Posted by Valerie on September 27, 2011
I’m listing items to Craigslist to help provide income for my family! I update this page almost every day as we list and sell. Please pray that we are able to find good homes for these things. Please share this page if you know anyone who might be shopping for one of these items. Click on a picture or title to see details.
Padded Solid Wood Vintage Stool — blue, green, gold cushion - $5
Cuisinart Professional Stainless Steel Mandoline Slicer - $10
Posted by Valerie on August 8, 2011
Christian women think about modesty. As we grow in the faith, we consider it with increasing care and teach it to younger women, especially our own daughters. We do this because God addresses it in His Word and because we have seen and hopefully repented of our own sins in this area.
I believe that we older women are given this curriculum in Titus 2:3-5 and other places, because we know a woman’s heart, and we understand (in a way that guys might not) that a halter top and micro shorts are not the moral counterpart of the respectful, appreciative glance, but of the catcall and the lustful look.
There are occasionally younger girls who have no idea what they are doing, but most teenagers and women who put on immodest dress are not acting from innocent motives. The more extreme the dress, the more likely it is that the motivation is impure. This is not to say that girls generally understand that this impurity is evil, or that some immodest dress does not eventually become just a habit, but this is an area where the most egregious faults, at least, are the product of inward moral impurity.
Many of us remember being 12 or 13 (and I hear that it now often starts at 6 or 7) standing at a mirror, brushing our hair with other girls and comparing notes on what to wear and how tight it needs to be to attract the boys most effectively. In the 70s, in public school bathrooms, we learned from each other how to turn any modest blouse into a halter top, for the purpose of displaying more skin in a seductive way. The conversations evolve somewhat as fashion does, but they generally do not revolve around what’s purely beautiful, or what would bless others, but what will most effectively attract boys visually.
Girls know that sexual attraction is easy, and most of us have pursued it at one time or other. I’m a woman. And I’m friends with a whole bunch of other women. And we’ve told each other the truth: when we’ve looked into the histories of our own hearts, we don’t see a lifetime of innocence.
“Everyone knows” that within a man’s heart there is usually something that says, “Look,” and that this impulse must be directed to his own wife. I think it’s less often revealed that within a woman’s heart there is usually something that says, “Look at me,” and that this is a virtuous desire only when it’s directed toward her own husband.
Now we understand, hopefully, what I mean when I say “look.” I’m not talking about men noticing and appreciating the fact that an attractively dressed woman is beautiful. I have eight gorgeous daughters, and I have had godly, respectable, discreet men say, “Your daughters are so pretty.” And I like that. I enjoy that. I enjoyed it when they were babies, and no less now. When admiration is accompanied with propriety and discretion, it’s a good and honorable thing.
So that’s not what I mean when I say “Look.” A virtuous woman wants her husband’s eyes to be pleased and satisfied with her, in a way that is unique to their relationship, and not for everyone. This is all over the Song of Solomon, so we know that it is good. But both genders are born with an evil tendency to take good, virtuous impulses and pervert them. While I know there are some, I’ve never heard a woman say that she has never experienced the desire to purposely snag the eyes of men in an impure or inappropriate way. I know many who will say, “I’m ashamed to say so, but I used to do that all the time.”
Apply Romans 3:23 to this area, and you may see that it’s not such a stretch.
Women take this subject seriously because we know our own hearts. We also take it seriously to the degree that the men in our lives suggest that we ought to take it seriously. I was brought up in community, and I live in community, so I must thoughtfully consider the opinions of the men that I know. My husband, my father, my brothers, and other men in my community all say that they wish more women would take this seriously. Should I proceed to call them all legalists and take it less seriously? That would be hubris, along with unkindness and disrespect.
In most real churches where the Gospel is preached, women who have been Christians for years have a high tendency to be discreet–and to directly or indirectly encourage the younger women toward discretion. This does not mean, as some have asserted, that most mature Christian women are legalists consumed with jealousy, or ashamed that they are “past their prime” and no longer look like cute little teenagers. Mature men do not normally find ideal feminine beauty in a cute little teenager.
Just go out into the world and look how indiscreetly many, many women dress even into their 50s, 60s, and 70s. A young man might not realize this, but a woman can flaunt it at any age, and there will be a stranger to lap it up.
We want to obey the apostles who taught us how to follow Christ, because we love Christ. We read their teaching and we say, “Lord, what does this mean? Lord, you own all of me, and whatever you want from me, it is my joy to lay down.” This is part of what it means to have no other gods before Jehovah, so we take it seriously. As individuals, we don’t all draw the same conclusions on the exact expressions, and that is fine. We are giving our best service to God, because we have a new inclination to take whatever comes from Him seriously. And He accepts our offerings, not because they are perfect in themselves, but because of Christ, who died for us knowing that we’d never get it all right.
Be aware that Christian modesty is primarily for the church. Our place is not to run about the world trying to create forms of outward morality among people who don’t love Christ, or to boast about our extreme displeasure when unbelieving hearts express themselves visually. The Gospel is not about that. We’re not after the outside of cups; we’re begging the Holy Spirit for something far more radical, all over the world.
Honesty, charity, modesty, discretion, and all other virtues interest us Christians. All these virtues start in the heart, but the heart is living, with a direct connection to outward appearance. What we believe and how much we treasure others is made visible in how we live, in how we talk, in how we dress, and so on. If a mother teaches her daughters to say “please” and “thank you,” this isn’t legalism; it’s just one aspect of having a tender interest in others. It is good.
Modesty and chastity were given primarily to women to teach because women know a woman’s heart. I think that there are good reasons why pastors don’t often preach on this. They must at times, for it’s in the Bible, but I think that many pastors assume and accept that this is something that women are discussing out of care and love for each other and trusting that ongoing discussion to be the primary means for communicating a godly interest in this area.
And I think it’s important, most of the time, to avoid implying that immodest dress is ugly, especially as we counsel our own daughters. Usually, that just isn’t so. It may indeed be very lovely, while very inappropriate for community display. I have occasionally been heard to say, “That is absolutely gorgeous! Your husband would love it!” And from this my girls have learned to infer, “But that should be for his eyes only.”
I don’t want to underestimate the very great benefit that daughters derive when their fathers say either, “You look lovely, dear,” or “That’s not appropriate dress, honey. Please change.” When I was young and my own father complimented one of my outfits, I immediately considered it one of the nicest things in my closet and especially loved to wear it! And I was most comfortable and least embarrassed when my father engaged my mother to tell me that one of my outfits was inappropriate, kindly letting me know that the message came from Daddy. (Not to say that I always responded well, but just that this seemed to be the most gentle approach to my heart.)
While a pastor’s preaching and a father’s help are invaluable, a woman has special things to teach that a man probably won’t understand until a woman (a wife) teaches him. There are other areas of life that similarly benefit from a woman’s experience and perspective. For example, the Bible can be applied to the nourishment of infants. Not that this will necessarily lead to a very tiny set of cookie cutter applications, but the Bible’s teaching can be applied to infant care. Breastfeeding is therefore another part of the curriculum that older women teach younger ones, under the heading of cherishing both their husbands and their children.
And there are good reasons why not many men presume to be the primary teachers of these subjects.
Posted by Valerie on July 22, 2011
Ask RC: We can’t find a family integrated church, what should we do?
Yes, this is it.
Comments:
Filed Under: CPSIA
Posted by Valerie on July 21, 2011
So, here it is. The church. The church is a building. You go there if you want to be there, and when you get there, you do stuff. You can hear a sermon from Galatians or a lecture on how to have a better marriage. Or, have a rummage sale, or charge admission, if you like. Seat the most respectable people in the best places.
If the church is a building where we do stuff, then do what seems best to you.
But the church isn’t a building, right? I’m being silly. The church is people, individuals really and mysteriously formed into one body–
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
And I will show you a still more excellent way.
–I Corinthians 12:12-31
The church isn’t even people coming into a building; the church is people coming together, as one Body, to worship and learn Christ. How is “coming together, as one Body” optional, when it is our coming together as one Body to worship that makes us a church? Coming together is not just something we do; it is what makes us who we are, together, by miracle and by mandate. Coming together, as one Body, is essential to our definition.
Does Scripture ever teach that we can divide the church based on ability, age, or appearance? No indeed. I Corinthians 12 is clear that we have no authority to exclude, or to marginalize those who are weaker and less presentable. (I don’t know about you and yours, but my small ones are always weaker and occasionally less presentable.)
Some of the comments at Tim Challies’ Divided review insist that without a Bible verse, we can pick and choose who of the church gets to be among the church when we meet to worship.
But consider this,
“The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” – The Westminster Confession of the Faith
The church is not a building within which we hold programs. The church is a people, coming together as one Body to worship Christ, our Lord, together.
If the church is a building, have a bake sale, play backgammon, and feed little children goldfish crackers in a separate room.
But the church is one Body. It seems to me that those who would divide her are the ones who need the Bible verse.
I have no authority to tell any church what to do. That’s certainly not my place. But for the reasons I’ve stated here, and many others as well, I am grateful to worship together with my children and all our church’s children every Lord’s Day. I look out across the congregation and don’t see only those who are growing old to leave us but also those who are growing up to take and increase our places. It’s a beautiful thing.
Posted by Valerie on July 20, 2011
Official Divided the Movie (HD Version) from NCFIC on Vimeo.
[edited]
Our family attends a family-integrated church, which is not formally affiliated with The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches. I enjoyed this short film and have shared it with family and friends.
Tim Challies has posted a very unfavorable review, which caught my attention today. I appreciate the fact that Challies doesn’t agree with the premise of the film makers, but the review seems to me to include some errors that are worth considering.
Here are my thoughts–
I do not know the LeClercs or any of the participants in this film, but my children have attended Lifest, the Wisconsin Christian music festival featured in the film, several times, as have a number of young people from our church. I took that segment as a reasonable attempt to find a wide representation of Christian young people with a small investment of time and money.
This review is very disappointing and seems to include some significant factual errors and improper assertions, as follows:
1. I watched Divided twice, once today, and I didn’t notice nurseries being mentioned at all, let alone being produced as evidence for evolutionary thinking and pagan influence. Some family-intergrated churches [FICs] make a nursery available for infants and toddlers and some do not.
2. I did not think that the shots from Lifest were an attempt to paint an ugly picture of an entire generation, and I somewhat doubt the insinuation that the producers are not in favor of good, clean fun. (The LeClerc family may have stricter standards than mine, but I don’t know that, and that’s really not something that would merit my disapproval anyway.)
3. The girl with the “mohawk” did not have “a face full of piercings.” She had one ring on her nose, which doen’t necessarily disqualify her from being treated with respect.
4. This girl was not presented as an advocate for youth ministry at all, let alone its sole advocate. She gave her opinion on a concert. That she is repeatedly presented in Challies’ review as the LeClercs’ somewhat devious attempt to provide sole advocacy for youth ministry seems, perhaps, a bit unkind and somewhat inaccurate. (I’ll avoid borrowing the phrase, “not only uncharitable but also utterly ridiculous.”)
5. Challies writes, “He chooses the intellectuals of the FIC to represent his view and chooses the young and foolish to represent the other side.” This is untrue. Multiple youth pastors were interviewed for this documentary and spoke in favor of their ministries, while exposing what seems to be an increasingly widespread lack of family worship and family-based discipleship of children and young people.
6. This documentary does not suggest that children should never participate in a program led by someone other than their father. The whole point of family integration is to expose our children to the instruction of their pastors and elders at least weekly.
7. Challies writes, “Does a young person who comes to love and respect his pastor necessarily mean that it comes at the expense of love and respect for his father? This sets up a false and unfair dichotomy,” but–if so–this appears to be Challies’ false and unfair dichotomy. This documentary never made that assertion, its point being that we parents must bring our children under the authority and guidance of their pastors hoping, among other things, that they will love and respect them. Pastors are not just for big people.
8. Challies’ assessment of the “real” problem–that the vast numbers of children that we are losing are being lost by the hypocrites in the church–almost begs the question. Off the cuff, there’s no strong reason to regard it as more credible than the assertion it opposes. (And does he truly believe that eighty percent of the children in our churches are born to hypocrites?)
9. Carrying a charge of divisiveness into the public sphere demands an approach that does not come across, itself, as divisive. Perhaps only to me, but it seems that there is something uncharitable and somewhat divisive in this review, provoking a wee bit of the same in some of the comments.
10. The charge that FICs make age-integration “the central doctrine of the church,” such that it is elevated “instead of the Gospel message” should be retracted. Neither this movie nor any of the writings of the participating pastors offer any grounds for such a serious charge. Indeed, there is abundant, readily available evidence that these men are diligent and faithful preachers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
When it comes to secondary issues, it’s not really necessary to oppose them, or attempt to put a stop to them. This is not heresy, so it shouldn’t really be too “troubling” to those who don’t think it’s important or helpful.
If I ever go to a church where the folks over 65 have their own separate service and are neither welcome in corporate worship nor invited to participate fully in the Body of Christ, I will surely consider it a strange thing and wonder where it got its start in history and in presupposition.
I don’t believe that age-graded, church-based instruction is inherently evil. It may very well be a lawful adjunct to what is expressly commanded by God, corporate worship and family discipleship. While it’s possible that the case for FIC was overstated in Divided, I do believe that these things are evil–
1. Abandoning family worship for age-based church programs.
2. Trading parental discipleship for discipleship by “experts” in the church.
I’m not presenting a false dichotomy. Where this isn’t happening, then it’s not happening, so there’s not a problem, right? But where it is happening, as it is in some places and in many homes (and maybe not only among Challies’ “hypocrites”), then it’s not just a problem but an occasion for repentance. To the extent that Divided is a call to examine our doctrine and practice and consider an alternative, I am glad that it has been made available. I don’t have to agree with every word presented on the family-integrated church side in order to find something that I appreciate.
