Musings from the Ozone

I was not going to blog today; or maybe even for a week or so. Hubby just had an operation, so what on earth would I want to say here? Well, I am having to admit that the mind does not shut down it's musings just because you tell it to do so. I had rather thought that, during a crisis, the mind would not muse? What a joke! Just because I think a thought, it does not make that thought a true fact. The mind is always working with minor contemplations; the mind is tricky, cunning and at times deceitful. The mind is a bunch of other things too, but I will stop with the fact that my mind really is 'musing' away today!

For some strange reason a word that I have heard and known since I was a child, came to mind today. I will not spend time trying to analyze why the word came to my mind, but I do think I will muse on it for a while! The word that came to my mind was 'usurp.' It is usually looked upon as an ugly word. Usurp means: To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority. To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor's land. To take the place of (another) without legal authority; supplant. *

I could start with the fact that my mind usurped my so-called, proper thinking processes today. Shouldn't I be thinking only about the operation that my husband had recently? I am wondering about this because 'usurping' means to seize something without the right to do so? I don't remember telling myself it would be okay to think about anything other than the task at hand? Shouldn't I first handle the many chores that are in front of me in order to help my husband deal with this operation? What does this diversion of proper thought processes into a flight of fancy, away from niggling duties, actually mean? Here is where my musing continues.

For another instance of 'usurping,' consider what happened at the luncheon I had prepared for my husband one day. It was a rather nice lunch; broiled chicken, carrots, and potatoes cooked into a stew of sorts. Just as he was about to take the first mouthful, the phone rang. Normally, and I do mean normally, I do not answer the phone during a meal, but I noticed that this call was a long distance call from a minister, (according to the caller I.D.) so I picked the phone up and handed it to my husband. My husband, polite man that he is, listened to the callers many questions, and approximately 15 minutes later, the stew had become cold, and he hadn't enjoyed the meal yet. I had not enjoyed the meal either, because I had to listen to the ensuing conversation. I asked myself, why did I let that call usurp our lunch time; a time when my husband should have been peacefully enjoying his meal?

When is it ever proper to allow something or someone to usurp authority over what is the set order of things? I have given insignificant examples of things that can usurp our time; be it in our thinking, or as in an unexpected call. But, these things do not cause any crisis in and of themselves. Usurping authority, however, in other areas of life could cause havoc and unnecessary panic. According to Paul Harvey, USA is only one national crisis away from the government declaring marshal law. This may not seem worrisome to the average Joe, but when one considers what the government would be doing to us, should they seize authority over our daily lives, then we become aware of what we have done to give up our rights as citizens. They will not be necessarily usurping that authority, for in this case we gave it to them unknowingly or unwittingly. One complains of someone usurping authority over them, but many times we have given a signal that we can be an easy target for the usurping!

Many, many years ago, the neighbors to the left side of our church building built their row house over a few feet on the church property. Now, none of us were alive in 1869 when this happened, or we might have raised a squawk or two. How the adjoining property built onto the church property without a fight is beyond our present day understanding. Did the neighbor take the property by force? Who knows whether it was gained by verbal approval, or a faulty survey.

Like any axiom, there are exceptions to the rule. There are times when someone abdicates their responsibility and someone else has to take the helm, as it were. Still, in these cases, when authority was seized without proper adjudication, it would make sense to settle the case eventually, since lives could have been endangered without intervention of a capable person. We all know of cases where a person went out of the line of duty to rescue the helpless.

When the bible speaks of usurping authority, we are talking of a totally different matter. Many things that are tolerable in the secular world, cannot be compared to in any biblical sense. The bible plainly declares that the wife is not to usurp authority over her husband. There are many biblical interpretations to this matter; some go so far as to say a woman should not preach. It is as if she is supposed to be under subjection to all men. Here is a good explanation from an article I read recently:

"When I did my own word study on the words man and woman, I found out that the word man is aner and the word woman is gune . In the case of the word aner , which occurs something like 150 times in the New Testament, fully 40 times that it occurs, it is translated "husband." In other words, "husband" is a legitimate translation of the word depending on the context. When you look at the context, virtually every single time that it wasn't absolutely clear that the woman with the man in the context was his wife, it is almost always translated "husband" and "wife." So this really is an unusual translation, given the pattern in the rest of the New Testament. So, I asked myself why would they break with the pattern in this passage? I think they were influenced by tradition, that's why they translated this passage man and woman and not husband and wife.

What happens if we translate it husband and wife? That strikes me as a legitimate translation. It seems that when you translate it husband and wife, everything falls into place. Let me read it in that way: "Let a wife quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness; but I don't allow a wife to teach or usurp the authority of her husband, but to remain quiet."

Is that strained? Not at all. Is that difficult? Not at all. The "quiet" there is in the context of receiving instruction. I think the point is not that she never speaks, but that she is the one who is in the position of being taught as opposed to being in the position of the teacher. The word "teach" here is not in the aorist tense. In other words, an aorist tense means a single point in time action rather than a continuous action. So, it isn't saying that a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it's that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband. He is the head of the household, spiritually speaking. That's really what it amounts to. " From: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5718

Moreover, if a woman is under subjection to every man, then not only would that be preposterous, but the woman couldn't be able to be under subjection to her own husband, for there are bound to be contradictions in the thinking of many men. God has set in place a divine order, and the order does not only pertain to the stars, earth's gravity and the like; it also pertains to the way a home should be run. Sad to say, many men have abdicated all of their spiritual responsibilities as spiritual leaders in the home, thus it is hard for women to subject themselves to a non-spiritual, carnal husband. Her husband has guidelines to be under subjection to God and a pastor. When a man would rather sit in front of a TV, drinking beer all day, not holding down a decent job, ordering a woman around as a slave, why would any decent woman want to submit themselves to such a man? Such men wouldn't be under subjection to God, or the things of God, and would lead a woman astray. When a woman in the church wants to get married, she had better consider the fact that she must be able to truly honor and respect the man that will become her spiritual guide! If she is Godly herself, it would not be hard for her to submit herself to a Godly man. Much of the usurping authority in the home, starts with the husband and wife relationship. When kids get the idea that mom can wrestle the authority away from the father, they will try their best to also usurp authority away from the parents. My father used to say "there was as much authority in the home as ever; the kids have it all now!"

There are other ways of usurping authority. When it comes to the seizing authority from a pastor in the church house, it can cause drastic grief to the people of God. In God's book, He has set one man as the pastor of a congregation. Many churches today try to have several pastors; each speaking their own version of what they think the church needs to hear. At times they are at cross-purposes when it comes to the total mission of the church. In earlier days, the ministry used to refer to too many pastors as a multi-headed freak! It is generally accepted that the pastor has the authority in his congregation to lead the flock in spiritual matters and in turn, said pastor will be submissive to the will of God, and open to counsel from his fellow brethren in the ministry. Most pastors who are of pristine character and strong ethical behavior, will look to an older minister or a more talented pastor to help give him counsel and advice on prickly situations. He does not claim to be as an island to himself, nor does he act as a dictator as some pastors do.

However, if this spiritual authority is breeched by another person in the congregation, be it another minister, board member or even the entire board; confusion can ensue. Many of the problems in churches today are brought about by people who are stepping out of their places and trying to override spiritual leadership. Notice, I continue to use the word spiritual leadership. Any good leader will know there are areas in which he will have to profess ignorance. A man of the 'cloth,' will not necessarily know much about building, construction, finances, music, Christian education and a myriad of other jobs associated with pastoring a church. If he shows good wisdom, he would obviously turn to others for leadership in those areas requiring skill. However, should a person in the church such as a music director, assistant pastor, deacon or board member suddenly decide to seize the pastor's spiritual leadership, or usurp his authority,  there will be spiritual havoc. There are biblical ways of expressing discontent. Some people do not like to pray and 'wait on the Lord' to make a way for them, instead they try to take the matter into their own hands. The church must be run by the principles set forth in Word of God if it wishes to succeed.

 *

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/usurped