Sunday, February 19, 2017

Women need to be empowered and liberated to order their own food at restaurants???

   Women possess liberty over their own heads and power over their own persons, just as men do. 
   To keep us all in check, the Bible commands all Christians to practice kindness, courtesy, and to prefer one another before ourselves. 
   That is a wonderful thing. 
   But the line should be drawn when such things are done--not out of Christian love and humility, but rather--out of necessity, because it is expected, in order to reinforce Third World ideology such as male authority, female submission, or emphasizing the superiority of physical strength in males over that of females. 
   Aside from genuine courtesy (which should always be exercised and appreciated), men should not be made to feel ashamed for refusing to reinforce the helpless, submissive, behavior patriarchal  treatment of women engenders. 
   Women should not be made to feel ashamed for refusing to pretend that they are incapable of  doing simple things for themselves when men are around. Christian women must rise above the fear of having the dreaded label of, feminist, slapped on them for behaving in perfectly normal, competent, ways.  
   This is not relevant to Christian women and men today? 
   Look around. 
   Why do men feel compelled to run around cars to open doors for women who are perfectly capable of doing so themselves? Why do women expect to have car doors opened for them when men are around to do it? 
  This writer is fully aware that these courtesies are socially ingrained, unquestioningly accepted, and many good people practice and accept these with genuine sincerity.
   As will be shown, these good-hearted situations are not what this article is about. 
   Opening doors for people is a courtesy that is usually appreciated whether it is done by men or women. It happens naturally if we see someone whose arms are full or if they are struggling with a heavy door, or if we arrive at a door just before someone else and hold the door open for them. Human kindness dictates this should happen--but not that we should expect people to open and hold doors for others based on gender .
   Having doors opened for oneself is very nice. 
   Having one's dinner paid for is even better.        
   Don't we all love freebies?       
   And if it appears the aforementioned courtesies are in decline? Then out comes the calvary in the form of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) educating men in how to assert their biblical masculine authority over women through common courtesies, such as opening doors, holding chairs, etc.. 
   If that is not enough, Christian novelists are busy reinforcing the concept through fiction. Complementarian authors routinely define those who do not perform the courtesies, or who do not appreciate them well enough, as cultural aberrants.   
    A case in point, is an excerpt from a story written by a best selling Christian novelist, "...Rushing around the car to open her door, insisting on paying for expensive dinners, ordering for her...things most men overlooked, or women didn't value, being liberated and empowered these days." End of quote (emphasis added)
   Note how the author used the words  "empowered" and "liberated" in such a derisive manner. In no other context--other than in connection with women--could those two words be used with such a contemptuous twist. 
   Women must be empowered to open their own car doors, liberated to pay for their own dinners, or to order for themselves in restaurants?
   My children could do all of these things by the time they were four.
  How sad that women are ridiculed (even by other women [the female novelist in this case]) for standing up for themselves, and refusing to accept courtesies that are extended for condescending reasons.
   I am a woman who is not helpless or rude. Having the law of kindness upon my tongue does not mean that I lack the physical strength to open doors for myself. I do not expect to have my doors opened, but genuinely appreciate the courtesy of others and will politely thank anyone who opens one for me. I will even hold the door for a man if the occasion calls for it. 
   I can pay for my own dinners--unless we have a previous arrangement to take turns paying.  
  I was not created to be seen and not heard--nor am I mute. I do not feel inclined to allow men to marginalize, or declare illegitimate authority over me, by presuming to speak for me in public.  
   I will order my own food at restaurants. 
  Men are not mediators between me and service personnel at businesses, any more than they are mediators between me and God.
    The complementarian pressure is on for Christian men to use courtesies that subliminally portray them as benevolent lords over helpless dependent woman. These courtesies were carefully invented in the days of chivalry for just that purpose. 
   So, for a man to feel obligated to use them, or be labeled as a cad, is simply wrong. 
   How backwards can things be in a Church where men are required to enable women to behave as if they are helpless idiots, when everyone knows they are not. 
    This, in  turn, causes women to subliminally insult men, by treating them as if they are stupid enough to fall for silly shows of helplessness, and even worse, to expect men to feel good when they act that way around them. 
   Both sexes are demeaned by such behavior.
   Men need to be empowered and liberated from the slave-holding spirit of complementarianism as much or more than women. 
   Even so, since when have the words liberty and power become dirty words? 

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Genesis 1:26-27 The was no "Eve" before the Fall

 26: And ELOHIYM said Let us make 'adam in our image after our likeness [1] and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth 27: So ELOHIYM created 'adam in his image in the image of ELOHIYM created he him male and female created he them[2]

[1] It is because of this statement, that complementarians are desperate to prove that a hierarchal system exists within the Eternal God-head. Charles Stanley wrote, that if no hierarchy exists within the God-head, then there is no basis for the complementarian teaching of  hierarchy among humans based on gender. 
The book, Trinity Marriage and the Godhead, (Volume 1 of the God Women Ministry series) examines and refutes the theory of hierarchy within the eternal Godhead. 

[2] The great design and purpose of ELOHIYM for his human creation is outlined, in detail, in Genesis chapter one. The name He gave to them, 'Adam, is a Hebrew word (H120, and is pronounced audawm). In Genesis 1:26-28, we see that when ELOHIYM said, “Let us make audawm in our image…,” He was not referring to just the first male but rather to both His male and female creations. Audawm, is the name ELOHIYM gave to all humans—regardless of sex. Genesis 5:1-2 supports this, and no subsequent action[s] by a fallen creation can change this. Both male and female were created on the sixth day. And, at that time, there was only audawm, who were differentiated from one another by being called 'iysh (the male 'adam) and 'ishshah (the female 'adam). Until the third chapter of Genesis, audawm was called nothing else but audawm, 'iysh, or 'Ishshah. So, when speaking or writing of their existence before sin entered the world, it is incorrect to refer to the first woman as “Eve”. There was no “Eve” before the Fall. ELOHIYM called 'Ishshahaudawm,” the same as He did 'iysh. Understanding that before the Fall, both 'Ishshah and 'iysh were called 'adam (audawm) Genesis 5:1-2, lays to rest the ludicrous argument that gender hierarchy can be found in the creation account “because God called the entire human race ‘man—not woman.’” As we see, God did not call the entire human race “man.” He called them 'adam. Yet this outrageous claim, that God called the human race man—not women, is made by some complementarian [female subordination] teachers in laying the second block in a false foundation for the gender-hierarchy—male headship—theory (the first being the theory of hierarchy within the Godhead).

Friday, February 10, 2017

John 19:26-27 The Feminization of the Church?

26: When Jesus therefore saw his mother and the disciple standing by whom he loved (John) he said to his mother Madam behold your son 27: Then said he to the disciple Behold your mother And from that hour that disciple took her into his own home[1]

[1] Complementarian leaders decry the “Feminization of the Church” as if they are aghast at some shocking new development in Christianity, when the truth is, that women have always out-numbered men in following Christ. The Bible, along with, early Church history reveals that women in leadership began at the cross and continued for quite some time before misogyny eventually all but eliminated women from public service to God. The scene at Jesus’ crucifixion, depicts about a six to one ratio of women to men supporting the Messiah in his agony. Here, the weaker sex demonstrates an awesome strength of devotion, while only one male (John) remains openly faithful during this frightful time (although, after Pentecost, both men and women would [and continue to] equally give their lives for Christ), but at his death, the cross is surrounded by women who openly support their Lord. This writer does not find it coincidental that it was to the one courageous man, who dared to remain with his Messiah to the very end, that Jesus entrusted the care of his mother.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Male and Female within the Godhead: Referring to the Holy Spirit as "She"

5: But now I go my way to him that sent me[1] and none of you asks me Where do you go 6: But because I have said these things to you sorrow has filled your hearts 7: Nevertheless I tell you the truth It is to your advantage that I go away if I go not away parakletos[2] will not come to you but if I depart I will send[3] her[4] to you 8: And when that one is come the same will reprove the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment 9: Of sin because they believe not on me 10: Of righteousness because I go to my Father and you see me no more 11: Of judgment because the prince of this world is judged 12: I have yet many things to say to you but you cannot bear them now 13: Howbeit when ekeinos[5] the Spirit of truth is come the same will guide you into all truth for she shall not speak of herself but whatever she shall hear that shall she speak and she will shew you things to come 14: Ekeinos shall glorify me for the same shall receive of mine and shall show it to you 15: All things that the Father holds are mine therefore said I that she shall take of mine and shall show it to you

[1] This verse cannot be used to establish hierarchy within the Godhead, as complementarian leaders claim, Jesus is the Prince of Peace who is also the Everlasting Father (Father of Eternity) Isaiah 9:6. Isaiah 9:6 is just one of many verses that establish Jesus’ identity as YHWH (Jehovah)—Almighty God himself.

[2] Parakletos G3875 Summoned; Called to one’s side; Called to one’s aid; One who pleads another’s cause before a Judge; Advocate; A pleader; Counsel for defense; Legal assistant; In the widest sense a helper, succorer, aider, assistant (Thayer).   

[3] Again, it is ludicrous to assume from this statement that, within the Godhead, Jesus ranks above the Holy Spirit in a military-like hierarchy. Within the Being we know as the Godhead, the Holy Spirit is referenced, in scripture, as being God himself Acts 5:3-4

[4] The Greek word, parakletos is a masculine noun that can refer to advocates in general whether heavenly or human (and in the culture of Ancient Greece, Advocates were always male), but it is universally agreed that the parakletos, in this verse, is a reference to the Holy Spirit. In the Torah, The Holy Spirit is always referred in the feminine, as RUWACH, e.g., “And Ruwach Elohiym fluttered over the face of the waters…” 

[5] Ekeinos can be translated as she, he, it, etc.. There is no textual basis for translating the Greek word, ekeinos, as “he,” in reference to the Holy Spirit—who is consistently referred to (in the Pentateuch/Torah) as feminine. This awkward fact is one reason complementarians are desperate to prove a non-existent hierarchy within the Godhead.

Jocelyn Andersen is best known for her book, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence.  She is also editor of the Hungry Hearts Online Bible Commentary  For more information about her work, visit her website at

Her study entitled, Trinity Marriage and the Godhead, (Volume 1 of the God Women Ministry series) examines and refutes the theory of hierarchy within the eternal Godhead. 

Untranslated words in JOHN CHAPTER 16 (additional commentary pending for this chapter)
Ekeinos G1565 The one there; That one; That thing or time; Used of persons, things, times somewhat remote from the speaker (Thayer)  
Parakletos G3875 Summoned; Called to one’s side; Called to one’s aid; One who pleads another’s cause before a Judge; Advocate; A pleader; Counsel for defense; Legal assistant; In the widest sense a helper, succorer, aider, assistant (Thayer)  
Theos G2316 Deity; god; The reason the word, Theos, is largely left untranslated in this commentary, is to put to rest erroneous teaching that the word must be prefaced by the definite article “ho” (meaning “the” or “of”) in order to be translated as referring to Yahweh (Jehovah). In fact, most New Testament scripture references to Theos are not introduced using the definite article, “ho,” but even in those cases, it is clear when Almighty is or is not being referenced—especially in the case of John 1:1, where John, a Jew who would never commit blasphemy by calling anyone who was not YHWH “A” god. When John called Jesus “God,” he was specifically stating that Jesus is YHWH [Yahweh].