Wednesday, December 06, 2006



It's hard to be a man in a man's world. Men have different ways of dealing with each other...conversing. Even their analogies are different than women's. They are born to battle. To compete. To win.

They think differently, too. When I ask my husband a question, he almost invariably answers with a question. I find myself actually answering his question and never really getting an answer to mine. We laugh about it alot. Sometimes I say, "Can I ask you a question?" He replies, "Why, what do you need?" Lately, I start with, "Honey, I want to ask you a question, but when I do, I want you to answer the question with a yes or a no." He replies, "Why?" I begin laughing and he begins laughing and we know that it is because of the "trap syndrome".

All men have it. (Maybe I shouldn't say all, but from all the ladies I talk to? Most men have it.) They think anytime a woman asks a man a question that they are setting a trap. They think we are baiting them; that the first question is going to lead to a second. That the second leading to a "Gotcha!" It may stem from Eve giving the fruit to Adam and telling him to eat. After that, man could never trust a woman again, I guess.

This makes it really hard to communicate in a man's world unless one becomes like a man. Well, I've tried that too, but I don't like it. I don't like answering questions with questions. What if you ask the wrong question? Will you ever get the answer to your first question? It seems if one is to be part of a man's world, one must think like a man. But then we have another problem. Ego.

Men have bigger egos than women. They have a different kind of pride. We women have no pride. We get lost; we stop and ask for directions. We get sick; we go see a doctor. Our pride is in communicating effectively, nurturing effectively, and feeling right about what we feel right about. A man's pride often is in communicating to win a debate, avoid a debate, accelerate a debate or confirm they are correct in a debate. I might be wrong here. Just a woman's observations, ya see?

Anyway, most of my understanding stems from experience in trying to communicate with one of the most humble men on this earth for over four decades. It includes trying to win the approval or at least one word or phrase of approval from the highest authority of man given me before my husband--my dad. It includes surviving as the only girl among two elder biological brothers, one elder stepbrother, and one younger stepbrother. It includes multiple relationships with male step-cousins who inhabited the same house as I lived in for the majority of my teenage years. I also had the honor to raise a little boy through every stage of his life and watch him grow into one of the most loving, nurturing, boy/men I'll ever know.

So, I do have a bit of experience with communicating with boys, men and also, the inescapable inability to communicate on multiple occasions. I've also been afforded the grand prize of watching my stepmother's total failure at communicating anything she felt important. (Which after a spell, she felt nothing she had to offer was worthy of communicating, so she settled in to her sewing bench and used up millions of miles of thread to communicate with material.)

In this world dominated by men, and now infiltrated by women, I'm afraid some of us, who have timidly or boldly dared to venture beyond our sewing benches, are still talking with boys instead of men. This is the dilemma we ladies find ourselves in when trying to exist in the world in which some misguidedly say we are equal. Therefore we communicate as mothers to the boys, daughters to our husbands, and sisters to most of the men--and women only to women.

Describing the relationship a sister has with brothers provides more examples than this one blog could endure. Suffice it to say, I was forced to play centerfield without the benefit of a glove, pushed into more closets during games of hide-and-seek and left for hours so they could do what boys do--be boys. And lately, while I am finally beginning to meet some "real" men whose egos are firmly rooted in the security of their Father's Word, I'm also struggling to see my way out of this darn dark closet. And only a woman could relate to what junk is stored in here.
[copyrighted, selahV,2006]


Anonymous said...

And your question is?????

Luke, from La.

SelahV said...

Luke, dear dear Luke, you just gave me the gift of laughter. I almost choked on my Ritz cracker because I can barely breathe through my nose, so laughter, intake of air and bits of crumbs add up to near death. Now, aren't you ashamed of yourself for making me laugh so hard? Question? Oh my I need a question, okay, let's try this one...

In Matthew 16:13-20,
Jesus tells Peter he will give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
In verse 19, Jesus adds:
"and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven
and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
What is "whatever"? I've asked this repeatedly to various people and to date no one has responded. Should you want to see my best shot at interpreting this verse, you can go to Thanks so much for commenting. I needed that. selahV

Anonymous said...

I was hoping you could read between the lines(line?). I do not necessarily try to be funny, it just seems that funny things pop into my mind. I have even been called at times, the "Jeff Foxworthy", of preachin. Now, since I've never watched Jeff, I don't know if that is bad or good. It's just that a little of this vessel, the human not the clergy, that shows its inner self every now and then.

Now to your question. Geesh, can't you ask an easy one like how many animals did Moses take on the ark or why did God make Adam first?

Jesus gave Peter the keys right. Those keys will only open and shut what those keys are made for. Peter can only open and shut that which Jesus has given him authority to open and shut. But under the authority of Jesus, Peter, as His ambassador has the authority to use those keys.

Specifically, in Matthew 18:18, Jesus relates the binding and loosing to church discipline and administration. Also refer to John 20:23.

And in Verse 19-20, it would relate to prayers that two or three agree on. But does that give us an open charge account in prayer? Not really. For two reasons.
1. In context, it would seem that these two verse are relating to church legislation and discipline.

2. James 4:1-3 teaches that the prayers that produce receiving are those prayers that are not based upon our own lusts. James 5:15... also seems to have a relation to this passage in Matthew as well.

To sum it up, I interpret binding and loosing rather restrictively, to the function and administration of the church which Jesus said in Matt 16:18 He said He was building.
"Whatever" then would be just that, whatever was instrumental in building up the Church.

Interesting note, by the way. This binding and loosing to Peter evidently did not mean binding and loosing of Caesars or Rulers or even of the Pharisees and Saducees. If that were the case, they'd have intervened on Stephen's behalf. So I'm strongly inclined to say that the disciples understood this binding and loosing as having to deal rather narrowly to the church, the professing body of Christ.


PS: I'm gonna go check out your best shot at it now.

Anonymous said...


Having just read your take on the passage, I don't think I'd argue with you about that. I think you are spot on about it not having anything to do with salvation.


SelahV said...

Oh, Luke, you're so funny! Of course I read between the lines. I thought your first post was hilarious. I told ya that you'd just given me a gift of laughter. I've heard Jeff Foxworthy...some of his stuff is truly truly funny. However I don't think I'd consider it a super great compliment given the content of some of his stuff. So, now that he's gotten to be a big-boy entertainer, he takes license I think unworthy of his talents.

You on the other hand...said in four words something that had me giggling for a minimum of 5 minutes.
I appreciate you answering my question. I didn't need to ask how many animals God had Noah take on the ark, I knew that answer. And I know exactly why He made Adam before Eve.

So I thought I would throw ya one that had me straining with my commentaries all the time. I'm gonna chew on your answer and see how well it digests when I swallow it. I'm still chewing on my own answer. Glad it made some sense.

Love the fact you didn't answer with a question. At least I can think freely now. Thanks so much Luke. Blessings for your weekend. selahV