For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God… (Gen 3:5, ESV)
6 For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim 3:6-7, ESV)
From the Christian Post: Liberal Lutheran pastor to melt purity rings into vagina sculpture to ‘take down’ church teachings about sex
“This thing about women that the church has tried to hide and control and that is a canvas on which other people can write their own righteousness ― it’s actually ours,” Bolz-Weber told HuffPost. “This part of me is mine and I get to determine what is good for it and if it’s beautiful and how I use it in the world.”
This is how complementarians hide their Christian feminism in plain sight. It is hard not to seem at least somewhat traditional when the mainstream protestant denominations are ordaining women as pastors and those women are making golden idols of their vaginas. Complementarians are in this sense counter-cultural when they do the same things as overt feminists, only in a much more subtle way. Where feminists were honest in their outright rejection of 1 Tim 2:12 and ordained women as pastors, complementarians came up with a plan to set women up as unordained preachers by pushing a new and absurd twisted reading of the scripture:
First Timothy 2:14 says, “Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” Paul gives this as one of the reasons why he does not permit women “to teach or have authority over a man.” Historically this has usually been taken to mean that women are more gullible or deceivable than men and therefore less fit for the doctrinal oversight of the church. This may be true (see question 29). However, we are attracted to another understanding of Paul’s argument.
Where feminist Christians openly make idols of women’s vaginas, complementarians again choose the more subtle and deceptive path and declare that a woman’s romantic love & desire sanctifies married sex, and that God speaks to a husband through his wife’s holy vagina.
Dave: Yes. Here’s all you need to know about that night—the thing that changed our marriage is when Ann was sharing with me [that she didn’t feel sexual desire towards me]—I had a pretty unique encounter with God. I sensed God was speaking to me, through Ann;
Where feminist Christians openly reject headship and submission, complementarians have kept (theoretical) headship around as a club to hit husbands with. The cardinal rule of complementarian headship is a husband must never tell his wife she has an obligation to submit to him. In its most muscular form the essence of complementarian headship is pleading.
Where feminist Christians openly encourage women to usurp the roles of men, complementarians are careful to not tell women no while shamelessly blaming men for women usurping their roles.
What complementarians have been able to achieve is do in the conservative churches what feminists did in the liberal churches, only with much more deception. Not surprisingly, now that liberal churches have fully accepted LGBTQ, a group of prominent complementarians are doing the same for that issue that they did for feminism. I’ll cover this new development in a future post.
H/T Emperor Constantine
Hopefully this proves just how idolatrous feminism is.
Those with eyes will see…those that are blind will stay blind.
How the mighty have fallen. Don’t think this is what good Monk Martin meant by his teachings….think he is spinning in his grave now! 🙂
Historically this has usually been taken to mean that women are more gullible or deceivable than men and therefore less fit for the doctrinal oversight of the church. This may be true (see question 29). However, we are attracted to another understanding of Paul’s argument.
This paragraph never gets old. We, the self-appointed star chamber of a new religious movement that will henceforth be called Complementarian*, have decided that for centuries upon centuries, this meant what it said. Maybe. “This MAY be true”. However, the times they do change…
* We made a committee and there was at least one woman on it and she approved the new doctrine so there.
When I followed the link I was not surprised by what I saw regarding this “Liberal Lutheran pastor’; I was horrified.
They might as well say…’did Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, really say that?’
Quoth the Rev. Bolz-Weber:
This thing about women that the church has tried to hide and control
So non-Christian societies are all OK with women going around in the nip and having sex with whomever they want? Come on.
Why does that sound like an oxymoron?
I wonder how many people actually attend this woman’s “church’? I’m sure that argument made is that it attracts liberals and progressives. But when the message you share is the same message the world offers, what incentive is there to get up early and spend precious weekend time in some drafty old church? I mean, you can get the same message from the New York Times. Plus, this Jesus guy, he’s like so last century, plus he’s white or something.
We, the self-appointed star chamber of a new religious movement that will henceforth be called Complementarian*, have decided that for centuries upon centuries, this meant what it said. Maybe. “This MAY be true”. However, the times they do change…
Change that last sentence to:
“However, that traditional interpretation makes us feel bad, and makes women feel bad. Because it means we have to tell women “no”. It means we have to do what the Bible says, and that is hard. And it looks like we’re being mean to women. And our women get mad at us and won’t have sex with us. And people call us sexist. Therefore, we are attracted to another understanding of Paul’s argument….”
Pingback: The golden calf monologues. | Reaction Times
Original sin was not about disobedience. It was the violation of the First Commandment. God’s punishment was not a punishment, but the mechanism by which the First Commandment could be obeyed.
It was disobedience to God’s command to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The First Commandment didn’t come until Moses.
Literal Golden Calf incoming.
And she can say “it formed itself out of the fire on its own” as Aaron did….
Galloper6, between the calves, and a little higher.
Earl, the “don’t eat fruit from this tree” command wasn’t the first, but it did come before Moses’ ten. “Look after the garden and name the critters” was probably the first command God gave Adam.
This looks so much like that scene from Exodus – it’s hard to imagine this wouldn’t scare everyone out of that church. I supose most of them, including this “pastor,” have never read the bible, so they don’t know what comes next. See Exodus 32:28.
The church claims the world has redefined marriage to get us to the point of same-sex ‘marriage’ and all kinds of weird related things. Nope: the church has been redefining marriage for centuries by first redefining the roles of the male and female. There is nothing more basic to a mature knowledge of God then getting Genesis 1-3 correct.
God has given them over to a reprobate mind.
May they either repent or may God take away their candlesticks and destruction upon them.
Unfortunately, Biblically-based Conservative Christians lost every single cultural battle of the last 20 years.
Legalization of drugs (marijuana is step 1 in a march);
Female worship in church (“Christian Feminism”);
Gay adoption of children;
Speech codes to ban Christian Conservative speech on campuses;
Women head pastors;
Having kids out of wedlock (and rewarding them with welfare);
Demonization of fathers;
The many churches decided they needed to “get with the times” and accept outrages like gay “pastors” (ministers/priests), gay marriage, and much more. They thought the way to fill the pews was to “moderate” their views.
The results is they stand for nothing, so they lost members in droves. So when a churchian type tells me I should “shut up and marry one of ’em sloots” t be moral, he has zero moral credibility or moral standing.
Can anyone help me here?
Last night in the bar I observed four middle-ish aged women (as a group) who were all wearing black. They were clearly otherwise dolled-up. When I was younger the only women who wore black were Roman Catholic Nuns. Attorneys wear black. What is it that these women are signalling with their attire? Why are they not wearing pink or some other colour (I don’t think black any more than is a colour)? Were they as they appear to be giving off mixed signals and why?
Black tends to be popular among the older set because it is slimming/hides stuff effectively.
I recently became a member of a childfree Christian Facebook group. I’m one of the few Conservatives there, and even the typically Liberal members are decrying this.
Sure, the Purity Culture thing has gone too far, but so has this “pastor.”
Pingback: Loud and proud complementarians: John Piper and Nick Roen. | Dalrock
Finally, there’s something to balance out all the sculptures of penises I keep seeing at church!
Purity culture has gone to far purge? Just where are we pure in the slightest?
A few pretend, but one of the foundations of a stable culture (marriage between two with only each other as sexual partners) has gone way out the window and we are paying the costs of that.
Don’t get me wrong, Billy. I’m all for premarital chastity, but there’s better ways to go about it than trying to get kids to associate guilt and shame with every sexual thought/deed/urge/desire that they have – especially with the boys at a time when those things come with some regularity. And then there’s those incestuous father/daughter dances.
1 Timothy 5:8 New King James Version (NKJV)
But if anyone *does not provide* for his own, and especially for those of his household, *he* has denied the faith and is *worse than an unbeliever.* ….. Titus 2:5 New King James Version (NKJV)
5 to be discreet, chaste, *homemakers,* good, obedient to their own husbands, *that the word of God may not be blasphemed.* ….. Homemaker: A person in charge of the homemaking, who is not employed outside the home, is in the U.S. called a homemaker, a term for a housewife or a househusband. The term “homemaker”, however, may also refer to a social worker who manages a household during the incapacity of the housewife or househusband. I left the church long ago and I hate God. Church is a money collection racket and dating service for past, present and future single mothers.
According to Cathy Grossman of USA Today, “Women outnumber men in attendance in every major Christian denomination, and they are 20% to 25% more likely to attend worship at least weekly.” The 2001 U.S. Congregational Life Survey (USCLS) reinforces this data. This survey revealed that an average American congregation is roughly 61% female and 39% male.
While women may outnumber men in church that gap is narrowing as those who are not of God depart.
That’s a no true Scotsman fallacy. All Christians are of God. I left the church, because they worship women and it’s just a dating service and I hate God, although I definitely believe in God.
“Why do we argue? Life’s so fragile, a successful virus clinging to a speck of mud, suspended in endless nothing.”
— Alan Moore, Watchmen
Church is a dating service? Which door is that behind? I haven’t seen any eligible women yet.
Well, I should have said: a dating service for past, present and future single mothers. There’s almost always one eligible women in each church and each age range, but to get the same quality that the average man offers; he must be wealthy, otherwise he’ll have to date down. Average women are $50k a year. Blue eyes like mine will cost double. A virgin is triple. I know what you mean, though, broseph! You’re welcome to subscribe to my YouTube channel, as I take subject requests. Thank for the insight and the opportunity to correct myself.
Proverbs 9:8-9: ‘Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.’
Volitionless sin has always stuck in my craw.
I also missed where God instructed or commanded Adam and Eve that disobedience was sin, and that they should not disobey. Explaining that concept to beings who had no idea about good or evil would be an interesting conversation…
If you say disobeying god is implicitly sinful and an act of evil, then breaking the first commandment being evil and sinful is also implicit in the nature of God, and comes before the sin of disobedience, as it is a requisite to authority of God. That’s why it’s First from Moses, but it’s not like God just decided that when He spoke to Moses.
Desiring and taking actions to be As God is breaking the First Commandment. Cain didn’t get off after he murdered Able just because that Commandment had not been spoken to Moses yet. “Thou shalt not disobey God” is also not a commandment, but it definitely gets punished in the same way.
Screening at a megachurch in early 2019: Return of the Ring – A husband must man-up to recover his wife’s daughter’s purity ring from the clutches evil.
Pingback: Loud and proud complementarians: Tim and Kathy Keller. | Dalrock
His wife’s daughter…..as in, not his daughter?! You’re the chosen one! Ahahahaha! Pleeeeeease subscribe to my YouTube channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCutk7wUTNmxDXPaqjMvOrAg
Nadia Bolz-Weber is an abomination. I know it’s an often-used word, often-used in jest, but this time it’s serious: She is an abomination.
Lesbian, liberal, she exists not to serve God by selfless devotion. She could do that only through marriage to a godly husband or through the convent. She exists to desensitize Christians to gayness.
Shun such people. You will not and cannot change them. They change you.
Pingback: What is the blue pill? | Dalrock