URGENT - Please email your MLCs

As you may be aware the upper house of the Victorian Parliament is debating/voting this week on the decriminalisation of abortion. This bill will mean that a woman can have an abortion for no reason up until 24 weeks, and up to 40 weeks with 2 doctors support. This bill will also mean that doctors that have a moral objection to performing abortions MUST refer women onto doctors who they know will perform the abortion. This means that the doctor is forced by law to act against their conscience. Even if one does not object to abortion, forcing people to act against their conscience is a serious erosion of democratic freedom.

If you haven't already, could you please email the Members of the Legislative Council for your region ASAP asking them to vote against the bill. The bill will probably be voted on on WEDNESDAY, so we need to email before then. From what we heard at the rally on Sunday there are still members who are undecided. This bill is subject to a conscience vote, so each member will be voting as they desire, not necessarily along party lines. So even if they are in the liberal party which normally takes a conservative view on morality issues, they MAY NOT vote against the bill.

Please be praying that the Holy Spirit will convict the consciences of those who are unsure about whether to vote for/against this bill, that He will convict them that what this bill is doing is legalising the murder of the most vulnerable members of our society, those who do not have a voice. Please pray that those who have decided to vote against the bill will hold onto their convictions and not be swayed by the pro-choice lobby.

God bless,
Bec

Dancing with the Stars needs to "put its knickers BACK on"

Last night's season opener of Dancing with the Stars was very disappointing. There was an overwhelming amount of sexualised content, and this is particularly inappropriate considering the 7:30 time slot when children may be watching.

By the end of the third dance we had:

• Daniel McPherson touching Sonia's leg
• Bruno saying he couldn't keep his eyes off Sonia
• The female dancers wearing hardly anything
• Mark arkwardly attempting to get in on the sexualisation by referring to the dancers as "sexy"
• Todd McKenny telling a dancer to take her knickers off

And if that wasn't enough, to top it off there was that move where the Sunrise reporter ran his hand between his partner's breasts. The comments that followed about that 18 year old dancer and the sexual tension between her and her partner were unnecessary.

Dancing with the stars needs to "put its knickers back on". The objectification of women is not appropriate at 7:30 or indeed in any timeslot. The objectification of women is a form of slavery. We are not here simply for the sexual delight of men.

We may be "liberated" so that we can join the workforce but while we allow men to treat us as sexual objects that exist for the sole purpose of appeasing their sexual appetites we have gained nothing. We have simply exchanged one form of slavery (house slavery) for three others (wage slavery, debt slavery and sexual slavery). We need to be vigilant about the views on women that we allow to be part of our society. This is having, and will have an enormous effect on the next generation. Girls need freedom and space to grow up not measuring themselves by how sexually attractive men find them, but instead by discovering WHO they really are, and their value in who they are, not in their:

• Dress size
• Breast size
• Blondeness
• Use of brazillian waxing services
• Skimpiness of clothing

Our western culture has become completely debauched. It is time that we started treating each other with respect and dignity, and the pornification of our society has robbed us of that. There is nothing glamorous about gadding about with nothing on and having men lust after you as an object. Being the trash-can for a man's excess bodily fluids is demeaning. There is no honour or respect in it. It is not a reflection of a woman's worth or place in the world. She is beautiful and she is loved, because she was MADE BY GOD to be an object of His love (with her CLOTHES ON).

You might of picked up that I am angry. Well I am. I am fed up with this sick and twisted culture where women are pushed into conforming to an image to please men (the porn image). Where we are told that being sexually loose is freedom although it is really slavery. We conform to this because we want to be loved. When we do conform to that porn image that feeds men's weakness and creates a culture that is just as toxic and crippling for them as it is for us. It's a cycle because as much as a women conforms to that image it doesn't make men love her, they despise her, so she continues to change herself more and more. She doesn't accept that she is made in the image of God, and that the purpose of her life is to be conformed into the image of Christ, not that of Aphrodite/Venus. And men are never happy either, as much as they pursue those women that conform to the image they desire they are never truly satisfied. If they were they wouldn't need to move on to the next girl and the next girl and the next girl.

It's time to tear down our idols. Only Christ can truly satisfy.

God bless,
Bec

Unborn Slaves

This is a must read: http://www.theage.com.au/national/women-tricked-into-selling-unborn-into-slavery-20080804-3pyt.html?page=-1

God bless,
Bec

Treat 'em mean, what nonsense!!

There's an article in today's Age about a correlation between men having traits of "impulsiveness, narcissism, thrill-seeking and deceitfulness" and them having a "prolific amount of sex". It further reasons that this makes "bad boys" more "successful" in relationships, indeed the article is entitled, "Treat 'em mean: it works".

http://www.theage.com.au/news/relationships/treat-em-mean-it-works/2008/06/18/1213468480771.html

The article then goes on to define this so-called success, as being more "active in short-term mating" than nice guys.

There are a number of issues with this article, the first obviously being the underlying assumption that "short-term mating" is the goal of all men, therefore the definition of success in relationships. It is not accounting at all for a group of men (let's call them "nice guys") who actually want a long-term monogamous (god-forbid MARITAL) relationship with a woman. For that kind of man, the "nice guy", casual sex would NOT be the definition of relationship success, finding someone to settle down with WOULD. If a "nice guy" is not seeking casual sex, that would also be a contributing factor to them not having as many casual encounters. It stands to reason that if a guy isn't seeking casual sex, he won't have casual sex. It further stands to reason, that the "bad boy" who is defined as "impulsive, narcissistic, thrill-seeking and deceitful" and who IS seeking casual sex, would therefore have more casual sex. The big issue here is that they are comparing apples with oranges, both in terms of type of guy, and also in terms of each type's goal with regards to women.

The second issue with this article I think, is that it does not make any social commentary on WHY women might be attracted to bad guys. The following I think are a number of reasons a woman would find such men attractive:

• They seem confident
• They are the kind of guys fathers hate
• The insistence with which they pursue women gives the impression that the woman is highly desired, which leads to woman thinking "they really love me", which is a woman's deepest emotional desire, to be loved and cherished.
• Alternately, the woman believes she isn't worth loving, and so this is as good as it gets
• She thinks they "need her" because they are obviously broken people (and since no one will ever "want her" she has to settle for someone who needs her if she's going to be with anyone at all)
• She thinks she can "fix them" and they will become a nice guy

So basically, it comes out of a bunch of a woman's own issues; rebelliousness and low self-esteem being the two key ones. My point is this - the kind of women who go for this kind of man are not emotionally stable themselves.

Once you start to deal with issues of rebelliousness and self-esteem and find that you don't need to rebel against anyone to be independent/your own self, and accept yourself for who you are, those bad guys cease to be attractive.

Knowing Jesus really helps with this :-) He has a way of wooing a woman to a place where she realises she must have great value for the Son of God to die for her! Suddenly instead, it's the guy who knows his bible, who is prolific in prayer, who will make a great father, and who is gentle and considerate that is unbelievably attractive. It's the man that takes time to be friends with you and to build the basis of the relationship on a foundation of mutual respect and friendship that is the kind of guy that gets the girl.

God bless,
Bec

Why is practicality optional for women's clothing???

<RANT>

I study in Ringwood, where it is jolly freezing. It's like Ringwood has its own weather system, at least 10 degrees colder than the rest of Melbourne. The heating at college is inadequate (and I'm being nice by not picking a stronger adjective there), so much so I end up wearing my winter coat and scarf inside the classroom to keep warm. The place is so cold that we are gaining our own penguin colony. Well, maybe not quite, but you get the idea.

I have made suggestions to the SRC that this should now be top of the priority list since they have sorted out the abysmal coffee situation in the last few weeks by installing a Lavazza coffee machine (Mmmm!). But I'm resigned to the fact that this will probably only happen when I graduate in 2012.

But bearing in mind how chilly it's going to get, and is already getting, I set off yesterday to buy some warm clothing so that I do not come down with hypothermia mid-Christology lecture. Now my wonderful boyfriend has these really warm Bonds hoodies, and knowing that Bonds makes hoodies for chicks as well, I thought awesome, that'll do the trick.

So I set off to Kmart to check 'em out, only to discover that the men's ones have nice polar fleece lining (thus their warmth) but the ladies ones DON'T!!

This to me is beyond illogical. Firstly, blokes have a larger muscle mass than women which means that doing absolutely NOTHING they burn more calories, thus producing more body heat. So they start out with a biological advantage. Secondly, then you add the Bonds polar fleeced hoodie and they are all set. Compared to us ladies who start out with the disadvantage of producing less body heat and THEN add a thin and flimsy Bonds ladies' hoodie that does NOTHING to keep us warm.

Oh, but that's alright, because they had a women's "Vintage Style" hoodie which was a bit longer. Vintage style my left foot!!

What I want to know is this, why is practicality optional in women's clothing??????

Ah yes, because of fashion, because we want to look "good". Personally, I don't think I look particularly "good" rolling on the floor in the foetal position trying to warm up my torso so that blood returns to my extremities so that I regain feeling in my hands and feet, even if I am wearing the latest must-have.

I think it's all a ploy. The reason we are taught that we would want to look "good" is so that men will be attracted to us. But then when they get their hands on us, they just want the clothes off anyway. So here's my conspiracy theory, it's all part of a ploy to get us to the point that we think, "hey these clothes are so impractical, we may as well forget wearing them all together, afterall we'll be just as warm in the nude." Grrrrr... It's all an attempt to get to a place where practicality isn't optional for women's clothing, but that women's clothing IS optional!!!!

Which is all cos of the fashion industry being in bed with the porn industry that has turned women into sexual objects. Men be warned, this whole "metro-sexual" thingy that seems to be happening will result in the same thing for you. Say goodbye to clothes that are practical, that actually cover the things that should be covered, and keep warm/cool the bits that need it. You'll be wearing lace knickers before you know it!

Ah for the days when men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri!


God bless,
Bec

</RANT>

Stuff Bec Likes...

It's pretty rare that I find something on the internet that is worth going back to again and again, that consistently produces edifying, amusing and/or engaging material.

I thought I was onto a winner with the podcast from Mars Hill, such rich teaching. (Although they need to rethink their stance on women in ministry, and their understanding of the subordination of women -- they really fail to understand the scriptures in historical context on this issue. Otherwise I really love their teaching as it is so Christocentric and also deals with the real issues that people face.)

Another goodie is the "I appreciate Christian pickup lines" group on Facebook. If you haven't joined it, it is quite simply THE BEST group on Facebook. Some highlights...

• "If you were a leper I'd still hold your hand, even if it wasn't attached"
• "You are a Galatians 5 fruit salad"
• "How many times do I have to walk around you to make you fall for me?"
• "I have familiarised myself with all 5 love languages, in fact, I invented 4 of them."
• "Hi, I'm Calvin. You were meant to choose me."

But in the past few weeks the top spot has been taken out by the "Stuff Christians Like" blog. It is priceless, a real gift to the body of Christ. It's a bit prophetic in nature I think, in that it draws attention to some things that we do/think that are a bit silly. Helps us to take ourselves a bit less seriously. At the end of a hard day, it really puts a smile on my face.

God bless,
Bec

Being a Woman

I have just finished reading Kevin Giles' book The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate. It is such an interesting read, there is so much that comes out of it.

His discussion on how the cultural context of the reader influences interpretation of the Bible I initially found uncomfortable. I like to think that if you do your exegesis properly that the cultural assumptions of the reader don't come into it. However, after reading his section on how the theology around slavery changed as a result of the changes in society that were happening, I can see that this makes sense.

His contention was that up until the 1800s the majority of theologians held that the bible not only regulated but legitimated slavery. That good evangelical theologians made an argument from the bible that blacks were by nature subordinate to whites, and that slavery was a divinely ordained institution. Very few would make that argument now, praise God.

Most interestingly there is actually a better biblical case for slavery than there is for the subordination of women, and yet most theologians who are pro-subordination of women are anti-slavery. It is fascinating that in the same sections of scripture that deal with the "household codes" that say that women should be submissive to their husbands, that slaves should obey their masters, that children should obey their parents, that the slavery clause is interpreted as culturally specific for the first century and not a timeless principle, YET the women clause is held to be a timeless principle.

I have been thinking about all this, and what it all means for me as a woman. Before I knew Christ I was a militant feminist, I wasn't in it for equality, rather because I feared that in my nature I actually wasn't equal I fought to prove that I was better than men. As an intelligent woman I often found that I could out-argue many men, and I rather relished 'proving my worth'. I also thought that to be equal with men meant being like men, particularly in the corporate world. It seemed that the women who moved up the management hierarchy were those who were tough and steely and who were comfortable in highly testosterone filled environments.

When I met Christ my perception of myself as a woman changed. I came to realise that I didn't need to prove anything to anyone about my worth. That my worth and my identity did not come from proving that I was better than or like a man, that I could be a woman, be gentle and soft, as well as intelligent and productive in the workplace. I started to incorporate what Jesus was showing me about myself into the way I worked. In managing my team I focussed on looking after my people rather than being so relentlessly task focussed. It is interesting, shortly later I was made redundant and was looking for work. When I applied for another team lead role at one of the major banks, the feedback from the agent after my interview with the bank was that I was "too nice" and they were looking for more of a "cold hard career bitch".

My response to all this was that wasn't the kind of woman I want to be, and that if that's what they were looking for I was glad not to work there as it would be a nasty environment! But I think in abandoning the 'career bitch' stereotype and also the 'barbie doll' stereotype I've fallen back into another stereotype of womanhood.

This stereotype I think is more subtle and dangerous, because it's so often labelled "biblical womanhood". The difficulty is, as Giles' says, you can make a biblical arguement for the subordination of women, but you can also make a biblical argument for the egalitarian position. I've fallen into the "men and women are equal, but men are more equal than women" line of thinking and that I think is just a product of growing up seeing the "Christian ideal" of women in submission to men.

This I think though was a product of the times. Growing up I heard stories about women who had stayed with their husbands who were abusive, and had heard these women commended for their faithfulness. But in many cases these women could not have supported themselves if they left their husbands, and were living in a time where divorce just did not happen.

What I am wondering is this... times have changed, do the household codes of the first century apply now? The cultural context of the first century is not the same as ours. In the first century the pater familias (the father of the household) had the power of life and death over his wife, children and slaves. In our culture and time any man who killed his wife & kids would be charged with murder. Different times.

Throughout the bible God is shown to be interested in justice and mercy. I think an interesting piece of scripture in this context is Matthew 23:23; God is more interested in "justice, mercy and faithfulness" than quibbling about law. This whole debate on what constitutes a biblical position on subordination could really be seen as quibbling about law. Giles' point about text-jam - where both sides can proof-text their viewpoint until the Lord returns seems to me a quibbling about law.

Maybe the key issue is that in the first century women did not have the opportunity for justice in the way we do now, and so the bible addresses the situation and opportunities of the time. But what does justice for women mean now?

The subordination of women didn't come in until the fall, Genesis 3 is the first place in the bible where a clear and unequivocal statement is made on the subject, God said to Eve "...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (v16). This situation of inequality between the sexes is a result of the fall, not God's eternal purpose.

So I'm seeing a new alternative for how I view myself as a woman. Still do not want to be a militant feminist, I love and respect men WAY too much! And the subordinate woman thing I am seeing isn't right. So maybe the issue is really in defining my value, position, identity and relationships in terms of my gender. Maybe I can be gentle and soft because I'm Bec and it's who God made me, and reflects Christ. Maybe I can be intelligent and be gifted for teaching because those are gifts God gave me for the service of the body regardless of whether I have a Y chromosome or not. Maybe how I relate to people (future hubbie included) is a result of my "Becness" rather than my femaleness. Maybe I should stop trying to shove myself into a cookie-cutter shape of what it means to be "a woman".

God bless,
Bec