So, how would you lead her home...

This comment was just added to the "What Is Feminism" post. I promote it here to the main page because it is a perfect example of the average evangelical's understanding of the Bible's teaching on sexuality as I've heard it through the years.

Assuming the sincerity of the writer, how would you respond in such a way as to lead her back to the doctrine of Scripture given us by the Holy Spirit?

My favorite definition of a feminist, derived from a book, is someone who believes women are people. Genesis 1:26 tells us that when God made male and female in His image, He gave them dominion over all the earth and the fowls of the air, but not over another human being. That is why slavery is so repugnant, despite being thousands of years old. Jesus came to set the spiritual captives free. The Curse is just that-a curse. God blessed the woman in Genesis 1:27. Jesus sent women to tell His male disciples of His resurrection. Yes, the 12 disciples were all men, but He was still ministering under the old covenant. At His death, the veil of the Temple that separated men and women from God was rent in two so that now male and female could enter boldly into His presence. Some think it was destroyed. On Resurrection Day, it was Out With The Old and In With The New. Jesus defeated Satan and took the keys of death and hell away from him. Paul commended Phoebe, a deacon (original), and Junia, an apostle. The women of I Corinthians 11 were instructed as to their dress and deportment when teaching men. The restrictions of ITimothy 2 are different and much less restrictive than is described in this blog. Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, and the four daughters of Philip were blessed and honored by God for stepping out of the narrowly-defined "roles" given to them by their cultures in that day. There were men whom Paul wished would remain silent too. The apostles believed that we are to serve God by the spiritual gifts that are within us (ITimothy 4:14, IITimothy 1:6). Happy Easter everyone!

Comments

Kathryn:

My favorite definition of a feminist, derived from a book, is someone who believes women are people.>>>>

Kathryn, I am wondering what book you got this from. For one thing, Christians have always believed that women are people. What is it that makes feminism different from traditional Christianity? Every reputable Christian teacher and commentator has stated that men and women are equal, and equally bearers of God's image.

This is not a mathematical equality, as in man=woman. I think that the word "alike" is better than "equal" because of attempts in our day to blurr the gender distinctions. Even so, "alike" is a synonym of "equal", so either word is fine. I prefer "alike."

There is no such thing as a non-gendered human or an androgenous human being. Being male or female is part of our humanity. We cannot get rid of our assigned gender, nor should we try. Our sex is built into every cell of our bodies, and is much more than just "plumbing," though "plumbing" is obviously involved.

There are some who have unfortunate genital deformities, or other defects. However, the idea that these folks are somehow lacking in gender has been debunked by the medical community. We had some good discussion on this on the CCC list one time.

Then, because of my past involvement with some false teachings where certain key words were redefined and twisted to mean what the "guru" wanted to them to mean, I would suggest to you that you look up in a reputable dictionary the word "feminism." It has its own definition, apart from whatever book you are guiding your thoughts by.

I'm just introducing some ideas that you may not have thought of before. I submit them to you for your consideration.

Here are 3 quotes from traditional Christian sources helping to show that the ontological equality of men and women has always been the Christian understanding, even of Reformed commentators.

-------------------

1. Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown on woman's creation

20. but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him--The design of this singular scene was to show him that none of the living creatures he saw were on an equal footing with himself, and that while each class came with its mate of the same nature, form, and habits, he alone had no companion. Besides, in giving names to them he was led to exercise his powers of speech and to prepare for social intercourse with his partner, a creature yet to be formed.

21. deep sleep--probably an ecstasy or trance like that of the prophets, when they had visions and revelations of the Lord, for the whole scene was probably visible to the mental eye of Adam, and hence his rapturous exclamation.took one of his ribs--"She was not made out of his head to surpass him, nor from his feet to be trampled on, but from his side to be equal to him, and near his heart to be dear to him."

2. John Gill on the creation of woman

---------

Genesis 2:22

Verse 22. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he woman,.... It is commonly observed, and pertinently enough, that the woman was not made from the superior part of man, that she might not be thought to be above him, and have power over him; nor from any inferior part, as being below him, and to be trampled on by him; but out of his side, and from one of his ribs, that she might appear to be equal to him; and from a part near his heart, and under his arms, to show that she should be affectionately loved by him, and be always under his care and protection: and she was not "created" as things were, out of nothing, nor "formed" as Adam was, out of the dust of the earth, being in the same form as man; but "made" out of refined and quickened dust, or the flesh and bones of man, and so in her make and constitution fine and lovely; or "built" {n}, as the word signifies, which is used, because she is the foundation of the house or family, and the means of building it up: or rather to denote the singular care and art used, and fit proportion observed in the make of her:and brought her unto the man: from the place where the rib had been carried, and she was made of it; or he brought her, as the parent of her, at whose dispose she was, and presented her to Adam as his spouse, to be taken into a conjugal relation with him, and to be loved and cherished by him; which, as it affords a rule and example to be followed by parents and children, the one to dispose of their children in marriage, and the other to have the consent of their parents in it; as well as it is a recommendation of marriage, as agreeable to the divine will, and to be esteemed honourable, being of God: so it was a type of the marriage of Christ, the second Adam, between him and his church, which sprung from him, from his side; and is of the same nature with him, and was presented by his divine Father to him, who gave her to him; and he received her to himself as his spouse and bride; see Ephesians 5:29.

3. How did Aquinas view woman?

"One may note the meaning Aquinas gives to the Genesis statement that the first woman was formed from the side of the first man. Woman, he says, (Summa 1, 92, 3) was not formed from man’s head, because she should not dominate him. Neither was she formed from his feet, for she should not be despised by man, as though she was subject to him as a servant. Rather she was made from his side so as to signify that man and woman should be conjoined as allies (socialis coniunctio)."

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9811/nolan.html

These are just three sources, but they are representative.

Just one more little comment. Even though we are equal as men and women, we are not redundant.

Woman was made for man, yet a man is born of a woman.

Men are fathers. Women are mothers. etc.

We have different designs and different roles. Our Creator determined that, not society and certainly not evolution.

How? I haven't a clue, and I've been pondering this most of the day. I wouldn't start in the beginning, I've never found Genesis to be helpful unless one first accepts Paul's interpretation. (I know, I know). But I do think one has to start with the picture of marriage given in the New Testament.

I think some of the commentaries on Deborah that have been discussed and linked in recent days might also be helpful. One has to be able to distinguish between God's exceptions and human demands to rights of equality, however the latter may manifest.

Of course, I think probably the best place to start is the #1 laughing baby video. If one can't place the father there instead of the mother and see how different it would be, I think all the fine exegetical/theological/doctrinal arguents one can make are so much tilting at windmills.

Kamilla

I am just interested to know where in the Bible do we find that "slavery" is "so repugnant, despite being thousands of years old". I would agree that some practices of slavery are repugnant and wrong, just as the way that some practice partiarchy is wrong. The misuse or abuse of something isn't an argument for its disuse. The answer isn't disuse but correct use. When we start to view issues throught the lens of what is socially acceptable instead of the lens of the whole of God's Word we are going to go off course. Are we soon going to say that marriage is an optional thing pertaining only to the culture of the Bible? Where does it stop?

1. The Fall

a. Is the reason we arguing over this. In the garden, the man and the woman could have it all. All, that is, except that one fruit. Eve coveted the one fruit that she was forbidden. Because of the fall, every one of us desires what he cannot have. Though God has given gifts to everyone in the church, we are arguing about the few He has denied. The fall is the reason feminists are dissatisfied with the Bible’s clear teaching.

b. But it is not the reason the man is the head of the woman. Scripture is clear that woman was made for man to be a helper. This is Genesis 2 and it in no way contradicts Genesis 1. Man was made in the image of God and this means all men and all women. Woman was made to be a helper to the man. Therefore, in the image of God are two distinct roles—one of responsibility and one of help. Paul grounds his teaching about the differing roles of man and woman in the Garden before the fall. Man was first. Woman was second. How you interpret Paul’s meaning there is irrelevant. Under the inspiration of the Spirit, Paul forever records the one relevant implication—a woman is not to teach or to have authority over a man. And since authority and conflict go hand in hand, we should look at Deborah's situation...

2. Deborah was called by God because He chose her.

a. She is exceptional because she was an exception

b. And the pattern the judges is that every man is raised up by God after the people cry out to the Lord, then the judge is said first to deliver Israel from oppressors and then the land has peace for x number of years. Not so for Deborah. After it says that Israel was being oppressed by Jabin and Sisera it introduces Deborah who “was judging Israel at that time.”

c. Therefore Deborah should not be seen as a great woman who stepped out of her role but rather a great woman who may well have been the lone voice in Israel speaking the truth. In other words,

d. She was not rewarded for stepping out of her role but rather she was called to shame the men of Israel for not stepping into theirs.

e. Also, hers was apparently not a strong military leadership because while she was judging, the nation was oppressed. She had to go to Barak—if what feminists say is true then God could also have filled her with the Spirit to do what Samson did to the Philistines. But He did not—rather, He sent her to a man to lead the army. That man’s lack of courage should be all the convincing we need that God’s created order is no meritocracy but rather, the calling each of us has is based on His will alone. And His will is that man will lead.

f. The same could be said for Huldah. She spoke up when no man knew of God’s word. God calls her to speak to a king words of shame to all the people and to the previous kings.

3. And if Jesus changed everything with respect to man and woman, did He also change everything with respect to salvation? In other words, if women were bound by the curse in the OT and not freed until the NT, were any of the people who lived before Him justified? The two would seem to go hand in hand.

Not trying to be "holier than thou" here with my comments, but I think a good place to start in bringing that writer back to Biblical truth would be "on my knees." I trust y'all are doing that, but it's a reminder that we all need from time to time.

Step 2 would be to gently remind the writer that her first sentence is a red herring. Nobody has ever really believed that women were anything less than human, and it doesn't help to start one's discourse with such a cheap shot.

Donna and Robert, I have to voice a bit of disagreement. I think it's fair to say some have viewed women as less than fully human. At least some of their statements would make it appear they view females as inferior to males in some esential respect.

For instance, both Aberlard and Heloise viewed man superior to woman in respect to body and mind but woman superior to man in her response to God's grace. Albert the Great, teacher of Thomas Aquinas often used the images of hot and cold to describe the differences between male and female and said a male was produce from stronger warmth than a female and takes shape more quickly. Big Al, Uncle Tom (as one of my professors was wont to call them) and those who followed, influenced by Aristotelian thought, sure do appear to view females as inferior.

Now I am not going to get into a lengthy exegesis of the relevant passages of the philosophers mentioned above. I am, however, going to suggest that we exercise a bit of humility and admit that it certainly appears some have taught the inferiority of women if not their outright subhumanity.

For a modern take on this, I would suggest Dorothy L Sayers' two essays, "Are Women Human?" and "The Human Not-Quite-Human". For the background of the Aristotelian revolution in western philosophy, I recommend Sr. Prudence Allen's "The Concept of Woman: The Aristotelian Revolution", Chapter 4.

Kamilla

> For instance, both Aberlard and Heloise viewed man superior to woman in respect to body and mind but woman superior to man in her response to God's grace.

Hello Kamilla,

I've not studied this and am not wishing to totally contradict you by saying that none never have, but your example seems to be expressing stereotypical sexual differences, not calling women sub-human. If woman is "superior to man in her response to God's grace," then why aren't Aberlard and Heloise accused of calling males sub-human?

--Michael McMillan

Presumably because the implication is that someone coming from a position of physical (body) and intellectual (mind) inferiority has farther to go in response to Grace.

Kamilla

Robert:

Not trying to be "holier than thou" here with my comments, but I think a good place to start in bringing that writer back to Biblical truth would be "on my knees." I trust y'all are doing that, but it's a reminder that we all need from time to time.>>>>

Well, it would not be possible for you to be "holier than thou" than I ...

I agree. Yes, I was thinking about how this is a spiritual battle.

Robert P:

Step 2 would be to gently remind the writer that her first sentence is a red herring. Nobody has ever really believed that women were anything less than human, and it doesn't help to start one's discourse with such a cheap shot.>>>>

Yes. In fact, I wonder sometimes if feminists believe that MEN are human. Egalitarian feminist is an oxymoron, IMO.

He gave them dominion over all the earth and the fowls of the air, but not over another human being.>>>>

Kathryn, do parents have dominion over their children? That is, do parents have the right and the responsibility to lead them, train them, love them, discipline them, and care for them?

Is all leadership bad, IOW? I mean, do you work for anyone? Do you have a boss? If you do, why do you allow another human being to tell you what to do and how to do it- at least for a few hours a day?

Does Nancy Pelosi wish to enslave the House of Representatives because she is their speaker and therefore their leader and spokesman?

I think that your view of authority and dominion is flawed. Not all leadership is enslaving.

Then, why did Adam name all of the animals before Eve was even on the scene? In naming all the animals all by himself, and then defining the woman as woman, he was showing dominion over everything, even his help meet, it sure seems to me.

It seems that you would support a kind of anarchy, since all dominion of one human being over another is wrong in your view, on the same level as slavery. Are you sure you want to say this? It seems that in your way of thinking, Adam's first sin would be to exercise dominion over the woman by defining her.

Then, do you think that the child-bearing role itself is enslaving to women? How do you feel about birth control and abortion? Are these ways that a woman can free herself of childbearing?

Kathryn:

That is why slavery is so repugnant, despite being thousands of years old.>>>>

DL:

I agree that slavery is repugnant, though allowed and regulated in the OT Law. Divorce is also repugnant, yet allowed for in the Law because of man's heardness of heart.

DL:

Paul's words here, which are addressed to slaves,-not to women specifially, - are significant - as well as the book of Philemon.:

1 Corinthians 7:21

Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

DL:

Slavery is a troubling thing for those who are enslaved. Freedom is to be preferred. If we work to help slaves gain their freedom, we are not sinning at all. In fact, it is a good thing to defend the rights of those who have been sold into slavery. The slave trade has always involved terrible wickedness.

Are you saying that marriage is a form of slavery, though? I mean, women are not told to get free of their husbands, but slaves are told that if they can, they should get free of their masters.

Sometimes I wonder if that is what Christian feminists are saying, too - that marriage is enslaving, and women should avoid it.

Kamilla:

Donna and Robert, I have to voice a bit of disagreement. I think it's fair to say some have viewed women as less than fully human. >>>>

I suppose that you are correct, Kamilla. I think that there could be a danger of so empahsizing our differences - which are many and real - that we loose sight of what DLS called our "common humanity."

BTW, I do not see her as iconoclastic at all. I mean, anyone who held to the doctirne of the masculinity of God and wrote about how the church is diminished by its abandonment of orthodoxy cannot be trying to disestablish traditional Christianity.

There are some people who are Misandrous and others who are misogynist. Most of us are just trying to figure out how to live with the differences and still love one another.

It seems, though, that some of what you are referring to is the common practice of trying to figure out why women seem to be from Mars and men from Venus. I agree with MM on what he said.

Besides, hasn't Aquinas been acquited on the misogyny charge? Wasn't he actually quoting Aristotle to refute him? That's what I understand from the article I linked to. Did you see A's comment on the equality of men and women? He sure doesn't sound like he though women to be inferior, at least in every way.

Besides, what did those guys mean by inferior? Maybe it was more like "men are better at" or "women are better at."

That's what makes historical citations difficult. We tend to read our own prejudices back into what they are saying.

Anyway, I've got a motor mouth...Kathryn has lost interest long ago, I am sure...

Not to hijack this thread and apropos of nothing (at least in this thread I suppose), as I sat here reading, I realized the ways that God has answered my prayers today. What seemed like a horrible day now doesn't look so bad. I felt compelled to "exclaim" GOD IS GOOD!

Dear Kevin,

Yes, He is--all the time!

Off to bed.

Tim

Hi Donna,

I used the weasel words, "seem" and "appear" for a reason, you know ;-) I'm just arguing for a little humility in regard to history.

When I get back from the conference this summer, I probably won't be able to stop talking about DLS, so I don't think I will say anything else for now.

Thank you for posting this as a blog. You'll not be leading me anywhere, but thanks again.

Dear Kathryn,

Without being able to talk to you personally, judgments of spirit and character must be made on the basis of what you have written. And the comment you just made above seems to me about right for those women who frequent the comments section of this blog while holding to the feminist heresy. They ask questions and cop a posture of indecision only for the purpose of misleading other readers into their same error.

If you were not sincere in your question, you should not have asked it in the first place. And it would be hard for you to claim sincerity having just blown off the loving and sincere responses of a number of kind souls to your questions by responding to their answers, “You'll not be leading me anywhere…”

It is hard to have a teachable spirit. Personally, I can testify to how difficult it is to admit my own sin and errors and allow others to lead me back to the Lord. Having a teachable spirit requires meekness and humility. But a teachable spirit is essential to the holiness or sanctification without which no man will see God.

May you consider the biblical wisdom of your brothers and sisters above and come to believe the precious truths they have witnessed to you from the Word of God. Anything that contradicts these truths is a lie of the Devil.

Under the mercy of His Word,

Tim Bayly

Kamilla:

I used the weasel words, "seem" and "appear" for a reason, you know ;-) I'm just arguing for a little humility in regard to history.>>>

I understand. :-) Yes. I agree. My main point was that Christians have always believed in the equality of men and women, and I think that the statement - that may have originated with Aquinas, or from some other source - is a beautiful one.

I heard it first in Chile while we ministered there. That was the common understanding of male/female equality. The women loved to remind the men of that fact, which they should.

Some have argued that the CBMW made up the idea of equality yet different roles. anyway...

Besides, the BQ loves to romp through church history finding misogynist statements. I think that everything those dead guys said should be considered. ...not to mention a need to face up to one's own misandrous tendencies...

Kamilla:

When I get back from the conference this summer, I probably won't be able to stop talking about DLS, so I don't think I will say anything else for now.>>>>

Not fair! Maybe I'll have Letters to a Diminished Church read by then.

Tim:

Anything that contradicts these truths is a lie of the Devil.>>>>

I suspect that I know what book Kathryn has been reading and who her guru is. "She who must be obeyed, never contradicted, never questioned."

Speaking of DLS, everyone should read her "Why Work" essay, which I've recommended to many.

When I hear some of the religious feminists go on, I am reminded of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus from Luke 16. The egalitarians are always insisting that we prove things to them that they have already categorically refused to be convinced of, totally disregarding what is already written in Scripture, and doing their best to reinvent and discount even that, teaching against it wherever they go with all manner of fanciful excuses. As if we were somehow going to miraculously be more persuasive in satisfying them than Scripture, to which they've already taken pickaxes!

Which is why trying to reason with the more vocal proponents seems rather futile, usually. But still we shouldn't give up hope. Some have come around and seen the errors of that teaching, and there are plenty of other people just plain confused.

--Michael McMillan

~~~~~

29"But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'

30"But [the rich man] said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'

31"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

~~~~~

Donna, I wish I could agree with you that Christians have always believed in equality for women and men, but unfortunately that is simply not accurate. Martin Luther said that if a woman died in childbirth, it was of little consequence since childbearing was a woman's reason for existence. One early Church Father described women as the gateway to the devil. The Apostle Paul has oft been misquoted throughout Christian history to prove why women should not be allowed to preach, vote, or own property. Origen, an early Church Father said that men shouldn't listen to a woman because women can't say much of anything that is significant. Church Father John Chrysostom argued that women by nature occupy an inferior place. John Knox said that women were made to be servants to men. In our own time, women are still being subjected to the kind of bad theology that afflicted earlier generations. These are only a few of the terrible, degrading things that have been said about women in the name of our Faith. I have read books that detail all these things. I am an optimist because I yet believe that folks will see all this for what it is and repent of it.

Kathryn:

Church Father John Chrysostom argued that women by nature occupy an inferior place. >>>>

Inferior in rank, not in nature?

Kathryn, unless you are willing to provide direct quotes from any of these men, along with links to the works where we can see the greater context, your statement lacks substance.

I provided 3 quotes on the ontological equality of men and women. You provide none to support what you are saying.

Here are just a couple from Crysostom that tend to show he did indeed have a high regard for women, in refutation of what you say above. This is from his homily on Romans #32, - comments on Romans 16. Look at what he says about Junia.:

"Greet Mary, who bestowed much labor on us."

How is this? a woman again is honored and proclaimed victorious! Again are we men put to shame. Or rather, we are not put to shame only, but have even an honor conferred upon us. For an honor we have, in that there are such women amongst us, but we are put to shame, in that we men are left so far behind by them...

Ver. 7. "Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen."

...Then another praise besides. "Who are of note among the Apostles." And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion (φιλοσοφία ) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, "Who were also in Christ before me."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210231.htm

------

Kathryn, you need to check these things out for yourself and not just listen to some feminist guru.

Your spiritual health is at stake. If you have been lied to about Crysostom - and there are many more quotes like this from him - then how can you trust what is said about the others?

>Church Father John Chrysostom argued that women by nature occupy an inferior place.

Have you read Chrysostom's book on marriage? I suspect not...

> [Kathryn:] These are only a few of the terrible, degrading things that have been said about women in the name of our Faith.

It is clear that feminists are not hesitant to do terrible and degrading things to Scripture itself to achieve their ends, so how much quicker do they also put their own twisted spin on everything said in the past, painting it all in the most sinister light! This is not to say there hasn't been prejudice, but the feminists themselves are so prejudiced that they are out to paint everything in the blackest hues. Thanks for the Chrysostom quotes, Donna Louise. One thing feminists conveniently forget is that women have always been sinners, just as much as men.

> I have read books that detail all these things.

That is your first big mistake. Dwelling on this sort of extremely biased propaganda is not healthy, as it turns people against what Scripture says, and convinces people that the most obvious statements in Scripture (such as "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ also is the head of the church") don't really mean what they say at all. It is a wonder that religious feminists still wish to be considered Christian, after how they try to re-invent it to suit their tastes. They are rather outnumbered historically, and if so many have been as wrong as they say, in those books you've read, then Christianity is not a good thing at all. If they want to invent their own religion, they should have the decency to give it another name.

> I am an optimist because I yet believe that folks will see all this for what it is and repent of it.

And which particular folks are supposed to repent of what, exactly? Are we to repent of believing that wives must be subject to their own husbands as unto the Lord, or that they obey their husbands, calling them 'lord,' if they are to be godly daughters of Sarah, or that women are not to teach or exercise authority over a man, or that the woman was created for the man, or that it is shameful for a woman to have her head uncovered or have short hair, and other such things spelled out in black and white in the New Testament?

Feminists have a lot of repenting to do. Fiddling with God's word to the extent they have to justify themselves is no small thing.

--Michael McMillan

> [Kathryn:] The Apostle Paul has oft been misquoted throughout Christian history to prove why women should not be allowed to preach, vote, or own property.

As if feminists don't blatantly misquote him today!

Another thing that greatly annoys me about feminists is that they say all these bad things happened because of what the Bible says. They don't say that bad stuff is the result of pride or sin, they say it is the result of wrong interpretation of the Bible. (Or worse, that the writers of the Bible were prejudiced members of their own backward cultures.) If biblical equality had been understood correctly over the centuries, then presumably the bad stuff feminists keep harping about wouldn't have ever happened. Wrong! They want to rehabilitate Paul into the chief of egalitarians, and make subsequent church history a conspiracy to hide the truth of what he (and others) *really* meant. If Paul was such an egalitarian, why did he cause so much suffering by not clearly sounding like one, and why do the feminists have to do such convoluted explaining of what he meant to say? Actually, they spend more time dismissing what he says than defending any of it. To believe that Paul was an egalitarian takes a greater leap of faith than to realize that I am a hopeless sinner in need of a Savior.

> These are only a few of the terrible, degrading things that have been said about women in the name of our Faith.

It is like saying that governments have done terrible and degrading things because passages like Romans 13 have been misinterpreted ("it does not bear the sword for nothing"). Therefore, we need first re-invent what the Bible says about coercive governmental authority. We can't let stand such passages as: "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as one in authority, or to governors sent by him for the punishment of evildoers..." [1 Pe 2]). After suitably explaining away the notion of submitting to such authorities, we next push for the outlaw of governments, claiming that they are unbiblical because they have done too many evil things. Or turn them into indulgent nanny-states.

--Michael McMillan

Oh, dear, Michael! You don't really expect strong reasoning or even basic English comprehension from the egalitarian/feminist camp, now do you? You do remember these are the folks who are perfectly capable of denying someone's experience because it doesn't comport with their own, the same people who don't understand why a faulty paraphrase is the same as a lie and the same folks who don't understand context.

These are the people Kathryn seems to have taken as her mentors. If she tries this same scholarship in school, she'd better do it in a women's studies program and not in history or philosophy where it is less likely to meet with approval.

Kamilla

David G.:

Have you read Chrysostom's book on marriage? I suspect not...>>>>

Thank you for recommending his book. :-) It looks great.

How about this quote?:

"So if you think that the wife is the loser because she is told to fear her husband, remember that the principal duty of love is assigned to the husband, and you will see that it is her gain. "And what if my wife refuses to obey me?" a husband will ask. Never mind! Your obligation is to love her; do your duty! "

http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/what/e_Marriage-Chrysostom.htm

I find it tragic to see that the religious feminists would cut us off from what Christians have always understood - from Paul onwards - to be marriage and sex distinctions.

This is the way that cults work. They pretend to have special knowledge, or different enlightenment to show you that all you have ever believed about the Bible and Christianity has been wrong, and they are finally revealing the truth.

JWs do it. Mormons do it. Religious feminists do it.

It's how wolves operate - and some are she-wolves.

MM:

One thing feminists conveniently forget is that women have always been sinners, just as much as men.>>>>

If you make the case for human depravity based on Scripture, pointing out that women are included in God's judgment made against mankind - just look at what God says pre-flood and post-flood to see - and also giving present-day evidence of female depravity as well as male depravity, you will be told to quit slandering women!

Been there...

The best you can get from them is "yes there are evil women, too", but no real alalysis of the human condition. If there is no real honesty about human sinfulness, then there can be no real understanding of Christ's atonement, either.

Here is what God says about a woman's heart. I'll give a smiley face to anyone who can tell me why I said "woman's" when the text says "man". This should be easy for the religious feminists to answer. Hint: What does "adam" mean? :

Genesis 6:5

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 8:21

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

In patriarchy, the husband's command to "love his wife" becomes less important over time, and his "authority" over her becomes more important. In places like Virginia, Georgia, and Tulsa Oklahoma resolutions are being drafted to apologize for the injustices of the past like slavery, segregation, race riots, and racially-inspired lynchings. All of these shameful chapters were carried out by Scripture-quoting Christians. That is a matter of historical fact. It may not be comfortable to be a white person in the next few months and years, but it is necessary to apologize in order to heal the wounds of the past. White male privilege is over. By no means is this limited to America or to white people. Such apologies are going on all over the world. God is working, although we may not always see it.

Less important to whom, Kathryn?

Scripture-quoting Christians were also at the forefront of the abolition movement, have you seen the movie "Amazing Grace" about the work of William Wilberforce? Here was a man who could have lived a life of comfort and ease, yet he risked his political career and his health in order to end the injustice of the British slave trade. Do you even know the story behind the song? Do you know anything about John Newton?

Christians are, even today, at the forefront of the effort to end modern-day slavery, human trafficking and sexual slavery. Many of them leave comfortable places of privilege, like Baroness Caroline Cox (the former deputy speaker of the British House of Lords), to risk their lives freeing the captive slaves. Cox's own government has told her, "If you get caught, we've never heard of you", and yet she persists at great personal risk.

If you want to play the "sins of the past" card, you've got to play both sides, my dear. And please, don't dare play the race card with me around. I personally know an Anglican priest who survived Idi Amin's Uganda only by God's gracious providence. Violence and injustice know no color line.

Kamilla

It is good to know that Chrysostom upheld Junia as an Apostle. It resoundingly contradicts the arguments put forth by patriarchs that women cannot teach men or hold top leadership roles in the church. However, he still believed that God had given men the greater position in creation and woman the lesser "inferior" (his word, not mine) position. For more on all this, I highly recommend the book 10 Lies The Church Tells Women by J. Lee Grady.

Kamilla, don't forget the great abolitionists and suffragists Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Lucretia Mott. They were Christians too. Feminism has Christian beginnings; however, our country is suffering because of the beliefs and actions of too many Christians in our not-too-distant past, and we are the "mop-up" generation. I am not a pessimist. Far from it. Great things are happening in places such as Virginia and Alabama, but they may not always make us feel good right away. We may be made uncomfortable, but the results will be worth it.

Kathryn,

Two things.

First, I mentioned Wilberforce and Newton for one reason - they came first.

Second, if you like to hold up Stanton as a paragon of Christianity, you might like her "bible". It's about as orthodox as the teachings of Kenneth Copeland.

Kamilla

Kathryn, you said, "In patriarchy, the husband's command to "love his wife" becomes less important over time, and his "authority" over her becomes more important."

I asked you, "Less important to whom, Kathryn?"

I realize that we are long past the point where there is any hope of you showing yourself to be familiar with orthodox Christianity and sources of teaching about same. Color me curious, I would like an answer to my question.

Kamilla

Kathryn,

A couple of things…

>>“Great things are happening in places such as Virginia and Alabama, but they may not always make us feel good right away. We may be made uncomfortable…”

Please don’t let yourself be uncomfortable with racial reconciliation. Maybe your great-great-grandmother forced your great-great-grandfather to fight for the Confederacy? Whatever--put the past behind you.

>>“Patriarchs” believe “women cannot teach men or hold top leadership roles in the church.”

What? Women teach men and hold top leadership roles in churches all over the world. It's not a question of what women can, but what they may do. And God says they may not.

>>"Feminism has Christian beginnings…”

No, feminism’s beginnings and ends are bound up in the pit of hell.

> [Kathryn:] our country is suffering because of the beliefs and actions of too many Christians in our not-too-distant past, and we are the "mop-up" generation.

Oh, please! Our country is becoming more pagan and decadent every year, despite its claims of enlightenment. I find it odd how hung up such folks get about slavery when we have the "Constitutional right" to abortion today, brought to us by the mop-wielding feminists, many who think they are Christians, too. How many millions of American boys and girls have we now selfishly butchered? When are the feminists going to start apologizing for the messes they've made of the family, Kathryn? Those whom you so like to look down your nose at from the not-to-distant past I imagine would call us evil barbarians.

> [Kamilla:] I realize that we are long past the point where there is any hope of you showing yourself to be familiar with orthodox Christianity and sources of teaching about same.

I note the same old laundry list of evils of Christians -- white ones (and males?) in particular -- and neglect of what the Bible actually says that is relevant to the subject at hand, or avoidance of responding to pertinent comments regarding Scriptural teaching.

> Color me curious, I would like an answer to my question.

Kamilla, you should know better than to expect that...

--Michael

Oh, I don't really expect it, nor do I expect it to make any sense or be anything but a nonsequitur.

Doesn't stop me from wondering what she thinks the answer is!

Kamilla

> [Rebeccca:] Their main premise was that if you were egal and turned out to be wrong there were really no "bad" consequences like an STD or unwanted pregnancy (if you were to practice fornication) so really what is the harm of being wrong?

Have they forgotten that false teachers are held to strict accountability?

2 Peter 2:1

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves."

> [Mary:] If egalitarians think like this how are they any different from the world?

Good comments Mary and Rebecca! Whew. Great post-modern reasoning about Tamar:

> [Rebecca:] That turned out okay, right? I mean that baby was wanted and Judah realized his failure to keep his promise, so obviousely what the daughter-in-law did was not that bad, at least they were not oppressing a whole people group which is what would happen IF the comps were wrong, and that supposed wrong is so much worse than the actual disregard for God's Word because God's ultimate purpose is equality as we have so many examples in Scripture.

And Judah said she was more righteous than him, so the deceptive seduction must not only be "okay" but recommended, right? Whatever works!

Gen 38:26

Judah recognized them, and said, "She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah."

[That sounds rather patriarchal...]

> [Rebecca:] Apparently, the sin of disobedience against a holy God is no biggie because that doesn't affect us humans and that is what counts. People are still being "saved" and "ministered to" which is all the a holy God really cares about.

The ends justify the means -- egals keep audaciously claiming God's kingdom is better advanced by snubbing what He says. How that works, I have no idea.

Not only are egals practicing good seeker-friendly skills, their views are also quite friendly to non-seekers.

Luke 6:26

"Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way."

Matthew 10:22

"You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved."

Egalitarianism is just one symptom of a much bigger problem, which is why trying to reason them out of the one error of egalitarianism is such an exercise in futility.

--Michael

Kathryn:

Such apologies are going on all over the world. God is working, although we may not always see it. >>>>

I am an egalitarian when it comes to the evil intentions of the hearts of men and women.

Can we say Planned Parenthood and a woman's right to choose...unless Margaret Sanger was a cross-dressing male?

Then, if you oppose the Nazis and what was done to the Jews, why in the world would you approve of a movement that seeks to blame all white males for all the evils of the world?

The Bible teaches that each individual is guilty before God of his or her own sin. That is the message of God to Adam and Eve. Each one was guilty and each one came under God's condemnation and each one received the promise of the coming Saviour.

We are not guilty of all the sins of our nation, race, blood-line, family, ancestors, etc. We are guilty of our own sins, not the sins of others - except that all mankind fell in Adam. Even so, we cannot stand before God and argue that we had no choice but to sin and that it was Adam's fault! ...or the devil's! ...or our dead ancestor's!

Why do you promote racism and sexism as a way to defeat racism and sexism? That is not egalitarian thinking.

No, I am not an egalitarian - excpet in that point of the human heart being wicked, and that without exception. Even so, women tend to sin one way and men another, so we are not exactly equal even in that. There are other areas that are common to all human beings - like the need for meaningful work and the need for salvation in Christ.

Even within our similarities, there are differences, though.

Kathryn:

It is good to know that Chrysostom upheld Junia as an Apostle.>>>>

I really doubt that he would be impressed with the modern religious feminists. Don't get too excited. My point is that you have been lied to by your gurus. He did not support women's ordination.

You have not looked into these issues for yourself, but you have let others decide what you think about men like Chrysostom. I would be willing to wager that you have never read anything that he wrote, except for a few quotes taken out of context.

Anyway...

Have a good day, Kathryn, and take care,

Donna L. Carlaw

The book is 10 Lies The Church Tells Women. The quote is from John Chrysostom: "God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matters to the woman."

More from Chrysostom: "The woman taught once and ruined all. On this account...let her not teach...The whole female race transgressed..." He went on to say that childbearing was woman's consolation. Theologian Thomas Aquinas said: "The woman is subject to the man, on account of the weakness of her nature, both of mind and of body....Children ought to love their father more than their mother." Also from Thomas Aquinas: "...Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex, while production of woman comes from defect in the active force." I have quoted enough now. In the Middle Ages, doctors routinely denied women medical relief from the pain of childbirth because they mistakenly believed that the Curse was God's will. Women may die in childbirth, so the argument ran, in fulfillment of Genesis 3:16 (taken from the book Woman Be Free by Patricia Gundry). When American suffragists fought for women's right to vote, they faced great opposition from ministers and theologians, not to mention the population at large. I was raised in patriarchy, the American South. I was raised Southern Baptist. I am a Christian. As a child and then teen-ager, I heard that "a woman's place is in the home." It was hardly egalitarian then for women (married or single)or African Americans either. Patriarchy may start out soft, with husbands determined to love their wives as Christ loves the church, but, as it hardens, the authority becomes more important, and the love becomes less important. The antidote is Genesis 1:27 & Ephesians 5:21. After all, "submission" means to "be available for one another".

I pray that everyone here will fulfill all of their high destiny in Christ Jesus, and not let anything hold them back.

I pray that Kathryn, rather than following the false teachings of the "blab it and grab it" crowd or the "Oh, woe is me for I am a woman" crowd, you will learn to heed the Berean call and search the Scriptures for yourself. Don't take my word for it, Mr Copeland's word for it or even the word of Pastor Tim Bayly. Search the Scriptures for yourself! I'm done.

Kamilla

"After all, "submission" means to "be available for one another"."

It does? I must admit I have never heard that definition.

Kathryn:

I pray that everyone here will fulfill all of their high destiny in Christ Jesus, and not let anything hold them back. >>>>

I believe that you are sincere in what wish for all of us. In that sense, I thank you for your concern.

I can assure you that I am not being held down or held back. In fact, the more I get back to traditional Christianity, the more settled and satisfied in Christ I am.

Even if I wanted to hold the Holy Spirit back, I would not be able to. He is in control of me, not I of Him.

I still think that you should read those guys for yourself. You are getting second-hand, extremely biased information after all. I would not give my mind over to any teacher no matter how many books they have written. Remember that the Borg had a queen, not a king.

I doubt that you are comfortable with Paul, either, and he spoke under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. After all, it was Paul who said that woman was made for man, not man for woman. He also said that woman would be saved by childbearing. He also instructed older women to teach younger women to love their husbands and children and be keepers at home. Odd words for a feminist, aren't they?

Kathryn, a member of the "'mop-up' generation," was recounting a list of ancient male comments she must have memorized about women being inferior:

> I have read books that detail all these things. I am an optimist because I yet believe that folks will see all this for what it is and repent of it.

You'd think our "egalitarian" friends, instead of dwelling on and digging up one-sided stuff from the remote past, would be condemning un-equal garbage being promoted everywhere today, like this, from the female pseudo-sperm article [Imagine there's no father, it's easy if you try...]:

> Lessing reveals she was inspired by a scientific claim that "the primal human stock was probably female, and that males came along later, as a kind of cosmic afterthought".

These sorts of things sound every bit as nasty as what they want us to believe from the past, and are even current events, which is a lot easier to do something about than what happened in ancient history. They seem to be very selective as to where they mop!

Being so hung up on "White male privilege is over," and whatever, they don't bother denouncing any evil things said about men by their own contemporaries. So, I see such statements as her "I pray that everyone here will fulfill all of their high destiny in Christ Jesus, and not let anything hold them back" only applying to people who believe in patriarchy as presented in the Bible.

> [Kathryn:] As a child and then teen-ager, I heard that "a woman's place is in the home."

I think they got that from the Bible. Paul even told older *women* to teach younger women to be workers at home, and called it sound doctrine [Titus 2:1], and he said to do otherwise caused the word of God to be blasphemed.

At the end of that section in Titus [2:12], Paul says the grace of God has appeared, "instructing us to deny ungodliness, and worldly desires, and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age." To me, that includes denying the worldly desires of feminism.

--Michael

Add new comment