Women: The indirect, mediated and derivative of Male?

I wanted to talk about the Petition that is on Change.org (I was told this site has issues with FireFox), and I wanted you to know WHY I signed it.  It has nothing to do with the debate over Egalitarians versus Complementarians.  Its about the meanings behind the teachings I see that are presented much differently than most seem to think.


I have no doubt some may find the language rather harsh, but when I researched some of the messages of their mantra (CBMW) – equal in worth, but differing roles – I found it to be very deceptive.   I found it ugly and insulting, and I can’t believe in this day and age people truly have this starting point of belief towards their fellow humans.  It’s the not ‘differing roles’ so much as their definition of ‘equal in worth’.  We will discuss today what they mean by that.

First, lets start out on a positive note!

I heard a very inspiring video this morning by Pakistani educator Ziauddin Yousafzai.  He stated in the video that in his country men are known by their sons, but in his case he is known by his daughter.  For this he is proud.

"Malala used to be known as my daughter, but now I’m known as her father," he said to the crowd. "In patriarchal societies, fathers are known by their sons. I am known by my daughter and proud of it."

Its true that people around the world know his daughter's name, and were shocked when she was shot in the face a point blank range just for going to school.  Most people know who Malala is.  Unlike many from her country this girl is a sense of pride for her family.

As you listen to his video you realize how badly women are viewed, and they are not looked at as a fellow humans.  Their society teaches girls from a very young age that their main responsibility is obedience.   They must be silent, meek and submissive.  She is not allowed to be an individual, because she will be looked upon as disobedient.

If she crosses some imagery line its perfectly acceptable for the men to kill her to save their honor.  Her obedience is her reflection of worth.  Lack of that obedience brings dishonor, and justification for the harm that comes to her.

If you think about that for a moment?  They must do some major mind gymnastics to view her as something other than 100% human.  If they can't view her as subhuman?  They may not be able to do the things we read about that happens to women in that part of the world.  They are able to separate the humanity in her, and that not only harms her…but everyone in her life and society.

Thankfully,  in my part of the world this cultural mindset is not acceptable.  Her father is a breath of fresh air, and I have no doubt his daughter is also proud of him.

What I do object is in my part of the world is being told that I am a derivative form of human.  I may have equal worth, but due to my derivative form I have differing roles in life.  Obedience to that teaching – we are told – is within God’s will. 

If I can NOT accept their teaching of my creation I am labeled;  Feminist, Jezebel, Harlot, Witch, etc.

I am told that I don’t know the difference between male and female, and that I wish to melt the genders together to have an genderless society.  That is perfectly okay for the male not knowing how to be male, and woman not knowing how to be female.  Yeah – okay then.  We are after genderless blobs right?

No.  That’s not it at all.  I don’t wish to be viewed as some indirect image of God, and some derivative form of male. 

I know what your thinking!  WOW, Hannah that is kind of out there isn’t it?  Yeah, it is OUT THERE yet that is what is TAUGHT!  Let’s look at a quote off their website, and the speaker is Bruce Ware:

It may be best to understand the original creation of male and female as one in which the male was made in the image of God in a direct, unmediated and unilateral fashion, while the female was made image of God through the man and hence in a indirect, mediated and derivative fashion. So while they are both fully image of God, there is also  God intended priority given to the man as the original image of God through whom the woman, as image of God, derived from the male comes to be…Bruce Ware in his lecture Building Strong Families in Your Church

When you can view the other gender as a byproduct of yourself?  An indirect, mediated, derivative form of human?  That is how its perfectly acceptable to say some of the awful things we hear, because it is taught that the male is the OEM (original equipment manufacturer) of the human race. 

Being the OEM the – direct, unmediated form of human – its easier to view the Non OEM partner as they do.  Yes, they say but the OEM and Non OEM are both loved equally by God.  Yet, you need to remember that God intended priority to the OEM…not the derivative.  That’s according to quote above.

Let’s look at a couple of verses from Genesis 1.  This was before God took the rib out of Adam.

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
or
Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

Notice the language in Genesis I states “US” not me.  Of “THEM” not male, and his indirect, derivative form of helper.

Just like in Malala’s country when you are brought up from cradle to grave under the belief system that females are NON OEM brand human compared to males?  You can be justified in thinking you have headship and authority, because you are told you have PRIORITY over others. 

In this way, you can justify in your mind that obedience to your biblical role acknowledges your worth.

Ziauddin Yousafzai said he taught girls to ‘unlearn’ the lesson of obedience, because of their meaning of the word and all it entailed.

Today, I pointed out the meaning of the phrase ‘equal in worth’.  You need to make the decision yourself if that definition of ‘equal in worth’ is acceptable.

Please consider signing the petition on Change.org.  (The website I am told has a hard time with the firefox browser, so please use other one.  ie: Chrome, Internet Explorer, etc) Add your name to list of humans that want the world to know that female is not the NON OEM brand of human.

In closing, a quote from Ziauddin Yousafzai:
People ask me what is special is in my mentorship which has made Malala so bold and courageous and vocal and poised? I tell them, “Don't ask me what I did.  Ask me what I did not do.  I did not clip her wings….and that's all.

Additional Reading:
News Story about this Petition:  Petition asks gender-role group to repent
Petition to Demand for an Apology from CBMW – by Shirley Taylor
Why Protesting "Equal But Subordinate" is Not Just Me Having a Problem with Authority
Petition CBMW for an Apology Along with Me, for the Sake of Liberty and Love

Headship in Heaven–Part two

When I wrote to you last time about an article CBMW put up regarding ‘Headship is Heaven’?  People from all over the internet were talking about how the article went offline after some serious criticism of the opinion given in the article itself.  It wasn’t so much that the website no longer showed the article, but the substance within the article that was seriously troubling.

Since that time Associate Baptist Press took up the story, and went into more details about the troubling nature of the content of the article.  The fact that the article was taken down?  It was more of a side note, as you can read for yourself in: 

Pastor says male/female roles will continue in heaven

 

Owen Strachan, executive director of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) responded finally to the uproar over the article.  Unfortunately, he didn’t address the concerns about the article itself.  Instead, he complained that it was website glitch, and mentioned a ‘standing tendency on the part of a small group of anti-CBMW folks to misconstrue our motives’

 

Below are the bullet points he felt were ‘misinterpreted’

1st paragraph: “…article posted online recently…” (His point was the article is rather old, and was reprinted)

2nd Paragraph: “A 7,000-word article… apparently was taken down” (website glitch)

5th to last paragraph: “the group’s executive director said in a blog post…” (He was saying that week’s article had nothing to do with the website glitch, and yet that wasn’t the context of what Bob Allen said either.)

3rd to last paragraph: “Denny Burk, associate professor of biblical studies and ethics at Boyce College, is the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood editor.” (His point was Denny Burk wasn’t even there at the time the article was written.  Bob Allen never said he was, and again took what was said out of context.)

 

So for whatever reason he deflected the controversy over to something that really had nothing to do with it.  The Bob Allen of the Associate Baptist Press wrote a follow up article, Director of gender-roles council denies scrubbing article.

 

Shortly there after the article in question was back online, but concerns about the article itself?  Still go unanswered. 

Twitter / ostrachan: Unfortunately, @abp_rh relied ... via kwout

Headship in Heaven–According to CBMW

What is 'Sameness'?  I read a paper written by pastor Mark David Walton that tends to have complementarian leanings, and I have a REALLY hard time wrapping my mind around where he comes up with some of the 'conclusions'. 

He needed to start by pointing out the differences between his way of believing, and of course egalitarians.  As you might have guessed the ‘sameness’ concept came up.

The pastor wanted to present his opinions on, Roles and Relationships in New Creation.  Yet, it seems CBMW decided they would take the article down, and my picture above is what you find now. 

NO fear!  Hannah grabbed a ‘cache’ shot from the internet, and its STILL available.  Here you GO!  At the beginning of the article he mentions a previous one that he wrote, and I guess this article is a follow up for it.    Here is the original article.  What We Shall Be:  A Look at Gender and the New Creation  By: Mark David Walton

What was he discussing?

Will there be ‘headship’ in heaven?  Will the roles still be present?  WELL – according to them – OF course there will be!

Since we will be in the presence of God – the ultimate authority – it would seem strange as too WHY this portion of their role would even be needed if we were honest about it.  (sarcasm mode on) I guess they don’t feel God would take this away from them in Heaven like they feel today’s feminist’s have! (end of sarcasm)

Below is a quote from the author, and the BLUE text is a source he quoted from.  His quotes are from a man named, Randy Alcorn.  I haven’t figure out how to ‘double quote’ within Windows Live Writer yet!  Sorry about that!

Feminists, both secular and evangelical, define equality in terms of functionality rather than ontologically-on the basis of being. They err by effectively reducing equality to "sameness,"11 and in so doing embrace one of liberalism's foundational concepts, namely, that parity is the social ideal.12 We can be certain, however, that the new creation will be characterized, not by sameness but by incredible diversity-diversity of abilities, diversity of gifts, and diversity of rewards. Alcorn, addressing the question of equality in the new creation, merits inclusion here:
All people are equal in worth, but they differ in gifting and performance. . . . Because God promises to reward people differently according to their differing levels of faithfulness in this life, we should not expect equality of possessions and positions. . . . There's no reason to believe we'll all be equally tall or strong or that we'll have the same gifts, talents, or intellectual capacities. If we all had the same gifts, they wouldn't be special. If you can do some things better than I can, and I than you, then we'll have something to offer each other. . . . diversity-not conformity-characterizes a perfect world.13
The new creation will, indeed, be a place where equality reigns-but not as feminists define the term. It will be equality as biblically defined, equality that has its basis in divinely established human worth.

I have yet to run into one human that felt equality was:  equally tall, strong, everyone having the same gifts, talents or intellectual capacities.  The blue quote is from Randy Alcorn, whom is another person that has rather out there views of Egalitarians.  I will get to him later.

So I was a bit perplexed as to what 'feminist' he has ran into, spoken to, or read their material that stated that humans must be the above in order to have equality.

You notice the man doesn't reference any 'feminist' that stated this either.   Nope!  If you check the footnotes in the above quote?  They all come from the same source – CBMW authors, and friends of the complementarian belief system.

It always amazed me that people could 'grasp' the concept during civil rights movement that minorities wanted people to acknowledge that all humans are equal.  One race of people did not have more 'worth' than they other.  That one race shouldn't be barred from something due to their race.  There were many other issues, and we all know them.

The point is it has nothing to do with this author's definition of 'sameness'. 

If I were guessing?  Chances are pretty STRONG this man understands what the civil rights definition of equality is, and how it had nothing to do with 'sameness'.

Funny, when it comes to 'women' in the church wanting a sense of equality?  These men pretend to be morons.  They are just incapable of making the connection due to their 'mental age'.

JUST to be clear what my definition of the word moron is?  I'll quote from a dictionary online:

"Moron" was coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard[3] from the Ancient Greek word μωρός (moros), which meant "dull"[4] (as opposed to oxy, which meant "sharp" (see also: oxymoron)), and used to describe a person with a mental age in adulthood of between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale.[5] It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51–70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26–50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0–25). The word moron, along with others including, "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, but it is now deprecated in use by psychologists.[6]

I have to be frank here!  I have a feeling this 'moron' state is pretty conditional, because I have no doubt in my mind their mental age is higher than 8-12 years old.  Yet, for some reason they feel the need to lower it in order to make their point.

WHY that is the logical or a rational approach to presenting your point of view?  Your guess is as good as mine!

I mean anyone with a brain can figure out that 'sameness' per his description isn't humanly possible.  Everyone with the ‘same’ everything?!

I mean it doesn't even make sense.

As far as 'ontologically"?  Let's define what Ontology means. 

1:  a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
2:  a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence

So, I would gather that the author seems to feel that when 'humans' (correction - only FEMINST humans) speak of equality they only refer to 'functionality' – per his ‘factual’ footnotes.  Remember the ones from CBMW.

They (Feminists, both secular and evangelical) don't use the same dictionary?  (shrugs) I guess not.  No footnote for that source? OH well!  I guess being a ‘biblical authority’ we should take his word for it right?!

I mean where is the common dictionary that defines this as 'the study of functionality'?  He didn't link to it, and he should to support his point.

Here is another thing!

I have no idea how that ties into the concept of everyone being 'equally tall' or 'equally strong'.  Feminist or not it doesn't take a genius to figure out that isn't possible. 

Call me crazy but what has tallness or strength have to do with 'functionality' anyway?  Can someone connect the dots for me?  I'm lost.

I have no doubt there are some that will buy into what he has to say, and are completely baffled by 'those' that think like this.  Honestly?  I would be too.  It doesn’t make any sense.

I suppose if I tried hard enough I could go out and find someone that thinks like that.  Yet, since they are not mainstream I don't see the point of wasting my time.  The bigger problem as I see it is the claim this type of person IS mainstream!

Where is the evidence of this?  WELL besides their footnotes to CMBW, and other complementarian sources? None.

I mean I could pick some whack a doddle that is complementarian, and present it as 'mainstream'...but it doesn't make it so!

Sadly, what it really shows is the 'agenda'.  Below is a quote from an egalitarian after hearing Randy Alcorn tell you about ‘egalitarians’. 

Aside from Randy Alcorn’s blatant misrepresentation of biblical egalitarians (Good grief! No biblical egalitarian claims God the Father submits to God the Son! The issue is whether or not the Son is eternally subordinate or temporally subordinate to the Father during his incarnation.), this buffoonery is inexcusable from otherwise educated men!

I took that quote from this blog,   He was commenting from a brief video presentation from YOU guess it ‘friends of CBMW’!

What they do NOT understand is its not that hard today to seek out their 'claims' towards the other side of the debate.

They only thing they count on is from most people?  Is to NOT check it out for themselves to see if it is true.  They pretty much expect that since they present themselves as the 'biblical authority'.  If you get down to the footnotes – which most people won’t – they might be surprised as to WHERE they are getting this information from.  Yep, their preacher buddies!

I have to be frank here.

When people feel the need to be so disingenuous, and also to outright misrepresent the other side of things?  It makes me leary of them, and quite frankly trust is throw right out the window.

Its sad, because on other fronts they are extremely knowledgeable...and you can indeed learn from them.

Yet, when they act so childish towards others?  You are less likely to read anything they have to say at all. 

The strange thing is that I have heard some of the extremists from that side state they would LOVE to sit down, and talk - instead of throwing barbs back and forth.

I honestly think that would be very hard to do when they don't even seem to grasp what egalitarians actually stand for, believe, and what their definition of equality means.

I mean I just can't see them admitting they have misrepresented things first, and they would have to before any discussion starts.

This is why I feel the debates within the Christian community don't seem to happen so their can be some sort of reconciliation. 

If you can’t get past this?  There is NO WAY they can convince me – or any other rational person that there is ‘headship in heaven’. 

Yes, his theory is very disturbing.  Below are other links actually discussing the articles:

A letter to our sisters, on biblical womanhood in heavenly places

Is the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Drinking Mormon-Flavored Koolaid?

Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven

We CALL OUT SIN here…well except for our own.

I read an article today called, ‘Sharing Cake with Prostitutes and Gay Couples, Alike’.

 

There was a video attached to the article, and I have to tell you this man was very entertaining!

The Whore’s Birthday Party

 

You notice each time you mention to uppity Christians that their approach to things at times isn’t very attractive they get all bent out of shape?

 

He called them the Country Club Christians, and he has a point.  Its an attitude more than ‘literally’ being part of a Country club…yet (snickers) you know they will mention that don’t belong to one anyway.

 

You have a lady that no doubt has been used and abused all of her life, and if I were guessing someone that never knew love, compassion, or experienced any true empathy.  Yet, the owners of the diner he went to that night mentioned what a nice person she is.  Despite what profession she has?  What a GOOD person she is. 

 

The Pastor above brought decorations, and the diner baked a birthday cake for the next night when she came for her break at 3:30 in the morning.  The owner of the diner had a wife, and she sent out WORD that they were going to Celebrate Agnes’s Birthday.  She had quite a crowd that came to join her.

 

At the end of the story she (Agnes) didn’t want to cut her cake, but wanted to bring it 2 doors down first to show it to her mother.  She would be back, but she wanted her mother to see it first.  As we know from the story she never had a birthday celebration her entire life.

 

What they didn’t go into in the video that I can see happening?  She went to show her mother the cake that she was so proud of, and in return her mother gave her some nasty response.  Yes, similar to her friend’s response in the story when she mentioned she never had a Birthday party in her life.

 

Why would they do that for you?  What, now you are all ‘special’ because someone BAKED you a cake?  Did they cough up cash as presents since they took time away from your job to do this?  If they didn’t give you cash for your time…it was a waste of time.

 

Anyone else familiar with this attitude?  Someone that wants to take the wind out of your sails?

 

Now the Country Club Christians would be quick to mention that ‘Christian’ parents would never be that cruel.

 

Sure, maybe they wouldn’t be that cruel to their children…but what about to Agnes (the prostitute)?  Notice their response had NOTHING to do with her.  Sadly, it has to everything to do with THEM…instead. 

 

Now lets read what he said at the end of the video.  She had just left to go to her mother, and there was a uncomfortable silence…and he began to pray:

 

….and I prayed that God would make her new because we are here to declare the good news.  That no matter where you have been, or what you have done Jesus can make you new.

When I finished the prayer, Harry (owner of the diner) leaned across the counter and said,

“HEY Campolo you told us you were a sociologist. YOUR a PREACHER!  What kind of church you preach in?”

And in one of those moments when you come up with JUST the right words...

I said, “I preach at a church that throws birthday parties for whores at 3:30 in the morning!”

I never forget his response. NEVER!

He said, “NO you DON'T,  Nahh you don't.”

He said, “I would JOIN a church like THAT!”

Wouldn't we all??

Wouldn't we all LOVE to join a church that threw Birthday Parties for whores at 3:30 in the morning!

I got news for YOU!  I GOT NEWS FOR YOU! 

That is the kind of church that Jesus came to create!  I don't know where we came up with this one that is 1/2 country club! 

Jesus came to create a people that would give people parties that have no parties!  Celebration into the lifes that have NOTHING TO CELEBRATE!

If all you got to offer a bowl of soup and some clothes ...its not enough.  Jesus came and said that my joy might be in YOU! and that your JOY might be FULL!  And we must do more than just give them bread and some clothes.

We have to bring love and joy into their lifes.

 

Now, notice at times when people bring home a HUGE point like he has?  They will be begin to tear him down.  You know like the media does towards politics they don’t like?!

 

His confession of faith isn’t just right.  He believes this, and we all know THAT is wrong!  What he says about Jesus on other issues is wrong…YOU know the drill!  He must be one of ‘those’.

 

They divert the point that he made that was correct, and figured out ways of discrediting him instead.  They find something about him they disagree with, and just assume everything that comes out of his mouth from then on…is wrong too.

 

Here is one comment about the video that tends to make the point stronger: 

 

don't think anyone would refute the notion that prostitutes' birthdays are valid.
Furthermore, if a prostitute announced, in church, that she had accepted the Lord Jesus as her savior on Sunday, but sold her body to a strange man on Saturday night, are we to believe that her confession was genuine? Does that church have the right and/or the responsibility to perform biblical church discipline or to reject her as a member?
Finally, if I claim that homosexuality is not a sin, must I then also claim that prostitution is not a sin?

 

Notice the poster went down a LONG whining road that has NOTHING to do with the point that was made?  Matter of fact it better much ‘validated’ it.

 

He was willing to give a prostitute some bread – by allowing her the opportunity to accept Jesus…yet was not willing to do more.  No, reminding us that he has the RIGHT or RESPONSIBILITY to perform discipline…and reject her is a MUCH more the important point.  HE MUST be able to call out SIN, but what about finding ways to bring love and joy? 

 

That extra step beyond the bread is so important, and it SHOULD be so in your face OBVIOUS too.  Yet, getting defensive and showing our country club attitude is the response instead.  Next, they will claim that ISN’T what is keeping people from the Lord’s house!

 

Notice that this ‘Christian’ did the same thing her mother did in my example. 

 

Why would I do that for you? What, now you are all ‘special’ because you accepted Jesus as your Savior? Did you stop sleeping with strange men on Saturday? I have the biblical RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to perform church discipline, and reject you as a member.  YOU were a waste of time, because we call SIN out here.

 

Nice right?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

New International Version (NIV)

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

⁸ Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.