In response to an earlier post on the Biblical institution of the patriarchy, Ken asks (in comments here):
1) How does a Christian respond to the claim that such bible passages are sexist? That word is so full of loaded meaning that trying to defend against its imputation is like saying you support Neo-Nazis.
Of course, that's just a label. It is a pejorative label, but the question we need to ask is why the person considers it sexist. Is it simply because it treats the sexes differently? Usually the answer is vapid. The answer is that the label was applied simply because the issue was sex-related, and the opinion was contrary to the opinion of the name-caller.
2) What is the ideal way to respond to a professed liberal Christian who would say that they have a deep personal faith but disdain to honestly interact with passages like these (that challenge modern and post-modern sentiments)?
Q1: A deep personal in faith in whom or what? The answer typically is Jesus/God.
Q2: Do you realize that Scripture is the word of God? The answer is usually yes.
Q3: Do you love Jesus/God? It's hard to find one who will say "no" at this point.
Q4: So, do you care what this person you love has to say? Naturally, they must affirm or we are back to Q3 and perhaps Q2 or Q1.
Q5: Here's what He says here ... do you agree with what is written?
and so forth.
The problem is, they usually try to change the subject as one is walking through. They would rather their faith be "personal" or perhaps they don't want to hear "preaching," or something like that.
-Turretinfan
N.B. Note that Ken is not objecting to the matter, he's just pointing out an objection we sometimes hear.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
2 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJeanne D'Albret and the Monstrous Regiment of Women - Part 1.
ReplyDeleteThe Calvinist founder of the Scots Presbyterian denomination, John Knox, wrote a pamphlet entitled, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. Its cardinal thesis is this:
To promote a Woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation or city is Repugnant to nature, Contumely to GOD, a thing most contrary to His revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.
However, despite all that John Knox wrote and taught in that treatise, have you ever heard of Jeanne d'Albret? She was the highest ranking woman among the Calvinist French Huguenots [a key historical fact for all that follows]. She was the reigning queen of Navarre, and she inherited her throne by virtue of being the only child of her father the King of Navarre. You think I am lying? On the contrary, I have documentary proof of these facts of the cas, which I will present in due order, if God wills it.
The fact that she was reigning queen of Navarre is known in all history books and admitted by all the parties, including Feminists, Egalitarians, Complementarians, and Patriachalists, to be undoubted and incontestable historical facts.
And irrespective of whether the Cardinal Thesis of the First Blast is true, she also violated 1 Timothy 2:12/13 by passing a series of Ecclesiastical Ordinances, thereby exercising authority over the men of her kingdom of Bearn and Navarre in ecclesiastical matters!
See http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2012/04/ecclesiastical-ordinances-of-jeanne.html.
In fact, they are entitled: "ECCESIASTICAL ORDINANCES Jeanne, Queen of Navarre, Sovereign Lady of Bearn On the entire restoration of the kingdom of Jesus Christ
in His sovereign country of Bearn; Jeanne, by the grace of God, Queen of Navarre, Sovereign Lady of Bearn [... followed by a series of hereditary titles ...]", all of which PROVE she was the reigning queen of Navarre!
The facts of history also show that most of the Huguenots in France NEVER made any effort to yield exact, instant, blind and unquestioning obedience to John Knox’s first blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women and diligently put it into practice in Navarre. But on the contrary, it is shown by accurate and trustworthy historical records that:
"Jeanne d'Albret believed in her absolute right over her subjects and showed intolerance with her confirmation of the D’Arros edict of January 1570, which closed Catholic churches and required obedience to the Calvinist Church"! [Diana Mary Robin, Encyclopedia of Women in the Renaissance, page 3.
Therefore if the cardinal Thesis of John Knox's First Blast is the true and accurate interpretation of the Law of God, and of binding obligation over Christians today, then it follows that these very facts alone are formally (as well as materially) sufficient to condemn her as an accursed thing and matter of obscenity and uncleanness which ought not to be named even ONCE among Christians! Therefore, except they purge that unclean thing from their camp, the Huguenots shall not be able to stand before their Papist enemies!
TO BE CONTINUED