Friday, July 14, 2017

Complementarian-Assumption-Bombs: Effective Thought Control

   This writer was reading a book about science and the Bible, when, out of the blue, an assumption about Job making sacrifices to God as the "head of his family" was unexpectedly dropped into the middle of a discourse about scientific facts contained in the Book of Job.  
   This is called a "complementarian-assumption-bomb." 
   Job's function as priest in his family had nothing to do with his legal status as head of his family. Priests are mediators between humans and God. This post will discuss the function of priesthood and why Old Testament priests were always male, as we examine the complementarian habit of assumption-bombing, and how this practice influences the thoughts and ideas of passive listeners.
   Complementarian-assumption-bombing, occurs while people are reading about (or listening to) subjects completely unrelated to female subjection. Writers or speakers momentarily diverge from the main topics (which could be about anything) and unexpectedly toss in a complementarian assumption--as established fact (when in fact, it has not been established at all). Then, without explanation, without missing a beat, the writer/speaker immediately moves on, switching back to their original subject.
    This usually happens within a space of one or two seconds, and passes without the audience ever noticing. But, in reality, they have noticed. They have passively heard. The statement  has been recorded in their subconscious minds. 
   Readers and listeners--at this point--are  given no opportunity to critically analyze the assumption. They often give little to no thought to the idea...until it is later resurrected, and, more importantly, challenged.  
   It is then, that the fruit of complementarian-assumption-bombing manifests. 
  Male headship is often defended using arguments and slogans heard primarily through through assumption-bombing. 
   Thinking people are encouraged to challenge leaders who use this subjective method of impacting the thoughts and ideas of those within their spheres of influence. Male headship ideas of complementarian writers/speakers would naturally get inserted into most any topic they write or speak about, and in all fairness to sincere Christians, all assumption-bombing is likely not intentional, but should be challenged, nonetheless.
   It is this writer's opinion, that the complementarian-assumption-bombing method of influencing thought and ideas, has not been challenged enough. Christian audiences are encouraged to critically consider ideas presented to them, through any medium, including assumption-bombing. Question foregone conclusions (those reached without putting them to objective testing).
   In court trials, lawyers understand the effectiveness of assumption-bombing. They toss out an assumption, and, even if objected to and sustained, they know the jury has already heard the "evidence." But after complementarian-assumption-bombs have been dropped, there is no lawyer to shout, "Objection!," as there would be in a Court of Law, where constructive criticism (weighing the evidence) takes place. There is no judge present to sustain the objection.
   One unsubstantiated assumption, complementarians make, is that there were no female priests in the Old Testament, hence, God does not call women to leadership in the Church. This error, is taught directly, widely disseminated, and absorbed indirectly, through assumption-bombing.
   There is a good reason there were no female priests [of the God of Israel] in the Old Testament. Everything in the Mosaic Law is prophetic of Jesus, both his person and his atoning work. Aside from the once yearly sacrifice of the Red Heifer, all of the sacrificial animals were male, along with the priests--because they too, were types of Jesus. 
   So we see that the male priesthood was a type of Jesus (who is a human male), and was not a type of any God-ordained patriarchy. 
   In the New Testament, we do not have a mediator priesthood composed of only males. We have only one mediator between God and all humans, the human Christ Jesus. All believers have instant access to God through his Risen Son. 
   Under the New Covenant, we have a priesthood of believers, composed of all Christians--regardless of sex.    
   So the complementarian-assumption-bomb, dropped into the psyche's of anyone reading the book on science and the Bible (that this writer was reading), is mistaken in its premise that Job's position as the priest of his family was due to the fact that he was the legal head of his family. 
   Even in ancient times, before the Law of Moses, sacrifices were always types of Jesus. God, himself, performed the first blood sacrifice, in providing covering (forgiveness/protection) for the first man and the first woman.
   Both the male animal and the male human/priest [offering the sacrifice], were types of the male Messiah in both his priesthood and atoning death. 
   There is a reason for Messiah being male that has absolutely nothing to do with female subjugation. It is not within the scope of this article to examine that subject, but the reason for a male Messiah is explained in the book, Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery and the evangelical Caste System
   Active learning, through regular Bible reading and substantiating facts, is pleasing to God. We have his Word on it. The scriptures command active listening (judging all things by the Word of god). 
   Once an assumption-bomb is dropped, we can not "un-hear" it. So, we must  break the habit of passive listening, and use critical thinking to actively weigh all claims and comments objectively.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Complementarian Censorship

   The Christian world is flooded with complementarian books and resources promoting inequality between women and men (male headship teaching).
   Almost every major denomination, and all large, well known, Christian media outlets promote the complementarian position, while actively censoring those who advocate for equality. Lifeway Bookstores, Moody media empire, The Christian News Wire**, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, and Christianity Today top a very long list.

**In 2014, egalitarians had to shame the Christian Newswire into running a paid press release. The same Christian News outlet that had  previously run seven releases (totaling close to $1000 in cost) and sent a private email applauding this writer's work on, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence, and , Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System (2007-2010), refused to run a $160 egalitarian press release  in 2014.
   This was no doubt in response to pressure from their largest source of income--complementarian organizations and ministries.
   Such is the long arm of complementarian censorship.
   After some bloggers went public with the censorship, Christian News Wire experienced a change of heart and published the release.

 Search results on Christian Newswire for this author's paid media releases 2007-2010
   Egalitarian pastors, Bible teachers, and even a growing body of complementarian seekers, would like to see more books, devotionals, and sermon/bible study/group resources available on the topic of gender equality in the Church.
   While these are being produced, they are not being published in numbers that come anywhere close to totaling those of complementarian publications, nor are they generally marketed to the Christian community at large, through local Christian bookstores, churches, denominations, or denominational publishing houses (all of these, together, reach a significant majority of the Body of Christ).
   Complementarian leaders often warn followers against reading egalitarian resources. But more and more complementarian Christians are questioning the wisdom submitting to such censorship. Christians who want to study the subject further, find a paucity of scriptural resources in local Christian bookstores,  church libraries, and public libraries. In all of these, shelves are virtually empty when it comes to books on the subject of equality--but frequently welled stocked with books that espouse male-headship/complementarianism.
   For this reason, book publishers are being urged to serve the entire Christian population--not just the complementarian segment of the Church--by seeking out and publishing more resources on functional equality between women and men.
      As previously stated, there is a growing array of Christian resources that present the scriptural case for equality, but, as a rule, these do not enjoy the wide platform complementarian resources do. For that reason, a petition has been started to encourage publishers to seek out and publish more resources from the perspective of equality for Christian men and women.
    It is time for the censorship to stop. It is time for publishers who claim to provide books for the entire Christian community, to stop being one-sided favoring inequality.

Let your voice be heard in favor of giving equality equal time and equal space in our bookstores. If you would like to see more books and resources published on equality for Christian women and men,  please take a moment to read and sign the petition to Publishers

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Clear Statement of Equality Made to Say Opposite by Misogyny in Bible Translation

Below, we see a clear statement of equality manipulated by misogyny in Bible translation and gender-biased-English-translation-theology, to say just the opposite:   

    1 Corinthian 11:3 But I wish you to know that of every person the head the Christ is and the head of woman is the man and the head of Christ is God[1] 4: Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head 5: But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head for that is even all one as if she were shaven 6: For if the woman be not covered let her also be shorn but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved let her be covered[2] 7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God but the woman is the glory of man[3] 8: For man is not from woman but woman from the man 9: Neither was the man created on account of the woman but the woman on account of the man[4] 10: For this cause ought women to possess G2192 translated as possessed in Acts 8:7 liberty G1849 translated as liberty in 1 Corinthians 8:9  over their [own] persons on account of the angels[5] 11: Further neither is man apart from woman neither woman apart from man in the Lord 12: For as the woman out of the man so also the man because of the woman and all things from Ton Theon (The God)[6] 13: Judge for yourselves It is [autos esti] fitting that a woman pray to God unveiled 14: Nor does nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him[7] 15: and if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her For hair is given her anti-peribolaion  [instead[8] of a veil[9]] 16: and if any seem to be contentious we have no such custom [of veiling] neither the churches of God

[1] Verses 11-12, are the interpreters of 1 Corinthians 3:11. They confirm that the chronological interpretation of verse three is the correct one (as opposed to the hierarchal interpretation). Despite the clear explanation in verses 11 & 12, verse three remains a hotbed of controversy, largely because it is considered an ironclad, bedrock, verse subjecting women to men within the complementarian/male-headship movement. 1 Corinthians 1:11-12, however, refutes traditional-role-religionist and complementarian male headship interpretations, clearly defining the verse as being prepositional (chronological), rather than hierarchal. 1 Corinthians 11:3 is a divine flow-chart, showing source and chronological order of creation and appearance. It reveals the prepositional (chronological flow of the) relationship between:
·         1.) The Godhead and every person (Elohiym—the Godhead—created the heavens and the earth. He is creator/head/source of all people not just males). In scripture usage, the Greek word, aner, cannot claim male exclusivity. In numerous instances, it is used of crowds/groups composed of both women and men. There is no hermeneutical reason it cannot be translated generically, as “people” or “person,” when context calls for it.
·         2.) The direct creation, by God, of the first man, who then became the head of …
·         3.)the first woman [only], as he was the source from which God made her. The first woman was just as much a direct creation of God as the man. The man himself had nothing to do with the creation of woman. He was the source only in the fact that God took one of his sides and used it to fashion the woman. The fact that God fashioned the woman from an entire side of the man, in no way diminished either him or her. He did not then become only half a person, nor was she created a sub-[hu]man—doomed to subjugation to males for all eternity. Nor can it be found in scripture where the first man was designated as superior over the first woman based on chronology (or where all men are given command over all women based on order of appearance. The first man and the first woman were both direct creations of God (God was the ultimate source of existence and life for both of them). And both were commanded to dominate the earth equally. Even role-religionists admit that no hint of hierarchy exists in the creation account of Genesis chapter one. Neither does it exist in the Hebrew language Genesis chapter two was translated from—except through gender biased translator supplements.
·         4.) Messiah (who was later born of a woman)
·         5.) The Godhead, from which came Messiah. To interpret this verse any other way, is to reduce God—as Messiah is God. Jesus claimed Jehovahistic identity.  On one occasion, the Jews sought to stone him when he said he was the great, I AM.
The chronological flow of 1 Corinthians 11:3, is in absolute agreement with the entire volume of scripture concerning the creation, making, and appearance of the first man, the first woman, and the birth of Messiah. The verse begins with the Godhead (for all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ) and ends with the Godhead. It was Elohiym (the Godhead) who in the beginning created the heavens and the earth. And Jesus made the exclusive claim to be Elohiym (YHWH) when he said, “If you do believe that I AM (EGO EMI), you will die in your sins.” The apostle wrote that the entirety of the Godhead resides in Jesus in physical form. Jesus the Christ does not need a God. Jesus is God.
[2] If we were to take this verse out of its ancient context, and apply it to modern-day Christianity, then Christian women would be required to wear veils [hijabs] and burqa’s. No scholar suggests this should be the case. Paul was obviously responding to letters he received that included questions about these things.
[3] Is Paul saying that men are made more in the image of God than are women? Of course not! There is no scriptural basis for such an idea. Nevertheless, many buy in to this theory. Nor are women made differently in the image of God than are men. There is only one Image of God. And God’s entire human creation is made in that same image. The interpretation applied to this verse by role-religionists, is at odds with the clear statement in Genesis chapter one, that God created audawm—not just the man (iysh)—in his image. Audawm is the phonetic pronunciation of the Hebrew word 'âdâm—the name Elohiym bestowed on both his male and female creations Genesis 5:2. 1 Corinthians 11:7, according to context, cannot be about the superiority of males over females concerning the Image of God, but rather a continuation of his discourse about the source and chronology of humans.
[4] Again, referencing chronology.
[5] Within many congregations, the myth persists that women should be veiled to hide their beauty from fallen angels. This harks back to Genesis chapter six where the sons of God (fallen angels) were attracted to the daughters of men and took them for wives, producing a genetically mutated race of Nephilim (half human and half angel).  The interpretation holds no water for a couple of reasons: 1.) If that were the case, women would have to be completely veiled 100% of the time—not just in public or in church—as the walls of a private home would pose no obstacle to an angel who wanted to look upon an unveiled woman 2.) Neither veiling nor human males could hide or protect women from spirit beings as mighty as angels. So, the phrase, “because of the angels,” must refer to something else.
[6] Verses 11-12 confirm the chronological, as opposed to hierarchal, nature of verse three. It is also a clear biblical statement of essential and functional equality of women and men.
[7]Verse 14 purports to be a question asking, "Doth not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame?" Now every candid person must answer this question with a "No." It is not nature, but the barber who keeps man’s hair short. In China, millions of men wear long hair, and nature has never taught them that it is a shame. Furthermore, the last time the Corinthians saw the apostle Paul before he wrote this Epistle, he himself had long hair (Acts 18:18); and to the Jew, accustomed to religious vows (Numbers 6:1-21), long hair, religiously speaking, was more of a "glory" than a "shame." Additionally to this, the native Corinthian's would have thought this a strange question to submit to them, for they would boast that they were descendants of the “long-haired Achaeans," celebrated as such on almost every page of that most famous and most ancient Greek poem, Homer's Iliad. Therefore we do not believe that St Paul asked a question, here. His simple statement of fact, "Nor doth nature teach you," has been changed into a question by the uninspired men who put in the punctuation marks centuries later than St. Paul wrote these words. As a question, this is a Tremendous Misfit. It contradicts a fact of nature; it makes St. Paul inconsistent in his practice with his teaching; it is an entirely unsuitable question to submit to Achaeans. –God’s Word to Women, 1908, Katherine Bushnell

[8] G473 anti can mean: in support of or opposed to; opposite to or instead of…We see that applied to the commonly held definition of anti-Christ (opposed to or instead of Christ).
[9] G4018 paribolaion can even refer to a full-body covering such as a burqa, which would not have been uncommon among even the Jews in Paul’s day.

This is an excerpt from the Hungry Hearts Online Bible Commentary HHBC
Did you find this article helpful? Link to this post or share with your connections on social media
Questions and comments are welcome

For a more complete study on this subject, read, "A Study of Male Headship":