text:
Let's open our Bibles together to 1 Timothy chapter 2, 1 Timothy chapter 2. A couple weeks ago I was reading a very interesting biographical sketch of a rather famous family. Some of us remember the name Beecher as a family in American history. Surely you know the name Harriet Beecher Stowe, a great American novelist. Harriet Beecher Stowe was one of 13 children. The oldest member of the family was Catherine Beecher. She was the oldest of the 13. She was one of 9 children by her mother and there were four other children born to a stepmother whom her father married after her mother had died. Catherine Beecher particularly grew up having a natural love for children. She found great joy in the duties of raising children. She loved to care for infants. She loved to care for little children. When Catherine was only 16 and all of the rest of the children born to the mother, 9 of them were younger than she was, her mother died. So she was left really to mother 8 other little children. Her mother had been very skilled in domestic handcraft and spent a great amount of time teaching Catherine how to take care of the home and so she was quite good at that by the age of 16. Into the home came an aunt and the aunt was to be a replacement for a mother and the aunt was remarkable for her neatness and her order and her ability to deal with things on an economical basis. Later on, she was replaced by a stepmother who was expert in all matters of administration in the home. Under them all, Catherine with experience in the tutelage of these women, by the age of 23 had learned all that there was to be learned about domestic life and decided that the state of women in the United States was so severe that she needed to do something very dramatic to train women for domestic responsibility. So, she founded the Hartford Female Seminary, the design of which was to train women to be lovers of their husband, lovers of their children and keepers at home. She and her sister Harriet Beecher Stowe not only founded the Hartford Women's Seminary, but a couple years later, they founded the same thing in Cincinnati, Ohio, with the view to training women for domestic responsibility. At that same time around 1869, the wrote a book entitled the American Woman's Home. Let me read you just a little of it.
"Women's calling embraces the care and nursing of babies in those critical periods of infancy and sickness. The training of the minds of children in the most impressionable years of life, childhood. It involves the matter of meeting the needs of her husband so that his life is enriched and his home a haven. It involves the responsibilities of the economy of the house for the benefit of the family and all others who grace it. These duties are as sacred and demanding as any given to man, yet where is her preparation and what body certifies her as duly prepared to give the best to her calling?"
As a result of that desire to give to women training so that they could be capable at their domestic responsibility, they founded the two seminaries and they wrote this as their purpose. "The purpose is to teach women how not only to perform in the most improved manner all the manual employments of domestic life, but to honor and enjoy them." Now the reason I read you that is just to give you a little idea of how far we have come in a few years. The cigarette commercial that said, you have come a long way, baby is indeed true. If anybody imagined to start a female seminary to train women today in domestic responsibility, they would become the instant laughing stock of the whole United States if not most of the world.
It would be absolutely bizarre for anyone to attempt to gain societies approval for such an effort. Can you imagine the kind of ridicule that would come upon someone for doing that? To endeavor to train women to be lovers of their husband, lovers of their children, keepers at home, would put a person in direct opposition to everything that is happening in human society. By the way, such a seminary, or such training similar to that seminary is the goal of The Masters College and soon you will be hearing about our emphasis in that area. We are in a day, today, when role reversal is really high priority for Satan. It would one thing if it was occupying itself with the world, but it is even more tragic when it occupies itself with the church.
And the church today has definitely lost its sense of perspective and balance in terms of what a woman's role is to be. I am amazed, month-by-month to see more and more traditional evangelical, Bible believing people begin to change their view of the woman's role under the pressure of the society around them. Sad part is, that they are then instructing women to deny a God given and a God ordained pattern for life which would bring them the highest joy and that's sad. It was a problem in the day of Catherine Beecher. It's a problem today and I would like to add it was a problem in the day when Paul wrote his first letter to Timothy. And as you look at 1 Timothy 2, verses 9 through 15, you will note that Paul is dealing with that very problem. He is identifying here a problem of women who were asserting themselves and trying to overtake the role of men in the church. They were acting indecently in the church. They were acting shamefully. They were violating their God ordained place, defying the divine standard, and so Paul writes to Timothy encouraging him with this corrective in verses 9 to 15 to set things in order in the church of Ephesus where Timothy is located at the present time. So they had their own problems in that time as we have the problem in this time. Now, in verses 9 to 15, a very concise passage there are seven verses there, but they are very brief with the exception of verse 9, so there really aren't a lot of words here, but in a very few words, there is a very comprehensive treatment of the role of women, that's why it's going to take us the past two weeks, this week and at least one more to get through these verses, because they open up such a wide range of understanding that must be explored in order to get the full teaching of Scripture.
But in these brief verses, there is a presentation of six elements related to a woman's place in the church. Now, we are not talking about the home here. We are not talking about secular society here. We are just talking about the church. In fact, we are talking about the church when it comes together to worship. We are talking about the order of the church, behavior in the church. These six elements with which Paul deals are their appearance, their attitude, their testimony, their role, their design and their contribution. And he emphasizes all of these things in a way that is sort of a building to a climax that comes in verse 15 which we will look at next week and I'm telling you, I can hardly wait, it's so wonderful. But let's be reminded in verse 9 of their appearance. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in proper apparel with Godly fear and self-control. Not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothing. Now the first thing that occupies the mind of Paul as we saw a couple of weeks ago is that women are to dress in such a way that they are fit for worship. They are dressed in such a way that they draw attention to their devotion to God and not to themselves. They are not to flaunt their sexuality. They are not to flaunt their wealth. They are not to flaunt an attitude of insubordination to their husbands. They are not to make other people look at them with envy. They are not to create sexual enticement in other men. All of these things are bound up in what we saw in verse 9. Their appearance is very, very important. Obviously, some women were coming together of the redeemed saints and calling attention to themselves for their own passions fulfillment and their own selfish desires.
Secondly, we looked at their attitude. Their attitude was to be one of Godly fear. That word really has at its root the idea of a sense of shame. They are to have a proper shame about themselves. That doesn't mean a woman is to be ashamed of herself. That doesn't mean she's to be ashamed of her beauty and hide it. What it means is she is to have a sense of shame that says, I would never want to do anything to cause someone else to be illicitly attracted. I would never want to do anything that would cause someone else's attention to be drawn away from God to me. Her attitude is one of a sense of shame, that she should ever be the cause of someone else's sin.
Secondly, self-control, and the word is related to controlling her desires and controlling her passions and not being in a position to cause others to have wrong desire. So their appearance then out to be fit worship, their attitude as well. Thirdly, their testimony in verse 10 is a part of his discussion. A woman who professes publicly Godliness should prove that confession with good works, so you have not only appearance and attitude, but you have her action or her activity. That which she does, that which she says should indicate the legitimacy of her claim to godliness.
Now those three then brought us to the fourth and we are going to look at it again today. And that is their role. And now you come to the real heart of this text, in verses 11 and 12. The role of the woman is given in these words, let the women learn in silence with all subjection, but I permit not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. Now you will notice that verse 11 begins with being in silence and verse 12 ends with being in silence, and so that brackets the whole idea here and becomes the dominate thought. The dominate thought is that when the church comes together for worship, the women are to be in silence. And the middle of that, he sort of speaks to that very issue. Now as we looked at this role of women given by God and created by women by his creative power, we first of all and last week emphasized the opening statement of verse 11, let the women learn. And I hope you understood the major point that I was making is that on the spiritual level, men and women are equal, they are equal. And as a result of that, they are equally entitled to be involved in the learning process. And we suggested to you that there were no doubt people in the church at Ephesus who came out of a Jewish background or people in that church who came out of a Greek background both of which diminished the role of women. Both which held that woman are inferior. And both of which would assume that it wasn't important or even necessary that women learn anything And so this no doubt had filtered into the church and Paul is saying, let the women learn. Let them, manthan is the verb we get the word disciples from it. Let them be disciples. Let them be learners, let them be in on the process of grasping, understanding, and applying divine truth. And don't let the influence of Jewish culture or Greek culture which diminishes and denigrates the role of women, speak evil of them and hinder them from learning the truth of God. And we went to the Old Testament, you remember and I told you that the law was given for men and women and the rules about the Passover were given for men and women and God personally appeared to both men and women. And the service of God involved both men and women. You came to the New Testament and men and women both serve the Lord and men and women are responsible for all the commandments and they are given all the promises and they are promised all the blessings and they are warned about all the curses.
In other words, in terms of spiritual life and blessing, all are equal. There is no question about that. But that does not mean that their role is the same. You can have spiritual equality and have all different roles. To put it another way, you and I are spiritually equal. You and I have the same spiritual responsibility before God to live to his glory, is that not so? We have the same responsibility to obey the Word of God, the same responsibility to pray and to teach the Word of God and to witness and to live a Christ like life and we have the same promise of blessing and we have the same fruit of the Spirit. We have the same hope of eternal life, on the spiritual level, we are all equal, and yet, obviously in a role situation you are there and I'm here. Now, we should be comfortable with equal spirituality and differing roles. I don't know why we want to make a battle ground over that. For all the woman that demand to have equal roles with men would be like all the congregation demanding to have equal roles with the one who is preaching and you can understand what that would do.
These are just roles that God has designed for us to play to fulfil his will. So we see then Old Testament and New Testament, equality of spiritual life. But we do not see equality of role. And you remember as we looked at the Old Testament last time, that there were no women priests, none. There were no women holding ongoing prophetic office. There were some women who were called a prophetess, namely four of them. The wife of Isaiah was only called a prophetess because she was going to give birth to a child whose name had prophetic meaning, not because she said anything. But Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah are all three-called prophetess and all we know about them is that each of them, in the Bible is recorded on one occasion to have given a message from God. We don't know that they had any ongoing prophetic ministry, certainly not like the Major Prophets, the Minor Prophets, Elijah, Elisha, Moses. We have no such women leaders. Deborah, appears in the list of Judges in Judges 4:4, to have been in a position of giving some wise counsel in the life of Israel, but she is far and away the exception and we really don't know when and how and how many times she was used by God to give wisdom.
There are no women kings in all the history of Israel and somebody would no doubt ask me what about 2 Chronicles 22:12 where it says, Atheliah reigned. It does not call her king or queen. Atheliah, you remember was the mother of Ahaziah, when he died, she wanted to rule, so she massacred the entire royal seed. The only one she didn't get was Joash. You remember? He was protected and later became the king, but she usurped that throne and was not and is not, to this day, listed among the kinds of that land. No women kings, no women priests, no woman with ongoing prophetic office and no woman wrote an Old Testament book.
Ruth and Ester were named after women, but were not written by women, so they had no ongoing role of leadership in the normal course of life in God's economy in the old testament, though some of them were used by God here and there to speak a Word for God and many woman prophesied according to Psalm 68, a great host are the women who published the good news. That didn't mean that women couldn't speak for the Lord, of course, not, they should speak for the Lord. But they were not given the roles of leadership within the nation of Israel, either in political life or religious life, both of which were the same in a theocracy ruled by God. You come to the New Testament and you remember that there is neither male nor female in Christ, Galatians 3:28 and we know that we are all equal spiritually. And yet, it's very obvious in the New Testament, there are no women apostles, although there were women who accompanied Christ and the 12. They are not included in the 12. There are no women prophets. There is Anna mentioned in Luke 2 and said to be a prophets because her husband had died seven years after their marriage and she, for over 80 years had stayed in the temple waiting for the Messiah and anyone who came in the temple she would tell them about the Messiah coming and what a joy it was when she met the Messiah even as an infant. But she really is a holdover from the Old Testament and she was a prophetess in the sense that she spoke about the Messiah to anyone who came along.
And then you look in the New Testament again and you do see that the four daughters of Philip did prophecy, they did speak for God, but a lot of women speak for God, we don't know anything about it. They are not called prophets. That would be after the church began and they are not called prophets. It just says that they prophesied, they spoke forth for God. It is implied there. There were other women, 1 Corinthians 11, we'll get back to that in a minute who also prophesied, spoke forth for God, but as I said, there were no women apostles, no women called prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, elder, and no woman wrote a new Testament book, so both Old Testament make it clear that though there is equality on the spiritual level there is differing roles and all of that was just a review of what I gave you last week, so if you want the fill in on that, get last week's message and you'll have all of it.
But that equality of learning which is given here in verse 11 is qualified at the end of the verse. Let's go back to it and I want to speak the rest of the time this morning on the last half of verse 11. Let the women learn and here comes the qualifier, in silence with all subjection. In silence with all subjection. Now you have to understand what's going on in the culture to get an idea of what's going on in this situation. Now remember, you have in the church of Ephesus, a gentile culture as the basic culture in which the church exists. Asia Minor which is modern Turkey was a gentile place and women were ranked in gentile religion very low, very low. In fact, if you were to go to the temple of Diana of the Ephesians of Ephesus, you would find hundreds and hundreds of priestesses there called "melissae" whose primary function was to act as prostitutes for the male worshipers. They were chattel. They were to be used and discarded. Furthermore, any respectable Greek woman who was not some kind of prostitute, some kind of streetwalker lead a very confined life. She lived in her own quarters into no one but her husband could enter. She had not even the privilege of appearing at the meal unless she was invited to be there. She never at any time appeared on the street alone. She never went to any public assembly and still less did she ever speak or take any active part in an assembly.
So you can understand when some of these woman were converted they began to field their oats. To put it in the colloquial expression. And they would read that concept that we understand, equal as one in Christ and they would say, boy, we are going to take our place now. Other women were coming out of a Jewish background. We know that because there are indications in 1 Timothy that there were Jewish influence at the church at Ephesus. So here you have some women coming out of a Jewish background which was very much the same in terms of suppressing women and keeping them in sort of deprived situation in terms of learning and now these women have come to faith in Jesus Christ, perhaps in some cases they are growing faster than their husbands so they too began to feel the surge of the desire of prominence and to get out from under this abusive kind of chauvinistic tradition that they have known. And so, there is pressure applied in the church as these women begin to assert themselves. Now you add to that that this church was a sinful church and there are not only those pressures that come because these women are overreacting to their liberty in Christ, but you add the sinfulness of the culture around them which obviously would militate against the things of God and you have got loose and immoral woman in the church who are coming to church, flaunting their sexuality, flaunting their wealth, trying to entice and allure other men. You have got other women who are trying to surge into positions of teaching and surge into positions of leadership, women who don't want to subordinate themselves to their husbands anymore, they want to take over the authority in the church, the authority in the relationship at home, and the church is in great, great need and great, great danger. And so as Chapter 3 verse 15 days, this whole section is to set things in order in the church, the second thing he wants to set in order after the prayer passage in verses 1 to 8 is this matter of the role of the women. Because it's all out of wack. And he calls, basically, for them to learn in silence with all subjection. Two things there, they are to be silent and subject. The word silence means just that hsuchia it just means silence. We have to define what that is intended to say by the context. The word subjection is from hupotass which means to line up under. In other words, to get in their proper line and not rebel. They are not to be unruly. They are to get inline in their proper place. So women are to learn in silence and get in line in their proper place. Now it's obvious the Bible says that, no one is going to equivocate on that. It says, let the women learn in silence. So you say, what are people who believe in women preachers going to do with this? Well, they are going to take the word silence and they are going to say it doesn't mean that. Silence means a meek and quiet spirit. What it means is that when you do teach and preach, you do so in a quiet spirited way.
All right, there are those who want to advocate that. There are others on the other hand who are hardline and they say, when it says, let the women learn in silence that's exactly what it means. No woman should ever talk in church under any conditions. Not even to the person they are sitting next too, not on the way in, not on the way out, you know, the real hardline thing. Total silence. Women never give a testimony. Women never pray. Women never speak, nothing. Now which of these two or what other option do we have? The answer is very simple. You always define terminology by context and all you have to do is look at the context to figure out exactly what he means by silence, verse 11. Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. What do you mean Paul? I mean, I don't permit a woman to what? Teach, that's the silence issue, nor usurp authority. That's the subjection issue. He defines exactly what he means. What he means by the silence of a woman is that he does not permit a woman to take the role of teacher. What he means by her subjection is, he does not permit her to rise, to usurp authority over men in the life of the church. He doesn't mean that the woman can't sing a song. He doesn't mean that in an appropriate place, a woman cannot pray a prayer, he does not mean that she cannot offer praise to God at an appropriate time. It does not mean that she cannot participate in worship. It doesn't mean that she can't even ask a question when a question is called for in a proper spirit and a proper way. What it means is that she is not to be the teacher and she is not to rebel against the role of submission which God has designed for her in the life of the church.
So silence then is in relation to teaching and it means she's not to be the teacher. We'll get into that in more detail next week as we see what the phrase in verse 12 actually means. The subjection is easily understood to mean that she is not to rebel. She is not to desire to overturn the divine pattern. Now, we need to understand what this means. Okay, we've got the church, we are looking at the church. We are saying, all right, the woman is not to be the teacher, that is plain and simple, we are not to have preachers and teachers standing up in church before everyone mixed congregations of men and women who are the official teacher of the church, the official preacher, giving the message, the sermon, the lesson. That's right, that's very obvious. But there are other passages that broaden our understanding of this and we need to look at them, so let's go back to 1 Corinthians 14, and you are going to find this, I think, very, very interesting. In 1 Corinthians 14:34, we have a very similar statement. To a very similar situation. In verse 34, it says, let your women keep silence in the churches, now it isn't too hard to figure out what that means. You do not have to be a Greek scholar. It is obvious what it means and in case you missed it, Let the women keep silence in the churches, and I love this kind of reasoning, for it's not permitted for them to speak. And you say, well, wait a minute, that's just saying the same thing twice without a reason. No, that is the reason. The reason that women are to keep silent in the churches is because it isn't permitted for them to speak. You say, it doesn't give me a reason. Sure it gives you a reason. They are commanded to be under obedience so also says what? The law. The law of who? The law of God. Do you know why women aren't to preach in the church? You say, well, it has to do with their psychologic, no. No.
Well, it has to do with the fact that if you give the woman that kind of role, she doesn't have the mentality to deal with the things that come. No, the reason that they don't do it is because God's law says they can't do it, that's all. That's the issue. It's not sociological, it's not psychological. It's not pathological, it's not anything. It's just the law of God. So women are to keep silence in the church. You say, well, what does that mean. So now we have a big debate about what it means to be silent again, well, let's find out what it means. It shouldn't be too hard, all we have to do is look at the context. So we go back in the chapter a little bit and we ask ourselves, what is this chapter all about? Well, verse 1 of chapter 14 talks about prophesying. Verse 2 talks about tongues and then you have tongues and prophesying compared all the way through the chapter and he says, of course, the best thing is to prophecy. Verse 39, you don't want to stop speaking in languages legitimately and that apostolic age, it was a legitimate gift of God, but it's better that you should desire as a congregation when you come together, that prophecy be done, that is the proclamation of the Word of God and most of all, verse 40, it out to be done decently and in order. But you want to get an idea of what's going on there, let me give you some background. Right across the bay from Corinth is another city. The name of that city is Delphi. In the city of Delphi, there is a religious structure. At the pinnacle of this religious structure is a woman by the name of Pythia. She is known as the oracle of Delphi. Have you ever heard that phrase? She is known as the oracle of Delphi in this very time. At the height of Delphic religion there were three such priestesses. The dominant one that we know of in history is Pythia, this from Stuart Rossiter and his book on Greece in which he treats this whole thing. This is a woman about 50 years of age and she is a medium who contacts demon spirits and everybody wants to know the future and everybody wants to know what it holds, and everybody wants to know the secrets and everybody wants to know how things are going to turn out and they want to know how to get rid of their problems and so forth and so forth and so everybody wants to go to get the oracle of Delphi to give them the truth.
So it is a very popular religion controlled of course, by Satan and run through demons who speak to this medium and she gives out this stuff. Now Rosseter in describing this tells us some very interesting things. Someone who goes over there, first thing they do is make an animal sacrifice, it can be a sheep, a goat, a bear or some other animal. They make an animal sacrifice well a few attendant priestesses stand around and evaluate the omens in the sacrifice. I don't know how they did that. Maybe it had to do with the way the thing burned or the way the inside of the animal fell, some kind of omen. If the omens were favorable, based on the evaluation of the sacrifice, the person could then come into the inner shrine. No woman could ever be admitted into that, only men. So the man would come in, let's say the omens were good so they accepted a sacrifice so the man comes in. He takes a tablet and on that tablet, he writes his request. By the way, archeologists have dug up that area and found some of those tablets still intact, so we know something about what the people were asking.
That tablet then as he waits in line is his consideration to be given to the oracle and finally, if all fortune goes well, he is ushered into the oracle. She is sitting on a tripod. Three legs going rather high over a huge chasm from which rises incense smelling heavy dense smoke. And she is sitting over this chasm to answer this request. Before she can take her throne she has to eat Laurel leaves and she has to go through some kind of thing. And then she gets up there and the request is taken and represented. In response to the request, she gushes out some absolutely inarticulate babble. Some kind of demon talk. Standing beside her is a poet who interprets everything she says in perfect hexameter, which is a poetic form. And that is the interpretation because nobody understands what she is saying. And the person then hears a very obscure, a very confusing hexametric, poetic, bunch of babble from this guy that probably leaves them more confused than they were when they got there, but they have had an ecstatic experience and they have encountered the super natural. Now think about that. That's right across the bay from Corinth. Now in the church at Corinth, and Satan always counterfeits something that God does. If God has a true gift of languages and a true gift of interpretation. And a true gift of prophesying and speaking forth the Word of God, then Satan is going to move in as close as he can and counterfeit the whole thing. And so you have got some people coming to the Corinthian assembly and what they are doing is mediumistic, occultic, demon kind of stuff, they are putting these same babbles that came out of the Delphic oracle and the same kind of obscure nonsensical prophetic things that are coming over there and they are doing it supposedly in the name of Christ and the church, some people in the church are doing the true gifts and the people in the church are not rightly evaluating it and what you have in Corinth is absolute confusion, some people actually standing up, claiming to have the gift of tongues, cursing Jesus Christ and being patted on the back for it, because it must be of God because it's supernatural.
Now that is the background of 1 Corinthians. Anybody is absolutely naive who comes into chapter 14 and starts reading about tongues and prophecy and doesn't have that as background. Paul is correcting all of that. So the issue here in the Corinthian church was not only that there were woman who were flaunting their sexuality, we know there was terrible sex in the Corinthian church, wasn't there? Terrible sexual evil. But here you have some women who are looking at religion that is all women, the Delphic thing and saying, boy we ought to be prominent in this religion too. So they are pushing themselves into prominence by standing up and speaking in this unintelligible babble by standing up and giving their prophecies. So when we come to this chapter look at verse 26, he says, what is going on with you? When you come together, every one of you as a psalm, a doctrine, or a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, interpretation, let everything be done decently and in order. Get this mess straightened out. And then he says, no more than two or three people in tongues, never without an interpreter, don't let the prophets speak except two or three of them and everybody evaluate them to see if they really know the lord, they really speak the truth. Get this thing together, verse 33 because God is not the author of what? Confusion. And then in verse 34 he said, let the women keep silent, keep silent about what? Well, it's obvious, speaking publicly in the assembly of the church either in ecstatic speech or prophecy. So if we look at 1 Timothy, we see that women are not to preach or teach. If we look at 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35, we can conclude women very simply woman are not to speak in tongues and women are not to give prophecies in the church. They are not to speak forth in the church. Why? It's not permitted. Why? They are to be under obedience. Why? The law of God says that. Here is comes, it is indecent for women to speak in the church. It's not indecent for women to speak. Speak all you want, unless you are usurping the role of authority, unless you are taking leadership in the church, this is so clear. So what are we saying then, when it comes to the meeting of the church together, women are not to preach or teach. They are not to speak forth the Word of God. They are not to speak in ecstatic speech. Obviously, the sum of those things is to say that the church when it comes together is to be spoken to by men. That's just God's way.
But the underlying thing that I want you to understand here is this, this does not mean that a woman can never, under any circumstances, speak in a group of Christians. What this speaks to is the women who usurp that. Who push themselves in the place of prominence. Remember, God used Miriam to speak a word for him. God used Deborah and Huldah to speak a word for him to very important men. God used Anna for scores of years in the temple, spacing of the coming Messiah to anybody that came there. So there is no reason to believe that in the right time and the right place, women can't speak. When Paul traveled on his trips through the book of Acts it says that he went into an area, to a church and he dialogued with them out of the Scriptures. I believe there were men and women. I believe honest questions could be asked by women in a right format and answered by the apostle Paul. I think there was a time and place for women to speak a testimony of praise to the Lord. I don't think that he's saying they can never do that. What he's saying is that they cannot rise to leadership in the church so that they become the ones who dominate the church with their authority and their teaching and their gifts. There is a place, of course, when it is the right environment and we ask for those to ask questions, where a woman has every right to ask a question in a right spirit just as a man does. There is a time when we ask for praise to be offered to God when a woman has every right to praise God, just like anyone else does. That's when the preacher or teacher deflects the communication responsibility to his congregation and says, I want to hear from you.
But that wasn't the issue here. The issue here was interruption. The issue here was usurpation. That's a different issue, so we understand what he's saying. Now let's go back to 1 Corinthians 11, because we can't understand this whole picture without understanding this passage. By the way in Chapter 14 he says not to do this is absolutely unthinkable, because he says in verse 36, what? Came the Word of God out from you or came it unto you only? In other words, he says, if you defy this are you telling us that you are the originator of the Word of God. You are going to decide how it out to be done, or maybe it was just written for you to twist anyway you want. It's ludicrous to him. What? Did you write the Bible? You who want to exercise authority in the church. You who want to speak out and be the preachers, teachers and prophesiers and tongue speakers and all that. It's just ludicrous to imagine that you can overturn the Scripture, that you can do it any way you want. And going back to 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verse 2, he says, I praise you brethren, because you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I deliver them to you. We often get the idea that everyone in Corinth was corrupt, but this verse tells us not so. There was a great number there who were not and he says, I know you remember me in all things and you do keep the commandments or ordinances the way I delivered them to you. But there is something you have to know. Now remember, this is Corinth. In the middle of Corinth was a temple to Aphrodite, a thousand priestess prostitutes with heads open and exposed and hair cut short flaunting their sexuality trying to lure men into sexual acts in the temple. Put up on the acro of Corinth, the hilltop outside of Corinth, this big temple. And these women again flaunting their liberation, flaunting their liberation, flaunting their sexuality. There was a whole attitude there, very much like Ephesus, so he says, I know you obey me, I know you remember what I said, but I want to tell you this, folks. You have to realize the head of every man is Christ. And the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God. You have to get one thing straight. Women are put in a place of submission to men. That's just how it is. And again, I remind you, it's not to say women can't speak. It's not to say women can't pray. It is to understand as an attitudinal objective that the man is the head of the woman. Now, look at verse three again, nobody argues about this. The head of every man is Christ. You know anybody that doesn't believe that?
You know anybody that has sort of a Christian's liberation, demanding equality with Christ. Anybody running around saying I want to be equal with Christ, or forget it? No. And everybody understands that God is the head of Christ. Christ comes in subjection to his father, becomes a servant. Takes upon him the form of a servant, humility and all that, Philippians 2, the kenosis. Then why do we debate about the fact that the man is the head of the woman? That's just basic. So, let me give you a little cultural thing. In Corinth, woman, as a custom, covered their heads. That was how a woman identified her humility. That's how she hid herself as if to say, I'm not available. I belong to one man. And that was her modesty, that was her femininity.
This is how she carried herself and how she clothed herself to demonstrate her womanliness, her femininity. In the Corinthian society, men were uncovered. Their heads were bear, their faces were open and that as the mark of maleness. Somehow, in the Corinthian church, these things were getting inverted, and women were praying and speaking the Word of God with their heads uncovered, actually sort of identifying with the prostitutes and the women's liberation movement. And men, maybe from some Jewish background or something, were covering their heads and praying and people were looking at them and saying, they are feministic. So, he says in verse 4, look, every man who prays or prophesies having his head uncovered dishonors his head. What are you doing, don't do that. Why? You say, you mean it's a sin to put something on your head when you pray? No, not unless your culture perceives that as something that's feminine. And the point there was for a man to cover himself was to be acting like a woman, men didn't do that. Verse 5, and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head and she might as well be like one who is totally shaved. She might as well destroy all of her femininity, look like a prostitute. Or some liberated person. Verse 7, a man ought not to have his head covered, see in their society that said something, so what Paul is saying is this, now listen carefully, look at your society and mark out the symbols. What are the symbols of femininity in our society? What are the symbols of masculinity and identify with those, if they don't violate Scripture. If they don't violate God's design for morality, then adhere to those symbols because that says something to your society. Listen, even this this society today still knows when a woman looks like a woman. There are symbols in our society for femininity, and you know as well as I do, that you can look at a woman who obviously has adapted the symbols of felinity and looks like a woman and you can look at another woman who looks like she is rebelling against everything that womanhood absolutely means, can't you tell that difference? Of course, you can, because even our society has symbols. Every society does. Our society has symbols of maleness. You can look at a man and by the way he appears and carries himself and dresses, you can say, now that guy is a man. And you can look at another guy and you get the impression that this guy is really very feminine, because he's denying the symbols of maleness and he's conveying an inverted perverted message. So that's all he's saying to the Corinthians. Look, when you behave yourself as Christians, do so in a way that adheres to the perception of your culture so they will understand. And further on down in verse 14, even nature has provided an analogy for the symbol of head coverings by giving faster growing hair to women as a special covering from God. So women then are to take a role of submission as the one who is under the headship of man.
Now, people say about verse 5, now wait a minute, here are women praying and prophesying. Isn't that in the church? Well, it doesn't say so. Let me show you something. I think he's just talking about general things. I don't think he's talking about the formal worship of the church, the coming together of the church. Say why don't you? Go down to verse 18, this is really the first time he gets into issues about the church, look at what it says, for first of all, what is that again? Literally, in the Greek, in the first place, which means, if this is the first place, there isn't any place before this. If this is first of all, there isn't anything else related to what he's going to talk about. So first of all, when you come together in the church, may I suggest to you that nobody has come together in the church until that verse. First of all, when you come together in the church, I want you to take care of these divisions. SO prior to this, he hasn't been talking about the worship of the church, so the women who are permitted to pray or prophesy with their head covered are not doing that in the church. They are doing that other in that duly constituted worshiping place of the church. He doesn't get to describing the church until verse 18. So here he is just saying in general, maybe it's in a home fellowship, maybe it's in a Bible study, maybe it's in a prayer time. Maybe it's when you get together as a family around the table. Maybe it's when several families get together. When you Christians get together, wherever it might be, you women maintain the decorum of submission, you men, maintain the decorum of headship.
And then later on, he gets to the church when it comes together in its formal assembly, so the allowance for a woman to pray and prophesy in verse five does not overturn what Paul says in 1 Timothy. Sure a woman should pray, of course she should speak forth the Word of God, every time she has an opportunity, but not when given the title of the official teacher or prayer on behalf of the church when it comes together for worship and certainly not as an intruder into the worship of the church. This is very important. So in verse 13 he says, decide for yourselves. Just decide for yourselves. Take a look at the symbol and make a decision. Is it right for a woman to pray to God uncovered? And you know in your society you are going to say no. So follow the custom. The sum of what he says is this, if a woman is veiled when she prays or speaks the Word of God, she attests to her womanhood, she affirms her role, she reflects her husband's protective covering over her. She protects the relationship she has with her husband. She doesn't rebel. She knows heaven is pleased verse 10 says, even the angels are watching. She is acknowledging what verses 7 and following say, and this is so important, man is the image and glory of God and woman is the glory of man, boy that is a verse that just sends the women liberation people right up in space. So man is in a sense is the sun and woman is the moon that reflects the light of the sun.
Man is the representative of the glorious dominion and headship of God and woman is the representative of that one who follows, the woman is the glory of man. God could have created them together, he could have said, man, woman. And they would have been there and he would have said you are equal, go out and see who wins. He didn't do that. And why do we want to fight that? She was taken out of man, verse 8, the man is not of of woman, but the woman of the man. You talk about which came first, the chicken or the egg, the man came first, in this case, the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman was created for the man. Now why do we not want to accept this? Let me tell you what the underlying philosophy is, very simple. God is designed all of human life in terms of this key word relationships, okay, everything is built on relationships, family. Fathers and mothers and children. Husbands and wives. Everybody has their relationship and within their relationships, there are differing roles, is that not so?
All right, in our culture and our society, the word is not relationship, the word is individuality. I want my rights. I want to do my thing. If you fit into my life for a little while, you can come in. The first time I don't like the way you are doing it, you are gone. Marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce, live with somebody, whatever it is, everybody living for himself. The family is being desinigrated, it's just a bunch of sticks all living side by side. And in a society where relationship as a concept of life is lost and it is replaced by individuality, why not everybody having equal rights and equal roles. You see, so what does Satan do to undermine the role of women? He attacks the whole concept of family, devastates, destroys, the family and in the devastation and destruction of the family, all you have left is a bunch of individuals who look at the whole world through their own eyes and see only their own individuality and scream for their rights. That's the whole thing, bottom line. But the church is an organism and the family is an organism. And the relationships of the family take right into the church that same kind of attitude. The feminist movement is nothing more than the human race being defined as a bunch of unrelated individuals all demanding their own rights. That's Satan's big lie. Now, I'll tell you to be honest, you may not agree with what Paul says, you may not like what he said, but he said it.
And it's obvious what he said. You say, well, now when can women prophesy? Any time you want to speak the Word of God, speak it. Any time and any place, but don't try to take over the church. Don't try to step into the territory where you are not allowed. A woman can speak the truth, Anna spoke it. Mary when she gave her Magnificat at the announcement of the birth of Christ spoke forth the Word of God and no one ever more modeled the virtue of womanhood than she. Listen women, I pray God that you speak forth the truth over and over again as long as you live. You say, what about at a Bible study, can we share what we see? Of course.
Of course, in the right environment when that is given to you, when the leadership says, yes, we want to hear from you. Share what the Spirit of God is doing, offer praise to God. Yes. You say, what about praying, can women pray? What if there are men there, can woman still pray? Look at Acts 1. In Acts chapter 1, we have a prayer meeting. Verse 13, they came in, they came into Jerusalem from Mount of Olives and they went into the upper room and there abode Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alpheus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. This is what's left after Judas of course, who is called Iscariot, is gone. Here are the remaining disciples. Now look at verse 14. These all continued with one accord, in what? What were they doing up there? In prayer and supplication. Watch this, with the women. And Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers. Can women get together with men and have a prayer meeting? Of course, there is one right here. And it involved the 11 disciples, a lot of women including Mary and some other people. In fact, how many were there in that upper room? 120 weren't there? They had a prayer meeting. There is a time and a place for women to speak forth the Word of God, there is a time and a place for a woman to pray, there is a time and a place when asked, for a woman to share a question, the point of all of these things is this, you go back to 1 Timothy again and it's very obvious what he means when he says, let the women keep silence, he's talking about in the official meeting together of the church and he's meaning their silence in the sense that I do not allow a woman to teach and what I'll show you next week is that that phrase a woman to teach literally in the Greek should be translated, I do not allow for a woman teacher, as an ongoing official office. It's just that that's consistent in the Old Testament no women kings, no woman prophets, no woman priests, no woman Bible writers, in the New Testament, no women prophets, in the ongoing New Testament sense of the prophet. No woman evangelists, no woman pastor teachers, no woman elders, no woman Bible writers. So, why are we concerned when the church goes on with the same pattern that when it comes to the order of the worship of the church, that responsibility to be the preacher, the teacher, the one who speaks for God, the one who leads in prayer as we saw in verse 8, where he says, I command that the men pray, the one who lead the congregation before the throne of God. This is a role given to men.
You say, well, now why would God give all the good stuff to men and leave us woman just sitting here listening in silence? You know something, we have the easy part. You say, well, where is the balance? Come next week. It's exactly what I'm going to get too and it's what I wanted to get to today, but I couldn't get there. I just couldn't go fast enough. Let's bow in prayer. Father, how thankful we are. How thankful we are for your Word. How thankful we are for its clarity. We understand what you ask of us as men and women. Help us Lord, not to be looking for the toothpick in somebody else's eye, till we have taken the 2x4 out of our own eye. Help me as a man and the rest of the men of this congregation not to be faulting the women until we have become the head that we should be. Help us not to be criticizing others until we have examined our own hearts and if we are the head of the woman as Christ is the head of us and God is the head of Christ then help us to act in a way consistent with that. Father, may the men of this church be men as men ought to be, giving spiritual leadership and direction. Taking responsibility for support. Nourishing and cherishing their wives, protecting and saving and delivering them from harm and danger. Encouraging, supporting, and strengthening them in their spiritual life. And Lord, may the women be women. May they bear all the grace and loveliness and beauty of womanhood. May they enjoy all the spiritual privilege, promise, blessing and instruction, may they be on the front lines in prayer, on the front lines in speaking forth the Word of truth and understanding in that role that is designed for them there is complete fulfillment. We thank you that you have given to the church teachers, men, godly men who can stand in the place of Christ as his representatives bearing his glory before the congregation. We pray that we might always be faithful, to that design, that we might see that the place of men is in the overt leadership of the church, the teaching, preaching, praying, decision making, ruling authority of the church and that the role of the woman is to learn everything they can and to come alongside in submission so that they can be prepared for that immeasurably profound and far-reaching task that is theirs, within the home as we shall see in our next time together. And Lord, may the combination of the men who lead in the church and the women who powerfully, profoundly, and for life influence in the home, build a godly seed, for the praise and the glory of the Savior and the generations to come.
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.


text:
"Antecedents of Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Telecommunication Services: Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and Technology Acceptance", Sustainability, vol. 7, p. 11345, 2015.
, "Determinants of Behavioral Intention to Use South Korean Airline Services: Effects of Service Quality and Corporate Social Responsibility", Sustainability, vol. 7, p. 12106, 2015.
, ,
"Optimal renewable power generation systems for Busan metropolitan city in South Korea", Renewable Energy, vol. 88, pp. 517–525, 2016.
, "Optimized Renewable and Sustainable Electricity Generation Systems for Ulleungdo Island in South Korea", Sustainability, vol. 6, p. 7883, 2014.
, "Usability of the Stylus Pen in Mobile Electronic Documentation", Electronics, vol. 4, p. 922, 2015.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
(*) By submitting this request, you consent to receive information by email, post or phone: You hereby declare that the data released by you for the purposes of sending product information, submitting special offers, as well as personal communications, may be used. There will be no passing on of the data to third parties. You may revoke your consent at any time by informing us at email@example.com. All other rights of parties concerned may be found in full at [Privacy]
(*) I have read and understood the information and I give my consent.


text:
Your basket is empty.
Tap for gallery
This product is currently out of stock
1:24th Wishing Well
This kit is precision (laser) cut from quality mount card and laser grade MDF, which enables crisper detailing and accuracy to scale. All kits come with full colour, step by step instructions - just add paint & glue!
Approx constructed dimensions
Please note that the images show a constructed furniture kit and also a completed/decorated furniture kit where additional craft items have been used, these additional craft items are not included within the kit.
This product hasn't been reviewed yet.
eCommerce by CubeCart


text:
When John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt's The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy was published in 2007, it launched a thousand essays and op-eds, upset many Jewish readers, and sold a very respectable number of copies. What it did not do, to judge by the reviews, was convince anyone of its central argument: that an all-powerful "Israel lobby" had hijacked American foreign policy using illegitimate means, and that a small but committed group of American Jews was steering the country into disaster to satisfy their parochial interests. Yet judging from a recent spate of articles in some of the country's most respectable mainstream publications, including the Atlantic, the New York Times, and Time, it seems that, while Walt and Mearsheimer lost the policy battle, in the long term they are winning the war, on the most important battleground of all: that of ideas and language.
To look back on The Israel Lobby's reception today is to see a remarkable unanimity of rejection, from the New York Times ("mostly wrong … dangerously misleading") and Foreign Affairs ("written in haste, the book will be repented at leisure") to The Nation ("serious methodological deficiencies … a mess"). There was also a general recognition that in their insinuations about secret Jewish power, Mearsheimer and Walt—professors at the University of Chicago and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, respectively—had given a respectable imprimatur to old and sinister anti-Semitic tropes. Michael Gerson, an evangelical Christian adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote in the Washington Post: "Every generation has seen accusations that Jews have dual loyalties, promote war, and secretly control political structures. These academics might not follow their claims all the way to anti-Semitism. But this is how it begins. This is how it always begins."
Alert to the same danger, George Shultz, Ronald Reagan's secretary of State—who should know about how foreign policy is made—went so far as to write the foreword to The Deadliest Lies, a book by Abraham Foxman refuting the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis. "Jewish groups are influential," Shultz wrote. "But the notion that these groups have anything like a uniform agenda, and that U.S. policy on Israel and the Middle East is the result of their influence, is simply wrong."
Case closed, it would seem. And looking at the history of the last four years, there is no doubt that Walt and Mearsheimer failed in their stated goal of disrupting America's close alliance with Israel—or what they call "treating Israel as a normal state." Their book, published in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, opened with a complaint about how "serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country—Israel—as well as their determination to maintain unyielding U.S. support for the Jewish state."
Fast forward to 2012, and the candidates for the Republican nomination were saying just this: At the Republican Jewish Coalition candidates' forum last December, Mitt Romney promised that his first foreign trip as president would be to Israel. And for all the Jewish right's criticism of President Obama's Israel policy, the fact remains that in 2011 the United States pledged to veto the Palestinian bid for statehood in the United Nations.
But if The Israel Lobby has not changed American politics, it has had an insidious effect on the way people talk and think about Israel, and about the whole question of Jewish power. The first time I had this suspicion was when reading, of all things, a biography of H.G. Wells. In H.G. Wells: Another Kind of Life, published in the U.K. in 2010, Michael Sherborne describes how Wells' contempt for Nazism went along with a dislike for Judaism and Zionism, which he voiced in deliberately offensive terms even as Nazi persecution of Jews reached its peak. "To take on simultaneously the Nazis … and the Jewish lobby may have been foolhardy," Sherborne writes apropos of Wells in 1938.
There's no way to prove that Sherborne's "Jewish lobby" is the intellectual descendant of Walt and Mearsheimer's "Israel lobby," but the inference seems like a strong one. Wells, the term suggests, was not attacking Jews, a group that in the Europe of the 1930s was conspicuous for its absolute powerlessness in the face of the evolving Nazi genocide. Instead, he was bravely standing up to a powerful "lobby," an organization designed to punish critics of the Jews, and whose influence was on a par somehow with that of the Nazis.
What is disturbing in the Sherborne example is the way Walt and Mearsheimer's conception of Jewish power is projected into a historical moment when it could not have been less accurate. In France during the Dreyfus Affair, it was common for anti-Semites and anti-Dreyfusards to speak of a Jewish syndicate that secretly ruled the country. Now, in the 21st century, it has once again become possible to speak of a Jewish "lobby" that it would be foolish to cross. One of the central premises of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is that it takes unusual courage to oppose the Jews, since they use their power to ruthlessly suppress dissent in both the political world and the media. Walt and Mearsheimer place themselves on the side of the angels when they attack the Israel lobby's "objectionable tactics, such as attempting to silence or smear anyone who challenges the lobby's role or criticizes Israel's actions."
Walt and Mearsheimer, of course, fill their book with denials that they are talking about a secret syndicate: "The Israel lobby is not a cabal or conspiracy," they write in the introduction. But the book itself, with its lists of Jewish organizations and journalists, and its tone of moral outrage, works to give exactly this impression. In fact, you don't even have to read the book to get the impression: Looking at the cover is enough. In 2002, when the British magazine the New Statesman ran a cover story titled "The Kosher Conspiracy" with an image of a gold Star of David pressing down on a Union Jack, it was roundly criticized for copying imagery that would have been familiar in the Nazi periodical Der Sturmer. Yet The Israel Lobby, published by America's most prestigious house, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, bore a cover image of the American flag rendered in the blue and white of the Israeli flag—an unmistakable visual shorthand for Jewish domination. All by itself, this image nullified Walt and Mearsheimer's repeated insistence that they were not describing the Israel lobby as a cabal.
So the floodgates were opened: What we have witnessed in the five years since is a blithe recuperation of dangerous, vicious imagery and ideas, with no apparent compunction about their origins or consequences. In 2010, Tablet's Lee Smith investigated the way certain bloggers—including Walt himself—amassed large anti-Semitic readerships through their conspiratorial denunciations of Israel and the Israel Lobby. Quoting the comments sections of such blogs, Smith found them rife with unbridled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, such as "It seems to me that it is no exaggeration to say roundly that the USA in its entirety is under Jewish control of one variety or another."
Compare this with Thomas Friedman's Dec. 14, 2011 column in the New York Times, where he wrote about Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before Congress: "I sure hope that Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby." Criticized for this remark, he replied to New York's Jewish Week that "In retrospect I probably should have used a more precise term like 'engineered' by the Israel lobby—a term that does not suggest grand conspiracy theories that I don't subscribe to." But of course, "engineered" suggests exactly the same thing as "bought and paid for." Decades ago, the right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan was widely denounced for referring to "Israel's amen corner." Today, an establishment pundit like Friedman can suggest even more crudely that Congress is bought and paid for by a foreign government with the sense that he is simply voicing conventional wisdom.
Similarly, Joe Klein of Time recently wrote apropos of a possible American conflict with Iran: "It's another thing entirely to send American kids off to war, yet again, to fight for Israel's national security." After being challenged by Jeffrey Goldberg to name a single instance when American troops have fought for Israeli security, Klein went on to apologize for his misuse of commas—it was the sending off to war that was "yet again," not the fighting for Israel. But if this was a misreading, it was a natural one, given Klein's earlier writing and, especially, given the way it aligns with the words of Walt and Mearsheimer, who wrote that "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown … and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying." Once a far-left conspiracy theory, the idea that the Iraq War was fought at the behest of Jews for Israel's interest had drifted so far to the center that it could appear under the aegis of Time.
It's impossible to measure, of course, how much influence any single book has on public opinion and discourse. Certainly, many of the insinuations in The Israel Lobby could be heard in various forms in the years after Sept. 11. What Walt and Mearsheimer write about neoconservatives, for instance, was echoed in various ways on the left and in Europe during the Bush years. The Israel Lobby assembles lists of Jews whose "connections would delight a network theorist" (and for "network" you could substitute a less polite word); this practice was already common in attacks on the Bush Administration, when the names of Wolfowitz, Perle, and Feith were invoked more often than those of their superiors, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice.
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy was also far from unique in expressing a post-Sept. 11 hope that, by cutting Israel adrift, the United States could avert the wrath of Islamic terrorists and avoid further embroilments in the Middle East. Putting aside the moral calculus here—nicely compared by Gerson to the idea that "Britain had a Nazi problem in the 1930s because it was so closely allied with Czechoslovakia"—it is obviously unsound in the most primitive "realist" terms. Sacrificing an ally to an enemy is a good way to embolden the enemy; it is not the conduct of a confident power. Still more basic, however, it is a fallacy to think that America's interests and problems in the Islamic world will be resolved even if and when a Palestinian state is created. How exactly will peace in the West Bank lead to peace in Kashmir and the Strait of Hormuz?
Unable to frame a convincing or politically attractive argument for how their version of "realism" might work in practice, Walt and Mearsheimer ascribe the failure of that argument to the machinations of illegitimate, shadowy forces—the Israel Lobby. This kind of self-pity and conspiratorialism has only grown more evident in their writings and public appearances since 2007. The need to paint the Israel Lobby in ever-darker colors, to heighten the moral stakes of an argument whose grounding in reality was tenuous at best, explains rhetoric such as Mearsheimer's notorious April 2010 address to the Washington think tank the Jerusalem Fund. In that speech, he called Israelis "the new Afrikaaners" and predicted the rise of a "Greater Israel" that would bear "a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa" and would very soon become a "full-fledged apartheid state."
Mearsheimer then proceeded to divide American Jews into those who back these purported developments, and the "righteous Jews" like Norman Finkelstein who bravely oppose them. The use of the phrase "righteous Jews" was meant to remind listeners of the "righteous Gentiles" who rescued Jews from the Holocaust. It further suggested that—on a moral plane, at least—Israel's behavior toward the Palestinians was reminiscent of Nazi Germany's behavior toward the Jews.
It would be easy to dismiss these statements as an isolated outburst—except that they have proven to be anything but isolated. Take for example Mearsheimer's recent endorsement of The Wandering Who?, a book by a psychotically anti-Semitic ex-Israeli named Gilad Atzmon. As reported by Goldberg among others, Mearsheimer lent his academic prestige to Atzmon's poisonous ravings, praising the book for unveiling, yes, unscrupulous Jewish power: "Panicked Jewish leaders, [Atzmon] argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim." (Whenever a non-Jew uses the word "goyim" to describe Jewish attitudes to Gentiles, look out.)
In the current Atlantic, a profile of Mearsheimer by Robert D. Kaplan casts the Atzmon episode, and the Israel Lobby debate generally, as unfortunate distractions from the achievements of a great foreign-policy thinker. "The real tragedy of such controversies, as lamentable as they are, is that they threaten to obscure the urgent and enduring message of Mearsheimer's life's work, which topples conventional foreign-policy shibboleths and provides an unblinking guide to the course the United States should follow in the coming decades," Kaplan writes.
As Tablet Magazine's Marc Tracy pointed out, this is not quite adequate to the situation. Indeed, the more one accepts Kaplan's premise that Mearsheimer is a great sage, the more disturbing it becomes that the foreign-policy expert has lent his name to the legitimization of anti-Semitic discourse. In his article, Kaplan continues to bolster Mearsheimer's self-image as a brave heretic paying a price for crossing the Jews. "Within media ranks, The Israel Lobby has delegitimized Mearsheimer," Kaplan writes. Here is the neat rhetorical power of the Israel Lobby idea, which it shares with anti-Semitism in general: If you are taken to task for attacking the Jews, you become a martyr to the very Jewish power you denounced.
"Say what you will about The Israel Lobby," Kaplan writes, but—in the words of an expert he quotes—"It changed the debate on Israel, even if it did not change the policy." Indeed, I give the book even more credit: It is possible today to see the publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy as an intellectual landmark, one of those rare books that succeed in altering the intellectual climate. Without it, it is hard to imagine Friedman and Klein and others casually writing as they did.
In this sense, Walt and Mearsheimer offer a case study in the old truth that ideas have consequences. Language is the most intangible of things, yet the language we use determines the boundaries of the thinkable and, ultimately, the shape of the world we live in. Now we live in a world where it is possible to say in leading publications, without fear of censure, that Jews buy and pay for the U.S. Congress and American troops are sent to die in Israel's wars. For that, Walt and Mearsheimer deserve their fair share of credit.
Adam Kirsch is a poet and literary critic, whose books include The People and the Books: 18 Classics of Jewish Literature.
Adam Kirsch is a poet and literary critic, whose books include The People and the Books: 18 Classics of Jewish Literature.


text:
An excerpt of the book Sabotage! The Secret War Against America by Michael Sayers & Albert E. Kahn
Harper & Brothers, 1942 - hard cover, 1st edition
I. The Fifth Column Without a Country
In 1938 a sensational series of kidnappings occurred in New York City. A number of well-to-do persons were seized by a mysterious gang which blindfolded them, gagged them, and took them by car to a secret hideout in the city. Ransoms ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 were demanded. In certain cases the kidnapped victims were tortured to make them write pleading notes to their relatives and friends. One of the victims, Norman Miller, who had been forced to pay $15,000 ransom, remembered that while he had been held captive he had heard church bells ringing and the sound of billiard balls clicking. He also recalled the number of steps down which he had been led, blindfolded, by his kidnappers. These clues helped the police to locate the Ukrainian National Home, "a mutual benefit society" at 217-19 East 6th Street, New York City, as the place that fitted Miller's description.
On November 2, 1938, the police raided the Ukrainian National Home. In the basement they found a torture chamber, its walls pitted with bullet holes. They also found a German-made machine gun and other weapons. The police dug up the basement floor and came upon human bones. One of the kidnapped men, Arthur Fried of White Plains, had died under the torture. His body had been stuffed in the heating furnace, and the bones later hidden under the basement floor.
The four gangsters who made up the kidnapping gang were arrested. Two of them were sentenced to life-imprisonment. The other two, Demetrius Gula and Joseph Sacoda, were convicted of murder and executed in the electric chair at Sing Sing.
One highly significant fact not mentioned at the trial was that Gula and Sacoda were both members of a Berlin-directed Ukrainian terrorist organization known as the ODWU. At the time no one thought of connecting these brutal kidnappers with the Nazi espionage-sabotage machine in the United States....
The Berlin-directed ODWU again hovered just behind the headlines when, early in 1941, a Ukrainian-American captain in the United States Army was courtmartialed and deprived of his commission for betraying confidential information to a foreign agent. This captain was the leader of an ODWU unit in Pennsylvania. The foreign agent in the case had been Omelian Senyk-Gribiwisky, a Ukrainian terrorist who had come from Berlin in 1931 to found the ODWU in the United States....
Another hint of the inner nature of the ODWU came on July 13, 1940, when the New York police arrested a Ukrainian-American named William Piznak on charges of violating the Sullivan Law. In a basement storeroom of Piznak's residence at 225 East 95th Street, detectives of the New York sabotage squad found a veritable arsenal which included two machine guns, tear gas grenades, rifles, sets of brass knuckles, a trench knife and 1,112 rifle cartridges of assorted calibers.
William Piznak's brother, Michael Piznak, is the attorney of the Ukrainian Nationalist Association, an old Ukrainian-American society which the ODWU has sought to infiltrate and dominate. Until shortly before the police raid, the two Piznak brothers lived together in the house which contained the basement arsenal. The usually cautious attorney, Michael Piznak, revealed his own political proclivities at a Ukrainian meeting in Belvedere Park, New York, on July 1, 1938, when he declared: "Now Hitler calls the youth to organize. Now, also, Mussolini calls the youth to organize. And now, we, the Ukrainian Nationalists, too, must call the youth to organize!"
In August 1940, the Hetman, another Berlin-directed Ukrainian organization, staged a public Storm Troop demonstration in Chicago. The "Order of the Day," issued by the Chicago Hetman "District Command," called upon "the uniformed Male Youth Hundreds" to appear "armed with rifles"...
There are close to one million Ukrainian-Americans in the United States. The overwhelming majority of them are pro-democratic; but a Naziphile minority make up the ODWU and the Hetman, two of the most dangerous espionage-sabotage organizations in the world.*
The ODWU operates under the supervision of Colonel Walther Nicolai's Section IIIB, German Military Intelligence.
The Hetman operates under the supervision of Alfred Rosenberg's Aussenpolitisches Amt, Foreign Political Office of the Nazi party.
The ODWU is more powerful than the Hetman and, if possible, more violent. Both organizations have built their cells in American industrial centers. Their agents work in munitions plants, mines, steel foundries, aircraft factories, shipyards, freightyards and docks. A number of them have gained access to the United States Army.
Both the ODWU and the Hetman are international organizations with branches throughout Europe, Asia and North and South America. Their activities include spying, sabotaging, spreading pro-Axis propaganda and, not infrequently, committing assassinations. The United States leaders of the ODWU and Hetman have been in regular communication with German, Japanese and Italian agents, and with spies in South and Central America. In the spring of 1941, one of the confidential ODWU bulletins emanating from Berlin triumphantly described the sinking of several British ships sabotaged by ODWU members in Argentina and Brazil....
It is remarkable that in all the literature dealing with the world-wide machinations of the Axis, practically no mention has been made of this most important auxiliary of the international Nazi espionage and sabotage machine: the fascist Ukrainian fifth column. Among fifth columns, it is unique in that the only land in which it cannot function is its native land. Its activities in the Ukraine were brought to an abrupt halt in 1938 when the Soviet authorities rounded up and executed its chief ring-leaders there. In almost every other country in the world, and particularly in the United States, this criminal and ruthless fifth column is still at work.
Just how Hitler got hold of these terrorists among the Ukrainians and converted a section of them into the Ukrainian-American fifth column makes a story of international treachery and violence unparalleled in all the weird annals of the underworld of political crime....
II. Theories and Practices
A familiar sight in Berlin in recent years was a little old man with a scrubby white beard who usually wandered about in oversize plus-fours. The Nazis called him "Professor of the Ukraine." His name was Dr. Paul Rohrbach. Like his closest friend, the Nazi philosopher Dr. Alfred Rosenberg, Rohrbach was a Baltic German who contributed some important "theories" to the Nazi Party.
Rohrbach was still a young scholar when he evolved the theory that the Ukrainians are a Germanic-type people and should therefore come under German rule. To win the support of the Ukrainians, then subjects of the Russian Czar, the young Germanophile scholar wrote innumerable propaganda works urging the establishment of an "Independent Ukraine." The idea appealed strongly to Kaiser Wilhelm who had his Imperial eye on Ukrainian wheat and oil.
In 1918, after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Kaiser established an "Independent Ukraine" under German "protection." Rohrbach was dispatched to Kiev to act as personal adviser to Field Marshal Hermann von Eichhorn, commander of the German forces in the Ukraine. A Quisling Ukrainian government was set up, headed by a hitherto unrenowned Russian cavalryman named General Pavel Petrovitch Skoropadski. The General, who did not know one word of Ukrainian, received the title of The Hetman (Head Man) of the Ukraine, and a cabinet was formed around him composed of various Russian and Ukrainian adventurers chiefly distinguished for their murderous records as terrorists and anti-Semitic pogromists.
But Rohrbach's triumph was shortlived. The newly-formed Red Army, together with the forerunners of today's doughty guerrilla bands, decimated the Kaiser's armies of occupation and drove them out of the Ukraine. Rohrbach hastily packed his books and returned to Berlin along with General Skoropadski and his cutthroat cabinet. Field Marshal von Eichhorn, less fortunate, was buried in the Ukraine, after he had been shot by a Ukrainian guerrilla.
Back in Berlin, Rohrbach and his friends became the protege's of the German High Command which, by the early 1920's, was already plotting with the Nazi Party to overthrow the Weimar Republic and make a second bid for world conquest. Captain Franz von Papen joined the growing circle of Rohrbach's admirers, and the concept of an "Independent Ukraine" appealed as strongly to Adolf Hitler as it had formerly done to the Kaiser. The "Hetman Organization" was placed under the personal supervision of Dr. Alfred Rosenberg, the chief Nazi advocate of Eastward expansion. General Skoropadski, who could still barely stutter in Ukrainian, retained his title as The Hetman of the Ukraine and leader of the Hetman Organization....
At this point, Colonel Nicolai of the Intelligence Service of the High Command took a hand in the Ukrainian game. For various reasons, Nicolai felt that General Skoropadski was not the man to head the Ukrainian fifth column. While Nicolai did not interfere in any way with Alfred Rosenberg's organization of the Hetman apparatus, he went on to organize an international Ukrainian apparatus of his own. From the start, Nicolai had his eye on the large Ukrainian community in the United States.
The man chosen by Nicolai to head this international fifth column was Colonel Eugene Konovaletz, who had served with the Kaiser's armies of occupation in the Ukraine. Konovaletz was a tall, blondish man with gray, watery eyes, a military bearing, and a passion for jewels. He had earned himself considerable notoriety in the Ukraine as a rapist and killer. When he left with the Germans in 1919, he brought out with him two large trunks loaded with looted gold, silver and jewels. Hitler met him in 1922 and took an immediate liking to him.
By 1930, Konovaletz was known to the intelligence bureaus of the world's powers as one of Germany's leading espionage agents. He was also working for the Japanese General Staff. His various "missions" took him to every corner of the European continent, to Asia, and to North and South America.
The international organization of spies and saboteurs which Konovaletz set up under the supervision of the Intelligence Department of the German War Office went by the name of Ukrajinska Organizace Nacionalistov (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists), commonly referred to as the OUN.
Wherever there were Ukrainian communities--in Soviet Russia, France, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, South America, Canada, the United States--Colonel Konovaletz's emissaries traveled at the expense of the German Government and established OUN cells.
Special schools for OUN members were opened in Germany where the students were carefully trained in the arts of espionage, sabotage and assassination. The first of these schools was founded by the German War Office in Danzig around 1928. German Intelligence officers acted as instructors. The OUN students were taught the various methods of stealing military secrets, making bombs, blowing up factories and carrying out political murders. Courses in regular German army training were also part of the curriculum.
OUN graduates from this Danzig school destroyed scores of factories and farms by sabotage fires and explosions in Poland during the years 1928-31. They also assassinated a number of prominent Polish politicians before the Polish authorities finally arrested several OUN terrorists and imprisoned or executed them. The remaining OUN members were temporarily withdrawn from Poland and were put to work, with other of Konovaletz's followers, in the Nazi Party in Germany.
When Hitler came to power, a central academy for the OUN was founded in Berlin. The Nazis spared no expense in building this academy and supplying it with expert instructors and scientific equipment. The academy's address is 75 Mecklenburgische Strasse, Berlin. Its title is "School for Espionage, Sabotage and Terrorism."
The OUN received its first major setback in 1938 when the Soviet Government smashed its entire underground organization in the Ukraine. That same year, Adolf Hitler and Colonel Nicolai reached an agreement that Colonel Konovaletz, the head of the OUN, was rather too well acquainted with the secrets of the German Government, and that his international influence had reached a point where it might prove difficult to control. They therefore arranged for a special present to be delivered to Konovaletz in Rotterdam, where he was attending a convention of Ukrainian "nationalists." One of Konovaletz's own aides, who was a trusted Gestapo man, handed him the present outside the convention hall, telling him that it was a personal gift. When the Colonel opened the small package, the bomb exploded and tore him to bits. He became the martyr of the Ukrainian "nationalist" movement, and high Nazis have since remarked, not without sincerity, that Colonel Konovaletz has proved even more valuable to them dead than alive.
After the removal of Colonel Konovaletz, the work of organizing the OUN on an international scale went forward at an accelerated pace.
III. Salesman of Terror
For the important task of organizing the Nazi-Ukrainian network in the United States, Nicolai selected Colonel Konovaletz's right-hand man, the most talented saboteur and ruthless killer in the OUN. His name was Omelian Senyk-Gribiwisky. Feared by even his closest intimates, this slim, gentle-mannered, Russian priest's son had been linked, directly or indirectly, with almost every major assassination which had taken place in Poland during the early post-war years. The OUN later sent Senyk-Gribiwisky on special errands of murder, sabotage or intrigue as far afield as Canada, South Africa, South America, Italy and Japan. His compatriots gave him a nickname which, freely translated, means "Salesman of Terror."
This was the man who arrived in the United States in 1931 to organize the ODWU--the Organization for the Rebirth of the Ukraine--which was to serve as the American counterpart of Berlin's OUN.
Two years later, with the Nazis in power, and unlimited funds at his disposal, the "Salesman of Terror" returned to the United States to develop the ODWU and spread its sinister branches across the forty-eight states.
With German money, Senyk-Gribiwisky financed scores of ODWU "front" organizations which mushroomed under his expert guidance in the industrial cities where Ukrainian-Americans lived. The ODWU fronts appeared in all sorts of guises. Some were supposed to be doing "Ukrainian Red Cross" work. Others were "insurance companies," "sports clubs," "chemical firms" and "film companies." They all had one thing in common: they were headed by pro-Nazi Ukrainian-Americans, who were to serve as propagandists, spies, and, when the right time came, as saboteurs for the Third Reich. In many cases Ukrainian-American members of ODWU-controlled organizations were unaware that they were being used by the Nazis.
For those of his United States agents who were unable to attend the German espionage-sabotage schools, Senyk-Gribiwisky drew up a special memorandum of instructions which could be used by them as a textbook. A copy of this extraordinary document has come into the possession of the authors, and the portions of it quoted here are translated and published for the first time.
"Methods of espionage," begins the document, "depend on the domain in which the given agent of espionage is active...." Various methods of spying to be employed by ODWU agents in the United States are then listed. Senyk-Gribiwisky discusses "buying persons in the opposite camp who are in the possession of valuable information," "diplomatic espionage," "press espionage," and "espionage proper." He instructs his followers in the art of "worming into various circles of the community under observation" and in the "recruiting of informers." The document goes on:
The agent works underground and, every minute, he must be prepared to be unmasked. He must therefore know how to behave in order not to attract attention; he must know how to make notes and how to transmit the latter; how to meet and get in touch with other agents....
Most essential of all, according to Senyk-Gribiwisky's instructions, is the art of "camouflage":
...the agent must adopt some kind of profession or occupation and actually practice this profession or occupation. He must therefore be some kind of a specialist. Finally, an agent usually works in one given domain. If his work is to be useful, he is to be a specialist in that domain, too.
The "Salesman of Terror" instructed his ODWU agents in the United States to start building private arsenals. In Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit and other American cities, he organized armed detachments of ODWU "sharp-shooters" and established several camps where ODWU recruits received military training. He also arranged for the distribution among ODWU units of certain confidential booklets which had been prepared in Berlin. The titles of a few of these booklets were: Conspiracy Methods, The Ukrainian Military Organization, Chemical and Bacteriological Warfare, Guerrilla Warfare Technique, Aviation and The Technical and Auxiliary Troops.
In May 1934, Senyk-Gribiwisky contrived to found the "Ukrainian Aviation School" at Montgomery, New York. ODWU units throughout the country received this "SPECIAL NOTICE TO ALL UKRAINIANS":
All Ukrainians residing in the United States and Canada and who possess knowledge of, or experience in, aeronautics, engineering (any branch), military science, wireless and telegraph communication are requested to register their names and addresses with the Ukrainian Aviation School.
The "Aviation School" was an ideal front for the training of spies and saboteurs. After receiving instruction at this school, ODWU agents could then apply for special jobs in United States aircraft plants or aeronautical stations, where the opportunities for sabotage are plentiful.
A financial supporter of this ODWU Aviation School was Demetrius Gula, the New York murderer-kidnapper who was subsequently executed at Sing Sing for his crimes.
The chief "flying instructor" at the school was "an American engineer," Burton H. Gilligan, who was intimately associated with the German American Bund. Just before he joined the school, Gilligan had returned from a visit to Nazi Germany.
Another "prominent American" who took an active part in the Aviation School was the Ukrainian-American captain who in 1941 was to lose his United States Army commission for supplying the ODWU leader, Senyk-Gribiwisky, with confidential information concerning the United States armed forces.
By January 1935, Senyk-Gribiwisky reported to his superiors in Berlin that more than one hundred ODWU units were operating in the United States, and that there was not an important industrial center without its active cell of Nazi-Ukrainians. Posing as workers, insurance agents, salesmen, priests, journalists, the ODWU agents worked their way into key positions in the mass Ukrainian-American organizations.


text:
Business college intros anytime, anyplace computingOct. 10, 2000 KALAMAZOO -- Freshman business students at Western Michigan University are getting an early introduction to the ubiquitous nature of computing and the mantra of the modern business executive--"e-mail and online access, anytime and anywhere." As part of their efforts to prepare students to enter the digital business world, WMU's Haworth College of Business this fall launched its Ubiquitous ("Anytime, Anyplace") Computing Laptop Initiative, which incorporates computers into the learning experience. Organized in conjunction with WMU's Office of Information Technology, the initiative is the first laptop program to be implemented at the University. Entering freshman learned in June of the initiative and were strongly encouraged by Haworth officials to purchase a laptop computer through a special agreement with Dell Computer Corp. About 250 of more than 800 entering freshman bought laptops configured especially for the college's programs, and officials estimate that hundreds more are using computers or laptops purchased through other sources. Three classrooms in Schneider Hall have been configured as wireless hubs, and two others serve as wired portals. Business students also can access wired or wireless connections in the computer lab, the student café, study areas and Waldo library as well as the Bernhard Center and residence hall rooms, which have been wired for Internet access for several years. Students are using the laptops in ubiquitous computing sections of three entry-level courses, including BUS 175 Business Enterprise, BIS 142 Informational Writing and BIS 102 Introduction to Information Processing. "We've been thrilled with the response to this initiative from all of our stakeholders, including students, faculty and employers," says Dr. James W. Schmotter, dean of the college. "We are committed to preparing our students to excel in the business world, and employers have been supporting our feeling that computers are a crucial part of a business education. "Will we ever require laptops for all of our students? I don't know. We are the first in this University to undertake an initiative like this, and it's very much a learning experience. But so far, all indications are that this program will grow and expand." Faculty members have been eager to participate in the program as well, according to the dean, and Schmotter has led the way, tossing his own Business Enterprise course into the ubiquitous computing mix. Schmotter teaches about 350 students in the course, some 40% of whom own laptops. In preparation for ubiquitous computing, Schmotter took his course paperless in 1999. Students retrieve information about assignments from a Web site, all quizzes and tests are taken online, Schmotter answers out-of-class questions via email and student teams meet in cyberspace to hash out class projects. Beginning this semester, freshman are logging on for other activities, too, such as researching projects or watching a video stream of a recent campus speaker--required viewing for the Business Enterprise class. With the exception of the textbook, every aspect of the course is digital. "Once they get used to it, the students love the paperless approach," Schmotter says. "There's less lecturing in the class and more interaction, and, thanks to e-mail, I have the opportunity to get to know the students a little better. We are putting a greater responsibility on the students to become active, engaged learners." Are students placed in the ubiquitous computing sections who don't have laptops at a serious disadvantage to those who do? Schmotter doesn't think so, and neither does Jo Cornell, an academic career specialist and Informational Writing instructor. "The students in the ubiquitous computing sections who don't have laptops won't necessarily get the direct, hands-on experience in the classroom," says Cornell, "but they definitely are on the cutting edge because they are seeing what's possible." In her ubiquitous computing section of Informational Writing, only three students of 23 don't have laptops. Cornell is taking her students online almost every day, primarily focusing on research techniques. "Rather than just setting them free to go up to their rooms and surf the Net, I'm right there to give them tips as they're searching," says Cornell, who also troops students from her traditional courses to the computer labs several times each semester. "In doing research on the Web, you have to be careful that the information is valid, so we talk a lot about how to choose the best sources. It's nice not to have to wait for your class's turn at the computer lab in order to address these issues." With the implementation of the initiative has come increased demand for technical support. Ralph Yingling, director of business computing services, is heading the ubiquitous computing project together with Kelly Penskar, project lead for information technology development. "The up front planning for this project was quite extensive, and that preparation has helped us to avoid any major snags so far," Yingling says. "Between June and the start of classes in August, I was fielding questions from students and parents nearly every day. Things are starting to slow down a bit now, and everyone has settled in amazingly well." User education is the biggest technological challenge, according to Yingling, and the college has implemented a number of programs to teach students and faculty members about their machines. Workshops on "The Care and Feeding of Your Laptop" were offered in August, and student mentors have been trained by Dell representatives to trouble-shoot for their peers. Overall, however, the participating students are quite tech-savvy. "I just can't wait to see this project grow," Yingling asserts. "At some point, we'll have students sitting out on the hill behind the building participating in an interactive chat with classmates or surfing the Web to research a paper. You can feel the excitement." Media contact: Jessica English, 616 387-8400, email@example.com |
Office of University Relations |


text:
The top product from the Rochefort Trappist brewery. Dark colour, full and very impressive taste. Strong plum, raisin, and black currant palate, with ascending notes of vinousness and other complexities.
An opaque dark brown beer with a creamy off white head that dissipated quite quickly providing fair lacing. Rich malty aromas of dark fruits (cherries, plums), banana, toffee and dark chocolate. The palate is thickish and fruity finishing with a gentle spicy hop presence and a soothing alcoholic warmth. The finish reminds me of an after dinner port wine. There is definitely candy sugar in there but it is not too sweet and the flavours are wonderfully integrated. Top class. Definitely one to sip and savour.
Abt, or quadrupel, is the name given to ultra-strong Trappist and abbey ales. The name Abt was pioneered to describe Westvleteren and the beer that would become St. Bernardus. Quadrupel was pioneered by La Trappe. Abts are the darker of the two, with more rich, deep fruity notes. Quads are paler, with corresponding peachy notes. Neither have much in the way of hop, and both are very strong and malty. Though both are bottle-conditioned, abts trend more towards yeastiness. Alcohol is very high (10+% abv) for both.
11.3% ABV | 330ml