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

Archive for the ‘Logic’ Category

The paradox of measuring happiness: Why you cannot take Yiannopoulos seriously if you have half a brain or more (Part 1)


In the communistic Soviet Union era, a Frenchman and a Russian talked about the meaning of true happiness.

“True happiness,” mused the Frenchman, “is enjoying good cuisine with your loved one, followed by great love-making.”

“No,” replied the Russian. “True happiness is when the KGB knocks on your door at 2 am in the morning, waking you up, shouting: ‘Ivan Ivanovich, open the door!’ And then being able to shout back: ‘Ivan Ivanovich lives next door!’ ” (Old joke)


Not everyone define “happiness” in the same way. That, in itself, is enough reason to be sceptical of this kind of claims by sexists:

“Every study shows the same thing: as women become freer, richer, better educated and have more choices, they get progressively more miserable,” – Milo Yiannopoulos


Does “the same things Jesus did and even greater things” contradict comp doctrine?

You know the comp claim that the marriage relationship is a symbol of the relationship between the church and Jesus, right? (From here on I will use the acronym SOREJAB for Symbol Of the RElationship between Jesus And his Body.)

And how, under their doctrines, women should stay at home and obey men and not preach, like the church stayed at home and obeyed Jesus and did not preach?Just kidding, of course. The church preached and did not stay at home, and spread the message of God as far as they went, and obeyed Jesus.

But here is the thing. Jesus, except for the hard part of dying to save us, which we could not do for ourselves, seems not to be so much into “roles” that is only for him or only for the church. Here are texts which make me believe he was not much into such “roles.”

2 Cor. 3:18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. – NIV

Christians become more like Jesus? Is women supposed to become more like men, then, by SOREJAB doctrine?

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” – NIV

Is serving only the role of Jesus, not the church? Of course not!

John 14:12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. (NIV)

If SOREJAB is good Bible interpretation, women should do the same things their husbands do and even greater things. Which is, of course, not a gender role. If men and women should picture Jesus and the church (Biblical Manhood and Womanhood doctrine), John 14:12 would blow gender roles (the prime purpose of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood doctrine) out of the water.

Who is to blame that your son is not masculine enough? A flow chart for conservative mothers

Many parents are very worried that our sons are not masculine enough nowadays. Take for example Pastor Pete N. Jones, apparently a fan of Doug Wilson. He made a list of questions for conservative mothers, asking them to ponder how they may cause their sons to not be masculine enough. For the sake of his readers, I summed up his points in a handy flow chart:

conservative women guide

Just kidding, of course. Masculinity is not some special thing boys have to learn to follow God. Males and females simply has to get the fruit of the Spirit. And male Christianity is not so different from female Christianity that Jesus could not be a model for women, or a mother for her boys.

Blaming women in church for what men are is easy, but God will ask men to account for themselves. Mothers (the church kind and the literal kind) will not be asked to give account for the choices of men.

A Biblical, logical argument for evangelical feminism

Premise 1: Jesus want God’s kingdom to come on earth as in heaven. (Mat 6:9-10)

Premise 2: Even complementarians admit that before God (in heaven), men and women (more…)

Reader question: Are there apologetics scholars in egalitarianism?

This letter comes from a reader:

For a long time, I’ve been a reader of Christian Apologetics websites. Since more recently, I’ve been a (male) reader of Christian anti-Fundamentalist and anti-Neopatriarchy websites like Recovering Grace. I used to read some websites that promoted these ideas, but my knowledge of Apologetics made me just uneasy enough about those sites to never fully commit, and my discovery of the active Christian web community that opposed these ideas helped me fully realize what a cesspool the Neopatriarchal movement is. (more…)

Why egalitarianism is not a slippery slope to endorsing homosexuality: Part 2

<< Part 1: Why the two issues are different, examples


What can an egalitarian or complementarian church offer gays?

For my example I will use a young women whose blog I recently read in my anti-porn, anti-prostitution feminism readings: She believes she is bisexual. She chooses to find love from women because she is afraid of men. What does the not-gay-affirming church have to offer someone like her? (more…)

Why egalitarianism is not a slippery slope to endorsing homosexuality: Part 1

( I mention same-sex child molesting in one example in my “examples” point, because a church that accepts their leaders doing it is obviously accepting same-sex acts, even criminal ones. This is not something all, or most, people with same sex attraction do, nor does the article imply it.)

slippery-slope-sign-2“Every figure, church and denomination that has publicly endorsed homosexuality — ‘gay Christianity’ — and transgenderism has without exception been egalitarian. This does not mean that every egalitarian endorses these sins, but it does mean that embracing egalitarianism puts you in tension…” – Owen Strachan

It is commonly asserted by complementarians that egalitarianism is a slippery slope to endorsing same-sex acts, transgenderism and the world views of the LGBT community, while complementarianism is a safeguard against it. I do not agree with them. Note that, for the sake of this article, I need to focus on people who endorse female subordination and accept same-sex activity/ LGBT community views, or who are egalitarian and does not. This does not say what your views should be, and except on transgender theory, not even what mine is. It asserts that the alleged tension is not there for an egalitarian who does not endorse ‘gay Christianity’ (Strachan’s word choice, Strachan’s quotation marks).

 The two issues depend on:

1) Different words to explain:

Egalitarian/ complementarian debate focuses on the meanings of words like ezer (helper), kephale (head), and hupotasso (submit). The former two are used in the Bible to describe God himself. The gay debate focuses on terms like eunouchos (eunuch), arsenokoites (literally a combination of man + bed as a verb) and malakos (effeminate/ soft). None of these describe God in the Bible.

2) Different Bible Passages:

Two of the about 5 texts that (seems to) speak against gay acts are in the ritual law of the Old Testament, while none of the primary texts on female subordination are. The three New Testament texts are mostly about seriously sinful behavior and attitudes, and the issue is exactly what it is that those texts see as wrong.

Tag Cloud