Category: Uncategorized

Larry reveals the limits of dogma:

Wherever one person is said to be the “head” of another person (or persons),the person who is called the “head” is always the one in authority (such as the general of an army, the Roman emperor, Christ, the heads of the tribes of Israel, David as head of the nations, etc.) Specifically, we cannot find any text where person A is called the “head” of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons. So we find no evidence for your claim that “head” can mean “source without authority.””

Simply wrong, the NT states that “God is the head of Christ”…Unless you subscribe so subordinationalism, one of Arius’ errors, this passage cannot be taken to mean that God is superior to Christ. It would make Christ a second class God.

Follow the line of thought here, which is inspired by the feminist desire to find Biblical support for an equalitarian doctrine of equal partnership in marriage.

1. Ignore the direct commands to obedience.
2. Interpret “head” to mean “source”, then deny that “source” conveys any authority.
3. When it is shown that “source” does convey authority, argue against this based on an inference that there is no hierarchical authority within the three aspects of the Father, Son and Counselor despite the obvious authority inherent in the Father-Son relationship.

This isn’t logical reasoning, this is stubborn and pernicious rationalization of the sort usually seen in Supreme Court justices prone to penumbra-spotting. And it is easily proven false by any number of Scriptural examples, here are four examples from the single chapter of John 15 alone which demonstrate the falsehood of Larry’s dogmatic assertion that the Son is not subordinate to the Father.

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.”

“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.”

“If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.”

“They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.”

It is clear, again, that one cannot reasonably argue that Jesus Christ is equal to God and not subordinate to Him without simultaneously arguing that any individual Christian is equal to Jesus Christ and not subordinate to him either. It is not terribly surprising that those who argue that there is no Biblical command for women to obey men within marriage soon find themselves in the position of denying their own duty to obey Jesus Christ or the Father.

And continuing to engage in ever more specious illogic, Larry finds himself forced to rely on an obviously false equation:

No, it is exactly the issue, it is impossible to be always subordinate in role without being subordinate in nature. What someone can do is a function of what they are. It’s kind of sad that some would rather embrace Arianism rather than give up their supposed “headship” over women.

The naturally superior man is often subordinated in role to his inferior, indeed, this was the great complaint of Friedrich Nietzsche. Plato’s Republic is the first of many efforts by the subordinately superior to build a case to provide them with a role concomitant with their inherent natural superiority. Larry’s feminine, passive-aggressive conclusion, which he provides in lieu of directly answering the criticisms raised, provides a potential explanation for why the doctrine of equal partnership is so appealing to him, as it frees him from assuming the burden of responsibility that goes with authority.

It’s princes who have all the fun, after all.

I am still waiting for an explanation of how ANY translation of kephale frees women from the command “to submit to your husbands in everything”, or how a party subject to submission in everything is not under the authority of that to which it must submit. Furthermore, it is clear that submission is equivalent to obedience in this passage, as 1 Peter 3 makes clear:

For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

The fact that Christian women resist submission primarily due to fear of their husband’s inadequate leadership should suffice to prove my case. No contortions, appeals to ancient authority or cultural relativism are necessary to it, only a belief that the Bible is indeed the Word of God.

A leading international business consultant offers relationship advice:

What would you say to a woman who wants a career but is afraid to do so because she wants to start a family?

Doctor Monique Siegel: I would tell her to talk to her fiancé and lay down the law. If a woman wants to work outside the family, she has to settle that first at home. What does it mean for us to have a child? Who is going to take care of it? Are you going to give up part of your career because I did not study in order to sit at home and baby-sit my children?

I’m not saying that you’d have to be brain-dead in order to go ahead and marry a woman like this after having such a giant red flag waved in your face, but it sure would help. Of course, this “Dr. Siegel” is obviously a figment of my imagination, since everyone knows that no one could possibly give such overtly stupid advice. It must be a strawfeminist!

The bolder and more confident that feminists become, the more surely they guarantee the extinction of their devolutionary ideology. They don’t want to have children, men don’t want to marry them… it won’t be long before young men wise up enough to avoid dating them altogether. On the plus side, of course, they’ll have no distractions to keep them from shattering the various glass ceilings that trouble them so.

And the Messiah has not yet come. This can’t bode well:

In a closed-door meeting this week in an undisclosed site near Baltimore, a committee of Jewish legal experts who set policy for Conservative Judaism will consider whether to lift their movement’s ban on gay rabbis and same-sex unions.

In 1992, this same group, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, declared that Jewish law clearly prohibited commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples and the admission of openly gay people to rabbinical or cantorial schools. The vote was 19 to 3, with one abstention.

Since then, Conservative Jewish leaders say, they have watched as relatives, congregation members and even fellow rabbis publicly revealed their homosexuality. Students at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City, the movement’s flagship, began wearing buttons saying “Ordination Regardless of Orientation.” Rabbis performed same-sex commitment ceremonies despite the ban.

The direction taken by Conservative Jews, who occupy the centrist position in Judaism between the more liberal Reform and the more strict Orthodox, will be closely watched at a time when many Christian denominations are torn over the same issue. Conservative Judaism claims to distinguish itself by adhering to Jewish law and tradition, or halacha, while bending to accommodate modern conditions.

If we recollect how God treats His Chosen People every time they decide to start ignoring His commands given to them in their holy scriptures, I can’t imagine that this is a good sign for Jewry. When I was a kid, reading the Old Testament, it always puzzled me that the Jews would ignore God, get the Hell beaten out of them by the Assyrians, the Hittites or somebody, shape up for a few generations, and then go right back to worshipping idols again.

So naturally, it makes sense that after twenty-five years of AIDS ravaging the homosexual community, the Conservative Jews are considering embracing homosexuality. As long as they’re at it, why don’t they just go for broke and set up a golden calf in the middle of New York City.

Not that the Christian church is a whole lot better on the obedience thing, but you’d think that Jews, with their consscious dedication to tradition and remembrances, would have a better collective memory.

MC is convinced that the church is lying to women:

I’m not a feminist, I’m a stay-at-home-mom and babysat my g-child her first 5 years. I believed in the submission misteaching for a long time, then I learned: The Bible says the man is the head of the *woman,* not of the household.

Moreover, the word *head* is from a Greek word meaning *source*, not leader.Furthermore, the whole passage starts with submission to one another, and includes men submitting to wives, honoring them so their prayers be not hindered. Please read 10 Lies the Church Tells Women and/or see some insights into the Greek.

So, what can we logically conclude from this supposedly corrected teaching?

1. Jesus Christ being the “head” of the church grants him no authority over the church or leadership within it.

2. Since men are to submit to their wives, this relieves women of the burden of submitting to her husband in all things, of obeying him, of not denying him sexually and so forth. One wonders, of course, how the “mutually submissive” can explain the need for one equal partner to obey the other.

3. There is no leader within a household.

4. There is no special relationship between husband and wife, since Christians are also told to submit to one another outside the marriage relationship.

I can’t imagine how this interpretation could possibly lead to weakened marriages and an enervated Christian Church, can you? Take a shot as to who has produced this defense of an “equal partners” doctrine, I mean, you’d never guess it was ordained female ministers, would you?

Who we are… We’re three women from Texas–Barbara Collins, Gay Anderson and Pat Joyce. Barbara and Gay came to the Lord in the 60’s and Pat in the 70’s. Although we are all ordained ministers, we have found our identity in Him; and He’s been our life since we first met Him. On this basis, we would like to share some of the truths we have discovered.

I just wonder if they ignore the bits about women being silent in the church and the various restrictions on church leadership positions as being a) cultural traditions, b) a misinterpretation of Paul’s supposed sarcasm, or c) Paul’s sexism. A glance at their site suggests (a), but the problem with this theory, of course, is that it is now completely culturally acceptable to have sex with a woman on the first date across most of what used to be known as Christendom.

By the way, the value of the teachings of these women can be readily discerned from one of the ten “lies” they list:

LIE #9. WOMEN ARE MORE EASILY DECEIVED THAN MEN.

Women are certainly capable of spreading deception because they have a fallen nature as men do, but there is no evidence that they have greater gullibility. That view is rooted in demeaning stereotypes and prejudice.

No, that view is rooted in easily demonstrable historical fact. It is why every would-be dictator from Lenin to Mussolini has encouraged female participation in politics. There is a staggering amount of evidence that women are more gullible than men, this holds true regardless of whether one is concerned with dating or demagogues.

It is ironic that supporters of women’s rights will argue with a straight face that despite their rhetoric and manifesto, the Fascists weren’t truly supporters of women’s rights, that Mussolini only supported women’s rights in order to gain power. This is true, of course, the very minor point that they’re missing there is that the scenario was not unique to historical Italy, but applies everywhere. The only reason women are still allowed to vote in the United States is that since American freedom is not yet completely eradicated, the tool cannot yet be disposed of.

What’s the difference between a lesbian feminist and a Christian Jezebel? One is a Strong Independent Woman, the other is a Strong Anointed Woman. I can’t imagine that there’s any feminist influence in the following sentence, can you?

To associate godly women with Jezebel, a wicked Old Testament despot, is unfair and offensive, yet men in the church today often pin Jezebel’s label on strong, anointed women because they feel threatened by them.

Fab-U-lous! Whining about unfairness, playing victim, launching a passive-aggressive attack… I can’t believe they even dug up the old “threatened” canard! The only thing that was missing is an assertion that their critics aren’t getting laid.

Despite choosing a name that is after my own heart, Sartrewasamoron reveals a complete failure to grok the concept of leadership, let alone the way in which Jesus Christ exercised it:

Jesus, the consumate leader of the church, and the consumate completely submitted follower of the Father … two utterly nonconflicting roles carried out at the same time perfectly… empty of self and never bitterly demanding his “rights” as a leader be respected … laying down his “rights” and sacrificing all, as all leaders must if they are in fact leaders, per God the Father. You remember the Father, don’t you? After all, He gave His all, His Son. Or had you forgotten? You know, it’s a leadership thing, giving … but you can’t seem to grasp it.

What a complete crock of stinking nonsense. Giving cannot possibly be a leadership thing, or God would not require it of everyone. “We are all leaders!” cry the Gamma Males, “everyone is the same!” assert the Beta Females, all unconvincingly and with no basis in science, Scripture, logic or language. And in every case, a profound and willful obtuseness towards the words and deeds of Jesus Christ are demonstrated.

For Jesus Christ did not bitterly demand his rights, he blithely exercised them. The desperate, defensive attempts to elevate one example of service over the cornucopia of exercises in leadership are hilarious, or at least they would be if one could not see the terrible damage the doctrine the “servant leaders” have pushed on church and society has wrought. In but a few chapters of a single book, one can see many examples of how he “humbly served”:

He issues direct orders: “Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” – John 5:8. “When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” – John 6:12

He gives warnings of future consequences: “Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” – John 5:14

He understands the principle of delegation: “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son” – John 5:22

He delegates and trusts his followers to enact his will: “Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” – John 6:10

He allows his followers to experience the consequences of refusing his leadership: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?….From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.” – John 6:60-67

[Note – I regard this to be a key example. Too many leaders are lured into micromanagement in honest efforts to prevent their followers from making predictable mistakes. Much better to warn them, allow them to make their own decisions, then let them experience the consquences, including punishment if necessary. Then remind them that they were warned. Most will learn to trust the leader, those that don’t are incorrigible and should be fired.]

His actions are not subject to questioning or explanation: “Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are you talking with her?” – John 4:27

One thing that has become very clear to me throughout this discussion is how few individuals, male or female, have any concept of what leadership is. Leadership is not about giving orders, although the leader has to be willing and able to give them. It is not about controlling others, although the leader has to be in control. It is not about giving, although the leader has to be willing to sacrifice his interests for the long-term interests of the group he is leading. The fact that nearly every defender of the “servant leader” myth points to what is obviously poor and ineffective leadership as a substitute for making their case only underlines the fundamental weakness of their position.

Ironically, the Sports Guy has a better grasp than most on the concept underlying the theological matter. In a recent column, he identified the three marks of a terrible NBA general manager, which can be directly applied to three marks of a terrible business or family leader:

1. Puts own short-term interests ahead of team’s long-term interests.
2. Focused on tomorrow’s possibilities instead of today’s realities.
3. A total inability to grasp financial limits.

With regards to the theological, it is the first flaw that is the most applicable. Ken Lay of Enron and Bernard Ebbars of WorldCom were terrible leaders because they demonstrated more interest in exploiting the opportunities presented to them in their positions than in exercising their duty to their employees and shareholders. The good CEO, like the good husband, is concerned first with protecting the long-term interests (not the immediate desires) of those over whom he holds authority; if he does an excellent job in that regard no one will begrudge him the perquisites of his position.

Leadership is, first and foremost, about providing direction to those who follow. This does not mean constantly giving orders or watching for every minor misstep, indeed, a tendency to micromanage is the hallmark of the incompetent middle manager and in any high-functioning corporation this is usually enough to disqualify a contender from reaching executive status. Anyone who has ever served in the military will know that the best officers are those who know how to delegate, who make sure that everyone knows the plan, knows their role in it, and then leaves them alone to perform that role to the best of their ability. It is the leader’s trust in the follower that inspires the follower’s faith in the leader.

Of course, when that trust in the follower is disappointed, the leader has a responsibility to correct the follower’s failure. Turning to God in prayer instead of speaking to the errant wife is an abdication of that responsibility; imagine the reaction of the general if a lieutenant complained that a private was not listening to him, or a CEO if a technical support manager complained that someone manning the tech support phone lines refused to answer the phones. In either case, the result will be, at a minimum, a much-deserved butt-chewing for the incompetent lieutenant or manager.

The fundamental stupidity of the “mutual submission” doctrine – or “equal partners” as I prefer to more accurately describe it – is that it deprives a family of leadership and therefore direction. Submission cannot be a synonym for obedience, as it is not possible for two individuals to obey each other, nor can it erase the command for wives to obey their husbands anymore than it cancels out the command for husbands to love their wives.

An equal partnership sans leadership, regardless of the rationalization for it, is likely to result in a constant struggle for power, a lack of unified direction and eventual failure. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that this has become a common description of many Christian marriages today following the rise of the servant leader myth, but I highly doubt it.

There is truth in the old chestnuts. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

JJ asks for clarification:

Are you saying that the idea of “servant leadership” should be thrown out entirely or that it’s simply a misapplied concept in the marital relationship? I’m in agreement with you that the church, in general, has acquiesced to the feminist culture and not stood by its guns in its teachings on marriage. On the other hand, if we are to follow Christ’s example and there is no such thing as servant leadership, how do we explain what He said in Luke 22:27 (“For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.”).

At this point, I’d say to throw it out entirely as poisonous and demonstrably destructive. My view is that one must apply the noun first – leadership – and then concern oneself with the fine points of the adjective second. In the absence of
the former, the latter is completely irrelevant.

A man who focuses on being a servant to his wife and pays no mind to being her leader is missing the point far more completely than the man who is a harsh and cruel leader. For, as is pointed out in the Old Testament, the man is destined to not only lead, but oppress. As a leader, a man will have a natural tendency to be a cruel one without the mitigating effects of Jesus Christ’s teachings on what kind of leader a man should aspire to be.

There is another option, of course. The man’s leadership role can be surrendered to an even harsher authority, a third party in the marriage that respects no limits and worships no god except itself.

PS takes exception to what he considers today’s cheap shot at Catholics:

Salve VOX,

I usually like your column and agree whole-heartedly with your analysis today, on the pandering to feminism. But, why the non-sequitur of picking on the Catholic Church. We Catholics are always such an easy target. Don’t you realize that transubstantiation has a very specific meaning for us, and has nothing to do with saints or pagans, unless, of course you consider Catholics to be pagans. I sincerely hope you don’t, and that you understand what saints really mean to us.

This always becomes the rant and rave I hear from evangelical friends, who accuse us Catholics of something which they simply don’t understand. The early Church did use pagan cultural symbols, “gods”, festivals etc, as a non-threatening and easilly understood metaphorical means to explain the Good News to essentially illiterate people. eg, St Patrick used the shamrock, but Patrick was a real person..

Didn’t Jesus use metaphor to help explain ? The Church wasn’t pandering to pagans any more than Jesus was. Remember, He was preaching to religious Jews; but the early church was preaching to people without a previous monotheistic background, and had to learn to grasp a whole foreign background with the concepts and truths of Christianity.

As PS probably knows, I don’t have any personal issues with the Catholic Church. However, I do not think you can reasonably excuse as metaphor a practice which, however proper the doctrineal theory, has resulted in praying TO, not for, dead people. I see that as precisely the same sort of cultural accomodation which the Protestant church has made with feminism, to its similar confusion and subsequent detriment.

Transubstantiation, small-t, is used correctly in the column, i.e., to change (one substance) into another; transmute, and the doctrine of the servant leader certainly changes the substance of the Biblical household doctrine. I merely chose to use that particular term as a semantical connection, not as a double-barrelled slam. So, while the reference to saints and pagan gods can be considered a shot – albeit hardly a cheap one – the proper use of a noun should not be considered as one, nor was it intended to be.

MJ reveals an insufficient feminist indoctrination… or perhaps it is that diabolical Patriarchy imposing a false consciousness on her:

I’m a 31 year old conservative Christian wife and mother. I attend an Independent Baptist Church whose leadership is about as politically incorrect as they come. I believe the pastor, if questioned would not argue against the Bible’s teaching on the proper role of a wife. Unfortunately, this important subject is not addressed. My personal opinion is that women are most to blame for poor marriages and divorces among Christian couples. (given the man is a normal guy and not some crazed misogynist) I believe this because most Christian men perform their duties as husbands that the Bible commands, but most Christian women do not. They don’t honor their husbands, they don’t obey, and they don’t maintain a household that creates a sanctuary for their husbands. The Bible is very clear about what a wife is expected to do and not do, and sadly too many Pastors and Churches (as you point out in your column) are not. There’s a phenomenal book, written for women, on this very subject. The title is Created To Be His Help Meet, and the author is Debi Pearl. If all Christian women would read this book and follow its advice, we’d live in a different world.

It is remarkable, the difference between what many pastors believe and what they are willing to say from the pulpit. This is particularly annoying when one considers how the wolves in sheep’s clothing are far bolder than the shepherds.

Color me superficial, but with no dearth of evil under the sun, reading this upset me more than anything in months:

Vandals wrecked Europe’s most valuable collection of 60 Jaguar cars by crashing them in a game of dodgems. The cars, including some models dating back to the 1930s, were said to be worth more than £1million.

I don’t consider myself an aesthete, will only visit a museum if lured into one by a suffiently attractive member of the opposite sex and am deeply suspicious of anyone who sits deep in seeming reflection before a painting for more than five minutes, but this subhuman lack of respect for beauty infuriates me. I think I can find more sympathy for the hit man, whose motives I can at least understand, than for these uncivilized cretins.

I sold my Jaguar years ago, and while I don’t regret it the way I regret selling my MGB, I still retain great fondness for the family car. (The cruelest telephone call I have ever received was from Little Miss Dartmouth, who gently broke the news of a certain automotive merger some years ago to me by singing, sans introduction, “have you driven a Ford… lately?”)

If the British authorities ever catch these unspeakable vandals, I hope they’ll consider turning them over to my uncles for punishment. They are mechanically-skilled and automotively-minded engineers who literally fly the Jaguar flag for what they consider to be the most significant 24 hours of the year. I think they could be trusted to wreak proper justice on the barbarians.