Can a Christian be a feminist...
(Tim) Again, because we've removed the comment feed on our main page, it's impossible to know where active discussions are occurring here on Baylyblog. Here's one discussion I'm putting up as a post hoping it will be helpful to those souls seeking God's truth concerning sexuality. The commenters' words are in italics.
* * *
Since when does being a feminist condemn one to Hell? ...I always thought it was belief in Christ that saved someone and allowed them to go to Heaven... ("If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." ~Romans 10:9)
Father-rule is God's decree and ordering of the world to reflect His own archetypical Fatherhood. Hence, to reject father-rule is to reject the Father from Whom all fatherhood gets its name (1Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 3:14,15). Can one be a Christian and reject God's Fatherhood?
No. All those who belong to Christ are adopted by the Father (Romans 8:15) and, therefore, have the witness of the Holy Spirit crying out within them, "Abba, Father" (Galatians 4:6).
Can one be a Christian and reject God's ordering of all creation under His Fatherhood?
Maybe, but why would someone ask such a question? It's horribly impious...
It would be similar to asking, "God, can I worship and love you and still reject the image of Your Son and His Bride, the Church, by having sex with another man instead of a woman?" Again, what a godless question!
Scripture provides no comfort to those who ask God to overlook their rebellion and yet accept their worship and love. What Scripture says is that such men do not love God because those who love God keep his commandments. Or rather, that to love God is to keep His commandments (1John 2:3,4; 2John 9).
On the surface, then, the answer to your question could be "Well certainly, one can be a feminist and be a Christian, as long as one repents. Repentance is a lifelong process of sanctification for Christians and all of us are repenting daily of many many sins that have hold on us which, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we are seeking to put to death. But really, the question you're asking isn't whether we can still sin and be a Christian, but whether we can deny our sin is sin and still be a Christian? And the answer to that question can only be a call to repent and turn back to God along with a warning that such rebellion and enslavement to Satan is the fruit of unbelief and will lead the soul giving himself to this rebellion and unbelief is in danger of the fires of Hell."
In other words, failure is one thing, but rebellion and unbelief is something else entirely. Both are sin, but the second is a hardened conscience and rebellious unbelief that should make the hair stand up on the back of a man's neck and fill him with dread of God's judgment, now and eternally.
This is the reason I spoke of feminism leading souls to Hell. It is a heresy that has eternal consequences and always involves denying the glory and authority of the Father God.
I'm not wholly a feminist...but neither do I wholly believe that patriarchy is the way to go. Rather, I believe that Man should be over a woman...when it is *appropriate*. If a household has a male, and that male is old and mature enough, then that male should be the head of the household. However, that doesn't mean he should have complete and absolute authority over his mother or wife.
You misunderstand this blog, its authors, and its commenters. We do not believe in the patriarchy you condemn. Read the category "Feminism" on the left side of the home page for a Biblical exposition of the true nature and limits of father-rule. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for Her (Ephesians 5:25; Colossians 3:19). We are not to beat our wives and dominate them and force them to live subservient to us, nor do we hold that every man is the boss of every woman because of the simple fact of his being a man and her being a woman. Those are straw men feminists always raise because it's in their nature to argue with weak and nonexistent opponents. It's easier to oppose garish spectacles than to oppose Scriptural examples and their fruit in the lives of men and women today.
Yes, the Bible seems to generally support patriarchy, but one must also consider the time it was written.
Watch out. This is the sort of sloppy obedience and faith that will be destroyed in the evil world we live in where attacks on God's Fahterhood are everywhere and feminism is the reigning ideology of sexual relationships. Remember that Scripture is true though all men are liars (2Timothy 3:14-17; 2Peter 1:19-2:2). We don't "generally" agree with patriarchy, but embrace it with love and joy because God created us that way and has decreed, over and over again, that we are to live that way. And neither the age of Scripture nor the culture in which its authors lived as they wrote undercuts Scripture's authority allowing us room to maneuver between obedience and rebellion. Sort of obedience to sort of inspired truth from a sort of holy book that I sort of agree with us is never the wording or posture of the Christian. Rather, with David we say:
"Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, For they are ever mine. I have more insight than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the aged, Because I have observed Your precepts. I have restrained my feet from every evil way, That I may keep Your word. I have not turned aside from Your ordinances, For You Yourself have taught me. How sweet are Your words to my taste! Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth! From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way" (Psalms 119:98-104).
Thus, I believe a question we (read: Tim) should really answer before continuing further discussion is "What is immoral about feminism?". (And please don't just throw Bible verses at me; I could do the same and we'd get nowhere.)
As I warned you before, watch out! The lover of God loves God's Word and takes his commanding orders from its particular chapters and verses. So for myself, being a minister of the Word and Sacrament, I have nothing else to do for you, a confessing Christian, than to "throw Bible verses at" you; and you, listening to my teaching and preaching, have nothing else to do but to take what I say and examine it by "Bible verses." When we move elsewhere for the direction for our faith and life, we die.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (17)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Kamilla on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Craig French on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Abram Hess on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Shaun DuFault on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
Comments
We would never say, "I think it is generally a good idea to submit to Christ," would we?
The underlying issue, the really big one, is Authority, the devil of the modern age, which is why it's worth making so big a deal of feminism. Yesterday was the Feast of the Holy Family, and below is an excerpt from St. Bernard's sermon for that feast, which is apt for this topic:
From a sermon of St. Bernard for the Feast of the Holy Family:
Who was subject to whom? A God to men. God, I repeat, to Whom the angels are subject: Whom principalities and powers obey: was subject to Mary; and not alone to Mary, but to Joseph also, because of Mary. Admire and revere both the one and the other, and choose which you admire the more: the most sweet condescension of the Son, or the sublime dignity of the Mother. For either am I at a loss for words: for both are wondrous. For that God should obey a woman is humility without compare; and that a woman should have rule over God dignity without equal. …
Learn, O Man, to obey. Learn, O Earth, to be subject. Learn, O Dust, to submit. The Evangelist in speaking of thy Maker says: He was subject to them; that is, without doubt, to Mary and to Joseph. Be you ashamed, vain ashes that you are. God humbles Himself, and do you exalt yourself? God becomes subject to men, and will you, eager to lord it over men, place yourself above your Maker? …
For as often as I desire to be foremost among men, so often do I seek to take precedence of God; and so do I not truly savour the things that are of God. For of Him was it said: And he was subject to them. If you disdain, O Man, to follow the example of a Man, at least it will not lower thee to imitate thy Maker. If perhaps you cannot follow Him wheresoever He goeth, at least follow in that wherein He has come down to you. (“The Feast of the Holy Family, St. Bernard of Clairvaux,”http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2415624/posts.)
Perhaps I should add a comment. The meaning of Bernard's sermon is that since when God told Jesus "Obey a woman" He did so cheerfully, if God says to a woman "Obey a man" she should do so cheerfully too. (And if He says to a man "Obey your superiors" he should obey cheerfully too.)
Dear Eric,
Beautiful.
And yet, readers must be cautioned that what Bernard is promoting here when he writes of God submitting to woman, and specifically the woman Mary, is not the lie of "mutual submission" promoted today as a way of escaping authority (in general) and male authority (in specific).
Our Lord God submitted to Mary as she was His mother, not as she was a woman. Scripture commands children to honor and obey their mother. The salient point is not that the Godhead submitted to His creation, but that God incarnate submitted to the womb and to His mother. In the same way, Mary, despite being the mother of God, submitted to her husband, Joseph. As her Son is the Head of His Bride, the Church, so the husband is the head of his bride, his wife.
Similarly, Jesus submitted to John the Baptist's call to repent by Himself undergoing John's baptism of repentance. Perfect God being baptized for repentance? Yes--in His incarnate state.
Note also the form Jesus' relationship with His mother takes as he becomes a man. Several places in the Gospels present us with a picture of how that relationship changed:
* * *
“While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother”” (Matthew 12:46-50).
“While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it”” (Luke 11:27, 28).
* * *
But also:
* * *
“When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then He *said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household" (John 19:26, 27).
* * *
Anyhow, great exhortation from Bernard and perfectly appropriate in our authority-hating age.
Love,
"Yes, the Bible seems to generally support patriarchy, but one must also consider the time it was written."
This may well be the core heresy of religious feminism - a denial of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of Scripture. For we cannot grant the "seems" and the "generally support" without so doing.
And no, you cannot throw one single iota of Scripture back at us without first wrenching it out of context or re-translating it (which, once again, denies the ministry of the Holy Spirit).
You cannot do this because patriarchy is woven into the very fabric of Scripture. It is there from the first wedding to the last. From the creation of Adam first, and then Eve who was created from him and for him. It is there in God's sovereign choice to establish Israel as a patriarchy with a male priesthood and male prophets. This patriarchy is re-established in the new covenant by Christ's chosing only men to number among the twelve. This dominical practice was continued by the Apostles when they considered only men as replacements for Judas Iscariot. It was again continued by the Church Fathers and, without interruption even by the division of Rome from Orthodoxy or Protestants from Rome, on down to our present age. And it is there again at the end of the ages, in the wedding supper of the Lamb.
What is immoral about feminism, you ask? It denies the Fatherhood of God, reducing it to an accidental metaphor. It denies the ministry and authority of the Holy Spirit as the ultimate author of Sripture. It despises men as men and fears women as women. It flattens the glorious differences between men and women, reducing them to an ugly utilitarian meritocracy. Claiming to lift women out of the prison of kinder, kuche and kirche (unless the kirche bit includes leading men around by the, ahem, nose), it places them in the stronghold of wage slavery, denying to them their godly authority as mothers and wives.
In conclusion, I will not hesitate to leave you with a passage of Scripture which just tears every leg out from under you. A little-remarked passage which Fr. Adian Nichols has properly noted destroys any pretension religious feminism may have to being biblically based:
Galatians 4:4-8
4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,
5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
Did you see that? Christians, redeemed of God, cry out "Abba, Father!"
I agree that Feminism can lead a professing Christian to damnation. But I tend to interpret the question raised in this post along the lines of "Can a Christian be ignorant?" In that sense, the question could be yes. But the duty of Christian teachers would be to correct the problem.
Some feminism comes from ignorance or being misled but a good deal comes from willful rebellion.
My comment would've been essentially the same as Mark Horne's above.
I was working on a comment for the post this one resulted from, and may eventually post it, for now though, I wanted to heartily agree with Nate. No Warrior, Shepard, Paladin, or any other servant of Christ, should so quickly and so casually throw aside the views and interpretation of another Christian. Your "2000 years" line IS trash, as Jesus's teachings flew in the face of much of the past 4000 years traditions and teachings by the established authorities in the church. And even though I would probably find myself agreeing with you on much more than I would disagree on, as someone who is decidedly NOT a "Modern Rebel" I say that you appear to be a coward, unwilling to debate long with any woman who forms a cohesive argument against what you believe. You furthermore appear arrogant, refusing to consider that your interpretation of the scriptures might be incorrect even for the sake of argument, and hide behind claims of "guarding" God's Holy Word. Shame on YOU, sirrah, for using something so precious, as an excuse to ignore those seeking the truth, whatever it may be! You are no more guarding the Word than I would be guarding my sisters if someone threatened them and I simply told them it wasn't nice! Buck up and debate, and quit banning polite, intelligent people, just because they can form a cohesive argument!
Einar:
"Your '2000 years' line IS trash, as Jesus's teachings flew in the face of much of the past 4000 years traditions and teachings by the established authorities in the church."
Christ:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
The arrogance of people who think they have the wit to overturn the consistent and coherent teaching of the church is remarkable except for the fact it is so common.
I guess this is the fruit of growing up in a family full of high school and college debaters, but I think the first thing to do here today- and this has bugged me ever since I started following this type of post here- is to define feminism! What, specifically, are the characteristics of a feminist, and what specific characteristics of feminists, or of feminist thought and "doctrine," if such a thing exists, are contrary to God's word and heretical? I ask this question out of a desire to make this discourse more fruitful- I am in agreement with most everything in the post. As a teacher, I often fall into the trap of saying "measures 24-32 aren't very good" instead of saying "Antonio, you are not articulating your notes with the tip of your tongue, and in general, the ensemble is slowing down." The former criticism, while true, is not very helpful, but by making my points specifically, I am able to clarify exactly what my problem is.
Roger,
The problem with defining feminism is that religious feminists are slipperier than a school of well-oiled eels. *Whatever* definition you offer will be rejected and countered with the claim that either you have not defined feminism properly or the claim that your interlocutor is not a feminist at all. Just this afternoon on my own blog a seminary student offered this definition of feminism: "women are superior or somehow deserving of teaching positions simply by virtue of being female".
The trick is not to define the heresy but to defend orthodoxy which is already defined for us, starting with (on the point in question here) our Saviour in his practice of numbering only men among his inner circle of the twelve. I like to go back to the old example of how Treasury agents are trained to recognize counterfeit currency -- and it isn't done by defining the counterfeit, it's done by becoming so very familiar with the true currency that a counterfeit is spotted instantly.
As an aside, now that I've gone back over the original discussion now transferred here, it wouldn't surprise me to learn this all was occasioned by a recent post over at CBE's blog in which they yammered on about "communal knowledge" and whined about being closed out of the debate. To paraphrase Chesterton, the object of an open mind as of an open mouth is to shut it on something solid.
Kamilla
"No Warrior, Shepard, Paladin, or any other servant of Christ, should so quickly and so casually throw aside the views and interpretation of another Christian. Your "2000 years" line IS trash,"
"Your line is trash" sounds to me like a quick and casual throwing aside of the view and interpretation of another Christian, in fact of 2000 years worth of Christians! That statement is so contradictory I'm surprised Einar Alimson didn't catch that while writing it!
Precisely David, though Christ was in no way attempting to subvert or change GOD'S law with what he taught and did, but rather to fulfill it, from the perspective of the religious authorities at the time, he was indeed going against THE Law. Hence why they hated him so. Glad you understand my point so thoroughly!
As for Jane, wonderful job of taking what I said out of context, the entire POINT of that paragraph was that by claiming the supposed* authority of "2000 years" he is dismissing any argument or viewpoint which disagrees with this wonderfully vague "2000 years" of doctrine. Such declarations ARE trash, and have no place in a forum intended to allow discussion with the intent to either discover, or reveal the truth. However, they work great for someone who likes to simply shut down arguments without actually addressing them. Furthermore, I have no power to ban Tim from commenting, and if I did, I would not do so. Neither would I "casually" throw out such a claim as the overused "2000 years" one he makes. I considered the argument, and have now twice clearly pointed out the flaw within it, and no one has yet refuted that argument, only dodged around it and attacked my wording.
*(I say supposed because anyone who has studied history in the slightest will recall how The Church as a whole has been rife with dispute, to the point of creating the MANY and VARIED denominations we have today. You might want to explain WHICH 2000 years of tradition/doctrine you are referring to, and why it is more valid Biblically than the others, bearing in mind the New Covenant, and in taking the "2000 years" stance, you are allying yourself with Tradition, the very thing that Jesus spoke out against so often.)
I mentioned before that we might find we agree more than we disagree, and I meant it. I am trying to point out the ineffectiveness of the methods he is using to "teach" people what he believes is right. No one will listen to someone who refuses to let other ideas be heard, claims they are "Modern Rebellion" without giving a REAL reason.
I will admit to being a little hotheaded when I wrote my first comment, and as such, my tone was no near as respectful or patient as I had originally intended it to be. For that, I am sorry, but I do believe that none of my arguments are in any way unsound, or have been proven to be.
Oh, and by the way, HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!
While I said I wouldn't be back to comment, I'd like to clarify.
Kamilla mentioned that my original comment on the first post was probably inspired by 'yammering on' at the CBE blog. This is inaccurate: I do not believe I have ever visited said blog.
>> We do not believe in the patriarchy you condemn.
I thought there were no 'kinds' of patriarchy:
>>As to the "kind" of patriarchy this or that man embraces, there are no kinds at all. Only questions of implementation.
A mere quibble, probably, but at first blush it seems a contradiction.
Mr. Bayly, I ask you in all seriousness: do you want to see people believe and follow patriarchy? As people who know me could have said, I have for several years considered that patriarchy could well be the truth. At this moment I can tell you that there is perhaps a 50% chance I will be a dedicated patriarchalist within a few years.
However, seeing people shut down discussion of patriarchy, assault the character of egalitarians, and refuse to answer questions, is no encouragement to me at all. One might say that I should only be convicted by the Bible, and other peoples' behavior should be of no concern. However, my biggest problem with patriarchy is still the fruit I see manifested in the lives of those who uphold it. I have no wish to be in any way like most patriarchalists I have read and interacted with.
This will probably be called an excuse to get out of obeying God. But- there it is, 'By their fruit you shall know them'.
I don't see how a scathing indictment of someone else's words as "trash" can be out of context relative to a plea never to quickly or casually dismiss another Christian's interpretation on something. I honestly don't see how the context can modify the way in which calling something "trash" isn't a casual and quick dismissal. I grant that your point about "2000 years" was more subtle, but you still have a problem juxtaposing the plea to give all Christian viewpoints hearing, with the "trash" comment.
Bethany,
I did not say *your* original comment as inspired by the CBE blog post -- I said it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it had been. I also wasn't referring to only your post, but to the general drift of the original discussion.
Regarding your question to Tim, if you honestly want to see the fruit produced in the lives of those who embrace patriarchy, why don't you visit CGS in Bloomington? I have.
Kamilla
In the interest of sticking to the point of my comment then, and not being offensive, let me apologize for the use of the word trash as well as the accompanying words, and simply explain that I considered the act of dismissing other viewpoints out of hand itself "trash". I do not mean to offend, and am quite willing to back down from language or an analogy someone finds offensive, so long as the underlying idea is understood clearly :)
Kamilla, [and Mr. Bayly]
I would prefer to not have to go hunting the fruits of patriarchy halfway across the country.
To my mind, patriarchy has been able to have its say, not just on this blog but in many other places.
I do not have finances for such a trip, and I do not believe that, if God wants me to embrace patriarchy, He will require me to seek out a certain church or group of believers, merely to see how they live. If the beneficial fruits of patriarchy are so obvious, they should be, well......obvious.
Am I merely untrained in recognizing the fruits of the spirit as demonstrated here? Are they hidden from all but deserving eyes? Was I not worthy of seeing them?
If it is claimed that I do not see fruits because I am prejudiced and do not want to, I would like to state that one of the things that drew me away from patriarchy was the fruit I saw in the lives and works of people who have left patriarchy. At that time, I was at least somewhat prejudiced against those people: I thought they were all liberals or rebels. They weren't, and I saw fruit.
My main point was to do with how patriarchy is portrayed and supported here, on this blog. Is the patriarchy promoted here so radically different, that my experience here is invalid and I must go to a specific place to experience it properly?
@Tim and Kamilla:
You two did NOT just throw Bible verses at me; you explained your opinions and thoughts and backed them up with the Bible verses. You didn't just post them and say "blah blah blah because the Bible says so!" For that, I am grateful.
Now, onto actual discussion...
I agree with Roger in that I wish feminism was defined. Straw men indeed...I shoot an arrow and I can't tell if it hit. :P
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your definition of a feminist is: one who believes that a woman does not need to be under male authority of any kind (other than God)?
What I meant by "consider the time it was written" is that things change and modern eyes quite frequently see historical events differently than the people of the time. Here's an example I like:
It is well known that after one gladiator had bested another in the Roman arena, he would look to the Emperor to ask whether or not he should kill his opponent. The Emperor would answer with a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. Modern people therefore believe that a thumbs-up meant "spare him" and a thumbs-down meant "kill him". However...in reality, the thumbs-up was up and towards the throat and meant "kill him" whereas the thumbs-down was away from the chest and meant "spare him".
As this example shows, one must look at historical events with historical eyes to fully understand them. To use a Biblical example, the fact that women were the first to report Jesus' resurrection seems unremarkable...until you know that at the time, women couldn't even give testimony in the courts. The amount of significance Jesus gives women is absolutely astounding when you consider the culture of the time.
This is relevant to the discussion as Jesus may have kept with the status quo because it furthered His purpose on Earth more. After all...He didn't condemn or abolish slavery because 1) doing so wouldn't really help His mission, and 2) it wasn't the horrible American slavery of the 1400-1900s. So, maybe He didn't speak out against patriarchalism because it wouldn't help! [shrugs] We can't know for sure; we do not know His mind. My point is while the Bible is fully true and inerrant, it is set in the historical context of ancient Israel which has little in common with modern times and is best understood in context.
@Bethany and Kamilla:
With regards to your comments about the fruit of patriarchalists, I will say this. I don't think that's a good argument to make for either side. Francis Collins (Christian author of The Language of God and lead geneticist of the Human Genome project) put it quite well (paraphrased): "We are dirty containers filled with the pure water of the Holy Spirit." Thus, I don't think basing the worth of feminism/patriarchalism on the fruit of their adherents is a good idea. I mean...are you going to compare Hindu Gandhi with Jewish Pharisees and say that Hinduism is better than Judaism? Same kind of thing...
Ah, one last thing. Einar's comment of "trash" did look on the surface like a casual and quick dismissal, but, as he as shown, it was motivated by good reasoning. And besides...where did Tim say "2000 years"? o.O
P.S.: Tim, the mathematician in me was rather pleased when he saw Ephesian pi... :P
Why did you remove the comments feed?
Dear Readers,
This line of discussion has proceeded largely in accord with many years of similar discussions where feminists and their sympathizers promote their modern heresy while claiming they're not ideologues and they only want to know this and that. "Just asking, you know? It's only a question! Why do questions scare you? Are you really that insecure? Can't you step out of your patriarchal cocoon long enough to listen to others and hear their heart-cry and respond in love?"
And always, they combine their attacks on God's Word and Truth with whining about how Baylyblog doesn't allow commenters to disagree with us. They go on and on and on and on about how unfair Baylyblog is, not allowing criticism, while never stopping to consider how long they've been going on and on and on with their criticisms of Baylyblog for not allowing criticism.
If Baylyblog was in the habit of silencing its critics, we wouldn't have all these endless comments complaining about how we silence criticism. Go back through our archives and see what I'm talking about. There are thousands of comments disagreeing with what we've written and criticizing us--comments like those above. This has been going on for years, now: women (mostly) and some men whine and whine about how we silence our critics and no one thinks how self-contradictory their complaints are. There their criticisms are, for all the world to read, and yet they fail to blush.
To be explicit, look above and see how criticisms are there to be read. Read them and consider them and weigh them and ask yourself if they're true--these criticisms of (in this case) me for not allowing criticism.
We are quite open to personal criticism and received it endlessly, here and in our e-mail and phone and personal conversations. It is a gift from God that helps discipline our (my) pride, and we thank God for it.
However, when God's Word and Truth is attacked, here; and when heresy is promoted, here, we shut these things down.
Church officers have a duty to teach and preach and counsel and guard the good deposit that has been passed on to us and the People of God. This is the purpose of Baylyblog. My brother, David, and I here teach God's Word and Truth, guarding it from the attack of Arminians and Roman Catholics, Judaizers and connivers at sodomy, harsh fathers and husbands, false shepherds who flee danger and are mute in the face of heresy, the vile, the idolatrous greedy, and so on--all those listed in Scripture as standing condemned by God the Father.
This means when this teaching venue has its comments move from inquiry and clarification to attack upon God's Truth, we silence those doing the attack. This is our duty.
This is a teaching forum. It is not a discussion forum. We have no obligation here on Baylyblog (any more than in our homes and churches) to allow the promotion of heresy. Rather, it is our duty not to allow it--to silence it. And when we do allow it, the only reason we do so is the better to demonstrate the errors of this great wickedness.
Another comment concerning the heresy of feminism and our discussion of it, here: David and I have spent years responding to the same attacks upon God's Word you read above. It's under a number of categories on the left side of the main page, but particularly the "Feminism" category. This is not to say we never take old questions that have been answered scores of times before by us, here, but only that if a question asked just now isn't answered, it's likely because we don't have the time to deal with each individual who shows up and starts "just asking." It's the readers' obligation to familiarize themselves with the content of this blog before attacking its authors for not starting all over with them right now, answering their questions which we have already answered scores (or hundreds) of times.
Finally, concerning definitions: feminism is the doctrine that sex doesn't matter and that God's Order of Creation has no implications for life. It's the leveling and obliteration of the sexual hierarchy God created (He made Adam first, then Eve) and named (He named the race "adam") and commands (He forbids woman to teach or exercise authority over man) all through Scripture. This is the universal teaching of the Church across all ages for 2,000 years, now--but going back to Creation itself--and only sexual anarchists running amok in the modern world have ever defied this Truth of God.
Here then is the Word of God:
“Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint” (1Timothy 2:9-15).
With love,