At first glance, I thought it had nothing to do with my work. “The Nashville Statement: A Coalition for Human Sexuality” is a document about LGBT issues. And while those issues are important and relevant in Christianity, they are not what this blog is about. But it comes from the Council of “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” (CBMW), which exists to promote sexism as a religious requirement for Christians. Then I looked at it a second time.
The Nashville statement is insidious. It purports to be about gay and transgender issues. But, between the lines, it assumes and promotes sexism.
To make it even worse, it contains not a single Bible text, making the meaning even more vague. (For example, suppose someone said: “Man and woman are made different – Gen. 1:27″. I would understand it differently from if he said “Man and woman are made different – Eph. 5:22″. The latter takes a text out of the “all believers should submit to one another – Eph 5:21” and “God shows no favouritism – Eph 6:9” context to promote sexism.)
Sexism and gender roles is a the central tenet of CBMW. Read the rest of this entry »
I just encountered an absurd new definition of egalitarianism. I do not know what group teaches it, but I do know members of that group will read my blog and completely misunderstand it. A commenter on this blog claimed:
“…egalitarianism places women’s equality and worth on our ability to function sexually and socially as males. The term to function sexually-socially here should be treated as a whole-not two separate entities.
Let me explain using simple biology: male sexuality itself is free from pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and raising children and this biological reality has always enabled men to be the ones to go outside of the home and have a career-even if it is plowing [sic] the fields. Once our society changed its primary desire of child raising for a desire for sensuality and materialism then the males ability to exchange child free sexual pleasure which allowed them to have a career and earn money was highly desired by both sexes. Therefore, a woman needs to absolutely sterilize herself during her childbearing years once she is sexually active in order to gain and have the same equality and functionality of a male which liberates her from children and the home.”
There are several strange assumptions in that quote:
Assumption 1: Being free from childbirth, pregnancy, and raising children is acting like men. Read the rest of this entry »
Feminist: “Women make 76c to every dollar a man makes.”
Someone else (typically a man): “Remember that men chooses the better-paying, more dangerous jobs. And women take more leave for family reasons. And … And…”
Dear guy-who-try-to explain: Feminists already know that. Read the rest of this entry »
“Heretic” is a big charge. Saying someone is “not a Christian” is a judgment not to hurl around lightly. We should not, for example, swing such accusations at those who disagree with us on what the “mark of the beast” means, or on the place speaking in tongues should have in modern-day worship. But certain ideas are really beyond the fray of Christian belief.
I have written before that it is possible to treat male headship in such a way that the man replaces Jesus. That would certainly not be compatible with Christianity. Others have expanded on why they find ESS (Eternal Submission of the Son, a doctrine used to justify female submission) outside the fray of orthodoxy.
To add to that, here is an exhibit on why I think the Council of Biblical™ Manhood and Womanhood really don’t understand the gospel: Read the rest of this entry »
Note: This blog entry is not a teaching, but a suggestion for an approach that may or may not help. If you find anything true and meaningful going down this avenue, great. If not, ignore it.
We are used to assuming “head” (Greek kephale), used over and over in 1 Cor 11:2-16, means two vastly different things. We are even sure we know where it means a literal body part with eyes, mouth and nose, and where it does not.
How about starting with the assumption that the word is used in one way throughout the passage, and seeing where that leads us?
Premise 1: The head of every man is Christ (:3)
Premise 2: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (:4)
Conclusion A: Men should not pray or prophesy with Jesus covered. It dishonors Jesus.
Premise 3: A man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God (:7)
Conclusion B, from premise 1 and 3: The motive for not covering Jesus is him being the image and glory of God. Read the rest of this entry »
When I Google “can you be a Christian and a feminist“, I find two things:
1) Articles claiming today’s feminism goes beyond equality to [sinful attitudes], and you cannot.
2) Articles on the equality and dignity given to both sexes at creation, how Jesus treated women, women leaders in the Bible, etc., claiming you can be a feminist for Jesus.
The “Jesus was a feminist” folks (my people!) are doing a great job, but they do not bridge the gap between “feminism is for equality and this is good” and “feminism is for more than equality and this is bad.” This article will try to bridge that gap, to actually discuss the talking points of the anti-feminists.
Claim 1: ” Today’s feminists goes beyond equality to [insert sinful attitudes]”
Read the rest of this entry »
Reba caught her employee stealing, and fired her. The ex-employee took her to the CCMA, a South African court for labour disputes. “What?”, bellowed the judge. “You fired her for stealing R3 000? Why, there are people a lot worse of off than you! I would respect you if you stood up for victims of the Antwerp Diamond Center robbery! Or the Schiphol Airport Heist! Or the Central bank of Iraq robbery! Read the rest of this entry »