Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

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 »

10-waysWhen 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 »

unsilencedAlan Garrett sent me a copy of his book to review, and it was a pleasure to read.

This well-researched scholarly book makes the case for women in ministry, by explaining what the Bible says of women, their service to God, and their leadership. It covers Read the rest of this entry »

This is a meme on the “creation order” argument. You are welcome to share it on social media if you want. Read the rest of this entry »

Tag Cloud