Back when women were women...

(Tim, w/thanks to Barbara) Earlier today, my heart was warmed when I received this newspaper clipping from the Bloomington Telephone one hundred years ago--on January 3, 1908:

WOMEN FIGHT IN CHURCH

A quarrel at the Handy Christian Church, five miles east of town, last Sunday between Mrs. Mamie May and two daughters and Mrs. Alice Shields and daughter has led to a suit for assault and battery before Square Littell against the parties in the mixup. Some alleged slighting remarks made by the Mays against Mrs. Macy Hays, the daughter of Mrs. Shields, caused the women of the two families to get together after the morning services and exchange some blows in the rear of the church. The two mothers mixed and exchanged blows while Emma and Myrtle, the daughters of Mrs. May, are alleged to have struck Mrs. Hays. The Mays came from the front of the church and engaged in a quarrel with the Shields women over some alleged scandal which the families had accused each other of. When the real trouble started, one of the Hays girls is said to have thrown her baby aside and entered the fray in earnest. No one was seriously injured.

Reading the account to my son Taylor just now, he informed me that 1908 was the year the Cubs last won the World Series. You can tell what's on his mind. As they say, "Hope springs eternal in the human pest."

Comments

"When the real trouble started, one of the Hays girls is said to have thrown her baby aside and entered the fray in earnest"

I certainly hope Child Protective Services was called regarding this calous act of child endangerement. We the "Hays girl" ordered to take parenting classes, we wonder? Was the child removed from the home until a proper assessment of its suitability could be made?

This is terrible, simply terrible.

Now, really, how do you expect a snappy little sarcasm to be effective if you can't even type, my girl?!

>Now, really, how do you expect a snappy little sarcasm to be effective if you can't even type, my girl?!

Quality wit shines through the occasional typo :)

I certainly hope Child Protective Services was called regarding this calous act of child endangerement. We the "Hays girl" ordered to take parenting classes, we wonder? Was the child removed from the home until a proper assessment of its suitability could be made?

They were called, an investigation ensued and the children were removed from the home. But it wasn't for reasons described in the story. In truth the women were commended for the violence as it showed that women were capable of being just as masculine as men. Had it been only a matter of the brouhaha the children would have remained with their parents.

But some things are unforgivable and upon entering the house it was discovered that the children were sleeping in bunk beds and the environment was deemed unsafe. As an aside one of the agents ( a rather large woman with a tattoo) was heard saying that she was disgusted that the girls room was painted pink and there were dolls in it.

For Taylor,

Of course the year 1908 has the same meaning for me as well, and since the Cubs are on pace to get into the fall classic, and because the poetry of the centennial anniversary of the win coinciding with another W.S. victory is obvious, and mainly because we serve a merciful God who I continue to believe is partial to the Cubs (God loves losers and nobodies, right?), don't you think that we should, come October, also repeat the events from the Handy Christian Church a hundred years ago, perhaps in the field outside of CGS? But, which of our women should play the parts of the Mays, the Hays, and the Shields, do you think?

Isn't this the main event of the "Box Bash"?

I will gladly sell peanuts and popcorn.

"I will gladly sell peanuts and popcorn"

What,no Cracker Jack?

He's not a baseball fan, Kamilla. You have to kind of bear with these pastors sometimes...

David,

I know this is completely off topic but after reading posts on your worship and idolatry category I really wanted your opinion on a situation I am struggling with.

I belong to a group of believers who have understood the second commandment to mean that "the making of likenesses of any part of creation and the use of those likenesses in any act of worship is forbidden". I read on a post written by your brother that you seem to lean toward this interpretation of the commandment.

I have three young boys and have bought for them toy sets which include figures of men. An example of this would be a plastic castle set my husband and I purchased for them as a Christmas present which includes knights in armor. Do you consider this to be a violation of the second commandment? Also, I educate my sons at home, instead of sending them to school, so we own many illustrated childrens books and other non-religous image based educational material. I have often wondered if this too is a violation of this commandment. I have no other images in my home.

Thanks!

Too bad they didn't have YouTube in 1908. Wasn't someone recently telling us with a straight face how close to perfection things would be in the world if women were in charge?

--Michael

As I've remarked beforehand, look at the UK's experience with Margaret Thatcher. She turned out to be the most right-wing politician the UK had seen in generations, and all the talk about a 'kinder, more gentle' politics proved to be so much hot air. Thatcher is hated by the average ideological feminist in the UK; they don't regard her with any affection at all, and they certainly don't see her as having broken the 'glass ceiling' that Hillary has been talking about.

Exactly, Ross. Feminists are all about Choice, but women who don't make the approved choices are spurned. To choose to be conservative --even as a leader-- is not an option. It's hardly better than baking cookies.

--Michael

Becky, how does your group deal with the God-ordained images that were part of the temple worship? The cherubim on the ark, or the fruit embroidered on the high priest's garments (Exodus 28:33), for instance.

RBerman,

The bible I read and study is in spanish, my parents native language, therefore I find it somewhat difficult to explain all this in english so please excuse beforehand any mistakes I make in this somewhat long explanation.

In Exodus 20:3 we read "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" and in Deuteronomy 5:8 we read

"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:"

"Thou shalt not make unto thee" and "Thou shalt not make thee" leads us to understand that we are not prohibited from making images. We are only prohibited from making them for ourselves, by our own initiative or our own will etc.

The commandment leaves open the possibility for us to make images for Him by His express command, as was the case in Exodus 25:18-25, Numbers 21:8, 1 Chronicles 28: 11-19.

We should note that in the case of the tabernacle not only did God order the images to be made but he also chose the people that would make them and filled them with his Spirit so they could obey his special request.(see Exodus 31:1-6 and Exodus 35:30-35)

To further explain this reasoning let us look at

the sixth commandment which is "Thou shalt not kill". In Deuteronomy 20:13 and 16 and in Joshua 8:18 and 22 God orders to kill. Does this mean that the sixth commandment is misinterpreted? That it means something other than we should not kill? If in these isolated instances God ordered to kill and to make images, does that automatically mean that the second and sixth commandments have been abolished?

I do not believe so. God had not forgotten his commandments when he ordered these things to be done and he was not abolishing them. The explanation is simple, God is above any law or regime. He is the author of the law. God is omniscient and he saw it fit to make those specific exceptions in those specific moments, yet in no way did he lead us to understand that his commandments were thus abolished and we should stop obeying them. I hope you were able to understand this explanation. If you have anymore questions I would be glad to answer them.

Becky

Add new comment