Women: Submission

So the here is the anticipated "submission" blog. I have a few things to say about it. The Ephesians passage is very popular for keeping women in submission and men in power in the relationship. Here's the passage:

22Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

~Ephesians 5:22-33

This passage embodies the entire reason we had this discussion in the first place. I don't have much more to say about this because my other blogs pretty much sum up my feelings about the subject. However, I will tell you about some of the things I learned about this passage and shared with my Bible study. First, we discussed the meaning of submission. Everyone else defined it as "respect" which I can totally agree with. However, when they were talking about how relationships/marriages should work, it was the women following blindly behind what the husband is passionate about and called to. The feeling I got about their definition of respect was letting the man get his way and make all the decisions, and not disputing his decision. When looking at the dictionary definition of submit, this is what I found:

sub·mit /səbˈmɪt/ –verb (used with object)
1. to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively).
2. to subject to some kind of treatment or influence.
3. to present for the approval, consideration, or decision of another or others
4. to state or urge with deference; suggest or propose
5. to yield oneself to the power or authority of another: to submit to a conqueror.
6. to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment: to submit to chemotherapy.
7. to defer to another's judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I submit to your superior judgment.

It was pointed out that I saw and talked about submission in a negative light. When looking at this definition and also how I have seen it work in relationships, I don't see how I couldn't. I know and understand that for a gazillion years, the church has taught that women should submit to their husbands and that is what God has called all women to do, but is that necessarily true? For a long time, the church in America supported slavery and the discrimination of black people. Churches wouldn't let African-American people through their doors. They did not see them as equals, even though God created them equal. Today, churches no longer deny African-Americans access to their church-- they changed their minds and realized that God created all people the same, no matter what their skin color was. Why can't the church change their mind about women as well?

And speaking of the treatment of women in regards to the treatment of African-Americans, I was told an interesting analogy about what women are doing to themselves when they support inequality in relationships-- it is like an African American supporting slavery during the Civil Rights Movement... Why wouldn't women want to have an equal say? Why would they want to give all of the power to men? I understand that women have been taught that they need to submit and that may be a conviction of theirs, but I do not understand how, when faced with the idea of equality, they resist it.
I have to admit that at one point in my life (not too long ago, actually) I believed what I'm now against. However, I started to research this topic and really look into how I felt about the subject after a casual conversation with a great friend of mine. We were talking about relationships and what our ideal relationships are. I mentioned that I wanted the man as a leader, and she asked me why. I tried to give her an answer but I'm sure it was non-understandable. She said that she didn't want a man to rule over her, that she is a strong woman with her own ideas and her own passions. I referred her to another friend who had a lot more answers than I could give. I ended up talking to my "referral"-friend about it and that's what really got the ball rolling. I have since made up my own mind and done my own research. The whole point of this is, when confronted with a different idea and a different way of thinking (especially a way that gives me more of a say and role in a relationship), I did not run away or resist it-- I embraced it and took it on myself to explore and discover my beliefs. I could just as easily gone the other way and came to believe even stronger that women should be submissive to men. But I made up my own mind-- I wish that all women would do the same. Actually, I wish everyone would do that and make up their own minds about everything the church teaches (but that's a whole other blog post idea... and I'm not getting into that now). How much more freeing is life when you own it and embrace your convictions as your own. They're not all going to be the same-- it'd be boring if they were-- but at least everyone would know why they believe what they believe.

Now that all that is out of the way, here was my explanation of the Ephesians passage. First off, the book of Ephesians is a letter. Each verse was not it's own separate idea or theology--it is one long idea within the whole letter. Taking one verse out of a bunch (don't ask me to count!) is pretty much "Bible dipping." (I wrote a whole blog about that a while ago.) People pick and choose verses out of the Bible to support their ideas, giving no room for God to move and actually speak to them. God speaks of love, respect, and grace throughout the entire Bible, so why would those verses not speak of those as well? The verses must also be taken in context.

That's the other point: The letter to the Ephesians was a letter to a specific culture and city. The people of Ephesis (is that right?) had laws about women being submissive and that men rule women. So when Paul told women to be submissive to their husbands, he was telling them to follow the law. God calls us to follow His laws, but to also follow the laws of the country/city we're living in. And if we break the laws of our government, we are breaking the law of God. If the women all decided to stop being submissive in that culture, there would be mass chaos and mayhem. They would be out of control and not constructive in changing their lives. However, women in the US have full rights... so wanting and demanding equal rights is not against the law. The law actually encourages it. But women aren't embracing that. They are taking their equality to the voting booths, but not to their own homes. Isn't their homes the place that has more meaning? Being able to vote is useless if you aren't equal in the eyes of your husband. More than likely, and I'm just speculating here, submissive wives' views in politics greatly weighs or even mirrors their husbands' views, so they really aren't having a different voice anyway. But that's just speculation.

Last but not least, the man's call. They are not called to dominate over their wives. They are called to love and respect their wives as they love their bodies. I don't see men demeaning their bodies, putting them down, making their bodies inferior to their mind. They treat it with respect and love and spend hours at the gym/working out making it all that it can be. That doesn't sound like domination to me! Men are called to lift their wives up, help them along their journey in becoming the women they were called to be, to respect their wives and love, see, and treat them as Christ sees and loves them-- not as lesser beings, but as one and the same. Christ was not about power and domination, so why are men "called" to do so? That is one thing I can say I do not understand. But women are also called to respect their husbands, so let's not forget that. But respect is not interchangeable with submission. Respecting your husband/wife does not mean they are better than the other. It is an expression of love. If you love your wife/husband, you will respect them. Simple as that!

All in all, the main point in all of this blogging and discussion is that women are equal. (did I really have to say that?) And they need to fight for the right to be so in their relationships. They need to stand up for themselves. They are not called to rule over their husbands as much as their husbands are not called to rule over their wives. They are called to mutual respect and love. They should submit to each other and learn to compromise. And women should stand up together and encourage each other to live the equal life that God created all women to live. Men and women are called to love as Christ loves the church-- you do that, and you can't go wrong!

Here are a few websites that have more info on equality in relationships, the church, etc.:

http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/bib_eq_101.shtml

http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/award_winning.shtml

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?cat=27

Women: Created as Equals and Roles in Relationships

God created men and women as equals
Also, it was discussed that Christ was the head of the church, so men are the head of women........ connection? I don't see it either. My rebuttal (I mean response :-) to that was that Jesus was the bridegroom and the church is the bride, and if taken in the equality light, they (the bride and groom) are equal so no one is over the other. Christ is God, and God is over everything and without gender, so equating a male dominance based on God being over everything makes no sense. If God is over everything, He is over everyone, including women. So with the previous idea, who should be over who? (or is it whom?)-- wait, am I starting to see a position of equality? I think I am! God created men and women equally-- Eve was Adam's ezer [one who is truly fitting and fully adequate- just right; means 'one who helps'; it does not refer to someone who is secondary or inferior; 'like him'; literally 'as agreeing to him or his counterpart']-- his equal. God wants men and women to live in harmony with each other, neither one being better than the other, but fulfilling their unique call from God, with no regard to their biological makeup:

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
~ Galatians 3:26-28

Men and women are equals in marriage because God created men and women as equals and views them as equals. God looks at their hearts and calls them as His children, and does not change His calling because someone is a man or as a woman. God does not talk to someone more or less because they have a penis or vagina. If they are seeking God's heart, a relationship will form and they will walk in God's will for their lives, as well as their marriage. And a marriage is not, as John MacArther says, that a man is like the sun, shining God's full glory, and that women are like the moon, shining a reflected glory from men. (I think I threw up a little in my mouth) (Thanks to Molly for that little tid-bit!)
Also, if God made women as equals to men (which everyone agreed with), why would women become less in a marriage? Why would they not be as much as a person or have as much of a say the instant they have a ring on their left hand? BOO-YA! No one one had a response to that and the topic was quickly changed! (I won that! wait, this wasn't a debate...)
But seriously, how can they believe that women and men are created equal but they are not equal in marriage? I mentioned that it was only after the fall that women were told that men would rule over them. It is because of their fallen state that men's pride and egos would take over and oppress women. It may not go to the extreme of abuse, but if you're keeping a woman in the kitchen and only letting her out to take care of the children and clean the house, how is that not a form of oppression? Women may choose to be a stay-at-home mom, which I want to do someday (screw having a career!), but it is the woman's choice, not her duty to do so. It is a calling on their life and their role in the marriage that a woman does so, not a God-given role for every woman everywhere. I have a friend, in fact, who once she graduates will be a female chemist. Her boyfriend (and soon-to-be husband) is in school to be an accountant. Can you guess who will be making more money? They'll be well-off financially, but she will be more powerful and make more money in the workplace. God has given her that talent and that passion. Should she reject that because "the church" says she should be a certain way? She may eventually take time off to be a mother, but she may not. Is that wrong? I don't think so. If God calls her to a certain career and not to stay at home, then she's actually going against God's calling on her life if she stays at home. She may find the cure for cancer (am I putting her future on a pedestal?) and that is God's purpose for her life, but because she chose to do what someone else told her she "should" do because she was a woman, she will not fulfill what God set her out to do. I know that's an extreme example, but on a much smaller and realistic scale, that's what "the church" is telling women to do-- who cares about your passions/calling/desires, it's all about your husband and his calling and passions; stay at home and be the perfect housewife and God will bless that because that is your God-given role. If women are so different, why would the church tell them all to be the same? Wait, it's men who are in charge...

Well, that's the end of part three! Stay tuned for part four!

Women: Leadership in a relationship

What is a leader?
The next discussion turned to what a leader is. We discussed what the general definition of a leader was, and what a leader was in a relationship. A general leader was defined as two things: First, someone who is passionate and inspires others to follow them/their example. Second, someone who tells people what to do and how to do it. What is a leader in a relationship? No one could give a good answer. Why should a man, just because he is a man, be able to have the final say? Why do women not have as much right in a marriage to give their opinion and be involved equally in the decision-making? Just because they are a man, does that mean they are automatically smarter/wiser/more in-tuned with God? Do women lose all opinions and decision-making abilities when they say "I do"? One of the girls even said, flat out, that men should get the final say and ended the statement with, "even though I'm totally not like that." Then why do it? If you don't agree with it or believe it, why do it? Just because someone told you that was the way it should be done? She's already putting aside her own ideas for someone else's (and I can't resist saying that a guy convinced her that men as the head of the relationship is the "right" way-- I don't get it, I just don't!).
There were a few examples that we discussed regarding leadership and decision-making. The first was the game "Follow the Leader." One of the girls used this as an example that, although everyone was following the leader, they were in fact following the person in front of them (symbolic of the man). The man is taking direction from the leader who is giving direction to the woman. (*roll of eyes*) They denied the fact that a leader in a relationship is someone who tells everyone else what to do and how to do it.... except, if the leader is telling/leading everyone to go left, they're doing what the leader is telling them to do. I'm not seeing the difference in this analogy.
The other issue we discussed, with a lot more heat under it I might add, was who makes the decisions. Does someone have the final say? How are decisions made? The example that was used was a couple moving. Who makes the decision of where to move or even if they move at all? When discussing this topic with my very wise friend, she explained to me the way her (egalitarian) marriage works: They only make a decision if they both agree or get the same calling/vision. If they don't agree or have the same calling, they don't move a muscle. Only when God gives them the same calling do they do anything. They discuss every decision together and come to a conclusion together-- neither person gets more of a say than the other. This idea went kinda over the heads of my Bible studiers. One scenario that was brought up was: what if one person wants to move (actually it was the wife in this example) and the man doesn't? Since they can't agree to move so they don't go anywhere, doesn't that mean he "wins"? Not at all. It is out of respect and love that the decision to not move is made. By forcing the man (or woman) to do something they don't want to do is manipulative and wrong-- not a definition of equality. It may require compromise. Yes, people want their own way, but one person shouldn't get their way just because of their biology. And out of love and respect, the man or woman may agree to move. But it has nothing to do with authority or leadership when that decision/compromise is made.
As the discussion continued on, a question was asked of me that actually took me by surprise. When I mentioned that I didn't know the definition of a leader in a relationship, I wasn't kidding. However, I was asked, "What would it look like if Michael was the leader?" Were you not listening to anything I've been saying?!? I answered, even though I was more confused as to how they could ask me that, but whatever, "I don't want him to be the leader. And he doesn't want to be the leader. We both believe in equality in a relationship and marriage. We make decisions together and we support and encourage each other in everything. Even though he is not the 'leader,' he is still one of the most passionate people I know! He respects me and treats me as I should be treated. He loves God and follows God with all of his heart. He is passionate about church and is excited about what our church is doing. He is in no way weaker or less of a man because he is not and does not want to be the leader." God has blessed me with a man who holds the same beliefs about relationships and marriage as I do. I believe that that is not a coincidence!
However, this was the question that was asked in response to that: "If Michael is so passionate, isn't that being a leader?" "What do you mean? I don't understand the question." "Passion is inspiring. So a person who is passionate inspires people to follow." WHAT?! My response (with other thoughts thrown in): "Michael is passionate about a lot of things. But by no means does he lead me in those passions. Yes, he teaches me about certain things, but never leads me. One of his main passions is music. He is the worship leader at church, but it really does not play a role in our relationship. But what about my passions? Just because I'm a woman, does that mean they don't matter? Are my passions not inspiring?" Both Michael and I are passionate about God and our church. But I was passionate about God long before I even met Michael. Yes, we can encourage each other and inspire each other in our relationship with God, but in no way does he lead me. He does not tell me what to read, how to pray, what to believe, etc. It's my own personal relationship with my creator-- I don't need Michael there to help it grow. We can come together and have a relationship centered on God and come together to study together, but there's no leading or submitting going on. Also, I was there when the first thought of Revolution came to be. Michael was nowhere around. We were passionate about it before we even met! We can both be passionate about Revolution and where it is going and form relationships and friendships within Revolution, but my passion and drive for it has nothing to do with Michael and his drive and passion has nothing to do with me. We both enjoy it and play central roles in it, but I don't rely on him for my passion about church. We both are there because we are following God's calling on our lives and it happens to be the same passion... coincidence? I think not! We rely on God to give us our own calling and vision and if we are truly meant to be together, then God will (and has) give us the same calling and vision. But God will not only give the vision/calling to Michael and he passes it on to me and I follow blindly. God uses our passions to change and grow our own lives and our relationship. We come together and encourage, inspire, teach, lean on, support, challenge, and help each other. We do it because we love each other and because we love God. It has nothing to do with our identity as being a man or a woman, it has everything to do with our identity as a son and daughter of God.

End of part two!

Women: Leadership Positions in the Church

Whew! We finally had our discussion in my Bible study about women! It's been 3 weeks since we said we would have this discussion... that's a long time to make me wait to state my opinion... wait, I did state my opinion-- just to everyone else! (Sorry Jill!!)
So I thought I'd share what the night was like and the discussion we had (I am being very deliberate about it not being a debate.)
Oh, and I want to say a HUGE thank you to Makeesha, Molly, and my mom for helping me with this discussion! I couldn't have done as well without your help!
And as a warning, because this was a discussion and also because I wanted to be respectful and loving towards my fellow Bible studiers, I did not express my true opinions about what they thought/believed. So, as a result, I need somewhere to vent about what they said. So be prepared. I have to be honest and say that I tend to be a little harsh and very sarcastic, so be prepared. Okay, that was my disclaimer!
Also, there are lots of different parts and they all tend to be a little long, so I'm going to break them up into different parts so everyone can read them a little easier and can comment on each idea. I'd love to get everyone's insight and ideas about each subject. So comment away!

Women in leadership positions in the church
So Cheyenne led into it very smoothly and the discussion was off and running. I was the only advocate for egalitarian marriages versus leader/submissive marriages. Needless to say, I did a lot of talking. I'm not very good about stating my opinion when I disagree with everyone (or even one person for that matter), so I must say I did a pretty good job holding my ground. I made sure to note that I understand that people have their own understandings and convictions of relationships, but I just don't agree with it.
We started with the discussion of women in leadership in a church... some interesting ideas came out. One defense of women not being head pastors was that women actually have the honor of not being a head pastor because it protects them from the spiritual warfare and temptations that go along with that position.....????? I don't even know. Women can't handle life being difficult? I understand that higher positions tend to be attacked more (not even on a spiritual level) but why would it be an honor to not have to deal with that? Oh, thanks, I don't have to deal with anything. I'll just sit here and look pretty! (Can you sense my feelings about this?)
Women are given just as many and the same gifts as men. Why should they not be allowed to live out that gift? Women are given the job as Sunday-school teachers, whether they like it or not. Women are not allowed to have authority over men... but when does a boy become a man? 5 years old? 13? 18? 21? When is it okay for a woman to teach a boy (but not a man)? And what about mothers? Once their son reaches 18, does that mean she no longer has authority as a parent? Can she no longer teach him anything? On the day of his 18th birthday, does he automatically become smarter than his mother? Wait, isn't that called adolescence? ;-) I'm 21 and I'm still learning things from my parents. I don't think they'll ever stop teaching me things! So does age and definition of a man/woman really determine when and how a person can be taught? And why can't women be up front? The girls said that there's nothing wrong with them being part of the leadership team or even as an elder/deacon, but just not the head pastor. But don't the elders have more power than the head pastor? So why can't they be up front teaching everyone? I went to a church in high school where the youth pastor was a man (big surprise) but his wife was a much more gifted of a teacher than he will ever be! However, she was never allowed to teach in youth group. Was it because her husband had the authority over the youth group? I never got ANY spiritual feeding from him, but came away a changed person when his wife taught in the main service! Gasp! A woman was a better teacher than a man? How can that be? God gifted her as a teacher, but her skill and gift were not allowed to be used to touch young girls' and boys' lives.
If someone has a gift God has given them, they should live life and follow through with that gift. If someone is called to lead worship, they should lead worship. If they have the skill to plan an instrument, but don't have a calling to lead worship or be in the band, they shouldn't be in the band. God may want to use them elsewhere or use a different gift. We should not assume that whatever talent someone has they should use it in the church. We should let people follow what God has spoken to them and into their lives. And we should definitely NOT prevent someone from using a gift that God has called them to use, no matter what their gender is. If a man has been called to lead Sunday school and a woman has been called to be head pastor, let them do so, taking assurance in the fact that they are walking in God's will and God will bless them and the church as a result. God wants what is best for everyone, so we must let Him do so. We need to leave our pride and our prejudice (wait, isn't that a book?) at the door and allow God to move in our lives and our church. It'll be amazing to see what God can and will do when we finally allow Him full access to our church and our lives!

End of part one! There's more to come!

...and Justice for All

I was in my religions class yesterday and we were continuing our study of Islam (let me just say I sit in complete confusion for the entire hour!). We talked about the central and very strong belief in the importance of justice. We then compared it to the Christian concept of justice. In regards to the Christian concept of justice, my professor said, and I quote, "Jews and Muslims laugh." At first, I was slightly offended. However, as he kept talking, it started to make more sense. Justice means to give a consequence for an action. We talked about that in Islam, if a son does something wrong, a mother is bound by her beliefs in justice to turn him in because she must value justice (and Allah) over the love for her son. That seemed so tragic and heartbreaking.
With the Christian perspective of that scenario, the mother would embrace her son and give him grace... hmmm... doesn't sound like justice to me! It started to make more sense. Grace is central to Christianity and we function and love within that belief. God is graceful and merciful because He loves us. Yes, God is just, but His love and forgiveness overrides that.
Also, my professor started making fun of the idea that Christians are passionate about "social justice." Again, slightly offended. It was also through this I realized my professor may not hold the beliefs I thought he did (being from Ireland and all, I assumed he had either a Catholic or Protestant background... maybe not... or he could have been playing devil's advocate... but not likely). But it really got me thinking about what social justice really means. Is it truly justice? Is there a better word/phrase to describe what is implied by when people mention social justice? How would changing the wording effect what was done or expected? Would it have an effect? This is just something that I've been thinking about. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this or anything else related!

Don't Stare at the Chimps!

Hehehehe This just amused me so I thought I'd share!

Day of Silence on April 30th

This day of silence will be on April 30th... spread the word!

My boyfriends' names are Ben and Jerry!

Today is one of my favorite days of the year: it's FREE CONE DAY at Ben and Jerry's!!! I love this day! What is better than free ice cream? Nothing! My mouth waters just thinking about how great Dublin Mudslide tastes, and how much better it tastes when its FREE! And being a poor college student, free is even more important! I'm so bummed I have classes today so I can't spend my day getting in line over and over again to get free ice cream (frowned upon but not forbidden)! I need to stop writing about this before I freak out and ditch my next class to go get ice cream!

(And yes, they are getting free publicity out of me... but I can't help but spread the good news!)

Stupid and Addictive Red Dots

I'm in a writing mood! I just thought I'd admit to the world how shallow I am when it comes to my blog. No, I'm not shallow about what I write, but about that stupid map at the top of the page! For a while, I was having a close competition with my boyfriend about who had more viewings... sad, I know! But then he got busy and stopped writing so the competition wasn't fun any more. But that didn't stop my obsession with knowing from what states and countries people are viewing my blog from! I have no idea why it's so facinating, but it is! I have some pretty cool locations, but I can't help but wish I had more! What is wrong with me? They're stupid red dots! I'm sure, deep down, I have a sense of jealousy that those people are there in exotic countries and I'm not. Oh well, at least I've admitted I have a problem... that's the first step, right?

Does this bother you?

I get a "Quote of the Day" thing on my homepage and this quote was there and I really liked it:

We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?
- Ray Bradbury

At first, I didn't think too much about it, but when I started thinking about my own life, it really struck me. What kinds of things really bother me? How long has it been since God really tugged on my heart? When was the last time I actually did something about it? What issues--social, personal, etc-- do I really care about?
This quote really convicted me of how I have been living my life. I haven't been bothered enough! Only recently have I become passionate about different issues... but I still struggle with actually doing something about it-- griping about it changes nothing!
I've had to realize that I need to allow myself to be bothered. Sounds uncomfortable, I know! But if I guard myself against being bothered about things-- my life, my relationships, my faith, social injustices, tragedies, etc-- I won't grow as a person. I easily say, "well, it doesn't directly effect me, so it doesn't matter" or "what will worrying about it do?" However, if you worry about it enough, change will happen because you won't want it there, nagging at the back of your mind. You'll actually do something to change it! So I will pray that God will give me the strength to open myself up to being bothered. And especially to do something about the things that end up bothering me. Imagine the change that could happen if everyone allowed themselves to be bothered

Happy Early Easter!

I wont have time to post this this weekend so I thought I'd wish everyone a very happy (or would it be hoppy?) Easter!! (and I guess a Merry Christmas in April!)

Also known as...

WONDER WOMAN!!! I bought a shirt with her picture and logo cuz it was on sale and it was cute! And then Makeesha and David called me wonder woman on two seperate occasions, so I guess I am! :-D Except I think I'd be cold not wearing any real clothing...
And according to Wikipedia, I am "described in the splash page of each story, as 'beautiful as Aphrodite, wise as Athena, swifter than Mercury, and stronger than Hercules"'-- I'm okay with that! Bring it on Hercules!! And aparently I get to fly around with the stars! How awesome is that?! But I guess my shorts (or underwear?) have stars on them so I guess it makes sense! I'm off to go save the world!

Who wants to be doormat... Anyone? Anyone?

So I'm writing this blog because I've discovered another of my least favorite words. Some people have favorite words, like... um... I don't know cuz I don't have favorite words (well, besides the words, "ice" and "cream" and "chocolate," of course!). However, I do have some least favorite words-- either because of their meaning, connotations, and sometimes just how the word sounds.
Here's how I discovered what the word was:
I'm in a Bible study with the on-campus ministry called Navigators (Navs for short). They tend to lean on the very conservative side of the spectrum and as you can already guess, it's caused a few issues for me. I've become more and more liberal in my thinking over the last year or so. As a result, I've come to disagree a lot with some of my closest friends on theoretical issues. We still love each other dearly, but we disagree about almost everything concerning the Bible and theology. It makes for interesting discussions, that's for sure-- all respectful discussions and debates-- no yelling matches yet...
Anyway, back to what I was talking about. We're doing a Bible study called, "Becoming a Woman of Excellence." I was very hesitant about it cuz in my experience, books on how to be a Godly woman never turns out well for me, but I gave this one a try. It's definitely not the best study I've done but it wasn't too bad... until I got to chapter 8: "Made Precious by a Quiet and Gentle Spirit." Let's just say I was already pissed off before I even started the chapter. But, because I was interested in what the author would say, and also cuz it's the chapter for the week, I did it. Every question was answered first with a "I don't know! This is dumb! I hate this! F*** this!" Needless to say, I was not doing the study with a quiet, and definitely not gentle, spirit.
What the word is:
It was through this study, however, that I discovered my new least favorite word. Are you ready for it? The word is: meek. UGH! I just typing that word puts a bad taste in my mouth. So for the study we had to look up a bunch of words (gentle, quiet, meek, calm--there's no agenda there!), which are fine on their own, but when put in this context made me furious! The connotations and message that was being told through those definitions were totally overbearing and degrading to women. It was all about "submit! submit! submit!" Why is that always the focus? Anyway, I looked up the definition of meek, cuz at first, I didn't really know the true definition of it. All I can picture when I hear that word is a woman with her hands palm-to-palm in front of her chest with a robotic smile on her face.
So here's the definition from dictionary.com:
meek /mik/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[meek] Pronunciation Key
–adjective, -er, -est.

1.	humbly patient or docile, as under provocation (something that incites, instigates, angers, or irritates... I'm not very good in the vocab arena!) from others.

2.	overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame.

3.	Obsolete (no longer in general use; effaced by wearing down or away). gentle; kind.

No wonder I didn't like that word! overly submissive? Spiritless? Tame? Obsolete?? BLECK! It just makes me so angry!!! I understand that a woman, or a man for that matter, should be respectful and loving towards people and not aggressive or violent in how they interact, but really, is that how to teach people to not do so? I know that is the idea that they are trying to convey, but that is not what the definition says! By telling women to be meek they are telling them to be compliant, not care about anything, easily manipulated, overworked, and unappreciated. Sounds like so much fun! I can't wait to become a meek woman! Jesus, make me meek! (If you can't catch the sarcasm, I'm telling you now!) I know I'm taking a pretty liberal stance on this issue, because talking to my conservative roommate about the chapter, she kept using my least-favorite word over and over again as something women should be. (I was grinding my teeth the whole time she was talking!)
Why do women need to be meek? Being gentle and not too aggressive is a good trait. But meek? Why choose that word? At the prompting from my much more gracious and understanding sister, I looked up meek in the Strong's Bible dictionary... here's the definitions it gave (any italicized words were that way in the dictionary-- I'm not trying to make a point with it!):

- depressed, in mind (gentle) or circumstances (needy, espec. saintly):-- humble, lowly, meek, poor, afflicted
- gentle, humble:--meek, mild

Well, that didn't help. But there was more emphasis on being humble and gentle, which I can understand more. But they all still involved the word meek... I don't know what to think. I'm just frustrated I guess. I never like people, the "church" especially, telling me what to do, what to wear, how to act, etc. It just makes me want to rip off my clothes, run around the sanctuary in the middle of a church service, and start cussing... it'd definitely make a few people uncomfortable! Thankfully I go to a church where clothing is optional... juuuust kidding! I'm done with my rant. I'm glad I could get that off my chest (and keep my shirt on)!