Freedom for Mothers

The following review was originally posted by our friends over at HEvencense. Used here by permission:

Today we take a closer look at a popular Bible study, Freedom for Mothers, by Denise Glenn of MotherWise Ministries, Houston, TX. Although Freedom for Mothers and its precursor, Wisdom for Mothers, are festooned with glittering endorsements from an impressive stable of Christian luminaries, one must wonder if any of those quoted actually read this material cover to cover, line by line. Freedom for Mothers purports to be "a bible (sic) study for moms based on John 15. This is an in-depth Bible study with practical mothering tips and instruction for prayer time."

Like Wisdom, Freedom for Mothers is divided into ten units. Each unit represents one week of study. Each week is divided into five daily lessons. In the interest of time and space, we'll limit ourselves to "Say What?!" examples from Units 3, 5, and 7 (there are lots more, but we'll just touch on these.)

Red flags wave vociferously throughout Unit 7, but let's start in Unit 3, The Principle of the Branch: the Root of the Problem, pp. 65 - 91. On page 71 Glenn writes:

"Jesus used an old garment and an old wineskin to illustrate our minds and hearts. Even if we get a 'patch' of His Word and 'sew' it onto our old thought patterns, it will 'tear' when 'washed' in the swirling waters of life's difficult circumstances. The new and old can't work together. We need an entirely new garment.

If we take the old wineskin of our attitudes, behaviors, and thought patterns as a mother and pour in God's Word, the old thnking patterns won't be able to contain the new powerful truths. The old will be shattered by the new. No, we must have new wineskins and new ways of thinking and new attitudes - to contain the new wine of Jesus' powerful life within us

." (Freedom for Mothers, p. 71)

Drawn from Matthew 9:16-17, this paragraph opens Unit 3 of Freedom for Mothers, The Anatomy of the Flesh. Not a bad analogy. But in proper context, is it the point of Matthew 9:16-17, or another example of "Denise Digressions" - playing fast and loose with the text to make her point - rather than allowing the text to speak for itself?

In context, Jesus has just healed two deomon-possessed men in the Gadarenes, where the people begged him to leave. Gadara is about six miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee. Apparently at their request, Jesus steps into a boat and "came to his own town" (vs. 1). There he heals a paralytic and outrages teachers of the law by forgiving the man's sins (vs. 2-8). He calls Matthew at his tax collector's booth (vs. 9) and soon thereafter John 's disciples come and ask him questions about fasting. Here's where we jump in at verse 15:

"Jesus answered, `How can the guests of the bridgroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast. No one sews a patch of unshrunken cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

In ancient times goatskins were used to hold wine. As the fresh grape juice fermented, the wine would expand, and the new wineskin would stretch. But a used skin, already stretched, would break.

Glenn muddles the plain sense of Matthew 9 with an attempt to equate "old wineskins" with "attitudes, behaviors, and thought patterns" and the flesh. (This view may have its roots in Liberty Savard's teachings and writings, referenced in the Notes section of Freedom for Mothers. Savard's teachings are not endorsed by credible Bible scholars.)

While Glenn's interpretation is Biblically valid in a broad sense, it clearly misses the point of this passage in Matthew. Here the Lord Jesus Christ uses a word picture that He brings a newness that cannot be confined within the old forms of the Old Testament. This is Law vs. Grace 101 - defining an old wineskin as "the flesh" rather than the old forms of religiosity may be a stretch (pun intended).

In Unit 5, The Principle of the Shears: Pruning the Branch (pp. 117- 152), Glenn isn't satisfied with the Biblical list of "deeds of the flesh" noted in Galatians 5:16-21. She seems compelled to include "... a detailed list of some patterns of `flesh' or self-nature" based on Discover the Master's Plan for Mastering Life, something published by "the Association of Exchanged Life Ministries, Inc." in 1993.

Curious? Here's the list:

Anger, anxiety, argumentative, biotry, bitterness, boastful, bossy. Causing dissension, conceited, controlling, critical trongue, depression, envy, fear. Feelings of rejection, feelings of worthlessness, gluttony, hatred, idolatry, impatience, impulsiveness. Impure thoughts, inadeuqcy, indifference to other's problems, insecurity, lasy, loner, materialistics, negativism, opinionated, overly sensitive and overly submissive. Passivity, pride, profane, rebellion at authoriity. Resentment, self-centered, self-confidence, self-deprecation, self-hatred, self-indulgence, self-justification, self-pity, self-reliance, self-righteous, self-sufficiency. (Take a deep breath now. We're almost there.) Sensuality, sexual lust, slow to forgive, stubbornness, temper. Too quick to speak, undue sadness. Vaniety, withdrawal, workaholic, worrier. (Wouldn't it be easier - and quicker - to just say, "If you're breathing, you're engaged in `patterns of flesh'? That seems to be the point of this exercise.)

Well. "Argumentative", "stubborn" and "opinionated"? There goes the legal profession! And those stalwart members of the Dutch and French Underground (to cite just one example) who "stubbornly" resisted the Third Reich during WWII? Tsk! Tsk! How 'bout pro-lifers who "stubbornly" stand up for the unborn and insist on their protection? Or the apostles who "stubbornly" spoke up for Christ, obeying God's commands rather than the edicts of Rome? "Undue sadness, overly sensitive to criticism" and "overly submissive"? According to whom? What is "overly submissive", by the way? And is someone standing by with a stopwatch to determine who is and isn't "too quick to speak"? "Slow to forgive," "passive," "loner", "indifferent" or "negative" - compared to what? Who makes that call?

We could go on, but you get the point. Perhaps the biggest problem with this extra-Biblical "list" is that its contents appear in a vacuum, without context or definition. "Anger" and "temper" sans context make the Lord Jesus Christ's action in overthrowing the tables in the temple "fleshly" or proceeding from "self-nature."

See what I mean?

This list can also encourage finger-pointing at others based on some questionable calls. Also note that a hefty portion of this list can be reasonably linked to specific temperament or personality types that may have little or nothing to do with "patterns of the flesh" or "self-nature." Some "patterns of the flesh" in this list, such as depression, may arguably arise from chemical and other imbalances as well as external factors beyond one's immediate control. Does that make them "fleshly"? I understand the point Glenn's trying to make here, but this is quite a stretch.

Let's move on.

Unit 7, The Principle of the Bud: Grafted to the Vine (pp. 173 - 200) hoists offers a fleet of red flags. Glenn opens this unit on p. 180 with a brief discussion of positive and negative self-esteem. She writes:

"How a mother views herself - who she is and why she is on earth - makes all the difference in her mothering. Mothering from a poor self-image makes for poor mothering. Mothering from an overly positive self-image may be even worse.

We mothers need to know who we are. We need to know why we are here. It is the only solution in having an accurate perception from which to mother our children.

I have incredibly good news for you. I can't wait wait to share this week's lesson with you because there are some liberating truths in God's Word that can change the esteem you have for yourself forever."

Glenn uses the word "self" (or a derivative) eight times in half a page. Personally, I'd rather focus on Jesus Christ than on me, myself, and I and my "self-esteem." But here's another issue. A big one. Down a couple sentences, Glenn writes:

"Let me put it as simply as I can. You were born with a desperately sinful nature (Romans 1:18). It was not responsive to God at all. When you came to Christ, that old sinful nature died (Romans 6:6). It no longer exists

(emphasis added)."

The old sinful nature "no longer exists"? Really. Then why do Christians sin? If the old sinful nature "no longer exists" as Glenn asserts, are Christians sinless? Hmmm.

A careful reading of Romans 6:6 doesn't support Glenn's claim: "For we know that our old self (the old, unregenate self in its pre-Christian state, dominated by sin) was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - (verse 7) because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. (NIV)"

"That the body of sin might be done away with or destroyed" is not - repeat, NOT - the equivalent of saying "the old sinful nature does not exist"!!! Paul is NOT espousing the doctrine of sinlessness here, which Glenn's comments seem to imply or infer. The word destroyed here is katargeo, meaning "to make of none effect, to be paralyzed or canceled or nullified - "that we should no longer be slaves to (or serve) sin. (emphasis added)." Don't miss verses 7 - 12 which clarify the theme. Paul is NOT saying - repeat, NOT - that the old man nature has been eradicated or that it "no longer exists." He's saying that since the old man is crucifed, the body of sin has been put out of business, so that from now on we should not be in bondage to sin. Not sinless, but free from sin's shackles and power (v. 7). That's a far cry from claiming that "the old sinful nature no longer exists." (For a thorough and Biblically sound exegesis of Romans 6, see Commentary on Romans by Anders Nygren, pp. 230 - 248.)

Additional Observations:

-- Chiefly problematic is Glenn's penchant for proof-texting and her frequent violation of the historical-grammatical method of Biblical exegesis. The presentation is zealous but sloppy (see comments above.)

-- At 270+ pages, Freedom for Mothers is twice as long and half as lucid as it could be. Newbies are likely to find this plodding tome tedious and overly ambitious. A number of women with whom I spoke dropped out around Unit 5 or 6 with comments like "too long", "don't have time", "way too many pages", etc.

-- The Contents portion of this tome (pp. 9-10) lists ten units and Mothering Skills, but lacks page numbers for easy reference. Not exactly "user friendly."

-- Utilizing the old "shotgun approach," Glenn sprays superficial "Bible bullets" all over her text rather than focusing on salient points and topics and covering them in-depth. Leaps in logic as wide as the Grand Canyon open at times between one unit, topic or text and the next, leaving the study virtually incoherent in places.

-- Much of Wisdom and Freedom is written from the perspective of a white, middle or upper-middle class American (at least in the edition noted). Assumptions are made about jobs, bank accounts, leisure activities, homeowner status, family chemistry, disposable income, etc. that are inaccurate (and possibly offensive). See the Mothering Skills Discussion, Toys and Technology: Tots to Teens in Unit 3, pp. 67 - 70a.

Another example is Glenn's "Christmas Jar Miracle" testimony (pp. 217 - 222) includes a perspective some struggling moms may find hard to swallow and/or identify with. This is perhaps best summed up in Glenn's statement on p. 219: "At the end of the next pay period, I took the surplus left in the checking account, got it in cash, and put it in the jar. I knew how much money was in the jar and it wasn't much. In fact it was one-tenth of what we usually spent on Christmas."

Glenn uses the word "surplus" five times in one page, which may leave some moms thinking, "Surplus??? What's THAT??!!"

-- Glenn has a penchant for overusing the more familiar, rather diluted "Jesus" instead of His full regal title, the Lord Jesus Christ.

-- Several ladies I spoke to indicated that they found Glenn a gifted devotional writer or storyteller, but NOT a Bible scholar. This is obvious throughout Freedom.

-- Members of the MotherWise board or review committee remain anonymous and/or inaccessible. Readers may want to keep this in mind - and wonder why.

-- Glenn's "yuck-yuck," Pollyanna persona in the accompanying video appeals to some women as "warm" or "charming," but it may turn off (or irritate) those who are more serious and scholarly. This may be compounded by the overuse of colloquialisms and vernacular, such as the cloying "love bucket" analogy in Unit 2 (pp. 41 - 45).

-- Glenn cites sources for some of her units/concepts which may give cause for pause, such as Liberty Savard and Joyce Meyer (see pages 278-79.) For example, Glenn refers to "a new way to look at Matthew 16:19" and praying Savard's peculiar interpretation of this "binding and loosing" passage "concerning our attitudes and actions concerning money" (p. 218). Savard's teaching is based on a faulty understanding of the context of Matthew 16:19 that is repudiated by credible Bible scholars.

-- Astonishingly, Glenn doesn't consult (or at least never sources) any leading Bible scholars for this study (Strong's Greek Dictionary or Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary are not primary source materials, but reference tools). This should tell us something. Readers may wonder why authoritative evangelical sources/expositions are lacking in "an in-depth Bible study" purportedly "based on John 15." Conspicuous by its absence in Glenn's slapdash approach to Romans 6 - 9 are two of the finest scholarly commentaries ever written on the subject by C.E.B. Cranfield and Anders Nygren. We can only wonder why? (This should also tell us something.)

-- A line from the 1985 movie Out of Africa sums up most of this study. Turning to Denys Finch-Hatton (Robert Redford), Baroness Karen Blixen (Meryl Streep) inquires, "Is life really so d**n simple for you, Finch-Hatton?" The baroness has a point. We could ask the same question of Freedom for Mothers. Some may find Freedom's one-size-fits-all, formulaic approach to complex and often thorny issues and problems overly simplistic or inane.

To be fair, some of the above may be minimized or averted depending upon the skill and training of leaders at the local level. New believers or unseasoned, untrained Christians probably won't notice these deficiencies and may genuinely benefit from MotherWise materials. Women with sharp, alert minds and analytical skills should, and may opt to look elsewhere for more mature, balanced Bible studies.


Freedom for Mothers, by Denise Glenn of MotherWise Ministries. Published 1999 by Multnomah Publishers, Inc.

Ruby Slippers

Book review: Ruby Slippers: How the Soul of a Woman Brings Her Home
By Jonalyn Grace Fincher
Zondervan, 2007
ISBN:-10: 0-310-27243-2

Talk about a breath of fresh air.

I ordered Jonalyn Grace Fincher’s Ruby Slippers with some misgiving, especially when I noted the subtitle: How the Soul of a Woman Brings Her Home. I hoped this book wasn’t another worn-out rehash of “the Proverbs 31 woman” or a trip down the “yellow brick road” equating Christian femininity with Suzy Homemaker, June Cleaver, and “married with children.” It isn’t. Carefully integrating philosophy, psychology, theology, history, women’s studies and “my own walk with Christ into a primer on the woman’s soul” (p. 193), Ruby Slippers is a much-needed and long overdue look at God’s ideas about womanhood. It shows how women are unique bearers of the imago dei and celebrates the soul of a woman within a thoroughly sound context of biblical truth.

Intelligent and incisive, Ruby Slippers is alert, agile, and penetrating without being pompous or trite. It avoids strait-jacketed “Christian stereotypes” and clears the way of narrow definitions, presumptions and prejudices to find out what makes women different and precious. Through careful biblical exegesis, meticulous research, thoughtful analysis and a well-rounded philosophical approach, Fincher shows us the real soul of a woman and its inestimable worth as a unique reflection of God’s nature.

Early on, Fincher issues “one important caveat: I am not claiming to have the final words on women” or “an exhaustive index on femininity or the only biblical model for Christian womanhood,” leaving the door open for further discussion. She also provides “Soul Care” questions at the end of each chapter for further thought.

In terms of writing style, Fincher’s is generally tight, crisp, and lean. She shares personal anecdotes and experiences and analyzes vast quantities of data through a biblical grid. The author also brings an essential that’s often lacking in many “women’s ministry” paradigms and “women’s Bible study” authors: demonstrable expertise and impeccable educational credentials. She’s done her homework and has the background and qualifications to give this book gravitas. (Fincher holds a double Bachelor’s degree in English and history from the University of Virginia and a master’s degree in philosophy of religion and ethics from Talbot School of Theology, my alma mater.)

Sumptuously sprinkled throughout the main text are relevant observations from such Christian luminaries as C.S. Lewis, Henri Nouwen, G.K. Chesterton and Dorothy Sayers, to name a few. The material bogs down momentarily in Chapter 2, Uncorking the Soul, with a somewhat overlong discussion of soul and spirit, but it picks up steam thereafter. The discussion on The Same Planet in Chapter 3 regarding “gender roles”, “equal without being identical” and “similar though not the same” is delicious.

Further on, Fincher masterfully deconstructs John Gray’s “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” mythology, and the inadequate, incomplete “helper” rendering of Genesis 2, among others: “… contrary to popular pagan myths, contrary to Goddess Earth myths, and contrary to much Churchianity, God makes Woman to provide and offer the hope, the ezer for Man.”

Other myths put to rest include: “East of Eden” femininity, “godly submission,” “the weaker vessel” and “boutique form(s) of gnosticism and neo-paganism” which glories “fertile, female bodies over female souls.”

More stand-out sections include Prescription Lists, Corsets and Slippers that Don’t Fit (pp. 14 – 18), Why the Trinity Dignifies Women (pp. 156 -158), Natural Femininity (pp. 102 -140), Learning from Women (pp. 159 – 164) and Jesus in Female Form (pp. 185 -186).

As beautifully and as nimbly crafted as the Emerald City, Ruby Slippers is a ground-breaking work with much to offer in the on-going discussion of gender theory, cultural stereotypes and authentic Christian femininity. This fine work is perhaps best summarized in Fincher’s own words: “I am becoming more free. Not free to live out my dominations or check off my lists or squeeze into a corset. But free to be more like the triune God, the way he has redeemed me: fully female, fully human.”

Indeed, these Slippers are as welcome as Glinda’s “Toto, too.” Five stars.

Wisdom for Mothers

Wisdom for Mothers By Denise Glenn Kardo International Ministries, 1997, 2004 ISBN: 1-932960-00-7 NOTE: Euodia wishes to thank our friends at HEvencense (http://www.hevencense.wordpress.com/) for granting us permission to post this review at Paw Prints. Wisdom for Mothers is the first Bible study/workbook published by Kardo International Ministries under the MotherWise logo. “Although a woman may use this workbook for individual personal Bible study,” notes the Introduction on page 9, “she benefits most from being part of a MotherWise group that participates in the full MotherWise program” in which a group “meets for two hours once a week for 10 weeks.” This claim is open to debate for a number of reasons. First, a major flaw with this “program” is the frequent lack of focus, cohesion, and unified thought as well as author Denise Glenn’s penchant for proof-texting and her frequent violation of the historical-grammatical method of Biblical exegesis. Her reliance upon sources that many consider suspect or controversial is equally troubling. (See p. 87 as well as the Bibliography on p. 267 for examples.) An unseemly presentation of the concept of “blood covenant” (p. 116-117) is another. (More than one woman in my MotherWise group found this segment offensive and culturally irrelevant. Several felt it was in poor taste.) Although well-intentioned and passionate, Glenn’s lack of expertise and care in handling the Biblical text seriously hampers the bulk of her “Bible study” materials. Additionally, some women find Glenn’s breezy, chatty style appealing. Some don’t. It has been described as ”warm, charming and engaging” as well as “bubble-brained,” “air-headed” or “irritating.” Likewise, some ladies deem both the video presentation and Wisdom workbook “insightful and inspirational.” Others dub them “patronizing”, “plodding” and “tedious.” (Some college-degreed professionals I talked to found Wisdom “insipid, insulting” and “a waste of my time.”) Also problematic is the fact that the typical class format and leadership structure are easily susceptible to cliquishness. Leadership Qualities as listed in the accompanying Wisdom Leader’s Guide fail to connect with—or even mention–leadership skills and can easily place women in leadership or “mentoring” capacities who are “nice,” but painfully deficient in basic leadership skills. Whether or not a candidate has any gifting or experience in leadership is not mentioned. Leader’s Guide directives such as meeting “regularly outside of class to discuss the progress of the class” are often vague and ambiguous and seem to do little more than encourage gossip and other counter-productive behaviors. To be fair, many of the Biblical principles and applications offered in this 260+ page resource are sound. However, the material founders dangerously when it strays off Scriptural charts and heaves onto the reefs of personal agendas and peculiar application from questionable sources. Some women may benefit from this studies. Others may find them geared toward quick, mass consumption on a “burgers and fries” level. Wisdom for Mothers is not for everyone. This study is best suited for women who’ve been married a few years - say, five or less- or for women who’ve been married longer but are baby Christians or non-Christians. Wisdom is NOT for mature Christians. Serious students of Scripture will find little here to fuel authentic spiritual appetites and may opt to look elsewhere for more balanced, substantive meals. ”Boring,” “square one,” “painfully rudimentary,” “dull,” “makes me feel like I’m in Kindergarten,” and “can we move on?!” were comments I heard over and over again related to Wisdom. Like food from a Drive-Thru window, a suitable label for Wisdom might be: “WARNING. Contents hot, marginally nutritious, and incredibly average. Proceed with caution.” *** For a more detailed review, visit: http://hevencense.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/book-review-wisdom-for-mothers/

Captivating: Unveiling the Mysteries of a Woman's Soul

Captivating: Unveiling the Mysteries of a Woman’s Soul won’t speak to all readers. It won’t speak to readers who equate “biblical” with banal, myopic, strait-jacketed and rigid. It probably won’t resonate with supercilious pseudo-scholars unable or unwilling to grasp basic elements of good writing or storytelling, such as the use of the inverted pyramid style or personal anecdotes to illustrate or amplify salient points. It won’t speak to the One Size Fits All approach to “women’s ministries” that ostracizes, villifies and maligns those who dare “color outside the lines” or yearn for something deeper, richer, or closer to the heart of God. It probably won’t say much to defensive, sanctimonious Torquemadas who perceive anything “new” or “creative” as suspect and destined for the stake. (These mentalities perhaps unwittingly personify some of the Eldredge’s secondary themes.) In terms of criticism, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is mine. Candidly, I disagree with much of the fire that Captivating has drawn. Among the most ferocious, oddly enough, is Captivating’s use of personal anecdotes and movie themes or song lyrics. This criticism is easily deflected and deflated if one understands that Stasi Eldredge uses her own life experience as EXAMPLES to illustrate and expound upon the tri-fold theme of the book. I’ve read the book thru twice, as has my husband and several friends, all from different denominational backgrounds. We all see the same thing: no where does Stasi state or imply that her troubled past is “normative” for others. Thus, this criticsm is both unfounded and silly. It’s also a sterling example of how someone can read a book without “getting it.” Regarding the Eldredge use of movies, Captivating never elevates the message of any movies cited to the level of Holy Writ. The basic themes and titles, such as Nathaniel’s words to Cora in “The Last of the Mohicans” cited on p. 8, are clearly used as illustrations from a medium with which most readers are familiar and thereby most likely to connect. Another criticism levelled against this book concerns the Eldredge’s use of the Song of Songs (Solomon). Some have alleged that Captivating takes S of S “out of context,” insisting that it only and solely refers to Solomon and his Shulamite bride. In truth, the traditional rabbinical view of the Song is that it depicts God’s love for Israel, his wife. God’s courtship of Israel from the time she left Egypt is a theme running through the Bible. Christian commentators have long interpreted the Song of Songs as a picture of the Church as the Bride of Christ. God loves His only Son and by the Holy Spirit He has called out and prepared for Jesus a beautiful, virgin bride. Captivating is well within the pale of biblical orthodoxy in its use of Song of Songs. Those who maintain otherwise might profit from a refresher course in Poetic Literature 101. Again, let me reiterate that Captivating won’t speak to everyone. I accept that. What I don’t accept is the type of response that one woman shared when informing me that she “doesn’t agree with the book’s premise.” When I asked, “What is the book’s premise?” she couldn’t articulate a single point, and eventually admitted that she’d never made it past the first chapter! (So much for an informed opinion.) From this example and others, my point is this: I don’t think it’s fair that those who disagree with or misconstrue Captivating bash it on the basis of their inability or unwillingness to grasp basic journalism and literary technique or the subtitle: Unveiling the Mysteries of a Woman’s Soul. Read the book for yourself and draw your own conclusions. For those willing to honestly look for and listen to that still, small Voice with an open and contrite heart, you will surely find Him within the pages of Captivating.