Corriejo said,
Do you not see that you are doing more harm than good? Belittling the important role of ezer by calling your [imaginary] wife “the best little helper”? I agree with “whatsername” that it sounds like you are referring to a pet instead of an adult woman.
I call my 4 yr old daughter “my little helper” because she IS little. But, I wouldn’t dare call my 17 yr old daughter “my little helper”, not because she is large (she is petite) but because she is so MUCH MORE than some little helper that stands there handing me the wrench when I need it.
The meaning of ezer implies strength and NOT junior assistant. Your wife is your strength. God is referred to as our “ezer” 26 times in the Old Testament. Is He also your “best little helper”? Is the Holy Spirit, the Helper, also your “best little helper” made for your own personal use?
You are clearly not understanding that Hebrew meaning of the English word translated “helper” when you use that demeaning terminology.
Also, no human being was made for the “use” of another human being. We were created to SERVE others but others were not created to be used by us. Your role as a husband is one of love and servanthood and dying to your own SELF and one of being concerned with how YOU may please your [imaginary] wife.
Christ put the emphasis on servanthood but patriocentrists put the emphasis on being served. When you look at women in this way you are not looking at them the way that God had intended.
What is your goal with using this sort of unbiblical terminology and eisegesis? Do you think it proves something when you get people angry with your words? Does that prove you must be right? Or could it mean that you are just offensive?
Q. How many feminists does it take to replace a light bulb?
A. That’s not funny.
Oh, Corriejo, for goodness sake lighten up. Please tell me you aren’t this sensitive to your own husband? Is the man afraid to compliment you? Are you teaching your daughters to be equally sensitive toward those who would compliment them, assigning and assuming motives based upon the least charitable interpretation of their words?
I may not be particularly petite, but I certainly don’t take offense at being called “little” by a man who is significantly taller and more muscular than I am. My husband treats me with love and respect, and because of our relationship I understand that there is nothing demeaning or belittling in his use of the word “little.”
Maybe you don’t have the same context for interpreting my husband’s words, but remember Molleth’s exhortation to “consider the actual claims in the least biased way?” Shouldn’t you grant my husband the same courtesy? Shouldn’t you interpret the words of our Christian brothers and sisters in the least biased way possible?
I’m thankful that my Big Hunka Man doesn’t judge my compliments to him as harshly as you judge his compliments toward me. This would be a cold and lonely house if we judged each other with so much suspicion.
November 24, 2007 at 4:49 pm
“Shouldn’t you grant my husband the same courtesy? Shouldn’t you interpret the words of our Christian brothers and sisters in the least biased way possible?”
Hmmmm…that is interesting, considering the driving aim of this blog, which is,
“it has a narrow focus that is examining the claims of the busy bodies, gossips, and other malicious nagging tounges to see if there is any truth. I contend that everyone of the leaders of this little band of wagging tounges has an agenda or has bought into the lies of someone who does.”
So…um…er…uh…? Is this a classic case of do as I say, not as I do?
November 24, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Now I’m the one who is a bit puzzled, molleth. Are you saying that it’s hypocritical of me to suggest that you ladies ought to hold yourselves to the same standard that you request of us?
Even *if* you feel that Patriocentrist will be interpreting your words and motives in a less-than-charitable manner (a rather uncharitable interpretation of his stated focus, I must observe), does that entitle you to return evil for evil?
November 24, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I think it’s GREAT that you folks are interested in looking more deeply into what the Scripture says about gender, not only into what your camp believes but also looking into what “the other side” believes.
I don’t even mind the uncharitable way that you both are anonymously doing it. I think it’s kind of funny.
November 25, 2007 at 8:56 am
Hishelper,
My blog is listed as one that is “rushing to mischief”. I have asked several times what my mischief or wrongdoing is, without response. I would like some clarification as to where I have spoken about anyone on the Patriarchy side in a way that is uncharitable, unkind, or accusatory, as the quote Molleth shared does about my side of the argument.
I do not believe that someone has a “malicious nagging tongue” simply because they disagree with me, and I’m very sorry that any believer feels that it is acceptable to speak of their brethren in such a way.
I encourage you to hold me to the same standard I hold others to. I want to know Truth, not just what “feels” right. Yet, though I have asked several times, I have had no concrete examples of my misbehavior (or mischief), and it seems, am considered to have a “malicious nagging tongue”.
I think it’s fair that if I’m being accused of such (which I genuinely hope was not the bloggers intent) that the writer could explain further to me my error. I’m not setting a double standard. I don’t see Molleth setting a double standard either. Perhaps you could elaborate on what way she has repaid “evil for evil”?
Peace.
November 25, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Hey Anne,
There’s an answer coming, I promise. I don’t very well think you will like it or agree but I’m working on it.
As for the disagreeing…well last time I checked giving liars attaboys and calling names wasn’t the same as intellectual disagreement.
No patriarch I know is afraid of putting his ideas to the flame of Scripture because that is where these ideas were birthed and if they cannot stand up to a little scrutiny then they need to go the way of the wildebeest. Yet I can’t help but thinking that there is a SUBSTANTIVE difference in between saying I disagree with that exegesis and accusing someone of tyranny, cultishness, heresy etc.
November 26, 2007 at 8:27 am
Patriocentrist, have you actually read any of my comments? I have written about this issue on my faith blog, and commented on True Womanhood, but I’d love to see some examples of comments that I’ve made that have accused people of “tyranny, cultishness, heresy etc.”
I have genuine intellectual disagreement which has been brought up and spelled out.
Still, is it possible for you to explain how this site with it’s headings of “rushing to mischief” or “wolves in sheep’s clothing” or accusing others of lying (without examples given), etc. is not itself repaying evil for evil?
Are you willing to offer the same generous spirit that you wish to see in others?
December 19, 2007 at 12:39 pm
“if they cannot stand up to a little scrutiny then they need to go the way of the wildebeest.”
You mean that they need to form up into large herds, buy passports, emigrate to Africa, and spend the rest of their days grazing the Serengeti?
Wildebeests are alive and well on the Dark Continent, but then, I’m sure that you gnu that…..
January 8, 2008 at 7:56 am
Hey, Little Helper,
Since we should lighten up and maybe even pass a joke along or two, I thought we could play a game. I know! How about a guessing game? Let’s start with your identity. That ought to be fun
My first guess is that you’re really Jen Epstein, for whatever reason she’d have to get her name talked about — again.
My second guess is one that took some good insight given to me by someone else, and that would be that you’re really Carmon Friedrich.
Now it’s you’re turn. Can you guess what I think of manipulative game-playing “kristians”? I also thought that since you mentioned so many Christian women in your sidebar, you could also honor me, too. After all, you do know, by looking at your stats page that I’ve linked to your blog from my comment section to point out some very interesting correllations to what Jen said on her now ghost-town blog.
January 25, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Kate
Wrong on both counts.
If what I’m saying is a correct view of the facts and of Scripture then it doesn’t matter who I am.
As for the women in my side bar…they all loudly claimed to believe a woman and a man who were convicted for lying, attested to be liars by many churches, then lied to them…and yet they persist in jaunting round the internet spreading the misrepresentations that Jen and her boy-toy Mark have spread around the internet.
Surely you can see the irony of the situation.
Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. Jen’s fruit is the destruction of lies. What is the fruit of all those who have spent a year of more, encouraging and spreading her story? What is the fruit of those who have sullied the reputations of pastors because after all Jen’s story “proves” what the patriarchs real agenda is?!
They continue to believe the liar and spread her venom in spite of the patient, kind, and soft answers provided to them by the likes of Friedrich,Chancey and McDonald.
Sheesh talk about dissonance.