feminism

Having an abortion so you can ‘do what you want with your life’

Posted on April 28, 2020April 28, 2020 by elizabethprata

By Elizabeth Prata

3bcf8ddacde840b3ac636106b120c523

The Hulu/FX TV show “Mrs. America” is on now. The first 6 of 8 episodes have been released. The series examines the pitched battle in the 1970s between liberal feminists and conservative women, the former pushing for the Equal Rights Amendment to be ratified to the Constitution and the latter opposing it. The reasons for the pro and con are explored in the series, each episode of which is shown through one of the women’s perspective. At the top of the heap on the Stop ERA side is Phyllis Schlafly and on the pro-ERA side is Gloria Steinem. I’ll review the series when it concludes.

By the time Schlafly got involved with opposing the ERA, the movement had made huge gains through 35 legislatures. Any amendment to the Constitution needs a Super-majority of states, or 38 state legislatures to vote yes in order to pass. Feminists had gotten comfortable with the near certainty that it was going to sail through. Continue reading “Having an abortion so you can ‘do what you want with your life’” →

bible, feminism, gender roles, social justice, Sojourner Magazine, usurper

‘Down with Patriarchy! Up with women pastors!’ Sojourner’s video about women pastors making a splash

Posted on April 7, 2016May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

Someone sent me a video that is making a very big hit online. The news article about it said that within 24 hours, the video had garnered 1 million views. “The video has struck a nerve” the article explained. What is this big, splashy, video?

It is from an organization called Sojourners. Sojourners has the latest news and commentary on faith, politics, and culture, their tagline says. Sojourners is a website/social media outlet/movement aiming to transform the world. That is actually their slogan, “Building a Movement to Transform the World.” So this should tell you something about the organization’s mission and overall focus. Their focus is not on Jesus, but what the world thinks about Jesus. Or should think about Jesus. Or should think about the world. Or something.

Anyway, they are all about “social justice” and one glaring injustice, according to Sojourners, is that there is a glass ceiling in the church and women need to break it. It is a 2000 year old trend that just needs to be smashed. Right now. Women’s “sacred worth” isn’t being taken seriously, because they are continually being denied opportunity to serve at the top. They should be allowed to lead, the thrust of the message goes, because it’s 2016, after all.

Their video is very clever and funny. Since they focus on culture, and right now the biggest culture war is the one regarding gender and gender roles, the video is a satirical push-back on why women should not be pastors. They took the usual old excuses which had been used to deny women places of authority in the culture, and applied them to the church, and reversed the roles. So when women used to hear “Their time of the month makes them hysterical and emotional,” Sojourners took that excuse and applied it to men…in the church…as a satirical look at why women have been denied opportunities to lead.

Scholer’s basis is that men and women are equal despite their gender, but the Bible asserts that men and women are equal through their gender. There’s a difference.
However, their video, in addition to being clever and well-done and therefore attractive to those without biblical understanding, is founded on some old work they dug up from Fuller Seminary’s recently deceased Professor, Dr David Scholer. Dr Scholer was a biblical feminist. For 36 years at four seminaries he taught that women should lead, explaining that a careful reading of the gospels and letters of Paul demands full inclusion of women in church leadership. So says his In Memoriam notice.

As a side note, one can immediately see how the liberal theologians do damage to the faith. The video and its main thrust having been founded on a seminary professor’s work, lends it additional credibility. “Look! A Seminary Professor thinks women should be ordained! It must be true!” Never mind that Fuller Seminary jumped the shark years ago. John MacArthur writes a short piece on Fuller’s slide into ultra-liberalism, here, but as far as most people are concerned, a seminary is a seminary.

I read Scholer’s paper on women leading in the church, female ordination etc, and it is very well-written and makes a great argument. An unbiblical argument to be sure, but a solid and credible argument using logic with scripture interwoven throughout, that would be difficult for the lay person to refute. If you read it, you might think, ‘Hey, they make great points, maybe I ought to rethink this.’ No. No you shouldn’t. If you watch the video, you might say, ‘This is funny and true, I like it. Maybe I ought to rethink this.’ No. No you shouldn’t.

And so Sojourners, wading into the culture wars over gender roles, produced “7 Reasons Men should not be Pastors.”

“Can women really lead in the church?” We still hear this question in our churches, often coupled with silly, irrational, or demeaning thinking. Would we put up with the same excuses for excluding men from leadership?

The video’s introduction above from Sojourners is devilishly excellent. Just as satan did, the issue is phrased in the form of a question, and inverted too, just as satan did. God had told Adam “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2:16).

Yet satan reversed that command, asking the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Genesis 3:1) [emphasis mine]

The Sojourner query, can women really lead in the church, is phrased to insinuate doubt, form a negative, and lead the willingly deluded to the poisonous water from which they will soon drink, as the next line states. The reasons women can’t lead in the church are “silly and irrational”. Not biblical. A neat blame-shifting trick.

Dr Scholer’s 1983 paper stated,

Modern debates over the ordination of women often miss the crucial and basic issues of the holistic concept of the ministry of the Church reflected in the New Testament. Of course, no person should be ordained or given any responsibilities of ministry within the Church because of gender or for the sake of a “point.” On the other hand, we have affirmed in the Church that no person, called and gifted by God, should be denied any role of ministry or leadership in the Church because of one’s gender.

The phrasing here is that no one should be denied any role of ministry or leadership… Well, of course no one should be denied the opportunity to minister in the church. It’s what we’re all called to do. But attaching the word leadership with ministry is disingenuous, because though all are called to minister, not all are called to lead. Not even all men are called to lead. But the insinuation here is that ministry IS leadership and vice-versa.

Secondly, the video posits the old canard that gender distinction is a bad thing. There are two distinct genders (though it seems not for long) and because they are distinct this is bad. It is the feminist and liberal theologian’s duty to equalize the two genders into mutually indistinguishable humans with interchangeable roles.

Scholer’s basis is that men and women are equal despite their gender, but the Bible asserts that men and women are equal through their gender. There’s a difference.

The Bible shows that first, man needed woman. The need is real and it exists because men and women complement each other. After man had named and examined all the animals there was no mate suitable for him. He was still alone. It is not good for man to be alone, and so God made woman.

However hard the feminists try, man will always have been made first (1 Timothy 2:13), and man began a relationship with God first and man received his instructions and duties first. Women are cursed with feminism (Genesis 3:16). It is a curse, instilled in us is a desire to rule over our husbands, to want to usurp the natural order of things. At the root, what feminists are attempting to do is reverse the order of creation. Yet they also cannot reverse the fact that God gave man dominion over the earth and a command to work the garden and keep it. It is man who has authority. (Genesis 1:26). He has been given this authority in the home and in the church.

This is not to say that man-woman-children-animals is a top-down hierarchy where women have no say, no worth, and no work to do. In Christianity, submission is a mutual submission, a joyful following of each other and of Jesus. (Ephesians 5:22-33). Each gender has their own role, created exactly for them by an omniscient God who knows what is best.

Women should thank God that “patriarchy is alive and well in the church” as I read in one of the video’s comments. The Head of the Church is a Man-God who has a Father to whom even He submits. Of course, they satirically and they THINK cleverly puncture the excuses for excluding women from leadership in a precious video they’re so proud of, but avoid the one excuse that truly excludes women from leadership- Father God’s prohibition.

The Ultimate Patriarchy is real, and thank God for that. Jesus came to earth as a God-Man, not a goddess, not a god-woman, and not a hermaphrodite. Jesus is a Man, under whom all authority in the universe rests. God Himself, though He is a spirit, is referred to as Father.

So the video is worldly clever, but the Bible says “Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:21). Ladies, don’t be swayed by a clever video promoting a coyly precious false doctrine. See the resources below which explain from the Bible in a true and not a twisted way as Scholer did, why women’s roles are prescribed, defined, and permanent. Even in 2016.

Resources:

Should women be pastors and elders?

In a social climate of complete equality in all things, the Biblical teaching of only allowing men to be pastors and elders is not popular. Many feminist organizations denounce this position as antiquated and chauvinistic. In addition, many Christian churches have adopted the “politically correct” social standard and have allowed women pastors and elders in the church. But the question remains, is this Biblical? The Bible’s answer to this question is, “No, women are not to be pastors and elders.” Many may not like that answer, but it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the Biblical standard. First of all, women are under-appreciated and under-utilized in the church. There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men. However, it isn’t gifting that is the issue. It is God’s order and calling. What does the Bible say?

Response to Dr John Jefferson Davis’ advocacy for female ordination

One of reasons for male-only ordained leadership is the indisputable fact that Jesus Christ appointed only males to the office of apostle. The importance of this observation is often dismissed as being demanded by the social conventions of Jesus’ time, which supposedly left our Lord with no other possible approach. The idea is suggested that if Jesus were to start the church today, He would of course include women as apostles. But a little reflection on this will give us pause.

Can a woman be a pastor or a preacher?

There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors/preachers. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.

Women pastors – what does the Bible say?

The only way to have a productive dialogue on the women pastors issue is to discuss it biblically. Yes, undeniably, there are men whose views on the issue are clouded by chauvinism. At the same time, there are men and women on both sides of the discussion. So, it should never be assumed that one holds a particular view due to latent chauvinism. The issue should be decided based on what the Bible teaches, not on who can make the strongest ad hominem attack.

feminism, patriarch, rebellion

The motivated ignorance and moral vacuousness of Feminism

Posted on October 27, 2015May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

Of all the civic movements, of all the philosophies, of all the cultural constructs there are or could be, my opinion is that Feminism is the dumbest, most morally reprehensible, and most damaging to the culture in America.

I have always opposed Feminism and I always will.

Now that you know how I really feel, let me get into it.

Regular readers may remember I wrote a three-part series called The Secret Christian Feminists. That series explored that though many prominent Christian female Bible teachers of today deny it, they are in fact adhering to Feminist principles and living like Feminists, kind of like an open secret if you cared to look. Well, I looked.

Christian Secret Feminists Part 1
Christian secret Feminists Part 2
Christian Secret Feminists Part 3

As a movement, Feminism has roots in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 3:16 records the curse God gave women upon Eve’s disobedience to His command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil.

To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

To define Feminism, we read,

Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children.

This is biblical. It is exactly the way God set it up. Yet Feminism holds that this is unjust and must be destroyed.

Feminist theory defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women. It often includes any social mechanism that evokes male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations. Wikipedia

As you can see, “Feminist theory” is simply a rejection of the roles that God laid down upon men and women. It is a continual seeking of women to usurp the roles laid out for men and a disassembly of the patriarchal system, which is entirely just, because God created it and He is the ultimate patriarch.

However as a modern movement, Feminism has three distinct waves. The First Wave began in 1848 and extended through around 1920 when women got the vote as the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified.

The first wave of feminism took place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emerging out of an environment of urban industrialism and liberal, socialist politics. The goal of this wave was to open up opportunities for women, with a focus on suffrage. The wave formally began at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, when 300 men and women rallied to the cause of equality for women. Elizabeth Cady Stanton (d.1902) drafted the Seneca Falls Declaration outlining the new movement’s ideology and political strategies. (Source)

The First Wave of Feminism focused on working conditions and the vote. These were legal/political issues related to civic life and the betterment of life for all within community. In the first wave of feminism the women were concerned with involvement in political and civic affairs, heretofore dominated by men. Property rights and execution of wills was also part of the First Wave. Ultimately this Wave was about women wanting more control in affairs outside the home.

Second-wave feminism is a period of feminist activity that first began in the early 1960s in the United States, and eventually spread throughout the Western world and beyond. In the United States the movement lasted through the early 1980s. (Wikipedia)

Where the First Wave was arguably more noble, with women focused on civic & legal liberties, the Second Wave of Feminism focused on women’s personal freedoms, notably, sexual liberties. Feminists in this Second Wave, (approximately 1962-1982 or so) at that time advocated for sexual freedom, abortion, safe birth control and the like. They also fought for equal pay for equal work. American History writes,

Whereas first-wave feminism focused mainly on suffrage and overturning legal obstacles to gender equality (i.e., voting rights, property rights), second-wave feminism broadened the debate to a wide range of issues: sexuality, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities

In Second Wave of Feminism, the issues feminists attacked were more than just “family” as mentioned above. For example the “de facto inequalities” included making it easier to obtain a divorce. The push for “reproductive rights” was really seeking the establishment of legalized abortion AKA baby murder. If the First Wave was a step for women to abandon the home, the second wave was a studied and purposeful destruction of the family within the home.

In the Third Wave we read a lot about “heteronormativity”. Third Wave feminists from the mid 1990s through to today rail against normal heterosexuality, AKA being normal. They want to redefine genders. Not just roles, but genders. They are fighting for acceptance of any and all kinds of sexuality. Finally, they are using words like “slut” and “bitch” to defiantly define themselves. The 3rd Wave Feminists claim that doing so strips the word of its power. This quote is from “Bitch Magazine”:

When it’s being used as an insult, “bitch” is most often hurled at women who speak their minds, who have opinions and don’t shy away from expressing them. If being an outspoken woman means being a bitch, we’ll take that as a compliment, thanks.

No, thanks. The Bible says, She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. (Proverbs 31:26). It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife. (Proverbs 25:24)

Living with a loud, obnoxious, quarrelsome woman is a heartache for any man. Look at Proverbs 21:9

It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman.

Even though God said it is not good for a man to be alone, (Genesis 2:18), if a woman is obnoxious, loud, complaining like a dripping faucet, it’s better for him to live on a roof or in a desert! Women are to practice gentle speech and live a virtuous life. Christian women, anyway.

Charlotte Krolakke wrote in her paper “Three Waves of Feminism“,

Queer and transgender feminists attack what they see as the crux of the problem: heteronormativity. They call for recognition of queers: not only gays and lesbians but also drag queens, drag kings, transsexuals, masculine women, and feminine men …

Put another way, Third Wave Feminists see the crux of the problem as that people are normal heterosexuals. They feel this must stop. These attacks on genders and sexual roles are not simply cultural attacks, they are biblical attacks. In Deuteronomy 22:5 we read,

A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

The Third Wave was and is currently a purposeful destruction of gender- the very core of what it means to be a woman or a man. This also is a biblical attack. We read in Genesis 5:2 that

Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.

The Third Wave of Feminism which is going on now, is a purposeful destruction of what it means to be male and female. In reading about Third Wave Feminists I read the term destabilize quite often, usually referring to gender. They seek to redefine what gender IS and destabilize our perceptions of it.

What sparked this post were two articles published recently that made me do a double take. The first is from a website called The Other McCain where it is reported that “A Yale-educated feminist calls herself a ‘morally vacuous harlot‘. Her description of herself is in the article, though not quoted here.

A Feminist woman named Alana Massey describes herself in a short bio thus, (and it’s excerpted, there’s more)

So I was a walking cliche of disastrous 20-something in New York: I treated mental illness with alcohol and drugs and bad sex with much older men. I had a series of bad assistant and PR jobs and would fall back on stripping and fetish work when I inevitably quit my jobs or couldn’t cover expenses. I enrolled in Yale Divinity when I was 25 in the hopes that if I just got a good helping of Jesus, I’d be cured of my debauchery and sadness.

The Other McCain responded,

Furthermore, could anything be more absurd than Ms. Massey’s idea that she could get “a good helping of Jesus” at the fraudulently named Yale Divinity School? The place has been implacably hostile to Christianity for decades. The impiety and secularized gnosticism of that decadent institution did much to inspire William F. Buckley Jr.’s monumental work God and Man at Yale. If anyone is seeking “a good helping of Jesus,” probably the last place you’d find it is New Haven, Connecticut, being tutored by the academic High Priesthood of postmodern paganism.

Ms Massey’s extended bio and quotes are rough, too rough to post here, but suffice to say, she IS a slut. Proudly so. So we went from First Wave Feminists saying “I want the right to vote” to Third Wave Feminists saying “I want the right to be a morally vacuous harlot”. Mr McCain gets to the devastating point when he writes,

Alana Massey describes herself as “a morally vacuous harlot” who pursues one-night stands and complains of the “physically substandard experience” that does nothing for “a woman’s sexual fulfillment.”

Let us ask: Can feminism solve a problem that feminism itself created?

Is this Yale-educated woman too stupid to see that her compulsive promiscuity — a lifelong habit now abetted by advanced technologies of contraception and dating apps — is the basic cause of her problems? How does her whorish “sex-positive” feminism contribute anything to “true gender equality”? Yet what exactly does she imagine “true gender equality” would look like, if ever we were to achieve it?

I hate Feminism and I always will. It was the first attack on God, satan enticing Eve to rebel against God and subvert her husband. It has led to a rebellion against gentle speech, family harmony, domestic duties, a distortion of gender roles, promiscuity, loss of femininity, and cowed husbands. Feminism has led to the destruction of the family, abortion, divorce, and adultery. Feminism has led to vacuous harlotry and motivated ignorance. [The motivated ignorance article is the second article that prompted me to write this].

Be careful about Feminism’s intrusion into Christianity. Beth Moore chooses to be a runabout wife, traveling from one side of the nation to another even while her children were young, being President of her own corporation, with her husband as VP. At Hillsong the female pastor Bobbie Houston claims “We don’t sideline the girls” an unbiblical environment from which we get Christine Caine. Feminism has crept in to Christianity with female deacons and female “pastors”, female “prophetesses” and rebellious women of all kinds.

Feminism has lasted a long time and the mind-set now is that women can and should participate in leadership roles in the church. Not so.

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. (Titus 2:3-5)

She is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire can compare with her. Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called blessed. (Proverbs 3:15-18)

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:23-24)

Ooooh, submit. The one word a Feminist hates. But it is one word that could change everything, for anyone. Submit to the Lord Jesus Christ. Lay your sins at His feet and ask for forgiveness. Submit to the commands for our lives He has spoken in His book. Submit to Him, and not to the flesh. The debauchery of a life such as the one Ms Massey is living will be ceased thanks to the grace of the Holy Spirit creating a new person in her and of her. Her sadness would be replaced with joy, and her rebelliousness would be quelled by submitting to the Spirit, who would help her grow in grace and virtue. It is the same for any woman, living any kind of life. His grace extends its wings over any person willing to repent of their sins, lay aside that female rebellion, and plead for a quiet, peaceful life of reconciliation to God, THE Patriarch.

——————————

Crisis of Masculinity: "hapless fellas trying to figure out how to project authority in homes and relationships thoroughly dominated by their female partners"

Posted on August 17, 2013May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

The first generation of men who are the victims of feminism have now lived fully as men. That group are in their 70’s, and their sons, the second generation, are now fathers of the third generation of men who have lived in a culture (in the West) where men are not supposed to be men. They don’t know how to be men anymore. NY Magazine calls this state of things a “crisis of masculinity.” I call it the natural result of generations of feminism.

Initially called the “Women’s Liberation Movement” the cultural emasculation of men began in the 1960s along with the other movements of the day, civil rights and sexual revolution, and continued through the mid-1980s. This movement was actually the second wave of feminism and as such, it had a different focus. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, first wave feminism “focused mainly on suffrage and overturning legal obstacles to legal gender equality, (i.e., voting rights , property rights ), second-wave feminism broadened the debate to a wide range of issues: sexuality, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities.”

The latter part of the twentieth century indeed was a hotbed of change. Longstanding cultural norms were up-ended. As a result, the complementarian aspect of male-female marriages and opposite sex relationships suffered.

So often, the media is the mirror of our culture, being reflected back to us. The current spate of television shows which are going to open this ‘fall season’ are full of leading males who are depicted as emasculated, and they wonder why. They are perplexed as to where it all went. These shows present ‘comedy’ in the men’s efforts to try and find their way back.

Here is one example:

She-Runners – An encouraging wave of chick-created comedies.
“In a perfect aftershock to the success of Bridesmaids (not to mention the ascendancy of Poehler and Fey), there’s a major uptick this fall in sitcoms about young single women, and, even better, several of these shows were created by female writers. It’s an encouraging phenomenon—as well as a weird analogue to the networks’ slate of emasculated-dude comedies (from Work It to Man Up), which look far less … winning.”

The Men of the New Fall Sitcoms Would Hate the Women of the New Fall Sitcoms
“One of the biggest, and certainly one of the most attention-getting, trends of the new fall TV season has been the bevy of smart, sexually assured, twenty-something lady sitcoms, with each network bringing a contender to the schedule: CBS has 2 Broke Girls with Kat Dennings (premiering tonight); Fox has New Girl with Zooey Deschanel (premiering tomorrow); NBC has Whitney with Whitney Cummings (premiering Thursday); and there are more on the way for mid-season.”
…
A related trend, but one that has been getting less attention for the obvious reasons — the shows are not as good, and their stars don’t look as good — are the bitter-man comedies: Tim Allen’s Home Improvement follow-up, Last Man Standing; ABC’s Man Up, which could be called How to Be a Father; CBS’s How to Be a Gentleman, in which Kevin Dillon advises a polite, spineless fellow on how to be b-utch and, come mid-season, ABC’s magnificently wretched cross-dressing comedy Work It. These Sad Man Sitcoms are about how confusing, difficult, and often emasculating it is to be a man in the days of the mancession. The guys in the second batch of shows are in crisis because they have found themselves living in a world that belongs to the women in the first batch of shows — and they don’t like it one bit.
…
In Last Man Standing (October 11, ABC), Tim Allen plays Mike, the father of three daughters. His career taking photographs for a wilderness catalogue is in jeopardy because young men aren’t as interested in crossbows as they used to be. Meanwhile, his wife’s career as a business executive is thriving. Mike rants in his vlog, Howard Beale–style, “What happened to men!” as he complains that guys these days can’t survive in the wilderness, catch big fish, or change tires. The fellas in Man Up … and How to be a Gentleman … sure can’t do these things.

Man Up is, more or less, a show about three Phil Dunphys: well-meaning, often hapless fellas trying to figure out how to project authority in homes and relationships thoroughly dominated by their female partners. In How to Be a Gentleman, an effete magazine writer named Andrew is chastised by Kevin Dillon’s muscle-head character Burt, “You know everything about being a gentleman, and nothing about being a man,” before beginning to inaugurate him into, more or less, the Tim Allen school of manliness.
…
But the difference is still palpable: Last Man Standing, Man Up, and How to Be a Gentleman are all coming from a place of fear and bitterness. They are predicated on the idea that once, not so long ago, there was a code, a way to be a man that everyone understood, and now that code is gone, leaving Y chromosomes isolated and flailing in a tech-savvy world dominated by women. … Whether it’s true or false, both sets of shows seem to agree that it’s way more fun to be a woman than a man right now. Certainly, after watching all these sitcoms, you’d think they have a point.”

————————————-

A terrible double standard exists for men today: society says be a man, but if men assert themselves as men, they are accused of being misogynist. They are warned not to be effete, but when they assert their masculinity, they are accused of being “homophobic.” If you read the article above in its entirety, you will see both those double-standards brought up.

In Christian culture, the situation is even worse. The young men of today have been raised in this culture and if they become saved at a later time in life, chances are they will have been raised by a feminist mother and a ‘hapless’ father. They have to learn not only how to be a Christian, but how to be a man. Christian men are expected to lead their families, and so many of the young men of today simply don’t know how to do that.

In many of the liberal Youth Ministries, younger men are taught a soft, romantic, effete Jesus who is sentimental love at all times. Never is wrath, hardness, fighting for the faith, or stalwart soldiering brought up.

Sample lyrics from the popular Christian band Jesus Culture exemplify this. The song excerpt below was written in 2012 and it is called Be My Love. You would not know it is a Christian song if you heard it until toward the end when God is mentioned. The only tell-tale in the written form is the capital Y on the word You until you read toward the end that the song is about God. Event he promotional shots show effete men with long hair and earrings, wearing androgynous clothing and looking like the female lead singer.

Where there is no love
will You be my love
Yeah, yeah

[CHORUS:]
I can’t find anyone like You
That satisfies quite like You do
And my heart is burning for You
Yes, my heart is burning for You

Here is another Jesus Culture song written in 2012 called I Belong to You, giving God permission to love us or something.

“I Belong To You”

[VERSE 1:]
You can be the One that steals my heart
With just a simple thought of who You are
Let Your light shine in the darkest parts
Let Your love fill the world

[VERSE 2:]
You can be the fire down in my soul
That I can’t contain, that I can’t control
Would You fill me up to overflow
Let Your love fill the world

[CHORUS:]
And I belong to You
Forever, I belong to You

[VERSE 3:]
Let Your Words be like a burning flame
Come in close to touch my heart again
The whole earth trembles at the sound of Your name
Let Your love fill the world

[VERSE 4:]
All I want is more of You
Your breath is life, Your word is truth
Your glory here is bursting through
Let Your love fill the world

[BRIDGE:]
And You have set my heart on fire
My love and my desire
Only for You

And as Your glory fills this place
Your love we will embrace
Only for You, for You

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari, Bosom Buddies, 1980

It’s sentimental drivel that means nothing.

Is it any wonder where the young men of today are emasculated in society and softened in church, that when they create a family they do not know how to lead? Media today doesn’t help. Men are either superheroes with powers (Spiderman or Terminator), or they are effete Tootsies or Bosom Buddies. In the latter two, men dressed up as women in order to get an apartment or to get employment, and if you think those are simply culturally irrelevant references because Tootsie the movie and Bosom Buddies the tv show came out decades ago, the 2012 ABC television show “Work It” featured as character development, starting in the first episode, men who dress as women to attain employment learning how to be more “sensitive”. The message is, the only way to be successful is to be a women.

Ben Koldyke & Amaury Nolasco, Work It, 2012

A study referred to in the Guardian UK article, ‘Masculinity crisis’ leads to family murder, according to new study conducted by Birmingham City University criminologists has linked today’s crisis of masculinity to fathers murdering their own children, or family annihilationists. Quoted in the Guardian, project leader Professor David Wilson said, “some men are unable to come to terms with different and developing notions of the institution of the family, where women increasingly play a much more dynamic role than they had in the past”.

Aaron D. Wolf wrote in 2005: “Every definition of masculinity into which our Lord Jesus Christ does not fit belongs in the rubbish heap. Indeed, there could be no greater example of a man than He. Contrary to modern portrayals, Jesus was neither a sensitive metrosexual nor a macho-macho man. The tenderness that He displayed toward those whom He loved (including His enemies) was paternal and sacrificial, focused not on self-gratification or expression but on the real needs of those He came to save.”

“These familiar strains from the popular hymn “In the Garden” represent the modern American imagination of the essence of Christianity: a romantic fantasy in which a chivalric Jesus rescues me from my own loneliness and despair and fills all of my emotional needs. This effeminate picture of the Christian life, from the dramatic conversion experience to the long walks in the garden alone with “Jesus,” has produced generations of effeminate Christian men who either allow themselves to be consumed by their imaginary “walks with Jesus” or else drift away from church altogether, knowing that their best efforts at spiritual courtship will fall well short of those of the women who now, more than ever, fill the pews of America’s churches.”

Fathers and Mothers, raise up your boys to be boys and the girls to be girls. Jesus set out roles for us. Elder men and women have roles. Widows have roles. Husbands and wives have roles. Children have roles. Church members have roles. The bible is our life guide, not the movies and not television.

“Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Peter 3:7)

“That the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:17)

“He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,” (1 Timothy 3:4)

“For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.” (Ephesians 5:23)

“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” (1 Corinthians 16:13)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How the Christian secret feminists are reforming the definition of biblical womanhood. Part 3

Posted on October 21, 2012November 19, 2025 by elizabethprata

By Elizabeth Prata

Christian secret feminists Part 1
Christian secret feminists Part 2
Christian Secret Feminists Part 3

I’ve been looking at Christian secret feminism. I call it secret feminism because as opposed to the open Christian feminists, these women live as feminists but cloak their lifestyle and teaching in Christianese talk. Look at part 1 for how they do that, and look at part 2 for an examination of what the bible calls women to be like.

In this final part I want to look at Revelation 2 again, the church at Thyatira. This part will look at the final outcome of what happens to churches that tolerate this stuff.

In April of this year I proposed that the false prophetess Jezebel-spirit spoken against by Jesus in who was being tolerated in the church at Thyatira was a Beth Moore type. I am going to deepen that study a bit.

In the previous two parts I’ve spoken of the lifestyle that Beth Moore and other female celebrity teachers lives is more one of feminism than wifely biblical womanhood. I parsed their speech and compared that to their life and the difference is amazing in its gap. One does not match up to the other. I’ve examined many times how Moore in particular has brought false teachings into the church, particularly the American church, much to the detriment of her students. I said that one way to discern if a person is true or not is to match what they say with what they do and if there is a discrepancy over time, it is in fact a pattern of falsity. Beth Moore exemplifies this both in her lifestyle and her teaching.

Theologian Robin Schumacher wrote about the church at Thyatira. First, let’s see what Jesus has to say to this church, which was an actual church in the first century, but is also representative of the church of today.

“And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ‘The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze.”

“‘I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works. But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. Only hold fast what you have until I come. The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’” (Revelation 2:18-29)

Oh, Lord Jesus praise Your name!!

Schumacher writes of the verse referring to Jezebel, “Christ condemns what was evidently rampant immorality in the church that was spearheaded by a prominent female figure that Jesus likens to the Old Testament character of Jezebel. The specific deeds called out are spiritual adultery and the worship of idols signified by the eating of things sacrificed to them.”

He notes that the Greek term tolerate means to ‘let go’ and ‘allow.’ “The main complaint Jesus had against the church was that they were allowing a false teacher to parade her teaching and her practices in their midst, with the end result that some were being led astray. We need to remember that the church is not to be a home for false teaching.”

John MacArthur explains what happens when a church tolerates false teaching, “Sin and false doctrine always appear together. Whenever false doctrine enters into a church, sin follows. For example, the church at Corinth was subject to false teachers. As a result, sin became widespread throughout the church. The church at Thyatira represents the church characterized by sin and false doctrine. Where there is a tolerance for false doctrine, theological liberalism begins to creep in and the gospel is watered down. That is how Satan brings about sin.”

It is exactly happening like that today.

Let’s look at the verse referring to this false teacher as prophetess. Schumacher again:

“The word ‘prophetess’ is only used in the New Testament here and once in Luke 2:36 to speak of Anna- it means one who interprets oracles. The easiest way to justify false teaching is to make the claim that you are a prophet from God and that the things you advocate and teach come directly from Him.”

Wow. I want you to think for a minute if there is any woman in today’s Christian world who is

–teaching
–proclaiming false things in that teaching
–wielding major influence across the church
–leading many astray
–claiming direct revelation from God
–and was told to teach it to the people
–having been around long enough to birth spiritual daughters

Going on, the Lord said He gave her time to repent. She did not want to, the verse says, but in the meantime she birthed spiritual daughters.

The Lord is gracious and kind. He gave time to repent, and in so doing he also gave the church time to put a stop to the false teaching. However as much as the Jezebel teacher didn’t want to repent, the church didn’t put a stop to it.

When we step outside our roles God assigned us chaos ensues. Men are giving up on their biblically mandated charge to the shepherds and teachers and handing over the roles to women, who are also taking up those roles at home. Women, emboldened by their secular feminist sisters, are yielding to satan’s temptation to go after leadership roles.

Brethren, God is the authority. He knows best. If He ordained things they way they are it is for our good. We must believe that. We must. It is what faith is, believing and living out a life submitted to His precepts.

Now, I don’t think all the woman I’ve mentioned throughout his series are terrible people. Some may even be saved, and love the Lord. They may not be aware of the fact that they are part of a generation that has compromised on their biblical role, having only had spiritual Jezebels to look up to. But the word of God is the ultimate authority and His lenses are always clear.

I’ve seen submitted woman living a life of care and nurturing love to their family and it is a beautiful thing. Beautiful. I’ve seen modesty displayed and humility exhibited, and it is a gentle refreshing rain to my soul. When a married man and a woman demonstrate a life of complementary roles is it a wonder.

And above all, Jesus is glorified.

There is nothing that has more eternal impact than a Christian life of men and women in their Godly roles. Please do not believe your self worthless or marginalized. I see. I watch. Others do too. We love the sweet life of a modest woman and the husbandly care of a submitted man. To Whom does the man submit? To Jesus. (Ephesians 5:22-33.)

Jesus is our all in all, sufficient for all things, eternally. And that is a praise to Him!

Christian secret feminists Part 1
Christian secret feminists Part 2
Christian Secret Feminists Part 3

beth moore, egalitarian, feminism, jesus, priscilla shirer, prophecy

How the Christian secret feminists are reforming the definition of biblical womanhood. Part 2

Posted on October 21, 2012November 19, 2025 by elizabethprata

By Elizabeth Prata

Christian secret feminists Part 1
Christian secret feminists Part 2
Christian Secret Feminists Part 3

In Part 1 of examining this issue, I brought to your attention the first generation of Christian secret feminists and looked at their lives and their words. I looked at the second generation also, and examined the things they are saying and doing that usurp the biblical role for women as outlined in the bible. They are celebrity bible teachers who, under the guise of ministry and the cloak of Christianese, are in fact living an overt feminist life. I called these women Christian secret feminists.

In this part I would like to look at what biblical womanhood is rather than look at what it isn’t. We have seen enough of that in part 1, haven’t we?!

In 2007 a half day conference was held titled “Different By Design: A crucial call to faithfulness in gender issues.” The session was to be held just prior to the Desiring God conference. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and Ligon Duncan, Professor at the Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) were the keynotes. If the call was crucial in 2007 almost 6 years ago, it is a siren call today.

Posted on this woman’s webpage is an archive of some of the issues discussed at that conference.

Wayne Grudem, Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies, wrote a book called Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. The synopsis of the book states, “Egalitarians, or evangelical feminists, consider men’s and women’s roles in the home and church to be interchangeable. In this helpful book, Bible scholar Wayne Grudem considers over a hundred egalitarian arguments and finds them contrary to the Bible. According to Grudem, the Bible teaches that God values men and women equally. However, their roles in home and church are complementary to each other, not interchangeable. Arguing against both feminism on the left and male chauvinism on the right, his carefully researched handbook is a valuable resource defending the complementarian viewpoint.”

Professor Grudem wrote it because he was concerned that evangelical feminism (also called “egalitarianism”) has become a new path by which evangelicals are being drawn into the theological liberalism.”

Grudem defines evangelical feminism (or as I define the worse flavors of it, Christian secret feminists), “When I speak of “evangelical feminism” I mean a movement that claims there are no unique leadership roles for men in marriage or in the church. According to evangelical feminism, there is no leadership role in marriage that belongs to the husband simply because he is the husband, but leadership is to be shared between husband and wife according to their gifts and desires. And there are no leadership roles in the church reserved for men, but women as well as men can be pastors and elders and hold any office in the church.'”

For example, Al Moher explained why the issue of biblical womanhood is so important, “The fault lines of controversy in contemporary Christianity range across a vast terrain of issues, but none seems quite so volatile as the question of gender. As Christians have been thinking and rethinking these issues in recent years, a clear pattern of divergence has appeared. At stake in this debate is something more important than the question of gender, for this controversy reaches the deepest questions of Christian identity and biblical authority.” Continuing later in his piece, Mohler said, “The postmodern worldview embraces the notion of gender as a social construct. That is, postmodernists argue that our notions of what it means to be male and female are entirely due to what society has constructed as its theories of masculinity and femininity.”

It is important to remember that roles for men and women are not socially defined, but biblically defined. Even those women inside Christianity who attempt to redefine their roles by saying it is a gift or a ministry from God are in themselves redefining the bible because doing this proves they believe the bible to be insufficient as their authoritative guide for life.

So what is Biblical Womanhood? Dr. Georgia Purdom at Answers in Genesis begins her answer to that question by saying:

“The online Free Dictionary defines womanhood as “the composite of qualities thought to be appropriate to or representative of women.” How do we determine the qualities women should possess? Scripture is the ultimate authority.”

“Most Christians think immediately of Proverbs 31. While this passage is important to biblical womanhood, it is not the foundation. We need to go back to the beginning—Genesis 1. Here we see that God created both male and female in His image (Genesis 1:27).”

“However, God created men and women with physical, emotional, and mental differences; and while both bear the image of God, they do so uniquely. God also created men and women to have different roles in marriage (Genesis 2:18) and the church (1 Timothy 2:11–13), but again they are both image-bearers and equal in Christ (Galatians 3:28).”

Purdum continues by saying that in biblical womanhood “God has a lot to say about the qualities of a woman made in His image. Let’s take a look at a couple.” She cites modesty and work and goes into a solid biblical exposition of those two concepts in light of the biblically defined roles for women. I suggest you read it in context at the site for more depth. (source)

In another essay at Answers in Genesis called Are Gender Roles a Social Construct? by Steve Golden, the author looks at the curse on men and women after the fall and how this curse might be affecting us today.

“A final point regards the Curse in Genesis 3. Here we see that Adam and Eve already had distinct roles, but as a result of the Curse, their roles became toilsome and painful. In verse 16, God graciously allowed Eve (and her female descendants) to bear children, but childbirth would be associated with a good deal of physical pain as well as concerns about bringing a child into this cursed world. Additionally, God tells Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). Christians differ over what this verse means, but two likely interpretations arise: (1) Eve will try to usurp her husband’s role as head, but God is requiring Adam to keep her from doing so, resulting in conflict; or (2) Eve will try to usurp her husband’s role as head, and he will exercise unbiblical male domination over her.”

We see the evil results of that sin and its resulting curse today. In my opinion, many men have become tired of the conflict and have given up (by no longer attending church, so as to avoid the whole issue) or have given in (by accepting the recapitulation of the roles as some of the female celebrity teachers’ husbands have done.) The second chapter of Titus illustrates what is expected of Godly behavior of men and woman, the youth and the old:

“But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.” (Titus 2:1-10)

Ladies, modest and humble and loving wives do not disrespect their husbands on Facebook. It’s ugly when you do that. Just had to get that off my chest while I was thinking about it.

An example I came across of immodesty and irreverence toward the elder women comes from Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer at the 2009 “Deeper Still” Christian Women’s Conference in Greensboro NC. Robin Schumacher of Confident Christians used the account from an attendee in his power point teaching called “Got Ethics? Where is the Line?”

An Example of Getting it Wrong: One of the questions that the speakers addressed was, “What is the best part of marriage for you, and what is the most challenging?” When it came time for Priscilla to address the “most challenging part” of her marriage, she explained that she has two small children (one of whom she is still breast-feeding) and well, “I’m often just too tired, if you know what I mean, ladies! [Wink, wink.]”

To my (saddened) surprise, the arena of 10,000 women actually stood up and cheered. Various chimes of laughter, screaming, and “yeah, girl!” boomed in the packed house. This continued for about a minute, while even Beth Moore nodded, laughed and clapped at Ms. Shirer’s comment. Priscilla continued by relating a story of how she often tries to creep into bed after her husband falls asleep so that he won’t start coming on to her. Beth Moore admitted the same, and the more they discussed, the louder the cheering arena shouted and clapped in agreement.

I sat in my seat and was profoundly disturbed. Here I was at a Christian Women’s Conference, and our “trusted” female leaders were joking about avoiding their husbands in bed.

What happened next, I believe, shocked everyone.

An Example of Getting it Right: As all the shouting and cheering continued while Priscilla and Beth discussed the “too tired” syndrome, I turned my attention to Kay Arthur. This very beautiful, very wise woman was silently flipping through her Bible, which she kept on her lap during the discussion. Finally she looked up at her two fellow speakers and said very kindly but unflinchingly, “Now girls, I understand how you feel. We have all been there, myself included. I remember once sleeping on the very edge of my bed so that I could avoid my husband. I know what you mean. But let me show you something, please.” Kay picked up her Bible and then simply spoke:

“1 Corinthians 7:4-5. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

Oh if you could have seen the faces on Ms. Moore and Ms. Shirer! Ms. Moore had her mouth half-open in disbelief, and Ms. Shirer raised her eyebrows and opened her eyes wider in shock. The Coliseum’s chorus of cheers changed to a disgruntled murmur. I do believe I was the only one clapping.

After a brief pause, the two rebuked women turned to the audience and said with a half eye-roll, “Oh, well Ms. Kay has a verse for everything, doesn’t she?!” The crowd laughed again. Ms. Shirer continued, commenting that her husband loves to eat, so she was doubtful there would be a lot of abstaining for fasting. Ms. Moore agreed. The crowd continued laughing and cheering.

Kay Arthur continued her uncompromising, yet gentle rebuke. “Girls, again, I understand fully what you’re saying, but I’m merely telling you what God has to say about sex between a husband and wife. You are not to deprive one another, except for prayer or fasting. So, unless you’re doing that, you’re not to avoid your husband… and he should not avoid you either.”

Nervous giggles and pauses were all that remained from Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer. Finally, Priscilla exclaimed, “Well! On to another topic, shall we?!” To which the crowd laughed enthusiastically.

Biblical womanhood is supposed to be submissive to elders, and yet Mrs Moore and Mrs Shirer reportedly disrespected an elder and refused an opportunity to apologize to the audience and repent to God. What an example they could have demonstrated of biblical womanhood to thousands of attendees! They could have edified Jesus! But instead they introduced an off-color topic, disrespected their husbands, engaged in unsound speech, dissed an elder woman, and refused submission to the clear teaching of the Word. (See Titus verses above). This is not biblical womanhood. It is Christian feminism. Mrs Arthur is to be praised for handling the situation in a biblical, loving fashion. THAT is biblical womanhood according to Titus 2!

The outcome of the curse in Genesis 3 is coming home to roost now. In Revelation 2 we read of a church that Jesus praises in some ways but condemns in others. Let’s finish the series with a look at it in terms of what happens to those who accept false teaching from women who rebel.

Christian secret feminists Part 1
Christian secret feminists Part 2
Christian Secret Feminists Part 3

bible, feminism, women's liberation

Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism’s modern attacks- part 3

Posted on April 4, 2012May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

I have been looking at modern Feminism and its impact on the church. Since the Women’s Liberation Movement came to the fore in 1970, an entire generation of women has been born and grown up under the demagogic language of the movement. Demagoguery is “is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda.” (Wikipedia definition). A whole generation of girls has been instilled with Feminist notions by now. “Feminist theory, which emerged from these feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women’s social roles and lived experience.”

Interestingly, the flagship for the feminism movement is the UK magazine Spare Rib. Founded in 1972 its first editorial explained that the magazine’s role was to “investigate and present alternatives to the traditional gender roles for women of virgin, wife or mother.” Wikipedia notes of the magazine, “The fact that Spare Rib reached its high point of circulation and influence … in the late 1970s usefully charts the women’s liberation movement itself.” It ceased publication in 1993.

One can see immediately how the Feminist movement was a direct rejection of the God-ordained roles He set out for men, women, children and families in the bible. Adherents to the movement’s tenets directly reject biblical notions of family, domestic leadership, marriage (straight and gay), virginity, abortion, sexuality and sexual activity, and more.

Note the movement’s flagship magazine Spare Rib is based on the verse from Genesis 2:21-22: “So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.”

Now that a generation of women have grown up with secular saturation of unbiblical notions of how they are to relate to the world and to men, we look at how the church has been affected. In part 1 I looked at the language of the movement in relation to the church, noting two prominent news articles published this week asking if Jesus was a hermaphrodite and if God is a girl. That was the Demagogic. In part 2 I looked at women’s roles in the church as related to the Middle Ages and the modern Mystic. In this last part I will take a look at the biblical role of the woman as related to Logistics.

Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism’s modern attacks- part 1
Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism’s modern attacks- part 2

LOGISTICS

The satanic, fundamental flaw in the Feminist movement (Women’s Liberation) is first that women need something to be liberated from. As we see above, the movement seeks to “liberate” the woman from biblically mandated roles, which is really saying it rejects God’s order of things. The second flaw is that there is something inherently unequal about the roles of men and woman as wife, mother, husband, father, etc. They are not unequal. They are equal. They’re just different. Men have mostly been assigned a role for leadership and women of support. Both are vital and both are for the glory of God. Both win the battle. You cannot have one role without the other role and expect to win the war.

Let’s take a look at military logistics to see what I mean.

In the 1862 Battle of New Orleans the major military strategy was to cut off supplies to the city. “Early in the Civil War, Union General-in-Chief Winfield Scott devised the “Anaconda Plan” for defeating the Confederacy. A hero of the Mexican-American War, Scott called for the blockade of the Southern coast as well as the capture of the Mississippi River. This latter move was designed to split the Confederacy in two and prevent supplies from moving east and west. The first step to securing the Mississippi was the capture of New Orleans. The Confederacy’s largest city and busiest port, New Orleans was defended by two large forts, Jackson and St. Philip, situated on the river below the city.”

As for the Battle of Chancellorsville in 1863, it was won partially because of supplies: who had them and who didn’t. “The Chancellorsville Campaign was one of the most lopsided clashes of the war, with the Union’s effective fighting force more than twice the Confederates’, the greatest imbalance during the war in Virginia. Hooker’s army was much better supplied and was well-rested after several months of inactivity. Lee’s forces, on the other hand, were poorly provisioned and were scattered all over the state of Virginia.”

The thing that gets the provisions in a campaign from one place to another is logistics. Even making a determination of who needs what and how much is also one of logistics. You can’t win a battle if the soldier is tired and hungry. If he is cold or lost. If the supply train doesn’t get there. Or as we have seen in M*A*S*H episodes, of sending winter coats in July or thermometers when they needed blood.

Military logistics is defined as “Military logistics is the discipline of planning and carrying out the movement and maintenance of military forces. In its most comprehensive sense, it is those aspects or military operations that deal with:
–Design, development, acquisition, storage, distribution, maintenance, evacuation, and disposition of materiel.
–Transport of personnel.
–Acquisition or construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition of facilities.
–Acquisition or furnishing of services.
–Medical and health service support.”

Vice Admiral Robert B. Carney, USN said of logistics: “Because of my wartime experience, I am insistent on the point that logistics know-how must be maintained, that logistic is second to nothing in importance in warfare, that logistic training must be widespread and thorough, and that it is folly to waste time on mediocre talent.”

To support logistics, we have a home front. “Home front is the informal term commonly used to describe the civilian populace of the nation at war as an active support system of their military. In a modern industrial nation, the fighting “teeth” of combat soldiers, depends to a considerable degree on the “tail” of civilian support services—extending all the way to the factories that build materiel to support the “military front”.”

“… in its relationship to strategy, logistics assumes the character of a dynamic force, without which the strategic conception is simply a paper plan.” — Commander C. Theo Vogelsang, USN

Logistics is the method by which the dynamism between the Home Front and the Military Front is energized and maintained. “This continuity of “military effort” from fighting soldier to manufacturing facility has profound effects for the concept of “total war.” (source)

Let’s adapt this language of logistics and home front/military front to the roles God ordained for the family. Christians are in a war. “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:” (2 Corinthians 10:3. Also Ephesians 6:12). We are not battling flesh and blood but we are in a spiritual battle every moment of every day. We are all soldiers. Women who are unmarried, widowed or divorced and single men are just as important and useful for God’s glory in the battle as are married folks who are fulfilling their ordained roles.

But a biblical wife will keep a good home. She will labor in her own battles to supply the home base so her soldier who comes home weary from the battle will rest and have peace. His renewed energy will allow him to go forth the next day. Look at the list above again of what logistics is, and tell me that isn’t what a mom does every day. The Home Front is just as important to winning the overall battle as are the ones whom the General deployed to the military front.

Jesus is our Commander In Chief. He is the One from whom we receive our battle orders, and that military manual is the bible. The CIC knows what He is doing and why. It is only Him who has the bird’s eye view of where this one or that one is needed, or where the more pitched battles are taking place. But He gave us the Word so we may be prepared and we know what to do at all times.

The Enemy will always try to disrupt the supply trains. He will mess with logistics. He will attempt to make the soldiers lose their way, tire them out, and starve them. He has his own “Anaconda Plan” and it is the same as the Union’s was: to split the family in two and strangle and starve them out. An entire generation of men have been starved from that comfort and peace they had formerly been receiving in the home.

As far as the church goes, we are reaping a generation of women who have swallowed the demagogic language that women’s roles need to be exact in authority to a man’s, identical in gender. They have gone so far as to propose that God is a woman and Jesus was a hermaphrodite. So now you see the success of satan’s goal. He has always wanted to put himself where God is, (Isaiah 14:14). Soon the feminists will be saying that God IS a woman. And thus satan will have supplanted the biblical view of God to one that he’s perverted. In satan’s mind, a perverted God who doesn’t look like Himself as He showed us in the bible is just as good as a God he has booted out completely.

In the bible, women and men have complementary roles. Complementary does not mean unequal. Understand is that a difference in role does not equate to a difference in quality, importance, or value. The bible says,

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” (Ephesians 5:25)
“Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” (Ephesians 5:33)
To be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands … (Titus 2:4-5)

“I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.” (1 Tim. 5:14)

This is because a man needs to focus on provision and to be able to lead his family into the statutes of God. He doesn’t need the extraneous problem of quelling rumors and dealing with slander against his family. A woman who causes the enemy opportunity for slander is draining the resources from one half of the dynamic relationship that is needed for a complete approach to the battle.

This is the man’s role:
“If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.” (Deuteronomy 24:5)

I am convinced that if the world were to accept the roles that God put forth there would be such happiness.

In conclusion, I’ll end with a personal anecdote. I always thought the woman’s movement was bunk. Despite having been raised in the 1970s and 80s and despite my mother being a divorced feminist, I always felt that it was more natural and normal for a woman to be the supply side of the family relationship. (**Note that I understand that finances or circumstances sometimes deems it necessary for a woman to work outside the home. I also understand that abuse is rampant and that there are inequalities in employment relationships etc. This essay is not addressing those.) I was twenty in 1980 when this famous television commercial came out. It features a glamorous Liberated woman moving through her day. The singer croons,

“I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan…”
“I can work till five o’clock and come home and read to the kids tickety tock”

I always thought, ‘what good is THAT? Now women have to go out and work AND do all the household chores’. In the latter part of the 80s and the 90s the battle then became who was going to do all the tasks left undone by the woman who is now out working. The whole thing seemed obviously unworkable to me. See, the logistics were disrupted and instead of the battle being against the enemy it became a battle against each other: wife against husband.

The song also croons, “and never ever let you forget you’re a man”

Why would a man need assurance he is still a man if the Feminist Movement was properly righting a societal wrong? The implicit message of the song is that now because the woman is taking over the men’s duties he needs to be reassured that he is still relevant. But he didn’t buy those assurances, because as I mentioned in part 2, men have left the family in great numbers. Fatherless households are a rampant scourge. And they have left the church too.

I know it isn’t popular to say so but it really is a beautiful thing to see a wife submit to her husband. And also it is a beautiful thing to see a man sacrifice for his wife. If performed properly and biblically with the Holy Spirit being the logistical glue that greases the dynamics of the biblical marital relationship, bliss would ensue. Not that everything is always harmonious in a marriage, but the overall feeling of bliss comes in knowing each person is functioning how God wants them to. The deference goes both ways. But the girls of this generation have bought the lie of the feminists, that instead of seeking a Godly husband who would cherish her and sacrificing himself for her, that we didn’t need a man at all. It is not true,

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” (Genesis 2:18)

Men are alone. It is not good. There is no help-meet for him. And the generation is reaping the price.

feminism, God, women

Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism’s modern attacks- part 2

Posted on April 3, 2012May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

An entire generation has now grown up with Gloria Steinem’s declaration, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” (coined by Irina Dunn.). Christianity has not been immune from feminism’s effects, as startlingly seen in two news articles this week from a female theologian and a historian about Jesus and God. In one, the theologian proposed that Jesus was a hermaphrodite. In the other, the historian proposed that we can’t really know if God is or is not a girl. In part 1 I took a look at the news articles and then at the biblical stance of the position of women in this essay: Is God female and is Jesus a hermaphrodite?

Source

One thing that God said is that the woman is the weaker vessel. (1 Peter 3:7). She is to be the helpmeet. (Gen 2:18). However, no one or the other of the man or the woman is better than the other, the man is urged to love his wife completely and the woman to love her husband completely, just as Jesus perfectly loves both. (Ephesians 5:22-33). I explored these themes and the Feminists in an essay eight months ago titled The Eternal Discontent of Feminists.

Betty Miller explained this submission cycle in her essay, “The Bible teaches that, in the Spirit, women are equal with men, and each must submit unto Jesus as their spiritual head. In the flesh, in the marriage relationship, women are to be subject to their husband’s headship. The Lord ordained that the man be the one that would make final decisions in the home because in any relationship involving two people one must be the final authority.”

Have you ever heard of a ship with two captains? An expedition with two leaders? A squadron with two generals? No. And it is so in God-ordained relationships. Though we all submit to Jesus, the husband submits to Him as Jesus submitted to God. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,” (Ephesians 5:25). And remember, Jesus gave Himself unto death. Feminists conveniently forget that part of the submission cycle.

Source

So what are the effects of a generation of women being hammered on the fact that we don’t “need” a man? Men have fled. They did what women asked, and they left.

—According to this 2008 Census report, one in three American children live without their biological father in the home.
–From 1960 to 1995, the proportion of children living in single-parent homes have tripled, increasing from 9 percent to 27 percent, and the proportion of children living with married parents declined.
–Today, half of all children, and 80 percent of African American children, can expect to live at least part of their childhood living apart from their fathers. (Report of Final Natality).
–Children who live without their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, use drugs, experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, be victims of child abuse, and engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.

But I thought women didn’t need men, and by deduction, girls didn’t need fathers. Why, two mommies equals one daddy, right? Apparently not.

This is not to say that all fathers do not want to be with their children. A multitude of men feel pain and anguish when they cannot be with them. But in the twisting of a societal usurpation of the traditional male and female roles, there is collateral damage. Society is reaping that damage now.

That collateral damage extends to the church. Men hate going to church. In David Murrow’s book on “Why Men Hate Going to Church, he says, “The ideology of masculinity has replaced Christianity as the true religion of men. We live in a society with a female religion and a male religion: Christianity, of various sorts, for women and non-masculine men; and masculinity . . . for men.”

The diminishing of their masculinity has led many men to assert it and thus to avoid places where it is perceived that it does not exist, like church. Meanwhile in church, females rise.

MYSTICS

Source

To be sure, in much of the church’s history after the first generation of Christians passed, and with the ascendancy of the Roman Catholic perversion of the faith and its power throughout the Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries), the proper role for women was suppressed and the proper role for men was abused. It was during this time the female search for a role in spirituality led satan to tempt women in particular to the role of mystics. Didn’t you ever wonder why it is mostly women who are considered the ‘great mystics’?

Professor Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College said of mystics in his lecture on Hildegard the mystic, “we usually mean someone who has, or who claims to have, direct access to the mystery of cosmic and human order, some immediate and unmediated apprehension of a total knowledge of what truly is. Such knowledge characteristically comes from an experience of union with the divine or the transcendent, that is, with the higher world beyond the realm of our physical sensations. Mystical experience typically comes through visions and voices, or both (Hildegard attests to both).” Above, Liber Scivias showing Hildegard receiving a vision and dictating to her scribe and secretary.

Hildegard of Bingen was such a one. Born in circa 1098, she lived through most of the 1100s. She began receiving visions from the age of three but kept them hidden until much later in life, when in a vision, she felt the presence of God come to her and heard Him say “Write what you see and hear.” She was known as the prophetess of the Rhine. She said, “‘…my perception of things depends on the shifting of the clouds and other elements of creation. Still I do not hear these things with bodily ears, nor do I see them with the cogitations of my heart or the evidence of my five senses. I see them only in my spirit, with my eyes wide open…'” It was after one such vision that the entire understanding of the holy books were delivered to her head, at once and instantly. We should all be so lucky.

And to another monk she wrote, “man flies with the two wings of rationality, that is to say, with the knowledge of good and evil. The right wing is good knowledge and the left, evil. Evil knowledge serves the good, and good knowledge is kept in check by the evil, and is even made more discerning by it. Indeed the good is made wise in all things through the evil.”

The good is made wise in evil? I was not aware that there was any good in us at all…or that evil makes us wise. It was satan’s original temptation to Eve that said if she ate the fruit it would open her eyes to knowledge of good and evil. And it did, but the effects have been devastating right up until this moment, and will continue to be so until the end of the Millennium Kingdom when and death and Hades are thrown into the Lake of Fire along with satan too. (Rev 20:14).

In this article, Female Mystics and the New Millennium, the author proposes the reason so many women are mystics: “A large percentage of mystics are women. Neurological studies of male and female brains reveal that women have better communication via the corpus callosum between the left and right brain. Dreams and visions are the domain of the right brain, while verbal communication is ruled by the left. This implies that while men may have as many mystical experiences as women, women might have a slight edge when it comes to remembering, making sense of and communicating their mystical experiences.”

Of one vision Hildegard recorded, she wrote that it was audible to her: “O poor little figure of a woman; you, who are the daughter of many troubles, plagued by a grave multitude of bodily infirmities, yet steeped, nonetheless, in the vastness of God’s mysteries—commit to permanent record for the benefit of human kind, what you see with your inner eyes and perceive with the inner ears of your soul so that, through these things, people may come to know their Creator and not recoil from worshipping him with the reverence due to him.”

Hildegard had very low self-esteem, this is recorded in her many writings. For someone who thinks little of herself, it is an undeniable attraction to think that one will write something that will affect all of human kind … yet the canon was closed a thousand years before Hildegard lived and all knowledge of the Creator had been delivered already…

To want to have a certain moral authority, and to have a spiritual authority, was the old temptation which satan stirred up in Eve (Genesis 3:5) and that same temptation still exerts a powerful pull today. Hildegard and the numerous other mystics claiming special revelation also fell for satan’s craft. You have heard of wise-women, the phrase “the sage sex” and of new female mystics. As Mary Devlin says of the powerful female energies in the mystic, there is a resurgence of female energy in this time of transition. She wrote of modern mysticism-

“According to Carol Huffstickler, mystical practices are vital to our perception of the whole truth during the current transition. “Our real job right now is to understand that lack of (self-)awareness has caused, at the end of this century, deep confusion, gang violence, government shenanigans and cover-ups, and the out-of-control power of multinational corporations,” she says. “The most important ‘Truth’… is one that is absolutely and totally unprovable: we are all sons and daughters of the Living God. We will not find this truth in a particle accelerator. We can only prove it to ourselves by direct experience of the other side.”

Of course one will want to seek truth in something other than the bible when one has already chucked the bible’s authority out, and with it, the roles of man and woman.

And that is the crux of a problem with the church today. There has been a leak-over of feminism with its over-reliance on ‘female energies’ of the New Age movement, and with it, their claims of special revelation. This special revelation is no longer relegated to fringe movements such as those led by Shirley MacLaine and her popular books such as Out on a Limb and Dancing in the Light, or psychics like Carol Huffstickler. Huffstickler was a psychic who had a thriving business in Houston to tell where to drill for oil. She died in 2002, of lung cancer, and the sudden onset of her own illness was something she did not predict.

Feminist icon Oprah is one of the most influential women in the world. Unfortunately she is another New Age mystic whose unbiblical positions and ideas have leaked over to the Christian church and thus have gained a foothold of credibility. Formerly a Baptist, she has seamlessly blended the mystical and biblical, and combined with her influence, has created a false church of Oprah. One woman’s reaction to seeing her in person gushes about Oprah’s feminist theology:

“And she was everything I hoped she’d be: confident, funny, motivating, emotionally moving, and theological. Yes, theological. And not only that, her stories reflected a theology that empowered women, something we don’t always encounter in churches these days. … what I found interesting in Oprah’s talk were the ways that she reclaimed religious language in an almost feminist way. I expected her to sermonize about how important it is that we [as women] give up control of our lives to God. This is a fairly typical viewpoint in Christian theology. In fact, there are numerous worship songs that are popular in churches today with lines like “less of me; more of You,” “I decrease so He increases,” etc. The problem with this theology, particularly for women, is that it encourages us to literally become less of ourselves. For some women, this can manifest itself, quite literally, in anorexia. For others, it appears in a quiet meekness, a hesitancy about ourselves, an overall lack of self-confidence, or worse, a deep manifestation of self-loathing.”

Of course, that is an extremely flawed view of what Christianity is, but one finds that theme in Beth Moore’s talks, too. Beth Moore is another such example of such mystical leak-over from the New Age fringe to the formerly fundamentalist church believer. Moore often claims special revelation by mystical means, most recently claiming to have been lifted up by God from her back porch to another dimension to see the global church through Jesus’s eyes as Jesus sees it. This kind of revelation is startlingly similar to Hildegard of Bingen’s visions.

The woman is the weaker vessel. (1 Peter 3:7). Barnes Notes, which you may know was published in the mid-1800s at the height of the supposed repressive Victorian era, says, “By this it is not necessarily meant that she is of feebler capacity, or inferior mental endowments, but that she is more tender and delicate; more subject to infirmities and weaknesses; less capable of enduring fatigue and toil; less adapted to the rough and stormy scenes of life. As such, she should be regarded and treated with special kindness and attention.”

It is a horror and a shame that such secular doctrines and mystical behaviors have infiltrated the Christian church. Feminism is a fake solution to the issues in our sinful society and mysticism certainly is a satanic copy of what church worship and devotion should be. It is a fact that there are societal inequalities for women. But militantly insisting that women receive everything absolutely equal to a man is ludicrous. We are a different gender and we have different needs, strengths, and roles. In the last part we will take a look at Logistics. We’ll examine what those biblical roles are and why each is important in the overall complementary scheme God has laid before us.

Part 1: Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism’s modern attacks
Part 3- Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism’s modern attacks

feminism, women

Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism’s modern attacks, part 1

Posted on April 3, 2012May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

In the prophecy newsletter last Saturday (email me to be included on the free email subscription list) I included an excerpt from a recent article where a female feminist theologian was talking about how we can’t be sure Jesus is male. More likely, this feminist said, He is a hermaphrodite, a person that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes. Here is the excerpt from The Christian Post (which includes rebuttals from real Christians):

Feminist Theologian Claims We Can’t Be Sure Jesus Was Male
“A [UK] feminist theologian is claiming that Jesus may have been a hermaphrodite. Dr. Susannah Cornwall, a professor at Manchester University’s Lincoln Theological Institute, wrote in a recent paper that the idea that Jesus was male is “simply a best guess.” She made the comments in response to an ongoing debate in the U.K. over having women bishop in the Church of England.In her paper, titled “Intersex & Ontology, A Response to The Church, Women Bishops and Provision,” she states that it is impossible to know “with any certainty” that Jesus did not have both male and female organs.”

Then this morning I read the following:

Who knows whether God is a girl
“Bettany Hughes, an expert in ancient history, claimed that Christianity “was originally a faith where the female of the species held sway”. To oppose the ordination of women bishops in the Church of England is to deny the central role women played in the foundations of the faith, said Hughes. “By suppressing the true story of the connection between women and religion, we etiolate both history and the possibilities of our own world,” she wrote in Radio Times. “Consider this: throughout the history of humanity, 97 per cent of all deities of wisdom have been female. “Who knows whether God is a girl, but mankind has turned to the female of the species for good ideas. Hughes is the presenter of a forthcoming BBC Two series, Divine Women, which explores the hidden history of women in world religions and challenges the belief that women should not be priests.She said: “This Easter will be the last when I go to a church knowing it will be dominated by men. I love my (male) vicar, who has spent 45 years encouraging his flock to be clear-sighted about the world – past, present and sublime.“But the paradoxical thing for me as a historian is that I’m keenly aware Christianity was originally a faith where the female of the species held sway.”

Oh goodness, she must be right! She used etiolate AND a statistic in her response! [sarcasm]. Note that both Dr. Cornwall and Bettany Hughes are British. The UK, I am told, is rapidly falling away from biblical truth. With feminist theologians and historians like the two women presented above, I can see why. That their articles are responses to the current national discussion about ordaining female bishops is another telling and devastating indicator that an entire nation is far from where Jesus wants them to be. How did it get this way? Let’s find out.

I am writing a three-part series exploring what I see are increasing attacks on Christianity through women and about women. We’ll look at the Demagogic, the Mystics, and Logistics.

PART 1: The Demagogic:
Demagogic language is rhetoric that appeals to the prejudices of the people. I can say with fair amount of certainty that the prejudices of the some feminists have been since 1970 that women should completely abandon their traditionally feminine roles, believing that they were inherently unequal. Homemaking especially was and is today seen as a throwback to less enlightened times. Even women who enter positions of leadership but adhere to biblical world views are soundly excoriated (Saran Palin for example, but not Geraldine Ferraro or Hillary Clinton).

The ‘less enlightened times’ they refer to without saying so outright are the God-ordained roles outlined for women, men and children in the bible. In Genesis God showed us His ordination of women and men’s roles.

“And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”” (Genesis 2:18). God further cemented that relationship by saying that when a male and female come together as husband and wife in a covenant marriage, they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24). It’s hard to see where the feminists’ claims of women’s implicit inferiority come in if women are comparable to men and they are one flesh….

Of course the historian Hughes’s statement that 97% of other “wisdom deities” have been women is a dead giveaway that she is far from God. The bible says “Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” (Deuteronomy 4:39). “I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God.” (Isaiah 45:5). There are no other wisdom deities. For the bible says–

“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.’ (1 Timothy 1:17).

Now, any debate as to whether God is male or female is pointless, because God is Spirit. (John 4:24). He does not have physical characteristics as we do in a corporeal body. However, in His interactions with humanity He presented Himself as a male. In the Old Testament He is referred to as a male by the use of male pronouns. He is Father, never ‘mother’. Jesus referred to God as Father. If one believes that scurvy males who wrote the bible were out to suppress women and changed all the pronouns then one does not believe the bible is inerrant, but a man-made document of man made religion, no better or worse than the Koran (Islam), the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu) or the Kojiki (Shinto).

In the New Testament, Jesus came to us in a male body. Thus, God revealed Himself as male and as Father, Jesus revealed Himself as male incarnated and further stated “I and the Father are One” (John 10:30) and scripture reveals God as male by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit’s use of male pronouns. He’s a guy, all right? Get over it, feminists.

I had a conversation with a female friend who was formerly of a Baptist church but wandered away to a seeker friendly, pop psychology, doctrine-lite, social gospel church. She said that there were “books that didn’t make it into the bible” and that women’s contributions were thereby suppressed. I was aghast, but I am hearing these things more often now. With the rise in gnosticism comes with it a satanic gravitational pull toward mysticism which lifted women to a place of what was supposed higher wisdom but was in fact demonic suppression the kind that feminists can’t even begin to understand is their true position.

If we believe that there are some books that ‘didn’t make it into the bible’ then we believe that the bible is errant (That’s faithlessness: “I look on the faithless with loathing, for they do not obey your word.” Ps 119 158)

Do we believe God is playing mind games with us, telling us His statutes in the bible but holding back the real stuff? (That’s satan, telling Eve the same thing in Gen 3:1).

Do we believe the Holy Spirit is ineffectual to protect the canon and allows instead its pollution by men who edited it away from what God wanted? (That’s philosophies of men: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” Col 2:8).

If we then believe the bible is inerrant then we must believe the roles He has set before each gender. It is one, or the other.

Below is an excerpt on how the books of the bible were chosen for inclusion into the canon. There are no TRUE books that did not make it in. If it is not in, it is because it was already identified as not true, by the following standard:

“The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.”

In 1970, Irina Dunn coined the famous catch phrase: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” and it was subsequently promoted by feminist Gloria Steinem and later U2 in their song Tryin’ to Throw Your Arms Around the World. It became a tee shirt worn by militant feminists everywhere, including my mother. I was 10 in 1970 when that phrase was coined and my formative years as a girl, as a daughter, were one who was raised by a divorced feminist mother who often wore that tee shirt and while wearing it told me every day I didn’t need a man. Oh, and that I needed to be self-sufficient. Well, come to find out, “Women aren’t Fish and Men aren’t Bicycles” writes Mary Kassian this week.

Kassian said, “In the seventies, Gloria Steinem famously quipped, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Then she and the rest of her feminist buddies set about to convince us of this idea. Sadly, we swallowed the bait. And now a whole generation of girls is being raised to believe that men are inconsequential, and that women can make it just fine without them.”

That was the demagogic rhetoric of the feminists. It has been 42 years since feminism came to the fore, an entire generation. How has the latest generation of women and men fared under the demagoguery of the feminist movement? Not well. Let’s see in part 2 how feminists’ usurpation of the roles God ordained for men and women led to the New Age, and the new female Mystic.

Part 2: Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism’s modern attacks
Part 3: Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism’s modern attacks

end of days, end of days. prophecy, feminism, gender roles

The Eternal Discontent of Feminists

Posted on July 12, 2011May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

God set up the hierarchy. He said: “Here is how it is going to be.” (Genesis 2:17; 24; Gen 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:8-10). He is the Authority, He holds authority in heaven and upon earth. He made the earth, and He made the puny humans who populate it. He bestowed it all upon Adam and Eve, gave them jobs to do, and said have it all except this one fruit.

And suddenly (thanks to the serpent) all Eve wanted was the fruit. “I don’t want those. I want this one.”

Because humans know better, you know? Not.

The usurpation of the male as head of the family has been going on ever since. Nimrod’s wife Semiramis did a great job of perpetuating the usurpation. Cut to the late 1960s and feminism was born. The mid to late 1960s birthed a lot of rebellion in the world that this generation is still reaping. I think it is one of the reasons we are the last generation: so much rebellion. One of those rebellions was that the role for women outlined in the bible was set aside. Oh, sure, there have been historical anomalies throughout history, but wholesale abandonment of the Godly role set aside for women didn’t occur until the late 1960s. It suddenly was passe to have a man in economic, political, social, and even ecclesiastical fields. This is the lead sentence from the NY Times in their story “Is God a feminist?” – “Behind the public arguments and fracases over the ordination of women there has appeared, since the late 60’s, a flood of feminist religious writing.” The 1960s was the era in which I grew up.

One thing I remember is my mother teaching me about feminism. How “a woman can do anything.” [Really? Anything? And even if we could, which we can’t, do we want to?]. She used to wear a blue tee shirt that had the slogan: “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” It had a fish riding a bicycle on the front. The deduction one makes is that women don’t need men. They are useless in the world of the fish. Er, women.

I always privately thought that the sentiment was stupid. It was illogical. First, it was obvious women needed men. And vice versa. Secondly, the foundation of culture had always been marriage, and that was one man-one woman and then children. Rinse. Repeat. Dismantling the structure of thousands of years of what had been working perfectly fine was ridiculous. These ideas seemed obvious to me. I was 12. That’s how obvious it is that a man needs a woman and a woman needs a man. A 12-year-old can see it.

With feminism came discontent in the jobs outlined for her to do. The Proverbs 31 woman wasn’t good enough any more. Though her children call her blessed, though her husband praises her, though she honors God and He her, that isn’t good enough. What else is there besides familial peace and a God-honoring life? But the serpent made ambition to serve God in His ordained roles seem like nothing. At the same time he made the world seem like something. Women wanted the world!

One of the realms women went into that had previously been reserved for men was police work. This encroachment was beginning to be reflected in television, which always acts as a cultural mirror. In 1974, the first woman to lead a police series was Angie Dickinson in “Police Woman.” I watched an interview with her last night on PBS, in a show about early television crime show pioneers. She said that she had a blast doing the Police Woman show. “In 1974 a woman in police uniform was still rare. If you saw one you’d go ‘oh, look, a lady cop.'” Dickinson was a beautiful woman and had a fantastic body, which the producers showed off, at the same time as they were showing her solving crimes and holding her own with the men. She liked that. She said she was always comfortable with her body and didn’t mind the sexier aspects of the show because that was her personality. It wasn’t something they were contriving or changing her into. Dickinson said the feminists were furious with her. They wanted her to be less sexy and use the show as a feminist platform. Dickinson said no. She recounted her reply to the interviewer, “I’m feminine, not feminist. They wouldn’t talk to me after that,” she said, laughing.

Therein lay the eternal discontent of feminists. They strove for better representation in male-dominated fields and got it. They strove for female representation on television of females in male-dominated fields and they got it. They had a confident, sexy, capable woman in Hollywood holding her own financially and balancing children and a marriage. But they hated her. Why? She was doing it wrong. In other words, she wasn’t being the kind of feminist they wanted. She was her own woman. This is anathema to feminists. Lest you think that the feminists’ twisted mindset is a bygone thing, look at the females of today one would think feminists would laud: Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

Hillary is feminism’s ideal woman. She isn’t too feminine, like Angie Dickinson is. She has a family, but doesn’t pay too much attention to them. Her Rose Law firm colleagues thought it was shameful she planned to leave her newborn at home and return to work. No way. She later said “I could have stayed home and baked cookies” revealing the two categories of feminism- either they are seen as ambitious, professional women (doing it right) or traditional, stay-at-home women (doing it wrong) even though ostensibly feminism was supposed to be about equality with men and women having options to choose her life’s work. Hillary was politically powerful, even usurping the office of the Presidency by her husband’s admission that with “you get two Presidents for the price of one.” Feminism poster child!

Sarah Palin came onto the scene as the very first legitimate vice-presidential candidate. She is beautiful, active, healthy, successful (in business with fishing industry and politically as former mayor and Governor, then VP-candidate). She has a family AND a career AND the national spotlight AND she broke the political glass ceiling. You’d think feminists would be dancing around the fir tree with torches to celebrate this victory. But they hated her. What? Yes. She has exactly all the same things as Hillary, ambition, success, family, power, her own decisions, and had even made it farther along the political spectrum. But, see, she was doing it wrong. She held conservative ideals, put her family first, (no abortions!) and worst of all, believes in God.

Liberals define the feminist movement this way:

“The feminism “of the 1960s-1980s was concerned with gender inequality in laws and culture. … During this time feminists campaigned against cultural and political inequalities, which they saw as inextricably linked. The movement encouraged women to understand aspects of their own personal lives as deeply politicized, and reflective of a sexist structure of power. If first-wave feminism focused upon absolute rights such as suffrage, second-wave feminism was largely concerned with other issues of equality, such as the end to discrimination.”

Awww. How nice. Benign even. Conservatives define feminism this way:

Conservapedia:
A modern feminist denies or downplays differences between men and women, opposes the encouragement of homemaking and child-rearing for women, and seeks to participate in predominantly male activities. Modern feminists:
–never wanted gender equality; they want power for the female left
–believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women (The most significant belief underlying contemporary feminism is that there are no sex differences; therefore advocacy for equal rights must be extended to advocacy for equal results or outcomes.)
–oppose chivalry and even feign insult at harmless displays of it
–view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal
–belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family
–shirk traditional gender activities, like baking
–support affirmative action for women
prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do
–seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines
–refuse to take her husband’s last name when marrying
–distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events
–take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun “he” when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like ‘fireman’ and ‘stewardess.’

We even have a gender neutral bible now, one which removes all mention of man or woman completely from God’s Word. Of course, this removes God as Father and Jesus as the Son of Man, pleasing satan no end. And still the feminists are not happy.

At About.com feminism is defined this way: “Historian and activist Cheris Kramarae once famously remarked that “feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.” Although that’s the sort of thing you see printed on t-shirts, it also happens to be an accurate and concise definition of what feminism is. Feminism, as a movement, is about women living on equal terms with men–and not pushed down, by law or by culture, into a subservient role.”

It is thanks to the serpent that notions of one role over another is subservient. Women’s biblical roles are certainly not subservient to a man’s. They are complementary. Man’s headship is an issue of order, not of who is better or more important. The patriarchal structure is not due to cultural influence but of scriptural revelation. God made two human beings and He saw them as equal. He still sees man and woman as equal. It is satan who implants the notion that what you have isn’t good enough. It’s why feminists will always be discontent.

CS Lewis said, “Human history is the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.’ Let me rephrase that into today’s politically correct phraseology: “Human history is the long terrible story of woman trying to find something other than God which will make her happy.” It won’t work. It never has and it never will.
Tweet http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js http://www.facebook.com/widgets/like.php?href=http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2011/07/eternal-discontent-of-feminists.html

http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js#pubid=xa-4df8df7d18b59150