New Jane Anderson Website

John · 09-11-2017, 09:27 AM

Some may have been bothered about some of what has been written about Jane and me (some of which has been moved by the moderator). We don’t hold anything against anyone; we realize that all have their own difficult experiences in life, especially when it comes to marriage. I still remember being in meetings of the Local Church in which it was boasted that there were no divorces like in poor Christianity. Obviously, that was a long time ago.

About books and a website

In addition to our marriage being maligned, it was insinuated that we were in the publishing business for the money. Without going into detail, I’ll just state that we have not profited a penny off of all our books; we are still in the red. Why is this? It’s because Jane keeps giving books away. (She’s given away more than we’ve sold.)

In other words, our publishing is a ministry to the Lord; we don’t do it for the money. In fact, Jane wanted to give away all of The Thread of Gold books, but was counseled not to do so. She also did not want to market the book, stating that the Lord would do that. In fact, that happened on the old Berean’s forum when someone opened a thread about the book, unbeknownst to us. We were not involved in that forum at the time.

Jane is now trying to get the word out about the woman topic, since it affects so many Christians; her audience includes Local Church Christians but many others, too. She started a blog to this end, and she has informed a bunch of folks that she is blogging. Regardless, neither one of us started this thread on the Local Church Discussions forum, nor did we have anything to do with this happening. If anyone wants to use the thread to advertise Jane’s work, please, just use it to market the message of her books and blog—which is about helping Christian men and women understand how God wants them to view and treat each other, which includes repenting to each other.

Freedom in marriage

I am writing as a married Christian male who has some things to say in particular to the other males here. I will try to be inclusive in what I write, with respect to the diverse audience (not all are married, some are women, some simply want to distort whatever I say), but I might not succeed. In other words, I am going to speak some things from my heart, and I hope readers can receive them in the spirit which I mean them.

Now, as to marriage: What if you, married Christian men, could be really free in your marriages? The following is an abbreviated description of my journey to freedom.

One day, I noticed that Jane was reading a book. I asked her about it, but she was reticent to show it to me. I pressed, and she did. It was God’s Word to Women. She was in the middle of it and said that I could read The Magna Carta of Woman while I waited for her to finish, which was like a condensed version of it. After reading both, I wrote “Woman 101: What Every Christian Man Needs To Know.”

So, what is this freedom of which I speak? It is freedom from the doctrines and attitudes that I picked up while in the Local Church, as well as from our culture before that, as regards women. I used to think and feel that I was at least somewhat responsible for controlling my wife because it was what God expected of me. I believed all that I understood of what I had read in the King James version of the Bible (because that is what the Local Church used at the time), including all I understood that it said about women.

One thing that Jane has mentioned to me several times is this: As a man “thinketh … so is he” (Pro. 23:7). Therefore, to get a change in behavior, one’s mind needs to be changed. That is what my posts are about—giving information that might cause people to consider the possibility that there might be another side to the story and a need for a change in thinking.

Our marriage

Since it has been brought up, what kind of a marriage do Jane and I have? This kind of question reminds me of elder Ray Graver making a very inappropriate comment to Jane about our marriage, at the end of the infamous 1977 kangaroo court handling of her (chronicled in The Thread of Gold): “I always wondered why the Lord put you two together, and now I know.”

To put it succinctly, Jane is my woman of chayil. In fact, it is through her that I was born again. After working through many problems in our marriage and family, mostly caused by me, we now make a great team. When I first read the post insinuating that the order was upside down in our house, I thought of these words: “heirs together of the grace of life.” Well, what’s the whole verse?

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. (1 Pet. 3:7, KJV)

I was reminded of what had stood out to me recently: “heirs together.” The Lord showed me that I had been relegating this phrase to the future because of the word “heirs.” Then, I understood that we have it now! We have the grace of life, Jane and I. So, my brothers, think about the word, “together.” Just dwell on this one verse for awhile. Let the Lord speak to your hearts. I know that I’m vacillating between giving what I thought would be a brief testimony and preaching, but I’m just going with the flow. Besides, in the context of the verse, Jane and I do pray together, and God does answer our prayers.

Back to marriage, I was a strong man, or so I thought, who was used to keeping Jane in her place with cutting words and jokes and brief references to Scripture and other such ways. I thought that I was right. I was oblivious to the fact that my sons were watching and learning poor treatment of my wife and their mother, therefore giving opportunity for the cycle to continue. (I have now repented to Jane and my sons for this.) These things were mostly done without a conscious motive. It was just who I was. Back to the freedom part: I don’t have to do that anymore. I don’t have to try to put her in her place. How could I even know what that is? Am I her God? Am I to be the mediator between God and her? No, that position has been filled by the One Who bought her with His blood. She is a free woman in Christ, and I am a free man in Christ! Isn’t it time that you set women free to be the women that God has called them to be? Do you trust your wife? Do you trust women? Or, do you use your interpretation of the Genesis account to justify your refusal to listen to them seriously?

Should we have gotten married?

Jane and I fellowship all the time. We have a standing date every Saturday morning at a fast-food restaurant, where we talk about the Bible and our experiences and our understandings. The rest of our week, we talk on the fly about what we are reading or realizing about the Christian life—what it is, and what it should or could be.

I am not trying to portray us as a perfect couple or one that should be emulated. I’m just saying that we are getting better and better at this Christian marriage thing. This is no less than a miracle, I think, given the fact that I was a hard man to live with for a Christian wife, and still am, in many ways. I will tell you that over the last period of time, the Lord has been speaking to me a lot about humility.

I can’t recall if this is in any of her books or not; but, when we were going to a Christian counselor for help with one of our sons, and after the results came back from a test we each took, we were told, “If I had talked to you before marriage, I would have counseled you not to have gotten married. The fact that you are still married is a testament to the powerful working of Jesus in your lives.” Jane and I are two very different people; but, we both fear the Lord and are committed to Him: He is the One Who makes our marriage work.

Due to the personal attacks against Jane and me, I thought that it was appropriate for me to present the foregoing; and, with the context in mind, I also thought that it would be appropriate and, hopefully, enlightening to some, for me to write the following:

My Woman of Chayil

I have found a woman of chayil, and she is worth far more than rubies.
I can safely trust in her.
She does good for me and not evil.
She is always busy.
She goes as far as it takes to get what is needed.
She is up at all hours, communing with the Lord. She stays in contact with others sharing what she has received from Him.
She is generous and always working for others.
She helped provide for her family what they needed, including spiritual food. Her children are born-again, and they seek to walk with the Lord as they actively serve Him in His church.
She trained herself to use a computer, and then started and ran her own software company from home.
She applies her hands to the keyboard, preparing words of help for those in need.
She is strong, honorable, and wise. She spends much of her time helping others.
There are other women of chayil; but, to me, she is the most excellent.
She is a woman who fears the Lord, and she teaches others to do the same.
I, her husband, praise her, and so do her works.
Her name is Jane; and, in less than a week, we will have been married 50 years.

I am indebted, of course, to the author of Proverbs 31 (likely to Solomon, the wisest man), for the basic structure of my presentation. Jane, who actually has written poetry, would have done much better if writing about me. By the way, she did the artwork for The Woman of Chayil and A Song of Songs Woman. Not only that, when in church after singing a hymn, people she doesn’t know often turn around and tell her that she has a beautiful voice and should be in the choir.

Appeal to Christian men

Men, if you are not, wouldn’t you want to be married to a woman of chayil? How might your behavior toward women change if you believed that God wanted all Christian women to be women of chayil? The thing I most remember from Bushnell’s book is the point that the God-given gifts of half the body of Christ have been stifled because of wrong thinking about Christian women. Our Christian sisters have been the objects of our wrong attitudes and behaviors. Please, at least pray about the possibility and give the Lord an opportunity to show you how to value, honor, and learn from these members of the body, a body of which you are a part.

awareness · 09-12-2017, 09:27 PM

Thanks John for opening up and sharing. I've prolly been your worst critic.

But actually I think I've stated that I support you and Jane's mission.

As I'm reading Bushnell it's become obvious that she was part of the women's rights movement of the early 20th c., and was pushing for women's rights in society at large.

That movement, that began in the 19th c., took on a life of it's own, and yes society since has come a long way at making women equal.

Except those that are seeking to live by the Bible, they haven't caught up with modernity yet.

And that's where Jane comes in. Her targeted audience are those Christians, the ones seeking to live out the teachings and attitudes toward women, found in translations of the Bible that have come down to us today.

Another important work in this regard, from the 19th c. is "The Women's Bible," by Elizabeth Cady Stanton<-click This was a seminal work for the women's rights movement, but traditionalist objected to it.

So, methinks there needs to be more than just non male biased translators to contend with. There's also tradition, that has come down from the early church fathers, both from the early proto-orthodox and the orthodoxy proper.

I see Bushnell mentions Irenaeus and Tertullian, and quotes their despicable statements about and toward women in her book.

Some time ago, a decade or two ago, when looking into this matter of the church fathers and women, I collected a list of quotes by the church fathers about women. I now present this list of quotes to contend that it's not just biased translations that have to be dealt with, but also tradition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Church Fathers

Clement of Alexandria (Theologian and Greek Father, C2nd): “Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman…the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame”

Origen (Theologian and Greek Father, C2nd-3rd) “Men should not sit and listen to a woman… even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman.”

Tertullian (the Father of Latin Christianity, 155-245): ”And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert— that is, death— even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins?”

Chrysostom (Archbishop of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church, C4th) “God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matter to the woman.”

Jerome (Priest, Theologian, Doctor of the Church and Latin Father, C4th-5th): “Woman is the root of all evil.”

Augustine (Bishop of Hippo, Doctor of the Church and Latin Father, 354-430): “I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?”
“. . . the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.” On the Trinity Book 12 7.10

Martin Luther (German priest, theologian and Protestant Reformer, C16th) : “The woman certainly differs from the man, for she is weaker in body and intellect. Nevertheless Eve was an excellent creature and equal to Adam in so far as the divine image: that is, righteousness, wisdom and eternal salvation, is concerned. Still, she was only a woman. As the sun is much more glorious than the moon (though also the moon is glorious), so the woman was inferior to the man both in honour and dignity, though she, too, was a very excellent work of God.” From Luther’s Commentary on Genesis.

John Calvin (French theologian, pastor and Protestant Reformer, 1509-1564), of the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to women rather than to men: “I consider this was done by way of reproach, because they [the men] had been so tardy and sluggish to believe. And indeed, they deserve not only to have women for their teachers, but even oxen and asses. . . Yet it pleased the Lord, by means of those weak and contemptible vessels, to give display of his power.” From Calvin’s Commentary on the Gospel of John.
On this account, all women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior in consequence to the superiority of the male sex. From Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Chapter 11)

John Knox (Scottish clergyman and Protestant Reformer, C16th: “[Women are] weake, fraile, impatient, feeble and foolish.”
He also said women were “unconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment” and “woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man.” From his The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.

Nell · 09-13-2017, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

...
So, methinks there needs to be more than just non male biased translators to contend with. ...

So why don't you stop your "contention"? John didn't write this post because he resolved all the issues including that of "Non male biased translators". "Male bias" is your prevailing strawman with which you and your buddies are "contending." You guys are trying to debunk "male bias" rather than reach the truth of the translations. Jane and Bushnell offer this as a cause of mistranslation...but the point is to get the translation right. John had a few transactions with God himself, with God's word, and with his woman of Chayil. He also learned a little humility...

The point has always been the verses themselves...the 8 passages...not "male bias translators". The 8 passages of scripture discussed by Bushnell and Jane have been described by Jane as lemon translations which do not fit within the context of the message of the Bible itself. The result of these wrong teachings is John's testimony.

John has described the results in his own life, and his marriage, of the mistranslation of these verses...how he came to justify mistreating his wife and perpetuate that mistreatment in the lives of his sons...for which he has repented to Jane and his sons.

According to John's last word, humility is a factor in having a change of mind be heart. It would be a real travesty to continue to fight the wrong battle. You may have stated that you "support" John and Jane's "mission" but in fact, your post indicates that you don't even know what their mission is.

Read John's post 3 or 4 more times.

Nell

awareness · 09-13-2017, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

You may have stated that you "support" John and Jane's "mission" but in fact, your post indicates that you don't even know what their mission is.

Maybe your are right. I don't know what their mission is. So what is it?

Nell · 09-13-2017, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe your are right. I don't know what their mission is. So what is it?

Try reading John's post again...3-4 more times.
.

awareness · 09-13-2017, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Try reading John's post again...3-4 more times.
.

That's it ??????? John's post praises Jane out the ying-yang. That can't be their mission. Is it? Please don't tell me we're back to post #8.

Nell · 09-13-2017, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

That's it ??????? John's post praises Jane out the ying-yang. That can't be their mission. Is it? Please don't tell me we're back to post #8.

How long have you been posting on this topic and you don't know the mission? You figure it out. Read Jane. Read John. Don't expect someone to spoon feed you.

.

UntoHim · 09-13-2017, 08:46 PM

For awareness, me and all the other Neanderthal male meatheads out here, the "mission" could probably best be understood by the affects that a real woman of chayil has on a man/men close to her. Here ya go:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

I have found a woman of chayil, and she is worth far more than rubies.
I can safely trust in her.
She does good for me and not evil.
She is always busy.
She goes as far as it takes to get what is needed.
She is up at all hours, communing with the Lord. She stays in contact with others sharing what she has received from Him.
She is generous and always working for others.
She helped provide for her family what they needed, including spiritual food. Her children are born-again, and they seek to walk with the Lord as they actively serve Him in His church.
She trained herself to use a computer, and then started and ran her own software company from home.
She applies her hands to the keyboard, preparing words of help for those in need.
She is strong, honorable, and wise. She spends much of her time helping others.
There are other women of chayil; but, to me, she is the most excellent.
She is a woman who fears the Lord, and she teaches others to do the same.
I, her husband, praise her, and so do her works.
Her name is Jane; and, in less than a week, we will have been married 50 years.

-

awareness · 09-14-2017, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

For awareness, me and all the other Neanderthal male meatheads out here, the "mission" could probably best be understood by the affects that a real woman of chayil has on a man/men close to her. Here ya go:
-

rotflmao ....

John won't be first or last man that is so bedazzled by a woman that he thinks she's beyond being just human.

He reminds me of friends of mine, who are so henpecked that when she barks an order he jumps and asks how high on the way up ... and who gives her carte blanche on his bank account.

In fact, Robert Palmer wrote a song about such women :

Quote:

Simply Irresistible, by Robert Palmer.

How can it be permissible
She compromise my principle, yeah yeah
That kind of love is mythical
She's anything but typical

She's a craze you'd endorse, she's a powerful force
You're obliged to conform when there's no other course
She used to look good to me, but now I find her

Simply irresistible
Simply irresistible

Her loving is so powerful, huh
It's simply unavoidable
The trend is irreversible
The woman is invincible

She's a natural law, and she leaves me in awe
She deserves the applause, I surrender because
She used to look good to me, but now I find her

Simply irresistible
Simply irresistible

Simply irresistible She's so fine, there's no tellin' where the money went
Simply irresistible She's all mine, there's no other way to go

She's unavoidable, I'm backed against the wall
She gives me feelings like I never felt before
I'm breaking promises, she's breaking every law
She used to look good to me, but now I find her

Simply irresistible
She's so fine, there's no tellin' where the money went
Simply irresistible She's all mine, there's no other way to
go

Her methods are inscrutable
The proof is irrefutable, Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh
She's so completely kissable, huh
Our lives are indivisible

She's a craze you'd endorse, she's a powerful force
You're obliged to conform when there's no other course
She used to look good to me, but now I find her

Simply irresistible
Simply irresistible

She's so fine, there's no tellin' where the money went
Simply irresistible She's all mine, there's no other way to go
She's so fine, there's no tellin' where the money went
Simply irresistible She's all mine, there's no other way to go

Simply irresistible

But that doesn't answer my question about what Jane and John's mission is ... unless their mission is to stamp out chayil women like on an assembly line, or to stamp out henpecked men like on an assembly line.

So once again. I've been told I don't know their mission. I agree. So, WHAT IS THEIR MISSION? And don't tell me it's just to praise women.

Nell · 09-14-2017, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

For awareness, me and all the other Neanderthal male meatheads out here, the "mission" could probably best be understood by the affects that a real woman of chayil has on a man/men close to her. Here ya go:

-

awareness,

Did you read John's post again, even once? UntoHim gave you an obvious list. Here's another clue, even more obvious:

The last paragraph of John's post is titled "Appeal to Christian men".

Appeal to Christian men
Men, if you are not, wouldn’t you want to be married to a woman of chayil? How might your behavior toward women change if you believed that God wanted all Christian women to be women of chayil? The thing I most remember from Bushnell’s book is the point that the God-given gifts of half the body of Christ have been stifled because of wrong thinking about Christian women. Our Christian sisters have been the objects of our wrong attitudes and behaviors. Please, at least pray about the possibility and give the Lord an opportunity to show you how to value, honor, and learn from these members of the body, a body of which you are a part.

I guess there's really something to this "man needs a helper" business. In Gen. 2:16-18 God told man what to eat and what not to eat. Immediately, God knew man needed help following these simple instructions, so he created woman.

This was posted on December 4, 2016: The Message, The Mission

Nell

Drake · 09-14-2017, 07:42 AM

Seems obvious that the mission is: "helping Christian men and women understand how God wants them to view and treat each other, which includes repenting to each other."

Its a good thing that a man who impulsively controlled his wife and kept her in her place with cutting and manipulative words had a change of heart and realized the error of his ways, repented to her and the family, and set things right between them.

I personally have not met many Christian husbands who acted that way in or outside of the Lords Recovery. But for those who are like John once was they would do well to follow his lead even at the risk of being accused of being henpecked. In repentance, over compensation is not a bad thing.

Still, I may applaud a man's repentence but not every detail. I do not agree with the lemon verses teaching Jane promotes. It is a slippery slope as it even led Bushnell to postulate the first man Adam was a Hermaphrodite. (That forum members would neglect due diligence on examining that and let that pass without objection exposes a dangerous folly).

I also understand the natural response of seeking for an explanation of "why?" based on the traumatic events described in her first book. She and her husband John have found an explanation outside of themselves and their own contribution to that part of their history..... the problem were and are some mistranslated "lemon" verses, or culture, male bias in others who mistreated them. Yet, no one can predict the form of a reshapen wounded soul. The two books describe one story, two parts. Going in and coming out

So though, I am sympathetic to the people involved yet I reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject.

Drake

awareness · 09-14-2017, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

I am sympathetic to the people involved but reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject.

Drake

Me too bro Drake. I think Bushnell and Jane are barking up the wrong tree. But I do support equality for women. And that's pretty much been accomplished, except in some - many here - churches, where women are held in subjection. Incidentally, isn't that where women of Chayil come from?

Or women from China. I married a Chinese girl in the local church. And I've never seen anything like it. She was naturally and willingly submissive, like you wouldn't believe. I didn't need to dominate her, she was always with me on everything without me saying.

And she didn't do it because the Bible told her so, nor because the sisters in the local church told her to be that way. She came by it by being raised in a Chinese home and Chinese culture.

She was raised an atheist, without the Bible, but was still a woman of Chayil.

John · 09-22-2017, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

...

Its a good thing that a man who impulsively controlled his wife and kept her in her place with cutting and manipulative words had a change of heart and realized the error of his ways, repented to her and the family, and set things right between them.

I personally have not met many Christian husbands who acted that way in or outside of the Lords Recovery. But for those who are like John once was they would do well to follow his lead even at the risk of being accused of being henpecked. In repentance, over compensation is not a bad thing.

...

Drake

The poster seems to admit that he has met husbands in the Local Church who verbally mistreated their wives, but he makes it sound as if it is a rare thing. If he thinks so, then he hasn’t read The Thread of Gold, has forgotten what is in it, or has some other reason or reasons. For the benefit of those who don’t know of this kind of thing, the rest of this post focuses on the attitudes and behaviors of those who were, or are, in the Local Church of Witness Lee. (In other words, this post of mine is not criticizing the poster or his post; I am simply providing real experiences of real people who have had bad experiences in the Local Church, so that he can add them to the ones that he has met.)

Check the fruit

To start off with an example from just a couple of years ago, a married woman I know, one who was actually born into the Local Church and grew up there, when asked about her Bible reading, replied that she didn’t need to read the Bible because her husband was going to tell her what it meant anyway. This wrong thinking is the fruit that was produced by inadequate or lopsided teaching. It is this kind of thinking that has robbed the Lord of His due. This woman is very capable. Who knows what else she might have done for our Lord if she hadn’t been under a doctrine that enabled her to escape and lay the responsibility off on her husband. This portrays, in part, why “the woman topic” is so important.

To go a step further, let’s look at the fruit of the next generation: This woman’s daughter, after learning what the Bible said about female submission and seeing how it was practiced in her family, said that she was planning never to get married. She wanted to follow the Lord, enjoyed sharing Him, and participated in Christian events, but she stated that she did not want to be under the control of a man. For her, to avoid disobeying the Bible, this was the only solution. This is sad. What if the Lord would want her to marry in order to best exercise her gifts for Him?

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. (Matt. 7:15–17, KJV)

We are to judge a tree by its fruit; and, one way to judge a teaching is by its outcome. What kind of outcomes do we see in this family? We see that the mother was not fellowshipping with the Lord in His Word and that the daughter had decided never to get married because of what she had experienced of male domination in her home. Do these fruits line up with God’s will? I will say that the fruit is not good; therefore, the teaching that brings it about should, at least, be suspect and reconsidered.

Biographies are dangerous?

As I started thinking about the influence of the Local Church, I was reminded of something that Jane told me years ago. She asked me if I remembered one of the first things she did that got her crosswise with the elders. I did not remember. She told me that it was because she was reading biographies and sharing them with others! Here is the way that she recounted it in The Thread of Gold:

Sandra Brown and a few other sisters, including me, loved to read Christian biographies and autobiographies. They found some that they had not read at libraries and bookstores, acquired them, and began passing them around. With more time on my hands while in the Harvest House, I started reading such books. I loved them. I read about Hudson Taylor, George Mueller, John and Charles Wesley, David Brainerd, George Whiteﬁeld, John Bunyan, John Newton, Charles Spurgeon, Amy Carmichael, Mimosa, and others. In all of these books, I saw people of faith in love with Jesus. The One I knew and loved, my dear Jesus, was on display in their life stories.

Biography reading was not a practice sanctioned by the church. The church bookroom sold only books by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. In earlier years, the bookroom carried a few other books, mainly on “deeper life” teachings, but this stopped not long after we moved to Houston.

After we started reading biographies, the leading brothers began to mention things in church meetings to discourage us from reading such books. Why? We were told that they were too old and too religious, and hindered us from staying in Brother Lee’s present-day light. I kept reading them anyway in my Harvest House hideaway. (Thread of Gold, 137–138)

This is just one of a few excerpts from Jane’s book that I noticed and that appeared to be relevant to the topic of males and females in the church. Imagine being in a “regular” church and the male leaders warning the women not to read Christian biographies! To those who weren’t in the Local Church in the so-called early days, how do you think that the environment became one of Witness Lee only?

Who runs things at your house?

The reading of biographies wasn’t the only thing about Jane and me that got the elders looking askance at us. What they began to realize is that the Andersons were not always following their “fellowship.” With regard to the male/female topic, it is easy to see the manipulation and peer-pressure brought to bear on Jane in the following account that she wrote:

I was embarrassed one Saturday morning at breakfast with a number of other service group leaders and the four Houston elders. At one point, one of the elders introduced a topic that the four of them had been discussing in private—some of us needed to move to another city to start another Local Church….

One of the four elders looked at me and said, “How about you and John?” Knowing that I wasn’t considering such a move for even a minute, I responded, “You’ll have to ask John about that.” He retorted, “Oh really? I thought you ran things at your house.” Everyone laughed. I was humiliated and furious with him. How cruel and how unnecessary his comment was! He didn’t live in my shoes. Who did he think he was? Granted, I wasn’t a naturally submissive or quiet or meek sister, but I was trying to be. The rest of the day, I considered various things I could do or say to show him he was wrong. Then the Lord spoke, “Would you rather show him your self-made submission now or let him see Me living in you when I have ﬁnished My work in you?” After pondering that awhile, I decided to give up the self-improving, self-justifying route and hand myself over to the Lord to let Him do His work in me, in His time. (Thread of Gold, 114–115)

This, of course, is an example of a male putting down a female just because she is a female. A man can easily do this sort of thing. His intended subtext, no doubt, is that Jane (and any other females listening), are supposed to be submissive and follow the established order as it’s traditionally understood from the Bible and the ministry of Witness Lee. He made a joke out of it, so that no one could accuse him of stepping out of line, but he did it in front of the other elders and influential leaders in the church so that everyone knows that she had a black mark against her.

I hope that male readers can realize the kind of effect they can have on females with their words, spoken from a position of being the ones approved by God (or so they think) to be in control. You can see the effect of his words and attitude on Jane. Is this the kind of behavior that is acceptable? Or, to put it another way, “Is this what Jesus would have done?”

Can a book talk?

If the previous kinds of manipulative techniques didn’t produce the desired results, at least one of the elders was prepared to go further:

One time, a young woman who had been to three or four of our meetings, was taken aside by Sam Jones, one of the Houston elders, into one of the church ofﬁces for a talk or “fellowship.” He stopped me as I was passing by and asked me to sit in on the talk. Sam asked her if she was dating someone. She said, “Yes.” He started talking about the importance of purity in following the Lord. She was looking at him somewhat blankly. This wasn’t the response he wanted. Suddenly, he picked up a book and slammed it loudly on the desk. I was so startled that I literally jumped in my seat and had to regain my composure. He raised his voice and began ranting at her about the sin of fornication and its danger to her Christian walk. I was appalled. The young woman never returned to another one of our meetings. Sam’s behavior made me feel sick inside; I knew there was something very wrong with it. (Thread of Gold, 132–133)

When I now read these accounts, I can hardly believe that I was there. What’s really amazing is that Jane and I remained there for so long after being very poorly treated. We were in it for twenty years, and we have now been out for thirty. The first ten years were pretty good; the second ten were horrific! Imagine staying in something that was so crushing simply because you had been indoctrinated to think that it was the Lord’s church and the only place that you could be for Him.

We finally moved from Houston to preserve our sanity, but Jane had to endure an evening of questioning by the elders in the Church in Oklahoma City before we were allowed to attend the meetings. Yes, the elders rule the saints, and I don’t mean in a good way. If you doubt it, just try to do something that is not in step with The Ministry. And, this might go double for the women.

Marriage and the Local Church

There is another aspect to the whole marriage thing in the Local Church that can get overlooked: the church can easily come between a husband and wife. I’m not saying that elders do this intentionally, but I know of one elder who probably did. For example, just think about the previous comment that an elder made about who runs our house.

For another example, when things were getting dicey between the elders and us because Jane and I were trying to follow the Lord and they were preaching that all should follow the ministry of Brother Lee without question, they made an obvious play to get me on their side and away from my wife’s influence. (It was actually said in one meeting not to wait on the Lord but to step out and do what the ministry told us to do.) It had become customary for a few saints to go to conferences and then “bring back” the conference by relating Witness Lee’s messages in our Local Church meetings. One day, an elder called me and wanted me to go to a conference at the church’s expense and bring back some of the messages. This was not according to my giftedness, and I had never been asked to do such a thing before. He tried his best to convince me to do it, but I refused. (I think that if I had gone on that trip that they would have tried to get me on their side against my wife.)

To relate another instance, I’ll have to set it up: I was asked by the elders to move into a house by the University of Houston campus in which several single brothers who were students lived. I brought up the matter to Jane, and we discussed it. She was caring for a baby who was only a few months old and was not at all excited by the prospect of becoming slave labor for some single brothers. Later, she told me that, as a compromise, she was willing to have a sisters’ house by the campus and that there were a couple of Local Church sisters who were students and needed a place to live. I was happy about her willingness to have a sisters’ house. She and I agreed to do it, but the elders didn’t really like it, still trying to persuade me that the brothers’ house was better and available. Going against their “suggestion,” I found another house by the campus and rented it. We moved in, and Jane got two sisters to move in with us.

Jane and I were reasonably happy, and so were the sisters who lived with us. After a year, however, the elders began working on me to move back to the main meeting hall area. Their reason was that we had only brought in one person to the Local Church from the campus, and bringing people in was, in their minds, the only legitimate reason for living by the campus. I put them off about it and was told that we could have three more months. Jane, not wanting to leave, prayed desperately; and, soon, the Lord began adding students. Jane and I were thankful for the Lord’s blessing, which He gave us in spite of the elders’ plans for us and directions to us.

Getting in-between

In the foregoing vignettes, you should be able to see how the elders can insinuate themselves into a marriage. It is too easy for a Christian who is trying to do the Lord’s will to take the request of an elder as being the Lord’s will, especially when the Christian has been indoctrinated that the Local Church is everything, and its authorities are to be obeyed without question. This kind of thing, when it is administered as it was in our Local Church, is very intimidating. It is all too easy to push your wife into something that she doesn’t want or feel led to do by playing the God, Church, or submission card with her. Because of this, the marriage suffers. In my case, by working with Jane, the Lord blessed our endeavors, which resulted in Him giving spiritual life to a number of college students.

While considering this, think about the young women who were born-again because a woman of chayil wasn’t willing to be manipulated by church men. Also, think about the marriages that suffer because a brother is willing to sacrifice his spouse for the cause. Jane and I have seen brothers and sisters, both, who have looked to Local Church elders to solve marriage problems. In one situation that I recall, a sister went to an elder for help because she was afraid her husband was slipping away from the “church life” and becoming worldly. He was also becoming more abusive towards her. The elder got involved and, instead of helping the brother as the wife requested, he ended up convincing the brother that his wife was unstable. The brother began to treat his wife worse, and she separated from him for a little while. When she sought to reconcile, the brother did not want to do so, and the elder supported him. Eventually, the brother divorced his wife and married someone else in the Local Church. In another situation, a wife was always looking to the elders for guidance and discounting the guidance of her husband, who had left the Local Church. This marriage relationship was saved when the woman became ill and was literally on her death bed. She was convicted by the Lord that she had put the elders before her husband for several years. She repented to her husband in writing, since she could hardly speak any longer, and passed into the next life.

A woman’s view

Why doesn’t the Local Church want to talk about their practices? It’s because it will get into the effects of their practices? As the stories above indicate, the practices have produced fruit that is bad; and, there are many more such stories. To those of us who left it, think about what we learned there and accepted as normal. Here is how Jane saw it in 2005:

A number of years after we had left the church, I said to John once, “You know, the Local Church was like a men’s club!” He laughed. I responded, “No, I am serious. Think about it. Everything there was for men. Men didn’t have to help with household responsibilities. They didn’t have to spend time with their children. They had wives who didn’t go shopping and didn’t spend their money on clothes or make-up or jewelry. They didn’t have to celebrate holidays or purchase gifts. They didn’t have to put up with home décor issues because only the basics were acceptable. Keeping secrets about church matters from their wives was expected. They met with each other all the time to take care of church business matters. The wives had to prepare good meals every day, work at home to keep a well-run house, and take care of children. This exactly ﬁts most men’s natural tendencies and desires. What was there that ﬁt a woman’s natural tendencies and desires in the Local Church? Nothing.” I don’t think John really understood my viewpoint or assessment of the situation, but then, he saw it through male eyes. (Thread of Gold, 240)

To be fair-minded, men, doesn’t the foregoing quotation illustrate a situation that is, at least, just a little lop-sided? Is this really God’s ordination? Does the Bible fully support this kind of churching, with absolutely no possibility of another way that might be better? Try to see it through a woman’s eyes.

John · 09-22-2017, 11:56 AM

Have you ever tried to see-saw with a much bigger person on the other end? The larger person has to work hard to balance the differential. Guys, many of us are like that bigger person, and almost all of tradition is on our end and not the ladies’ end. Sometimes, rather than try to find a balance and have an enjoyable see-saw, a guy will make it into a competition to see who can stay on, throwing his weight into it until the lady comes off.

I know that some reading this are ahead of me in this area; but, for the edification of those who are not, I would like to challenge you to begin to take special note of Bible verses that have to do with women. I think that this is warranted, since many of us have overlooked the women of chayil in the Bible in the past. (I’m over-simplifying and over-generalizing in this post; it’s not a comprehensive study but just a glance at some verses in Matthew, which is where I was reading.) I am trying to balance the see-saw so that the ladies can get back on and fully contribute according to their gifts and abilities. Hopefully, considering the gender aspect of the gospel will help bring a better balance to our Christian lives and to our expression of God to others.

I realize that some of you may have heard messages about some of these things, but have you really considered the import of them? How should the way that Jesus treated women affect our gospel today, affect the gospel in our own homes?

A woman with ointment

In the last bit of time just before and just after the crucifixion of Jesus, what does Matthew tell us about what the female and male disciples were doing?

7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured [it] on His head as He sat [at the table]. 8 But when His disciples saw [it], they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? ... 13 "Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her." 14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, "What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?" And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. 16 So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him. (Matt. 26:7–8, 13–16, NKJV)

I have often thought about what Jesus said about the woman who poured the ointment on His head. It was very costly, and it was worth it to her. Then, Jesus says to all that the gospel will include a memorial to a woman! Think about it; it sounds very significant. The male observers of her lavish love were indignant, calling it a waste of money. Interestingly, Matthew, immediately afterwards, writes about the man Judas, one of the twelve disciples, who negotiated for money to betray Jesus. Wow, talk about two radically different people with opposing motives being written about back to back. Of course, in this presentation, I am focusing on gender. What were all the male disciples concerned about? Money, purpose, mission, self. What was the woman’s concern? Jesus.

You may have already read or heard similar exposition. What’s interesting to me is what you can find in the Bible when you start looking for it. Read the Bible again and look at the women. They are there in plain view; but, in the past, I didn’t notice them that much. We men, of course, would not want to think that we would have done what Judas did, but wouldn’t you have been with the rest of the disciples and thought that what the woman did was foolish and a waste? When it comes to Jesus, I don’t think that many women think like many men do (but maybe it’s just me).

We aren’t weak, are we?

Then, of course, there’s that male pride. We can do it, right? At least, when I was younger, I thought that I could. We were in the Local Church. We were going to take the earth for “Christ and the Church.” Let’s look next at some male determination with Peter as our male representative. (Uh oh, you probably know where this is going, but let’s look at it again anyway.)

35 Peter said to Him, "Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!" And so said all the disciples. ... 40 Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "What? Could you not watch with Me one hour? ... 43 And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy. ... 45 Then He came to His disciples and said to them, "Are [you] still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. ... 56 "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled. (Matt. 26:35, 40, 43, 45, 56, NKJV)

I used to love a mission. I could do a lot. Oftentimes, now, however, all I want to do is sleep. Usually, when I wake up, if I check on my wife, she is busy. (Hopefully, most of you guys are better than I am in this regard.)

I’d like to skip over the part where Peter melted in front of a girl and a maid, but I can’t. Eventually, he even denied knowing Jesus with cursing and swearing:

69 Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, "You also were with Jesus of Galilee." 70 But he denied it before [them] all, saying, "I do not know what you are saying." 71 And when he had gone out to the gateway, another [girl] saw him and said to those [who were] there, "This [fellow] also was with Jesus of Nazareth." 72 But again he denied with an oath, "I do not know the Man!" 73 And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, "Surely you also are [one] of them, for your speech betrays you." 74 Then he began to curse and swear, [saying], "I do not know the Man!" Immediately a rooster crowed. (Matt. 26:69–74, NKJV)

Come on, Peter, I know that you were a fisherman … but cursing and swearing? Oh yeah, I’ve done that, too. If all else fails, bring out the sailor’s vocabulary. Peter’s not representing us so well, and I haven’t done so well either.

Through the cross, Oh Lord, I pray

Let’s go on to the cross and the grave. Who watched Jesus being crucified? Only women according to Matthew’s account. Who went to His grave? The women.

55 And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. ... 61 And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the tomb. (Matt. 27:55–56, 61, NKJV)

It’s a good thing we have those other gospel accounts, or we men would really not be looking so good.

Finally, let’s look at the resurrection. To whom did Jesus entrust the first gospel message? The women. In an interesting side note, I’m told that a woman’s testimony could not be accepted in a court of law back then; yet, Jesus told women to give the greatest testimony ever—that He had come back from death!

1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first [day] of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. ... 5 But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 "He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 "And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go [and] tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me." (Matt. 28:1, 5–10, NKJV)

Comparing women and men

Some simple comparisons that could be made are these (jumping vigorously on the ladies’ side of the see-saw):

A woman was extravagantly pouring out for Jesus; the men were indignant, counting the cost, and presenting their suggestion for its use. (Jesus liked her way.)
The women were watching; the men were sleeping.
The women were at the cross; the men were mostly absent.
The women were at the grave; the men were not. (Jesus revealed Himself to those there.)
A woman saw Jesus and told the men; the men heard but didn’t believe. (Jesus rebuked them for not believing her.[ Mark 16:9–11])
The women mostly went toward Jesus; the men mostly left Him.

Read the Bible in this way and look for the contributions of the women. (Mentally jump on their end of the see-saw. This might jolt the male perspective that rests heavily on the other end.) Think about how women have been treated and even maligned by Christian men. Reread the quotes about women that awareness offered which were made by male clergy of the past (and there are worse ones than those), and consider how you think of women. Do you see them as women of chayil? Think about and pray about how you might support and honor women—especially your wife—to further God’s kingdom. At a minimum, it seems that there is at least one woman that Jesus expects you to memorialize.

Drake · 09-23-2017, 08:54 AM

John>"The poster seems to admit that he has met husbands in the Local Church who verbally mistreated their wives, but he makes it sound as if it is a rare thing. If he thinks so, then he hasn’t read The Thread of Gold, has forgotten what is in it, or has some other reason or reasons."

Hey John. I really like your Lake Wobegone story telling style. It's kinda folksy yet with a hint of rage just below the surface. Keeps it entertaining. Its like you'd prefer to be blunt "hey, that's my wife you're talking about!" but smooth the anger over with long winded stories. And yet, its there in every paragraph. Exciting.

This poster, Drake, did not admit to meeting husbands in the Local Church who verbally abused their wives as you surmise. In fact, I cannot recall ever meeting even one. Does not mean they didn't, I'm not omnipresent and don't know what happens at home. But you are making the argument that it is woven into the local church fabric moreso than anywhere else. Yet, the examples you use do not indicate a male bias issue. For instance, the elder who slams the desk and yells about the evils of fornication indicates intemperance, not male bias. As I read each of your examples I do not see male bias nor any uniqueness to the local church.

Furthermore, Brother Lee long ago talked about the sisters meeting the Lord, touching Him on the morning of the resurrection, and the other biblical examples of sister firsts you mentioned. Though it's fine to use those examples to make your point it's not fine to present them like they are revelations uniquely revealed to Jane. Give credit where it is due John. Brother Lee spoke of these matters long ago now.

And yes, I did read Jane's first book cover to cover. Sorry John, I don't see male bias in it. Rather, I see a detailed account of a train wreck unfolded in slo mo.

Yet, rather than respond to "this poster" I suggest you respond in a scholarly way to the points made by those posters Evangelical, Ohio, and ZNP. They have posed reasonable arguments and questions.

Drake

awareness · 09-14-2017, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

awareness,

Did you read John's post again, even once? UntoHim gave you an obvious list. Here's another clue, even more obvious:

The last paragraph of John's post is titled "Appeal to Christian men".

Appeal to Christian men
Men, if you are not, wouldn’t you want to be married to a woman of chayil? How might your behavior toward women change if you believed that God wanted all Christian women to be women of chayil? The thing I most remember from Bushnell’s book is the point that the God-given gifts of half the body of Christ have been stifled because of wrong thinking about Christian women. Our Christian sisters have been the objects of our wrong attitudes and behaviors. Please, at least pray about the possibility and give the Lord an opportunity to show you how to value, honor, and learn from these members of the body, a body of which you are a part.

I guess there's really something to this "man needs a helper" business. In Gen. 2:16-18 God told man what to eat and what not to eat. Immediately, God knew man needed help following these simple instructions, so he created woman.

This was posted on December 4, 2016: The Message, The Mission

Nell

Right on Nell. Thanks much. I think I understand now, what Jane's mission is. It's to start a spiritual revival like never seen before. And it's about time Christian men and women come to know, believe, and practice equality of men and women in the body of Christ.

Is there a way to reach churches that teach and practice otherwise here in Kentucky ; a way that doesn't result in a running out on a rail? Sadly, a man will have to do it. Cuz they won't listen to women.

And that's why, those that need it, like Lee's Recovery movement, won't listen to Jane.

What's that about urinating up a rope?

Nell · 09-14-2017, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Right on Nell. Thanks much. I think I understand now, what Jane's mission is. It's to start a spiritual revival like never seen before.

No. awareness. That's not it. Jane can't start a spiritual revival. That's not her mission. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. This is what Jane said on the topic:

Quote:

"I believe that when both men and women begin to acknowledge and correct the part they each play in the perpetuation of this great offense, healing will begin. The church and the earth will begin to experience a fresh outpouring of spiritual life. There will be a spiritual revival the likes of which have never been seen. Such a revival is certainly needed in the times in which we live."

When Christian men and women are clean...repentant of offenses to the Body of Christ, there will be a spiritual revival. Jane can only take care of her own spiritual condition. John can only take care of his own spiritual condition. I can only take care of my spiritual condition. God is clean. God is Holy. God is right. He gave his Son that we could be forgiven of our sins. This is the great need of the church today...repentance for our own sins, and sins against each other...Christian men and Christian women in the church.

Quote:

And it's about time Christian men and women come to know, believe, and practice equality of men and women in the body of Christ.

Based on what? Social justice? The women's movement? No. Rather, such beliefs and practices in the Body must be based on God's Word.

Quote:

Is there a way to reach churches that teach and practice otherwise here in Kentucky ; a way that doesn't result in a running out on a rail? Sadly, a man will have to do it. Cuz they won't listen to women.

And that's why, those that need it, like Lee's Recovery movement, won't listen to Jane.

You can't really control what others teach or practice. That's not why you begin to speak what you have seen and heard. If they tar and feather you, or ride you out of town on a rail, so be it. You first have to be convinced in your own mind what God's word actually teaches. If God tells you to speak, obey Him. Then be willing to pay the price for whatever criticism may come your way...such as that which John and Jane have endured from you and other men on this forum. That's where you start. Again, it's not about social justice for women in the church. It's about the truth of God's Word. Today's "women's movement" is little more than a poor counterfeit of God's heart toward women.

As you have stated...

Quote:

Me too bro Drake. I think Bushnell and Jane are barking up the wrong tree. But I do support equality for women. And that's pretty much been accomplished, except in some - many here - churches, where women are held in subjection.

What tree is that? What tree are Jane and Bushnell "barking up?"

Some progress has been made in the church by genuine believers who practice the truth of God's word toward women. Yet much of today's "women's equality" is secular. Much of what has been "accomplished" today has been done by unbelievers. Of course, not all are unbelievers, but many are. This is the great counterfeit. This is not what Jane and Katharine Bushnell are discussing. Unbelievers have nothing to do with the Body of Christ.

It's not about "unregenerate men and women's word to women". It's about GOD'S WORD TO WOMEN.

Now. Read it again:
This was posted on December 4, 2016: The Message, The Mission

Nell

Ohio · 09-14-2017, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

When Christian men and women are clean...repentant of offenses to the Body of Christ, there will be a spiritual revival. Jane can only take care of her own spiritual condition. John can only take care of his own spiritual condition. I can only take care of my spiritual condition. God is clean. God is Holy. God is right. He gave his Son that we could be forgiven of our sins. This is the great need of the church today...repentance for our own sins, and sins against each other...Christian men and Christian women in the church.

Based on what? Social justice? The women's movement? No. Rather, such beliefs and practices in the Body must be based on God's Word.

You can't really control what others teach or practice. You first have to be convinced in your own mind what God's word actually teaches. That's where you start. Again, it's not about social justice for women in the church. It's about the truth of God's Word. Today's "women's movement" is little more than a poor counterfeit of God's heart toward women.

Some progress has been made in the church by genuine believers who practice the truth of God's word toward women. Yet much of whatever secular "women's equality" which may have been "accomplished" today can and has been achieved to a large extent by unbelievers. Of course, not all are unbelievers, but many are. This is the great counterfeit. This is not what Jane and Katharine Bushnell are discussing. Unbelievers have nothing to do with the Body of Christ.

It's not about "unregenerate men and women's word to women". It's about GOD'S WORD TO WOMEN.

Since all Christian men have supposedly been guilty of Satan-induced attitudes towards women in the church, what do you say about all the revivals which have already occurred during the age of grace? In my study of church history, I have never read of a revival prompted by all the men repenting of their attitudes towards women in the church. Then how can you claim there will be a spiritual revival, or there will not be spiritual revival?

The last major revival in the USA occurred during the "Jesus People" movement of the 60's. History tells us that this movement of the Spirit occurred while women were supposedly suffering great "insult" at the hands of male church leaders. There were great revivals in Jerusalem in the book of Acts and they occurred in the context of so-called "male-dominance." Jesus Himself often quoted scripture from the Septuagint. Why did He never tell us about how bad that translation was since it was made by 70 male scholars in Alexandria?

I am concerned that this book offers false promise to the church of God. Where is the scripture that tells men that revival will not occur until repentance of chauvinist attitudes occurs? In II Timothy 3.1-4 Apostle Paul lists the prevalent sins of the church in these last days. Why can't I find one that specifically mentions these pitiful attitudes in the church towards women? I can barely find a verse in the rest of the Bible. If the Bible is silent on this topic, perhaps it is not because of male-bias, but because the Spirit is silent.

This in no way justifies any of the abuse, mistreatment, neglect, or shortage of sacrificial love seen in some Christian husbands. Actually for every story of an abusive husband, I could likewise produce a story of an abusive wife, and that's why scripture speaks to man and woman alike.

Today our country is divided by unending claims of misogyny, racism, xenophobia, etc. I would be seriously concerned about the church of God if Bushnell's writings took hold. Instead of blessing, I would fear more unrest and division, just like I see in the world. Why is it that the more we talk about problems, the more they seem to multiply, and get worse.

awareness · 09-14-2017, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Based on what? Social justice? The women's movement? No. Rather, such beliefs and practices in the Body must be based on God's Word.

What tree is that? What tree are Jane and Bushnell "barking up?"

The translation tree. Cuz if like you say, "based on God's word," then women will never appreciate their function in the body of Christ. The fault does not fall onto the translations. The fault lies with the male authors of the Bible, that put their male biases into their books ... that have been canonized as God's word.

Thanks for your considered response.

Nell · 09-14-2017, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

... Then how can you claim there will be a spiritual revival, or there will not be spiritual revival?
...

Ohio,

Sorry..."There will be" was a response to awareness' as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Right on Nell. Thanks much. I think I understand now, what Jane's mission is. It's to start a spiritual revival like never seen before. ...

I countered that Jane couldn't start a "spiritual revival" but under the right conditions, a spiritual revival will happen.

Nell

Nell · 09-15-2017, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

Some may have been bothered about some of what has been written about Jane and me (some of which has been moved by the moderator). We don’t hold anything against anyone; we realize that all have their own difficult experiences in life, especially when it comes to marriage. I still remember being in meetings of the Local Church in which it was boasted that there were no divorces like in poor Christianity. Obviously, that was a long time ago.

About books and a website

In addition to our marriage being maligned, it was insinuated that we were in the publishing business for the money. Without going into detail, I’ll just state that we have not profited a penny off of all our books; we are still in the red. Why is this? It’s because Jane keeps giving books away. (She’s given away more than we’ve sold.)

In other words, our publishing is a ministry to the Lord; we don’t do it for the money. In fact, Jane wanted to give away all of The Thread of Gold books, but was counseled not to do so. She also did not want to market the book, stating that the Lord would do that. In fact, that happened on the old Berean’s forum when someone opened a thread about the book, unbeknownst to us. We were not involved in that forum at the time.

Jane is now trying to get the word out about the woman topic, since it affects so many Christians; her audience includes Local Church Christians but many others, too. She started a blog to this end, and she has informed a bunch of folks that she is blogging. Regardless, neither one of us started this thread on the Local Church Discussions forum, nor did we have anything to do with this happening. If anyone wants to use the thread to advertise Jane’s work, please, just use it to market the message of her books and blog—which is about helping Christian men and women understand how God wants them to view and treat each other, which includes repenting to each other.

Freedom in marriage

I am writing as a married Christian male who has some things to say in particular to the other males here. I will try to be inclusive in what I write, with respect to the diverse audience (not all are married, some are women, some simply want to distort whatever I say), but I might not succeed. In other words, I am going to speak some things from my heart, and I hope readers can receive them in the spirit which I mean them.

Now, as to marriage: What if you, married Christian men, could be really free in your marriages? The following is an abbreviated description of my journey to freedom.

One day, I noticed that Jane was reading a book. I asked her about it, but she was reticent to show it to me. I pressed, and she did. It was God’s Word to Women. She was in the middle of it and said that I could read The Magna Carta of Woman while I waited for her to finish, which was like a condensed version of it. After reading both, I wrote “Woman 101: What Every Christian Man Needs To Know.”

So, what is this freedom of which I speak? It is freedom from the doctrines and attitudes that I picked up while in the Local Church, as well as from our culture before that, as regards women. I used to think and feel that I was at least somewhat responsible for controlling my wife because it was what God expected of me. I believed all that I understood of what I had read in the King James version of the Bible (because that is what the Local Church used at the time), including all I understood that it said about women.

One thing that Jane has mentioned to me several times is this: As a man “thinketh … so is he” (Pro. 23:7). Therefore, to get a change in behavior, one’s mind needs to be changed. That is what my posts are about—giving information that might cause people to consider the possibility that there might be another side to the story and a need for a change in thinking.

Our marriage

Since it has been brought up, what kind of a marriage do Jane and I have? This kind of question reminds me of elder Ray Graver making a very inappropriate comment to Jane about our marriage, at the end of the infamous 1977 kangaroo court handling of her (chronicled in The Thread of Gold): “I always wondered why the Lord put you two together, and now I know.”

To put it succinctly, Jane is my woman of chayil. In fact, it is through her that I was born again. After working through many problems in our marriage and family, mostly caused by me, we now make a great team. When I first read the post insinuating that the order was upside down in our house, I thought of these words: “heirs together of the grace of life.” Well, what’s the whole verse?

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. (1 Pet. 3:7, KJV)

I was reminded of what had stood out to me recently: “heirs together.” The Lord showed me that I had been relegating this phrase to the future because of the word “heirs.” Then, I understood that we have it now! We have the grace of life, Jane and I. So, my brothers, think about the word, “together.” Just dwell on this one verse for awhile. Let the Lord speak to your hearts. I know that I’m vacillating between giving what I thought would be a brief testimony and preaching, but I’m just going with the flow. Besides, in the context of the verse, Jane and I do pray together, and God does answer our prayers.

Back to marriage, I was a strong man, or so I thought, who was used to keeping Jane in her place with cutting words and jokes and brief references to Scripture and other such ways. I thought that I was right. I was oblivious to the fact that my sons were watching and learning poor treatment of my wife and their mother, therefore giving opportunity for the cycle to continue. (I have now repented to Jane and my sons for this.) These things were mostly done without a conscious motive. It was just who I was. Back to the freedom part: I don’t have to do that anymore. I don’t have to try to put her in her place. How could I even know what that is? Am I her God? Am I to be the mediator between God and her? No, that position has been filled by the One Who bought her with His blood. She is a free woman in Christ, and I am a free man in Christ! Isn’t it time that you set women free to be the women that God has called them to be? Do you trust your wife? Do you trust women? Or, do you use your interpretation of the Genesis account to justify your refusal to listen to them seriously?

Should we have gotten married?

Jane and I fellowship all the time. We have a standing date every Saturday morning at a fast-food restaurant, where we talk about the Bible and our experiences and our understandings. The rest of our week, we talk on the fly about what we are reading or realizing about the Christian life—what it is, and what it should or could be.

I am not trying to portray us as a perfect couple or one that should be emulated. I’m just saying that we are getting better and better at this Christian marriage thing. This is no less than a miracle, I think, given the fact that I was a hard man to live with for a Christian wife, and still am, in many ways. I will tell you that over the last period of time, the Lord has been speaking to me a lot about humility.

I can’t recall if this is in any of her books or not; but, when we were going to a Christian counselor for help with one of our sons, and after the results came back from a test we each took, we were told, “If I had talked to you before marriage, I would have counseled you not to have gotten married. The fact that you are still married is a testament to the powerful working of Jesus in your lives.” Jane and I are two very different people; but, we both fear the Lord and are committed to Him: He is the One Who makes our marriage work.

Due to the personal attacks against Jane and me, I thought that it was appropriate for me to present the foregoing; and, with the context in mind, I also thought that it would be appropriate and, hopefully, enlightening to some, for me to write the following:

My Woman of Chayil

I have found a woman of chayil, and she is worth far more than rubies.
I can safely trust in her.
She does good for me and not evil.
She is always busy.
She goes as far as it takes to get what is needed.
She is up at all hours, communing with the Lord. She stays in contact with others sharing what she has received from Him.
She is generous and always working for others.
She helped provide for her family what they needed, including spiritual food. Her children are born-again, and they seek to walk with the Lord as they actively serve Him in His church.
She trained herself to use a computer, and then started and ran her own software company from home.
She applies her hands to the keyboard, preparing words of help for those in need.
She is strong, honorable, and wise. She spends much of her time helping others.
There are other women of chayil; but, to me, she is the most excellent.
She is a woman who fears the Lord, and she teaches others to do the same.
I, her husband, praise her, and so do her works.
Her name is Jane; and, in less than a week, we will have been married 50 years.

I am indebted, of course, to the author of Proverbs 31 (likely to Solomon, the wisest man), for the basic structure of my presentation. Jane, who actually has written poetry, would have done much better if writing about me. By the way, she did the artwork for The Woman of Chayil and A Song of Songs Woman. Not only that, when in church after singing a hymn, people she doesn’t know often turn around and tell her that she has a beautiful voice and should be in the choir.

Appeal to Christian men

Men, if you are not, wouldn’t you want to be married to a woman of chayil? How might your behavior toward women change if you believed that God wanted all Christian women to be women of chayil? The thing I most remember from Bushnell’s book is the point that the God-given gifts of half the body of Christ have been stifled because of wrong thinking about Christian women. Our Christian sisters have been the objects of our wrong attitudes and behaviors. Please, at least pray about the possibility and give the Lord an opportunity to show you how to value, honor, and learn from these members of the body, a body of which you are a part.

Happy 50th Anniversary, John and Jane!

I'm bringing John's post back to the top of the thread because the comments just haven't done justice to what he wrote.

As a close family friend, I have known John and Jane for about 40 of their 50 year marriage. Knowing them as I do, that John could write such a post after 50 years of marriage is a glory to God! When Drake says about John's post "... at the risk of being accused of being henpecked", this is his backhanded way of accusing John of being "henpecked." This says more about Drake than it does about John.

I can't speak for John, but I have been witness to Jane's many tears over their lives together, which includes their sons. Two things stand out to me now: 1) the times through pain and tears, Jane would say "I love John." 2) One day Jane told me over the phone that, through God's speaking, she had come to the realization that "I can't fix John." This realization obviously came after so many years of trying. She gave him to the Lord to do the job only He could do. She began to cooperate with God and stay out of His way. I don't know how long ago this was, but I'm going to guess that it happened in the neighborhood of 25 years ago.

We have discussed on this forum, to a small extent, what Gen. 2:18 means practically. That is:

Genesis 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.”

We could say: 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for John to be alone. I will make Jane for him...she corresponds to him.”

When Jane realized that she couldn't fix John, she was no longer in the "henpeck" business. She became the helper God made her to be...for John. John's post is the testimony of God's ability to work in the lives of a married couple and make them the people He meant them to be...together. Until I read other similar testimonies on this forum, this one will stand at the top of the list.

This statement by Drake: "So though, I am sympathetic to the people involved yet I reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject" is woefully shortsighted. I would say that Drake would do well to take the path John is on...unless of course, he's already on this path.

Nell

Drake · 09-15-2017, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Happy 50th Anniversary, John and Jane!
When Drake says about John's post "... at the risk of being accused of being henpecked", this is his backhanded way of accusing John of being "henpecked." This says more about Drake than it does about John.....
This statement by Drake: "So though, I am sympathetic to the people involved yet I reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject" is woefully shortsighted. I would say that Drake would do well to take the path John is on...unless of course, he's already on this path.
Nell

Nell

To the first point....Er.. if you read all the responses 3 or 4 more times you would see just how supportive I was being of John.

Yet... "woefully shortsighted" in calling out the dangerous path Jane has taken in changing selected "lemon" Bible verses to fit her new world view? "Woefully shortsighted" in calling out the slippery slope Jane is now on where one aberration leads to another? Just how far does she follow Bushnell doctrine? Down the hermaphrodite path? Surely she read that part... and she is still all in or does she also draw a line? If so, where?

John's devotion is understandable. So is yours. However, the most beneficial comments are not those of a devoted husband or friend but rather the voice of the contrarian. Reading John's defense of his wife another 3 or 4 times won't do anything to help Jane and the dangerous path she is on. What you consider comments attacking Jane are really cries of support akin to "hey kid, stop playing hopscotch in the middle of the intersection at Beach and Garden Grove!".

Drake

Ohio · 09-15-2017, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

This statement by Drake: "So though, I am sympathetic to the people involved yet I reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject" is woefully shortsighted. I would say that Drake would do well to take the path John is on...unless of course, he's already on this path.

While I love to give God all the glory for every blessed marriage, I'm still not seeing the connection between John and Jane's wonderful marriage and male gender bias in Bible translations, which is basically the subject of this thread.

Nell · 09-15-2017, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

While I love to give God all the glory for every blessed marriage, I'm still not seeing the connection between John and Jane's wonderful marriage and male gender bias in Bible translations, which is basically the subject of this thread.

That's because there is no connection.

This thread, titled "New Jane Anderson Website," in places, morphed into the usual prevailing strawman---male gender bias. It's not even about Jane's actual website. Male gender bias was only one point Jane wrote about. Yet this often became the subject of this thread.

IMHO, there either was male gender bias by the translators, or there wasn't. But that's hardly the most important issue. The issue is, are the lemon passages translated correctly or not?

John's testimony and Jane's message (link below) should be the subject, including Jane's new website.

This was posted on December 4, 2016: Jane's Message

Drake has sounded an alarm. Thanks Drake. We will take your concerns under advisement and trust God for His enlightenment.

Nell

awareness · 09-15-2017, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

The issue is, are the lemon passages translated correctly or not?

I have a cousin here that I've been very close to since we were youngins'. When I was in the local church I turned him onto Watchman Nee.

That aside, he's been a staunch conservative Southern Baptist most all his life. Eventually 10 yrs or so ago he took classes in Koine Greek so he could read the N.T. in the original Greek. Before learning Greek he was a KJV inerrantist.

I had lunch with him yesterday and talked to him about translations. He said that none of the translations are inerrant, that something is always lost when the Greek is translated. Moreover, he discovered something in his Greek classes. Before the classes he was a Received Text only (KJV manuscripts). But in the Greek classes he discovered that there were many Greek manuscripts, and they don't agree with each other. As a result he's no longer an inerrantist.

So sister Nell, the answer to, is the translations correct, is, none of the translations are correct. And even more, it's likely none of the manuscripts are correct. We don't know, and prolly never will, unless we discover the autograph originals, that's not probable in the least.

Nell · 09-15-2017, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

...And even more, it's likely none of the manuscripts are correct. We don't know, and prolly never will, unless we discover the autograph originals, that's not probable in the least.

Here's what Bushnell says about the original text in God's Word to Women, Lesson 1, Paragraph 3:

"3. The assumption that the text needs amending, to any great extent, is very erroneous. A candid acceptance of the testimony as to its history proves that the original text has been preserved in manuscripts with scarcely an important change. It is known that the Scribes wrote out their copy with immense care, as to the Hebrew Old Testament. They copied even supposed errors, calling attention to seeming irregularities by slight marks, but not venturing to correct. They have left records to show that when copying they counted each consonant and vowel-letter in each line, and kept records of the same, in order to verify their finished work. Superstition alone was enough to cause the Jews to preserve their Scripture text inviolable, they prized the letter beyond the spirit of the Word. The Apostle Paul speaks indirect testimony of their faithful preservation of the Hebrew text, since had it been otherwise, the Jews would have been less in favour with God, Romans 3:1-2. Jesus Christ strongly denounced the misinterpretation of the Scriptures by the “traditions” of the Jews, Mark 7:9-13, etc., but He never accused the Jews of corrupting the text of their Scriptures."

Nell

awareness · 09-15-2017, 06:24 PM

I read that sis. But thanks for repeating it. Still, current Bible scholarship proves it's another example of Bushnell being mistaken. I think back then, in the early part of the 20th c. Bushnell was like my cousin before he learned Koine Greek.

ZNPaaneah · 09-16-2017, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

That's because there is no connection.

This thread, titled "New Jane Anderson Website," in places, morphed into the usual prevailing strawman---male gender bias. It's not even about Jane's actual website. Male gender bias was only one point Jane wrote about. Yet this often became the subject of this thread.

IMHO, there either was male gender bias by the translators, or there wasn't. But that's hardly the most important issue. The issue is, are the lemon passages translated correctly or not?

John's testimony and Jane's message (link below) should be the subject, including Jane's new website.

This was posted on December 4, 2016: Jane's Message

Drake has sounded an alarm. Thanks Drake. We will take your concerns under advisement and trust God for His enlightenment.

Nell

If we look at the passage in Genesis identified as one of these "lemon verses" the translation of "desire" is considered a bad translation that should be "turn to".

However, there is no dispute that the verse talks about the trouble that women will have in childbirth and childrearing. There are biologic reasons why human babies are born completely helpless and requiring much more time and effort in the rearing than babies of all other mammals. Therefore, whether the woman's "desire" is to the man, or she "turns to" the man, the context is the difficulty involved in bearing and rearing children. This is a fact, not a bias.

We know that raising children requires a tremendous amount of labor, perhaps for 20 years. We know that single parent mothers are the largest group of poor in this country.

So then I disagree with the interpretation that the woman is being warned against "turning to" the man, that doesn't make sense.

In addition, according to the interpretation she presents the woman is not held accountable for her actions in the fall. However, that supports the interpretation that the man, as "head", is held accountable. So again, I don't think this is an accurate interpretation since the interpreter agrees that the man is the one held responsible for the woman's actions.

Third, the interpreter argues that the woman is never banished from the garden, only the man. However, they also bring up Genesis 5 where Adam is considered to include both the male and female (i.e. Mr. and Mrs. Adam). If God banished the Adams that includes both Adam and Eve, they are now a unit. This is supported by Jesus interpretation that "what God has joined together let not man separate".

Therefore in looking at this one very critical "lemon" verse I don't think the translation "desire" or "turn to" changes the meaning and the attempt to interpret the way this person has is fatally flawed.

OBW · 09-18-2017, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Therefore, whether the woman's "desire" is to the man, or she "turns to" the man, the context is the difficulty involved in bearing and rearing children. This is a fact, not a bias.

Actually, I do not see your determination of the context as being a fact. The context is the declarations of God toward the man and woman as the result of their disobedience. Bearing and rearing children is only one of the things that was included in what was said to the woman. It is NOT the context.

ZNPaaneah · 09-18-2017, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, I do not see your determination of the context as being a fact. The context is the declarations of God toward the man and woman as the result of their disobedience. Bearing and rearing children is only one of the things that was included in what was said to the woman. It is NOT the context.

It is a fact that women have a more difficult time bearing children than any other species, this is a biologic consequence of our walking on two legs.

As a result of this it is also a fact that human children require years of training, much more than that of any other mammal.

The fact is that bearing and rearing human children is a much more difficult process than for any other species on this planet.

These facts are referred to in this very same verse when God says He will "I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children". Whether you want to refer to it as "the context" or to "one of the things included in the context" does it make any difference? Either way why would God be warning the woman not to "turn to" the man for help?

The question is if a change in translation of this verse from the word "desire" to "turn to" results in changing the interpretation to God warning the woman not to turn to man for help.

John · 09-19-2017, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If we look at the passage in Genesis identified as one of these "lemon verses" the translation of "desire" is considered a bad translation that should be "turn to".

However, there is no dispute that the verse talks about the trouble that women will have in childbirth and childrearing. There are biologic reasons why human babies are born completely helpless and requiring much more time and effort in the rearing than babies of all other mammals. Therefore, whether the woman's "desire" is to the man, or she "turns to" the man, the context is the difficulty involved in bearing and rearing children. This is a fact, not a bias.

We know that raising children requires a tremendous amount of labor, perhaps for 20 years. We know that single parent mothers are the largest group of poor in this country.

So then I disagree with the interpretation that the woman is being warned against "turning to" the man, that doesn't make sense.

In addition, according to the interpretation she presents the woman is not held accountable for her actions in the fall. However, that supports the interpretation that the man, as "head", is held accountable. So again, I don't think this is an accurate interpretation since the interpreter agrees that the man is the one held responsible for the woman's actions.

Third, the interpreter argues that the woman is never banished from the garden, only the man. However, they also bring up Genesis 5 where Adam is considered to include both the male and female (i.e. Mr. and Mrs. Adam). If God banished the Adams that includes both Adam and Eve, they are now a unit. This is supported by Jesus interpretation that "what God has joined together let not man separate".

Therefore in looking at this one very critical "lemon" verse I don't think the translation "desire" or "turn to" changes the meaning and the attempt to interpret the way this person has is fatally flawed.

Before I can press forward with new writing, I need to address a post on the thread from a few days ago. After reading it, I realized that I should reply in some detail because it is so deceptive. Let’s go bit by bit and look into it. I mean, it does look like an analysis, after all:

If we look at the passage in Genesis identified as one of these "lemon verses" the translation of "desire" is considered a bad translation that should be "turn to".

Alarm bells sound in my head: First, the poster is wrong about what Jane stated. She stated that it should be “turning,” not “turn to.” This causes me to question whether or not the poster even read or paid much attention to what Jane wrote. In my mind, this kind of carelessness alone would bring a serious reduction in grade if submitted in college.

However, there is no dispute that the verse talks about the trouble that women will have in childbirth and childrearing. There are biologic reasons why human babies are born completely helpless and requiring much more time and effort in the rearing than babies of all other mammals. Therefore, whether the woman's "desire" is to the man, or she "turns to" the man, the context is the difficulty involved in bearing and rearing children. This is a fact, not a bias.

The verse does talk about childbirth and childrearing, but this does not establish the whole context for God’s speaking to the woman. (To speak about the context within one verse is more than just a little odd.) The poster goes into biology to add, I suppose, what he thinks will give an aura of authenticity to his argument. Then, based on what he has stated about part of the verse, he proceeds to tell us what the context is, and then punctuate it by stating that it is a fact, signifying, I guess, that his proclamation is beyond debate, based on the “context” of a few sentences in one verse.

Let me show the verse translation by Bushnell which Jane uses, and see for yourself if the whole context is about childbearing:

Unto the woman He said, "A snare has increased thy sorrow and thy sighing. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. Thou art turning away to thy husband and he will rule over thee.

I suppose that the poster thinks that he has gotten readers to believe that the entire “context” of the verse is only about birthing and rearing children. I am definitely not convinced about his assertion as to the topic. Anyhow, he continues:

We know that raising children requires a tremendous amount of labor, perhaps for 20 years. We know that single parent mothers are the largest group of poor in this country.

He continues his talk about childrearing. I guess that he is still trying to convince us that the topic is about how to birth and rear children, even bringing in a social comment about poor women having to rear children by themselves.

Then, somehow, I guess with his thinking that God’s whole reason for talking to the woman was so that she would realize how she was going to give birth to and rear children, he concludes that the warning to the woman doesn’t make sense:

So then I disagree with the interpretation that the woman is being warned against "turning to" the man, that doesn't make sense.

Interesting reasoning, his: Claim that the context of one verse is what he thinks it is, claim that it is a fact, throw in some biology and sociology, and then conclude that Jane’s conclusion doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t fit into his supposed “context” within that verse.

I would say that his analysis and conclusion don’t make sense. By this time, I am wondering exactly what he actually read in Jane’s book. He seems to be writing his own narrative about what he thinks the verse means and stating that a re-translation isn’t necessary, implying that the one Jane offers (by Bushnell) doesn’t make sense.

Actually, the translation changes are huge in their import, affecting all of humankind. The most charitable thing I can write is that he needs to read Jane’s text about Genesis again—all of it. Read it slowly and think and pray about it.

After reading what comes next, I lose what little respect I might have had for this post:

In addition, according to the interpretation she presents the woman is not held accountable for her actions in the fall. However, that supports the interpretation that the man, as "head", is held accountable. So again, I don't think this is an accurate interpretation since the interpreter agrees that the man is the one held responsible for the woman's actions.

Jane did not write what he states that she did. This is coming from his imagination, I suppose. What Jane did was to quote the apostle Paul in Romans 5:12, 14–15, and 17. Paul is the one who blamed the Fall on Adam; Jane simply agreed with Paul. The poster leaps from the idea that he has invented to state that Jane said that the woman was not responsible for her actions! This is an astoundingly twisted representation of what Jane wrote.

After losing the little respect I had, I wonder what else will spring forth. Amazingly, it gets worse:

Third, the interpreter argues that the woman is never banished from the garden, only the man. However, they also bring up Genesis 5 where Adam is considered to include both the male and female (i.e. Mr. and Mrs. Adam). If God banished the Adams that includes both Adam and Eve, they are now a unit. This is supported by Jesus interpretation that "what God has joined together let not man separate".

First, Jane does not even write about Genesis 5! Think about it. The second quoted sentence above is a total fabrication! I read about one poster who couldn’t trust Bushnell because she supposedly believed in the hermaphrodite (which she doesn’t); I wonder what trust he would have in someone who makes up something and attributes it to someone who doesn’t even write about it at all?

What I just wrote should give anyone pause about trusting any posts from this source; but, that's not all: In the first sentence of what I just quoted from him, he also falsely claimed that Jane said that the woman was never banished from the garden. Since he doesn’t tell us from where he got this notion, I will supply the portion to which he may be referring:

Just as a small finger held up between the eye and the sun can completely block the orb of the sun from view, the one word change from “turning” to “desire” has blocked a proper understanding of the account of the Fall in Genesis 3. The word “turning” in Genesis 3:16 reveals that it was Eve's choice to “turn” from God to Adam. This reference to her turning to him may mean that she was not driven out of the garden with Adam, but that she chose to follow him out. Regardless, in this verse, God was warning Eve that, because of her turning to Adam, Adam would rule over her. Rather than a command for the man to rule over woman, this was a warning to Eve of what was going to happen to her as a consequence of her choice. Whether she went out of the garden of her own volition or not, it is clear that God saw her turning away from Him to Adam and warned her of the danger of doing this. (A Woman of Chayil, 46–47) [underline added]

May I call the poster’s attention to the word, “may”? In layman’s terms, “may” means that it is possible, not definite.

Finally, we come to his last paragraph:

Therefore in looking at this one very critical "lemon" verse I don't think the translation "desire" or "turn to" changes the meaning and the attempt to interpret the way this person has is fatally flawed.

Honestly, I had to read this last sentence more than five times before I could even make any sense of what he was trying to say. I have read Bushnell’s book, and she states something to the effect that the inaccurate translation of this verse, Genesis 3:16, is the foundation for much of the misunderstanding of God’s view of women. If you don’t get this, you won’t get much; and this poster hasn’t gotten it. The poster needs to spend thoughtful and prayerful time on Katharine’s or Jane’s book, or both, and not be prejudiced by thinking and proclaiming that Genesis 3:16 is all about child bearing.

I hope that I have shown to the reader’s satisfaction that the entire supposed analysis by this poster presents a false impression of Jane’s writing. Why he wrote such things only he knows. I would think that the poster knows that anyone writing even one or two such misstatements would deserve a grade of “F,” if not to be kicked out of an upper-division college program altogether.

Note: Now that I’ve finished with my analysis, I feel like I have just wasted my time—unless some have seen by my effort that, yet again, people misrepresent Jane’s writing on this forum (even stating blatant falsehoods)—some purposefully, some probably unconsciously. I’m going to repeat that if you want to know what Jane thinks, you’re going to have to actually read her book. If my tone seems a little harsh, I guess that I am just disappointed and upset to find a post that appears to be a thoughtful analysis only to be found to be masquerading as one.

I hope that I don’t come across as a know-it-all, because I definitely do not know all that much. I also hope that my language hasn’t been too over the top; I’m just hoping to get posters to pay more attention to what they write and to take a little more time posting factually and accurately. After all, this is a Christian forum: We are not to bear false witness, and we will be held accountable for every idle word. I hope that this poster will write an apology and retraction, because that is all that I am willing to read from him.

Lord, I’ve got to go back to just skimming posts, because this is just sad and depressing. So, to preserve my sanity, maintain my standards, and shepherd my time, I’m going to be ignoring as much of this kind of nonsense as I can in the future. To that end, I will not even pay attention to future posts that claim to write what Jane wrote unless her words, quoted exactly as they appear in the book, are indented, and preceded and followed by blank lines. This still does not mean that I will respond to every post, even if quoted portions are treated as specified. (I see that the same poster has since written more on this thread since his post #165 that I have quoted from and analyzed, but I am not taking his new posts into account; and, I will not be taking them into account for the reasons given.)

In full disclosure and maybe to soften the blow a little (male egos can be easily bruised), I initially had some trouble realizing the import of the translation changes to Genesis 3:16. I had to spend time thinking about it and re-reading appropriate portions before I really got it, and I probably don’t really get the full impact of it.

By the way, the translation changes discussed in this post relate to one verse; however, there are really several changes to the one verse, which you probably won’t appreciate without reading about all of them, and all are important. These things have not been presented in this thread yet.

I do not intend to rewrite Jane’s book to try to make her points. Persevere with her book, or Katharine’s, and you may eventually get more of the impact of the translation changes. And, keep in mind, we are only talking in this post about one verse that has had a huge negative impact on women; there are others that have had a negative impact as well, although this one is considered to be the “The Big Lemon.”

ZNPaaneah · 09-19-2017, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

Before I can press forward with new writing, I need to address a post on the thread from a few days ago. After reading it, I realized that I should reply in some detail because it is so deceptive. Let’s go bit by bit and look into it. I mean, it does look like an analysis, after all:
If we look at the passage in Genesis identified as one of these "lemon verses" the translation of "desire" is considered a bad translation that should be "turn to".
Alarm bells sound in my head: First, the poster is wrong about what Jane stated. She stated that it should be “turning,” not “turn to.” This causes me to question whether or not the poster even read or paid much attention to what Jane wrote. In my mind, this kind of carelessness alone would bring a serious reduction in grade if submitted in college.

The translation, as presented by John in this post is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

Let me show the verse translation by Bushnell which Jane uses, and see for yourself if the whole context is about childbearing:
Unto the woman He said, "A snare has increased thy sorrow and thy sighing. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. Thou art turning away to thy husband and he will rule over thee.

She also quotes the International Standard Version to support this. They translate this portion “your trust is turning toward your husband”

Turning away to / Turn to / turning toward. You can claim that the word “away” is the most important word in the new translation, but it also seems like the word least supported by any other translation. I can see that the word desire towards could have male bias, I can also see that the word “turning to” is a viable and perhaps a more valid translation. But if you change “desire towards” to “turning away to” then that is a major change that needs more academic support than simply Bushnell. The only support Jane gives is a version that does not include “away” but rather says “turning toward”. Therefore I am not inclined to accept the use of “away”. This is my opinion, you clearly have your own and are free to it. Calling me deceptive is insulting. I was responding to Nell’s question about the translation. I don’t reject substituting “turning to” for “desire towards” or even “turning toward”.

This was quoted from Bushnell’s book on Jane’s website: “A seemingly small, but very critical, change to the meaning of one word in this verse took place in a sixteenth century translation. This change made it possible to conceal the most likely scenario of what happened during and immediately after man’s fall.” I was responding to Nell's question about the translation and It is this change that I focused my response to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

After reading what comes next, I lose what little respect I might have had for this post: In addition, according to the interpretation she presents the woman is not held accountable for her actions in the fall. However, that supports the interpretation that the man, as "head", is held accountable. So again, I don't think this is an accurate interpretation since the interpreter agrees that the man is the one held responsible for the woman's actions. Jane did not write what he states that she did. This is coming from his imagination, I suppose. What Jane did was to quote the apostle Paul in Romans 5:12, 14–15, and 17. Paul is the one who blamed the Fall on Adam; Jane simply agreed with Paul. The poster leaps from the idea that he has invented to state that Jane said that the woman was not responsible for her actions! This is an astoundingly twisted representation of what Jane wrote.

Jane refers to Bushnell “She [Bushnell] also noted that nowhere does the Scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden. It does plainly say, however, that He drove Adam out of the garden and that He gave a consequence that was specifically tailored to fit with what Adam’s job had been in the Garden of Eden—to cultivate and guard it.”

Now I understand this to mean that Eve was not held responsible. Perhaps this is not what Jane meant when she put it in her blog, but it is the way it was understood. Perhaps she would like to clarify. Anyway, I disagree with this as well. Jesus said “What God has joined together let no man separate” referring to Adam and Eve. Hence, when Adam was driven from the garden so was Eve, they were a unit. This is supported in chapter 5 of Genesis where it says that God created man, male and female created He them, and He called their name Adam”.

I was surprised by this post. It appears to have involved a thoughtful response that he may have thought about for several days, yet on the other hand it is very insulting. You ask for feedback on the translation, so I take the time to do that, never again.

My post is "deceptive" because "she stated it should be "turning", not "turn to". Yet what she actually wrote was "turning away to" and provided a second version that said "turning toward".

John says "Jane did not write what he states that she did." Referring to my statement that the woman was not held accountable for her actions. What Jane did write in her blog was "She [Bushnell] also noted that nowhere does the scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden." I refute this saying that Adam and Eve were joined together by God, they were not to be separated, and that when God created man He created them male and female and called their name Adam. Regardless of what she meant by writing that God did not put Eve out of the garden, I reject it based on the reasoning I wrote.

ZNPaaneah · 09-20-2017, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

Let me show the verse translation by Bushnell which Jane uses, and see for yourself if the whole context is about childbearing:

Unto the woman He said, "A snare has increased thy sorrow and thy sighing. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. Thou art turning away to thy husband and he will rule over thee.

If you compare Bushnell's version with other reputable versions (I'll simply provide ASV, but KJV and virtually all others agree with this grammatical construct) you can see a very striking difference relative to this question of context. Virtually every translation separates the clauses with either a comma or semi colon, Bushnell is one of very few translators that separates "In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" with "thou art turning away to thy husband". The International Standard version, the one that Jane uses to bolster the translation of "turning toward" combines the two clauses with "since" showing a very clear and explicit context to the statement. ASV joins them with "and" again showing an explicit connection.

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (American Standard Version)

16He told the woman,
“I’ll greatly increase the pain of your labor during childbirth.
It will be painful for you to bear children,
“since your trust is turning[u] toward your husband,
and he will dominate you.” (International Standard version)

In conclusion "turning to" may be a valid translation of the words, but taking the statement and turning it into two separate sentences without any connecting conjunction is something else that makes Bushnell's translation a unique interpretation of this verse from all other translations.

09-14-2017, 07:42 AM	#11
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,075	Re: New Jane Anderson Website Seems obvious that the mission is: "helping Christian men and women understand how God wants them to view and treat each other, which includes repenting to each other." Its a good thing that a man who impulsively controlled his wife and kept her in her place with cutting and manipulative words had a change of heart and realized the error of his ways, repented to her and the family, and set things right between them. I personally have not met many Christian husbands who acted that way in or outside of the Lords Recovery. But for those who are like John once was they would do well to follow his lead even at the risk of being accused of being henpecked. In repentance, over compensation is not a bad thing. Still, I may applaud a man's repentence but not every detail. I do not agree with the lemon verses teaching Jane promotes. It is a slippery slope as it even led Bushnell to postulate the first man Adam was a Hermaphrodite. (That forum members would neglect due diligence on examining that and let that pass without objection exposes a dangerous folly). I also understand the natural response of seeking for an explanation of "why?" based on the traumatic events described in her first book. She and her husband John have found an explanation outside of themselves and their own contribution to that part of their history..... the problem were and are some mistranslated "lemon" verses, or culture, male bias in others who mistreated them. Yet, no one can predict the form of a reshapen wounded soul. The two books describe one story, two parts. Going in and coming out So though, I am sympathetic to the people involved yet I reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject. Drake

09-22-2017, 11:56 AM	#14
John Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 62	A challenge Have you ever tried to see-saw with a much bigger person on the other end? The larger person has to work hard to balance the differential. Guys, many of us are like that bigger person, and almost all of tradition is on our end and not the ladies’ end. Sometimes, rather than try to find a balance and have an enjoyable see-saw, a guy will make it into a competition to see who can stay on, throwing his weight into it until the lady comes off. I know that some reading this are ahead of me in this area; but, for the edification of those who are not, I would like to challenge you to begin to take special note of Bible verses that have to do with women. I think that this is warranted, since many of us have overlooked the women of chayil in the Bible in the past. (I’m over-simplifying and over-generalizing in this post; it’s not a comprehensive study but just a glance at some verses in Matthew, which is where I was reading.) I am trying to balance the see-saw so that the ladies can get back on and fully contribute according to their gifts and abilities. Hopefully, considering the gender aspect of the gospel will help bring a better balance to our Christian lives and to our expression of God to others. I realize that some of you may have heard messages about some of these things, but have you really considered the import of them? How should the way that Jesus treated women affect our gospel today, affect the gospel in our own homes? A woman with ointment In the last bit of time just before and just after the crucifixion of Jesus, what does Matthew tell us about what the female and male disciples were doing? 7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured [it] on His head as He sat [at the table]. 8 But when His disciples saw [it], they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? ... 13 "Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her." 14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, "What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?" And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. 16 So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him. (Matt. 26:7–8, 13–16, NKJV) I have often thought about what Jesus said about the woman who poured the ointment on His head. It was very costly, and it was worth it to her. Then, Jesus says to all that the gospel will include a memorial to a woman! Think about it; it sounds very significant. The male observers of her lavish love were indignant, calling it a waste of money. Interestingly, Matthew, immediately afterwards, writes about the man Judas, one of the twelve disciples, who negotiated for money to betray Jesus. Wow, talk about two radically different people with opposing motives being written about back to back. Of course, in this presentation, I am focusing on gender. What were all the male disciples concerned about? Money, purpose, mission, self. What was the woman’s concern? Jesus. You may have already read or heard similar exposition. What’s interesting to me is what you can find in the Bible when you start looking for it. Read the Bible again and look at the women. They are there in plain view; but, in the past, I didn’t notice them that much. We men, of course, would not want to think that we would have done what Judas did, but wouldn’t you have been with the rest of the disciples and thought that what the woman did was foolish and a waste? When it comes to Jesus, I don’t think that many women think like many men do (but maybe it’s just me). We aren’t weak, are we? Then, of course, there’s that male pride. We can do it, right? At least, when I was younger, I thought that I could. We were in the Local Church. We were going to take the earth for “Christ and the Church.” Let’s look next at some male determination with Peter as our male representative. (Uh oh, you probably know where this is going, but let’s look at it again anyway.) 35 Peter said to Him, "Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!" And so said all the disciples. ... 40 Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "What? Could you not watch with Me one hour? ... 43 And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy. ... 45 Then He came to His disciples and said to them, "Are [you] still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. ... 56 "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled. (Matt. 26:35, 40, 43, 45, 56, NKJV) I used to love a mission. I could do a lot. Oftentimes, now, however, all I want to do is sleep. Usually, when I wake up, if I check on my wife, she is busy. (Hopefully, most of you guys are better than I am in this regard.) I’d like to skip over the part where Peter melted in front of a girl and a maid, but I can’t. Eventually, he even denied knowing Jesus with cursing and swearing: 69 Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, "You also were with Jesus of Galilee." 70 But he denied it before [them] all, saying, "I do not know what you are saying." 71 And when he had gone out to the gateway, another [girl] saw him and said to those [who were] there, "This [fellow] also was with Jesus of Nazareth." 72 But again he denied with an oath, "I do not know the Man!" 73 And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, "Surely you also are [one] of them, for your speech betrays you." 74 Then he began to curse and swear, [saying], "I do not know the Man!" Immediately a rooster crowed. (Matt. 26:69–74, NKJV) Come on, Peter, I know that you were a fisherman … but cursing and swearing? Oh yeah, I’ve done that, too. If all else fails, bring out the sailor’s vocabulary. Peter’s not representing us so well, and I haven’t done so well either. Through the cross, Oh Lord, I pray Let’s go on to the cross and the grave. Who watched Jesus being crucified? Only women according to Matthew’s account. Who went to His grave? The women. 55 And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. ... 61 And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the tomb. (Matt. 27:55–56, 61, NKJV) It’s a good thing we have those other gospel accounts, or we men would really not be looking so good. Finally, let’s look at the resurrection. To whom did Jesus entrust the first gospel message? The women. In an interesting side note, I’m told that a woman’s testimony could not be accepted in a court of law back then; yet, Jesus told women to give the greatest testimony ever—that He had come back from death! 1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first [day] of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. ... 5 But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 "He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 "And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go [and] tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me." (Matt. 28:1, 5–10, NKJV) Comparing women and men Some simple comparisons that could be made are these (jumping vigorously on the ladies’ side of the see-saw): A woman was extravagantly pouring out for Jesus; the men were indignant, counting the cost, and presenting their suggestion for its use. (Jesus liked her way.) The women were watching; the men were sleeping. The women were at the cross; the men were mostly absent. The women were at the grave; the men were not. (Jesus revealed Himself to those there.) A woman saw Jesus and told the men; the men heard but didn’t believe. (Jesus rebuked them for not believing her.[ Mark 16:9–11]) The women mostly went toward Jesus; the men mostly left Him. Read the Bible in this way and look for the contributions of the women. (Mentally jump on their end of the see-saw. This might jolt the male perspective that rests heavily on the other end.) Think about how women have been treated and even maligned by Christian men. Reread the quotes about women that awareness offered which were made by male clergy of the past (and there are worse ones than those), and consider how you think of women. Do you see them as women of chayil? Think about and pray about how you might support and honor women—especially your wife—to further God’s kingdom. At a minimum, it seems that there is at least one woman that Jesus expects you to memorialize.

09-23-2017, 08:54 AM	#15
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,075	Re: New Jane Anderson Website John>"The poster seems to admit that he has met husbands in the Local Church who verbally mistreated their wives, but he makes it sound as if it is a rare thing. If he thinks so, then he hasn’t read The Thread of Gold, has forgotten what is in it, or has some other reason or reasons." Hey John. I really like your Lake Wobegone story telling style. It's kinda folksy yet with a hint of rage just below the surface. Keeps it entertaining. Its like you'd prefer to be blunt "hey, that's my wife you're talking about!" but smooth the anger over with long winded stories. And yet, its there in every paragraph. Exciting. This poster, Drake, did not admit to meeting husbands in the Local Church who verbally abused their wives as you surmise. In fact, I cannot recall ever meeting even one. Does not mean they didn't, I'm not omnipresent and don't know what happens at home. But you are making the argument that it is woven into the local church fabric moreso than anywhere else. Yet, the examples you use do not indicate a male bias issue. For instance, the elder who slams the desk and yells about the evils of fornication indicates intemperance, not male bias. As I read each of your examples I do not see male bias nor any uniqueness to the local church. Furthermore, Brother Lee long ago talked about the sisters meeting the Lord, touching Him on the morning of the resurrection, and the other biblical examples of sister firsts you mentioned. Though it's fine to use those examples to make your point it's not fine to present them like they are revelations uniquely revealed to Jane. Give credit where it is due John. Brother Lee spoke of these matters long ago now. And yes, I did read Jane's first book cover to cover. Sorry John, I don't see male bias in it. Rather, I see a detailed account of a train wreck unfolded in slo mo. Yet, rather than respond to "this poster" I suggest you respond in a scholarly way to the points made by those posters Evangelical, Ohio, and ZNP. They have posed reasonable arguments and questions. Drake

09-15-2017, 06:24 PM	#27
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: New Jane Anderson Website I read that sis. But thanks for repeating it. Still, current Bible scholarship proves it's another example of Bushnell being mistaken. I think back then, in the early part of the 20th c. Bushnell was like my cousin before he learned Koine Greek. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

09-11-2017, 09:27 AM	#1
John Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 62	Re: New Jane Anderson Website Some may have been bothered about some of what has been written about Jane and me (some of which has been moved by the moderator). We don’t hold anything against anyone; we realize that all have their own difficult experiences in life, especially when it comes to marriage. I still remember being in meetings of the Local Church in which it was boasted that there were no divorces like in poor Christianity. Obviously, that was a long time ago. About books and a website In addition to our marriage being maligned, it was insinuated that we were in the publishing business for the money. Without going into detail, I’ll just state that we have not profited a penny off of all our books; we are still in the red. Why is this? It’s because Jane keeps giving books away. (She’s given away more than we’ve sold.) In other words, our publishing is a ministry to the Lord; we don’t do it for the money. In fact, Jane wanted to give away all of The Thread of Gold books, but was counseled not to do so. She also did not want to market the book, stating that the Lord would do that. In fact, that happened on the old Berean’s forum when someone opened a thread about the book, unbeknownst to us. We were not involved in that forum at the time. Jane is now trying to get the word out about the woman topic, since it affects so many Christians; her audience includes Local Church Christians but many others, too. She started a blog to this end, and she has informed a bunch of folks that she is blogging. Regardless, neither one of us started this thread on the Local Church Discussions forum, nor did we have anything to do with this happening. If anyone wants to use the thread to advertise Jane’s work, please, just use it to market the message of her books and blog—which is about helping Christian men and women understand how God wants them to view and treat each other, which includes repenting to each other. Freedom in marriage I am writing as a married Christian male who has some things to say in particular to the other males here. I will try to be inclusive in what I write, with respect to the diverse audience (not all are married, some are women, some simply want to distort whatever I say), but I might not succeed. In other words, I am going to speak some things from my heart, and I hope readers can receive them in the spirit which I mean them. Now, as to marriage: What if you, married Christian men, could be really free in your marriages? The following is an abbreviated description of my journey to freedom. One day, I noticed that Jane was reading a book. I asked her about it, but she was reticent to show it to me. I pressed, and she did. It was God’s Word to Women. She was in the middle of it and said that I could read The Magna Carta of Woman while I waited for her to finish, which was like a condensed version of it. After reading both, I wrote “Woman 101: What Every Christian Man Needs To Know.” So, what is this freedom of which I speak? It is freedom from the doctrines and attitudes that I picked up while in the Local Church, as well as from our culture before that, as regards women. I used to think and feel that I was at least somewhat responsible for controlling my wife because it was what God expected of me. I believed all that I understood of what I had read in the King James version of the Bible (because that is what the Local Church used at the time), including all I understood that it said about women. One thing that Jane has mentioned to me several times is this: As a man “thinketh … so is he” (Pro. 23:7). Therefore, to get a change in behavior, one’s mind needs to be changed. That is what my posts are about—giving information that might cause people to consider the possibility that there might be another side to the story and a need for a change in thinking. Our marriage Since it has been brought up, what kind of a marriage do Jane and I have? This kind of question reminds me of elder Ray Graver making a very inappropriate comment to Jane about our marriage, at the end of the infamous 1977 kangaroo court handling of her (chronicled in The Thread of Gold): “I always wondered why the Lord put you two together, and now I know.” To put it succinctly, Jane is my woman of chayil. In fact, it is through her that I was born again. After working through many problems in our marriage and family, mostly caused by me, we now make a great team. When I first read the post insinuating that the order was upside down in our house, I thought of these words: “heirs together of the grace of life.” Well, what’s the whole verse? Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. (1 Pet. 3:7, KJV) I was reminded of what had stood out to me recently: “heirs together.” The Lord showed me that I had been relegating this phrase to the future because of the word “heirs.” Then, I understood that we have it now! We have the grace of life, Jane and I. So, my brothers, think about the word, “together.” Just dwell on this one verse for awhile. Let the Lord speak to your hearts. I know that I’m vacillating between giving what I thought would be a brief testimony and preaching, but I’m just going with the flow. Besides, in the context of the verse, Jane and I do pray together, and God does answer our prayers. Back to marriage, I was a strong man, or so I thought, who was used to keeping Jane in her place with cutting words and jokes and brief references to Scripture and other such ways. I thought that I was right. I was oblivious to the fact that my sons were watching and learning poor treatment of my wife and their mother, therefore giving opportunity for the cycle to continue. (I have now repented to Jane and my sons for this.) These things were mostly done without a conscious motive. It was just who I was. Back to the freedom part: I don’t have to do that anymore. I don’t have to try to put her in her place. How could I even know what that is? Am I her God? Am I to be the mediator between God and her? No, that position has been filled by the One Who bought her with His blood. She is a free woman in Christ, and I am a free man in Christ! Isn’t it time that you set women free to be the women that God has called them to be? Do you trust your wife? Do you trust women? Or, do you use your interpretation of the Genesis account to justify your refusal to listen to them seriously? Should we have gotten married? Jane and I fellowship all the time. We have a standing date every Saturday morning at a fast-food restaurant, where we talk about the Bible and our experiences and our understandings. The rest of our week, we talk on the fly about what we are reading or realizing about the Christian life—what it is, and what it should or could be. I am not trying to portray us as a perfect couple or one that should be emulated. I’m just saying that we are getting better and better at this Christian marriage thing. This is no less than a miracle, I think, given the fact that I was a hard man to live with for a Christian wife, and still am, in many ways. I will tell you that over the last period of time, the Lord has been speaking to me a lot about humility. I can’t recall if this is in any of her books or not; but, when we were going to a Christian counselor for help with one of our sons, and after the results came back from a test we each took, we were told, “If I had talked to you before marriage, I would have counseled you not to have gotten married. The fact that you are still married is a testament to the powerful working of Jesus in your lives.” Jane and I are two very different people; but, we both fear the Lord and are committed to Him: He is the One Who makes our marriage work. Due to the personal attacks against Jane and me, I thought that it was appropriate for me to present the foregoing; and, with the context in mind, I also thought that it would be appropriate and, hopefully, enlightening to some, for me to write the following: My Woman of Chayil I have found a woman of chayil, and she is worth far more than rubies. I can safely trust in her. She does good for me and not evil. She is always busy. She goes as far as it takes to get what is needed. She is up at all hours, communing with the Lord. She stays in contact with others sharing what she has received from Him. She is generous and always working for others. She helped provide for her family what they needed, including spiritual food. Her children are born-again, and they seek to walk with the Lord as they actively serve Him in His church. She trained herself to use a computer, and then started and ran her own software company from home. She applies her hands to the keyboard, preparing words of help for those in need. She is strong, honorable, and wise. She spends much of her time helping others. There are other women of chayil; but, to me, she is the most excellent. She is a woman who fears the Lord, and she teaches others to do the same. I, her husband, praise her, and so do her works. Her name is Jane; and, in less than a week, we will have been married 50 years. I am indebted, of course, to the author of Proverbs 31 (likely to Solomon, the wisest man), for the basic structure of my presentation. Jane, who actually has written poetry, would have done much better if writing about me. By the way, she did the artwork for The Woman of Chayil and A Song of Songs Woman. Not only that, when in church after singing a hymn, people she doesn’t know often turn around and tell her that she has a beautiful voice and should be in the choir. Appeal to Christian men Men, if you are not, wouldn’t you want to be married to a woman of chayil? How might your behavior toward women change if you believed that God wanted all Christian women to be women of chayil? The thing I most remember from Bushnell’s book is the point that the God-given gifts of half the body of Christ have been stifled because of wrong thinking about Christian women. Our Christian sisters have been the objects of our wrong attitudes and behaviors. Please, at least pray about the possibility and give the Lord an opportunity to show you how to value, honor, and learn from these members of the body, a body of which you are a part.