We've finished the three types of women, so the chapter should end now....right?
Nope.
A man has a natural need to protect, defend, and cherish, therefore he is drawn toward a weaker vessel. A woman's need to be cared for causes her to be drawn to a man who makes her feel secure. These natural need help us to find life mates that best fit our abilities and drives. But power struggles still arise especially when a girl has not been taught what God says concerning her husband.
I don't like where this is going. Also, I am confident that God has not told Debi anything about my husband.
Some of you who have strong gifts might ask, "Well, what about my God-given gifts and drives? Are women just supposed to lay down their abilities and let the man do his thing, even when she may be more gifted and capable than he is?"
No.
Yes! That is exactly the way it is, and no, not at all.
That makes no sense.
The key is to recognize your natural type, not so you can take the lead, but so you can understand how it might weaken or aid your service to your first-in-command - your husband (Ephesians 5:22-24)
Yes, Ephesians 5:22-24 does tell wives to submit to their husbands. Nowhere, however, does the Bible tell wives that their husband is first-in-command. That honor always go to the Creator God.
Do the Pearls realize that they are advocating a (pathetic) form of idolatry?
God knew we would complain, so he gave us a careful, logical answer. Now for you girls who live by your feelings (like me), I know it is painful, but try think logically for just a moment. The answer lies in the very nature of a man and the nature of a woman. Understanding and appreciating these Biblical realities is the foundation of all that makes a cherished help meet.
I don't know how to think like Debi, but I imagine it is quite painful. I'm a woman and have NO problem using logic.
Shouldn't this "divine" answer be obvious?
Man's Nature: God did not create man with a knowledge of good and evil. He was created to develop into a higher plane of wisdom and character. God knew that this growth process would be challenged by the devil and by man's own propensity to advance himself. There was a problem with creating a man with autonomy, as evidenced by the perpetual failures of the male gender. But God in his wisdom created the male with an innate caution and natural skepticism rooted in his cold logic and unemotional responses. Granted, that which guards him against believing a lie can be twisted to become the basis of rejecting the truth, as history demonstrates. The devil is the master of deceit. He is the father of lies (John 8:44) So God created man with extreme resistance, reluctance, stubbornness and with a skeptical mind.
*Rubs at forehead*
So many problems in one paragraph... I don't know where to start.
First, I don't think this section was written by Debi. The voice of the writer is completely different than the rest of the book. I suspect this section was ghost written by Michael...but I can't prove that.
Let's wade into the theological morass. MikeDebi's God is constrained by both the devil and by man. If MikeDebi's God is constrained, then God is not omnipotent - a characteristic claimed by the Creator God of the Abrahamic religions.
Equally importantly, the only sentence in the whole paragraph about human nature that is supported by the Bible is "God did not create man with a knowledge of good and evil." The rest of the paragraph is a bunch of random suppositions lumped together.
Why did she / he insult the entire male gender? Women screw up, too.
And does this mean men who are sensible, active participants in life, agreeable, and not generally paranoid are not actually men?
(Side note from my goofy husband: ALL men who help out around the house, care for children, interact with other human beings respectfully, and smile regularly have been planted by the Devil to make women put their guards down and not submit to their husbands. It's all so clear now....)
Female's Nature: God created the female to express in excess a narrower band of the image of God. She is the softer, kinder, believing side. God designed the woman to be sensitive and vulnerable for the sake of the little ones whom she must nurture. The soul of a mother must be quick to feel, to hurt, to love, to have compassion, to take in the broken, and to believe the best. Vulnerability is both a woman's greatest natural asset and the point of her greatest weakness. Our very nature makes us susceptible to being tricked. We were created to be protected by our men while we nurture the family and maintain a connection with the emotional side of God.
If God created women with certain traits, there is no way those traits are "excessive." (I try not to judge others religious beliefs, but the Pearls get under my skin AND blatantly stray into weird, selfish heresies.)
Women are created to raise children as a sole purpose. God must be agonizingly bad at math. Assume that women start having children at age 20 and produce 1 child a year until age 45 in the Quiverfull ideal. This means women are raising kids for at most 43 years out of a 85-year life span. Why not just have women start breeding at age 12 and stop at 67 years old? Women would still have 18 years to raise the last baby before dying.
How exactly did Jael's driving a tent peg through Sisera's skull fit in the child-rearing paradigm outlined by the Pearls? I mean, I can see how it fits with a cow protecting her baby - but not the wussy, push-over woman of PearlLand....
Male and female together complete the image of our Creator, but we are vastly different. We each carry a strength and a weakness. Our roles were designed around these strengths and weaknesses. Neither can perform the role of the other well.
According to whom? Michael Pearl isn't very good at being a human being, so I wouldn't use him as an example of men and caring. Debi apparently can't use logic, but many women can.
In the next section, Debi launches into a detailed explanation of the Biblical support for her worldview. It's...something.
AntiPearl: “Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.”
― Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 5 Vols
No comments:
Post a Comment