Feminism - Also Contrary to Common Sense

I was directed to an interesting video titled, "Fempocalypse," by a Muslim blog. Here is the video:

The analysis seems to be basically godless (God is not mentioned, but Neanderthals are). The analysis, however, does highlight the fundamental problem that feminism is contrary to natural law - and we're seeing that in the consequence of feminism.

For those benighted people who think that patriarchy is just an ancient cultural norm, they really should listen to the video. We Christians don't hold to patriarchy because of the reasons that the lady in the video points out, but these reasons help to show why the Christian culture (borrowed by Islam) is not just morally right, but societally superior.

Feminism is not just evil and contrary to divinely revealed moral law, it's stupid and suicide for society. Some of the woman's complaints are more applicable to the UK than to the US, but the US will head that way, if feminism continues and patriarchy is not restored.

I want to reiterate, the reasons that the woman gives are not the reasons we Biblical Christians hold to patriarchy. We hold to patriarchy because the Bible plainly teaches that the husband is the head, that marriage is for life, and that the purpose of marriage and family is primarily the raising of godly offspring. The Bible plainly teaches patriarchy, not feminism. Therefore, we reject feminism regardless of feminism's consequences. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that the light of nature itself shows that feminism is wrong.

-TurretinFan

Why Men Shouldn't Be Ordained?

I understand the purpose of the top-ten list at this link, identifying supposed reasons that no men should be ordained.  That is, the purpose is to take some of the arguments against women's ordination and try to turn them on their head.  Ultimately, the list ends up refocusing us on the real issue why men are to be ordained and women are not: Scripture teaches it.

So, while I doubt the post at "Christian Feminism" (think "Hindu Cannibalism" or "Muslim Alcoholism") was intended for the purpose of recentering the debate on women's ordination, it does serve that purpose.

While a lot of the mocked statements may be real reasons why it is imprudent for women to serve as elders, they are not ultimately the real reason: the real reason is that God has decided.

-TurretinFan

No Women Pastors

It is crystal clear in Scripture that pastors must be men. It is totally unequivocal. Yet we still hear folks attempting to get around this:

1) Objection: The Scriptures are Culturally Conditioned

The reason given for women not teaching in the church goes back to the garden of Eden. That's not something culturally conditioned.

2) Objection: What if the woman is really edifying?

Given that Scripture clearly prohibits it, the answer is still "no," even if the woman is the best preacher since Spurgeon or Whitfield. We don't break God's commands because we think it's practical.

If one would permit one's wife or daughter to be a preacher on that ground, one might as well permit one's wife or daughter to be a harlot on the ground that it will permit her to evangelize more men that desperately need it. Surely there are few folks with consciences so seared that think that an acceptable mode of proceeding. The only reason then that people find Objection 2 persuasive is because they don't take God's prohibition on women pastors as seriously as they take the 7th commandment.

3) Objection: Not enough Bible verses say it!

How many times does God have to tell you something for you to believe it? All the objections are bad, but this one has to be the worst.

-TurretinFan

Is Roman Catholicism Getting some Feminist Influence?

Check out this article (link) in which the "Synod of Bishops on the Bible" proposes (with a significant minority vote of opposition) to "allow women to be officially installed in the ministry of lector" (lectella perhaps or lectra?). It's being sold as not that big a deal, I guess, since women were already routinely performing this role without stable ordination. I've seen some small reaction to this movement in Romanist circles, with John Zuhlsdorf seemingly opposed to the idea (link).

Presumably, the "Old Catholics" will simply find this a confirmation of the departure of modern Catholicism from the ancient practices and customs.

-TurretinFan

Voddie vs. Feminism

I found the presentation provided by Pastor Voddie T. Baucham, Jr. to be solid. Later, I found this link to more information about him (link).

The presentation follows:


One gospel preacher pitted against Kyra Phillips (of CNN's Newsroom) and Margaret Feinberg (an "evangelical speaker"). One does not envy his position. Nevertheless, Pastor Baucham wisely stuck to advocating Scripture.

-TurretinFan

Biblical Institution of Patriarchy - Objections Answered

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.

PCUSA Draws the Line

Apparently, although the PCUSA will continue to permit women to be ordained, they have drawn the line at allowing practicing homosexuals from being ordained. (link) This is a defeat for the ultra-liberals in the PCUSA. I wonder whether this will bring a welcome split within the PCUSA that would extract the most extreme liberal elements within that church.

-Turretinfan