The first lie of the patriarchs is that patriarchy is the prescribed biblical way of doing families. This simply is not true. Jesus actually spoke against it. I pointed this out back in 2011 with the post I Heard It Said Once in which I gave scriptural proof that Jesus did not support patriarchy as the biblical model.
The second lie of patriarchy is that patriarchy protects women and children.
One of my top ten posts links to the story of Doug Phillips, formerly respected patriarch and patriarchy pusher. Katie Botkin's post In Which Lourdes Petitions for a Lifeboat, points out that Doug Phillips was the founder of something called The Christian Men and Boys Titanic Society. This society would commemorate the sinking of the Titanic every year "praising the patriarchal Christian men who sacrificed their lives in favor of putting “women and children first."
But as was seen Phillips was far more concerned with the perks of being a patriarch than any protection it was suppose to offer. He liked having the perk of a live-in nanny that he could sexually abuse rather than protect. When the story broke concerning this nanny he abused, he and his wife were ready to throw the nanny under the bus, or shall we say, push her out of the lifeboat so they could get in it.
This was over a year ago.
Now we have another patriarch who has proven that patriarchs are, indeed, not concerned for women and children, but rather are concerned with themselves, their positions, and their reputations.
Doug Wilson married a gullible young lady to a known pedophile. When it turned out that this pedophile abuse a son born from this marriage Wilson expressed concern for his own reputation and the pedophile. No mention of any concern for either the mother or child is expressed in his response to the criticism he has incurred for promoting and blessing the marriage.
Sarah Korchinski has created a lovely Maury Lie Detector meme that I what to share concerning the second lie of patriarchy.
So, no, Virginia. Not only is Patriarchy not biblical, it also does not protect women and children. It makes them vulnerable to the abuse of patriarchs, mere men who want to be worshiped as gods in their homes and churches.
Showing posts with label You have heard it said. Show all posts
Showing posts with label You have heard it said. Show all posts
Monday, September 7, 2015
Monday, July 15, 2013
Resolution Writing. Persuasive but Wrong, II
Okay, back to what's wrong with pages 11-13 of the book The Resolution for Men.
As mentioned, they start with a fictional story that is supposed to illustrate an eternal truth, the story of a guy falling asleep at the wheel, the chaos it causes, and the inability for his wife to be a true help meet, at least being able to hold it together until he's awake enough to do what (they think) he's supposed to be doing all the time.
I want to look at this short, inadequate story again.
First off...
Marriage is (or should be) a long trip.
I don't know about you all, but my family takes long road trips. And guess what. One person doesn't do all the driving all the time. We all take turns. This allows people to rest up for their next turn at the wheel.
What The Resolution Guys [TRG] seem to be saying is that the only person qualified to drive/lead is the husband/father. That when he gets tired, that's too darn bad. He's just going to have to suck it up, with no help from his helpmeet and stay awake 24/7.
Now, I understand that this is not what TRG are trying to say. But in essence, this is what they ARE saying. They are saying that only men can lead. If a woman interferes, even by default, it not only doesn't help, it has the potential to make things far worse. And (by God's design according to TRG)the woman can never, ever be in the driver's seat, no matter how long the trip will be. And as we had said before, marriage should be a long trip.
TRG are setting up an either/or, "All or Nothing" as the only possibility for marriage. EITHER the husband is in charge OR the wife is in charge (by default of otherwise). They can not be in agreement and take turns driving, sharing the burden and responsibility. Not according to TRG. According to TRG, Almighty God has placed the man in the driver's seat, never to be relieved when he's tired, never, ever learning how to trust the helpmeet God made for him to take the wheel for one leg of the trip so he can get some much needed shut-eye. The husband/father is denied any Sabbath Rest because he's too busy having the dickens scared out of him over whether or not he is properly leading his family or whether they are headed for disaster because he's fallen asleep from shear exhaustion.
I realize TRG don't mean to be saying this. But they are.
They are saying that the only cure for exhausted wives is for them to dump everything onto their husbands so that their husbands can be overburdened and exhausted instead. They can't share the load. The husband can't come in and take on some/half/a lot of the responsibility and authority. He has to come in and TAKE IT ALL. All or nothing. That kind of thinking can kill a person and can kill a marriage.
And yet, this is what TRG claim that God commands men to do. God commands this of all husbands/fathers. There is no meeting half way, no meeting 40/60 even. It's all or nothing because TRG have made in it into that.
And here I go again, over ten paragraphs. So much for keeping things brief. I think I'll stop here and give a little more homework for those who like that sort of thing.
The Single Story and Structure
You Have Heard It Said Today
In which we look at a familiar "All or Nothing" view of marriage that is common today.
As mentioned, they start with a fictional story that is supposed to illustrate an eternal truth, the story of a guy falling asleep at the wheel, the chaos it causes, and the inability for his wife to be a true help meet, at least being able to hold it together until he's awake enough to do what (they think) he's supposed to be doing all the time.
I want to look at this short, inadequate story again.
First off...
Marriage is (or should be) a long trip.
I don't know about you all, but my family takes long road trips. And guess what. One person doesn't do all the driving all the time. We all take turns. This allows people to rest up for their next turn at the wheel.
What The Resolution Guys [TRG] seem to be saying is that the only person qualified to drive/lead is the husband/father. That when he gets tired, that's too darn bad. He's just going to have to suck it up, with no help from his helpmeet and stay awake 24/7.
Now, I understand that this is not what TRG are trying to say. But in essence, this is what they ARE saying. They are saying that only men can lead. If a woman interferes, even by default, it not only doesn't help, it has the potential to make things far worse. And (by God's design according to TRG)the woman can never, ever be in the driver's seat, no matter how long the trip will be. And as we had said before, marriage should be a long trip.
TRG are setting up an either/or, "All or Nothing" as the only possibility for marriage. EITHER the husband is in charge OR the wife is in charge (by default of otherwise). They can not be in agreement and take turns driving, sharing the burden and responsibility. Not according to TRG. According to TRG, Almighty God has placed the man in the driver's seat, never to be relieved when he's tired, never, ever learning how to trust the helpmeet God made for him to take the wheel for one leg of the trip so he can get some much needed shut-eye. The husband/father is denied any Sabbath Rest because he's too busy having the dickens scared out of him over whether or not he is properly leading his family or whether they are headed for disaster because he's fallen asleep from shear exhaustion.
I realize TRG don't mean to be saying this. But they are.
They are saying that the only cure for exhausted wives is for them to dump everything onto their husbands so that their husbands can be overburdened and exhausted instead. They can't share the load. The husband can't come in and take on some/half/a lot of the responsibility and authority. He has to come in and TAKE IT ALL. All or nothing. That kind of thinking can kill a person and can kill a marriage.
And yet, this is what TRG claim that God commands men to do. God commands this of all husbands/fathers. There is no meeting half way, no meeting 40/60 even. It's all or nothing because TRG have made in it into that.
And here I go again, over ten paragraphs. So much for keeping things brief. I think I'll stop here and give a little more homework for those who like that sort of thing.
The Single Story and Structure
You Have Heard It Said Today
In which we look at a familiar "All or Nothing" view of marriage that is common today.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
How About That Junia?
Men who won't let women be all that they are called to be, work long and hard to take away any and all biblical examples of women outside the worshiped patriarchy boxes.
If that sentence didn't make sense to you, let me try again.
Neo-patriarchs and CBMW do all that they can to hide or explain away all examples of female leadership in the Bible.
In case you have never heard of Junia, which is possible because it really is better to ignore her all together than to get involve in the quagmire of all the explaining away it takes to make her go away, then let me direct you to this link which talks about Junia who is well known among the apostles.
(I love it when I'm busy and someone else makes my job so much easier. Also, I link this because it links all of Suzanne's [of Suzanne's Bookshelf] posts on Junia all in one place.)
http://speakeristic.blogspot.com/2011/07/junia-psst-that-apostle-has-mustache.html
If that sentence didn't make sense to you, let me try again.
Neo-patriarchs and CBMW do all that they can to hide or explain away all examples of female leadership in the Bible.
In case you have never heard of Junia, which is possible because it really is better to ignore her all together than to get involve in the quagmire of all the explaining away it takes to make her go away, then let me direct you to this link which talks about Junia who is well known among the apostles.
(I love it when I'm busy and someone else makes my job so much easier. Also, I link this because it links all of Suzanne's [of Suzanne's Bookshelf] posts on Junia all in one place.)
http://speakeristic.blogspot.com/2011/07/junia-psst-that-apostle-has-mustache.html
Friday, July 15, 2011
Have You Ever Heard of Huldah?
Deborah is hard to cover up. Two entire chapters in Judges are dedicated to her. One of those chapters is written, at least in part, by her. The other part was written by Barak, who looks to me to be honored anyway by having his words recorded in the Bible. Anyway, she's hard to ignore so instead men have tried to explain her away.
Well, Huldah was a prophet back during the time of Jeremiah. I suppose we shouldn't get too upset that we haven't heard much of her. Jeremiah wrote two whole books found in the Old Testament. Huldah is only mentioned in nine verses. II Kings 22:13-20 and II Chronicles 32:22-28.
And I might not think much of it, except that, have you ever heard of Jabez? He's mentioned in two verses I Chronicles 4:9 & 10. Yet there is book and an entire movement based on his prayer in verse 10.
Anyway, when a book of the law was found, hidden in the temple, the king had no problem calling Huldah rather than Jeremiah or any other male prophet of that day. And her prophecy was true.
So, according to the Old Testament, women can be leaders and can prophesy to men, including kings. So what's going on today that some men cannot accept women in leadership or the fact that a woman can hear from the Lord just as well as any man?
It is in the best interest of all people to become more familiar with the entire Bible, to read it for themselves, rather than to let certain teachers decide for us all which are the important verses and which verses should be ignored.
Links concerning Huldah and the Jabez movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prayer_of_Jabez
Well, Huldah was a prophet back during the time of Jeremiah. I suppose we shouldn't get too upset that we haven't heard much of her. Jeremiah wrote two whole books found in the Old Testament. Huldah is only mentioned in nine verses. II Kings 22:13-20 and II Chronicles 32:22-28.
And I might not think much of it, except that, have you ever heard of Jabez? He's mentioned in two verses I Chronicles 4:9 & 10. Yet there is book and an entire movement based on his prayer in verse 10.
Anyway, when a book of the law was found, hidden in the temple, the king had no problem calling Huldah rather than Jeremiah or any other male prophet of that day. And her prophecy was true.
So, according to the Old Testament, women can be leaders and can prophesy to men, including kings. So what's going on today that some men cannot accept women in leadership or the fact that a woman can hear from the Lord just as well as any man?
It is in the best interest of all people to become more familiar with the entire Bible, to read it for themselves, rather than to let certain teachers decide for us all which are the important verses and which verses should be ignored.
Links concerning Huldah and the Jabez movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prayer_of_Jabez
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Have You Heard the One About Deborah?
You know the one.
God could not find a single decent man in all the land to become the next judge of Israel. And since all those men were so worthless God had to resort to raising up a woman to judge. Her name was Deborah. At least that is how I've heard it taught before.
The problem is, if you read the account without the idea that women can't lead, you realize there is nothing written to imply that God chose Deborah because there were no qualified men. This is never said or even implied. It is something imposed on the text by men who would rather insult and emasculate ALL the Hebrew men living in Deborah's day rather than to admit that God simply picked Deborah because He wanted to use a woman this time.
The account of Deborah is in found in Judges 4 and words that supposedly imply that Barak was weak and afraid and that God wanted to punish him for it are found in vss 8 & 9.
8 Then Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” 9 She said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the honor shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.
It is assumed from this that Barak was being punished for his lack of faith. But if you read it carefully, there is no real rebuke in verse 9. In fact, the verse could just as easily be interpreted as Barak trying to honor Deborah by asking that she go along. But even with this honor, Deborah reasserts that God wants this to be a woman's story, an example to those to come that God can and wants to work through women. God wants there to be a witness in His word to His daughters that women can be strong and mighty too, that this sort of faith is not reserved for men. Leadership is not reserved exclusively for men.
God could not find a single decent man in all the land to become the next judge of Israel. And since all those men were so worthless God had to resort to raising up a woman to judge. Her name was Deborah. At least that is how I've heard it taught before.
The problem is, if you read the account without the idea that women can't lead, you realize there is nothing written to imply that God chose Deborah because there were no qualified men. This is never said or even implied. It is something imposed on the text by men who would rather insult and emasculate ALL the Hebrew men living in Deborah's day rather than to admit that God simply picked Deborah because He wanted to use a woman this time.
The account of Deborah is in found in Judges 4 and words that supposedly imply that Barak was weak and afraid and that God wanted to punish him for it are found in vss 8 & 9.
8 Then Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” 9 She said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the honor shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.
It is assumed from this that Barak was being punished for his lack of faith. But if you read it carefully, there is no real rebuke in verse 9. In fact, the verse could just as easily be interpreted as Barak trying to honor Deborah by asking that she go along. But even with this honor, Deborah reasserts that God wants this to be a woman's story, an example to those to come that God can and wants to work through women. God wants there to be a witness in His word to His daughters that women can be strong and mighty too, that this sort of faith is not reserved for men. Leadership is not reserved exclusively for men.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Did You Hear the One About Jezebel?
I'm sure you have. Everyone has.
There is nothing that strikes fear into the hearts of men more than the dreaded "SPIRIT OF JEZEBEL"!!!
And everyone knows what that spirit is. It is a controlling spirit, found most often in women, that has the ability to castrate men and turn them into sniveling little Ahabs, the wimpy, less-than-a-man, a man to be hated and pitied for not having enough testosterone to fight his way out of a paper bag.
But here is the problem.
When you actually look at the spirit of Jezebel, it is not about a controlling woman at all. It is about a woman who teaches people to sin.
Revelation 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.
One of the things the spirit of Jezebel teaches is fornication or pornography. I know this because when I looked up "acts of immorality" in the original Greek in a Strong's Concordance the Greek word used is the word we get both fornication and pornography.
So instead of the spirit of Jezebel being this awful, man-hating, male-castrating feminist spirit, it is actually more along the lines of a Play Boy, Hustler, pornography spirit that entices and exploits human sexuality and promotes prostitution and human trafficking.
The spitting hell-fire and brimstone preachers who warn against this Spirit of Jezebel have it all wrong. They don't know what they are talking about. They are preaching the superstitions of men, the witch-burning kind, and using scriptures that they ought to be applying to the porn problem that is running rampant in churches today.
There is nothing that strikes fear into the hearts of men more than the dreaded "SPIRIT OF JEZEBEL"!!!
And everyone knows what that spirit is. It is a controlling spirit, found most often in women, that has the ability to castrate men and turn them into sniveling little Ahabs, the wimpy, less-than-a-man, a man to be hated and pitied for not having enough testosterone to fight his way out of a paper bag.
But here is the problem.
When you actually look at the spirit of Jezebel, it is not about a controlling woman at all. It is about a woman who teaches people to sin.
Revelation 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.
One of the things the spirit of Jezebel teaches is fornication or pornography. I know this because when I looked up "acts of immorality" in the original Greek in a Strong's Concordance the Greek word used is the word we get both fornication and pornography.
So instead of the spirit of Jezebel being this awful, man-hating, male-castrating feminist spirit, it is actually more along the lines of a Play Boy, Hustler, pornography spirit that entices and exploits human sexuality and promotes prostitution and human trafficking.
The spitting hell-fire and brimstone preachers who warn against this Spirit of Jezebel have it all wrong. They don't know what they are talking about. They are preaching the superstitions of men, the witch-burning kind, and using scriptures that they ought to be applying to the porn problem that is running rampant in churches today.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Have You Ever Heard This One?
"Marriage can only have one head. If it has two heads then it becomes a two-headed monster."
Implying that only men can be the leaders. If there are two leaders then it becomes a push me pull you with no direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niKkURpdzIQ&feature=related
"It is a bi-cranium, Madam."
Anyway, here is how the human logic flows.
It is assumed that head means "boss". Since head means boss and there can only be one boss that means that Ephesians chapter five is giving that position to the man who is the head, or that is, boss/leader etc. This saying is akin to Tuesday's saying, "Someone has to be in charge."
We have already refuted the "Someone has to be in charge" saying. So what do we do with this "Two headed monster" saying?
Well, we start with the premise that head means boss/leader in the first place. I'm not going to get all into the Greek and culture of the time argument. There are many good sources that questions the head=boss song and dance. No, I'm going to start somewhere else.
Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
When a woman gets married, she suddenly gains two heads because Jesus or God should be her head or master and comp/patriarchal teaching gives her another master.
IF head means boss/leader/authority then married women have two heads and they deal with this two-headed monster dilemma anyway.
BUT if head doesn't mean boss/leader/authority then the dilemma is gone. And so is the problem of the two-headed monster. And perhaps this can then be applied: Two heads are better than one. (sorry, couldn't resist)
My whole point in this is to reveal that the two-headed monster saying, used to frighten women into submission, is human reasoning that isn't validated by scripture.
Patriarchy gives women two masters. Jesus says a person cannot serve two masters. Perhaps in light of this evidence, head doesn't mean boss/leader/authority.
The context of Ephesians 5 doesn't support it. Never is the husband told to lead. He is told to love and sacrifice. The original Greek doesn't support it. Head means a literal head or source as in the head or source of a stream. And the rest of the Bible doesn't support it.
So the two-headed monster argument falls flat because it means nothing when compared to the rest of the Bible.
Implying that only men can be the leaders. If there are two leaders then it becomes a push me pull you with no direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niKkURpdzIQ&feature=related
"It is a bi-cranium, Madam."
Anyway, here is how the human logic flows.
It is assumed that head means "boss". Since head means boss and there can only be one boss that means that Ephesians chapter five is giving that position to the man who is the head, or that is, boss/leader etc. This saying is akin to Tuesday's saying, "Someone has to be in charge."
We have already refuted the "Someone has to be in charge" saying. So what do we do with this "Two headed monster" saying?
Well, we start with the premise that head means boss/leader in the first place. I'm not going to get all into the Greek and culture of the time argument. There are many good sources that questions the head=boss song and dance. No, I'm going to start somewhere else.
Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
When a woman gets married, she suddenly gains two heads because Jesus or God should be her head or master and comp/patriarchal teaching gives her another master.
IF head means boss/leader/authority then married women have two heads and they deal with this two-headed monster dilemma anyway.
BUT if head doesn't mean boss/leader/authority then the dilemma is gone. And so is the problem of the two-headed monster. And perhaps this can then be applied: Two heads are better than one. (sorry, couldn't resist)
My whole point in this is to reveal that the two-headed monster saying, used to frighten women into submission, is human reasoning that isn't validated by scripture.
Patriarchy gives women two masters. Jesus says a person cannot serve two masters. Perhaps in light of this evidence, head doesn't mean boss/leader/authority.
The context of Ephesians 5 doesn't support it. Never is the husband told to lead. He is told to love and sacrifice. The original Greek doesn't support it. Head means a literal head or source as in the head or source of a stream. And the rest of the Bible doesn't support it.
So the two-headed monster argument falls flat because it means nothing when compared to the rest of the Bible.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
I Heard It Said Once
I met a fellow on line on an egalitarian board who was there to set all those wayward egals straight concerning what the Bible truly said.
He tried to be patient. He also had a heart for the abused, both male and female. And because of that sincere heart, I really couldn't completely dismiss him.
However, his solution for what ailed the world and Christian marriages was following the 'biblical' example of Patriarchy.
He was so sold on the idea that patriarchy was the biblical solution, the divine healing structure that he couldn't see that it was patriarchy that was causing so much of the trouble to begin with.He said something that I found to be absolutely stunning. It was something that he believed from the bottom of his heart.
He told me, "If you reject Patriarchy, you reject your heavenly Father."
Has anyone else ever heard this one? Does this man's claim hold up when compared to the words of Jesus?
Let's take a look.
Matthew 23:8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
I don't know about you folks. But it seems pretty clear from the above passage that Jesus was not concerned about maintaining Patriarchy or any hierarchy structure for that matter. So it appears that Jesus Himself is rejecting Patriarchy. And if Jesus rejects Patriarchy, then I believe it is safe to say that rejecting Patriarchy is not equivalent to rejecting our Heavenly Father.
He tried to be patient. He also had a heart for the abused, both male and female. And because of that sincere heart, I really couldn't completely dismiss him.
However, his solution for what ailed the world and Christian marriages was following the 'biblical' example of Patriarchy.
He was so sold on the idea that patriarchy was the biblical solution, the divine healing structure that he couldn't see that it was patriarchy that was causing so much of the trouble to begin with.He said something that I found to be absolutely stunning. It was something that he believed from the bottom of his heart.
He told me, "If you reject Patriarchy, you reject your heavenly Father."
Has anyone else ever heard this one? Does this man's claim hold up when compared to the words of Jesus?
Let's take a look.
Matthew 23:8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
I don't know about you folks. But it seems pretty clear from the above passage that Jesus was not concerned about maintaining Patriarchy or any hierarchy structure for that matter. So it appears that Jesus Himself is rejecting Patriarchy. And if Jesus rejects Patriarchy, then I believe it is safe to say that rejecting Patriarchy is not equivalent to rejecting our Heavenly Father.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
You Have Also Heard It Said
I'm going to pick on a specific thing that a specific small-minded man is quoted as saying. Mark Driscoll might be considered patriarchy light or medium to strong comp. Yet what he says is pretty standard fare among those involved in these teaching. He is just more bold in his presentation. He is quoted as saying:
"Women will be saved by going back to that role that God has chosen for them. Ladies, if the hair on the back of your neck stands up it is because you are fighting your role in the scripture.”
Now let's look at what Jesus said.
Luke 11:27 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.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
A woman in the crowd is so moved by what Jesus said that she cries out, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which you nursed."
She could not think outside her role or her body parts because that is all she had known. The highest blessing any woman could ever have is to be related to a great man, like Jesus. And the highest relationship that a woman can have with any man is to be his mother.
Jesus answer to her, contrary to some teaching, was NOT to diminish motherhood or women. It was to remove the eyes of those listening from the cultural restrictions on gender and to the freedom of the Spirit beyond gender constraints.
Women, contrary to what Driscoll and other teach, are not saved by fulfilling a role. They are not saved by using their female body parts to serve others. They are blessed and saved by...
Wait for it...
Hearing the Word of God and observing it. The same way men are blessed and saved. What a concept!
Now, if part of the word of God that Jesus was concerned about was about gender, don't you think He would have used this teachable moment with this woman to re-enforce the need for her to fulfill her role so she could be saved?
Yet, amazingly, He undercuts gender and role requirements of the culture and makes all things level and equal.
All people, male and female, are blessed by hearing the Word of God and observing it. They are not saved by playing a role.
Dear Mark Driscoll, the hair on the back of our necks is not standing up because we are fighting God. It is because you are presenting a false gospel and you are defiling the pure gospel with bitter teaching. You are falsely accusing women of fighting against God when the truth is, you misrepresent God.
Please, Mr. Driscoll, stop building your doctrinal house on the sand of the traditions of men and find the bedrock of Jesus Christ who you claim to serve. Where women, gender, and roles are concerned, you are a false shepherd preaching bitterness and misrepresenting it as sweet.
"Women will be saved by going back to that role that God has chosen for them. Ladies, if the hair on the back of your neck stands up it is because you are fighting your role in the scripture.”
Now let's look at what Jesus said.
Luke 11:27 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.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
A woman in the crowd is so moved by what Jesus said that she cries out, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which you nursed."
She could not think outside her role or her body parts because that is all she had known. The highest blessing any woman could ever have is to be related to a great man, like Jesus. And the highest relationship that a woman can have with any man is to be his mother.
Jesus answer to her, contrary to some teaching, was NOT to diminish motherhood or women. It was to remove the eyes of those listening from the cultural restrictions on gender and to the freedom of the Spirit beyond gender constraints.
Women, contrary to what Driscoll and other teach, are not saved by fulfilling a role. They are not saved by using their female body parts to serve others. They are blessed and saved by...
Wait for it...
Hearing the Word of God and observing it. The same way men are blessed and saved. What a concept!
Now, if part of the word of God that Jesus was concerned about was about gender, don't you think He would have used this teachable moment with this woman to re-enforce the need for her to fulfill her role so she could be saved?
Yet, amazingly, He undercuts gender and role requirements of the culture and makes all things level and equal.
All people, male and female, are blessed by hearing the Word of God and observing it. They are not saved by playing a role.
Dear Mark Driscoll, the hair on the back of our necks is not standing up because we are fighting God. It is because you are presenting a false gospel and you are defiling the pure gospel with bitter teaching. You are falsely accusing women of fighting against God when the truth is, you misrepresent God.
Please, Mr. Driscoll, stop building your doctrinal house on the sand of the traditions of men and find the bedrock of Jesus Christ who you claim to serve. Where women, gender, and roles are concerned, you are a false shepherd preaching bitterness and misrepresenting it as sweet.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
You Have Heard It Said Today
There are many cliches concerning "Christian" marriage flying around. They are modern day sayings that supposedly support the hierarchy of Compism or Patriarchy.
Let's look at one today:
"Someone has to be in charge."
I'm sure most of "you have heard it said": "Someone has to be charge."
It is an incredibly common phrase. It is also incredibly false when held up against the words of Jesus in red.
Let's look at those words.
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,
Mark10:42 Calling them to Himself, Jesus *said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;
Luke 22:24 And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ 26 But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.
These words of Jesus are mentioned in three out of four of the Gospels and meets the need of a matter being established by two or three witnesses.
[Matthew 18:16 BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.]
According to Jesus, whose credentials we established last week as the final word on all things, the saying that someone has to be in charge in a marriage is completely false. And in fact, whoever wants to be the boss or the leader, he (or she) must make themselves the servant. And Jesus did not mean servant leader, another off-the-wall-crazy-double-speak saying that is liberally thrown around. Jesus meant servant, as in SERVANT. Servant leader does not fit in this equation in any conceivable way without some major twisting and manipulating by people who don't want to obey Matthew 20:25-26, Mark 10:42-43, and Luke 22:24-26.
There are no loop-holes in these words in red, no matter how men want to read Peter and Paul
Let's look at one today:
"Someone has to be in charge."
I'm sure most of "you have heard it said": "Someone has to be charge."
It is an incredibly common phrase. It is also incredibly false when held up against the words of Jesus in red.
Let's look at those words.
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,
Mark10:42 Calling them to Himself, Jesus *said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;
Luke 22:24 And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ 26 But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.
These words of Jesus are mentioned in three out of four of the Gospels and meets the need of a matter being established by two or three witnesses.
[Matthew 18:16 BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.]
According to Jesus, whose credentials we established last week as the final word on all things, the saying that someone has to be in charge in a marriage is completely false. And in fact, whoever wants to be the boss or the leader, he (or she) must make themselves the servant. And Jesus did not mean servant leader, another off-the-wall-crazy-double-speak saying that is liberally thrown around. Jesus meant servant, as in SERVANT. Servant leader does not fit in this equation in any conceivable way without some major twisting and manipulating by people who don't want to obey Matthew 20:25-26, Mark 10:42-43, and Luke 22:24-26.
There are no loop-holes in these words in red, no matter how men want to read Peter and Paul
Monday, June 20, 2011
"You Have Heard It Said"
As we mentioned before, men have said all kinds of things about Jesus that simply weren't true.
People have also spoken things as divine truth that fell short of God's version of the truth.
In Matthew Chapter Five starting in verse twenty-one to the end of the chapter, Jesus starts dealing with what people say. Jesus lists six common sayings or understandings of correct behavior before God and then exposes how they fall short of how God really thinks.
If you have time, you can read the entire section, but for this post I thought we'd look at one in particular and show how history repeats itself.
One of the sayings is about divorce, which back then, only men could really do. And apparently it was very easy and a form of punishment when she didn't "obey" or "please" him as he thought fit.
Matthew 5:31 “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
So if the wife burnt the biscuits one too many times because the baby was colicky, it was no big deal for the husband to send her away with no support.
And Neo-Patriarchy is following in this sinful practice and calling it God's will.
The following is to a link speaking about the Neo-Patriarch's way to deal with rebellious wives, wives who won't obey their husbands.
What they have to say falls under the category of, "You have heard it said." Just remember that Jesus said, only unchastity is grounds for a husband to divorce his wife. If she doesn't obey him or prop him up as the master/king of the house, this is not grounds for divorce, no matter how much Neo-Patriarchs want to make it all about who is the boss. Jesus makes it clear, Brian M. Schwertly does not, in any imaginable way, speak on behalf of God. He speaks on behalf of Patriarchs everywhere.
http://equalitycentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=1271.0
People have also spoken things as divine truth that fell short of God's version of the truth.
In Matthew Chapter Five starting in verse twenty-one to the end of the chapter, Jesus starts dealing with what people say. Jesus lists six common sayings or understandings of correct behavior before God and then exposes how they fall short of how God really thinks.
If you have time, you can read the entire section, but for this post I thought we'd look at one in particular and show how history repeats itself.
One of the sayings is about divorce, which back then, only men could really do. And apparently it was very easy and a form of punishment when she didn't "obey" or "please" him as he thought fit.
Matthew 5:31 “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
So if the wife burnt the biscuits one too many times because the baby was colicky, it was no big deal for the husband to send her away with no support.
And Neo-Patriarchy is following in this sinful practice and calling it God's will.
The following is to a link speaking about the Neo-Patriarch's way to deal with rebellious wives, wives who won't obey their husbands.
What they have to say falls under the category of, "You have heard it said." Just remember that Jesus said, only unchastity is grounds for a husband to divorce his wife. If she doesn't obey him or prop him up as the master/king of the house, this is not grounds for divorce, no matter how much Neo-Patriarchs want to make it all about who is the boss. Jesus makes it clear, Brian M. Schwertly does not, in any imaginable way, speak on behalf of God. He speaks on behalf of Patriarchs everywhere.
http://equalitycentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=1271.0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)