to find the blog in which that particular piece that I had copied/pasted, was there. I'm glad you did. When I read it (no offense to the person who wrote it) I wanted to practically throw something at the computer.
I also believe that some people can and will misinterpret the verse in Corinthians about the woman being made for the man, but not man for the woman. This is the misinterpration that I fear: They could say that this means that woman was made for the man's ALONENESS, not necessarily created to be made to be WITH a man. They would interpret also that man "not being created for the woman" would mean that man was not created for the woman's aloneness.
Is it just me or is that a huge misinterpretation that could ensue? I mean, you could easily interpret this as: women are created FOR the purpose of being the man's helper. That would make practically all of us woman supposedly creating for potentially being a man's helper.
(I'm not that great at debating contentious issues such as this)
Shazia - I recommend you read what Debbie Maken has to say about this (extracted from her latest blog article). I think she is right.
"Women by their very nature and design instinctively know that they are made for the man. During the Reformation, there was a strain of thought that suggested that women could never have been called to remain single because they were “made for the man,” (I. Cor. 11:9) and because all five characters in the Bible with lifelong celibacy produced singleness were all male. There is a loneliness, a floundering, an unexpressed longing to be whole, that is more acutely felt by women than men remaining single. Single women experience purposelessness; whereas, single men experience a crippled/ maimed life, though many seem to get accustomed to their own hobbling."
Shazia, this is Lisa Brown again. I've corresponded with you on another blog. I'm back on the internet now, obviously. I'm really concerned about the amount of time you are spending on blogs reading the opinions of people who are only going to make you feel "down." You are in a very vulnerable position right now. I understand, because many years ago, I was in the same position. It is my opinion, that you cannot change the opinion of people who aren't open and aren't willing to have their opinion changed. From my position as a married woman with a child of my own, I just sit back and laugh at these GOS singles sometimes. They are so silly! (and flat out wrong) Maybe some Evangelical Christians would not choose the course I chose, but with all its challenges, I would a million times be where I am right now than back being single again, angry and blaming God for my predicament. You cannot force these people to change their minds. I am very worried because you seem to be really hurt by their opinions, it causes you fear and doubt, and you cannot afford to indulge in these emotions. As we have discussed previously, you have much more important fish to fry right now! I promise you that if you take action in the areas we have talked about, I believe that you will be able to move forward with your life. I know it is hard. It is difficult and vexing for me to read that stuff too, and I am seriously considering logging off for good, because, after all, I'm a married woman with a kid, and I definitely have other fish to fry. I guess the reason I was originally drawn to Mrs. Maken's blog, and this one, is that I remember how much I used to hurt, and I really do feel compassion for Christian singles. I wish there was something I could do to help. That's why I'm so glad Mrs. Maken has published her book. Somebody needed to be God's messenger and say the things she has written in her book. Take care, and God Bless. Lisa.
As of today, I will no longer visit the Boundless Web site. I have gotten tired of reading about why I should love the Gift of Singleness and about what I may have to "fix" to be worthy of the Gift of Marriage. I end up getting angry -- why should I give people who don't even know me the opportunity to make me feel this way? (I'm also appalled by some of the things that have been written during the past few days about women who suffer from eating disorders; the ignorance and lack of compassion that have been displayed by certain individuals are very disturbing.)
To the anonymous that sent in a comment regarding Carolyn McCulley:
Yes, I do agree with you, and she is doing a lot of harm to single Christian women and the Body.
But -- I hesitate to post it because maybe it is a little too personal?
Perhaps it will suffice to say: Reading Carolyn McCulley is mad, bad and dangerous -- just say no!
Lisa Brown, thank you for your message; I must agree unfortunately that I am focusing too much of my brain on this issue; and it is addictive in a malevolent way, I have to say. I'm sorry if my posts were any possible reason for you logging off, but this GOS issue has really drained me out too anyway. I'm going to concentrate as much as I can on the things that are supposed to get me on track in life (not that this does not have importance - no no - but I don't want this issue to take over me to the extent that I cannot take care of other things in life).
I should be grateful at least that there are some people out there who think that these new teachings on singleness are a lot of malarkey. And by reading Debbie's book I can be assured that I am not alone in questioning the GOS no matter how alone I feel in this subject.
Captain, I just saw your post about the KJV being the most reliable. I am certain you are right. I just got an NIV Study Bible recently though. I think I still have the receipt, in case you think that I should have the KJV. (BTW there is also a KJV Study Bible in the same "Brand" as the NIV Study Bible that I got). It's just that when my friend and I study Scripture together, we like to have the same translations. What do you think?
Lisa - Thank you so much for your valuable contribution!
I think the one advantage of belief in the "gift of singleness" fairy, is that it does encourage hope and trust.
But the key is to still have that hope and trust, but base it on the truth of our God as revelaed in the Bible, rather than a lie.
As to which translation to use, hmmm... There are advantages and disadvantages to both really. Maybe check out the KJV in the bookshop, look up a familiar passage and read the notes on it, and see if you think you can manage the older style of language?
May God bless and speak to you through whichever version you choose though!
Lisa if you come back to this thread and see this post, I just need to let you know that it is not because I am choosing to spend time reading things that will make me sad or anything :) But I feel that I have to ask Captain a very important question about translations and I can only do that here.
Ok Captain my question is regarding the NIV. I have it right now but I am starting to get apprehensive of the possibility that it might be a little watered down compared to other versions. I did not like this translation in the part of Matthew where Jesus describes three types of eunuchs, where instead of saying "men who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven" it says "those who have renounced marriage for the kingdom of heaven" (of course, it does say "who have made themselves eunuchs" in a footnote, but that doesn't matter to me - I still think it's an issue)
I'm not saying that this is the only reason I am not sure about my NIV but if this translation leads to a different interpretation than what the original translations intended, then it is a problem.
I have the ESV but somtimes its translation can cause a difference in interpretation too. For example, Psalm 68:6 says that God settles the solitary in a home, whereas other translations say that God settles the solitary (or lonely - which the NIV DOES say though) in families.
I'm just stating a couple differences in translation here and I just don't want any translation to cause a difference in interpretation from the original per se.
For me the KJV is too difficult of a language for me, but I am starting to get impressed with the NKJV. Because the translation is essentially the same but they use different pronouns (like you and yours instead of thee and thy, etc.) and they replace SOME obsolete words with more understandable words but at the same time they leave many original words in the text to preserve its meaning and sophistication.
Do you know ANYTHING about this translation? And how it fares among others? I just find this really important to me. Because I purchased the NIV study bible and if there is a possibility that I should replace it with a NKJV study bible, OR simply keep this NIV study bible and get a small NJKV Bible for my purse, then maybe I'll feel better, I don't know.
Bless you Shazia for your conscientiousness. I am sure God will use whichever version you choose, so I wouldn't worry too much. Besides, you can always check particular passages of interest on Bible Gateway.
Maybe go with your last suggestion. Keep hold of the NIV and get a small NKJV (or if you are feeling brave, an actual KJV)for your purse. (I smiled when I read this, as it would have to be very small indeed to fit into what we in Britain call a "purse"!)
Post a Comment
<< Home