There is a statement that makes feminists of all stripes cringe. Call it false testimony, call it the straw man fallacy, call it begging the question, the point still remain: This is not an accurate representation of feminism. Whether we talk of first wave, second wave or third wave, whether we talk of Christian egalitarianism, radical feminism or liberal feminism, this pervasive lie never becomes the truth. Sadly, many of those who propagate this lie are Christians: Read the rest of this entry »
I have argued before that the Nashville Statement, seemingly about gay and transgender people, is actually a stealth way to make evangelicals sign on sexist values. Here is another piece of evidence.
The CBMW web page currently start with the Nashville statement right beside their Danvers statement on Biblical™ Manhood and Womanhood. These are the first and biggest things you see on the web page of an organization which exist to promote gender roles:
Almost at the top of the list of initial signatories, and one of the main endorsers, is Russell Moore. In a 2007 interview i, Moore said:
“… most of the people in our churches are in same-sex marriages right now, they just don’t realize it. Because you have people who have marriages in which we do not have male headship, you do not have male protection…”
According to Moore, to let go of male headship in marriage is to embrace same-sex marriage. As such, any statement about gays in the Nashville statement is also read, by Moore at least, as anti-egalitarian. And if all Christians are supposed to agree with them (Article 10 of the Nashville Statement), all Christians have to agree to stand for male headship in marriage.
i “Feminism in your Church and Home with Russell Moore, Randy Stinson, and C.J. Mahaney” – 9 Marks podcast 2007
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 Christians1. 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 has not a single Bible text, making the meaning even more vague. (For example, suppose someone said: “Man and woman were created to be different – Gen. 1:27″. I would understand it differently from if he said “Man and woman were created to be 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 dollar1 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 »