Posts
It's been rough .... physically and emotionally, but I'm hoping to find my "normal" (whatever the heck that is anymore) soon.
So .... on to the discussion:
First ...... I love the title of this chapater --- it gives a whole new meaning to that phrase (the one we usually see on a cereal box), doesn't it? It made me smile.
Also .... before we start with chapter 8, I'd like to look at the two last sentences of Chapter 7:
"Today had been a long day. Maybe he would wake up at home in his own bed after a night of vivid dreaming, but somewhere inside he hoped he was wrong." (emphasis mine).
I love that, even though it had been a tough day and he wasn't really fully participating .... he HOPED it would continue.
So .... the quote that starts Chapter 8 .... about growth ---- I think that many of us like to say that we want to grow ..... but don't we just want to "magically" be grown -- overnight? Just wake up and find that we've grown .... without any pain, or risk?
I also smiled along with Mack when he found the Gideon's Bible in the nightstand. :)
Mack had a "flying dream" that night .... his first in a very long time. I've had those, but like Mack, I don't think I've had one in a long time. Have you had them? Do we have them only as children and then lose them, as we lose our innocence? I don't have an answer here .... just throwing this out for discussion. What do you think?
Also, why do you think that God allowed the nightmare to violently pull him out of that amazing dream? Why, as Mack asks himself, hadn't God taken the nightmares away? Thoughts?
What do you think is behind Papa's questioning of Mack's dreams? Just wanting to force the issue with Mack? Do you think dreams really are a way of letting "bad things" go?
I also wonder what you thought about Mack's thought of Jesus (on page 117) -- that Jesus seemed "less godlike" than the other two .... and so he felt closer to him?
I'd like to know what you think about all of the aromas of food throughout this book. There is constantly something being cooked that smells so very good. And, have you noticed .... there's also always something that Mack can't identify .... not be smell, nor by sight .... but he knows it's good.
Thoughts?
On page 119 Papa says one of my most favorite lines in the book: "I love the ones I am angry with just a much as those I'm not."
We don't like this thought, do we? Our "humanness" wants the "bad ones" to be punished .... to be less loved than we are. Why? Because we're really so much better (or maybe we just haven't been "caught")? Why do we want to see the wrath of God smite someone? Because of our need for the power and the hierarchy ..... the order in which things should happen?
Could our world, the one we each are in now at this present time, function without hierarchy?
Papa agrees that people would use us if our relationships were out of that hierarchy, but she then says, "We're not asking you to do with others, Mack. We're asking you to do it with us."
Wow.
As an aside .... did you cringe, as I did, when Mack said (on page 119) "... if you're going to pretend to be God Almighty, you need to be a lot angrier."? That, my friends ..... at least for me, was the humanness in me, waiting for the wrath of God to smite him.
Gulp.
I loved how Sarayu tried to explain their "circle of relationship" to Mack. It sounds, and is, so awesome. Do you have relationships like that? No hierarchy .... just relationship?
What are your thoughts on creation now being on a very different path than what the three of Them desired? About the "matrix" and us yielding to it, rather than to Them?
Another line that I really loved (from Papa) is on page 125: "But your choices are also not stronger than my purposes, and I will use every choice you make for the ultimate good and the most loving outcome."
When I read that line I could hear my heart whisper, "I hope so".
Which leads me to what Papa says on page 126: "The real underlying flaw in your life, Mackenzie (Janine), is that you don't think I am good. If you knew I was good and that everything ---the means, the ends, and all the processes of individual lives --- is all covered by my goodness, then while you might not always understand what I am doing, you would trust me. But you don't."
--double gulp.
I'm working on it. Very, very hard. My head believes it, but my very broken heart is having a difficult time catching up with my head. I believe it's getting there ..... it's closer than it ever was .... so that's something.
How about you? Do you believe it?
And this admission brings me to the last lines of the chapter .... Mack tells Papa that he just can't imagine anything happening in the end that would justify what's happened to him, to Missy, to humanity.
I will leave you now with Papa's reply: "We're not justifying it. We are redeeming it."
Hallelujah.
Discuss .....
I’m so glad you’re back, Janine. I loved subbing for you, but I am just really glad that you’re back to feeling well enough to feel up to it. And, if you’re not feeling “normal”, well, normal is over-rated. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI could comment on a lot of things, but I’ll focus on two things for now. First, the relationship vs. hierarchy thing. I do, actually, know what that relational thing is like. I don’t know how long something like that could persist. But last summer I had a chance to experience it for a long weekend. A couple friends I know have a cabin in the Sierra Nevada. They invited a bunch of guys up for a long weekend to just hang out. One of the guys and I talked about whether or not to have a “spiritual agenda” for the weekend – a Bible study, basically – and I opined that a) it seemed like Christians often seem to think that there is something just not quite right about getting together for that long without being overtly spiritual, and b) if God is as good a father as I am, then He must take the same pleasure in seeing His kids get together just to have fun together as I do. So we had this weekend just to hang out. We explicitly invited God to come along and enjoy the weekend with us, but we determined that we’d allow Him to surprise us with whatever might develop.
It was wonderful. Each one served the group. Different guys pitched in in different ways. No one had any assignments. It was an amazing experience.
So, yes, it can work…at least for a little while.
Second, is the “trust” issue raised in the middle of p.126. I think this is huge! I love Sarayu’s comment: “…you cannot produce trust … It either is or is not. Trust is the fruit of a relationship in which you know you are loved….” I am blessed with a very high degree of confidence, trust, if you will. And I have often wondered why that is. And I have come to precisely the same conclusion that Sarayu states. I grew up in an environment in which I have never questioned that I was loved.
And that trust, easily transferred to God, has made me understand this last portion of the chapter. Janine quotes the final sentences: “We’re not justifying it. We are redeeming it.” I wrote in the blank space at the end of the chapter:
This last point is critical. If the “process” is the “end”, then there can be no justification for the pain and suffering. But if the “process” is only process, then only the final outcome, or “end” will determine its goodness.
If this life is “process” (and I think it is) then we must be careful in any attempt to evaluate; limited by our inability to see the “end.”
That's all for now.
Tom
I too, felt my heart cry out in hope on page 125. I need to believe that all this life has been is being used for God's greater, loving purpose.
ReplyDeleteI was reminded of this, literally, yesterday when I helped Shelby put together her first 100 piece puzzle. It was a really big deal for her as she is five and loves puzzles. She got very frustrated a few times when the pieces didn't fit the way she thought they should. As I encouraged her to keep looking at the cover of the box as her guide I was reminded that God can always see the box cover. He knows what the puzzle will look like and that in the end, the pieces will fit to make a beautiful picture. (or in this case, a Fancy Nancy picture) Having that knowledge in my head should be enough...but it's not. My heart continues to think that I should hammer and bang the pieces to make them fit the way that I think they should, which only leaves me with a heartache and bruised fists.
That's a great analogy, Tamara. It reminds me of a similar one from, I think, Corrie ten Boom. She likened our lives to a piece of needlework which we can only see from the backside. So we see a large dark area here, a spot of bright color there, another dark area, a scarlet thread connecting two areas. And we cannot fathom why we have to have all the dark areas and why we have to have the scarlet threads. But someday we will be able to stand by His side, and we'll look over His shoulder, and we'll see the pattern He has created. And it will be breathtakingly beautiful. And we will fall on our knees in praise of His incredible workmanship.
ReplyDeleteBut until then we can only trust in two foundational truths: God is sovereign, and God loves me. And if you REALLY understand what those two truths together mean, then you will KNOW, that nothing bad, that is, for your ultimate destruction, can happen to you.
The thing I like, though, about your analogy, Tamara, is that when we are trying to make sense out of the odd bits of the puzzle, we do, as you note, have the picture on the box as a reference. And in the same way, when we are trying to make sense out of the odd bits of our lives, God has given us His Word and His Spirit as references.
Tom
Tamara,
ReplyDeleteI love your analogy. Even when our heads know that He sees the big picture, and it's all good eventually, our hearts still long for the explanations. Interestingly enough .... I realized that even if He did give me an explanation for Jim's death ..... it would never be a good enough reason ..... for me.
So I have to trust that He's faithful and will do what He says He will do .... and redeem it.
I've always known that ...... just never have HAD to face it before in my life ..... not like this.
It's one thing to think you know it ...... to say that you know it ..... to tell others that you know it ..... to even "preach" that you know it ......
it's a totally different experience to have to live it.
Totally.
I have found that we should all be a little more careful with what we SAY we believe and what we'd do if faced with a certain situation ...... because you really don't know until you live it.
That's my two cents anyway.
What you say, Janine, is so true. It is why I love being in the company of people who have suffered. They have a message that is tested by fire. All Christians, I suppose, would like to have that credibility. We just don't realize that "through the fire" is the only way to get it.
ReplyDeleteTom
i'm really liking the quotes and also your thoughts beginning with the paragraph ending "double gulp" through to the end. thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeletei haven't been able to find my book yet. i looked. i'm sure it's in one of my 10 boxes but it didn't turn up without dumping them all out on the floor!!!! so i figure when the time is right, the book will turn up. :) in the meantime, i'm liking the discussion here!
Janine, you said: "even if He did give me an explanation for Jim's death ..... it would never be a good enough reason ..... for me."
ReplyDeleteI think you are absolutely right. One of the great lessons out of the story of Job is that he asks for, begs for, eventually DEMANDS answers from God. But when God shows up, Job no longer seeks answers, because he realizes that he didn't really want answers. He wanted God. And so it will be when each of us finally posesses what we now have only by faith: God. God will be enough.
Not only does Job no longer SEEK answers, he is mortified, humiliated that he'd even ASKED. "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
ReplyDeletethings too wonderful for me to know.... Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."
I think most of us ask; it's human nature. We want to understand. But we all are destined to wind up at the same place Job did: humbled and in awe of the God with whom we have to do. Rick nailed it. In that day, God will be enough.
I've been out of the discussion for awhile, but now it's time to jump back in.This is a chapter that I had difficulty with. The whole hierarchy thing. when Papa said, "hierarchy ...is your problem, not ours" (p122) it sounds like he's abandoning man to a fallible hierarchy and that he in fact did not create it...
ReplyDeletein fact, by my understanding, he did. First he told Adam he would "rule over" the creatures he created...that's a hierarchy, albeit man over animals, not other men.
Then he said, "But for Adam, no suitable helper could be found." so he created Eve. "helper" is a hierarchy word.
Part of the curse for Eve was "your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." and while that may not have been his desire, he cursed man with hierarchy.
In the New Testament, he "reminds the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good..." again, validating hierarchy.
God ordains hierarchy in marriage, "wives submit yourselves to your husbands", and in fact, this is his way of helping us make marriage work, because he knows it goes against our "natural" bent to desire to be ruled over.
Have we screwed up the whole hierarchy thing? Doubtless. and so here I agree with Papa, "Humans are so lost and damaged that to you it's almost incomprehensible that people could work or live together without someone being in charge." It's because we are lost and damaged that we need hierarchy, a system, a way to relate to one another. Does God need a hierarchy in the Trinity? Absolutely not, since he is above sin...but Papa seems to wash his(her) hands of the whole concept, as one created and destroyed by man.
In addition, on pg. 124, in response to Mack's statement that people will just use us if we don't relate inside a hierarchy, she says "We're asking you to do it with us." Them's fightin' words to me...we can only love that Lord our God insofar as we respect his authority over our lives, and that he is LORD over us (in fact the word "lord" is a person who has authority, control or power over others, a master, chief or ruler.)
In all of this, I don't believe God abandoned us to hierarchy, but in fact created hierarchy for us because we had become lost in sin. but as i said earlier, even before sin, I think God ordained hierarchy as one of the systems of the universe.
enough said.
Susan ..... Excellent point!! I, too, questioned that when I read it ..... I thought specifically about marriage .... and the hierarchy HE set there ... to make it succeed, in spite of our natural desires. I didn't like the way Young seemed to have Papa just wipe her hands of that, either.
ReplyDeleteI agree .... Papa created it.
I disagree. I don't think there is, or is supposed to be, a hierarchy in marriage. In Eph. 4, Paul begins telling the people how to live out their true identity in Christ. In Eph. 5 he continues to give general instruction until he gets to 5:21 where he lays down a general principle: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Then, you can almost see the wheels in Paul's mind turning -- I better give them some examples of what mutual submission looks like, or they'll never get it. And so he give three examples: husband/wife, children/parents, employer/employee. So the hierarchy is removed, essentially, in all areas of life.
ReplyDeleteI think Paul tells women to submit because he knows that, given how they are wired, that will be the hardest aspect for them. And I think Paul tells men to love as Christ loved because he knows that, given how they are wired, that will be the hardest aspect for them. Women love easily. Men submit easily. But in mutuality we are each called to do that which will stretch us. So I really don't see hierarchy in marriage. Different roles, to be sure. But not a hierarchy. In fact, I find the notion that my wife is hierarchically beneath me really kind of offensive.
And in the original curse in Genesis, I don't think God is prescribing, I think He is describing. I think He is saying, in essence, "You want independence? You're going to get it. Independence from me. But the reality of creation is that you are wired for relationship, and by turning away from me you will have no one else to turn to but the man. Of course, he is just a man. So he will never be able to fulfill the relational desires like I can. But that is what you're going to be stuck with." (That's the Tom Lindholtz Vernacular Translation. ;-) )
At any rate, bottom line, I didn't have any problem with this issue.
Tom
"Men submit easily"??????
ReplyDeleteOK, I guess maybe I need your definition of that, Tom. I don't get that ... at all. If men submitted easily (as I define submit) .... wouldn't there be far fewer wars and struggles for power in this world?
Not intending to create tension here .... just wanting to understand that sentence in the way it was intended.
Thanks.
Sure. To understand what I'm getting at, think about the commonplace comment, "Women are more relational than men." I think that, on average, that is definitely true. So I got to wondering, If God created women more relational, what are men more___? That led to thinking about the early signs of the characteristics.
ReplyDeleteSo, what do typical little girls play? House, school, dolls; all settings in which there is a relational component.
What do typical little boys play? Cops/robbers, cowboys/indians, and sports ... especially sports. So Saturday morning, down at the sand lot, what happens. Guys all have experienced this. The two best athletes get picked as team captains. They choose up sides in order of descending athletic prowess. Until you get to little Jimmy Klutz. He'd love to play shortstop or first. Fat chance. He gets Right Field every time. But it's okay. He knows that that is where he will be. He's just glad to be a part of the team. He submits to the structure.
Same thing in a work environment. It seems to me that what men are good at is understanding where and how they fit into an organizational hierarchy.
Anthropologists would say, Of course. Women were the gatherers. They depended on relationships with other women to find which berry patch was in fruit. Men were the hunters. They depended upon organizational structure to surround the mammoth and stampede them into the ambush where the spearmen would get them.
So it's that kind of thing I was thinking of. That doesn't mean that there would be fewer wars. It means that wars will be more violent.
And, BTW, I definitely do not consider that questioning my ideas creates tension. (See, you're thinking relational. I'm thinking submission -- this is your site, I just participate, I have a place, a role. ;-) ) I appreciate it when people challenge my ideas. It forces me to think more carefully and more clearly; if you will, to submit my ideas to the evaluation of others.
So, thank you, Janine. The best kind of friend is the friend who challenges you to make you better.
Does that help? Can I clarify further?
Nope, that made it a little clearer, thanks.
ReplyDeleteBut ..... maybe the difference is our definition of hierarchy. I believe that when God told Eve she would have to submit to Adam, he was creating hierarchy .... because of what they had done, yes, but it was He who described it and put it in place.
I know in my own marriage ... when it came down to a big decision and Jim and I both had strong, but opposing opinions on the matter, I would only state and defend my opinion for an amount of time. When it came time for the decision to be made, and we both still felt strongly, I would defer, and thus submit, to Jim and the opinion he held, as I believe God called me to do. That is submitting to the person God tells me to ..... and that, in my opinion is hierarchy.
I, as I matured in Christ and as a wife, did not consider submitting to be demeaning, nor offensive in the least.
So we may have to agree to disagree!
Which is always a very interesting thing!
Thanks, Tom.
I think you've put your finger on it; a difference in definition. Because I would call what you describe with yourself and Jim a recognition of, and submission to, different roles.
ReplyDeleteFor me, a hierarchy means a difference in rank or essential value. Put it in a different context and, for me at least, it becomes clearer. Think of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Self-Actualization is, if I remember, the highest level need. Food is a low level need.
But when we're talking about people, then "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." No hierarchy. All equal before the law...regardless of role or position in society. But, of course, we do have roles and positions.
I guess the thing that made it work for me was that, when the Women's Movement first took off, one of their big beefs was the concept of submission in marriage. Perhaps BECAUSE women are relational, they took offense thinking that to submit means hierarchy. And they (rightly) refused to be second class citizens. But men were totally blind-sided because hierarchy isn't the issue, personal worth isn't what it's about. It's about roles and positions. And men know from sports and work and military, etc. that submission is no big deal. He's the boss, so he has the position, he has the role of making decisions. I may not like his decisions, but that's his role. shrug Life goes on.
So, yeah, I think we're using the word to mean different things. Here's the bottom line question: Paul Young is writing as a man. If my notions above are reasonably accurate for men, in general, IOW, if you accept my thinking here, for the sake of argument, then do you still have a problem with his use of hierarchy? Or does the definitional thing still not deal with the whole issue?
Curious...and really loving the dialog.
Tom
I'm still not totally agreeing with you, Tom. I don't really think men buy into the submission thing all that easily. On a sports team, when they don't get picked, or get picked last, they are hurt. they either let that sink them into despair, or they work like crazy to improve so that next time they'll get picked earlier...they are driven, so they can avoid being on the bottom of the totem pole. They know that the boss makes the decisions, and has the ability to fire them, so they begrudgingly do as they are told...or work to change the system...or find a new job because they won't do as they are told.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Janine on the whole submit in marriage thing...I've never found it demeaning or offensive...I don't see it as my husband thinking "less than" of me, but rather as a God-ordained system when two people who love one another cannot see eye to eye on an issue. Maybe they cannot see eye to eye because of sin in the world, but God still ordained the solution. Thus it is really Papa's words that I find offensive, because she seems to say it's something we dreamed up, and we are wrong to base our relationships on the concept of submitting unto one another.
Anyway, that's the way I see it.
RE: submission in marriage, we may never agree, and that for a variety of reasons. And that's okay. It's a difference, not a value judgment.
ReplyDeleteRE: men feeling bad or working to improve because of their position on a sports team or at work, I would say you're mistaking feelings or ego for understanding. Sure, Jimmy Klutz feels bad knowing that he is always going to be in right field. But he knows that, given his current skill level, it is either RF or nothing. And he'd rather play than watch. And he also knows that the only way to get out of RF is to develop better skills. And the only way to develop better skills is to play and practice. Or, at least, that's what men have traditionally done.
Now, we are being treated on a national scale to a change; a situation in which people who aren't skilled enough to "play shortstop or first" are being put there anyway in the name of fairness. Of course, the result is that it ruins the game for everyone. There is no satisfaction in playing first base if you're lousy, the team loses, and you know in your heart that you don't deserve to play there because there are more skilled players who could do a better job. But that's the alternative if you don't submit to the system.
At least that's my take.
First, as to marriage: agree to disagree
ReplyDeleteSecond: totally not advocating promoting people,etc, "to be fair", and agree there's no satisfaction in playing on a lousy team. (and it's a lousy way to run a business, or a school for that matter) just don't think men really find submission as easy as you say (okay, that's from a woman's/wife's point of view)--but men, for the most part, have learned to adapt to the system.
thanks for the discussion...it's been a pleasure!
I'd like to respond to something that I don't think received a response yet although I may have read past it in error. The prompt was Susan's comment: "Part of the curse for Eve was 'your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you'. and while that may not have been his desire, he cursed man with hierarchy."
ReplyDeleteI don't agree on that interpretation of the text. God is describing the inevitable result of the sin, not decreeing a cursing sentence on those who sinned. If fallen humanity is cursed with hierarchy, it is not God's doing, it is humanity's.
Consider a parallel: a father’s words when he discovers that his child, who had agreed to practice piano, in fact did not do the practicing. (Do I sound like a guy who is speaking from experience?) If the Father says “You are never going to become a good pianist”, is he passing a sentence, a curse, on the son, something that will now be true because the father spoke it? No, the child has made that decision by the failure to practice – cursing himself/herself to mediocre piano skills. The Father is just describing the end result of the son’s decision.
What the Heavenly Father is doing in Gen. 3:16 is not cursing the marital relationship with conflict over control; He is saying that conflict over control is the result of human sin. He is not decreeing that hierarchy is His eternal will and design; He is saying that conflict over leadership issues are the result of what happened in the garden.
Genesis 4:7 parellels this verse as it describes the struggle between humanity and sin over control. It clarifies the meaning of “desire” in 3:16: “Your desire will be for him” is parallel to 4:7’s “(sin’s) “desire is for you” - speaking of a “will to control or rule.”
The gospel (expressed in another verse numbered 3:16 ! ) provides the release from this inevitable result of sin. Through Christ we are not condemned to unending conflict in marriage. Through His grace we can learn to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ instead of wrestling for control.
I did some field research this morning. I get together with a mixed group of friends every Saturday at Starbucks. We talk about any subject that happens to come up. So this morning I outlined the original comments and the subsequent conversation. (All conversants have read The Shack.) The women present all agreed that there is no hierarchy in marriage, or even among people in general, though they were entirely comfortable with the idea of differences in role. One woman did observe, as someone else here did, that God did create a hierarchy: man to rule over animals. And it occurs to me that there is a hierarchy implied in Psalms with man and angels. And certainly there is a hierarchy in God & man, and God & angels.
ReplyDeleteOne other interesting comment that relates to the topic, although it happened years ago and in an entirely different context: At one point in my career I worked for a woman and reported to her directly. In addition she supervised a fairly large unit made up of men and women. Because of my unique reporting relationship we were friends in addition to our reporting relationship. She told me once that she "vastly preferred supervising men than women...because men understand reporting relationships and it just makes things easier; women don't get it and they always want to relate as friends...even when the reporting structure doesn't allow for relationships. It just makes things difficult."
So that's the result of some field research this morning.
And I definitely agree with Rick's understanding of "the curse" as descriptive rather than prescriptive. (Big surprise there, huh? ;-) )
This is fun, The only way to improve on this would be to do it face to face over coffee at Starbucks. Y'all come...I'll buy.
I'll come, Bro, but I'd rather get the coffee and have the conversation at Peet's.
ReplyDeleteOne last thought that struck me while in church this morning. It would seem to me that submission cannot imply hierarchy because Jesus, who was fully God and fully co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit was, nonetheless, in submission to the Father. So, to make submission imply hierarchy would necessitate having the Son at a lower level of the hierarchy than the Father. And that is precisely the error of several cults.
ReplyDeleteAnd now I'll shut up. ;-)
Somehow, Tom ..... I find that (your last sentence) very, very difficult to believe.
ReplyDelete(typed with an evil grin)
Janine, you've gotten to know Tom pretty well haven't you? ; )
ReplyDeleteRemember the odl TV commercial where the old lady said "I've fallen, and I can't get up"? What we say about Tom among family and friends is "I'm talking and I can't shut up!"
Janine, with that comment, you've entered into the closest circle of friends. And it is a delight to have you there. ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd see! There is one temptation I can rarely if ever resist. ;-)
At the risk of sounding cantankerous and contentious, and because as a woman I by nature apparently have difficulty with submission (though I am digging our e-relationship), i've still got one more opinion: I may have mistated myself when I said God cursed man with hierarchy. In fact what i meant to say that amidst the curse, God blessed man with a hierarchy, a system whereby issues may be settled when two reasonable people in love cannot agree.
ReplyDeleteWhen Paul wrote "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto the Lord," he used the Greek word "hupotasso" which means "to subordinate, put under." My dictionary says "hierarchy" is "any system of persons or things ranked one above another." to subordinate is "to place in a lower rank or order." Sounds like pretty much the same thing to me.
All that being said, I think the discussion has gotten away from my original contention that I don't like the way Young makes it seem that Papa/God has abandoned his people to a hierarchy that he didn't establish, "a diabolical scheme in which you are hopelessly trapped." (p 124)...I don't believe hierarchy is a diabolical scheme but an organizational system with which God has gifted us because he knows in our sin we will generally chose our own self interest over the interest of others.
and now, since Janine has posted the next chapter, I'll quit.
Wow - what a lot of interesting discussion I missed - I was gone on vacation! After reading all these comments, I think I'm agreeing more with Susan along the lines of submission to our husbands, and the concept of hierarchy being designed & instituted by God...but I will have to think about it more after I get our suitcases unpacked. :)
ReplyDelete