Monday, January 14, 2019

Mother Strong Bond of the Family: Father Physical Strenth of the Home

 The written language of Hebrew (Paleo-Hebrew) is incorrectly interpreted and referenced [by many] to prove that patriarchy is divinely mandated by God and is  not a result of The Fall.

One basis for this claim, as any student of ancient Hebrew quickly learns, is that many consider Hebrew to be a pure language--the original language spoken by the world population before the languages were confused at Babel. Such a claim is spurious at best. But is nevertheless used to refute the argument that patriarchy influenced the evolution of the Hebrew language (because in many ways, Hebrew, like all languages, is a patriocentric/androcentric (male-centered) language.


Patriocentric scholars often find acceptance of their views because few "regular folks" feel qualified to challenge the experts. But, it does not take much digging to expose the errors in complementarian reasoning and scholarship, errors which are bottle-fed, spoon-fed, force-fed, and literally crammed down the throats of God's people from cradle to grave.

This is wrong. And it is time to stand up to such scholars and expose their "wisdom" for the foolishness it is.

A good place to put the boot to patriarchal reasoning is at the beginning of the Hebrew alphabet, where the Paleo-Hebrew letter "A" was symbolized by an ox, which represented "strength." This was applied to both parents in the first commandment that came with a promise--the one about honoring both mother and father. The first letter in the spelling for both parents [in the Paleo-Hebrew] is the ox.

Both parents represent strength.

The command to honor both parents equally is not an either/or proposition, and elevating one over the other has resulted in weakening and warping the family unit and the polarization of women--pitting women against women as well as men against women.

This must stop.

A Lesson in Hebrew


In ancient Hebrew (Paleo-Hebrew), the first letter of the alphabet is the symbol for the ox, which represents strength. All things being equal, in the Paleo-Hebrew, the first letters of the words mother and father begin with the symbol of the ox--symbolizing the letter "A" (for AB [father] and AM/EM [mother]). Both parents, as symbolized by the ox, are strong. Both are the strength of something. 

The Paleo-Hebrew letters that form the word "Ab," [Father] are Aleph and Bet "אָב," which literally translate as, "Strong house" or strength of the house.

Complementarian scholars point to this as iron-clad proof of God-ordained male headship over women.

This writer agrees that "Strength of the House," is a great translation of these two letters...and they are [or should be] literally true... but in the physical sense only. Might does not make right, and physical strength does not denote God ordained leadership.

Physical protector? We certainly hope so, as all the world, throughout all history, has experienced the havoc produced by an unrestrained sense of entitlement coupled with superior physical strength. God has called his men to submit their strength to him in humility, love, and the task of renewing their minds through his Word, which foretold the sin of dominance [especially over physically weaker women] that would be a horrific consequence of The Fall. The sin of dominance is not a blessing or promotion to men but rather part of the overall curse sin introduced into a perfect creation.

MIGHT does not make RIGHT

 
 The Paleo-Hebrew letters, Aleph and Mem "אֵם") form the word "AM/EM" for "Mother." They literally translate as "Strong Water" (bond or glue), meaning the strong bond of the family. The symbol of the the ox (meaning "strength") applies to mothers as well as fathers.

He is the strength of the house and she is the glue of the family.

Many scholars disregard the strength of the mother while emphasizing the strength of the father. This has unduly influenced Christians to regulate the mother to a lesser position in the Christian family. Whether the father lives in the home or not, holding families together  with a strong, loving, emotional bond is every-bit as important as keeping the family together by protecting them physically. When either parent is missing from the home, the entire family can suffer catastrophically.


Which is more important, "אָב", the strength of the home or, "אֵם", the strong bond of the family? Without both, everyone suffers. Likewise, when, "אָב", the Strength of the Home marginalizes the importance of, "אֵם", and subjugates the Strong Bond of the Family, everyone suffers. 

This article addresses intrinsic, God-given, strengths and gifts--not roles. Roles are artificial mandates, whereas gifts are bestowed by God. Facts are facts. Men generally have more physical strength than women, and women are generally more empathetic and emotionally responsive than men--without such, family bonding would be difficult if not impossible. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. There are physically strong and capable women as well as incredibly nurturing and empathetic men.

So, how much is nature and how much is nurture? Who knows? Everyone, regardless of sex, is influenced by both, but to deny that men in greater numbers than women gravitate towards and excel in pursuits of physical strength and that women in greater numbers than men gravitate towards and excel in pursuit of relationship and communication, would be ignoring not only the obvious but statistics as well.

Women and men are not the same, but they are equal counterparts. And nowhere in scripture do we read of mandated restrictive roles.

Nature and nurture arguments aside (I devote an entire chapter on this in my book),  the Paleo-Hebrew symbols for Mother and Father, show that it takes a functionally equal family partnership between the physical Strength of the Home and the emotional Bond of the Family to create and maintain a loving and safe environment that is optimal for raising children. This writer was a stay-at-home-mom--by choice--not by mandate. There is no such biblical mandate for women, and mothers are the glue of the family whether they hold jobs outside the home or not. It is wrong to criticize or condemn working mothers.

 Positioned side-by-side, Ab and Am/pronounced Em [as portrayed in the Paleo-Hebrew] creates a perfect picture of equality.

Physical strength, is not a "role." It is simply  a physical fact. Men possess physical strength in greater numbers than women. The strength to Bind people together in their hearts as family, is not a "role" either. It is a God-given gift--which women tend to possess in greater numbers than men.

There is no place in Christian lives for acting  out "roles," unless one is playing a role in a movie, TV, or stage production. In God, we live and move and have our beings...not live and move and play our roles

Playing roles is affected and forced. Through playing "roles," love is warped and morphed by unbiblical teachings about authority and submission into a mere [sometimes bizarre and dangerous] caricature of what it should be. If we are unsure about what love should look like, read 1 Corinthians chapter 13, or just take Jesus' advice about loving others as ourselves. That was his only rule.

It screams to be said, at this point, that men who would be God (CBMW), view women as innately hostile, controlling, and unloving. This is the complementarian "Evil Woman" doctrine first posited by Susan T. Foh in her 1975 book, What is a Woman's Desire?. According to Foh's teaching, women must be strictly and strongly kept under subjection (controlled) or the "Amazon warrior" in them will rise up, prevail, and destroy all life as we know it. Foh's view is the one promoted on the CBMW website and is part of the Danver's Statement that began the complementarian movement in 1987.

Yikes! Such strength ascribed to weak, foolish woman. She must be a fearful creature indeed.

Back to Ab and Am/Em, If a Hebrew instructor is complementarian, one of the first things his students learn is that the word for "father," [composed of two letters that mean strength of the home] translates into leader of the home. This is incorrect of course, and it is rarely if ever pointed out that the Hebrew letters forming the word, mother are a perfect parallel to those that form the word for father. Mothers and fathers are equal counter-parts, and we see that portrayed so beautifully in the strength of the ox  which is portrayed in the first letters of the words for both mother and father.

Bible usage and  mistranslation of  "אֵם" (Am/Em mother)
The word "אֵם" (Am/Em), is consistently translated in our English Bibles as "mother," except for one verse, where it is deliberately mistranslated. We find that in Ezekiel 21:21, where the word, mother, is translated as "parting."

What a radical departure from common usage.

Likely, this was done because the word, mother [in Ezekiel 21:21], is used in close association with the word, "head," [often associated with "leader"]. Now, that simply could not be tolerated--even if the verse is just describing the head (parting or "mother") of two ways. Sadly, most English Bibles are in agreement with the mistranslation of this verse and read: "...for the king of Babylon stood at the parting [mother] H517 of the way, at the head of the two ways...."

The decision, on the part of translators, to change the word mother to "parting," can only be ascribed to misogyny--the inordinate hatred and fear of women, because the verse correctly reads, "For the King of Babylon stood at the mother of the way, at the head of two ways..."

Can't have a mother described as a head of anything. That simply will not do. Correctly translating Ezekiel 21:21, would have been far too threatening to fragile egos.

Isn't it good to know that Paleo-Hebrew [when correctly translated] proves that absolute and functional equality is divinely mandated by God--and not roles?

Scholars who deliberately load the language against women, are not above giving false definitions and interpretations to the biblical words Christians base their faith upon. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, and men who would be God, would change HIS Words and stoop even to stealing our faith. 

Tuesday, January 1, 2019

Anna the Nazarite

I believe that the prophetess, Anna, took a Nazarite Vow after her husband died (Numbers Chapter six)

I cannot prove this. It is merely conjecture I admit. But her unusual lifestyle and amazing commitment to serving God strongly suggest this could have been the case.

She would not have been required to seek her father's or any male relative or guardian's permission to take such a vow. Nor would any male relatives have been entitled to interfere with such a vow. The vow of the Nazarite could be taken by either a man or a woman, and it could temporary or permanent (Numbers 6:1). 

In Anna's case, it turned out to be a lifetime commitment that our Creator made sure would be held up as an example to everyone about the egalitarian nature of his gifts, callings, and absolute liberty that both women and men have in choosing how they will follow Him. 

Famous Nazarites were Sampson and Samuel, but I also believe John the Baptist was included in that number. A Nazarite Vow, required letting the hair grow and shaving the head at the end of the vow (among other requirements). New Testament believers took Nazarite vows. Paul took it (Numbers 6, Acts 15:18, 21:23-24).

Anna preached authoritatively and publicly at the Temple (Luke 2:38). She identified Jesus as Messiah and proclaimed him to all the people when his forerunner, John the Baptist, was but an infant of six months.

Numbers Chapter six calls the Nazarite "he" or "himself" 54 times. That is an exorbitant number of times, and sometimes the word was inserted even when not found in the Hebrew text but was a translator supplement (we actually see examples of such translator supplements all through our English translations). Even if we overlook the singular word "man," as possibly being a neutral reference to "mankind," (both Hebrew and Greek being androcentric languages) the masculine terms used in this chapter go too far beyond the scope of simply meaning "humankind" to be accidental. Past verse one, which is so specific no one can pervert it, most English Bibles intentionally refer to Nazarites exclusively as male. The Hebrew is not so obscure and this writer believes Anna took a Nazarite Vow then took up residence in GOD'S Temple and served HIM day and night for the next 65 years or longer with fastings and prayers. 

But fasting and praying was not all she did. Anna preached. And publicly too. She was known as a prophetess, which means she SPOKE. She preached the inspired and authoritative Word of God to all who would listen--to men as well as to women.

And Luke faithfully recorded these facts so they would never in all of history be lost. 

One thing is certain, Luke the Beloved Physician and Anna the Prophetess/Nazarite were no complementarians.

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Once an Insider Now Without a Church Home: Review

Review by Jocelyn Andersen
One couple's faith crisis due to the infiltration and spread of Authoritarianism, Calvinism, Complementarianism, and Covenants....

"Pastors quote other pastors and align their teachings with the teachings of other men and staying true to those teachings becomes more important than finding and adhering to God's Truth...And then people suffer." --Amanda Farmer in, Once an Insider Now Without a Church Home, 2018.


 I resonated with the experience of Amanda and Gordon Farmer on too many levels to go into in detail, but suffice it say I wholeheartedly recommend this book to every Christian who is either in a leadership position or who just wants to be a good brother or sister in Christ [to those whose past experiences with pastors and church leadership has been confusing and painful].

After twenty-five years of faithful service and fellowship with a church family they loved, the Farmers found themselves marginalized, lectured, shamed, weighed in the balances and found wanting by the same leadership they had participated in bringing into the church to begin with. 

Any Christian who may have experienced shame, confusion, and hurt during encounters with respected church leadership, can benefit from reading about how the Farmers connected what was happening to them with Calvinism and Complementarianism (their church had never previously been aligned with the either). 
 
In attempting to be good Christians and faithful members of their church, Amanda and Gordon Farmer found the respectful dynamics that [had always existed] between the leadership and church membership had dramatically changed--but only in favor of the leadership.  

This book does not describe isolated and rare incidences. I believe the paradigm shift described in this story has become the norm in thousands of churches. Farmer identified complementarianism as the source of some but not all of the problems she and her husband encountered and did a stellar job of telling the story of one couple's spiritual journey and the metamorphosis of one church that went from a more congregational form of church governance to almost absolute authoritarianism, with only three or four at the top making most decisions--and those few strictly chosen according to gender

Farmer writes:
"Women have been left totally out of actual leadership roles. The only ministries open to women in the church are now kitchen duty, teaching children's Sunday School, Children's Church, nursery, and baking and cooking for meals. We have become polarized as to men and women's roles. Men no longer assigned in the nursery or children's church or the kitchen. No women count the money (except me in the past**), no women ever read scripture from the front, or facilitate an adult Sunday School lesson, or lead a life group."
**The author was former church treasurer.


I recommend this book to every Christian, regardless of  church affiliation or whether their experience has been good or bad. Do you feel loved and affirmed in your Christian experience? That is awesome! But what about those who attend your church or group who have had devastating experiences in former congregations. Once an Insider..., can help you better understand and help meet the emotional and spiritual needs of wounded brothers and sisters in Christ. If you are a wounded Christian yourself, this book will help you understand that you are not alone.
 
Churches are where Christians go to worship our Creator and Savior, to meet, fellowship, and hopefully establish true friendships with other Christians, to learn of and help bear one another's burdens, to rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. But sadly, congregations where this was once a healthy and fulfilling dynamic, find that what was once joyful service and commitment with true friends who shared a passion for the gospel, has been undermined by covenant requirements and authoritarian leadership determined to implement step by step, systematic theology that leaves little to no room for unity beyond almost absolute agreement with church positions, covenants, and by-laws. 

This type of authoritarian approach to congregation building, weeds out "dissenters" [who may in fact be true and faithful Christians]. Legalistic covenants, suppresses true unity, fellowship, and Christian growth, replacing these with stifling uniformity and a cult-like following of people depend almost exclusively on leadership for most Bible truth and who are kept in line through fear of ridicule, shame, or being labeled as divisive.

Gordon and Amanda Farmer, through devastating personal experience discovered the painful realities and fruit of pervasive popular movements within evangelical Christianity, where those who dare to voice disagreement with the declared consensus of the leadership, are marginalized and finally neutralized through being labeled as divisive, immature, trouble-makers. 

Amanda Farmer's first-person and heartbreakingly transparent account provides many examples of  how both men and women suffer and the faith crisis' that can and do result from Calvinistic authoritarian and complementarian leadership within churches.


Subscribe to God & Women Updates

* indicates required

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from Jocelyn Andersen:
You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails.
If you would like to receive occasional snail-mail newsletters please let us know using the contact form located in the side-bar of this blog

....Buy this book, HERE. Read it. Share it. Give it to your pastors, spiritual leaders, friends, and family as gifts.

Monday, November 5, 2018

Autographed Copy of Woman this is WAR! First Edition

   A revised, second edition of, Woman this is War: Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System, is in the works. With that in mind, an autographed copy of the first edition is being offered for $15 {that includes shipping and tax}. There are only 20 copies currently available for this offer, and we are considering taking the first edition out of print as soon as the second edition is released. So, if you would like an autographed copy of the first edition, now might be the only chance to get one.
   Use the contact form in sidebar to request your autographed copy, today

Friday, November 2, 2018

Nothing weak or subordinate about being maternal

    1: But you speak things which are fitting for sound doctrine 2: Men [who are] elders be sober grave temperate sound in faith in love in patience 3: Women [who are] elders likewise in deportment reverent not false accusers not given to much wine teachers of good things 4: To nurture [Tyndale] the young be sober affectionate [1]maternal 5: self-controlled pure [2]guards [of the] home good yielding to their men [3] that the word of God be not evil spoken of 6: Young [men] likewise exhort to exercise self-control 7: In all things showing yourselves a pattern of good works in doctrine showing uncorruptness gravity sincerity 8: Sound speech that cannot be condemned that [they] from [the adversary who are] against [us] may be ashamed having no evil thing to say of you 9: Slaves to be obedient unto your masters and be well pleasing in all things not talking back 10: Not embezzling but showing all good fidelity that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things 
Titus 2:1-10


[1] There is nothing weak or subordinate about being maternal. The Holy Spirit (Greek Pneuma neuter / Hebrew Ruwach feminine) is maternal. We see that in Genesis 1:2 where Ruwach Elohiym broods and flutters over the face of the waters (like a mother hen or bird). Deborah, as supreme leader of the nation, was called a Mother in Israel.

[2] How is it that “guards of the home” gets translated into house-keepers or housewives? Only by misogyny in Bible translation and commentary. 

[3] In the social hierarchy of ancient times, the status of women was only just above that of slaves. The equal status of Christian women under Paul’s leadership was scandalous. The Greek word, hypotasso, mistranslated here [concerning wives] as “be obedient to,” is grammatically in the “middle voice” which softens it from a military term to a voluntary, Christlike, yielding, as in “preferring one another before ourselves.” We see a New Testament example of the word being used in just such a manner in 1 Peter 5:5 (KJV #ReceivedTextFriendofWomen).

The word hypotasso, most often translated as submit,be subject to, and be in subjection to, does not always mean to be arrayed “under.” So, the accepted definition is erroneous. If Paul intended hypotasso to mean “obey” or “be subject to” in this verse [and we maintain that he did not], it should be taken entirely within the cultural constructs of the time where just a few verses down, he also instructs slaves to be obedient to masters. 
   The entire civilized world, now rightly condemns the enslavement of human beings and recognizes it for the primitive sin that it is. So why is it that using religion to enslave women [female submission doctrine] continues to be accepted and touted as God’s *glorious design? 
   The fact that some women claim to cheerfully accept the yoke of gender-based bondage, does not change the nature of it. The fact that some women have “good masters” does not negate the fact that their autonomy as adults is abridged by complementarian doctrine.  
   Using religion to coerce women into subjection to men is a form of slavery. Calling the design “glorious” is pure propaganda. 

*Since the 2010 release of, Woman this is War! Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System,” where the “glorious design” motto of CBMW (and the rhetoric of ***prominent complementarians) was compared to that of the Civil War Confederacy,” in touting their “glorious” cause [of preserving a way of life built entirely on slavery], CBMW has since deleted from their website any mention of, **“Proclaiming God’s Glorious Design for Men and Women.” However, leading complementarians in concert with one another, continue use a slightly modified form of their former motto. They are now “Proclaiming God’s Good Design.”
 ** The former motto can be viewed via internet archive screen shots. By 2014, CBMW had completely scrubbed it from its website:

*** “Discipline doesn’t stifle; it gives power…Why shouldn’t it be so when we consider the glorious hierarchal order too?” (emphasis added) Elizabeth Elliott, Let Me be a Woman: Notes to My Daughter on the Meaning of Womanhood, Living Books, Wheaton, Ill, 1982

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Silly Weak Gullible Women!


 6: For of this sort are they who worm their way into homes and gain control over women who are not as yet spiritually mature[1] [men who are] loaded [down] with sins led astray by various sinful desires[2] 7: Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth 8: Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so do these also resist the truth men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith 9: But they [the men of corrupt minds who worm their way into homes] shall proceed no further for their folly shall be manifest unto all as theirs [Jannes' and Jambres'] also was



[1] Most Bible versions use the words gullible, weak, and silly to describe women in this verse. First, a word about the term, “silly” as used in the A.V.. "This example of gender-biased-English-translation-theology might appear minor to some, but we do not believe it to be so.  
   In this passage, we are given a description of false teachers who target women who are spiritually immature (young in the Lord--not necessarily in age) as primary victims.
   These female victims are described in the Greek as gunaikarion. James Strong wrote that the word, gunaikarion, is a diminutive of gune (pronounced goonay) which means woman or wife. 
   A diminutive of “woman” would indicate a young woman or teenager. If that is indeed what gunaikarion means, translators and Bible commentators could easily have reflected that. But, no translation reflects teenagers or very young women in this verse. Instead, the Strong's Concordance defines gunaikarion, as “silly” women—which just happens to be the same words used by the translators of the A.V.. 
   This does not accurately reflect the biblical meaning of gunaikarion
   Virtually all translations are just as misogynistic as the A.V. and the Strong's Concordance in their translation and interpretation of this verse. Most use derisive words to describe the women, such as, "weak or gullible." 
   These women are not silly, weak, or gullible but simply victimized because of their inexperience and lack of education in the Word of God. 
   Words such as silly, weak, and gullible falsely accuse women whose only fault is inexperience and victimization by their culture and by predators who are loaded down with sins and various lusts.   
   Describing these women in such a contemptuous manner is inexcusable on the part of Bible translators and commentators.   
   The Greek word “karion” (or karyon), which is added to the Greek word gune to form the compound word gunaikarion, is still used in the Greek language today.  
   Karion (or karyon) means, cell, nut, or kernel.    
   Nuts and kernels are seeds. Cells develop. So, we see that the word does not carry a connotation of weak, foolish, silly, or gullible but rather a promise of growth and development
   It is not a stretch to connect a seed with a young [and as yet educationally and spiritually undeveloped] human.  
   All Christians, no matter what their natural age when they come to Christ, begin their Christian lives as spiritually young, full of promise, but nowhere near mature in the faith. It is preposterous that spiritually young female believers [victims], targeted by false teachers [predators] in 2 Timothy 3:6, are transformed [using gender-biased-English-translation-theology] from spiritually naive women into "foolish, silly, weak, and gullible women."
   This fits with the historical narrative but is far from fact and honest Christian scholarship.
    About the word “silly,” used by the translators of the A.V., to translate the Greek word, "karion." The word "silly," is used only once in the New Testament—and that is in reference to one group of spiritually undeveloped women, described in 2 Timothy 3:6. There is no corresponding Greek to support the use of such a derogatory word. 
   This unfortunate rendering is incorrect, casts women in bad light, it is entirely inappropriate and profoundly prejudiced against women. The fact that the translation and interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:6, has gone unchallenged up to the present time, indicates how deeply ingrained into the Christian psyche, is the pejorative stereotyping of women. --
    Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System, 2010, Jocelyn Andersen

Under the Old Covenant, girls and women were not taught the scriptures in the same way boys and men were. Boys were entitled to sit at the rabbi's feet (to be systematically educated), while girls and women had to catch it on the fly (so to speak), hearing the Word of God only at Temple and synagogue attendance and by listening to men have conversations about the Law and Prophets--always discussed and interpreted from male-perspectives. 
   This does not mean that women were less devout than men, completely ignorant, or that every woman was spiritually immature. It simply means that women as a group were less privileged, at that time--as they still are, due to gender-biased biblical scholarship and restricted ministry options. 
   The educational knowledge of 1st Century women, was severely limited by sexist traditions that, among the Jews [who were the first Christians], carried the weight of TORAH. So naturally, there would have been many New Testament women, exhilarated by the new freedom given to them to learn, who would have been starving for knowledge, and who would have been targeted by the false teachers written about in 2 Timothy chapter three.

 
   [2] It is not the women, but rather the predatory male teachers in verse :6, who are “laden with sins led away with divers lusts. This is made clear in the following verses where no one questions that it is the false teachers and not the women who are 7: Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth,” and who “8:… also resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” 
   Despite this, translation after translation makes it appear as though it is the women who are “loaded down with sins and led astray by various lusts,” instead of it being the men (wolves) who targeted them. 
   It is the deceivers, not the the deceived, who are referenced in verse :6 as, "laden with sins [and] led away with divers lusts." The women in this passage, are not bad people. They are not stupid people. They are people whose lack of education (not by their own choices) has prepared them to become victims. 




Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System, refutes complementarianism [also called complementarity], which teaches that all men and women are born into a caste system that follows them from the moment they exit the womb throughout all eternity. Men are alleged to be born into the leadership caste and women into the “follower” caste.

   Complementarian doctrine suppresses the autonomy of adult Christian women and has been embraced, with few exceptions, by virtually every Christian denomination...despite unmistakable parallels between complementarian dogma [and the adverse effects of the paradigm on men, women, and children] and that of institutionalized slavery in previous centuries [caveat: lots of Black History in this book up through the Civil Rights Movement].

   Woman this is War! quotes well-known evangelical pastors who compare Christian marriage to a war of dominance between wives and husbands, a war they claim that husbands must win.

   Gender-biased-English-translation-theology, along with male-centered Bible commentary and translation practices, are used in forbidding women to preach, pastor, or serve as elders and deacons in most churches. This hinders the work of the gospel. In most churches where women are not forbidden to preach, they are told to submit to their husbands at home. Gender-biased-English-translation-theology has interfered with understanding the scriptures, pitted men and women against each other, and eroded the happiness of women and men.

   The book contains rare insights into Christian initiatives in the movements for women’s rights that have either deliberately or inadvertently been keep out of Christian literature. These observations bring a new perspective, along with freedom and hope. The doctrine of female submission to male headship in the church and home, is soundly refuted using scripture to support equality between women and men. Woman this is WAR! is a treasure-trove of information on gender equality from biblical, historical, and Christian perspectives.