Onward Christian Feminists

By Steve Matthews

To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumelious to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally it is the subversion of good order, and of all equity and justice.  –  John Knox

Evangelicals are nothing if not predictable flip-floppers.

It wasn’t so very long ago that Christians rightly denounced feminism as evil.  But let a few decades roll by and – wonder of wonders – yesterday’s ideological foe becomes today’s friend.  In keeping with their  longstanding tradition of conforming to the world, more and more evangelicals have warmed up to the idea of a woman president – at least so long as she has a credible evangelical pedigree, no Hillary Clintons please – while giving little or no thought to what the Bible has to say on the matter.

According to an article posted on the Aquila Report:

A source close to Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign tells The Brody File that the candidate met with over 200 evangelical pastors, authors, musicians and other figures Friday afternoon near Nashville Tennessee.

According to those inside the private meeting that was closed to reporters, it lasted nearly two hours and included pastors praying over Michele Bachmann as well as her talking in very spiritual terms about her love for Jesus Christ.

Sources inside the room tell The Brody File that the meeting began with an introduction by Michele Bachmann’s pastoral counselor,
Mac Hammond, senior pastor at Living Word Christian Center in Minnesota. She then talked to evangelicals for about 45 minutes where
she shared her Christian testimony and explained her positions on the issues.

After 15 minutes of questions and answers, a handful of pastors     gathered around her on stage and prayed for her. According to some pastors
in the room, they specifically prayed that God would do a great work in her and this nation. They also prayed that she would be encouraged and strengthened through this presidential primary process.

Good grief, these guys are pathetic.  Where’s John Knox when we need him?  Nowhere in that bunch.  Apparently influence peddling and culture war victories are more important to them than teaching and obeying the whole counsel of God regarding the place of women.

The evangelical church is salt that has largely lost its savor.  Things are so bad that even Ayn Rand came closer to stating Biblical truth on the subject of women civil magistrates than most conservative ministers manage to do.

At least she had the good sense to refuse to vote for a woman president.

All this is enough to make me wonder if on the last day we’ll be treated to the sight of atheists rising up to condemn evangelicals for their lack of faith.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Politics

49 Comments on “Onward Christian Feminists”

  1. Sean Gerety Says:

    Hi Patrick. You’ll notice that I’m not the author of the post. Frankly, I think having a woman president, conservative or liberal, would be a fitting judgement for a nation that has squandered its inheritance. Besides, a good libertarian woman would probably do a better job than most of the boobs that have held that office at least in my lifetime. But I would be interested in the Calvin citation if you have it.

  2. Hugh McCann Says:

    Voddie Baucham ~ Sarah Palin 2008 rerun:

  3. Hugh McCann Says:

    Bachmann’s “Living Word Christian Center”?

    Palin’s “Wasilla Assembly of God”?

    Where’s Gus Gianello when we need him?

  4. Monty L. Collier Says:

    Food for political thought:
    http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=8021

    and this:

  5. Hugh Says:

    Thanks, Monty.

    Lots of Paul is good stuff, but his desiring the legalization of certain drugs is misguided, methinks.

    This too is troubling: “The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become…”?!

    BTW the above video isn’t working. Here is another link:
    /www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

    God’s judgment is on our land.

    Hugh

  6. justbybelief Says:

    Monty,

    I sure wish Paul had the stones to simply say, “Homosexuality is a sin according to God’s word.”

    He was acting the coward.

    That was a 2008 video, has he about-faced?
    .
    .
    .

    Sean,

    John Calvin: Two years ago, John Knox in a private conversation, asked my opinion respecting female government. I frankly answered that because it was a deviation from the primitive and established order of nature, it ought to be held as a judgment on man for his dereliction of his rights just like slavery-that nevertheless certain women had sometimes been so gifted that the singular blessing of God was conspicuous in them, and made it manifest that they had been raised up by the providence of God, either because He willed by such examples to condemn the supineness of men, or thus show more distinctly His own glory. I here instanced Huldah and Deborah.” John Calvin, “Letter DXXXVIII to William Cecil” in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, ed. Henry Beveridge & Jules Bonnet, vol. 7, (Philadelphia, 1860), p. 46.
    .
    .
    .

    Hugh,

    This is a bit off topic but I’ll consider your post as Sean’s giving some leeway.

    “Lots of Paul is good stuff, but his desiring the legalization of certain drugs is misguided, methinks.”

    Agreed! Paul has a lot of good stuff.

    But, Paul recognizes, to his credit, that the federal government has no authority to make any drug illegal. The states gave the federal government limited authority. The power not granted to the federal government is left to the states and the people. To go past that authority given to it by the states is unconstitutional and illegal as the Constitution is the highest law of the land. Many in the Christian right say that they can’t vote for Paul because of his stance on abortion either. Paul believes that the laws concerning abortion should be left to the states. Paul is not a proponent of immorality–abortion–as some suppose in his stance, he simply believes the federal government should stay within its bounds. Paul believes, with the founders, that giving the national government too much power will lead to tyranny. Does believing that drug laws and abortion laws being left to the states really mean, as some have supposed (I’m not saying you believe this, Hugh), that one is a proponent of immorality? I think not. As John Adams said, “the constitution was made for a moral people. It is unfit to govern any other kind.” Meaning? The states and people would make morally correct decisions because they were self-governing.

    Moreover, The War on Drugs (and the other federal wars) have been used to establish a police-state in this country. Even though Prohibition (another federal encroachment) was overturned the police tactics established at that time were NOT abolished and live on today. A police-state? You may ask. The police-state must be in place when the plan to debauch our currency, beginning with the first national bank (late 1700’s) then with the federal reserve system (1913), comes to complete fruition and people really begin to wake up.

    To bring this ship about to the thread topic, women have a sphere they’ve been empowered by God to fulfill. In a like manner, by God’s providence, the Federal government has a sphere, given it by the states. For one to swear an oath intending to violate ones God given sphere is unethical. It would be unethical for Ron Paul to dictate a policy for which he has been given no authority. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Eric

  7. Hugh Says:

    Thanks, Eric. Knew Paul opposed abortion personally, and now get his constitutionality on that and on drug issues. Good points for me to ponder. I am no fan of big gubmint, either.

  8. Sean Gerety Says:

    Hi Monty. My anti-virus won’t let me go to the link you shared. Well, at least it warned me that it was an unsafe site.

  9. Sean Gerety Says:

    We have a saying; don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

  10. Sean Gerety Says:

    Thanks Eric. I agree with Calvin. 🙂

  11. LJ Says:

    I will only say that Paul’s theology is no worse than any of the other candidates and better than some (the Mormons for example) and, additionally, likely equal to or better than 90% of the professing Christians in these here United States.

    Give the sorry buffet of candidates we’re offered I’ll take Paul over any of them since he is the ONLY consistent small government candidate.

    LJ

  12. LJ Says:

    P.S., I never even consider the women when they run.

    Since many women are more capable teachers (I’m thinking of my wife) and, possibly, leaders than some men (I’m thinking of Maggie Thatcher here), I wonder if God ordained men ONLY as teachers of men and leaders of nations to keep all of us humble and reliant on Him alone?

    Just a thought.

    LJ

  13. justbybelief Says:

    An inconsistency I see here is that the office of president is not like that of a monarch. This is not a one-to-one correlation. The president is, or is supposed to be, in subjection to the people. He (or she) is authorized to do certain things, nothing else. Notice that the things being done are authorized by others (the states). The president really has no power that is not derived from somewhere else. It is NOT a ruler-ship but an execution of proscribed duties. The Declaration of Independence, from which the Constitution is derived, states that the role of government was to protect our God given rights and to secure these rights governments were instituted amongst men deriving their just power by our consent. Now, before I get lambasted, I am not saying I’m a proponent of woman presidents, I’m not. The reason I bring it up is because I’ve spoken to a number of the citizens of any one of the sovereign states who are Christians who have this idea that our form of government is a one-to-one correlation with that of the Roman Empire or the monarchy of England. So, they look to the federal government to pass all sorts of laws that it has no authority for. Remember prohibition and the ensuing tyranny? Many ‘Christians’ were on that bandwagon. The Civil War comes to mind also. Was the federal government authorized to do what it did then? Well….no! Does one form of tyranny justify eradicating another? The issue of slavery was only brought in later to gain popular support in the north, the intent all along was to subjugate all the citizens of the several states including slaves to federal jurisdiction and make them federal citizens. This is one reason why we’re where we are today. Anyway, I’m getting to far of topic.

  14. justbybelief Says:

    The following link leads to a a fictional, yet enlightening, video on the end result of the government’s debauching our currency and the reverberations pursuant to such a policy.

    http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1108PSISHOVD/PPSIM832/PR

  15. Steve Matthews Says:

    @ Hugh,

    That was the first time I’ve heard Baucham speak, and he was very impressive. His interpretation of Scripture was rock solid and he refused to back down when challenged.

    Kyra Phillps made an interesting point by observing that there’s a disconnect between Evangelicals supporting women presidential candidates and those same Evangelicals denying women the pulpit.

    She’s absolutely right about this.

    It never fails to amaze me how how Evangelicals seem to be the last people to understand the implications of their views. Here we have (an apparently) secular newscaster who gets it: that if Evangelicals believe that the Bible denies government in the church – and the home for that matter – to women, it would stand to reason that the Bible also denies them – as it does – the governance of nations.

    Why is it that Evangelicals seem to be the last to realize the implications of their views?

    My guess is that they read more Van Til than they do Clark.

  16. Hugh McCann Says:

    Steve,

    I too have been happy with Voddie. He’s all over sermonaudio, btw.

    My guess is that they read more Van Til than they do Clark. 🙂

  17. justbybelief Says:

    LT,

    “Well…yes! The federal government was and is controlled by the federal constitution”

    In Theory, it should be, however, in reality it is not. If this is not obvious to you, I don’t know what can be said in light of everything that has/is going on past/present. Lincoln (not a woman BTW, ;-)) trampled the Constitution, starting the Civil War, in the name of ‘preserving the Union.’ In fact this was Congress’ stated cause for the war. And it negates your assertion that states can just ‘leave’ the union–the beginning, or manifestation, of our present tyranny). Anyway, when this ‘preservation of the union’ didn’t catch on with the public–in the north, the reasons for war changed to ‘freeing the slaves.’ Now, that is a noble cause that Christian’s can embrace, murdering (unauthorized war, much like every war since then) their brothers in the name of freeing slaves or other ‘good’ causes. The Civil War freed no one really, but subjugated us to UNAUTHORIZED federal power.

    ‘…which was and is the law of the WHOLE LAND called the UNITED States.’

    It is the law of the land in this respect: The federal government should be bound by it and the states should, by force if necessary, hold the federal government to it. This is the PRIMARY reason for the militia and our right to keep and bear arms, to control federal tyranny.

    “But the land, our land, is and shall be governed by our Constitution.”

    No! The federal government shall be governed by it, see last.

    “Any state that doesn’t like the Constitution can take its people and go somewhere else.”

    I think I’ve made it clear that Lincoln prohibited states from leaving the union. This was the reason for the Civil War–preserving the union.

    Maybe, I’ll start praying that God raises a woman to overturn the policies of the nitwit liars since Lincoln, and the saying would come true that God would silence with ‘wise’ (in their own eyes) with the ‘foolish.’

    Eric

  18. justbybelief Says:

    Sorry, in the above last sentence it should read “the ‘wise'” not “with ‘wise'”

    Eric

  19. justbybelief Says:

    For that matter, I might not only pray for a godly woman as U.S. president, but that God might raise one up in the Souixlands’ presbytery, a Deborah of sorts, and how about in the OPC in the late sixties to early seventies or the PCA currently.

    I suppose as a man it is better to be shamed (by God), if that is what He’s doing, so that I might become wise and live, rather than that He allow me to remain arrogant (hardened) and die both physically and spiritually.

  20. justbybelief Says:

    I didn’t think about it earlier but,…If only God would, raise ‘another’ up in the spirit and power of Balaam’s ass to go ‘prophesy’ to the Souixlands’ Presbytery to quench their madness.

  21. justbybelief Says:

    But, then again, if they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets…

  22. Denson Dube Says:

    Eric the Viking,
    “For that matter, I might not only pray for a godly woman as U.S. president….”

    E-r-r, you can only pray according to the will of God. Ask God for god fearing man.

  23. justbybelief Says:

    Denson,

    I was speaking in the extreme. I get pretty upset about what I see going on in the church and in politics at the hands of men. Most Church-men and political-men ought to be ashamed of themselves. Having a woman, or better yet, a donkey, shame them into repentance would be fitting. But if they won’t listen to godly men, they won’t listen to anyone.

    Your admonition doesn’t fall on deaf ears.

    I’d like God to rock some worlds so that my kids don’t grow up under tyranny, but God’s will be done.

    Eric

  24. Hugh McCann Says:

    Children will oppress my people.
    Women will rule them.
    My people, your guides mislead you,
    and you don’t know which way to go.
    ~ Isaiah 3:12

    But I would have you know,
    that the head of every man is Christ;
    and the head of the woman is the man;
    and the head of Christ is God.
    ~ 1 Cor. 11:1

    But I suffer not a woman to teach,
    nor to usurp authority over the man,
    but to be in silence.
    ~ 1 Tim. 2:12
    {Only in home & church, but not society?}

  25. justbybelief Says:

    Pat,

    “I believe we must respect/honor all authority. But we shouldn’t play a part in having women elected into authority, regardless of her skills or abilities.”

    Agreed!

    The world is not subject to the Word of God, so, suppose in ones work they find themselves in the position of having a woman boss. What should they do?
    .
    .
    .
    Hugh,

    My family and I were attending an OPC where the ‘pastor’ couldn’t find the the gospel in broad daylight if it were nailed to his rear-end and he and eight arms to find it. My wife picks up on things, honestly, that I sometimes don’t and has incredible discernment,…, that I sometimes don’t.

    This is one example (there are more): Concerning a false doctrine in this OPC (Missoula, MT) she asked, me, “Did you hear him (the right-reverend) say ‘Mother Theresa is a Christian?'” I said, “No.” She said, “He said, ‘Mother Theresa is a Christian?'” I said, “Really! That’s ridiculous. Basically he’s saying that we can be justified by works.”

    Augustine taught that all speaking is teaching. Should my wife say anything to me? Can a woman ever be right or interpret the Word of God correctly and a man not. If a wife sees that her husband is wrong in an area should she say anything? Should she teach, or correct, him from the Word of God?

    If a single woman, who’s father is not a Christian, and who’s grand-fathers are all dead, finds herself in a church and the pastor say’s something heretical from the pulpit should she say anything? Should she simply leave?

    In other words, define ‘teach.’

    The submission of women to men is a creation ordinance, therefore, what is taught in the N.T. (the scriptures you provided above) comes from the O.T. Will you please explain ‘Deborah’ in light of the passages you brought up from the N.T. I believe the Bible to be the Word of God–revelation–not analogy, I know there is an explanation and that this is not paradox. Could you reconcile please. As I said to Pat, I was asking not to be stubborn, I really want to know your mind, i.e., what you believe the Word to teach. Do you believe that Deborah was saved? Do you believe she was in rebellion? Do you believe that Barack was saved? Do you believe that Barack was in rebellion? And, do you believe others (soldiers) who followed God’s Word through her instruction were saved? Or in rebellion? Do you believe that Deborah’s leadership as a prophetess is somehow oppression?
    .
    .
    .
    All,

    In the world today where men are marginalized and woman exalted, do you think it beyond the God, who cannot sin, to speak (by a woman) truth to men who cannot see?

    Eric

  26. justbybelief Says:

    The last question should be:

    In the world today where men are marginalized and woman exalted, do you think it beyond the God, who cannot sin, to speak (by a woman) truth to men who cannot see, for their good? Or, would this (teaching them) be to oppression?

    For instance, my wife works, and there is much religious and political conversation there. She is one of the few there that knows the gospel. Should she ‘teach’ a man the gospel (at the appropriate time) if given the opportunity, or would this be rebellion on her part. If she spoke the gospel to a man, is this oppression?

  27. justbybelief Says:

    Not that the actions of men determine truth…

    I ran into this (below) quite by ‘happenstance’ (providence) when I was watching a DVD (A Lamp in the Dark, The Untold History of the Bible) from the Trinity Foundation that arrived today.

    In the DVD they stated that the English Church in exile in Geneva dedicated their Geneva Bible to Queen Elizabeth I. So, I confirmed that this was true and found the following page on the internet with a quote from it below…

    http://logosresourcepages.org/History/geneva_bible.htm

    Quote:

    After the list of books in the 1560 Geneva Bible, is a dedication to Queen Elizabeth, from “your humble [SUBJECTS] of the English Churche at Geneva.” The dedication is almost four pages long and includes Scripture references and notes in the margin.

    The dedication in the margin notes warns of “the enemies which labour to stay religion,” and the letter lists the enemies as “Papistes,” “worldings,” and “ambicious prelates.” The letter indicates God’s Word is needed for the reforming of religion and that without it “we can not discerne between justice, and injurie, protection and oppression, wisdome and foolishnes, knollage and ignorance, good and evil.”

    The dedication closes with a prayer that “you [Queen Elizabeth] may be able to builde up the ruines of God’s house to his glorie, the discharge of your conscience, and to the comfort of all them that love the comming of Christ Jesus our Lord.” The dedication is dated, “From Geneva. 10. April 1560.”

    Comments?

    Eric

  28. justbybelief Says:

    Pat,

    “What Lincoln prohibited was states seceding from the union.”

    Lincoln did NOT have this authority under the Constitution.

    “But obviously, if all the people of a state want to move and form their own government some place other than in the U.S. they can do so.”

    Did you really just say we have to move somewhere else if we want to leave the union and that because a state is contiguous to the union it cannot secede? The south petitioned peacefully over and over to buy federal land within states and leave the union. They were prohibited by the tyrant Lincoln whose plan was to subjugate the south.

    But, in that line of thinking, Lincoln, wanted a white America. He wanted to move all blacks out of the this country upon winning the war. He wanted to colonize the blacks somewhere else.

    I’ll say it again, the Constitution was written by the states to the federal government creating and limiting it, it enumerates certain rights but is not exhaustive of them. The rights mentioned, which come from God, do not grant us anything, it is simply speaking to the federal power not to transgress said right. The other articles you mention were written after the Union aggression a.k.a. The Civil War. These re-make the Constitution into a document that limits the states. This was NEVER intended by the founders. What the Federal Tyranny (Civil War) did was subjugate the states to the federal power.

    The bottom line is this: Lincoln disobeyed his oath of office. When a person disobeys their oath, especially when the oath is in line with the Word of God, they become oppressors, which Lincoln was. Lincoln was more like a tyrant.

    Eric

  29. justbybelief Says:

    Pat,

    “But it is also clear that the purpose of the Constitution was to unite the whole LAND under a common law/rule.”

    If you mean that the Constitution gave the national government unlimited power, you’re mistaken. The Constitution was meant to unite the colonies in certain proscribed areas spelled out in that document and no further. The Constitution spells out limited, and specific, defined duties that were better suited to the colonies together than individually. It was written to create the national government to carry out those duties. Every duty not given to the national government were left to the states themselves. So, they were united in certain areas and left alone in others. The PRIMARY reason for the 2nd Amendment was to keep the federal power within its bounds. In other words, the true executives (sovereigns) in this country are the states and the people. This is what eludes most Christians. We may have been the first country that changed from a system of ‘the divine RIGHT of kings’ to a system of ‘the God given RIGHTS of the people.’ Understood properly, as the founders intended, our rights stem from our duty towards God.

    “Thus, if any state attempts to curtail any right given to a US citizen, the US executive office has the power under the Constitution to remove that state’s government or otherwise see to it that everyone living in the land of that state be accorded the rights of a US citizen.”

    First, we are not national citizens but citizens of the respective states. Any meaning or language that conveyed the idea of a ‘U.S. citizen’ used in the founder’s era was lost at or around the time of the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War). When you say ‘U.S. citizen’ today and when the evil and corrupt U.S. government uses the term, it means you are SUBJECT to them. It means something entirely different. Isn’t this the ploy of the illiberal? This has been my point all along. It means something OTHER than what it did. In other words, the Civil War, so called, made everyone a U.S. Citizens and subjected them (all) to federal power. This is HARDLY freedom. All this was done in the name of ‘freeing slaves.’ One cannot fight to defend freedom while violating the principles established to protect. The War of Northern Aggression was ultimately a fight between the Federalists (nationalists/hamiltonians), which Lincoln was, and Anti-Federalist (federalists/jeffersonians). It was the 2nd American Revolution. In fact many of the Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, creating the national government, would be our downfall. In fact, Patrick Henry said concerning it, “I smell a rat.” The words of the Anti-Federalist were almost prophetic concerning this, just as the words of Andrew Jackson were concerning the central bank in his farewell address.

    Moreover, your statement is absurd at best. If it were true, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison et al, were all derelict in there duties as executive. Being close to the founding documents there actions in this area best interpret what they intended. Distance and time are the tools of the tyrants.

    Eric

  30. Hugh McCann Says:

    JustByEric,

    Per your post of 10/3 @1:35pm ~ Deborah was a reproach to Israel, given the rest of the Scriptures. She’s included in a narrative report, not in an Apostolic precept. God gives further revelation through Paul in his epistles on how the church is to be conducted. He doesn’t leave us to try to glean directives from descriptive passages.

    ‘If a wife sees that her husband is wrong in an area should she say anything? Should she teach, or correct, him from the Word of God?’

    Not in the church, per 1 Cor. 14:34. You run your house your way.

    You’re challenged with command you give: In other words, define ‘teach.’

    I’d say it’s authoritative declaration, telling some one where to get off.

    & @6:57pm ~ The Geneva men were respectful of their Queen (as we’d expect of any godly Englishman today), and no doubt prayed for their ruler, per 1 Tim. 2:2. So what? Does this mean she SHOULD have ruled the kingdom?

    What think you of Evangelical egalitarianism vs. Christian complementarianism?

  31. justbybelief Says:

    Pat,

    “BTW, Article IV, section 2 specifically says that “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several [i.e. the United] states.”

    Who is this speaking too, me/you, or the national government?
    It is speaking to the national government. My rights are inherent to my person ‘before’ the Constitution was established. This may be a reminder to me, but it is speaking not to me, but to the national authority.

    “Further, Article VI says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the LAND and that the judges in every state shall be bound by it, regardless of what law or constitution a state may have.”

    You forgot the words ‘pursuance thereof:’

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in [PURSUANCE THEREOF]”

    The Constitution gives the federal government CERTAIN authority NO OTHER. Where it is given authority, it may act. Where no authority is given IT MAY NOT ACT. Lincoln was not acting in PURSUANCE THEREOF nor has any president since.

    The states came before the national authority, so, who’s the master?

    Eric

  32. justbybelief Says:

    Hugh,

    “JustByEric”

    Rather: justbybelief–Justified by grace alone through faith (belief) alone in Christ alone. If one doesn’t understand this, whatever else he may understand will be in vain.

    “Per your post of 10/3 @1:35pm ~ Deborah was a reproach to Israel, given the rest of the Scriptures. She’s included in a narrative report, not in an apostolic precept. God gives further revelation through Paul in his epistles on how the church is to be conducted. He doesn’t leave us to try to glean directives from descriptive passages.”

    This may be true, but if this is all you glean from this narrative report in light of the New Testament your analysis is inadequate. Did God leave them in their shame? Are we commanded to preach the law, but not the gospel? Can a Christian draw any comfort from this narrative in light of the N.T.? If there were a woman president should I conclude that I’m beyond God’s gracious grasp?

    Do you think Deborah was sinning or in rebellion? Do you think Barak was in rebellion?

    “Not in the church, per 1 Cor. 14:34.”

    Agreed.

    “You run your house your way.”

    Thanks, for allowing me that freedom. As a redeemed man I am free to order my house in God’s way, not my own. I fall well short and even if I thought I was doing everything correctly (I’ve met this type) it is God who sees everything and in His judgment I’d still be in need of Christ’s blood and intercession. I actually do believe that in the home a wife may bring up concerns to her husband about the church and about the home in light of the word of God. She may even go so far as to say, “This is error.” Her attitude and subsequent actions will determine if she’s in rebellion or trying to usurp the role of her husband. In other words, women can make judgments concerning what is true and what is false and speak the same. If a woman could not make a judgment about what is true and what is false it would be impossible for her to be saved. Woman is made in the image of God too.

    “You’re challenged with command you give: In other words, define ‘teach.’”

    I didn’t paste scripture without giving an interpretation. I’ve committed no wrong in asking you to clarify a quoted scripture.

    “I’d say its authoritative declaration…”

    Fair enough.

    “…telling some one where to get off.”

    Let your conscience be your guide.

    “What think you of Evangelical egalitarianism vs. Christian complementarianism?”

    I’ve never heard the terms before and have just looked them up on the internet per your request. I can’t find the first term but I could find ‘Christian egalitarianism’ and I don’t think it is a Biblical doctrine. I did find ‘Christian complementarianism’ and on a once over read I think it is a Biblical doctrine. I may not be working with the same definitions you have, though, and this could be a problem. May I trouble you to post the definitions of these terms so that I may examine them so that we come to conclusions based on the same things?

    “The Geneva men were respectful of their Queen…what? Does this mean she SHOULD have ruled the kingdom?”

    What I was searching for and in light of the subject of this thread and reformed belief on the role of women I was wondering if anyone believes that the exiled English church in Geneva who obviously rejoiced in the ascension of Queen Elizabeth I to the throne shouldn’t rather have rebuked her for assuming a man’s position, which is the duty of the church? Is it not a sin as we’ve been discussing? And, as a defender of Protestantism who obviously claimed the faith for herself wouldn’t this be more reason for the church of Geneva to do so?

    Eric

  33. Hugh McCann Says:

    Eric,

    I get the moniker. I was just titling your posts.

    I am not giving you all my gleanings, but even then, they’d prolly be ‘inadequate’ for you.

    Deb & Barry were living under a different level of revelation than we NT saints enjoy. We have Paul’s clarifying statements & the close of the canon. So, today it would be a reproach and sin for a woman to usurp male authority in the civil/ political realm. Ridiculous that a Christian woman would want to do so.

    As for Liz I, she was better than a papist, so no doubt the Genevan exiles rejoiced to see her day. Did they believe in the divine right of kings & queens? They would certainly have had a different view than we on kingship than we.

    Also, accession to the throne is quite different than taking office through popular vote after campaigning, debating, ignoring one’s family, etc. (Wasn’t Liz I unmarried? Not that that changes God’s ways, but it would mean she didn’t have family to look after, per Titus 2:4.)

    The exiles prolly took it as God’s providence and lived by Eph. 5:20 & 1 Tim. 2:2. I dunno; wasn’t there, haven’t read up. But they are not our standard, are they?

  34. Hugh McCann Says:

    Please see the Council for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.

    http://www.cbmw.org/

  35. justbybelief Says:

    Pat,

    “Sorry, but the Constitution, which is the “SUPREME law of the land” says that we are both.”

    As I’ve pointed out before there is a different meaning from what the founders intended and what exists today.

    “Really? You had the right to a trial by jury inherently by being human?”

    Yes. According to the Declaration of Independence my rights come from God who preexisted the Constitution and Declaration. Rights come from God not government. This is the basis of the difference between all other forms of government and our Republic. Further, the rights enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution is not an exhaustive list as the state’s representatives declared.

    “It says nothing about presidents acting in pursuance thereof.”

    The president can only do what is specified in the Constitution and the laws made that align with it. He can go no further. To do so is a violation of his oath. I might add that this is the vital difference between the office of president and a monarch.

    “but what the states gave over cannot be taken back apart from amending the Constitution.”

    When the federal government becomes abusive of our right we can. The Declaration of Independence says we can change it by force if necessary. This is why “We The People” told the federal government in the 2nd Amendment not to infringe our right to bear arms.

    “We are not subject to a government but to laws…”

    Well…we have been made subject to the unjust laws of the federal government and their obsequious accomplices, the states, who have been bribed with fiat money to comply.

    As I’ve stated before, the founders who were presidents of this country prior to Lincoln who were closest to the document itself didn’t believe it authorized them to do what Lincoln did. If this is not proof enough, there is not much left to say.

    Tell me, how many gallons of water does you toilet hold and flush? The amount was dictated by the federal government and unless you are in an older house with older toilets the answer is about 1 and 1/2 gallons. This is how far the encroachment has come into our lives. This is only one instance of what is blatant. Soon, your power will be regulated by the this fascist state as well. How about the funneling of guns into Mexico by the ATF so that when they come back across the border those who debase the federal government can blame the 2nd amendment giving them reason to violate their instructions in it. Then there is The Census Bureau which just coordinated my house in the last year or two with GPS as they did every house in the country. And, What about the present war on terror being turned on Americans. The federal government is WELL out of its bounds. These are all fruits of the War of Northern Aggression.

    You cannot do one thing concerning your life, liberty, and property, all rights by the way, that doesn’t require you to ask permission from the government. This is hardly what the founders envisioned.

    Eric

  36. justbybelief Says:

    Hugh,

    Thanks for the link.

    “I am not giving you all my gleanings, but even then, they’d prolly be ‘inadequate’ for you.”

    Maybe. ‘Inadequacy’ in my mind is that gleaning from a passage where the gospel is present and leaving it out.

    Eric

  37. justbybelief Says:

    Pat,

    “That’s not what you said…” –LT

    Here’s the rest of what I said…

    “…Any meaning or language that conveyed the idea of a ‘U.S. citizen’ used in the founder’s era was lost at or around the time of the War of Northern Aggression”
    .
    .
    .
    “That would be weighty, but what documents or quotes have you provided to substantiate that claim?” –LT

    Article 1 section 2 of the Constitution, the 3/5ths clause. They compromised. It is amazing that slavery ended peacefully other places, why not here? It is because the Civil War was intended to centralize power in the federal government according to Hamiltonian doctrine
    .
    .
    .
    “Really? So that we can resist by force their enforcing the Constitution?” –LT

    No, where they act in a legitimate manner we are to accept it. When they usurp we are to petition. If our petitions go unheard and their actions will lead to ‘absolute despotism,’ which is where we are today, we are duty bound, according to the Declaration of Independence to throw off the tyrants.
    .
    .
    .

    “No, not all the enumerated rights, but only certain ‘unalienable rights,”among them being “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'” — LT

    I’m not sure what you’re saying, let me clarify. Here’s the D.I….

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that [AMONG THESE] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    In the D.I., as in the Constitution, ALL of our rights aren’t enumerated. That is, that among this exhaustive list of unspecified (this may be the real weakness of our founding documents) rights of which they speak in the D.I. we have life, liberty and property.
    .
    .
    .

    “Really? Where? The D of I is not our law. It does not trump the Constitution. Again, the Constitution allows for amemding by the states collectively.” –LT

    More from the D.I….

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

    The D.I. pre-existed the Constitution and is the moral (sacred) ground of it. The sacred (moral) aspect of the D.I. comes from our Creator endowing rights (duties). The Constitution is the ‘secular’ document written to secure these ‘sacred’ rights. The mandate specified in the D.I. is secured in a limited fashion in the national Constitution. What is unspecified in the national Constitution is left to the states and the people.

    More from the D.I….

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    The Constitution is the (or one) FORM OF GOVERNMENT specified in the D.I. The Constitution may be amended, or abolished and new forms established by the will of the people.

    More from the D.I….

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    This is self-explanatory. The South did this–they seceded–they tried peacefully until they were provoked into war by the tyrant Lincoln. The primary reason for the war was the high tariffs placed on the south for manufactured goods from Europe by the Lincoln administration which forced the purchase of these goods from the north at higher prices. How many countries today are angered over this same kind of manipulation (economic sanctions) by the U.S. government and the United Nations?

    Eric

  38. justbybelief Says:

    Pat,

    It seems we won’t agree on these things:

    1) Rights don’t come from government, they come from God.
    a.The Constitution doesn’t give us rights it is only there to secure them.
    b. The Declaration of Independence is as much the law as is the federal constitution or the state constitutions. Apart from the principles that it reveals, neither has any meaning. Therefore, it is above them.

    2) Government (national, state, local) is established to protect our God given rights.

    3) The federal government was established in a limited role.
    a. Where the federal government is not SPECIFICALLY directed, it may NOT act. Therefore invading states to abolish slavery is forbidden.
    b. The 3/5ths clause was a compromise over slave representation, meaning that there was no intent to invade slave states and abolish slavery. Other legitimate and lawful means were being addressed.

    4) States have the right to secede from the union.

    5) Corollary to 3: The Federal government cannot pass any law it wants any time it wants giving itself unlimited power to do anything it wants while taxing us to fund our own demise.

    From federalist #28, Al Hamilton no less…

    “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there
    is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of
    self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and
    which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted
    with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the
    rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons
    intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels,
    subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct
    government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The
    citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without
    system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The
    usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush
    the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the
    more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic
    plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early
    efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their
    preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of
    the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the
    opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar
    coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.”

    I’ll see you in the next American Revolution, Pat. Hopefully we’re on the same side.

    Eric

  39. Hugh McCann Says:

    Man has no God-given rights. The deists attempted to buttress their revolution arguments with pious-but-untrue prattle.

    Life, liberty [for whites], and the pursuit of happiness are TJ & Co.’s ideal, rooted in a carnal dream.

    Scripture commands love, no theft, etc., b/c of God’s character, not my neighbor’s ‘rights.’

    I have duties & responsibilities toward God & my neighbor, not transcendent ‘rights.’

  40. Hugh McCann Says:

    JustByEric,

    Keep your Federalist Papers when they contradict Writ.

    I’ll stick with Romans 13 & 1 Peter 2.

  41. justbybelief Says:

    Hugh,

    “Man has no God-given rights.”
    “I have duties & responsibilities toward God”

    I’ve already stated that our rights hinge in our duty towards God. If you bothered to read the posts you’d know that. But instead of reading the posts…well…you figure it out.

    When being beaten unjustly the apostle Paul appealed to Roman Law as a Roman citizen. The amazing part is that when Paul indicated that He was a Roman Citizen there was actually respect for the Roman Law by his abusers. This is non-existent in this country, there is no respect for our laws by most public servants and it follows that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are trampled by them daily.

    You make the same error Pat is making. You believe that our form of government is a monarchy of sorts and we are merely ‘peons’ in their service. The opposite is true. In God’s providence the power lies with the people and if our servant (state government and the federal government) doesn’t obey then we have the duty to wield the sword. This is the whole reason for the militia specified in the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. You say you will stick with Romans 13. You have no problem, then, with the ‘sword’ being wielded against evil-doers. Well in our form of government, The people are charged with wielding the sword. This is all Hamilton is talking about. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The wielding of the sword is done from a position of authority, morality, and justice.

    In debating Pat I am simply appealing to our own laws so that he understands what type of government we have. Most Americans don’t understand it and especially most Christians. I don’t necessarily agree with every aspect of what the founders said, but I will try to make it plain what they did establish. Shall I lie and represent our government as something other than what it is? You be the judge. If I represent it in a way that makes it ‘other’ than what it is there is no possible way of judging it properly.

    At the very least Paul knew his rights under Roman Law. Most Christians don’t even care about our laws or their rights as citizens, and it shows in their ignorance. Is it any wonder that we’ve degraded to our present state? And, we complain that women are in public office. Good grief, we won’t even do the leg work necessary to secure our own freedoms.

    Eric

  42. Hugh McCann Says:

    I’ve already stated that our rights hinge in our duty towards God.
    Meaningless nonsense: ‘our rights hinge in our duty towards God.’

    But instead of reading the posts…well…you figure it out.
    Precisely! I ‘figure it out’ best by ignoring your nonsense.

    When being beaten unjustly the apostle Paul appealed to Roman Law as a Roman citizen. The amazing part is that when Paul indicated that He was a Roman Citizen there was actually respect for the Roman Law by his abusers. This is non-existent in this country, there is no respect for our laws by most public servants and it follows that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are trampled by them daily.
    So what?

    You make the same error Pat is making. You believe that our form of government is a monarchy of sorts and we are merely ‘peons’ in their service. The opposite is true. In God’s providence the power lies with the people and if our servant (state government and the federal government) doesn’t obey then we have the duty to wield the sword.
    No. Romans 13 & 1 Peter 2 supercede the amendments. I know you people (Recons/ theonomists) hate that, but we are bound by Writ.

    This is the whole reason for the militia specified in the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. You say you will stick with Romans 13. You have no problem, then, with the ‘sword’ being wielded against evil-doers. Well in our form of government, The people are charged with wielding the sword. This is all Hamilton is talking about. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The wielding of the sword is done from a position of authority, morality, and justice.
    More nonsense. Paul was writing under imperial Rome. No ‘God-given rights,’ etc., just a very religious senate and caesar to whom the apostle called the Romans to submit. Too bad he’d not read the Fed Papers, Lee, Madison, Hamilton, et. al. – he might have rethought his application in Romans 13!

    In debating Pat I am simply appealing to our own laws so that he understands what type of government we have. Most Americans don’t understand it and especially most Christians. I don’t necessarily agree with every aspect of what the founders said, but I will try to make it plain what they did establish…
    What they established and what exists are two different things. You are WAY overdo for your armed revolution, if gubmint’s being evil is your criterium.

  43. justbybelief Says:

    Excuse me, I meant to say,

    Good grief, we won’t even do the leg work necessary to secure our own freedoms and bring the Christian perspective into the political realm which our founders considered to be the ONLY basis upon which freedom could be established.

  44. justbybelief Says:

    Hugh,

    It is amazing that you can say nothing and actually believe you’ve said something. LOL

    BTW, I abhor recons/theonomy. Simply ad-hominem with the other abundance if illogical garbage.

    Eric

  45. Hugh McCann Says:

    JustBy,

    I guess you know from illogical garbage: ‘bring the Christian perspective into the political realm which our founders considered to be the ONLY basis upon which freedom could be established.’ With, ‘I abhor recons/theonomy’?

    What other Christian perspective is there, if not theonomy?

    What flavor of Christianity do you propose bringing into the political realm, which you see as being that which the founders considered basic to freedom? Deism?

  46. Hugh McCann Says:

    LTPat & JustByEric,

    Reading through your exchange; hope to comment early next week. Thanks for thought-provoking banter on founding docs and founders!

  47. justbybelief Says:

    Hugh,

    This is more than simply banter–fodder for intellectual stimulation. The subject of this thread is about the biblical role of women and in the same light public servants who have a certain role dictated by the D.I. and Constitution both existing and becoming the law of the land TO THIS DAY by the providence of God.

    Elders in church are ill-equipped to hold public servants to their oaths of office because they are ill informed about the type of government we have. If a Christian cannot in good conscience–whether right or wrong–swear an oath to uphold these documents, that’s another question altogether, however, we have Christian’s in public service at all levels swearing an oath to uphold these and at the same time violating their oaths of office, from lawyers refusing to inform juries of their duty to judge the law and the facts of a case to the police coercing us to be witnesses against ourselves to soldiers fighting in illegal wars these are all blemishes on the name of Christ, to whom we swear the oath.

    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=259

    Eric


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: