The Church thru Egalitarian Eyes

Written by Father Bill 34 Comments

two-thumbsThe blog sponsored by Christians for Biblical Equality can be counted on for showing us the cutting edge of egalitarian thinking, the sort of stuff that egalitarian leaders in academe look for in order to know where to place themselves so they’re at the head of the popular mob.

It is also a way to look at things ostensibly “Christian” through egalitarian glasses. An excellent example of this is found in Trevor’s analysis of how/why we have created “a church of gender division.”

His evidence includes the following:

  • We encourage separate men’s and women’s meetings, rallies, conferences etc.
  • We encourage separate men’s and women’s study Bibles and Bible helps.
  • We encourage the genre of exclusive male to male and female to female authors.

So what? Ministries targeted at women and men, ministries pursued by men in concert with men (and women with women) are hardly new, going back to the very beginning (cf. 1 Tim. 3, or Titus 2). And so it has been for about 2,000 years now. The underlying premise of ministries aimed at either sex is simply that men and women are different, and that this difference should be acknowledged and accomodated by church ministry.

Admitted, the advance of technology (printing, video, travel, etc.) makes the opportunities for such accomodation more frequent. Again, so what? If ministry to men alone facilitates such ministry, as with women (as commenters reluctantly acknowledge), why frustrate this ministry by cutting back on it?

  • We encourage male supremacy and primacy within marriage and family.
  • We encourage marital role separateness when we promote hierarchy as a marriage model.
  • We encourage the language of biological differentiation when we talk of his needs, her needs.
  • We encourage difference between the sexes through accepting the thesis of books like, “Men are from Mars – Women are from Venus.”

Again, such “observations” ignore what everyone has always easily known. Moreover, it ignores the Bible’s own mandate that men be heads of the marriage, family, and church. This mandate has been ground zero in Church conflict for several generations now, and evangelicalism seems to have pretty well settled into camps where compliance with Biblical norms are honored (a minority now), and those where these Biblical norms are flouted, ignored, or mocked (e.g. the so-called egalitarian church communities, whether they be congregations, denominations, or parachurch institutions).

What puzzles me is the “we have …” in these observations. It sounds as if this egalitarian is lamenting that the egalitarian agenda hasn’t been more comprehensively implemented in supposedly egalitarian churches.

We encourage segregation and individualism by all of the above which leads to dissatisfaction and the breakdown of balanced gender relationships, including marriage and family.

Flummery. American evangelicals are the “freest” Christians history has ever seen. Their ecclesiology (actually, their lack of an ecclesiology)  allows them to do what they routinely do as often as they change their socks: change churches to suit their tastes in virtually anything, including how the church handles ministry to men and women.

The NT scriptures are addressed to believers generally, not to genders specifically. While instructions are given to husbands, wives, children, slaves and slave owners these instructions are to be culturally considered.

Here we have egalitarian falsehood and egalitarian flummery in one sentence.

First, the OT and NT Scriptures are generally address specificially to the men, and when context indicates that the entire congregation is intended, it is the inclusive masculine gender that is used in the Biblical text. The Ten Commandments, for example, are addressed to men, because men are the heads of the various social units within Israel (marriage, family, tribe). But, no one ever questions that “Thou shalt not steal” is a commandment women are obliged to follow. Specifically, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife …” does not leave the women free to covet their neighbor’s husband. No specific prohibition directed at women is needed, because her moral duty is included in the moral duty of her head.

And, what about those Scriptures known to address specific — gender specific — groups, such as husbands (as opposed to wives) or wives (as opposed to husbands)? According to CBE’s blogger, these are to be “culturally considered!” That’s egalitarian code words for “ignored” or “dismissed.” On this score, the entire Book of Proverbs should be dismissed, because it is compiled by men for men as men. Its purpose is to equip young men to take their places in the gates as older, wiser men.

May women profit from The Proverbs? No one ever said otherwise. Does the Book of Proverbs contain exemplary models for women to emulate? Of course it does, primarily Lady Wisdom. Models of women to reject? Of course it does, primarily Woman Folly. But, even those passages are primarily crafted for the express instruction and development of men’s characters and wisdom. In this way, the Proverbs are typical of the Bible as a whole — addressed to the heads of the believing community for the benefit of all.

While some may disagree, it is my belief that many of our differences are culturally adapted rather than biblically mandated.

Yet that’s what the quarrel is all about! Egalitarians take the Bible’s mandates regarding the nature and relationship of the sexes and dismiss them out of hand in favor of some pansexual or asexual inclusiveness.


  1. Kamilla   |  Thursday, 19 March 2009 at 12:00 pm

    Fr. Bill,

    This matter of quarreling and questions is something you and I have gone ’round about in the past, right?

    This CBE blog post just brings to light once again something you and I used to argue about — the matter of which questions are legitimate to ask. Here is the response to that, posted on my blog this morning:

    “An error in the question

    There are some questions which reveal a fundamental error in their asking. For instance, “How can I safely stick my finger in a light socket?” does not reveal a willingness to question the status quo – rather, it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of electricity and the purpose of fingers. It’s a question that would never be asked if the person first understood the nature of the matters he is questioning.

    In the same way, someone who questions the necessity of separating men and women in accountability groups when sexual matters are being discussed understands very little, if anything, about the meaning and purpose of our sexual natures. It is only when we begin to understand the nature of things that we can begin to ask the right questions. It is only when we stop asking the wrong questions that we can begin to understand the right answers.”


  2. Fr. Bill   |  Thursday, 19 March 2009 at 12:26 pm

    I thought Chesterton (as usual) put such situations in a very bright spotlight: “They don’t know what they’re doing because they don’t know what they’re undoing.”

  3. Michael McMillan   |  Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 3:46 pm

    Great graphic, Fr. Bill! I was thinking of two other possibilities:

    1) the second thumb points in the opposite direction from the first thumb, denoting egal rejection of the good, or approval of the bad, and the general confusion involved in all that.

    2) a hand that was ALL thumbs which would signify:

    a. the clumsiness of the egal worldview

    b. the notion that there can’t be any recognized created distinction between individual digits.

    c. they all insist that hierarchy is wrong, but they all want to be the recognized as something more than an insignificant little finger.

    Glad to see you back, sir!


  4. Michael McMillan   |  Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 4:03 pm

    If this will allow a link…

  5. Michael McMillan   |  Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 4:10 pm

    > “While some may disagree, it is my belief that many of our differences are culturally adapted rather than biblically mandated.”

    Must be why God gave only women breasts to feed their babies. He had to consider the male-dominated culture He was working with [Adam] and adapt to it. He knew Adam wouldn’t want to get stuck with pulling half of the nursery duty.

    Egals deny the obvious, but they are walking contradictions.


  6. Kamilla   |  Friday, 27 March 2009 at 12:13 pm

    Pssst, Fr. Bill,

    I think Promise Keepers has been spying on CBE’s blog. They’re sending out promotional material proclaiming that “Coach Mac is back!” and that they’re gathering again at Folsom field. Only this time, the women are invited inside the stadium.


  7. Don Johnson   |  Tuesday, 01 September 2009 at 10:21 am

    I am egal and I try not to deny the obvious. Women have wombs and breasts to nourish babies in various stages of life, men have a way to impregnate women; these are physical differences. These physical differences can lead in turn to cultural differences.

    But I am egal because I see Jesus, Peter and Paul being egal and I want to listen to them.

  8. Fr. Bill   |  Tuesday, 01 September 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Hello Don,

    “I am egal because I see Jesus, Peter and Paul being egal … ”

    So far, so good. I believe you do. Really.

    But, we disagree as to whether or not what you see is actually there. I would criticize your ability to see, not your integrity.

  9. Don Johnson   |  Tuesday, 01 September 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Yes, I agree it is a matter of seeing what is actually there and that people can disagree on this. Everyone has a worldview and filters which affects what they see and do not see.

    I do my best to try and read Scripture as an original reader would have; only after determining what it meant can one then apply it today in terms of what it means.

  10. Fr. Bill   |  Tuesday, 01 September 2009 at 1:58 pm

    Hmmmm. WordPress’s threading doesn’t seem to permit more than three items in a thread. Oh well …

    “I do my best to try and read Scripture as an original reader would have … ”

    Good intention. But, I have to wonder what’s gone wrong when those who are so much closer to the original writers, those for whom NT Greek was their mother tongue, why THOSE people read the NT as patriarchally as I do.

    Why do you — reading the NT two millennia later — have an accurate grasp of the Apostle’s teaching, while those who lived within a lifetime of the same Apostles are — according to you — wrong?

  11. Don Johnson   |  Tuesday, 01 September 2009 at 3:08 pm

    One aspect was the first believers were all Jews, but by the 2nd century almost all believers were gentiles, I call this the gentilization of the church. This meant in some cases that the original context was lost, in effect there are now gentiles reading a Bible written almost entirely by Jews, from this arises the allegorical method where text is used to say almost anything that supports the (gentilized) church.

    This was a gradual but accumulating process. For example, Chrysostom, altho very anti-women in some of his writings, agreed that Junia was an apostle.

  12. Kamilla   |  Friday, 04 September 2009 at 7:36 pm

    Ah, yes, all was lost to the “gentilized” church for 19 centuries until a bunch of Gentiles (oops!) in the industrialized west in the last century can (quite mysteriously) understand what has been lost to all the other Christians throughout the world, throughout 19 centuries of history and across all three branches of historic Christianity and is still lost today to much of the world not infected by our egalitarian technological society.

    Sounds an awful lot like Joseph Smith and Charles Russell and a dozen or more other religious hucksters who “discovered” the true teaching of the New Testament that had been hidden to everyone else.


  13. Don Johnson   |  Friday, 04 September 2009 at 8:00 pm


    I only claimed that SOME context was lost and that over time this accumulated. And what helped restore some context recently was archeology and/or Messianic Jews providing a Jewish context to the Bible, which was written almost entirely by Israelites/Jews after all.

    All prots agree that both the RCC and EOC made some mistakes in interpretation, else they would be one of those. The question is when did the mistakes start, my answer is they starting in the 2nd century. They were still believers as believers were persecuted but this does not mean the ECF were with error. Later with Constantine and after in the 4th century, it became advantageous to be in the church and then people came in who were not even believers.

  14. Kamilla   |  Friday, 04 September 2009 at 8:47 pm

    You mistake both my hyperbole and the point of my response.


  15. Don Johnson   |  Saturday, 05 September 2009 at 12:50 pm

    If you want a concrete example of such a loss of context, it happened for Mat 19:3, see David Instone-Brewer who explains how the meaning was lost from the 2nd century until 1856 (and may still be obscured in some translations today). The insight is that “for any cause” is a ref to Deu 24:1 and the debate between Hillel and Shammai on whether there were 2 grounds or 1 ground for divorce in this verse.

  16. Fr. Bill   |  Tuesday, 08 September 2009 at 6:37 pm

    Assuming Instone-Brewer is correct on the “loss of context,” how does this change the meaning of the Scriptural text for the one who doesn’t have this context?

    In general, the error of any who suppose the first century Christians had understanding of Scripture which was lost until just recently (e.g. so-called egalitarian teaching!), blaspheme the Holy Spirit and His ministry of leading the Apostles into all truth and their teaching that the Church is the pillar of the truth.

  17. Kamilla   |  Tuesday, 08 September 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Exactly, Fr. Bill. And this is precisely why I tend to believe “Egalitarianism” is just the same old gnostic heresy in new clothes.


  18. Don Johnson   |  Wednesday, 09 September 2009 at 10:02 am

    Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Paperback) by David Instone-Brewer discusses this in detail.

    It is also at for free viewing.

    Without knowing the 1st century context, one could easily thing that Jesus is being asking if there is “any cause at all” for divorce. This is how many have interpreted it, starting in the 2nd century up to including today. But if one does not understand the question it is almost certain one will not understand the answer.

    David shows that in 1st century context, there was a debate between Hillel and Shammai, 2 Jewish sages who lived just before the time of Jesus and there were 2 main schools of Pharisees as the time of Jesus, those of Hillel and those of Shammai, Shammai in general was more strict in his interpretation of Torah. Relevant to this verse is their debate over “ervah dabar” found in Deu 24:1. Did this phase mean just sexual immorality as Shammai taught or did it mean that plus “any thing” which is what Hillel taught? In other words, could a husband divorce his wife for any reason at all, AKA Hillel’s “Any Matter” divorce. If the husband went to Hillel’s pharisees for judgment of a divorce, they would say yes; and if he went to Shammai’s they would say no; so guess which ones he went to if wanting this type of divorce? Hillel’s “Any Matter” divorce was in effect a “no fault” divorce.

    Shammai’s school died out with the sacking of the Temple in 70, but Hillel’s did not and went on to become the foundation for Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism, so it is not a debate is today’s Judaism for the most part, but the debate is recorded in the Mishnah, part of the Talmud.

    So if one reads Mat 19:3 as a Greek, one might think Jesus is being asked if there is any reason at all to divorce; but if one reads it as a 1st century Hebrew, they recognize it as referring to the debate. Big difference.

  19. Kamilla   |  Monday, 21 September 2009 at 6:26 pm

    I’ve been waiting to see if Don will catch on and come back and actually answer the question regarding the ministry of the Holy Spirit. All the “recovered” context in the world doesn’t amount to a hill of beans unless that prior question is answered.


  20. Don Johnson   |  Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 7:20 am

    The phrase “blaspheme the Holy Spirit” has a specific meaning in the Bible.

    Mar 3:28 “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter,
    Mar 3:29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”–
    Mar 3:30 for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

    I certainly was not doing that.

    Perhaps you are referring to:

    Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

    which is a small part of Jesus’ extended response to the question:
    Joh 14:22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?”

    when Jesus is speaking to his disciples.

    Recall that after the crucifixions, the disciples still wondered when Jesus would restore the kingdom to Israel, that is, they had not figured out he came as a suffering servant Messiah and not yet as a conquering king Messiah, so they did not yet have all the truth.

    Act 1:6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

    As a believer I accept that the books of the new testament are a faithful record of that revealed truth that Jesus promised to the disciples. However, that still leaves the reader with a responsibility to interpret them appropriately and we know that human tradition can work to negate Scripture, per Jesus.

  21. James Showalter   |  Saturday, 02 October 2010 at 12:34 am

    I don’t often follow a blog this far. I hope that I have understood what I read correctly and would like to comment.

    First of all, I appreciate Don’s example, from which it seems that the question put to Jesus was not as simple as “Can a man divorce his wife for every reason?” Don has pointed out that a greater understanding of the Jewish historical context would enable one to realize that the Pharisees wanted to find out if Jesus sided with Hillel’s school of interpretation, or with Shammei’s school of interpretation.

    I am glad that Jesus did not answer with human wisdom. Jesus quoted the book of Genesis to remind them of God’s design for marriage and then said “Therefore what God has joined together let no one separate.”

    Now while I appreciate the additional information Don has provided here, it doesn’t seem to change the application for us, which is that God intended for marriages to last. God is a God of order, and He created men and women differently. We are equally loved by him, but the same Apostle who gave us Galatians 3:28, the Magna Charta of Egalitarianism, also said “I do not permit a woman (or wife) to teach, nor to have authority over a man but to be in silence.”

    Egalitarians need to recognize that men and women are equally loved by God but have different God-given roles in the church. In numerous places male headship is upheld. That is not a cultural thing, it is a God-given command.

  22. Fr. Bill   |  Saturday, 02 October 2010 at 8:30 am

    Thank you for stopping by, James.

    You are correct that egalitarians (and Don is typical of most of them) are masters at ignoring things the Bible says that do not comport with the agenda they bring to the Bible. For them, roles are anathema, and so they will either ignore roles which the Bible assigns to each sex, or insist that any roles assigned to one sex are just as mandatory for the other.

  23. Don   |  Saturday, 02 October 2010 at 8:53 am

    Jesus corrects 7 (seven!) misinterpretations of the Pharisees in the Mat 19:3-12 teaching unit. One will almost certainly not know what they taught unless one reads the Mishnah to provide a cultural context to this teaching, as Jesus did not correct everything they taught, just some of it. I go thru all of this when I teach this subject.

    God does intend marriage to be for life. God allows (but does not require) divorce when a party breaks a marriage vow.

    Paul is able to be misunderstood, as Peter wrote in the 1st century, how much more is this true today. Jesus was an egal, as was Paul following Jesus and as I am, following them. This can be obscured by some translation and interpretation choices, but that just means those choices are incorrect.

    There are no roles that the Bible assigns to gender, except the obvious physical ones. It is true that the Bible was written in a age where patriarchy, polygamy, and slavery were the norm; but that does not mean that these things were endorsed by God.

  24. Fr. Bill   |  Saturday, 02 October 2010 at 9:36 am

    Jesus corrects 7 (seven!) misinterpretations of the Pharisees in the Mat 19:3-12 teaching unit.

    So what?

    One will almost certainly not know what they taught unless one reads the Mishnah to provide a cultural context to this teaching, as Jesus did not correct everything they taught, just some of it. I go thru all of this when I teach this subject.

    This is an example of a common egal ploy: “You can’t understand Jesus or the Bible without the insight we bring from outside the Bible. Perspicuity of the Scripture be damned!”

    Paul is able to be misunderstood, as Peter wrote in the 1st century, how much more is this true today.

    Another common egal ploy: ” We, who are 2000 years from the texts of the New Testament, know exactly what they mean, while those poor boobs in the First Century we soooooo confused. Or patriarchally bigoted. Their understanding was obviously wrong, while ours 20 centuries later is obviously right.”

    Jesus was an egal, as was Paul following Jesus and as I am, following them.

    No, Don. You are a 20th Century feminist, who deconstructs Paul and Jesus, reconfiguring them into the image of 20th Century feminism. Maxists did the same thing. Gay activits are doing the same thing. Anyone who wants to give a religious cache to their anti-Christian agenda does the same thing.

    This can be obscured by some translation and interpretation choices, but that just means those choices are incorrect.

    Right. The Mormons do the same thing. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same thing. Egads, egals have their own editions of the Bible, just like the Mormons and the JWs.

    There are no roles that the Bible assigns to gender, except the obvious physical ones.

    Yet another egal ploy which is their version of gnsticism: “The body doesn’t matter. We’re spiritual people, not bound by material constraints like mere physical sex. Spiritually, we have no gender.”

    It is true that the Bible was written in a age where patriarchy, polygamy, and slavery were the norm; but that does not mean that these things were endorsed by God.

    Again, note here the ploy that says “We enlightened 21st Century folks know so much better than those sexually bigoted authors of the Bible.”

    The Bible expressly addresses all three, regulating the latter two (as you note that the Law did with divorce), but emphatically endorsing patriarchy, God-designed and mandated roles for the sexes, and everything else in the Bible that goes with it.

  25. Don   |  Saturday, 02 October 2010 at 11:40 am

    Perspicuity of Scripture as a doctrine of the Reformers refers to the idea that the Bible teaches enough about salvation so that one can be saved outside of the Roman church, contra to what they taught. It never has meant that the whole Bible is easy to understand, except for those that might want to force a particular interpretation on their flock.

    Taking text out of context, including cultural context is a great way to misunderstand it and use it as a pretext for almost anything, it is your choice.

    I am willing to be termed a feminist in order to combat masculinism and worse, patriarchy.

    Yes, there are some egal translations of the Bible. People will get to study and make up their own minds, how shocking!

    The body does matter, God’s entire creation was called very good. I am no Gnostic, in fact, I oppose Gnostic influences on Christianity.

    I did not claim that the authors of the Bible were sexually bigoted, they were inspired by God to write what they wrote. However, God does use people where ever they are in order to lead them into the Kingdom step by step.

    There is no emphatic endorsement of patriarchy by God, due to the Fall, essentially the whole world became patriarchal, the more powerful having their way over the weaker. In any case, being a follower of Jesus is not about seeking power, it is about serving others.

  26. Fr. Bill   |  Saturday, 02 October 2010 at 12:30 pm


    Thanks for providing yet another succinct recitation of egalitarian shibboleths. I’ll probably resort to them for future blog fodder.

  27. Don   |  Saturday, 02 October 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Now if I could only pronouce shibboleth! 🙂

  28. Michael McMillan   |  Monday, 04 October 2010 at 9:08 am

    > Jesus was an egal, as was Paul following Jesus and as I am, following them.

    Don, why does Paul insist men come before God one way and women come before him in the opposite? 1 Corinthians 11 is hardly egalitarian, Paul using the created order, woman created for the man, etc. as a defense for his teaching. With all Paul says about men and women –man being the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the church, and so on– how you can justify egalitarianism is quite astonishing.

    At that rate, the Bible can be made to say anything, including the exact opposite of what it does. Satan pulled this on Eve; “Did God really say…?”

    “Did God really say men were the heads of women like Christ is the head of the church?” Enlightened egalitarians: “Nah, absolutely not — what a ridiculous, horrible idea!”

    At least with Eve, she knew was naked after taking Satan’s bait. Egals hungrily munch away, even open tainted fruit stands, and still haven’t figured out they’ve exposed themselves.

    The wisdom of this age amounts to a lot of wishful thinking. It sure took awhile for the Church –God’s witness on the earth– to catch up with the “truth” already known by progressive, humanistic unbelievers.

  29. Michael McMillan   |  Monday, 04 October 2010 at 10:05 am

    > [Don:] There is no emphatic endorsement of patriarchy by God

    Hi Don. An egalitarian God could have saved us a lot of trouble if He had created Adam and Eve simultaneously. And He shouldn’t have said she was created for the man, not the man for the woman. That sure confuses things. And he shouldn’t have blamed Adam for what Eve started. VERY unegalitarian to do that!! And He shouldn’t have had that whole circumcision-thing, and what’s with the male priests? And he shouldn’t have said/done… [countless other things the way He did!]

    > due to the Fall, essentially the whole world became patriarchal, the more powerful having their way over the weaker.

    Invalid reasoning. Should we not have government, then, because people in power so often abuse the weak? God ordained government to reward good and punish evil. Too often in reality evil is rewarded and good punished. Therefore, let’s claim to be more enlightened than anyone else and say the Bible somehow teaches anarchy! Bad governments are abundant proof that the notion of government itself is a bad concept that should be refuted by good people everywhere! Aren’t we smart?

    > In any case, being a follower of Jesus is not about seeking power, it is about serving others.

    Being *created* with power is different than seeking power. Egalitarianism is women seeking power they were not given, by the way, an overthrow of what the Bible calls the created order, and what was foretold in Genesis 3 — the woman would seek to rule over the man.

    You yourself seem to be saying women are generally weaker than men. Why? Male power is part of the Perfect Design which God called “very good,” not part of the Fall. In a perfect world, power is used to protect the weak. Jesus used His power to defend the defenseless. Adam should have protected Eve from Satan, and because of his failure we have been paying the price ever since. Men are designed to protect women. Men are designed to be the leaders. The fact that all people are sinners and misuse their gifts doesn’t nullify the perfect design of God. It is not good to kick against what is obviously part of God’s original holy design of the sexes, based upon the obvious observable evidence, which backs up Scripture.

    Egalitarianism, just another form of coveteousness, assumes the grass is greener on the other side. It brought about the Fall. Eve usurped the man’s leadership, acting on her own initiative on behalf of the couple, Adam abdicated his protective role and followed her lead. Adam and Eve were the original converts to egalitarianism — the first real Bad Idea! We know better than God, and will deny the obvious facts and what He says in the process.

  30. Don   |  Tuesday, 05 October 2010 at 2:07 pm

    Both genders are designed to be leaders and can be found as such in the Bible in both the OT and NT.

    The woman did not usurp the man’s leadership, the man however, failed to guard the garden as God had charged him.

    Gen 3 does not say the woman seeks to have power over the man, in fact it says the opposite, it is a warning from God about what to expect from being married to a rebel who tried to blame you for his sin.

  31. Fr. Bill   |  Tuesday, 05 October 2010 at 4:17 pm

    “Both genders are designed to be leaders and can be found as such in the Bible in both the OT and NT.”

    The issue, Don, is whether or not women are permitted to lead men, no matter how/why they are designed. Egalitarians say yes; the Bible says no.

    The remainder of your comment are simply more egalitarian shibboleths. I’ll deal with them in later blogs. For this comment thread, however, please refrain from repeating them.

  32. Michael McMillan   |  Wednesday, 06 October 2010 at 3:00 pm


    [We would not be having this conversation without modern technology and birth control. Women would be to busy at home to worry about what the men were up to down at the city gate.]

    Your last post gives two twisted examples of the primary feminist doctrine: it’s the man who’s bad:

    1) “The woman did not usurp …the man however, failed…”

    I noticed you say he failed to guard the garden, not that he failed to guard Eve. That would make her “inferior” if she needed protecting, right? Undoubtedly it’s fine for women to go into combat to defend their gardening house-husbands against ruthless killers — both of them designed to be leaders, and all.

    2) Gen 3 is warning saintly, downtrodden women about marrying accusatory, excuse-making, and rebellious husbands.

    You miss that God called the man [9] “Where are you?” You also miss that Eve passed the buck, too — blamed someone else for her sin. [13]

    You miss that God said to the man “because you listened to your wife…” [17]

    You miss that according to God, the man’s role is out in the field and the woman’s involves children.

    You miss that the man named his wife. [20]

    You miss that God said “the man [22] has become like one of Us, …and now, lest he [22] stretch forth his hand…”

    You miss that God sent the man [23] out of the garden [with his helper in tow, we must assume].

    You miss He drove the man out [24]. Again, I guess Eve tagged along.

    But, the God and the Bible teach egalitarianism! With interpretions such as yours, I can see this conversation will go nowhere!

  33. Kamilla   |  Tuesday, 12 October 2010 at 9:29 pm

    Fr. Bill,

    I must differ with you on your last response. The issue is not “whether” women are created to lead (as all agree that men are), but “how” and “where” they are to lead. The problem with our religious feminist friends is that, as is so often the case, they have a narrow definition of leading, of authority.

    They believe the only way to lead or have authority is through publicly recognized power structures. IOW – they reduce authority to the power to command. The women who fall for this ploy trade the authority of genuine influence for mere authority of command. No woman who has given herself to making a home for her husband and their children has ever lacked the authority of influence. While many have forsaken that authority for the fleeting appearance of authority found in titles and public positions of power.

    There is a reason people used to say, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.”


  34. Fr. Bill   |  Wednesday, 13 October 2010 at 4:07 pm

    You are, of course, correct, Kamilla. I placed my fingernail on one issue (among others that could be mentioned, including all those you mentioned) which is … what? … most apt to cause an egalitarian to squirm. Or, I thought so.

Leave a Reply